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 • My Take • Opinion

soundoff (15,115 Responses)
  1. Don

    The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever." All of God's promises are intended for every human being. This includes gay men and lesbians. How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and persecuted people who are homosexual! We are all created with powerful needs for personal relationships. Our quality of life depends upon the love we share with others; whether family or friends, partners or peers. Yet, lesbians and gay men facing hostile attitudes in society often are denied access to healthy relationships. Jesus Christ calls us to find ultimate meaning in life through a personal relationship with our Creator. This important spiritual union can bring healing and strength to all of our human relationships

    Biblical Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!

    Genesis 19:1-25

    Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality." Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance. Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape. Several observations are important.

    First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

    Romans 1:24-27

    Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.

    This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

    The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.

    What is "Natural"?

    Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

    I Corinthians 6:9

    Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts. In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.

    The first word – malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.

    The second word, Arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy (1:10), but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain. Scripture Study Conclusion…No Law Against Love

    The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . against such there is no law. One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14: "...the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

    August 19, 2012 at 8:10 am |
  2. John

    "Gay s@x is mentioned in the Bible, but never favorably."

    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.

    August 19, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • Bob

      John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, in the most daring and impudent manner, and in defiance of him, without any fear or shame. The Targum of Jonathan reckons up many of their sins, as defrauding of one another in their substance, sinning in their bodies, unclean copulation, shedding of innocent blood, worshiping of idols, and rebelling against the name of the Lord. Isaiah 3 verse 9. it will reveal the truth to you. John is gay pastor and now you understand why people of sin should not be in ministry.

      August 19, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • YeahRight

      "John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, "

      This is again proving that Bob doesn't comprehend the definition of RAPE. Keep showing your poor reading comprehension since you don't understand the definition of hospitality. Duh!

      August 19, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  3. Jesus is the most powerful figure known to mankind (Fact)

    John 8:47-"He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

    John 3:18-"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

    John 8:44-"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

    It is very simple atheist, you do not belong to GOD, but indeed you are of the devil. That is why it is impossible for you to believe because GOD is not in you nor does He know you. Lets read what Jesus said He will say to those who does not belong to Him on judgement day.

    Matthew 25:41-"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

    August 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • JWT

      no gods – jesus was a man and nothing more.

      August 18, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      JWT: "no gods – jesus was a man and nothing more."

      FALLACY ALERT: JWT's comment is known as the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

      Hey Fallacy-Spotter 101, how come you don't detect atheists' fallacies?
      Bias on your part?

      August 19, 2012 at 1:29 am |
  4. Bob

    Ok line up three men and look at them intently. One is gay one is straight and one is a ped now look at them carefully can you see what makes them different. NO I didn’t think so but this is the hoax that the agenda wants you to believe. That there is a difference. Well now line up three men and they are all straight. See a difference even though one likes beer one likes alcohol and one doesn’t like to drink at all. No I didn’t think so ok now line up a person with a birth defect and one that doesn’t have one do you see a difference yes I can see the difference. The agenda wants you to believe that we are supposed to be able to pick out and say that a s=ual desire is easily spotted, normal , and physical but it is not. What makes one person like coffee and another not physcs cannot tell you. So what is the solution call them all normal and variants on being normal. Now when we see how these people act and the decisions they make then we see if they are normal. The men’s S-ual desires are all different and reflect a preference not built into genes just like the preference for beer wine or nothing. The agenda and atheists also want to say it is a normal variation which it is not. Just as the person with the birth defect doesn’t look the same the decisions we make because of our desires look that much different. Even in the Bible birth defects happened such as the sacrifices that the Jews started to bring had defects and God said that it was not right so it is with people of the wrong preference. It is a decision based on a s=ual desire not a physical difference in that person’s body. They do happen it’s not good sometimes but it does happen now we say that it is normal in the course of the birth process that we will wind up with some babies that are not normal and have birth defects but this is a normal percentage not a normal outcome. This is what the gays and atheists would like you to believe that just because there is a frequency of birth defects that it makes them normal. But in this case we can see they are not normal but in the case of the three men other than the outward differences in hair or eye color we cannot see any difference. Wait till one speaks or moves or makes decisions based on what they like and now you see the result of differences in the desire of each although each has all the same equipment. Phycs pulled this slight of hand because they didn’t feel that they could establish what is normal. They lost the moral compass to establish what is normal and should be accepted. the basis for this was looking at how different people act and knowing that some will act differently they said this is a normal person based on the percentages, Not based on the differences that makes a persons decisions. So they said we know that there are people out there with this problem they make up a percentage of the population therefore if they can function with a defect we will treat them when they feel they have a problem. Now the fact that the percentages of problems are much higher with the gays is no secret. There is no stat that is in favor of gays. The atheists and the agenda hold up the successful ones but that percentage is so small that its probably less that a 1/10th of 1 percent. You compare these stats to the amount of people who are straight and have a good life and you will see something like 60 percent of say billions of people . So the shear number of straights the percentages will be different you have to take into account the number of people you are talking about and the percentage in order to come up with a true number. This is also a slight of hand by the gays and atheists.
    The goals of the gays atheists and socialist all work pretty well together. But it is not the society that anyone is used to even the kids that grownup today with much looser morals that when I was younger will not recognize the US that these people want to transform it into. This is not even talking about the heritage of the US that will be thrown out the window or the blessings of God on this great nation. So when you see that these people want to change the very fabric of society look at some examples we have of when that has happened. Rome. Sodom and Gomorrah and most free people when moral guide lines were lost led to the decay and destruction of society. Just because we see countries with some of these things accepted doesn’t mean that it is good. You have to look back see the changes and project forward to see what will become of this nation. It is not one generation it takes many. Just like the 60s the courts took morals out of the schools now we have TV programs with unwed 16 year old mothers. The decision hence the result just like the gays just like the path of this country. There is no society that once starting down this road didn’t lead to the destruction of that society.

    August 18, 2012 at 7:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Translation of Boob's post:

      I am so dumb I don't know how to use paragraphs. I am not qualified to discuss anything more complicated than snot.

      August 18, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • .

      What makes one person like coffee and another not physcs cannot tell you. So what is the solution call them all normal and variants on being normal. Now when we see how these people act and the decisions they make then we see if they are normal.

