home
RSS
My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage
The author backs same-sex marriage because of his faith, not in spite of it.
May 19th, 2012
02:00 AM ET

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage

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.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Episcopal • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (15,115 Responses)
  1. YeahRight

    "I hate to tell you but the law not only doesn't allow you to marry who you want as the previous examples have shown its not a blanket right. You are not guaranteed marriage and if enough can be shown that the behavior in the past is bad enough and that there is a problem with stability then it may all fold like a house of cards for you. Read it and weep'

    You'll be the one weeping because your lies won't matter. By the way if your argument had any footing gays wouldn't already have marriage rights in some states or in other countries. LMAO! Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

    A federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Bob

      Just another example of gays not wanting the truth and calling it lies. Just put the keyboard down and step back slowly

      June 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Jen

      Bob, how can you accuse other people of not understanding things, when you yourself write at the level of a FIRST GRADER!!! Seriously, how can I think you are credible when you clearly haven't finished high school (in fact, I've questioned several times if you even finished grade school)? You have never ONCE been able to write a sentence properly. It's not the occasional error – it is EVERY sentence!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Bob

      jen
      I may write at the level of a first grader but at least I have the brains and wisdom to know what the truth is unlike you

      June 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Bob

      Hey Jen I have the perfect idea can I send my posts to you and you can correct them and post them we would make a good team with my brains and your typing it would work great. I might even be able to pay you.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "I may write at the level of a first grader but at least I have the brains and wisdom to know what the truth is unlike you"

      That's why you've been proven a liar over and over again. LMAO!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • James

      Take care Bob, the gay squad will focus on your spelling to ease the weight of truth that is gnawing at their brains. Jen lives for these spelling mistakes, so make some more. You know kind of like charitable giving:)

      June 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  2. YeahRight

    "it is the generations getting more, and more plagued with wrong doing, and liking it"

    This is such a load of crap. Christians came to America murdered Native Americans and stole their land, then they kidnapped African Americans and enslaved them, they also treated women like they were property while denying them their civil rights. It wasn't till recently that both African Americans and women got their civil rights which made this country moral. Now it's time to do the same thing for the gay community. As you can see from Bob's posts his opinions are NOT founded on the real facts of TODAY. 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."

    Since the hundred of thousands of experts have proven this about gays then gay couples deserve their civil right to get married. Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

    Oh by the way a federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Bob

      Wow feeling a little persecuted are we and I hate to tell you if you are a American then its your parents that did that to the Indians also not a good thing to bring up. If your not then that would explain being a terrorist in your posts, what country are you from?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Bob

      I hate to tell you but the law not only doesn't allow you to marry who you want as the previous examples have shown its not a blanket right. You are not guaranteed marriage and if enough can be shown that the behavior in the past is bad enough and that there is a problem with stability then it may all fold like a house of cards for you. Read it and weep

      June 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • YeahRight

      “Wow feeling a little persecuted are we and I hate to tell you if you are a American then its your parents that did that to the Indians also not a good thing to bring up.”

      Nope bigoted uninformed Christians like you didn’t follow the real teachings of their bible and build this country on immorality.

      “ If your not then that would explain being a terrorist in your posts, what country are you from? “

      Keep the lies coming you just keep proving me correct in my assessment of you. LMAO!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
  3. John

    "very helpful to post real scriptures to spread the truth"

    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.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Bob

      Ok we finally know who is the cut and paste queen, cant even speak for yourself at least Tom could do that

      June 21, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Dino

      Bishop Frankenstein here again thanks to Tom Tom cut and paste factory!!!

      June 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  4. YeahRight

    "while it does give all rights it doesn't define that you can marry your child or a horse. Its not a blanket ok for marriage"

    Keep showing your stupidity on this subject since a child and animal can't consent. Duh!

    June 21, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Bob

      man cannot marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's granddaughter, his sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister or a first cousin.
      A woman cannot marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or a first cousin. they are consenting adults right?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • LinCA

      @Bob

      You said, "they are consenting adults right?"
      I'll ask you the same think I asked Thats So Gay on another thread. Does it hurt to be this stupid?

      Of course they are consenting adults, but just because you have to be a consenting adult to engage in adult behavior means all consenting adults automatically qualify. There may be other factors that restrict it. Just in case you are too dense to understand that, let me give you a few examples:
      - You have to be both old enough and licensed to be allowed to drive a car. Just being old enough isn't sufficient.
      - You have to be old enough, a citizen and natural born to be eligible to be President of the US. Just being a citizen isn't sufficient.
      - You have to be both a consenting adults and not close relatives to be eligible to get married. Being consenting adults isn't sufficient.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • fred

      LinCA
      In short you just want man to decide morality not God.
      We recently married a man and women that were not really man and woman physically. They were man man but I am sure God is more than capable of sorting that out (we sure could not)
      What right do you or society have to deny non biological father and daughter to get married (Woody Allen did it) or twins for that matter

      June 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "In short you just want man to decide morality not God."
      The morality that you think your god decided, was in fact decided by men. Men with an agenda. And, of course, morality is decided by men, and women, and not by imaginary friends.

