home
RSS
November 28th, 2012
05:49 AM ET

Rick Warren on gay marriage

American evangelical Christian pastor Rick Warren discusses homosexuality and gay marriage with CNN's Piers Morgan.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Gay marriage • Homosexuality

soundoff (945 Responses)
  1. Mohammad A Dar

    my "Evangelical" friend posted yesterday, people should learn to keep dil do in their pants, one should only use it for pro-creation purpose. period.

    November 28, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Brenda

      Gays procreate or are you really that dumb?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Brenda..........not with their gay partner. are you really that dumb? They can't cause it is not natural. It is a twisted se x act.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      some do breed disease !

      November 28, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Saraswati

      "They can't cause it is not natural."

      Hmmm, without a definition from him, I've been reading AH's definition of "natural" as "something that I like", but now maybe he means "natural" as "things that lead to reproduction". So celibacy is unnatural...but wait, didn't he say that one was natural...so confusing.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Brenda

      AH so infertile couples are doing twisted se.x acts too?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Brenda..........no my dear, let me explain, hetero couples have the plumbing to make babies. God gave it to them. Ho mos don't. Got it? Let me help you. You can't flush the toilet if there is not toilet whether you have water or not. There you go.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      AH,

      Where exactly do ho mo se xuals come from? Hmmm?

      Every ho mo se xual born comes from heterose xual parents dont they?

      You're an idiot.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Honey Badger Dont Care...........wow, you're brilliant! NOT! You prove my point. Que ers can't make babies with their que er partner. DUH!

      November 28, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Pete

      I am pretty sure that gay men have a p.enis and gay women have a va.gina just like straight men and women.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • mama k

      OK, Mohammad – next time we need advice on how to keep a camel healthy – we'll be in touch. Until then, go do some . . . . . reading. Lots and lots of reading.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      @mama k, please do come to me mama, let me catch up some book reading, interesting book by Joseph Nicolosi "Reparative Therapy of Male Hom o, S.exuality" and remember, never let camels, dirty carpet licking goons, pock their head under your tent, keeps your camels healthy too, okay mama!

      November 28, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • YeahRight

      ""Reparative Therapy of Male Hom o, S.exuality""

      That has been proven to be totally bogus which is why the hundred of thousands of experts in this country issued this statement. 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."

      November 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @WD, you wrote:

      "While I agree with your conclusion, I see my own predudice in my agreement
      On pure logic, your answer is irrational."

      Something is right if it benefits society more than it hurts it.
      Allowing ho mos exual relationships benefits society more than it hurts it.
      Conclusion: Allowing ho mo se xual relationships is right.

      I don't see any flaws in this logic. Did you mean there's a premise with which you disagree?

      November 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • James L.

      Tagg, Romney's son, used a surrogate for his twins ( so much for one man/women) . The whole family contract was for immediate termination for any reason both parties found the fetus imperfect. There is no reason a gay couple can not perform the same procedure, so yes, gay people, through the wonders of modern science can reproduce.

      November 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • billywingartenson

      the bottom line on this one is that gays deserve the same respect for their love and commitment as str8 people.

      Warren should know that you cant force a church to do a gay marriage ceremony or any other ceremony, or ven accpet into the church those they dont want.

      But on the other hand he shoudl keep his nose out of civil law business / politics since his church is a tax exempt organization

      Teh very fact that he doesnt want gays to be marriedunder ciivl law shows he's doing this out of seeing them as less then equal.

      That doenst fly in a democracy. Been there done that sort of things re other minorities.

      there is no rational basis for denying gays equal rights except pure reliigious bigotry rooted in what are near stone age beliefs of 4000 years ago in Leviticus, who wanted essentially to murder every human being on the planet – no matter how much they try and hide the real reaon

      December 28, 2012 at 3:27 am |
  2. myweightinwords

    I can't watch the video because I'm at work and our firewall prevents streaming...but I can guess at what he said.

    I have no problem with anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong based on whatever moral code they live by. Think it's sin? Don't do it. Pretty simple really.

    However, my faith does not consider it sin and anyone who tries to legislate what I can and can not do according to my own faith is violating my civil rights.

    Also pretty simple when you think about it.

    Homosexuals have been a part of the human family since the beginning of time. Many ancient cultures accepted them as a part of the tribe, celebrated them even. It was largely the spread of Christianity that demonized it.

    November 28, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • hinduism by Judaism self center ,secularism source of hindu filthy hinduism, racism.

      you are partly correct, goon, Saudis males, deniers of truth absolute Thin Allah, are known to have wives and a male companions, filthy slaves, accepted by Sunni culture, secular s, living style of Saudi Sunnis, ignorant.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • 2 tell the truth

      Agreed.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • William Demuth

      True

      Just note that other cultures killed them.

      We humans are a nasty breed.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:42 am |
      • myweightinwords

        You are correct, on both counts.

        Doesn't mean we should stop trying to be better than the lowest common denominator.