      In actuality there is probably a fair amount of physical and mental components to the reasons for why one person likes coffee and another prefers tea. It has to do with culture, upbringing, exposure, need, and the way your body interprets the flavor, the way your body reacts to the beverage. The reasons behind it don't matter though in the long wrong, because it is all just a part of modern society.

      The men’s S-ual desires are all different and reflect a preference not built into genes just like the preference for beer wine or nothing. .

      Actually, science is continually showing us that while no one gene is defined as being responsible for a man or woman being attracted to their own gender, the complex reasoning behind it, much like many other parts of being a human being, is in fact based in genetics, in the physical. Of course there are other complexities at play there, but in the end, like a person's taste in beverage, it is no more unnatural than a person's taste in beverage.

      The agenda and atheists also want to say it is a normal variation which it is not. .

      Considering that the rough percentage of LGBT folk remains constant over the course of the decades that we've studied it, statistically speaking it is exactly that, a variation from normal. A standard deviation if you will. Standard. Normal.

      Just as the person with the birth defect doesn’t look the same the decisions we make because of our desires look that much different. Even in the Bible birth defects happened such as the sacrifices that the Jews started to bring had defects and God said that it was not right so it is with people of the wrong preference. .

      Birth defects are caused by genetic anomalies, diseases and toxins ingested/consumed by the mother during pregnancy. You can not relate birth defects to homoseixuality.

      It is a decision based on a s=ual desire not a physical difference in that person’s body. .

      When was the last time you made a decision to be attracted to someone? In my experience it's something that happens regardless of your desire for it to happen.

      They do happen it’s not good sometimes but it does happen now we say that it is normal in the course of the birth process that we will wind up with some babies that are not normal and have birth defects but this is a normal percentage not a normal outcome. .

      You're talking in circles here, Bob. Birth defects are a sad fact today due to any number of causes. They are not normal, the deviation is not standard, it rises and falls based on environmental causes and the behavior of the parents. It is unfortunate and far too common, but it isn't normal.

      This is what the gays and atheists would like you to believe that just because there is a frequency of birth defects that it makes them normal. .

      Statistics says that it is. Math. Has nothing to do with what atheists and gays say.

      But in this case we can see they are not normal but in the case of the three men other than the outward differences in hair or eye color we cannot see any difference. Wait till one speaks or moves or makes decisions based on what they like and now you see the result of differences in the desire of each although each has all the same equipment. Phycs pulled this slight of hand because they didn’t feel that they could establish what is normal. .

      I'm beginning to think that you do not understand the word "normal" Bob. Of course, the definition varies slightly depending on the usage of the word, but accepted understanding is that normal=common. If there are a hundred men standing in a room and all of them are white, it might be asisumed that for that group, being white is normal. If in that group, 1 of them is gay and 1 of them is bi, it can be asisumed that being straight is normal. HOWEVER, if in the next 99 rooms there are 100 men in each room, and in each room 1 of them is gay and 1 of them is bi, it becomes normal that 10% of the men are gay and 10% of the men are bi. Likewise, if there are a few rooms with 2 bi men and some with 2 gay men, or a number with none of either, but the overall number when taken as a whole is that of the 10,000 men, 1000 are gay and 1000 are bi, normal is still 10% of each in the population.

      They lost the moral compasis to establish what is normal and should be accepted. the basis for this was looking at how different people act and knowing that some will act differently they said this is a normal person based on the percentages, .

      Again, that is how normal is defined. Morality does not define normal.

      Not based on the differences that makes a persons decisions. So they said we know that there are people out there with this problem they make up a percentage of the population therefore if they can function with a defect we will treat them when they feel they have a problem. Now the fact that the percentages of problems are much higher with the gays is no secret. .

      Actually, the "problems" in the LGBT population can largely be traced to the treatment of LGBT individuals by the people around them. Anyone who grows up in a family where they are told repeatedly that they are evil, sinful beings for something that they can not control is going to have issues.

      There is no stat that is in favor of gays. .

      If you actually displayed any understanding of statistics, this statement might have meaning, but it's clear that you don't.

      The atheists and the agenda hold up the successful ones but that percentage is so small that its probably less that a 1/10th of 1 percent. You compare these stats to the amount of people who are straight and have a good life and you will see something like 60 percent of say billions of people . So the shear number of straights the percentages will be different you have to take into account the number of people you are talking about and the percentage in order to come up with a true number. This is also a slight of hand by the gays and atheists. .

      Again, with the clear demonstration of how little you understand statistics. You can not compare the two groups for the simple reason that they are not equal. They do not have equal opportunities, equal rights. That alone means you can not compare them in the areas you are trying to.

      The goals of the gays atheists and socialist all work pretty well together. But it is not the society that anyone is used to even the kids that grownup today with much looser morals that when I was younger will not recognize the US that these people want to transform it into. .

      Change isn't the enemy, Bob. Progress, the continual improvement of the world in which we live should be the goal. Equal rights for all, without regard to skin color, ethnic heritage, economic status, religion (or lack thereof), seixual orientation, marital status, whether or not you have children, what school you went to or what your politics are.

      This is not even talking about the heritage of the US that will be thrown out the window or the blessings of God on this great nation. .

      Our heritage? The one of rebellion? The one of ensuring freedom? The one in which we said "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masises yearning to breathe free."? How are we going to lose that by living up to it? Our very reason for existence was rebellion against oppression. It is a sacred duty to continue to do so, even when that oppression comes from within our own borders. Possibly even more so.

      So when you see that these people want to change the very fabric of society look at some examples we have of when that has happened. Rome. Sodom and Gomorrah and most free people when moral guide lines were lost led to the decay and destruction of society. .

      One could look at the example of Rome, at a country that thought itself the center of the universe, treating the world as if it belonged to Rome, constantly extending outward without realizing that the core of Rome could no longer support the weight of the extended empire. One could argue that the "collapse of morals" was in fact more to do with the wealth and frivolity (and with it the growing boredom and the need to sate a people grown used to being entertained by its government), than anything to do with religion. There is no one reason Rome fell. As with the issues of so many things in our world, it's complicated.