      You said, "We recently married a man and women that were not really man and woman physically. They were man man but I am sure God is more than capable of sorting that out (we sure could not)"
      Good for you. You followed in the footsteps of your god when he brought Adam and Eve together. Eve, you know, was genetically a man.

      You said, "What right do you or society have to deny non biological father and daughter to get married (Woody Allen did it) or twins for that matter"
      There are serious risks associated for the potential offspring if two relatives procreate. To lower the risk of genetic defects, it is prudent to discourage those unions. Those that are not closely related can have at it, for all I care.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      I imagine you have read research on both sides of the debate on gays raising children and gays actually exhibiting the same “committed relationships” as hetero$exuals. Without going in a war of cut and past from our favorite sites can you honestly say children raised by gays are not affected by relations modeled by their parents?

      June 22, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not any differently affected than the children of a straight couple.

      June 22, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "Without going in a war of cut and past from our favorite sites can you honestly say children raised by gays are not affected by relations modeled by their parents?"
      Of course they are. They probably much more likely to be open to, and accepting of, relationships other than those that form a majority. It won't make them gay. It won't make them immoral. On the contrary, I expect them to be more decent than the average kid. I expect them to be better persons than those raised in a strict christian home.

      June 23, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • fred

      Agreed except; you should be more accepting of kids raised in a “Christian home”. In addition consider few Christian homes operate according to the simple guide give by Christ and raise their children accordingly. If we did there would not be as many people bashing Christians all the time.

      June 25, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "you should be more accepting of kids raised in a “Christian home”."
      Some very fine kids were raised in christian homes. A tell-tale sign is a kid that is friendly, and accepting of others. One that doesn't try to preach their beliefs, or judge others for being different.

      You said, "In addition consider few Christian homes operate according to the simple guide give by Christ and raise their children accordingly. If we did there would not be as many people bashing Christians all the time."
      You are probably correct. Everybody is free to believe, and practice those beliefs, as they see fit. Expecting others to follow the same beliefs falls outside that freedom.

      I don't expect anyone to abandon their beliefs, just because I think they're silly. To those that profess their beliefs on a public medium as this comment board, I will point out how silly they are. Especially if those beliefs are used to the detriment of society or to discriminate against someone else.

      June 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      Would you allow for Christians to discriminate against Sandusky? Would you allow Christians to discriminate against NAMBLA? Was it ok 2,000 years ago when those who believed in Gods laws rose up against the Greeks with their pederastic relationships?
      You have an unrealistic world view that the majority of a given civilization can establish morality as with the Greeks or Amalekites. Thank God the morality of our world is still held up the standards set by God and not man. I know you are going to argue the consenting adult issue but a 17 year old raised by gay parents will have a very different understanding of relationships than will a 17 year old raised by Christ’s standards. Like it or not our world needs God (Christ) and standards that are Divine not manmade. At a minimum the few Christ like people that exist cannot be done away with. Man needs to hear the voice of God (real or imagined) every so often when the Greek ways rise up again or Baal moves into a culture.

      June 25, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "Would you allow for Christians to discriminate against Sandusky?"
      No, of course not? He gets to take the same punishment that every other child molester gets. Punishing someone for a crime isn't discrimination. Punishing some more, or less, than others is discrimination.

      You said, "Would you allow Christians to discriminate against NAMBLA?"
      See above. Your question is pretty moronic.

      You said, "Was it ok 2,000 years ago when those who believed in Gods laws rose up against the Greeks with their pederastic relationships?"
      Slavery was perfectly OK not so very long ago. Does that still make it OK today? How about denying women the right to vote? Interracial marriage?

      You said, "You have an unrealistic world view that the majority of a given civilization can establish morality as with the Greeks or Amalekites."
      I don't have that view. The majority is too stupid to distinguish shit from shinola. The only thing they can be trusted to do, is be deceived into supporting almost anything. All you need is the right setting and propaganda. Churches are ideal for those purposes. Religion is used to herd the sheeple.

      You said, "Thank God the morality of our world is still held up the standards set by God and not man."
      No, they aren't. Your god's morals are despicable. I'll take my chances with a secular society.

      You said, "I know you are going to argue the consenting adult issue but a 17 year old raised by gay parents will have a very different understanding of relationships than will a 17 year old raised by Christ’s standards."
      If anything, I'd have more faith in the kid of a same sex couple to do the right thing than one from a christian home. As an aside, the two are not mutually exclusive. Christian children are just as likely to be gay, they just may not be as forthcoming about it.

      You said, "Like it or not our world needs God (Christ)"
      Our world needs gods like a fish needs bicycle.

      You said, "and standards that are Divine not manmade."
      All standards are man made.

      You said, "At a minimum the few Christ like people that exist cannot be done away with."
      I don't think I've ever met one, but if there are any, I have no problem with them being around.

      You said, "Man needs to hear the voice of God (real or imagined) every so often when the Greek ways rise up again or Baal moves into a culture."
      Nobody is trying to tell you haw to live. You are free to live your life according to your fairy tale. You just don't get to tell anyone else how to live.

