Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
By Mark Osler, Special to CNN
I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.
What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.
A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.
During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.
After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).
His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.
My Take: Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality
It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.
Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.
The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.
Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality
The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!
I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.
The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.
I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.
It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.
The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.
"Scripture is very plain and does disagree with this lifestyle. "
The Scriptures at no point deal with homosexuality as an authentic sexual orientation, a given condition of being. The remarkably few Scriptural references to "homosexuality" deal rather with homosexual acts, not with homosexual orientation. Those acts are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers wrote and perceived those acts to be either nonmasculine, idolatrous, exploitative, or pagan. The kind of relationships between two consenting adults of the same sex demonstrably abounding among us - relationships that are responsible and mutual, affirming and fulfilling - are not dealt with in the Scriptures.
WOW GOOD DAMAGE CONTROL
"so far all the research has been verifying the poor stats for gays and marriage"
Just so people know this moron is getting their information form the Family Research Council which is an anti gay group who has been proven wrong over and over again. They have even had to write apology letters because of that bad information. The research actually shows Relationships averaged nearly six years in length for all couples, even though the average respondent was only 35 years old. More than 100 couples had passed their 15th anniversary. One lesbian relationship had spanned 43 years, and three male couples had lasted more than 40 years. 19% of lesbian couples and 13% of male couples had been together one year or less.
Now straight couples, Percentage of married people who reach their 25th, 35th, and 50th anniversaries: 25th: 33% – 35th: 20% 50th: 5% . Yeah straights have such a good track record on marriage, – NOT! LMAO!
"If you want to continue to hold that gay marriage is a good thing you are the ones that are going to have to find studies on these relationships and post them here. "
LMAO – Oh so based on your really poor logic then straights shouldn't be allowed to marry either since the divorce rate is 50% and adultery is a major sin according the bible. By the way Bob you never answered are you still married? Marriage is a civil right and gays deserve the equal civil rights. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
"I thought your argument was rock solid its not anything but genetics doesn't sound like that here hence the word probably. "
All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.
The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.
On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"
The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.
Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).
There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.
"So the gays have no proof admitted by someone who knows and represents them and there is no support in the Bible"
Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.
Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.
There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.
Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.
Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?
Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).
That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.
The gay Bishop Frankenstein once again comes onto our blog!!! Your teachings are evil and you will need to answer for your lies Bishop Spong!! Lets see you are a gay priest, who has twisted the words of the bible in ways one cannot comprehend.....should you be trusted?? I think not
"Lets see you are a gay priest,"
Cite your source on this claim.
"Lets see you are a gay priest"
This show how far Christians will go to spread lies about this group because Bishop John Shelby Spong and his wife Christine M. Spong received the Leading Voice Award for their long-time advocacy for LGBT people. He's not gay moron. Yes, there are many straight people who are fighting for the gay communities civil rights.
Tom do you have permission from you husband or significant other to be doing this? Do they know what your doing?
Did you hear the military is going to celebrate heter0sxl day thats good for tom you can celebrate both
Don't feed the troll.
we posted at the exact same time again! I'm so enjoying sitting here, posting as 10 different people at the same time with my 10 different computers, as well as stealing HS's screen name all the time. It's exhausting let me tell you. I haven't ate or slept in a week.
So the gays have no proof admitted by someone who knows and represents them and there is no support in the Bible so I guess its just we want it and its our rights which we will deal with also.
I thought your argument was rock solid its not anything but genetics doesn't sound like that here hence the word probably. Like its a definite till its not. By the way nice to know we share the bonding of the same places,
You don't "think' at all, troll. You're just a gay activist.
What is it with this bozo, Bob, and the issue of posting articles and cites that have been pasted? To read Bob's posts (which are very nearly unreadable), it seems he objects to having anything cited unless one actually re-types the cite instead of simply copying it and pasting it. I can't figure out what the objection is, nor can I figure out what he's babbling about concerning other people's names.
I doubt he can explain; it would be like reading dialogue from a Porky Pig cartoon.
Probably what does that mean?
Yeah, I started to read some of his posts and had to stop for fear of getting a migraine from his utter lunacy.
Jelly Bean, that's exactly his intent. He's a troll. He doesn't even believe the crap he posts. Bob is likely a proponent of gay marriage, and this is his way of getting the point across.
No one could be that stupid and not need to be watered.
Just a small snipit from you post PROBABLY do you know what that means or conveniently down play it
It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, who did the research. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis" for h0mo3exuality.