      Just because we see countries with some of these things accepted doesn’t mean that it is good. You have to look back see the changes and project forward to see what will become of this nation. It is not one generation it takes many. Just like the 60s the courts took morals out of the schools now we have TV programs with unwed 16 year old mothers. .

      You know we had unwed 16 year old mothers in the fifties, before the seixual revolution of the 60s, right? Heck, my grandma had children out of wedlock in the forties. It isn't a new phenomenon. Today though, rather than hiding them away, we help them, support them, teach them.

      The decision hence the result just like the gays just like the path of this country. There is no society that once starting down this road didn’t lead to the destruction of that society.
      Know the truth and the truth will set you free. .

      Equal rights is not going to be the stone that sinks us. Falling backward into a dark age of oppression and suppression will.

      August 19, 2012 at 8:32 am |
  5. Douglas

    Gay s@x is mentioned in the Bible, but never favorably. By contrast, marriage between a man and a woman is mentioned frequently as being blessed of God. Indeed, God often uses marriage as an analogy of the kind of relationship He wishes to have with His people. Furthermore, the Bible makes clear that all s@x outside this relationship is abhorrent in God's sight - whether that's heteros@xual or ho-mo-s@xual. I figure the same God who made us knows that there's something about the s@xual "one-flesh" experience that takes something away from us unless we engage in it within the boundaries God has provided. We ignore His rules to our own injury.

    Celibacy then provides a way back home.

    Join me won't you, as we welcome our celibate GLBTQ brothers and sisters to the altar call for redemption,
    casting out fornication, guilt and sin and ushering in a new tomorrow filled with hope and joy!

    Best, Douglas

    August 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • JWT

      Fortunately fewer and fewer join in your bigotry.

      August 18, 2012 at 7:36 am |
    • HeavenSent

      JWT, that's too bad because ...

      Jesus warned us,

      Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

      Matthew 7:13

      Amen.

      August 18, 2012 at 7:47 am |
    • JWT

      There is no heaven and there is no hell. So none of it is a problem.

      August 18, 2012 at 7:49 am |
    • Bob

      Douglas
      Thank you my brother which in Christ I am happy to call you. You do fight truly the good fight of faith and moral high ground. In our bodies we serve a different master than the one we want to serve in our spirit. But we are forgiven and seek a greater reward with our heavenly Father. Keep seeking that reward keep your eyes on Him that is a rewarder and know that you have one that is proud to call you a brother.

      August 18, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • Douglas

      Bob,
      Thanks for your expression of friendship and support.

      It is tough to maintain a Christian perspective in forums like this. A careful review of the Belief Blog themes reveals topics that challenge, marginalize, and in some cases, are outright hostile to practicing Christians. No other mainstream faith is portrayed this way in the topic headers.

      But, that is consistent with what Jesus told us would happen. We would be persecuted for adhering to his teaching
      and not sliding into the easy way out of apostasy in the face of adversity.

      I accept the fact that some people are born GLB. The T and Q are the result of man made personal decisions.

      It is not a sin to be born gay...it is a sin to pursue intimate coitus as if the physical act is a replication of normal straight coitus.

      As GLBTQ folks experiment, trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable, they begin to pursue extremely unhealthy behaviors that place them at high risk, way beyond the straight population, for the transmission and reception of fatal and debilitating illnesses.

      Celibacy is a tough cross to bear for our GLBTQ brothers and sisters, in a world saturated with eroticism in advertising, product marketing, and social networking venues. But we must all set our minds like a flint and keep our hands to the plough as Jesus instructed us to do.

      Keep up your efforts to defend the faith. Your sincerity is admirable and welcome in a hostile forum like this.

      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      Douglas

      August 19, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Franklin

      @Douglas

      Very well said.

      August 19, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • tallulah13

      There is nothing good, nor natural about denying part of what nature made you to be. Gays and lesbians deserve the same loving relationships - physical and emotional - as straight people. There is evidence that shows that hom.os.exuality is decided in the womb. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of your god, or for any god. The only unnatural thing here is trying to force others to live an artificial life, based on an ancient book of mythology.

      August 19, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • Duh

      To sum up Douglas "Yes, we know it's unkind and mean spirited, but we will continue to do what our old book says because we really do believe in invisible magic beings from another dimension that require us to exclude and shame other members of the human race."

      August 19, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Excellent post Douglas.

      August 19, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • Melvin

      "Gay s@x is mentioned in the Bible, but never favorably. By contrast, marriage between a man and a woman is mentioned frequently as being blessed of God. Indeed"

      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.

      August 19, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  6. Lorraine

    Wow, someone threw a juvenile fit!! gay, Yah Weeee? What's this?

    August 17, 2012 at 10:58 am |
  7. JP

    Is homosexuality a sin?

    Self-indulgence is a sin. But the relationship of two people of the same sex may or may not be self-indulgent.

    Abusing the neighbor is a sin. But the exploration of relationships among homosexuals as they search for partners, evaluate their existing formative relationships, and relate to each other may or may not be abusive.

    Disobeying what God commands in the Bible is a sin. But, we have biblically-derived criteria for assessing and applying specific commands by reading them against larger themes.
    Turning your back on God is a sin. Homosexuals are often among those who have turned their back on the church, and may be sinning because they also rejected the God they found in church. The church needs to be in mission to homosexuals with the message of Jesus and who God really is.

    Yielding to your passions, even celebrating them is a sin. Homosexuals do include those who have done this. But it is not an inherent aspect of being gay.

    Since we see people who have dedicated themselves to God, and for whom their gay sexual life is integrated into that decision and we see that their sexuality does not draw them away from church we must conclude that being and living gay is not a behavior in and of itself that produces pain to the neighbor and leads one away from God.

    By the criteria the scripture sets for us for what is godly life, and by the reasoning scripture asks us to employ, homosexuality cannot be described as against God’s law.

    If this seems like a rather quiet sort of justification for homosexuality, then perhaps it is because the grand cliches of this debate have been shouted at us for too long. But look at the Bible: it's demands and vision cut across all categories, not staying on the surface but penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, rejecting all forms of self-justification, all forms of attack on the "other" and all forms of escape from God's assessment of our behavior. How on earth could we have ever thought that a series of flat rules was all God wanted to tell us on morality?