      June 25, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      “Slavery was perfectly OK not so very long ago. Does that still make it OK today? How about denying women the right to vote? Interracial marriage?”
      =>I assume this is a targeted at the Bible. The Bible does not say slavery is ok, just because it was the way of the culture at the time. The Bible actually makes it clear that the chosen ones are to be kind to their slaves relative to the world around them.
      Man and women are equal in Gods eyes. They complete each other in Christ.
      Husband and wife are best not to be unequally yoked which applies to one God view.

      “All you need is the right setting and propaganda. Churches are ideal for those purposes. Religion is used to herd the sheeple.”
      =>true, this is why we always need a balance of Church and State as both run amok.

      “Your god's morals are desp-icable. I'll take my chances with a secular society.”
      =>are you suggesting a godless one rule global government will somehow be different than what history has clearly demonstrated happens when power is centralized?

      “If anything, I'd have more faith in the kid of a same $ex couple to do the right thing than one from a christian home.”
      =>faith ? with faith like that you could move mountains.

      “Nobody is trying to tell you haw to live. You are free to live your life according to your fairy tale. You just don't get to tell anyone else how to live.”
      =>so no one tells you how to live?

      June 26, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "I assume this is a targeted at the Bible."
      No, it wasn't. It was to show that society's norms change.

      You said, "Man and women are equal in Gods eyes. They complete each other in Christ."
      Just because the complete each other doesn't automatically mean that they are equal. A single slice cut from a pie also completes the pie, but that doesn't mean it's exactly half.

      Most religions have a very poor record when it comes to equality.

      You said, "true, this is why we always need a balance of Church and State as both run amok."
      We can do without the church, as we don't need two propaganda machines. What we need is truly independent media. the most effective way to combat propaganda is to have it scrutinized and exposed.

      You said, "are you suggesting a godless one rule global government will somehow be different than what history has clearly demonstrated happens when power is centralized?"
      Of course, as long as it is established in a democratic manner and subject to scrutiny.

      You said, "faith ? with faith like that you could move mountains."
      My "faith" is based on observations. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning as it's done that for billions of years. I have faith that my car will start when I turn the key, as it usually does. To move mountains, you'll need some heavy equipment or an earthquake.

      You said, "so no one tells you how to live?"
      Not in any way based on fairy tales, at least.

      June 27, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @LinCA

      It seems that instead of "faith", you more likely have a reasonable expectation due to massive amounts of past evidence that those things will take place.

      June 27, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      “Most religions have a very poor record when it comes to equality.”
      =>people have a poor record when it comes to equality and I doubt there is much difference between the general population vs the religious on that record. Jesus went to great lengths in order to get the religious upityness out of the religious types. The major position of equality was that we are all filthy rags in Gods eyes and none are “good” except God. That is what I call a level playing field for all down in the dirt. I agree though that the Christian Church that was abducted by Cathalosim went right back to the old Jewish style going after different groups.

      “What we need is truly independent media.”
      =>the problem is that no one has found a way to remove blinders from people. CNN and FOX will both tell you they are independent thinkers. You need the likes of the Church to say hom-mo$exuality is bad and Hollywood to promote the reverse so that truth can rise out of the conflict. Never forget the tower of Babble and the necessity to keep people from uniting under the likes of the Nimrods of the world that always show up.
      Even in the last star wars movie the universal council fell under the desires of a Nimrod type. History is history and the powerful are not benevolent for long.

      “To move mountains, you'll need some heavy equipment or an earthquake.”
      =>but with the faith of a mustard seed you can change the landscape of your life and the lives around you. This is what Saul of Tarsus did and the remnants of Christianity still effects lives including yours.

      “You said, "so no one tells you how to live?"
      Not in any way based on fairy tales, at least.”
      =>are you a nudist sitting there naked while reading a blog? Probably not, and the reason is that when man first sinned they realized they were naked so God made a covering for them. Yes, I know you will remind me of tribes that ran around naked. I will remind you they did not decide to put a cover over their nakedness until they were told about God by some missionary.

      June 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "people have a poor record when it comes to equality and I doubt there is much difference between the general population vs the religious on that record."
      Sticking with the religious method of herding the sheeple isn't a solution. It is part of the problem.

      You said, "the problem is that no one has found a way to remove blinders from people. CNN and FOX will both tell you they are independent thinkers."
      CNN, FOX and most media outlets are business first, news providers second. They are beholden to those that pay them. The product they provide is eyes and ears. Yours and mine. Because if a service is provided to you free of charge, you are not the customer, you are the product. Those that pay the bill pull the strings.

      You said, "You need the likes of the Church to say hom-mo$exuality is bad and Hollywood to promote the reverse so that truth can rise out of the conflict."
      No. We can do without the obviously wrong position of the church. Anyone with half a brain knows that homosexuality isn't bad. If you don't like it, you are free not to engage in it.

      You said, "are you a nudist sitting there naked while reading a blog? Probably not, and the reason is that when man first sinned they realized they were naked so God made a covering for them."
      I cover up because it is more sanitary that way and it keeps me from getting cold. I don't dress because of your imaginary friend. And while the current laws regarding public nudity were probably in part inspired by your fairy tale, and are too strict to my liking, there are bigger fish to fry. Humans migrated to all parts of the world in part because they figured out how to dress and shield them from the elements. That your cult enshrined that in their fables is pretty irrelevant.