Unlike you, Boob, I actually understand how science works. Got anything else, you moron? Like a cite? Facts? Absolute proof? No? Then you're just as far from making a point as you've been all along. Here, idjit, since you are put out that only the "Psychs" have been cited:
OK so I use your study the words you posted and IM the moron for showing you the word Might be. Well I would say your the moron or so crazed by your own passions that you dont see what is being said sounds to me pretty unstable maybe like the people your trying to represent. You see in the regular world we know that you need to understand all that is being said be nice to maybe have people be interested in what you say and then be intelligent in answering questions you have failed in most areas. If you do work its probably not in sales or marketing or management or anything to do with the public. After all that I have seen of your personality maybe hormones have something to do with it. If you ask nicely I can give you a few pointers
It appears that Bob doen't understand the lexicon or language of science. We use words like "probably", "likely", "appears to be", because iin science we understand that nothing is ever "proved". We admit that there is always new information we could discover.
I wonder why Bob doesn't understand this?
Pointers? On what? Writing like a 5th grader? Ahahhahhahha!
You're a dolt.
You nailed it, PW. This bonehead can't figure out that definitive 'proof' is not the outcome of scientific research. He also is unable to figure out that 'proof' isn't required for laws to be enacted or for gay marriage to become legal. Whenever he's confronted with research or statistics, he changes the subject. First, he'll argue that children are adversely affected by gay marriage. When he's shown studies that indicate otherwise, he changes his tack and goes for the 'pedophilia' angle. When that is shown to be a dead horse, he then argues about the success rates of gay marriages. That doesn't fly, so he resorts to 'filth' and 'dra g queens' as reasons to prohibit gay marriage.
He's so dishonest it's hard to know how he could possibly claim to be a Christian of any stripe.
You nailed it, PW. This bonehead can't figure out that definitive 'proof' is not the outcome of scientific research. Thanks Tom so you lied when you said scientists are definite and beat people up over that I just wanted all to see the great tom admit that its not definite now on to the next topic which is what you are falling back to typical and forecasted by me on this and other posts
Find a post where I said so, troll.
I will and will post it on other boards too even under your alias
Bob – you just "proved" what I said about you. We can't prove gravity exists. We can explain gravity. We can formulate laws about gravity. We can come up with a theory of gravity. But there is no "proof". There is only evidence and facts.
Perhaps if you would stop getting your "sciency" information from "Pastor Dave" you would have known this. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is as big an idiot as you are.
WASHINGTON - Men who have several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay - whether they were raised together or not - a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that s3xual orientation is based in biology.
The increase was seen in men with older brothers from the same mother, but not those who had stepbrothers or adopted brothers who were older.
"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, who did the research. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis" for h0mo3exuality.
Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Study-suggests-hom0s3xuality-begins-in-womb-1207258.php#ixzz1yF6aV1T6
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah – that is the most stupid data ever to fly onto a page!!!! There is NO proof that you are a genetic mistake yet....but we will keep trying!!!!! hahahahahahhaahahaha
Here, Boob, see if you can figure out how to access this site.
As you can see, I can actually provide a citation for my posts. Why is it your "IT guys" can't seem to help you figure out how to do that? Because then, your posts wouldn't simply be your opinion rather than an actual article or study.
Too tough for you to manage, dingus?
Thanks guys will go through it .As for the personal experiences you have no idea who I am or where Ive been or what I have seen so your comments are irrelevant, my experiences dont get qualified by you or your experiences and I would have to say that you are a liar a instigator and not able to stand in your own feet since all the devious methods you have come up with to bash normal people, like insulting them creating fake people reposting peoples articles and the list goes on not a really moral person either. Oh and if you want to have current update for gay bars then go to Miami like south beach and go to a bar there I dont remember its name but I sure remember the sign out front "every queen must have his castle". Yeah real good, it was busy well it is south beach. Living in I think you said Mass not much happens there and since you've probably never been to NY your used to small towns and not really in the know about these things.
Post by Bob contains multiple instances of the ad hominem fallacy, the Poisoning the Well fallacy, and a series of non sequitur statements.
Stupid twit, do you think dra g queens are an argument against gay marriage? If so, then str!ppers and the Playboy Club are arguments against straight marriage.
You can't be serious, Boob. I don't live in MASS. I live in a suburb of a major East coast city. My degree is from a university in another major East coast city. I went to South Beach, you moron, and had brunch with my husband at The Tides, which is RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the club you're blathering about with such horror. The show was going on while we were there. We didn't bother to go in. Why did you? Why would a straight, narrow-minded "Christian" go to South Beach in the first place, if you're concerned that "the gay" might be catching?