        November 28, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Elaine

      " Are they called Sodom and Gomorrah?"

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

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

      November 28, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • YeahRight

      "This world and all que ers that won't let children be children and learn ABC's and 123's but have to now teach them que er 101 before they can read or write is EVIL and SICK! I"

      What is evil and sick is your unfounded prejudice that isn't based on the real facts of today. Prejudice and bigotry like yours is learned being gay is not. Duh!

      November 28, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Atheist Hunter
      In the story of Sodom, the only man righteous enough to be spared God's wrath was Lot.
      How righteous was he? Why he was so Godly he was willing to throw his two daughters over to a ravenous mob to be ra/ped. Now that's good parenting!
      And lest we forget, shortly thereafter he had a drunken or/gy with those same daughters.
      Yep – I can see why you'd use that story as an example of se/xual morality.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • YeahRight

      Don't worry Elaine, AH doesn't understand the definition of rape. It's why their opinions on this subject are hilarious and shows what is so wrong with this uneducated prejudice troll.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      AH, the very best example of getting to children early and warping their minds is religion. If religion is so good and natural, why do most parents feel the need to send their children to religious indoctrination sessions? Why don't they have confidence their children will accept what you think is natural?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • gary

      What a waste of space this Atheist Hunter is. I find it difficult to imagine what kind of environment such an uneducated is raised from and lives in to wind up so wrong about everything he has spewed on here.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • gary

      OK that needs another word there. I didn't want to sound cruel, but – uneducated bloke will work.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:52 am |
  3. William Demuth

    Listen up pinheads

    I am pro gay rights, support gay marriage, and have great compassion for their plight.

    That being said, you do NOT expect to win denying science. It didn't work for the right, and it wont work for you.

    Be carefull what you claim, there are perils on EITHER side.

    We legislate against MANY behaviors simply because we disaprove. If this is simply a choice, than it can be controled by law, as ALL intimate behavior is, was, and always shall be.

    Simple observation implies a genetic link, and ANY genetic condition can be rejected by society as unacceptable.

    As an illness, you are affored some protections as a minority, but alas that inevitably creates the "Cure Dilema"

    November 28, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • YeahRight

      William everything you're claiming doesn't matter since the experts in this country have proven it's not a choice and it's not a mental illness or a defect. This is about civil rights, which is why the courts are starting to rule in favor of the gay community. You can't keep asking if...if... that's what's wrong with your argument it's not based on the facts of today. You may say you support gay rights but your posts still show you have some hidden prejudices.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Simran

      William,
      Point 1: You suggest that se.xual orientation is determined by genetics. Well, I would say – maybe, there is some evidence, just like there is evidence that diabetes and cancer are genetically influenced. Or better still, height is genetically influenced. But that is not the only factor at play, as has been clearly shown – there is influence of endocrine milieu during gestation and in early childhood, among many other possible factors. So, it will be incorrect to state it is a genetic condition.

      Point 2: Should it be labeled a disease? Making a statement that some genetic conditions may be socially unacceptable is a huge risk in itself! Now, in the same breath, are you implying that short stature (partly genetically determined again) should also be considered unacceptable and we should treat short children even if they are otherwise healthy? This is a dilemma I often face in my clinic with parents actually requesting for unnecessary, expensive and potentially dangerous growth hormone therapy in their children with simple familial short stature!

      November 28, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • William Demuth

      Wrong

      You believe these "findings" aren't political? Or do you support only the "findings" that support your prefered outcome? Your freedom, or indeed your slavery is not of concern to me.

      Just as the Christians tried to force their reality on others and failed, so will ANY group that tries to make science out of politics. Marry early, marry often, and sleep with whatever you like. Frankly, gays don't compete for the same resources as me, so we can be excellent neighbors.

      The truth is coming. Many will be upset by it (as they always have) but then we move forward.

      Truth ALWAYS comes out. As far as predudices, I hate everyone equally, so if your group ends up dead or dominate is irrelevant to me.

      I want only to understand

      November 28, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • William Demuth

      Simran

      Finally, a rationalist! Welcome.

      I don't debate ethics. In a world where children are aborted based on gender, and people are euthanized by the thousands every day, it would just be blind to claim that if a test becomes available it won't be used.

      If a cure becomes available, it will also be used.

      Reality is a drag, but it is reality.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Huebert

      Will

      You say you only want to understand, but the problem is that you want a simple understanding of a complex issue. Se.xuality is genetic. Se.xuality is environmental. Se.xuality is preferential. A "cure" for any form of se.xuality is impossible, and regulation is immoral. Hom.os.exuality is simply one of many possible expression of human se.xuality.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • William Demuth

      Huebert

      Just to play devil's advocate, so is Polygamy, beastiality,and pedophillia, hell so is necrophagia.