      June 27, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      Thanks ! I never thought of CNN and Fox viewers as products……..good way to look at it. We are all the products of the world we came into. God or the delusion of God reflects a paradigm that is very different from what this world has made of us. I like that paradigm.
      Jesus liked to refer to people that were of this world as being in bondage to the things of this world. Complete freedom is achieved by recognizing that and breaking free.

      June 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "I never thought of CNN and Fox viewers as products."
      That is, of course, not limited to news outlets. Anytime you use a product or service that is provided to you at no cost, you pay for by other means. The payment is most often being subjected to advertising, and advertising is made "relevant" by the second most common payment; your personal information. Your name, location, age, sex, browsing habits, shopping habits, employment history, etc. are all used to sell advertising to the highest bidder.

      Even the equipment that you use to look for products may determine what you see. Just this week a travel site admitted to showing more expensive hotel options to Apple users. Their site traffic data showed that those using Apple computers tended to select higher priced hotels, so they "tailored" their recommendations.

      News sites can tailor their front page layout based on what their algorithms think you like best. That way they encourage can their viewers to stay on their site longer and come back more often. Site visits and site visit duration are used to set advertising prices.

      While some commercial outlets are better at providing news than others, the only chance to have unbiased news is to remove the commercial aspects of it completely. I would strongly favor a constitutional amendment that creates, and permanently funds, an independent news organization.

      You said, "Jesus liked to refer to people that were of this world as being in bondage to the things of this world. Complete freedom is achieved by recognizing that and breaking free."
      He's been said to have said some smart things, but complete freedom can't be achieved while under the control of religion.

      June 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      “complete freedom can't be achieved while under the control of religion.”
      =>correct which is why Jesus warned against religion of men and giving oneself over to Christ (God) completely. In Christ is the only place where you are not touched by the things of this world. It is in giving that you receive.

      June 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • LinCA

      @fred

      You said, "correct which is why Jesus warned against religion of men and giving oneself over to Christ (God) completely. In Christ is the only place where you are not touched by the things of this world. It is in giving that you receive."
      Do you go to church? Do you read your bible? Do you pray? Odds are you have religion.

      Are you ignoring the warning made by Jesus himself? How can you call yourself a christian if you ignore him?

      June 28, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • fred

      LinCA
      I try not to avoid the warning but will get caught up on occasion. The ho-m0$exual marriage issue tosses a rock into the quiet waters where religion pushes love out of the way. When I think of religion I think of the way the Sadducees conducted themselves.

      June 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  5. Jeannine

    "Melvin: God is the same yesterday, today, and always he does not change with the seasons, nor does he follow man. Your position that "those acts are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers wrote" suggests that God follows the changing cultural trends of man."

    The Scriptures were written approximately 2000 or more years ago when there was no knowledge of constitutional homosexuality. The Scripture writers believed that all people were naturally heterosexual so that they viewed homosexuality activity as unnatural. Women today are pointing out that the inferiority of women expressed in the scriptures was a product of culture and the times in which the Bible was written; it should not be followed today, now that we are beginning to appreciate the natural and God-given equality of men and women.

    Similarly, as we know that homosexuality is just as natural and God-given as heterosexuality, we realize that the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were conditioned by the attitudes and beliefs about this form of sexual expression which were held by people without benefit of centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding.

    It is unfair of us to expect or impose a twentieth century mentality and understanding about equality of genders, races and sexual orientations on the Biblical writers. We must be able to distinguish the eternal truths the Bible is meant to convey from the cultural forms and attitudes expressed there.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Bob

      ANOTHER CUT AND PASTE ALREADY ANSWERED

      June 21, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • midwest rail

      Answered, but not refuted. And I find it ironic that the king of cut and paste now complains about it.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • YeahRight

      "ANOTHER CUT AND PASTE ALREADY ANSWERED"

      Oh poor Bob can't handle it when others do it back to you all your prejudice and bigoted lies on this thread have been answered and your ego can't handle the fact you've been proven wrong over and over again. Grow up.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • Primewonk

      Not only has Bob been schooled, he has been schooled by a *gasp*woman*gasp*.

      Bob must be going crazy in his head wondering how he dispeased his god so much that a lowly *gasp*woman*gasp* has bîtch-slapped him upside the head.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Bob

      Since you guys have been here from the beginning of these postings you would know that they have already been answered refuted beat to death. Since the only other choices are that you dont read the posts the answers are not to your standards or just plain cant understand the answers or dont care to. All of which are a waste of time to try to explain. Go back read the posts try to understand then come back with some intelligent questions if there really are any. Insults usually only show the persons lack of caring or that they are a total waste to society in general

      June 21, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • YeahRight

      “ Since the only other choices are that you dont read the posts the answers are not to your standards or just plain cant understand the answers or dont care to.”

      Since you have copied and pasted your bogus lies over and over again try practicing what your trying to preach hypocrite.