What a moron.
I've been in gay bars in SF, Philadelphia, and New York, you simpleton. What I can't figure out is why YOU have been in them. Why are you so enamored of this topic, Bob? Why does it occupy your thoughts beyond any other?
Oh, Bob? I just remembered: that club in SB? It's called "The Palace", just so you can find it when you need another "fix".
Jane wrote, "Sorry there is not one bit of proof of any kind that people are born gay....not a drop! "
Why do you lie like this, Jane?
The neurodevelopment of human sèxual orientation.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Review.
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sèxual orientation.
J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Sep;37(5):555-67. Review.
Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male hômosèxuality.
Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):105-14. Review.
Fluctuating asymmetry, second to fourth finger length ratios and human sèxual orientation.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2005 May;30(4):382-91. Epub 2005 Jan 13.
The biology of human psychosèxual differentiation.
Horm Behav. 2006 Nov;50(4):589-601. Epub 2006 Jul 25. Review.
Finger-length ratios and sèxual orientation.
Williams TJ, Pepitone ME, Christensen SE, Cooke BM, Huberman AD, Breedlove NJ, Breedlove TJ, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM.
Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):455-6.
A biologic perspective on sèxual orientation.
Pillard RC, Bailey JM.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1995 Mar;18(1):71-84. Review.
Androgens and sèxual behavior.
Pardridge WM, Gorski RA, Lippe BM, Green R.
Ann Intern Med. 1982 Apr;96(4):488-501. Review.
Hormones and psychosèxual differentiation: implications for the management of intersèxuality, hômosèxuality and transsèxuality.
Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1982 Nov;11(3):681-701.
Sèxual orientation and handedness in men and women: a meta-ànalysis.
Lalumiere ML, Blanchard R, Zucker KJ.
Psychol Bull. 2000 Jul;126(4):575-92.
Quantîtative and theoretical ànalyses of the relation between older brothers and hômosèxuality in men.
J Theor Biol. 2004 Sep 21;230(2):173-87.
Linkage between sèxual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females.
Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, Li L, Fulker DW, Cherny SS, Kruglyak L, Hamer DH.
Nat Genet. 1995 Nov;11(3):248-56.
Neuroendocrine mechanisms and the aetiology of male and female hômosèxuality.
MacCulloch MJ, Waddington JL.
Br J Psychiatry. 1981 Oct;139:341-5. Review.
Hormones and psychosèxual differentiation.
Giordano G, Giusti M.
Minerva Endocrinol. 1995 Sep;20(3):165-93. Review.
Neuropsychological development of cognitive abilities: a new research strategy and some preliminary evidence for a sèxual orientation model.
Sanders G, Ross-Field L.
Int J Neurosci. 1987 Sep;36(1-2):1-16. Review.
Sèx steroids and human behavior: prenatal androgen exposure and sèx-typical play behavior in children.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Dec;1007:272-82. Review.
Androgens and sèxuality.
Am J Med. 1995 Jan 16;98(1A):111S-115S. Review.
Neurobiology and sèxual orientation: current relationships.
Friedman RC, Downey J.
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1993 Spring;5(2):131-53. Review.
Genetic and environmental influences on sèxual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.
Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Mar;78(3):524-36.
Great list, Primewonk. I'd say 'Jane' just got totally PWNED. You lose, Jane.
The famous study, The Male Couple, conducted by two hom..ls, one a psychologist and the other a psy found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained s fidelity. Those couples that had maintained a relationship for more then five years were unable to maintain s fidelity. Although the study found that close to a third of the sample lived together longer than ten years, they also found that “The majority of couples...and all the couples together longer then five years, were not continuously s exclusive with each other.” On one hand, they bragged that they, “dispelled the myth that gay male relationships do not last” but when gay couples lived together for longer periods of time, their relationship eventually became “open.” An earlier study conducted during the 1970s found that 75% of gay men over age 40 experienced no relationship that lasted more than one year. Only 8% of the gay men studied ever had relationships that lasted more than three years.This will be only the first installment of the studies you asked for. What was really interesting other than the Psychs I could find no studies of gay long term relationships and those that were out there were not good news for gays. so far all the research has been verifying the poor stats for gays and marriage. If you want to continue to hold that gay marriage is a good thing you are the ones that are going to have to find studies on these relationships and post them here. I remember and have seen the gay bars in NY it was disgusting one named Stone wall was particularly filthy It was near studio 54 in west side of Manhattan. The gay bath houses a nice term for a warehouse with rooms 8 by 8 one light one single bed and that's it also disgusting. I know most gays would want to distance themselves from these but it was and still is a fact of life for gays. The ones we see on tv are not the norm and even then cracks and differences in their personality show can you imagine what its like on real life if tv can catch a glimpse of it. So I can post many more stats most like I said not favorable to gays. Like I also said it seems that the Psychs are the only ones endorsing gay marriage. The new standard by the way is not a scientific one either the new acceptance is if it doesn't create mental stress on the people involved then its ok. this is the same criteria that will be used on peds. If I am wrong I await your answer in a intelligent non cursing way. Don't just sight the drs either and and their opinions show the results like I have and will do.