    August 17, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Huebert

      Why is self indulgence a sin?

      August 17, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Bob

      Did you know that the worst serial murders we have were H0m0 atheists like Jeffery Dahmer??

      August 17, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I believe what Bob is trying to say is that he prefers to ignore reality so that he can vilify the people he irrationally hates. He is blatantly ignoring that some of the worst serial killers have been heteros.exual, and very religious indeed. For instance:

      Dennis Rader, the BTK (Bind Torture KIll) killer, horrifically slaughtered 10 people. He was married, a father, a cub scout leader and had been elected congregational president of his lutheran church, but there was no indication he was gay.

      Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer was convicted of 48 killings, but is suspected of over 70. He was something of a se.x addict (strictly heterose.xual) and his victims were prosti.tutes and runaways. He was also fanatically religious.

      There are others, of course, but my point is that it is futile for bob to tell such a blatant lie on there internet, where information is easily found.

      August 19, 2012 at 1:41 am |
  8. YeahRight

    "These efforts vary greatly in intensity and popularity, and have manifested in a variety of forms, such as legislation for close-in-age exemptions to age of consent laws, advocacy to change the way age of consent laws are examined in court, to lower the age limits, and reduce related penalties."

    Bob seriously doesn't understand the difference between being gay and a pedophile this just continues to prove that his unfounded prejudice toward the gay community isn't based on any real facts. To have sex with someone under the age of consent is a strict liability crime (in most states) known as statutory rape. It is often referred to by other names such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct with a child, etc.

    The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

    The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual. The debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment.

    August 17, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Bob

      Now consider a report from the Journal of S Research which noted that h0m0 ped commit about one-third of the total number of child s offenses, even though they are outnumbered by hetero 20 to one. Less than four percent of the population commits one-third of the offenses against children! In The Gay Report, h0m0 researchers report data showing that better than 7 out of 10 gays surveyed had at some time had copulation with boys 16 to 19. Or consider a study in Archives of S Behavior, which found that of 229 convicted child molesters surveyed, “85 percent of offenders against males described themselves as h0m0 or bi's

      August 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • YeahRight

      Bob took this bogus information from one of his conservative hate groups again. If you actually do the REAL research you will find that the conservative groups twisted all the facts and the data they are using is false.

      August 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • YeahRight

      Reflecting the results all the studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.

      August 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Bob

      Being a atheist not knowing the Bible and considering Christians haters I am honored to say that this is information taken from Honest upstanding organizations that don't want the changing of society to accommodate the atheists even more than the gays. since I really don't see any gays here and all are atheists I will assume that this is not as important to them as to atheists.

      August 17, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Being a atheist not knowing the Bible and considering Christians haters I am honored to say that this is information taken from Honest upstanding organizations that don't want the changing of society to accommodate the atheists even more than the gays."

      So you are supporting groups the are publishing lies about this minority group, which is why so many of them have been put on hate group lists. LMAO!

      August 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • Bob

      Quiet honestly I really don't know what hate group lists you are talking about Its not the 50's. No one is not serving the gays or stopping them from doing anything they want with a few exceptions. Lets see gays have there own TV shows we have Rupal on tv and MC quite a few different things. We have decorator shows that most of them are gay. So I really don't think that the hate group thing really works at all. Its so much drama stirred up really by the atheists and the gays to support their points and win what they want with the sympathy of the people. A very nice PR campaign that if they are not careful will backfire on them. Actually the atheists here bother me more personally than the gays. I have seen quite a few gays struggle with life and it kind of sad. Most I have known have been really funny and intelligent and then you get the real flamers that are entertaining to watch. If today there was full legalization of marriage and gays are 2% of the population just how many marriages do you really think there would be?? Most that I have known don't give a dam about marriage and the stats prove it,. I see the atheists and Socialists that want to conquer the world much more a active and worried about taking God out of the US that is really a concern using the gay issue as a problem also.

      August 17, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
  9. Bob

    In the US many states have adopted close-in-age exemptions. These laws, known as "Romeo and Juliet laws" provide that a person can legally have consensual intercourse with a minor provided that he or she is not more than a given number of years older generally four years but sometimes some other number of years Romeo and Juliet laws were passed Several ped membership org endorsed lowering or abolishing age of consent laws to legalize fleshly activities involving an adult and a child. As one of their arguments to lower or abolish the age of consent, members of ped advocacy groups promoted their belief that children are phych capable of consenting to intimate situations with adults and they often portrayed themselves as fighting for the right of children to engage in what the activists consider to be consensual intercourse with adults. Another issue has been h0m0 vs. hetero relationships. These efforts vary greatly in intensity and popularity, and have manifested in a variety of forms, such as legislation for close-in-age exemptions to age of consent laws, advocacy to change the way age of consent laws are examined in court, to lower the age limits, and reduce related penalties.
    This I posted is from WIki so there can be no dispute as to authenticity and truth I can always post up to date info about groups and such. So How are you going to call this lies now???? You can look for yourself

    August 16, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  10. YeahRight

    "We have corrupt government and corporations controlling and allowing things that are wrong on so many levels morally and just not how to treat people and sin wise also We as Christians have not fought for the Country that God has given us and that was started with Christian values. "

    LMAO – you don't understand American history to well do you. Started with Christian values huh? So murdering and stealing land from Native Americans is a good Christian value huh? So kidnapping and enslaving African Americans and treating them like crap is based on good Christian values too? Oh...I know...what about the way they treated women back then too, that is also based on good Christian values? LMAO! Oh and by the way we had several Presidents that were adulterers too, that must be a good Christian value too? Oh...wait....we forgot all about those that have lied to the American people through out history....that must be a good Christian value too. Yeah, greed has gotten us to where we are today and since supposedly 80% of Americans are Christian what does that tell you about your religion. Duh! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

    August 16, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Bob

      Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virg=inia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
      I

      August 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Boob, have any videos of your escapades at Studio 54, back in the day when you had hair?

      August 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • YeahRight

      Bob we don't follow the Mayflower Compact anymore, we follow our constitution. 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

      August 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Bob

      Tom
      Still have hair and no videos it was fun at the time though, the owner really was in trouble in the end. Really a mix of things and people. Ever go to SoHo on a weekend morning? So nice and quiet and little restaurants with good food and atmosphere.