      We legislate how these things are handled every day. How is this different?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Saraswati

      @WD, we use a utilitarian ethic measuring to our best estimate what acts will help and what acts will hurt society. The damage of the other activities you describe outweigh's their benefits in a way that allowing consenting adults to spend their lives with the partner of their choice does not.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • William Demuth

      Saraswati

      While I agree with your conclusion, I see my own predudice in my agreement

      On pure logic, your answer is irrational.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • YeahRight

      " beastiality,and pedophilli"

      Animals and children can't consent and bring harm. All you continue to prove is you are to lazy to do your homework on this subject.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Simran

      William,
      Well, the point here is should a cure be sought for se.xual orientation in the first place? How has someone's ho.mose.xuality hurt them or others (as compared to another's heteros.exuality)? What is the evidence that it can be considered an illness?

      Talking of studies by psychologists and psychiatrists, I already made my point. The other issue possible could be of morality. Now hom.ose.xual behaviour does occur in other animals as well. And there are cultures where it was never considered such a taboo. So, how does one decide its morality? Does it hurt others? But we do hurt them when we are prejudiced, don't we?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Simran

      William,
      You cannot put pe.dophila or bes.tiality in the same lot as se.xual orientation. Like someone said above, animals and children can't consent. One can only force oneself upon them, and thus, it would be a breach of someone else's right. So, they are unacceptable. How will se'x between two consenting adults, or a lifelong fulfiling relationship hurt anyone?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Huebert

      Will

      The difference is consent. Animals, children, and the dead cannot give consent. I agree that it is immoral to regulate polygamy.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Simran..........it's not an illness, it a SIN "abomination" to be precise. Hell hurts!

      November 28, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • William Demuth

      Simran

      Seriously? A "child" to one is an adult to another.

      Consent ages vary by state city and country.

      Things are common in some places, that can get you EXECUTED in others.

      You know it is culture that decides, yet you deny it.

      Why?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Atheist Hunter
      I don't think you understand what 'abomination" means in a biblical context.
      Women wearing pants is an abomination, as is eating shellfish, pigs, swarming insects or leftovers that are more the 3 days old.
      IN the Old Testament, "abomination" means "ritualistically unclean".
      Jesus absolved Christians of having to follow the Old Testament rituals – that's why you're allowed to shave the corners of your beard and plant more than one crop in the same field.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • William Demuth

      Huebert

      So you are in favor of two woman over the age of consent being allowed to be intimate with each other, UNLESS they are mother and daughter or sister and sister?

      Why not them? No risk of offspring, no genetic issues.

      All you have is your belief, your preference, and your desire to push it on others.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Why not them? No risk of offspring, no genetic issues."

      Really William cite your source their is not genetic issue when family members mate. So by your logic as long as a girl is of consenting adult then a daughter and father should be allowed to marry? Or brother and sister?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      YeahRight, William did not make the claim you are accusing him of.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Simran

      I think we are on the same foot here William. Culture decides. And what was okay in the medieval times is not today. For instance, sacrifice. Polygamy is acceptable is some cultures, but abhored in most others. There will be no rules for all people on earth (wish there were, it would put an end to most battles based on "Mine is better than yours").

      While we can debate the appropriate age of consent for a se.xual relationship (whether it should be 14 or 16 or 18), it will be still acceptable to most that it cannot be 7 or 8 right! Human biology has distinct changes at puberty which trigger the se.xual maturation at specified time point (of course, it is not a ONE FINE DAY the girl became a woman kind of thing).

      There will still be a difference between 2 consenting adults and an adult coercing or forcing oneself upon a child who doesnt yet understand se.xuality!

      November 28, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Huebert

      Will

      I have no problem with incest between consenting adults; be it ho.mo or heterose.xual. Well "No problem" is not quite accurate, I think it is disgusting, but I would not try to force my opinion on others. I can support my beliefs with evidence and logic, so to say that "all I have is my beliefs" is rather misleading. Can you say the same for your beliefs?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Simran

      Even talking from a medical perspective, ped.ophiles have been reported to have psychiatric issues.

      Several researchers have reported correlations between pe.dophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills.Cohen et al. (2002), studying child se.x offenders, states that pe.dophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive–aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pe.dophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pe.dophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pe.dophilic behavior.

      According to Wilson and Cox (1983), "The pa.edophiles emerge as significantly higher on Psychoticism, Introversion and Neurotocism than age-matched controls. [But] there is a difficulty in untangling cause and effect. We cannot tell whether pae.dophiles gravitate towards children because, being highly introverted, they find the company of children less threatening than that of adults, or whether the social withdrawal implied by their introversion is a result of the isolation engendered by their preference i.e., awareness of the social approbation and hostility that it evokes"

      Studying child se.x offenders, a review of qualitative research studies published between 1982 and 2001 concluded that pe.dophiles use cognitive distortions to meet personal needs, justifying abuse by making excuses, redefining their actions as love and mutuality, and exploiting the power imbalance inherent in all adult–child relationships.Other cognitive distortions include the idea of "children as se.xual beings", "uncontrollability of se.xuality", and "se.xual enti.tlement-bias".