Bob blathers: I remember and have seen the gay bars in NY it was disgusting one named Stone wall was particularly filthy It was near studio 54 in west side of Manhattan. The gay bath houses a nice term for a warehouse with rooms 8 by 8 one light one single bed and that's it also disgusting. I know most gays would want to distance themselves from these but it was and still is a fact of life for gays.
This is hilarious. I'm straight, but I've worked with and been friends with many gays and lesbians, and yet I've never been to a 'bath house' and the few gay bars I've seen were hardly what I'd call "filthy". Why is it you've spent so much more time in gay bars and bath houses than most straights, Bob?
You're a troll.
Pretending that posting statistics for the failures of gay relationships proves it. Why not post the rate of failures for straight relationships, too? Think it's better by far?
And if you think any of what you've posted equals an excuse for preventing gay marriage, guess again. No one attempts to prevent straights from marrying even though the failure rate for straight marriage is significant.
Sorry, Boob. You fail yet again to explain how gay marriage will negatively affect you. When are you going to do that?
And like the idiot you are, you can't figure out the meanings of "cite", "site", and "sight". Big surprise, Boob.
It's telling that you and your sock puppets keep attempting to use pedophilia as an excuse to prevent gays from marrying. Too bad there's no reason to fear such, when underage children aren't capable of informed consent, but of course you're so desperate to find an excuse, you'll use any means whatever, including fear-mongering and lies.
Why don't you look at stats from nations and states that already allow gay marriage and show what has transpired since it's been in place? Are there more cases of pedophilia there? Have any 13-year-olds been somehow forced to marry as a result? What terrible things have happened in these "dens of iniquity", Boob? How has gay marriage negatively impacted anyone?
It got voted out in CALIFORNIA!!!!! Not Alabama!!!! Wake up!!! No one wants gay marriage, and the people who don't want it – are not southern racists!!!!!! Even our president did not want until recently – when he realized alll the money he could get from them
Me Cheetah. Tarzan retarded.
Prop 8 passed in California largely because of massive funding from the Mormons and Catholics. In fact, the Mormons got caught lying about their infusion of millions, and had to pay fines for lying about it.
Much of what these ignorant religious groups were pushing were lies. Lies about churches being forces to marry gay folks. Lies about churches losing their tax exempt status for speaking out that gays are icky, etc.
Thank-you Bob for sharing these scriptures. At least some can see the truth about what the bible says. I have been reading some of these blogs and there are some pretty mixed comments. Scripture is very plain and does disagree with this lifestyle. However Jesus loves every soul on this planet and is longing for all to know of this love. I sincerely hope that many in the gay community will come to know Jesus. The saddest thing to me is when we are all put in the political arena, and the love of Jesus is lost in the fight....Billy Graham took a stand in North Carolina when the vote came – he has never been political in his life, but this time we have to speak up. People can keep overturning the vote of the American community – but the reality is California and North Carolina voted this issue down.....no one is listening
There is more proof that ho.mos.exuality is innate than there is proof of any god. To use "god" as a means to deny people their Const.itutional rights is disgusting and immoral.
Sorry there is not one bit of proof of any kind that people are born gay....not a drop! They have tried but there is no proof whatsoever. I think if someone actually proved this, the whole world would have heard about it and we would not be on this blog.
Jane, have you ever tried a simply google search? Are you aware of the statistical FACT that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he will be gay? Are you aware that there is a physical difference between the brains of a gay male and a straight male? Your denial of the truth simply reflects your ignorance.
