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

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage

Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

By Mark Osler, Special to CNN

I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.

My Take: Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!

I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.

The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.

I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.

It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.

The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Episcopal • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (15,115 Responses)
  1. Bob

    Just-ice William Rehnquist made an complete study of the history of the First Amen-d. In his dissent he stated There is simply no historical basis for the idea that the Framers intended to build the wall of sep-ar-a-tion that was con-st-it-tion-al-ized in Everson But the greatest injury of the wall notion is its mis-chi-e-vous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights No amount of rep-eti-tion of historical errors in judi-cial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of sep-ar-ation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'

    December 6, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • mama k

      Regardless of Rehnquist's "study" and dissent, it's hard to face what the key framers wrote regarding their intent for the Constitution and its 1st Amendment, Bobby:

      Jefferson – I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

      Madison – The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

      Madison – Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

      December 6, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • Observer

      Bob,

      Get serious. The mostly religious group of our forefathers had the unique opportunity to create the best possible government from scratch.

      They chose to keep religion separated from government. FACT.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
  2. James

    "Just remember there is no justification for gay marriage in the Bible"

    The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

    December 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
  3. YeahRight

    " Bill of Rights,"

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

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

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

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

    December 6, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  4. Bob

    Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Dec- la- ration of In-de-pen-dence and the Con-sti-tu-tion. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."

    December 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Running away from another thread I see. Boy you really are a useless poster.

      December 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Bob

      Personally I think the only one is useless is you but what is it you want me to address?

      December 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      How about your inability to actually post anything relevant. The fact that your bible has nothing to do with our laws, your posting earlier of a debunked study and throwing out a conspiracy theory claim about peer reviewing, your irrelevant and insulting post about my parenting, your cut and paste from my blog which had nothing to do with anything. Look back and you will see I and others have refuted your bullshit many times, yet you keep posting it.

      December 6, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Observer

      Bob,

      In 1950 Florida was heavy into segregation. Try again.

      "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….”
      — Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
      "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
      — Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate with many members who were founders of the U.S. and signed into law by President John Adams

      December 6, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Bob

      Just-ice William Rehnquist made an complete study of the history of the First Amen-d. In his dissent he stated There is simply no historical basis for the idea that the Framers intended to build the wall of sep-ar-a-tion that was con-st-it-tion-al-ized in Everson But the greatest injury of the wall notion is its mis-chi-e-vous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights No amount of rep-eti-tion of historical errors in judi-cial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of sep-ar-ation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned

      December 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      So I guess that First Amendment thing was just an accident then?

      December 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • mama k

      Regardless of Rehnquist's "study" and dissent, it's hard to face what the key framers wrote regarding their intent for the Constitution and its 1st Amendment, Bobby:

      Jefferson – I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

      Madison – The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

      Madison – Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

      December 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Bob

      Just for you Hawii I have refuted quite a few and if you look above you will see another post about the courts that is relevant to today. If you don't like it tuff I don't really care. In the earlier post I was giving you something that I knew that God does put the desire to know Him in each one of us. I know you disagree but that is from my experience which you have no idea of. I was interested to learn about you as you insulted me and see who could be so caustic and foolish and just clicked on your name. I just read and shook my head at your so many wrong ides about God. I could see why you would think as you do. As for your parenting I never was commenting on your parenting, but had to say that at 4 years old my child knew from me about the planets,God, santa and while you were proclaiming your atheism teaching a kid that the moon is the king, at 4 years old will meet other kids and will learn through some the true story of the universe. That is a fact kids are cruel and while its great to enjoy children in innocence giving them a basic understanding so that they don't get laughed at is more important. Your bigotry has caused you to not see some things. I really wasn't sure if this story was you or not the way you put it, it sounded like someone else, but I guess it was you after all. I was called on this by weight the closest thing on this board to gay.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hysterical. I cannot stop laughing. Bob believes he's "refuted" something.

      What a pea-brain.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Hell, I'll be impressed when Bob writes something even slightly coherent. Chad's arguments may be dumb as fvck, but at least they're semi-cogent.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Apparently, playing pigeon chess wasn't sufficient for our resident jack-of-all-knowledge, master of none. He has now devolved into pigeon limbo chess. How looooowwwwww can you go ?

      December 6, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      You have just proven you don't pay attention at all. Look at my blog, at the top I quite clearly state that the list was not mine, nor made by me, and gave proper credit to who did write it you moronic piece of shit. You have refuted nothing, but have been shown over and over and over that you don't know what your talking about in law, nor in history. You ignore when you get refuted, you run from posts, and even when you do read something, you don't even comprehend what you're reading.
      Case in point, in your response, you do not address the fact you've been here for 7 months, and have been refuted multiple times. You do not address the rebuked study you cited earlier today and your conspiracy theory claim. You focus on what you perceive you can weasel around, and ignore everything else. You continue to make claims about god and whatever else with the only evidence being "because I said so". Fuck your dishonesty, fuck your gleeful, willing ignorance, fuck your bible, and even if your god exists, fuck him to.
      I'm out. Bob isn't even worth what time I've given him so far.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Bob

      So Hawii if you knew all this and the blog you wrote was indeed someone else why all the cursing and upsetment maybe its not someone else? A simple its not me would have done the trick. Another dramatic atheist exits stage right. Good reddens don't let the door hit you in the butt.