      “ Go back read the posts try to understand then come back with some intelligent questions if there really are any. “

      Oh really that’s why when the REAL facts are presented to you all you can come back with is standardized lies that you post over and over again that contain NO real facts. LMAO!

      “Insults usually only show the persons lack of caring or that they are a total waste to society in general”

      That’s why you keep coming back with your lies and insults over and over again. What a hypocrite. LMAO!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:38 am |
  6. YeahRight

    "Don't think that this blog and others are up here by accident, if you really want to do something then write congress, tell our leaders that they had better start listening to the majority of the people"

    Don't listen to Bob since obviously he hasn't a clue about how our constitution works based on this stupid statement. Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

    Oh by the way a federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Bob

      while it does give all rights it doesn't define that you can marry your child or a horse. Its not a blanket ok for marriage

      June 21, 2012 at 11:11 am |
  7. Erik

    "If being gay has been proven as a medical physical condition that one is born with"

    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.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Bob

      another cut and paste that was already covered

      June 21, 2012 at 11:12 am |
  8. YeahRight

    "The APA has lost its footing on reality and is in trouble the threats we see here are only the tip of the iceberg as for how they act. "

    More lies since other organizations are backing them up. 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."

    June 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  9. YeahRight

    "To take the laws of the US and turn them in favor of themselves over the wishes of the rest of Americans."

    Marriage was defined by the US Supreme Court as a civil right. Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

    Oh by the way a federal appeals court on May 31st ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term. This most likely will be decided in the courts and since most courts keep ruling in gays favor they should be able to over turn all the unconstitutional laws prejudice bigots have been trying to pass.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Bob

      see above

      June 21, 2012 at 11:13 am |
  10. Bob

    I will give the organizers of the gay agenda this they have done exactly what they wanted to do. To take the laws of the US and turn them in favor of themselves over the wishes of the rest of Americans. Considering gays are only 3 percent of the population that was a feat and they are accomplishing it. Don't think that this blog and others are up here by accident, if you really want to do something then write congress, tell our leaders that they had better start listening to the majority of the people. Tell the courts that its time that they don't make the laws start organizing stop being indifferent , gays have managed to get some key people in key positions and they don't care about their careers they care about moving forward with what they want to do which is have gays marry then peds then anything goes. The same physcs that allowed the gays to go off the dsm are the same ones that want to declassify a whole host of other things. If this is done with will open the door to every perversion known. I am not talking about gays either. The APA has lost its footing on reality and is in trouble the threats we see here are only the tip of the iceberg as for how they act. So save your effort to where it will really count and when articles like this come up cut and paste is very helpful to post real scriptures to spread the truth know your Bible because this will be a area that is attacked too. Some Bible manufactures bowing to pressure have already made Bibles that are gender neutral. They water down the word so be on guard all.

    June 21, 2012 at 7:13 am |
  11. Lorraine

    jwt and yeahright, and hawaii guest what?,oh and tom tom tu pipe is what you're doing right? and your juvenile is showing aren't you all a generational success? Malachi 2 vs.12, so I understand, that you could never, understand that is.

    June 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Disjointed babble doesn't make your case any more convincing you know.

      June 20, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Your juvenile is showing"?

      Wow.And I thought all the really stupid people were on the other thread!

      June 20, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • James

      Tom Tom = a total and complete idiot....Tom Tom = a fool who is foolish and foolisher Tom Tom = the IQ of a small slug Tom Tom = a bitter, angry boy Tom Tom = bully..........you are exactly who should represent your people – perfect

      June 21, 2012 at 2:32 am |
    • JWT

      Is what I am doing right ? If I was doing something wrong I would stop doing it. So yes what I am doing is right.

      June 21, 2012 at 6:05 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm female, over 50, straight, and have been married to the same man for more than 30 years. I own my home, I pay taxes, I give to charity.

      So yeah, what I'm doing is right. If I were gay, I'd still be doing what is "right". Any questions?

      June 21, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • Jen

      Funny how the people that don't agree with you are being juvenile, whereas other people like Bob (who has been caught lying time and time again and posts such witty responses as 'blah blah blah') are apparently completely mature . Of course, I guess you identify with other people that are like you – anti-gay and with a complete inability to read or write.

      June 21, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • James

      Ah Jen the arrogant new comer to this blog thinks people are being mean to Tommy???!!!!!! hahahahaha Jen some of the blogs that Tom Tom has terrorized people on, have been taken off the CNN page. You have no idea what you are talking about. As I said arrogant new comer!! yah

      June 21, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • James

      hhahahhahhahaahhahhahahahahha....Tom Tom is a fifty year old female!!!! Not possible. There is no way any woman uses the filthy mouth you do, no way. I am a guy and you talk worse than half the guys on the job site. hahahahahahahah

      June 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Jen

      How am I arrogant? Because I point out that someone with zero education shouldn't be trying to 'teach' others? Those are just facts James, just facts. I'm not sure what a new comer is, but I'm definitely not a newcomer to this blog. I've seen plenty of Tom tom's posts, and she's always said she is a 50 year old female (not sure why she would lie consistently over and over again).