The argument here is gay marriage. Most of us are aware there is no conclusive proof regarding gay DNA. Many people I knew years ago, had turned to this way of life, because of horrible abuse. These days people are gay for all kinds of reasons and many are bi. Sociey and media are selling this lifestyle now to us, for more acceptance. The one thing that makes our country great is that we have free speech and we can disagree and remain protected. Look at other countries and the control on speech. Any form of control over speech – whether agreeing with gays or christians – is scarey. Many people do not see what is truly at stake here
Have google searched, watched science shows, and listened to gay people on TV, demanding that they were not "born this way", and that they were not a genetic mistake. There is no proof as of yet....sorry Tallulah, but many wishful thinkers
Most gays that have the opportunity for a civl union, don't take it.....because they do not stay together long enough to consider. This community does not have a great stat on staying together, so in the end it might not matter
Max, DNA isn't the only prenatal factor. The balance of hormones in the womb is a likely cause.
I work in an industry where I have encountered (and become friends with) many gays and lesbians. Not one of them chose their orientation, any more than I chose my own heteros.exuality. Not one of them was abused as a child.
Again, do a google search. You'll find that there is indeed more evidence that ho.mos.exuality is innate than there is evidence of any god.
Even if people are born with a predispositon to a ho-mos-exual orientation, it does not excuse immoral behavior. It's the BEHAVIOR that is sinful, not the orientation. A pedophile has a desire for children, but the pedophile won't go to jail unless he acts on that predisposition.
Jane: There is indeed more proof that hom.ose.xuailty is innate than there is proof of any god.
That's a sample of my evidence. Your turn. What proof do you have of the existence of any god?
Evangelical, it's a pity you don't understand the concept of consenting adults. I get that you hate people who aren't exactly what you want them to be. What I don't get is why you think that makes you moral or decent.
Sorry you feel that I hate people. I hate sin. It's that simple. If people just abided by God's laws, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Evan – your view of your god's laws do not apply to people who do not following the personal god that you do. A simple fatc of life.
People in many states 'voted down' equal rights for blacks, too, Manya. Too bad you don't grasp the concept that the 'tyranny of the majority' is not the law of the land. You don't get to withhold rights from a minority simply because you're part of the majority. Furthermore, not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU has been able to explain how gay marriage will affect you or anyone else who isn't gay in any negative way. NOT ONE. If you can't do so and all you have is your belief that the Bible says it's a 'sin', don't even bother. We've already heard that pap. It is irrelevant.
Why is it you cannot give an honest answer to the real question?
Tarzan, can you please post your source for this statement?
Jane/Tarzan/Boob: Gays aren't any more interested in civil unions than straights are. If you had a choice, which would you choose? See the article I cited above. If you can't post anything from a reputable source that proves your assertion, then just don't bother to post. Your opinions about why gays aren't interested in civil unions are irrelevant.
Evan – this is the same crap the religious idiots said in the 50's and 60's about kids being left-handed. It wasn't the fact that theynwere born left-handed, it was that they wanted to use their left-hands. These religious cretions thought that if they just kept beating the left-handed behavior out of the kids, that they would then become right-handed.
Call it what you want, evangelical. Discrimination against a minority is hate. Calling being gay "a sin" while ignoring the scientific evidence that says it's natural, on the basis of an ancient book of myths is hate. Bigotry is neither moral nor good.
Tallulah 13 – Wishful thinkin ain't gonna do it....There is no scientific proof little girl....you can yell all day, but it is just your desire talking. The day real proof comes down – it will be on the front page of every paper....but that day will never come
Jud 1:7 And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of x perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment.
2Pe 2:7 But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him.
2Pe 2:8 Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day.
2Pe 2:9 So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials, even while keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of final judgment.
2Pe 2:10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own twisted xual desire, and who despise authority. These people are proud and arrogant, daring even to scoff at supernatural beings without so much as trembling.
Gen 19:5 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can copulate with them!"
Are you training to become another cut and paste troll?
I am a fast learner its so much easier than typing the whole thing out the only thing I cant seem to do is to post under peoples names yet Ill leave that for the Homi squad.
The contents of your bible are not relevant to non-believers. Society is consider equality for all – not just the rules of your personal version of god. Thus gay marriage is a good thing, it does not matter what you think your bible says about it. Not evan all christians agree what the bible says about it.
JWT interesting then you really shouldn't be here being a non believer on a post on Christianity should you
I'll be here Bob as long as people like you think they can deny people their cilvil rights.
Well, Bob – if the fundamentalist idiots would stop posting lies, most of us would leave. Your call.
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.