      August 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Bob

      The May flower Compact is not what we go by now but it shows intent and how the US really started and on what premise the laws of the US were formed. I could post George Washington's farewell address that pretty much says you cannot run a country without faith in God but I don't think you would want that.

      August 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'Bob' is an instance of a non sequitur fallacy.

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      August 16, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "I could post George Washington's farewell address that pretty much says you cannot run a country without faith in God but I don't think you would want that."

      Duh Bob George Washington's opinions have NOTHING to do with our constitution and civil rights! LMAO! What an idiot.

      August 17, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  11. YeahRight

    "Sodom and Gomorrah were cites that were well off in there time. "

    Bob doesn't understand the definition of RAPE – When people are forcing themselves on others it's RAPE That part of scripture has nothing to do with the saved loving long term relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. Bob is just spewing more of his unfounded hatred and prejudice toward the gay community.

    August 16, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Bob

      John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, in the most daring and impudent manner, and in defiance of him, without any fear or shame. The Targum of Jonathan reckons up many of their sins, as defrauding of one another in their substance, sinning in their bodies, unclean copulation, shedding of innocent blood, worshiping of idols, and rebelling against the name of the Lord. Isaiah 3 verse 9. it will reveal the truth to you.Do you not know that the one who joins himself to a woman for hire is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. Do you remember that God said I made them man and woman this is the spiritual side of marriage God looks at us in marriage as one person. So if God condemned gays and He created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and He considers us one person and we are made in His image how many tenants of God does gay marriage violate?

      August 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • YeahRight

      John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus,

      Poor Bob doesn’t understand the definition of hospitality. LOL! No wonder you suck at reading the bible. Hospitality – the quality of receiving and treating guests and strangers in a warm, friendly, generous way. Ezekiel: Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. LMAO!

      “TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."

      That can be said of a gay couple too, which is why so many thousands of churches are now marrying gay couples. Duh!

      “if God condemned gays and He created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and He considers us one person and we are made in His image how many tenants of God does gay marriage violate?”

      None because the loving long-term relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today is not condemned in your bible. Rape, idol worship using sex and male prostitution is what is being condemned. When a gay couple gets married before their god by a minister, they do not sin. Duh.

      August 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  12. Bob

    Sodom and Gomorrah were cites that were well off in there time. The Lord had blessed them abundantly in the things that they did. It was like a modern day US but what are the lessons we didn’t learn from this example. The Old testament while Christians are not subject to the laws because of Christ all the rest of the world is. The Old Testament gives us a picture and history on people and what God considers good and bad. It also tells us how God reacts and so we start to become understanding of who God is. Sodom had all the modern political systems and wealth that went along with a modern city. It was the Lords blessings that allowed the city to benefit the way it did. But with that the men became exceedingly wicked and did all kinds of things that were sins and were haughty there was no repentance after the Lord had blessed them abundantly. So in this example we see that pride and arrogance in believing that they themselves actually achieved all they did by themselves and allowed no place for God. They eventually allowed every form of pleasure of the flesh and became great sinners. Not only did they do the sin but gave the approval to do it. Like the sin itself wasn’t bad enough the depravity of mind that set in gave approval to do the very thing that was detestable. Once approval is given then indignation takes over when it is called what it is sin. So we see this that they so lost their moral compass as to have no respect and fear of Gods messengers. How today do we see taking God out of every thing we do that we are starting to allow all forms of fleshly pleasure. when we are told explicitly not to. We have corrupt government and corporations controlling and allowing things that are wrong on so many levels morally and just not how to treat people and sin wise also We as Christians have not fought for the Country that God has given us and that was started with Christian values. That came to this country and wanted to worship and appreciate the God that saved us from all our sins and blesses those He loves. We are not the what they call us to intimidate us as sometimes like parents of a child you are thought of as mean and ugly till they get old enough to learn the benefit in doing what is right. This is how we need to be now telling our leaders that we don’t want this and standing for the blessings that come along with siding with God and not man. To stop the moral decay in our society like what happened to Sodom which is a lesson we should have learned

    August 16, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Elaine

      In Genesis 18, the story about the angels coming to Lot's house, we learn that the reason they were coming to destroy Sodom was because of the wickedness that ALREADY existed in the city. The exact form of wickedness is not mentioned in that story!

      Let's just reinforce this CRITICAL piece of information. In the story of Sodom, in Genesis 18, God had ALREADY decided to destroy the city BEFORE the attempted rape of the angels – which incidentally was perpetrated mainly by heterosexuals since ALL the men of the city were involved, and we know that throughout history, gays have only represented about 10% of the population. Also, if they were homosexuals, why would Lot suggest that they take his daughters instead? That just doesn't make sense if the men were gay.

      So just to get this straight, the event that took place at Sodom was an act of violence and rape, mainly by heterosexuals. It had nothing to do with a loving relationship between two people of the same sex, and homosexuality was NOT the sin of Sodom in whatever form. The story of Sodom in Genesis 18 was about violence and domination, the same type of event that takes place in prisons and occupied countries, but it was NOT the reason for God's decision to destroy the city, and to use this story as a basis for prejudice against homosexuality in general is like comparing rape to marriage. There is NO similarity!

      The aftermath of Sodom aside, let's take a look at other passages of Scripture that mention the sin of Sodom. Here are 14 references to Sodom and not one of them mentions homosexuality!!!!! The overwhelming themes are idolatry, immorality and inhospitality! To me, this indicates people like Bob and HeavenSent have taken things out of context!

      Deuteronomy 29:17-26 – the sin – idolatry and images to false gods – "Why has the Lord done this to the land? . . . It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord . . ."

      Deuteronomy 32:32-38 – the sin – idolatry – "He will say 'Now where are their gods?'"

      Isaiah 1:2-23 – the sin – idolatry, rebellion, injustice, murder, greed, theft, covetousness, mistreating the poor – "They have rebelled against Me."

      Isaiah 3:8-19 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance – "Their words and deeds are against the Lord, defying His glorious Presence"

      Jeremiah 23:10-14 – the sin – idolatry, adultery, lying by priests and prophets – "Both prophet and priest are godless. . . . They prophesied by Baal and led My people astray."