      December 6, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Reddens"? Jesus fvcking Christ on a cra cker. You can't even spell "Hawaii," you stupid git.

      December 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • mama k

      LOL @Tom – crackerin' me up.

      December 7, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
  5. Bob

    Just remember there is no justification for gay marriage in the Bible

    December 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      More reason to be in favor of gay marriage, then.

      December 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Just remember, Boob, gay marriage doesn't need to be justified by your bible to be legal.

      December 6, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • mama k

      Yes, Tom, and I just saw on the evening news about the first marriage licenses rolling out in Maryland already today!

      December 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
  6. John

    "Try finding an example in Scripture where God joins male + male or female + female in a marriage setting. You won't."

    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.

    December 6, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  7. ImLook'nUp

    Try finding an example in Scripture where God joins male + male or female + female in a marriage setting. You won't.

    That fact alone stands as a truth-be-told if there ever was one.

    December 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Too bad for you that our laws are not taken from the bible. Good thing to otherwise we'd have to stone a lot of people.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I didn't see god using an iPad either...guess I'd better trash that.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Primewonk

      And yet, in your holy bible that is god-breathed, he commands his loyal trusty followers – such as yourself – to go and murder gay folks. I don't see many of you doing this. Why?

      December 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Try finding a reference to the bible as law of the land in our constitution. Bet you won't find one.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @ImLook'nUp,
      So... polygamy, incest, and slavery are okay then, right?

      December 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
  8. YeahRight

    " the real truth"

    You don't know what the real truth is, that's the point. You've posted bogus reports after bogus reports from well know hate group and you lie over and over 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. 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."

    December 6, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
  9. Bob

    K is the Quintessential bigot and hater that relies on id driven ego rather than reality. She wants to change the world come hell or high water and she wants to do that by destroying all that came before as if she is the point of start for all that is. She is not afraid to defame all the ones that came before and there is no respect for anyone who fought and the reasons they did what they did. They lie about the Bible they lie about the country they lie about anything that buys them more koolaid drinkers. The only thing constant is change but change brought about by denying and disrespecting all that came before is evil and creates resentment and division. Welcome what is and what came before honor it and know how great a sacrifice was made and the real truth then with head held high let your ideas be made known.

    December 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      LOL That coming from the useless fuck that runs from every post he makes once called out on your dishonest stupidity. Find a life you moronic religious fucktard.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      K is the Quintessential bigot and hater that relies on id driven ego rather than reality. She wants to change the world come hell or high water and she wants to do that by destroying all that came before as if she is the point of start for all that is.

      We all want to change the world, Bob. Including you. You want to shove an entire 10% of the population back into a dark, dangerous place where they are denied basic civil rights merely because you find the idea of their love to be icky.

      I'm also curious how you think that quoting those who built our country is "destroying all that came before". If anything, she's preserving what came before.

      She is not afraid to defame all the ones that came before and there is no respect for anyone who fought and the reasons they did what they did.

      I have not found mamaK's posts to be disrespectful. I can not say the same for you or many other posters here...and to be fair, I haven't read everything she's posted. However, simply supplies quotes from founding fathers is not lack of respect.

      They lie about the Bible they lie about the country they lie about anything that buys them more koolaid drinkers.

      Okay. Slow down now. Who is "they"? Last I knew we were talking about one specific poster.

      The only thing constant is change but change brought about by denying and disrespecting all that came before is evil and creates resentment and division.

      Change is change. It will almost always create resentment and division, at least at first. This is simply the nature of change and humanity. It isn't evil. No one is denying or disrespecting what came before. The society that doesn't change with the people who inhabit it will stagnate and die.

      Welcome what is and what came before honor it and know how great a sacrifice was made and the real truth then with head held high let your ideas be made known.

      What is? The changing attitude toward LGBT folks is. There is no denying that. What came before? The battle to establish the freedom we enjoy? None of us deny that. We're only taking that battle the next step.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bob

      Hawii You have a 4 year old daughter what a shame that she will have to learn the truth from someone else. But just a few points we are born with a desire to know God so you are wrong again and I realize that you are upset at my post but you need to embrace it, you cannot change for the better in denying the truth that this post applies to you as well as K. and I just wanted you to know I wont hold your lack of intelligence and mean spirited words effect the way I feel about you

      December 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      Don't you fucking dare question my parenting or bring my daughter into this you piece of shit. You know nothing about my personal life, or how I conduct myself with my daughter.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      Your condescending bullshit merely shows how little you can defend your own fucked up ad nauseum assertions.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Bob

      Wow you make your life public and then have remorse or worry that someone may comment on the lack of parenting skills you have. I don't have to question that it already shows in the post you put up but like anyone telling their kids stories like Santa and such they all find the truth. why would you hold your child back if you love them?