      Of course, one can freely criticize that these studies are of child se.x offenders, and there will be many who lie in gray zones (pubertal relationships)!

      Reminds me of a novel I read – LOLITA!

      November 28, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Huebert, you wrote:
      "The difference is consent. Animals, children, and the dead cannot give consent. I agree that it is immoral to regulate polygamy."

      Do you mean just polygamy or polygamy and polyandry? If you allow one and not the other you are discriminating based on se x, if you allow both (which has rarely, if ever, been tried in its pure form) you create a world in which theoretically all humans can be married through a complex network, not to mention the issue of consent from all parties and verifying that it is in fact in their best interest. There are important legal issues that would have to be worked out to set up such a state. The lawyers would be at this for many, many years before it ever reached law. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but to do it equitably is a lot more complicated than I think most people realize.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Huebert

      Saraswati

      Don't pettifog. I believe it is immoral to regulate polyamorous relationships. There is that better?

      November 28, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Huebert, yes, regulation of marriage and relationships are very different things, and allowing polygamy allone is very different than allowing bth polygamy and polyandry. These are not trivial distinctions.

      November 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Culture is not science. Just because earlier culture said it was OK for 12 year old girls to be forced to marry, doesn't mean it was right. Just like today claiming a 12 year old can be tried as an adult for a crime is ridiculous. Today, thanks to that pesky science, we know that the pre frontal cortex does not become fully integrated until about 20-21.

      Today, again thanks to that pesky science, we know that gays are born gay. We know it is not an illness, a disease, a disorder, an abnormality, a sin, or just plain icky. It is simply a normal, natural variant of sèxual orientation.

      The problem is not hômosèxuality. The problem is ignorant hômophobic bigots. And these people will continue to raise the next generation and the next generation, etc. of bigots.

      November 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Simran

      Primewonk,
      Cutlure is not science. But the culture of a society is heavily influenced by knowledge (including scienti.fic) that it has acc.umulated. What we know today may become irrelevant tomorrow in the light of new knowledge. And science is an evolving field. It will be wrong to as.sume that we have all the answers today. What we know today is only a tiny iota of what is there to know.
      It is time to let go of intolerance towards others, towards those who may be different from us....
      The real problem is the ones who think they know everything and use the excuse of their God's will to dictate what others should or should not do.

      November 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  4. William Demuth

    In truth we ALL avoid the same important point about this over and over again.

    Is it a choice or an affliction? A mental illness, a simple lifestyle choice, or an actual disease?

    I suspect quite strongly that it may be viral. If that is the case, a vaccine may be possible. If it is genetic, genes can be changed, eliminated or forced into regression.

    This leaves the REAL question, If a vaccine becomes available will parents immunize their children against it?

    In a world where stupidity becomes ADHD and is medicated, and where we claim BILLIONS of people are depressed and we medicate them, what will we do when an actual cure is discovered?

    If it is ANYTHING other than a simple preference, medicine will be able to eliminate it (for better or worse).

    I doubt many mothers would knowingly inflict the burden on their children if it could be avoided.

    Being anything other than straight is NOT easy, and I suspect medicine, and what is or not possible shall be the final arbiter of whether it is accepted.

    November 28, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Simran

      For starters, it is no longer considered a mental illness. So, I guess no one is going to search for a cure.
      But I suggest we should start looking at intolerance and prejudice as a mental illness, and begin searching for it's cure!

      November 28, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Why would there need to be a "cure" for homosexuality? Why not a cure for prejudice? Why not a cure for fear? Why not simply allowing others to live their lives while living your own?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Is it a choice or an affliction? A mental illness, a simple lifestyle choice, or an actual disease?"

      The experts have already shown that being gay is not a choice, it's not a mental illness and it can't be voluntarily changed, it's not a disease. The fact that you're asking these questions shows you haven’t actually read about this subject. We could use your logic and say having black skin is NOT easy, being left hand is NOT easy but these people don't get that choice on how they are born, neither do gay people. The best solution is to educated people on the real facts to end the unfounded prejudice and bigotry toward the gay community.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • the AnViL

      William Demuth

      the only cure we need is one that eradicates religious idiocy, ignorance, and stupidity – like the sort we see in your post.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Huebert

      Se.xuality is monstrously complex. It is biologically, environmentally, and preferentially determined. It is also some what malleable, hence the phenomenon of "prison gay". Creating a vaccine or genetic therapy for se.xuality would be like trying to create a vaccine or genetic therapy to stop people from liking McDonald's food, the whole Idea is just silly.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • lol??

      Simran, how 'bout puttin' Barney (da dinosaur) Fank in jail an studyin' his relationships with da Bubbas?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • lol??

      That be Barney Frank, faithful PUblic Servant.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • William Demuth

      AnVil

      Me? Most will tell you they suspect I kill clergy as a hobby.