      Jeremiah 49:16-18 – the sin – idolatry, arrogance, oppression, pride of the heart – "The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived
      you. . ."

      Jeremiah 50:2-40 – the sin – idolatry, pride, false prophets – "Her images will be put to shame and her idols filled with terror. . . . . For she has defied the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. . . . . Their shepherds have led them astray."

      Lamentations 4:3-6 – the sin – cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor – "My people have become heartless."

      Ezekiel 16:49-50 – the sin – "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

      Amos 4:1-11 – the sin – idolatry, oppression, mistreating the poor – "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom . . . . yet you have not returned to Me."

      Zephaniah 2:8-11 – the sin – idolatry, pride, mocking – "This is what they will get in return for their pride, for insulting and mocking the people of the Lord Almighty. The Lord will be awesome to them when He destroys all the gods of the land."

      Luke 17:26-29 – Jesus speaking – No specific sins mentioned

      II Peter 2:1-22 – the sin – idolatry, living after ungodliness, lawlessness, arrogance, blaspheming, adultery, greed, corruption, depravity, boasting, lust – "But there were also false prophets among the people . . . . ."

      Jude 1:7-8 – the sin – sexual immorality and perversion, i.e fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1) KJV

      The dictionary defines "perversion" as "a sexual practice regarded as abnormal". That means that a heterosexual practicing homosexual acts is perverted as in the case of ALL the men of Sodom wanting to engage with the angels (strange flesh). However, since sex with the same gender is normal for a gay person, there is no perversion associated merely by the sexual act.

      Note also that, while the word "abomination" has been used with reference to homosexuality, the biblical interpretation of the word "abomination" relates to any act of uncleanness as set out in the Holiness Code, such as eating shellfish, trimming your hair, touching the skin of a dead pig (should we stone the entire NFL?), wearing clothes of two kinds of material (polyester/cotton) – the list is long. How can we discuss one sin to the exclusion of all others?

      This is an enormous subject, which has been reduced to simplistic values. It is plain and simple prejudice to portray homosexuals as immoral just because of the gender to whom we are attracted. Of course there are immoral homosexuals, just as there are immoral heterosexuals, but simple orientation carries no implication of morality or immorality.

      Our sexuality is God-given. God made us the way we are. It follows naturally that He loves us exactly the way He made us. So long as we embrace marriage with the same standards as any monogamous, loving heterosexual relationship there should be no barrier against us.

      When gays are only asking to have their loving relationships acknowledged and respected, why is there so much fear and anger? To strengthen marriage, why not take a stand against divorce and separation, instead of opposing love and commitment? Jesus spoke of divorce, but he never mentioned homosexuality. I believe that was because homosexuality was not even an issue in His day. Love was love. Love IS Love!

      "Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have."

      This letter only refers to the sin of Sodom. There are actually six "clobber verses" which are used against gays. Space does not permit an explanation of each one, but just as the sin of Sodom has been misrepresented, so have the other verses. There is an explanation for each one that clearly indicates that, just as slavery was condoned by Scripture for many years, ("Slaves obey your masters . . . . ." Eph. 6:5-8) and civil wars were fought to protect the ownership of people, we now know that Scripture was interpreted incorrectly, for God would not have people to be possessions.

      We now have a fuller understanding of Scripture with regard to slavery. It's time to accept a fuller understanding of homosexuality based on new research into language, concepts and customs when these words were written.

      So please choose acceptance and inclusiveness whether or not you understand fully. One of us is wrong. Many of you think it's me. I think it's you, based on solid research into Scripture from another perspective. Yes, God encourages us to question Scripture.

      "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF and instruction in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16

      If there is even a chance that I could be right, do you want to take the eternal risk of rejecting some of God's children, and slamming the doors of your churches to those of us who wish to enter? That's what you're doing when you treat us as less than yourselves simply based on our orientation.

      If we have done the research, and it is our understanding that God loves us, including our orientation, then why not just let God be the judge? He will be in the end anyway. If one of us is to err, why not err on the side of love and acceptance? Now that was truly Jesus' example!

      August 16, 2012 at 11:40 am |
  13. YeahRight

    "Which means that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a h0m0 couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would be discrimination."

    Your prejudice and bigotry is hysterical because the experts have already stated that social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being. – Duh!

    August 16, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  14. YeahRight

    "You can't stand on moral high ground when you take the Holy Bible and say that all passages prohibiting same-s@x coitus don't apply to you because this is 2012 and the shrinks tell me it is OK to tongue out the termination of the alimentary canal of my "partner".

    The whole thing is pathetic, but it is revealing to see these truths played out here in this forum so graphically by the GLBTQ apologists who have no shame."

    This is the ugliness of prejudice and hate toward a minority group, what a hypocrite. What's so stupid about this argument is straight couples have the same kind of sex.

    August 16, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  15. YeahRight

    "You can't stand on moral high ground when HIV infected gay men are under no legal obligation to warn their "partners" and acquaintances that they harbor and can easily transmit the disease through filthy and disgusting acts of depravity that would make a sailor blush."

    This is how stupid these people are, because straight people have HIV too and they have the same kind of sex gays do. LMAO! What a bunch of morons and such a stupid argument.

    August 16, 2012 at 10:41 am |
  16. YeahRight

    "To take it a step further, you notice that the GLBTQ apologists keep trying to hitch their wagon
    to the NAACP and Loving v. Virginia in an attempt to leverage off the legitimate civil rights legal struggles that
    blacks enagaged in over time. As General Colin Powell stated, it is a convenient tie but unfortunately inaccurate."

    Yo moron, the NAACP is already fighting for the rights of gays and lesbians because they know that ignorant people like you are trying to block their civil rights. Yes, marriage was defined as a civil right. Duh!

    These rights include:
    Tax Benefits
    -–Filing joint income tax returns with the I R S and state taxing authorities.
    -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
    Estate Planning Benefits
    -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
    -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
    Government Benefits
    -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    -–Receiving public assistance benefits.
    -–Employment Benefits
    -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
    -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
    Medical Benefits
    -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
    Death Benefits
    -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
    -–Making burial or other final arrangements.
    Family Benefits
    -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
    -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
    -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
    -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
    Housing Benefits
    -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
    -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
    Consumer Benefits
    -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
    -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
    -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
    -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
    -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
    -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
    -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
    -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
    -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

    August 16, 2012 at 10:39 am |
  17. John

    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.