      December 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      I'm telling you for the last time. You leave my daughter and my parenting out of this. If you're so fucking pathetic and unable to back up anything you say to where you need to bring up those things for which you know nothing about, then you're worse off than I thought. All I can say is, you wouldn't have the fucking balls to say this to my face you cowardly, ignorant little fuck.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Bob

      Wow I am impressed hawaii another great character witness for the atheists.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      Whatever you say Bob. You're the one that needs to bring up something completely irrelvant in order to attempt and mask your complete inability to back up your comments. Keep showing your complete fucking stupidity, it only helps those of us fighting against your bigoted, hateful idiocy.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Bob, while I realize that Hawaii's response on your comment was not pleasant, you have no business bringing his daughter into the conversation.

      You can not seem to actually argue your points with anyone who takes the time to respond to you with rational discourse. You also seem to have an unhealthy fixation on atheists, beyond your unhealthy obsession with gay people. This might be indicative of an attempt to mask your own doubts about your faith, or it could be indicative of something much more serious.

      If I may, you may benefit from an activity I ask those who come to me for spiritual guidance to complete.

      Spend some time in quiet meditation with yourself. Ask yourself these questions: What do I believe is true beyond a shadow of a doubt? Why? What do I believe is not true beyond a shadow of a doubt? Why?

      This isn't a quick process. When I first did it, it took me six months to be fully honest with myself and write these things down. Now, I revisit it regularly. It changes as I do.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Bob

      Weight There are no gays on this board only atheists and Christians, why do you not see that? This is not a battle for gay marriage and what the Bible says this is a battle to take any kind of God out of the US. So you may have to rethink your idea. If you look at the original post above you will note that its one mans idea that the Bible supports gay marriage, do you really think atheists know what the Bible says or are they just pulling things from what others say? They are not going to be convinced by anything I say they are only here to bludgeon. I also would like you to look at this post this post who do you think wrote it? Do I not have the right to address some of the misconceptions?
      Ok, so this is my first post, and I want this to be a very casual blog. So I decided to throw out a list I found by David Smalley on his Dogma Debate site, and see what happens.1. If we truly had one creator speaking to prophets, it would do so consistently, not contradictory as thousands of different religions have proven.2. Living by the means of man helping man, and realizing time on earth is not a practice run, creates an urgency of life that requires fulfilling.3. I asked my four-year-old daughter where the stars came from. She confidently said “The moon made them.” I followed by asking “Then where did the moon come from?” She strongly asserted “Daddy, the moon is the boss. Nobody made the moon.” This is an unmistakably familiar mindset; and rightfully embarrassing for an adult to hold such similar thought.4. Demeter, Jesus, Apollo, Horus, Zeus, Mithra, Yahweh, Tammuz, Ganesha, and Allah are only 10 of the thousands of gods recorded in history. An Atheist is not one that refuses to read religious doctrine; it is often one who reads too many.5. In the technicalities of most religions, there is no difference between a believer that dies before having time to repent, and a nonbeliever that rejected the doctrine altogether.6. If the Christian god created humans as sinners, how could it rightfully expect us to believe the corrupt messengers it has sent to teach us the way of life?7. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?” – Epicurus 8. All babies are Atheists. Religions are taught depending on the location and era in which you are raised. Being born in the U.S. in 1974 does not make you right, it most likely just makes you another Christian. That’s no better or worse than the person born in Tibet in 1955, who proudly worships the Dalai Lama.

      December 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  10. mama k

    Bob, Douglas and lol?? are perfect examples of the bigoted side of Christianity. They are the kind of extremists that claim that the U.S. was founded on Christianity and the Bible. Not true at all. One of the main reasons it is not is precisely because of Christian confrontation between different kinds of Christians – extremists verses moderates, those whose tenets widely vary, those who interpret their conflicted Bible differently. The U.S. is not a theocracy and it was not founded on Christianity nor the Bible. God nor Christ are mentioned in the Constitution that we live by. If one listens to the words of our key founders reflecting on our government, we more and more hear a call for moderation for Christians. We hear more and more the influence of Deism on the key founders, who were fed up with the persecution between various Christians sects that was going on at the time.

    Listen to James Madison, POTUS #4, and the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution:

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    (A Remonstrance . . to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785.)

    Listen to John Adams, POTUS #2:

    I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. "

    (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 09/03/1816)

    The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

    Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

    (from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])

    Listen to Ben Franklin:

    Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

    (from his Autobiography)

    Thomas Paine was very Deistic. He witness Quakers being hung in Massachusetts by other Christians:

    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

    Thomas Jefferson had his own Deistic version of the Bible.

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    (from Notes on the State of Virginia)

    Of course Deism holds to the belief of God as the creator of the universe. But many Deists also believed that God did not interfere with the lives of his creation. And many Deists disbelieved in all of the "magic" in the Bible – some of them refuting the Bible and Christianity completely.

    Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Paine, Mason & Madison all witnessed violent persecution between Christian sects in their home states around the time the government was being established. So it is of no surprise that they needed a secular government and they knew the only way to enforce freedom of religion was to keep religion out of the government as much as possible.

    Listen to James Madison speak about the need for the need to keep religion out of government (Jefferson wasn't the only one to explicitly speak of the separation of church and state):

    Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

    The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

    (from letters to Edward Livingston and Robert Walsh)

    Madison as president vetoed two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state. He also came to oppose the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom. (Library of Congress – James Madison Papers – Detached memorandum, ca. 1823.)