      Science is the ONLY God, and as such dosen't care about your or my opinion. It has only truth.

      The way we use that truth, is up to us.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • William Demuth

      Simran

      A few US doctors do NOT decide for the planet. (I wish they did)

      The Chi Com government still considers it an illness and they are five times bigger than we are. ALL Middle Eastern and most African and South American governments do as well.

      Stop pretending you are safe. The world can turn on you in the blink of an eye.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Simran

      lol??
      Yeah, we could put Barney along with the Pope and his loving pastors (ped.ophiles) together and see who gets who?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • lol??

      William Demuth, why should the nation offer up her children to Hillary when she doesn't even care about Monica?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Simran

      William,
      By APA, I am not referring to some doctors in US, but American Psychiatric Association and the same stand was reiterated by the World Health Organization.

      Now what a Chi com govt decides by law (I am sorry for being ignorant here, which country is this?) – has no meaning. Of course, this reminds me of the recent death of an Indian female in Ireland when she was denied abortion (stating that Ireland is a catholic nation?). If you meant China, in 2001, Chinese Psychiatric Association removed ho.mose.xuality from the list of mental illnesses and in 1997, Chinese govt abolished the hooligan law.

      And the Middle East and Africa – there are bigger issues for them to deal with.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • William Demuth

      Simran

      Sorry, that military speak. Chi-Com is Chinese Communist (to contrast with Taiwan)

      November 28, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • the AnViL

      william i apologize for assuming you were a right wing religious nut... it's just – that's the sort of thing i see from them all the time. the suggestion that there might be a vaccine or cure for gayness.... that h o m o s e x u a l i t y might be caused by a virus or whatever...

      if h o m o s e x u a l i t y didn't occur as frequently in nature among so many different species.. i might question it too.

      forgive me, or else.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • hyhybt

      It's not inherently a "burden." The "infliction" comes, not as a consequence of being gay, but solely because people choose to treat gay people badly. And society's changing rapidly on that; probably faster, at least in countries where a "cure" would be affordable, than science is moving towards providing one.

      Something else to consider: talk of a "cure," besides requiring that we pretend being gay is a disease, involves the assumption that orientation stands alone. That is, that it has a single cause which can be reversed without affecting anything else, as opposed to being potentially affected by a combination of factors which are themselves beneficial even in the eyes of those who believe gayness isn't.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Primewonk

      Wanting to "cure hômosèxuality with a vaccine or genetic manipulation makes as much sense as curing left handedness by cutting off everyone's left hand.

      You propose a cure in search of a nonexistent disease. On the other hand hômophobia and bigotry are mental disorders. Why not search for a cure of those? Of course the idiot religious nutters will scream bloody mûrder that it's their right to hate.

      November 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  5. Simran

    Karen Ho.oker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National Inst.itute of Mental Health. The study was meant to explore the relationship between ho.mose.xuality and psychological development and illness. Ho.oker studied both ho.mose.xuals and heterose.xuals. Both groups were matched for age, intelligence quotient (IQ) and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests. These three tests, the Ror.schach, Thematic Apperception Test (TA.T) and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS), were then analyzed by psychologists, and the results were tabulated. The results of Ho.oker's experiment yielded no significant differences in answers on any of the three tests. Because both groups' answers scored very similarly, she concluded a zero correlation between social determinism of se.xuality.

    As a result of Ho.oker's finding, the APA removed ho.mose.xuality from its Diagnostic and Stati.stical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that ho.mose.xuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...ho.mose.xuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depra.vity. It is the way a portion of the population expre.sses human love and se.xuality"

    November 28, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • lol??

      Can't trust those who leach off gubmint money. Close enuff fer gubmint werk! Dead astronuts.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Well said and I agree. Perhaps medicine will also find a cure for those that continue to believe in the supernatural despite there being any supporting evidence.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • the AnViL

      how DARE you attempt to infect this forum with science and reason!

      science is OFFENSIVE and it goes against JEBUS!!

      BLASPHEMER!!!

      also... tolerance of religious idiocy has to end... enough is enough.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  6. Huebert

    There are several studies that indicate that hom.ophobia is indicative of ho.mose.xual arousal. Given AH's vitriolic post in regards to hom.ose.xuals, would anyone care to draw a conclusion about AH's se.xual preferences?

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/105/3/440/

    November 28, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • Simran

      Where is the like button?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • the AnViL

      "would anyone care to draw a conclusion about AH's se.xual preferences?"

      – very high probability that he is repressed/latent.

      me thinks he doth protest too much...

      November 28, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • William Demuth

      No, but I would be comfortable in concluding he ain't gettin much!

      His Mama's chagin the sheets six days a week.