    August 16, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  18. Erik

    Being gay is not a choice science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.

    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.

    Reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy or reorientation therapy, "counsels" LGBT persons to pray fervently and study Bible verses, often utilizing 12-step techniques that are used to treat sexual addictions or trauma. Such Christian councilors are pathologizing homosexuality, which is not a pathology but is a sexual orientation. Psychologically, that's very dangerous territory to tread on. All of the above-mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.

    In my home country, Norway, reparative therapy is officially considered to be ethical malpractice. But there are many countries that do not regulate the practice, and many others that remain largely silent and even passively supportive of it (such as the Philippines). Groups that operate such "therapy" in the Philippines are the Evangelical Bagong Pag-asa, and the Catholic Courage Philippines.

    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!"

    Take this interesting paragraph I found on an Evangelical website: "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" – meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are 'born that way.'"

    But that's not at all what it means, and it seems Evangelicals are plucking out stand-alone phrases from scientific reports and removing them from their context. This is known in academia as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Interestingly, this is also what they have a habit of doing with verses from the Bible.

    This idea of sexuality being a choice is such a bizarre notion to me as a man of science. Many of these reparative "therapists" are basing this concept on a random Bible verse or two. When you hold those up against the mountain of scientific research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and then peer-reviewed again, it absolutely holds no water. A person's sexuality – whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual – is a very deep biological piece of who that person is as an individual.

    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).

    Furthermore, 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.

    Having said that, in the realm of legal rights, partnership rights, and anti-discrimination protections, the gay gene vs. choice debate is actually quite irrelevant. Whether or not something is a choice is not a suitable criterion for whether someone should have equal rights and protections. Religion is indisputably a choice, but that fact is a not a valid argument for discriminating against a particular religion.

    August 16, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  19. YeahRight

    “Rather, it is an appeal for lawmakers to ignore those differences in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. “

    You are so clueless on the subject of prejudice and bigotry. So what you want to go back all allow people to call African American’s the n word. So you want to go back to the idea that women should be barefoot and pregnant. That is such a stupid argument, the laws are changing because this is about DISCRIMINATION!

    “It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past decisions. “

    Well….DUH – because this is about protecting the rights of a minority from prejudice bigots like you. Duh!

    “The anti discrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the anti discrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it.:

    This is one of the most stupid arguments, the laws come about because prejudice people like you want to oppress a minority group because of your hate and ignorance.

    “Hetero marriage partners will still be able to engage in inter course and procreate children; h0m0 partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by inter course inside or outside of marriage, The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of se intimate human relationships. If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences”

    The problem with your stupid argument is there are straight couples that produce children the same way gays do because they are infertile. If you use your lame argument for marriage definition than infertile straight couples should be denied a marriage license as well. DUH!!!!!!!! Oh and by the way that would represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.7 million women who should be denied marriage because of the infertility. LMAO! LOL!

    August 16, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Bob

      That may be but they can still have intercourse cant they or haven't you figured out which hole they use when bent over yet?

      August 17, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  20. Bob

    The answer they want is to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will of individuals, but here, you see, is the slight of hand. The appeal now being made for h0m0 marriage rights is not an appeal for lawmakers to reconsider past decisions about similarities and differences between hetero and h0m0 relationships. Rather, it is an appeal for lawmakers to ignore those differences in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past decisions. The anti discrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the anti discrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it. If h0m0 relationships are, in this manner, legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change. Hetero marriage partners will still be able to engage in inter course and procreate children; h0m0 partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by inter course inside or outside of marriage, The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of se intimate human relationships. If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences

    August 15, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Translation of Boob's post: blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!! blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!! blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!blah, glad, bah, blah, BLAH BLAH, Boomerang!!! Boomerang::: Blah, blah, gay agenda, glah, blah, blah BLAH!!! God, god, god!!! Leviticus!!! ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!! Gay fay haybray bay dayraynayGAY@@@@@ Jay gay, me gay, I'm gay!!!! Yay!!!! WHEEEEEE!!! SIN!!! Win Sin! Bin 33, please. Hetero, gay sod. Gay!!! I'm GAY!!!! YAY!!!!

      August 15, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Douglas

      Bob,

      Brilliant analysis.
      To take it a step further, you notice that the GLBTQ apologists keep trying to hitch their wagon
      to the NAACP and Loving v. Virginia in an attempt to leverage off the legitimate civil rights legal struggles that
      blacks enagaged in over time. As General Colin Powell stated, it is a convenient tie but unfortunately inaccurate.

      You see, you can't stand on moral high ground when you have NAMBLA marching with you in your "Pride Parade".
      NOTE: After NAMBLA was exposed, the GLBTQ Pride parade people asked them to keep low key, sort of like the crazy uncle you keep under wraps so nobody knows it runs in the family.

      You can't stand on moral high ground when HIV infected gay men are under no legal obligation to warn their "partners" and acquaintances that they harbor and can easily transmit the disease through filthy and disgusting acts of depravity that would make a sailor blush.

      You can't stand on moral high ground when you take the Holy Bible and say that all passages prohibiting same-s@x coitus don't apply to you because this is 2012 and the shrinks tell me it is OK to tongue out the termination of the alimentary canal of my "partner".

      The whole thing is pathetic, but it is revealing to see these truths played out here in this forum so graphically by the GLBTQ apologists who have no shame.

      Great work Bob. You remain the heavyweight champ in this forum. It is time for the GLBTQ apologists to take their marbles and go home.

      Best, Douglas

      August 16, 2012 at 1:08 am |
    • Bob

      Officials will be required to recognize as a marriage any fleshly Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for deciding legally between a hetero union and a h0m0 relationship. Which means that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a h0m0 couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would be discrimination. And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners comes to the courts or to the marriage bureau to ask that their fleshly active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds to reject the requests. Because it would be now unjust to recognize hetero marriage as something exclusive and different from h0m0 relationships, then it will be unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their fleshly intimate relationships marriage. This is being coupled with the lowering of the age of consent to 12 so you will in essence be able to marry and have intercourse with children. This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda to change the very fabric of society to allow any form of fleshly expression.