    President John Adams and the U.S. Senate on behalf of the U.S.

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

    (from Article 11 of the U.S. treaty ratified with Tripoli in 1797)

    Senator John F Kennedy said on Sept. 12, 1960, just prior to his winning the Presidential election:

    I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.

    December 6, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • lol??

      Isn't bigoted, as used by you, naughty? Your dad failed. Please stop educating me with small samples. Don't you have some studies from say, 233,666 years ago for a flourishing gay community? That,i'll look at.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • lol??

      See, that would be before all these gmen quotes you give us. Let's see some data from before this current corruption by man.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • mama k

      loll? – "Let's see some data from before this current corruption by man."

      In the U.S. we don't live by data from before the Constitution. My quotes give insight into the views of the key founders on religion and on the Constitution that we live by today.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • lol??

      Wrong mama k. In roe v wade the court looked at and opined:"........This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath's apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics..........."

      December 7, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That's not "data."

      December 7, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • lol??

      Your opinion is data.

      December 7, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, it isn't.

      December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • lol??

      data from webster:something given or admitted especially as a basis for reasoning or inference

      December 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • lol??

      But that won't fly with you because it's preconst itutional, just like mama kremlin. Origin of DATUM

      Latin, from neuter of datus
      First Known Use: 1646

      December 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It doesn't fly because you're full of sh!t.

      Better luck next time.

      December 7, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • lol??

      A very narrow opinion, at that! With two minds I thought you could do better than that unless, of course, you're a serial killer.

      December 7, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't "think" at all.

      December 7, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • mama k

      well, lol??, I'll be content to know how much weight is given in future rulings based on the Constitution and its authors verses whatever was before that. Get ready for repeal of DOMA, lol?? Let's see how well you handle that, idiot.

      December 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
  11. YeahRight

    "It was more of a emotional decision put out by one phsych that was harassed by gays just the same as in 73."

    More lies and false reports by the hateful troll Bob. The experts TODAY have stated that heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

    Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

    Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

    A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

    Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

    December 6, 2012 at 11:25 am |
  12. Bob

    For a mental condition to be considered a disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social functioning. many h0m0 are quite satisfied with their orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. The only way that h0m0 could therefore be considered a psy disorder would be the criteria of failure to function hetero, which is considered optimal in our society and by many of our members
    If h0m0 per se does not meet the criteria for a psy disorder, what is it? Descriptively, it is one form of se- behavior. Our profession need not now agree on its origin, significance, and value for human happiness when we acknowledge that by itself it does not meet the requirements for a psy disorder. Similarly, by no longer listing it as a psy disorder we are not saying that it is "normal" or as valuable as hetero. H0m0: Proposed Change in DSM-11, The APA So who is the liar right out of the DSM and exactly what was said. this will also apply to peds and other members that the apa cannot decide about either. So there was no research because what would you research this decision was a emotional decision based on pure emotions and not much if any scientific data.

    December 6, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Bob

      No research was done it discounted years of real research and this is what the DSM says. It was more of a emotional decision put out by one phsych that was harassed by gays just the same as in 73.

      December 6, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • myweightinwords

      You keep quoting stuff from 1973, as if there aren't nearly 40 years between then and now in which there has been research and validation of the decision.

      "Normal" is defined by the society and more and more society is including homosexuality as normal.

      December 6, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bob
      Your're omitting some important factors in the evolution of psychiatry that prompted the removal of hom/o/se/xuality from the DSM.
      By the mid 20th century, a number of important papers were being published about human se.xuality.
      Dr. Evelyn Ho.oker noticed that there was an issue with the patient selection in prior studies about gays in that only people who were in jail, mental hospitals, had been discharged from the army or who had sought treatment for being gay were being counted. In other words, only those ho/mose/xuals who themselves felt mentally ill were considered as patient models.
      She administered psychological tests to 30 gay men who had never sought therapy, as well as 30 heterose.xuals who were matched for comparable age, IQ, and education. The disguised results were then given to three experienced psychiatrists who were asked to find the gays. They were unable to distinguish between the two groups, and categorized two-thirds of both groups as “perfectly well-adjusted, normally functioning human beings.”

      Then there was the infamous Kinsey report in which Dr. Alfred Kinsey discovered that fully 37% of American men had gay se/xual experiences, in which case the behaviour would be too common to label "deviant".

      Freudian psychoan/alysis says that gay men are gay because of a combination of what overprotective women who made their children weak and feminine and detached, rejecting fathers, but psychiatry has moved further and further away from the old model of thinking.
      Next year will mark the release of DSM V in which I'm sure there will be numerous changes as compared to IV.
      That isn't because of some kind of political conspiracy – it is becuase the field of psychiatry, like all medicine, is advancing and adjusting their theories and approaches as new data is found.

      December 6, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Bob

      Thats the real point studies cost money NO ONE has invested the money to really find the truth. The Regen study was one of the first that was funded. The studies from years ago were funded and were good but thrown away by the early gay agenda but they were never proven to be false just discounted because they were not in keeping with the way that the gay agenda wanted to be perceived. What we see in the Castro is normal for most gays, but this is not normal for society. We do move on but the phsyc community has fallen on their face and only now because of drugs been propped up to mean anything.