      I wasn't defending anybody. I'm saying that anyone that was the slightest bit impartial would see that many of Bob's posts are juvenile. However, when you identify with someone's position and you aren't too swift yourself, you will overlook the obvious. And while calling people names is not my style, I've never seen Tom tom call someone something really vile (calling Bob Boob is hardly the end of the world). And I've never seen her posts removed, so apparently despite what you say CNN doesn't think she's crossing the line either.

      June 21, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • James

      As I said Jen you are the new comer. They have not removed HIS comments, my point is that he has been at this on other stories and their blogs for quite some time. He has said disgusting, filthy things on this blog a few pages back, which I am sure you must have seen?? Now we are pretending to be naive..??

      June 22, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • Jen

      Well then you are a newcomer (no space) too James, because I just recently have seen your posts. Or are you one of those weirdos that changes your handle every 5 seconds? Yes, Tom tom calls people stupid, boobs, etc., and she swears occasionally, but her handle was hijacked a few pages back by someone else (it's very obvious from the difference in writing styles). But let's put Tom tom's posts aside for a second. What has been juvenile in JWT, Hawaii Guest or Yeah Right's posts? I haven't seen any name calling in their posts. What could Lorraine possibly think is juvenile? They are just debating Bob (and Bob is debating back, though much less coherently).

      June 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • James

      Oh so we are going to play Miss Naive and defend him? Just back a few pages he told some to s-ck his d-ck, and that was the polite part. He uses the f word all over the place, and s-exual rants that are – well just gross. Jen you are the kind that wants to be viewed as nice – but will join forces with someone like Tom Tom and snicker. There are lots of people on this blog who are trying to make their point with a "bit" of integrity. You and Tom Tom are not in this group

      June 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @James

      "You and Tom Tom are not in this group"

      You can say that you don't like the way Tom Tom makes points and say that she lacks integrity, but to throw Jen into there because she's defending Tom Tom's free speech is a stupid, and illogical position.

      June 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      James, not that I give a rat's azz what you think, as you rarely do it, I am indeed over 50, female, straight, and married. If you don't believe it, tough.

      And if my posts offend you, we're even, because yours offend me. Get over it. You don't get to say who posts on this forum or what they say. You can go elsewhere if your tender little heart can't take the heat.

      If you find my posts 'juvenile', we're even on that score, too. See above for an example.

      As far as Jen goes, I don't know her, but I respect her opinion even when I don't agree with her. She is obviously intelligent, well-educated and thoughtful. The fact that you attempt to lump the two of us together speaks to your own indiscriminate hatred of anyone who thinks differently than you do.

      June 22, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      James wrote:
      Tom Tom = a total and complete idiot....Tom Tom = a fool who is foolish and foolisher Tom Tom = the IQ of a small slug Tom Tom = a bitter, angry boy Tom Tom = bully..........you are exactly who should represent your people – perfect

      ----

      Yes, what a lovely example of an educated response.

      You know, I think what really bothers James is that he as sumed something about me and got caught. He thought I was gay because I am pro-gay rights.

      And he as sumed that anyone posting under Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son was me. You're right, Jen, he must be new here.

      June 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      What do you think the odds are that James either goes on with more non sequitors or ad hominems, or leaves all butt hurt?

      June 22, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • James

      Sorry Tom Tom you are a bully and I gave ya some bully back. Your rude rants go right back to the beginning of this blog and many others. You are the one person that cannot be defended. You have called people with the tamest comments morons, idiots, boobs, as-sholes, f-ck ups and lets not forget all of your s-exual comments that should have got you thrown off the blog. (And we are talking about gross, pe-rverse gay s-ex comments...)You feel strongly about this – great, then make some good arguments. But you don't..you just throw out one filthy insult after the other. Look at the commnents that you have given Bob alone????? I am all for free speech, but seriously any one of you that sticks up for Tom Tom is just a sick as he is. This is the last person that you would want representing those who are for gay marriage. Well maybe its a good idea to keep him around:) Jen has been defending him and joining in with him on several pages....just very suprised that this nice, educated person would find linkage with a tommy?? So you can all condole with each other now and wipe each others tears, another bigoted, racist person being mean to the poor gay supporters...boohoo

      June 22, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • James

      Oh one more thing. I will bet a $100 that Tom Tom is a guy, but I don't remember saying that he was gay? Can you tell me on what page I said that – thanks:)

      June 22, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • James

      Hmm...jeepers it looks like Hawaii guest and Tom Tom are the same person. Cool

      June 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Jen

      James, you didn't answer my question about HawaiiGuest, Yeah Right or JWT. I'm shocked – shocked (I guess according to you HawaiiGuest and Tom tom are the same person now. Tom tom's very adept at completely changing her writing style whenever she becomes HawaiiGuest I notice ).

      Actually James, I'm not trying to be nice at all. I never said I was. I really don't care if you don't think I am nice. But I don't name call. And I've never 'joined in' with Tom tom and 'snickered' about her name calling. Where Tom and I have agreed in posts is on gay marriage and poor communication skills. I do question the education levels of people, but if you are going to make sweeping negative generalizations about gay people, you better be able to defend that position (as I have friends and family that are gay and they are amazing people who don't deserve what is said about them). And if you can't read or write properly, then you're not intelligent and who gives a crap about your opinion? Not nice? I don't care.