      August 16, 2012 at 7:41 am |
    • YeahRight

      "You can't stand on moral high ground when you take the Holy Bible and say that all passages prohibiting same-s@x coitus don't apply to you because this is 2012 and the shrinks tell me it is OK to tongue out the termination of the alimentary canal of my "partner".

      The whole thing is pathetic, but it is revealing to see these truths played out here in this forum so graphically by the GLBTQ apologists who have no shame."

      This is the ugliness of prejudice and hate toward a minority group, what a hypocrite. What's so stupid about this argument is straight couples have the same kind of sex. Duh!

      August 16, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Which means that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a h0m0 couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would be discrimination."

      Your prejudice and bigotry is hysterical because the experts have already stated that social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      August 16, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Because it would be now unjust to recognize hetero marriage as something exclusive and different from h0m0 relationships, then it will be unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their fleshly intimate relationships marriage."

      Prejudice stupid people use to say the same thing when whites where trying to marry African Americans. We all know that their prejudice and hatred weren't based on any real facts. Exactly the same issue with Bob here, so understand when you read his posts why prejudice like is so WRONG and bad for our society.

      August 16, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • YeahRight

      "This is being coupled with the lowering of the age of consent to 12 so you will in essence be able to marry and have intercourse with children. This is the ultimate goal of the gay agenda to change the very fabric of society to allow any form of fleshly expression."

      The is totally made up crap and not based on any real facts. It's hysterical that this poster doesn't even know the difference in definition between a gay person and a pedophile. Maybe Bob you should ask a Catholic priest what the definition is. LMAO! LOL! LOL!

      August 16, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Bob

      The difference between a gay person and a ped is age and fleshly preference. Black is a color I don't know if you know this since you didn't know about the wife or gay bent over which hole would be used and intercourse is different than color. Now this is a professional so Doc Loren Marks found much of the studies by the APA were convenience samples and cannot draw a conclusion in regards to gay parenting and the Mark Regenerus study while some said was flawed is not so flawed after all. Again gays attacked it violently like usual and it does not paint a good picture of gay parents. From what I have personally seen of people who had gay parents its not so good either.

      August 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Yeahright

      "Doc Loren Marks found much of the studies by the APA were convenience samples and cannot draw a conclusion in regards to gay parenting and the Mark Regenerus study while some said was flawed is not so flawed after all. Again gays attacked it violently like usual and it does not paint a good picture of gay parents. F"

      LMAO – the APA is made up of over hundred thousands experts and they are the ones the proved recently that the studies you're trying to use are bogus! Which is why they stated social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      Notice the prejudice and bigotry part Bob – that means uneducated fools like you!

      August 17, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Yeahright

      "The difference between a gay person and a ped is age and fleshly preference. Black is a color I don't know if you know this since you didn't know about the wife or gay bent over which hole would be used and intercourse is different than color. "

      Poor Bob is getting desperate because he's clueless about marriage being a civil right which is why even the NAACP is now joined the fight for gay rights. Again Bob get an education and learn the difference between a pedophile and a gay person. To have sex with someone under the age of consent is a strict liability crime (in most states) known as statutory rape. It is often referred to by other names such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct with a child, etc.

      The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

      The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual. The debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment.

      August 17, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Bob

      Yeah s is a liar and fraud not to mention atheist, I have explained in the past and a fact that you have not refuted that the APA description of what it considers a illness has changed not that gays diagnosis has changed and the definition is that if you don't have a problem being gay then there is no problem. Also there have been no studies either that can refute the old studies that you say are biased but prove H0m0 s have quite a few problems.

      August 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Also there have been no studies either that can refute the old studies that you say are biased but prove H0m0 s have quite a few problems."

      Again you are lying. 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."

      August 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Bob

      That is the same warmed over reposted garbage that you always post. It has no validity and I answered that above so
      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 h0m0 is not normal and have not done any new tests to indicate the extent of the illness. It can be changed by therapy. They all work off the definition in the DSM which has lowered gays off it being a mental illness not by any new tests but by the decision of one Physc to make a social statement. All these organizations have been in decline.

      August 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "have all taken the position that h0m0 is not normal and have not done any new tests to indicate the extent of the illness. It can be changed by therapy. They all work off the definition in the DSM which has lowered gays off it being a mental illness not by any new tests but by the decision of one Physc to make a social statement. All these organizations have been in decline."

      Thanks for showing your poor reading comprehension once again. 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.

      It's based on decades of research moron. LMAO! LOL!

      August 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Bob

      Actually Yeah you are really a ass my reading comprehension has nothing to do with it you have reprinted that line no less than 100 times. You are a utter waste of time and must be a kid because you have no reasoning or communication skills and always fall back to reposts.

      August 17, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      YeahRight, here's Reality's post:

      Reality

      Only for the new members of this blog:

      Moving out of the Dark Ages into the 21st century.

      o "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

      To wit:

      1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

      “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

      2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

      3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

      And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.

      To wit:

      From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.

      Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.
      As noted, there are basic biological differences in gay unions vs. heterose-xual marriage. Government benefits are the same in both but making the distinction is important for census data and for social responses with respect to potential issues with disease, divorce and family interactions.

      August 17, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      HeavenSent

      spec·u·la·tion    [spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA noun

      1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
      2. a single instance or process of consideration.
      3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
      4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
      5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.

      August 18, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Actually Yeah you are really a ass my reading comprehension has nothing to do with it you have reprinted that line no less than 100 times. You are a utter waste of time and must be a kid because you have no reasoning or communication skills and always fall back to reposts."

      That's why you've re-posted your lies over and over again that aren't based on any real facts. You post the lies and propaganda from well known hate sites, they are classified as hate site because their reports have been proven false, which is why all the experts came together to denounce it. Duh! That prove my case of your poor reading comprehension skills. DUH! LOL!

      August 19, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • YeahRight

      "And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages."

      Yo, moron this is about civil rights. LMAO! Now be a good moron and go look it up.

      August 19, 2012 at 8:25 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

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.