      December 6, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bob
      Never heard of this "Regen Study" – have you got a link/reference of some kind?
      Or maybe to the other, unnamed studies to which you are referring?

      December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Bob

      Doc I know both of these studies and they do not represent a real attempt to qualify anything. Without going into the particulars both had limited size, selected people and the list goes on. I would not say that its a advance as much as a retreat, I only say this because there are really no studies that measure up on both sides and the real reason gays came off the DSM was a emotional decision and then the weak support as to why came later. I only say this as a matter of disappointment in physcs because with the proper funding and study this whole topic could have been put to rest. The fact that in the DSM to be released next year will reclassify them again along with many more changes for other maladies. Its going to be interesting for sure and they are not letting on yet as to what the changes are. I know that much falls into the drugs and who can get what which was a major concern for quite a few people as well as insurance companies.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Bob

      Doc I know you already know the study I had to cut short the spelling because I thought it was stopping me from posting. Mark Regnerus study which has much controversy but it comes with some interesting conclusions.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      Still being a worthless, useless posted Bob? You tried this Mark Regnerus study idiocy last month, and got smacked down when shown that the questions and methodology was all fucked up, and this fucktards study is currently only backed by the University of Texas (yes the same college wanting to give credence to diploma mills). Of course the study will come with the results you want when he calssifies someone as being raised in a same sex home when there is a SINGLE INSTANCE of same sex extramarital encounter on the parents side.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Bob

      It has been unprecedented in studies like this to have them so scrutinized to the point of almost running it by investigation into the results, but the atheist community is so bent on destroying anything that disproves their intent that they have spent much time and effort to try and discredit the study. No gay study has ever been scrutinized this way and if it was wouldn't hold water either.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      Oh yes because Peer Review is such a new thing. Get over it Bob, the study is worthless, and conspiracy bullshit shows how fucking moronic you really are.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bob
      Peer review is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
      It is how fraudulent studies, like Piltdown man, are found and debunked.
      The American Medial Association and the American Sociological Association both say that Regenerus' methodology was flawed.
      If a child is not raised significantly or solely by a gay/lesbian couple, I don't understand how their case qualifies for inclusion in the study.
      A woman who possibly, in the opinion of her child, had a fling counts? There should have been a domicile standard. The cause and effect here is dubious without some reasonable certainty that the couple had an influence on the child for a sizable part of his/her upbringing. I don't see the science here at all with such a low, arbitrary categorization of gay parenting

      December 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Bob

      hawaii sometimes facts are stranger than fiction.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Bob

      So you're sticking to an unfounded assertion that all of a sudden this is the only study that is peer reviewed? Wow Bob, that's just fucking stupid.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bob
      Concerns about the sample bias in the Kinsey report were addressed in 1979 in the paper "The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938–1963 Interviews Conducted by the Inst.itute for S.ex Research"
      None of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by the perceived volunteer selection bias.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest or Doc
      I do not understand why on this site ho-mo$exual acts are continually touted as “normal” $exual behavior. What am I missing in the understanding of the word normal? Such acts are certainly well outside of 2 standard deviations from the norm and would be called abnormal for any other act, condition or position.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "Hômosèxual acts? Seriously?

      50% of us straights have or have had anal sèx. 80% of us straights have oral sèx. Are the gay folks doing something we aren't?

      If 80% of us are committing "sodomy', how, exactly is that two standard deviations from the norm? By definition, sodomy would be the norm.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Frank
      Do you consider left-handedness to be abnormal?
      If you do consider it abnormal, do you think it something that has to be corrected?
      I can quote scripture to support a biblical condemnation of left handed people, like Ecclesiastes 10:2 and Psalm 118 v15.
      Should that factor into a consideration of "normalcy"?
      Bear in mind that the percentage of people who are left handed roughly coincides with the number of folk who are gay.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Money is God

      Fred
      You should go have $ex with Norm, then you can describe how you accomplished it afterward.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And where are your statistics that show that same sex orientation is outside of the two standard deviations which, from a statistical standpoint, (and ignoring that same sex orientation occurs outside of the human species) would make it "abnormal".

      December 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      I would add that Ho.mose.xuality is in the normal spectrum of human behaviors, even if it is a small percentage of the total.

      December 6, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      God sets the moral standards so one standard deviation is to reject God and another standard deviation is sodomy. …….
      Ok, just pulling your chain

      Anything outside normal 95.4% typical bell curve spread from the mean is two sigma or two standard deviations from the norm. Ho-mo$exual orientation accounts for 2-4% of the standard population

      December 6, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Where are your % from, what is the sample size, methodology, etc.? (Here's a hint: If the sample size isn't the entire population, then you cannot say that 3-5% is wholly accurate and irrefutable.)

      December 6, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Fred, OK, on your definition I would give that being 100% self-declared ho'mose'xual is not normal. On the other hand, since 20% of males have had some voluntary se'xual contact with other males, that is normal as is attraction to both se'xes and teenage experimentation. Whatever...I'm not hung up on normal. If you bash or bannish the abnormal you bash and banish genius and creativity and parts of society that may fill gaps and needs not met elsewhere as well as the new and budding elements of progress. "Normal" is a bad word and shouldn't even be part of the discussion on either side.