      On the seventh, the preacher has to change the tablecloth on the altar.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Primewonk

      Dude on dude pôrn gives his willie a stiffie.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am |
  7. the AnViL

    there is very strong evidence to support the idea that most people who speak out against h o m o s e x u a l i t y – are repressed/latent h o m o s e x u a l s.

    i dunno about everyone else – but i think that's funny as heck.

    i posted the same thing on that other piece about gay marriage – and the only person who commented was that retarded lol?? dipwad.

    the bottom line here is – there is absolutely no secular reason to deny gay people the right to marry, and those of you who seek to restrict equality do not deserve the very rights, equality, freedom and liberty that you'd deny others.

    zoop!

    November 28, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • lol??

      Skeletons in the closet aren't funny? Lighten up kweer boy. Death is 'posed to be funny.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:00 am |
  8. Primewonk

    This batshit crazy nutter Atheist Hunter seems fond of phrases like "so called experts". We see this a lot in folks with subnormal IQs. They distrust folks who are intelligent, probably because they lack the cognitive ability to understand complex processes. This is undoubtedly related to their underlying Dunning-Kruger effect.

    November 28, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Saraswati

      Ohhhhhh no...I think you're going to get the "big word" lecture from AH.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      So called experts that submit themselves and their research to unbiased peer review, unlike the charlatans that claim the truth of The Babble without providing a single bit of evidence.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Primewonk..........intelligence doesn't produce two dudes dressed in ladies clothes shoes makeup and panties, prancing down the road making out in public just to be noticed and cause a stir. That is sheer stupidity. What is IQ? I que er?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • lol??

      peer review? circulation figures for playboy?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:49 am |
  9. lol??

    I didn't play the vid, cuz I know Rick Warren is a purpose driven burp.

    November 28, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  10. Huebert

    When will these bigots learn that a large part of America does not accept their warped version of morality? Luckily they are dying off.

    November 28, 2012 at 9:19 am |
  11. William Demuth

    Atheist Hunter is one of those Christians who think the only intimate acts permissible are those that create children.

    That's probably why his lover (if there is one) is getting some behind his back from someone like me

    It seems in the lives of Christian women, the orgasm, like common sense, rationality, equality and dignity are all endangered species.

    So do you Christian men stop doing up the ladies once they are too old to have children? It would explain why your females are available for a dime a dozen to someone who doesn’t share their husbands inhibitions.

    November 28, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      daydream a lot about those images you see on the web do you?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • William Demuth

      I thought that picture was your wife, but I wasn't sure.

      Spring for a Lady Norelco for her dude, she is as shaggy as a goat.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      I wouldn't associate with anyone who would think twice about dating a gargage mouth like you so wrong again!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      I wouldn't associate with anyone who would think twice about dating a garbage mouth like you so wrong again!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • == o ==

      Grown up, Atheist Hunter – there's your sign!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  12. midwest rail

    In the end, the SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule on this issue. The opinions of freeze-dried-in-the-50's knuckle draggers will be rendered even more irrelevant than they are now. The remainder of this thread will be merely entertainment for those of us who enjoy the knee jerk, foam-at-the-mouth rantings of contemporary "loving" Christians.

    November 28, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • William Demuth

      Much will hinge on how quickly SCOTUS dies off.

      If we lose more than two in the next four years, Obama will make selections to control this nation for the next fifty.

      Now I DO NOT believe in prayer, but if I did, I would be praying for Scalia's death night and day!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      We can only hope that this is another benefit of Obama getting re-elected – that the Supreme Court will not (soon) fall into the hands of the knuckle draggers and The Babble thumpers.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:20 am |
  13. Erik

    "proves hom os are unnatural"

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

    All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

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

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

    The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

    On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

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

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

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

    The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

    Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

    Furthermore, there are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

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

    November 28, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • mama k

      My goodness, AH – you sound like some kind of wind-up doll. The Return of Chucky the Bigot, I guess.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:27 am |
  14. Atheist Hunter

    Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, be vewy vewy kwiet, I'm huntin atheists. huh huh huh huh.

    November 28, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      And will likely have the very same success the character you are impersonating had – none!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • TrollAlert

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "Salvatore" degenerates to:
      "Douglas" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Thinker23" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "John 3:16" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" is the degenerate.

      This troll is not a christian.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Hurry now..

      ..go turn on the TV or you will miss out on your daily education, the cartoon shows.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Just a John

      Troll Alert
      and each and every one a graduate of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, yet another way to scam the gullible

      November 28, 2012 at 9:38 am |
  15. Bekki

    If everyone is equal in society and this person has has supported gay charities, then why is gay marriage so wrong? Surely, if two people love each other their gender should not matter. Should anyone really have the power to discriminate on what genders should marry when its legal to be gay?

    November 28, 2012 at 8:49 am |
    • YeahRight

      " Cause it's not natural or normal, it is sodomy!"

      This is how stupid this poster is they don't even understand the definition of sodomy. LOL! The hundred of thousands of experts have proven you wrong and stupid.

      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.

      November 28, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Atheist Hunter
      Good morning troll.
      Gay people are perfectly capable of conceiving – all of their bits are in working order.
      I would guess that there are more straight couples who enjoy sodomy than lesbians.