      Again, a few pages back Tom was hijacked. You can clearly see where I write, 'what the h-ll is going on? What is with all these posts???' So I knew it was not Tom that wrote, 'suck my d-ck' (she doesn't even have one). And that person was reported for abuse. If that person had the same IP address as Tom she would have been blocked. Also, I notice you go after me and not the person on that page who called me a nut (and then told me I was ATTACKING HER when I never called her a single name – just because I debated her right under the table). Why is this? Oh, because you are against gay marriage and I'm not so it's okay to call me names? That was my whole point in this thread. And sorry, but you can't pretend that you take the high road and then bully Tom right back the way you did. It makes you NO different.

      Oh by the way James, 'LET'S not forget', 'COMMENTS that you', 'SURPRISED that'. I notice that you like it when I correct spelling so I thought I would help you out :)

      June 22, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @James

      Is that you HeavenSent?
      See how easy it is to make unfounded assertions?

      June 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You were right, HG. The poor little thing is all put out.

      Isn't it interesting that not once in any of those posts did James address the questions I have asked since the beginning of this thread? Instead, he's decided to focus on my posts (many of which I did not write) and my ridicule of people like Bob who can barely string together a coherent sentence.

      Why don't you answer these questions, James? Here they are again:

      How will gay marriage affect you? What effect will it have on heter0s3xual marriages? What negative effects have occurred in states and other countries where gay marriage has been legal? How will the actions of 3% of the population have any impact on you or on anyone else who is straight?

      When you finish pouting, maybe you'll have the guts to answer truthfully. Bob hasn't managed to do so. Neither has Lorraine. Whitney gave false testimony to try to argue against it by saying that children of gay couples are routinely abused, when statistics show otherwise.

      So how about some of you step up and discuss the real subject of this thread and stop avoiding doing so by making a big fuss about my posts? Hmmmm?

      June 22, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • James

      Jen you are a very poor excuse maker. Do I ACTUALLY have to go back on the last hundred pages and some of the other blogs and bring forth some classic Tom Tom quotes?????? He has told several to s-uck his d-ick....no one hijacked him on these quotes. Take little gander just below these comments and see how he writes to Lorraine. Its ok Jen keep your head in the sand. It is good you care for those around you and want to help them.....but did you really say that we should not listen or give a crap to the poor and uneducated around us???? Wow now there is a heart for the underdog if I ever saw one. nice

      June 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      James, how would you know my name wasn't 'highjacked' unless you were the one writing the posts?

      Since you trolls are just here to bait and not to discuss the topic, this is a waste of time.

      June 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • James

      Any idiot can see where there is a little section where you and some others were hijacking each other.....but Tom Tom your writing is consistant and mean, we don't need a magnifying glass – please!!!! Any one calls you on your behavior and you say we are trolls or puppets.....waaaahhhhh

      June 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
  12. Lorraine

    Don't blame YHWH, for the gays, or anything of wrong doing, we've done these to ourselves, I did say doing wrong for generations to generations will give us what is going on today, nothing but crap, a mess, no morale, just do whatever you like, and think it is alright, and that it won't have any consequences. And, that was a typo people dangggg. You people love to harp on anything just to make yourself get away from what is right, or true, LOL,lol.

    June 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Buh duh, duh, buh b=yya. I'm an idiot and my name is Loonie Lorraine!

      June 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Bob

      Loraine save yourself some grief this is the gay flog board and it wont matter anything you say its just here because the endorsers of gay marriage needed a way to advertise and flog the Christians. The routine is get something you like that talks about the Lord then they will cut and paste something then you cut and paste and that keeps the ball rolling. Insults lies about science saying gays cannot change and born that way it goes on and on. Look at the past posts. Then there's the assumed names a gay preacher named John that I don't think was ever on this board but with the cut and paste Tommi has a good laugh and that's the way it goes. Its really quite entertaining with just about as much truth from the gay side as a reality tv show.

      June 20, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
  13. Lorraine

    If being gay has been proven as a medical physical condition that one is born with, as I've said before that this all stems from our generational curse from doing wrong, and calling it good, straying away from the righteousness of life, doing what we are suppose to and that is living a clean, and wholesome life, for ourselves, and towards others, equally, not just for some but for all. If you notice many are becoming gay today, more, and more it's an epidemic now, it is the generations getting more, and more plagued with wrong doing, and liking it. Yes, it is a gene now, it has revolved into one.

    June 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bahhhhaha. "Revolved into one"???

      AhHhHHha. The depth and breadth of your ignorance and stupidity never cease to amaze me. I'll bet you live in a trailer, Lorraine, and that you never got a high school diploma. Am I right?

      Dumb, dumber, and dumberer.

      June 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Did you ever actually pass a biology class in high school, Lorraine? Or did you get knocked up before the end of the year?

      Really, honey, go get your GED and stop attempting to pretend you're actually sentient and educated, darlin'. It's not working for you.