      What matters is what is good or harmful to society. That has nothing at all to do with "normal".

      December 6, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • fred

      Doc
      No wonder hom-ophobia abounds, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing!
      I would dispute the percentage of left handedness being in the area of orientation. While there may be close to 10% of the population that have had one or more gay experiences this is not orientation. Interesting that we really do not know that number and the best estimate is 2-10%.
      Either way I understand your point and the left hand example is good. It is normal for 10% of the population to be left handed but lefthandness is not normal …..correct? By extension it is normal for 2-10% of the population to exhibit gay orientation but gay orientation is not normal.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      I'm not a mathematician, but I think "standard deviation" is dependent on the population of data points. It is a function of how tight, or close to the mean, the data points are.
      If you consider the data points of how many people have ever had a ho.mos.exual "experience", depending on how that's defined, I would bet that the standard deviation would be much larger than 2-4%.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Correction: 2-4%.
      Also, as you seem to have not addressed this, this is from specifically a statistical standpoint, and ignores the psychological standpoint that it is a normal human trait (as classified by the APA), which doesn't depend on prevalence. Basically, your argument is an argument ad populum.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • fred

      Hawaiiguest
      We are never going to get a good number on what percentage of the population has a gay orientation. You cannot do it by survey because we do not know the lie or fudge factor (no pun intended) that drives the responder. In short I see numbers from 2-10% and you have also. It is a hot topic and too many people have a dog in the fight to get a real number.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      Agreed, I have seen numbers that are in the 15% catagory when we inculde your component.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And yet you take the 2-4% number and run with it because it helps you. I could just as easily take the higher percentage surveys and use it to make a point that it is within the 2 standard deviation.
      Also, why aren't you addressing my other points?

      December 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • fred

      Saraswati
      You are right, no good can come from looking at left handedness or gay orientation as normal or not normal. My main concern is that I do not want to promote any behavior that is harmful. Based on my personal experience and volunteer work in recovery programs weak individuals fall into high risk behavior and represent a vulnerable segment of our society. I agree with your point on the implications of the word normal but I also do not want to provide ammunition that could harm the vulnerable (i.e. make all sorts of behavior appear good, fun, applauded and typical.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Fred, I do think this is a case, though, where we need to take the tough road and ask in each case if the activity is harmful, neutral or beneficial to the individual and society. Using shortcuts like "normal" or "natural" or common sense" is only going to get us into trouble.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Wow talk about condescending. So your contention is that if people approve of homosexuality, then peopl who go through bad things and are vulnerable will turn gay. No wonder you're not addressing my other points.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "any behavior that is harmful. "

      Having a loving long term relationship is not harmful. Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

      Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

      A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

      Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

      December 6, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      Perhaps I wasn't clear, I disagree with using a statistical function, such as standard deviation, to determine a standard of deviancy.
      As other's pointed out, e.g. left-handedness, behavior outside of a standard deviation statistic is not mean the behavior is not normal or abnormal. Otherwise, driving on the left side of the road would be deviant behavior or sneezing in bright lights or liking Brussels sprouts or etc.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • fred

      Hawaiiguest
      I was not addressing what the APA calls a "normal trait" because that was a political reclassification. The APA wants to define a normal trait as something that is not harmful to the individual that is their business. A Ho-mo$exual lifestyle is harmful to the individual. This is what makes the APA definition nonsense. The problem is that no one knows why high risk behavior is prevalent in the Ho-mo$exual community and no one knows how to stop it.
      Normalizing, promoting, condescension and even threat of hell has failed to stop the high risk behavior. The APA in my opinion is filled with a bunch of people that have not helped the problem.
      That is why Ignored your tangent into another definition of normal. I was just looking at gay orientation in terms of a bell curve.
      No, you cannot use a higher percentage that includes those that do not have a gay orientation..........that changes everything.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      I noticed the Catholic Church is in deep water for including a study at university of ho-m0$exuality that explored why it is two standard deviations from the mean. Aside from the negative associated with the word “deviation” I really do not know enough about statistical tools to know if a typical bell curve would not work for orientation.
      I do know that if we plot all the studies over the past 15 years on what percentage of the population has a gay orientation we would find a bell curve. Gay orientation would fall outside two sigma from the mean………..

      December 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • YeahRight

      " A Ho-mo$exual lifestyle is harmful to the individual. "

      Again fred, the experts in this country have proven you wrong. Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

      Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

      A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

      Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Normalizing, promoting, condescension and even threat of hell has failed to stop the high risk behavior. "

      Straight people have the same high risk behaviors, so based on your poor logic they shouldn't be allowed to get marry and we should discriminate against them too. What an idiot.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      oops, now that I look at it I cannot use a bell curve to make that statement........my bad. Thanks for pointing it out.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "The APA in my opinion is filled with a bunch of people that have not helped the problem."