      November 28, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • Saraswati

      I'd try defining "natural" too.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Berief Brog Ninja

      Resbians? I rove hot resbo action! You make resbo action now!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Yeah..........you quote a bunch of morons like you like it is the word of God. Their opinions mean no more than yours. Give me one reason why they are have been deemed experts on the matter? Prove it by disease, broken children, suicide, etc. etc. etc. You're wasting your time. They are a bunch of rebellious know it all idiots! It don't take a genius to figure out that men can't have babies together because it it unnatural! Bible or not bible! Evolution proves hom os are unnatural and just a twisted desire that serves no purpose for survival. NOW!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • YeahRight

      Thanks for proving my point Atheist Hunter that your an uneducated moron who's prejudice and bigotry isn't based on any real truth. LMAO! LOL!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      So AH, which of your close family members has come out and made you so angry!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH, Again with the "unnatural". If something exists, it's part of nature. You're just resorting to sloppy language to make an argument you can't make. Be more specific: what exactly is the harm caused by two women (both a part of nature) marrying?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Saraswati...then i guess you support pedophillia with a willing victim and beastiality. You're evil is sad! It is a breakdown of family and will lead to extinction if we all do it! Answer that!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • Judith

      " It's only proves how abnormal and unaccepted it has been for millions of years. "

      Bigotry or prejudice in any form is more than a problem; it is a deep-seated evil within our society

      November 28, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Looks like AH is having a major hissy fit, if not a mental breakdown. I suspect someone close to him has admitted they are hay and he is worried he might be too – not that there is anything wrong with that. But it is hard to deal with all the hatred, particularly self-hatred, the various cults have indoctrinated the weak minded with . . .

      November 28, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • mama k

      A Hunter – you missed the target so bad, you killed one of the neighbor's kids. My your idiocy is really showing today. Obviously you don't think that man's ability to understand anything in life has changed over the millennia? You must be what they call a "poe" to post something so stupid.

      Of course ho mo se xuality is as normal occurring in humans as it is in many other parts of living things on this planet. Just because it occurs less frequently doesn't mean it is any less normal.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • mama k

      I meant to say "as it is in many other living things (without "parts")

      November 28, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH,
      Why would you imagine I would support either ped o ph ilia or best ia lity? You can't just make random claims without explain the premises you assume I have that would lead to that bizarre conclusion. I support what is best for the overall happiness and welfare or the earth's living creatures. I do not believe there is any evidence that ped oph ilia or best iality promote such welfare – to the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence that they are harmful practices. Allowing consenting adults to spend their lives with who they love, however, promotes both happiness and a stable society. Given the current state of the earth's over po pula tion, the lower likelihood of reproducing is an enormous plus of having a percent of our population in same se,x relationship and able to contribute their time to other causes. And for those who choose to have or adopt children, there is no evidence of a negative impact.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH, you wrote "Looks like after millions of years it would be accepted by now if it were normal."

      OK, I'm going to assume you've never taken either a history or an anthropology course or...well...read a book.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:26 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Saraswati...........well i guess i would assume that because ped op ohil ia and beastiality makes some happy and they feel it is good for their welfare, just like sle eping with another man who was built to sleep w a woman. Why would you be created to have se x pleasure if natural only through your waste release area? Cause it's not natural, it is twisted and never intended in nature. It is the product of a twisted se x crazed mind. Not a healthy mind!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:32 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH, Pe do ph ilia definitely does NOT make children happy and that harm outweighs any benefit to the perpetrator, as does the fear all would have in a society in which it was allowed. As for bestiality, we have not only serious epidemiological worries whenever speies intermix too closely, but it would be VERY hard to get consent and establish welfare on the animal in such a situation.

      You seem to want to believe there can be no ethics without religion, but in fact almost all non religious people have very strict ethical codes that ar based on well established systems of thought.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Saraswati........que ers adopting kids does NOT make happy children either and that harm outweighs any benefit to the perpetrator, as does the fear all would have in a society in which it is allowed to warp the minds of children. No one gets the consent of the child of whether or not that want to see daddy making out with Que er david on the couch in a dress or whether they want to be dropped off at school in front of all their friends with moma and her lesbian man want to be holding hands while all their friends snicker and laugh and no one asks them how they feel about that fact that the majority of the other kids have a natural mother and father in a loving mother, father child relationship. Anyone who subjects children to that is only thinking of themselves an not the child EVER! It should be illegal to subject children to it at all! They grow up to be warped, angry, mentally abused individuals. There are thousands of non religious people who agree 100% and would not want their kid raised by 2 que ers.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      AH, how many of the recent mass shooting perps were raised by parents of the same gender? Can you say "0?"

      November 28, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Pete

      If gay people weren't natural then they wouldn't exist. Are you suggesting that all gay people are created in a lab somewhere?

      November 28, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Pete........you're right, they are freaks of nature! But still freaks!