      June 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • Lorraine

      ok typo 'EVOLVED' into one a gay gene, and it is inevitable, along with all the other mayhem of this society today; with all that is going on in this world, and is why we have such suffering on earth, from disobeying the law of life from YHWH to do right by ourselves, for generations. As according to Jeremiah 25, that this would all be if we don't obey, for our own good.

      June 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • JWT

      That actually made no sense at all. Not even a little tiny bit.

      June 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Lorraine

      LOL. So because we've been bad, god makes people gay which will make us, as a whole, more bad. Yea that makes a whole lot of sense. LOL Lorraine you're always good for a chuckle.

      June 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lorraine, I thought you thumpers didn't believe in evolution. Have you converted? Grown a brain?

      June 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I've seen a lot of drivel, Lorraine, dear, but your post is truly exemplary of the form! CONGRATULATIONS on making NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!

      June 20, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      "'EVOLVED' into one a gay gene"

      There is no more such thing as a gay gene then there is a hetero gene. However, having said that does not change the fact that people are born gay...they have no more control on who they desire to be with then a hetero person does, some sway both ways. A person's se.xual orientation is usually determined before birth and even though science has yet to pinpoint a gene, they are able to perform studies that get us closer to an answer and right now those answers are pointing directly at it as being natural. Just because there is not a direct answer does not mean it is a preference. Being gay is no more a preference than being hetero is. Why is this so hard to understand and why the hell do you think you have a right to try to tell someone who they can or can't be with...they're not telling you who to be with?!?!?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • fred

      TruthPrevails
      Orientation may not be a choice but what you do with your orientation is. Would you argue for Bill Clinton to continue to abuse any female that has a weak moment? This whole issue was never about two men doing what ever comes natural it is about taking down the Bible and God. Wake up before it is too late because when only the godless remain it is your grandchildren that will part of the greatest social experiment of all time....................a world without God. Now, ask yourself why would you carry out such an experiment? You live in a secure environment only because God fearing people are the foundation of our laws and core values.
      Yes, I know the atheist excuse that man does not need God for values. Problem is that those atheist have no foundation to make such a claim as the Judeo Christian World view is spread deep and has effected all.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • JWT

      Atheist View ? Rules for successful cooperation among people and the ability to live in peace and harmony are not given from god, at least not from your god. People all over the world have bvery similar rules and laws and a solid majority do not believe in your god.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • fred

      JWT
      There is only one God who created the heaven and the earth. All other gods and human religions regardless of the nature attempt to express what it is to live in view of that knowledge that points to purpose for our existence. God established not only the laws for man but the laws of the universe. Regardless of what god or no god you may believe in this supernatural force that exists outside of our time and space is the source and point of worship since the Neanderthal.
      Man creates his own laws which may or may not follow universal laws which were cast from the beginning. In short the supernatural force existed long before man thought up laws.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • JWT

      There are no points of worship that I would ever accept.

      June 21, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
  14. Bob

    I'm actually a closeted gay man and I like to post attacks on here because it makes me feel bigger and well...you know...bigger....

    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, quelle surprise!

      June 20, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
  15. Lisaburgess

    Top Ten Signs You're a Christian
    10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
    9 – You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
    8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
    7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
    6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
    5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
    4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
    3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
    2 – You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
    1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

    June 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
  16. Bob

    OK guys we started a new page who is going to post johns and erics posts again lets get with it, I don't want to spend to much time of the board tonight so if you wouldn't mind hurrying up the insults re posts different names and all I would appreciate it.

    June 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Too hard on your brain, is it, moron?

      June 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Lisaburgess

      Bob, you're creepy and you spell poorly. Are you living in a trailer court with a gun strapped to the back of your truck? Isn't there a blue-light special at K-mart tonight that you might be amissin'?

      June 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
  17. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Interesting, isn't it, that Boob's pretty much surrendered. His posts are now nothing more than the equivalent of "Sez you."

    June 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • Bob

      yup you'll miss me when I'm gone

      June 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Like a cold sore.

      June 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
  18. Janet

    "You shall not lay with a man like you lay with a woman that pretty much seems conclusive unless you are celibate"

    The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.

    June 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Bob

      yea your ignorance

      June 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
  19. YeahRight

    "yeah tom and the rest are terrorists and dont care about lying or who they hurt as long as they get their way"

    No, you are trying to sweep the hundred of thousands of experts that have proven you wrong out of the argument. 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."

    June 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  20. Melvin

    "This is the most severe form of abhorrence and it is used to describe gay relations"

    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.

    June 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Bob

      Blah Blah Blah blah blah blah and blah blah blah blah calling God a liar and doesn't know people. misguided liar You shall not lay with a man like you lay with a woman that pretty much seems conclusive unless you are celibate

      June 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • steve

      Melvin: God is the same yesterday, today, and always he does not change with the seasons, nor does he follow man. Your position that "those acts are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers wrote" suggests that God follows the changing cultural trends of man.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • tallulah13

      God changes all the time, Steve. There wouldn't be thousands of denominations of christianity alone if god didn't change with every interpretation.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:40 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
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.