      It's more that just the APA that have shown that being gay is normal there are other organizations around the world that have reached the same conclusions.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      "I really do not know enough about statistical tools to know if a typical bell curve would not work for orientation."
      That is my point.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Wow, I see you saying constantly that it's harmful to the individual. How so? Here's another hint, the threat of hell is useless unless you can demonstrate the veracity, and correlation does not equal causation.
      Also, you quite conveniently ignore what you yourself said about the vulnerability thing. Did you realize how stupid saying that was?

      December 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
  13. Gary

    The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1975, stating:“The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”

    The American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and other national mental health associations have also supported the research-based conclusion that homosexuality is not an illness or mental health problem.

    Medical associations worldwide have reached many of the same findings. TheWorld Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1993. Japan’s psychiatric association did so in 1995, and the Chinese followed in 2001. In December, 2002, Thailand’s Mental Health Department declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

    When it comes to the question of whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, scientific research is unanimous — it is not. Despite that research, however, many religious and political groups continue to selectively quote scientific literature to buttress arguments that homosexuality is a pathology. They often take scientific literature out of context or extrapolate information from studies that focus on other populations. Their goal is to use scientific studies to bolster arguments against giving gay and lesbian people political or civil rights.

    December 6, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Saraswati

      I think the problem is that most people don't understand the definition used in the US of a mental disorder. I'd actually like to see psych as a required course for high school graduation or at least as an absolute requirement for a college degree of any sort.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:51 am |
  14. Shawn

    Let me start this off with a quote from a famous lesbian, Lynn Lavner:

    "There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us – usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

    What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."

    I am going to attempt to keep this short and simple, so here we go.

    Some claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly say that homosexual sex is an abomination. In fact, it merits death. Isn't it obvious that God hates homosexuality?

    Yes, depending on which translation you are using, Leviticus does say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination." However, a few points must be made about this statement:

    a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these "laws" are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

    It is interesting that people who use Leviticus against the gay community forget the part that talks about religious sacrifices, making women sleep in tents outside during their period, the dietary restrictions placed on them and how to cleanse a leper, all of which appear in Leviticus.

    The laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today's Christian; however, even if you do claim to live by the laws of Leviticus, it is not fair to pick and choose which laws you are going to live by, or condemn a people by, if you are not going to follow the others. You should not need any more convincing evidence than this; but if you do, be my guest.

    b) The word that was in the original work, "to'ebah," which was translated into Greek as "bdglygma" actually means "ritual impurity" rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean homosexual sex generally, but only limiting homosexual sex in Pagan temples.

    c) This passage does not denounce homosexual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal sex. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

    d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways. I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: "don't have sex with another man in your wife's bed;" "don't have sex with another man in the temple;" and "don't have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman," just to name a few.

    I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have sex with a man.

    Some claim the Bible simply does not support gay marriage. Chapter two of Genesis defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And later, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus himself reiterates the traits of a traditional marriage. How can you argue that anything other than celibacy is honorable for gay and lesbian people?

    Yes, marriage is a holy union. However, in these passages, while Jesus reiterates (but does not require) the traditional marriage, he also provides an exception for eunuchs (castrated men – or otherwise impotent men, in today's terms), and allowed them to be married, saying that this law is given to those to whom it applies.

    Because these eunuchs were born sexless, God made an exception for them because it was natural. The same applies to the Gay community today. Science has proven homosexuality is completely natural, so it seems God would allow for homosexual marriages.

    In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus encourages a traditional path, but does not discourage alternatives, except in the case of divorce.

    Jesus did stress purity of marriage, but not in regard to the sexes of the people within it. It can be seen that the reason that churches are against homosexual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.

    In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid homosexual marriage.

    Some claim, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he lists homosexuals amongst the many sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn't that make God's position on this vice very clear?

    If we look at the other types of people listed in this passage, we can understand what it is actually talking about. Law breakers, thieves, adulterers and drunks are specifically mentioned. The word "homosexual" was not found until the 1890s, so it would have been impossible for it to be in the original version.

    What actually appears in the original is Paul condemning those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." In this context, the original Greek word, "malakos," is translated into effeminate, or soft, which, more than likely, refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.

    In this passage, when Paul condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind," he is speaking of male prostitutes.

    Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don't choose their sexual orientation, the fact remains that homosexuality is unnatural. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that humans have a sinful nature, and therefore commit sins against God. Certain people are predisposed to be alcoholics and pedophiles, but that doesn't make their actions any less immoral. God tells us to "tear out your eye" if it makes you stumble. Why can't you just accept homosexuality as the part of your nature you must deny?

    Because the Bible has gone through so many translations, and through the hands of many people (some being non-believers), it is not surprising that the meaning has become a little fuzzy in parts.

    Homosexuality is normal. The phrase "para physin" appears in the original text for this verse. This term is often translated to mean "unnatural;" however, more accurate translation would be unconventional.

    Proof for this can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to men with long hair ( unconventional, not unnatural ) and in Romans 11:24 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to the positive action God made to bring together the Jews and Gentiles.

    All in all, homosexuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way. Let's just remember Galatians 5:14, where Paul stated, "the whole Law is fulfilled in one Statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

    December 6, 2012 at 9:39 am |
  15. YeahRight

    "The Beast has walked all over marriage rights already. Are you nuts? Rights are from God."

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

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

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

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

    December 6, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  16. .