      November 28, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Pete, I think by "natural" he means "something I like" and by "common sense" (which he used elsewhere) he means "ideas that agree with mine".

      November 28, 2012 at 10:37 am |
  16. Doc Vestibule

    Intimacy is a basic need for all people, gay or straight.
    To expect gay people to deny themselves fulfilling relationships beause of scriptural interpretation is to deny their right to pursue happiness.
    Consenting adults in fulfilling partnership do no harm to society. Quite the opposite, in fact. Happy, functional people tend to contribute more than those who are consumed with depression and misplaced guilt.

    November 28, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....all lies to justify evil! You're so sad!

      November 28, 2012 at 8:50 am |
  17. Sane Person

    People who claim to get their morality from the bible are lying to themselves. If they really did, they would have no problem with stoning children to death for misbehaving, owning slaves, killing people for working on the sabbath, forcing a r@ped woman to marry the r@pist, etc.. So why do Christians discard these laws and follow others? Because they are immoral. And who decides which ones you follow and which ones you don't? YOU DO. This proves that you do not get your morality from the bible.

    So for you to say that being gay is immoral because you read it in a book, the same book that says it's okay to brutally murder children or to own slaves, is just stupid. It just goes to show that you do not really think about the things you believe, you just accept them. Like most christians.

    November 28, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Sane Person...........again blah, blah, blah, take the Bible out of context to suit your evil sins. It will get you nowhere. You can reason all day long and it is still wrong and disgusting and it will still destroy you and families! It's not just Bible believers that know it is evil, there are cultures that don't believe in the Bible but forbid hom ose xuality because they know it is abnormal!

      November 28, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • YeahRight

      "Bible but forbid hom ose xuality because they know it is abnormal!"

      That's why hundred of thousands of experts have proven this statement wrong. You're a troll and an idiot.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH, being a mathematical genius or musical prodigy is also "abnormal"; I assume you want to take away their rights too?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Yeah... you're so called experts have proven nothing. they spew their dumb opinions and call it fact with nothing to back it! And it works cause mormons say, well if the earthling expert says so then it must be true! They are just people with no proof of anything.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Saraswati........"@AH, being a mathematical genius or musical prodigy is also "abnormal"; I assume you want to take away their rights too?" Really, is that the best you morons can come up with. math compared to sodomy?

      November 28, 2012 at 9:12 am |
    • mama k

      LOL – A Hunter: "Bible out of context". Of course Christians are expert at saying the next person – especially another Christian, is not a Christian and that they have something out of context. It's always been like that – because it's built right into the religion. Many Christians can argue any side of any case and support it from parts of their conflict Bible. That's just the way they are – the conflict is built into Christianity.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      mama k...............yeah and que ers and atheist can argue their bologna and have not one shred of proof. Fact defies you!

      November 28, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • mama k

      Actually you are the one without proof, AH. Care to provide credible proof for the magic in your Bible? Yeah – I didn't think so. Lol.

      November 28, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  18. Reality

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

    To wit:

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

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

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

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

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    November 28, 2012 at 7:57 am |
    • Reality

      Continuing on:

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

      To wit:

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

      Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.

      As noted, there are basic biological differences in gay unions vs. heterose-xual marriage. Government benefits where approved are the same in both but making the distinction is important for census data and for social responses with respect to potential issues with disease, divorce and family interactions.

      November 28, 2012 at 8:00 am |
  19. Colin

    This is one of the clearest areas where religion is dangerous and has a negative, retarding effect on society. Christians basing their view on gay marriage, gays in the millitary and human $exual conduct in general on their toitally made up view on the supposed wishes of a non-existent Iron Age Palestinian sky-fairy.

    I expect that future gereations will look back in awe at how, as late as the 21st Century, we still believed in gods, ghosts and other silly superst.itious goblins.

    November 28, 2012 at 7:37 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Colin...........since they allowed ho mos in the military openly suicide has increase. Coincidence? Think not! Our military will become the laughing stock of the world! What next, cross dressing allowed, heels in battle. You people are really sick!

      November 28, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • mama k

      You are correct, Colin. And AH is obviously upset that the tide is turning. The military will calm down. In fact, that's a huge step that they've taken and a huge indicator I think. At times in our history, when the general population seemed divided, military policy has often been a guiding light, and certainly has kept more in tune with social justice than any religion could ever dream of.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • Saraswati

      @AH, Are you under the mistaken impression that other country's militaries all ban hom.ose x uals? OK, we've already determined you don't know history, anthropology or genetics...adding world politics and geography. Maybe you should spend more time reading and less time making ignorant posts online.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Saraswati...........yep, any country with an military worth fearing. Ask China and Russia and Iran.

      November 28, 2012 at 9:55 am |
  20. Rick Warren

    I'm coming out now.

    November 28, 2012 at 7:27 am |
    • Ann

      And no one would be surprised.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      In his interview Rick sounded like he was almost ready to say "I am attracted to men".

      November 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.