    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .
    .".\
    .
    .
    .

    December 6, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  17. YeahRight

    " they take away our very great heritage pull down morals"

    The heritage of denying others civil rights. Civil rights only came about recently in this country, but we aren't done yet. 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.

    December 6, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • lol??

      The Beast has walked all over marriage rights already. Are you nuts? Rights are from God.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  18. YeahRight

    "instead of perverting everything. "

    No one is perverting anything they are speaking the truth about what we now know today about gays and lesbians, you're the one trying to justify your unfounded prejudice and hatred toward this minority group. The hundreds of thousands of experts in this country have stated heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

    Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

    Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

    A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

    Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

    December 6, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • lol??

      See the results of the science pro's: Masters and Johnson's married s e x fiend son 'exposed himself to officers in Central Park area notorious for gay cruisers'

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199353/Masters-Johnsons-married-s e x-fiend-son-exposed-officers-Central-Park-area-notorious-gay-cruisers.html#ixzz2EHXJ0c00
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      December 6, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Wow

      @lol your stupidity has no bounds. OK lets play your stupid game and list all the heterosexuals that have exposed themselves to others....oh better yet, ones that have done it in front of little girls! You're an imbecile.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • lol??

      Bow Wow, you're the one that trusts science and your servants.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • lol??

      Did they play the ol' switcheroo on ya and YOU are now the slave?

      December 6, 2012 at 9:38 am |
  19. Bob

    250 gay pastors who dont know the true word of God and are a prime example of the blind leading the blind they both shall fall.
    While the atheists try to spin hate and anger in dramatics that people who don't follow them and their ideas are bigots I only see that they lie about the origin of the country, lie about what the Bible says about gay marriage, subvert gov with money from the wealthy to promote gay laws and then call us bigots who adhere to what this country was founded on. These are just like the socialists, communists and Nazis that burned books, banned the Bible or any other religion that gave people the option to have individuality. They seek to make people forget where they came from and who died to make this country great in order to push their own perverted agenda. So who are the ones that really hate when they take away our very great heritage pull down morals so anything goes and forget the benefits of doing things right instead of perverting everything. Why don't I see gays arguing the point here instead of atheists? What do they want to achieve? If gays found it so important don't you think they would want to promote themselves? Don't drink the koolaid they are serving we are the greatest nation in the world and we didn't get that way on their ideals.

    December 6, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • James

      " lie about what the Bible "

      No one is lying. The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • Primewonk

      " Nazis that burned books, banned the Bible "

      This, of course, is another fundiot nutter lie. The Bible was never banned by the Nazi's.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:28 am |
  20. 261 Ministers Proclamation

    ""The Christian Case for Gay Marriage". It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that
    gay marriage does not exist in the Bible and that the Bible actually condemns LGBTQ coitus."

    As Christian clergy we proclaim the Good News concerning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons and publicly apologize where we have been silent. As disciples of Jesus, who assures us that the truth sets us free, we recognize that the debate is over. The verdict is in. Homosexuality is not a sickness, not a choice, and not a sin. We find no rational biblical or theological basis to condemn or deny the rights of any person based on sexual orientation. Silence by many has allowed political and religious rhetoric to monopolize public perception, creating the impression that there is only one Christian perspective on this issue. Yet we recognize and celebrate that we are far from alone, as Christians, in affirming that LGBT persons are distinctive, holy, and precious gifts to all who struggle to become the family of God.

    In repentance and obedience to the Holy Spirit, we stand in solidarity as those who are committed to work and pray for full acceptance and inclusion of LGBT persons in our churches and in our world. We lament that LGBT persons are condemned and excluded by individuals and institutions, political and religious, who claim to be speaking the truth of Christian teaching. This leads directly and indirectly to intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and even death. The Holy Spirit compels us:

    -to affirm that the essence of Christian life is not focused on sexual orientation, but how one lives by grace in relationship with God, with compassion toward humanity;

    –to embrace the full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters in all areas of church life, including leadership;

    –to declare that the violence must stop. Christ’s love moves us to work for the healing of wounded souls who are victims of abuse often propagated in the name of Christ;

    –to celebrate the prophetic witness of all people who have refused to let the voice of intolerance and violence speak for Christianity, especially LGBT persons, who have met hatred with love;

    Therefore we call for an end to all religious and civil discrimination against any person based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. All laws must include and protect the freedoms, rights, and equal legal standing of all persons, in and outside the church.

    December 6, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      Who gives a flying fuck? Seriously! Marriage is a fundamental CIVIL right. It is a CIVIL contract. The US is not a theocracy.

      December 6, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • lol??

      Get the Beast out of marriage and controlling the family if you want ye olde USA to be blessed. Provocation is not a good plan.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • Saraswati

      No one is forcing your church to perform same se x marriages. Heck, people don't even force churches to perform inter-faith or interracial marriages if they don't want. A minister can refuse to perform a marriage for whatever reason their religion doesn't think the couple is a good bet. This is civil law we're talking about, not your religion.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • lol??

      Correct. Uncivilized civil Beast law. It's a provocation to the Lord.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Melvin

      "It's a provocation to the Lord."

      No, it's not. 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.

      December 6, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • lol??

      not what

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

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