home
RSS
After gay marriage successes, activists look to build on new faith outreach techniques
Faith-based activists in Minnesota helped defeat a proposed gay marriage ban there this month.
November 30th, 2012
06:00 AM ET

After gay marriage successes, activists look to build on new faith outreach techniques

By Dan Merica, CNN

(CNN) – It may not sound very powerful, but gay rights activist Debra Peevey said that a two-inch green button played a major role in convincing voters to legalize gay marriage this month in her home state of Washington.

“Another Person of Faith Approves R. 74,” said the button, which refers to the ballot initiative that wound up legalizing gay marriage in Washington.

As faith director for the statewide pro-gay marriage campaign, Washington United for Marriage, Peevey and her team distributed 5,000 of the buttons. They were conversation starters, she said, ways of letting people know they could relate to one another on the intimate level of religion. And that being religious didn’t meant you had to oppose gay marriage.

“We had people clamoring for the buttons,” Peevey said. “People of faith all over the state wore them. It amplified that perspective that people of faith do, in fact, support marriage equality.”

This year, voters in Washington State were joined by those in Maryland, Maine and Minnesota in handing big victories to the gay rights movement. In the first three states, voters legalized gay marriage. In Minnesota, they rejected a measure that would have banned same-sex marriage.

After watching dozens of states adopt gay marriage bans in recent years, gay rights activists hope this month’s victories mark a national turning point. And to help push other states to follow suit, they are holding up efforts like Peevey’s as a blueprint for how to successfully incorporate faith into future gay rights campaigns.

Some same-sex marriage proponents think their fight may move to Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Oregon or some combination of those states. Wherever the effort goes, gay rights activists say, faith will be a part of the mix.

“Faith became part of the solution and not just the problem in all four states” where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, said Sharon Groves, director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. “We will never do a campaign moving forward where engaging people of faith will not be central part of that work.”

‘Be who you are, not something you are not’

For Grant Stevensen, a Lutheran pastor in St. Paul, Minnesota, and the faith director for the campaign opposing a gay marriage ban in the state, engaging faith communities depended on framing the debate the right way.

In past gay rights ballot fights, Stevensen said, the same-sex marriage movement put “a big emphasis on civil rights language and connection to the civil rights movement.” But the messaging didn’t work, he said, with many people rejecting the idea of a link between civil rights for minorities and marriage rights for gays.

Instead, Stevensen and his team used words like “love,” “marriage” and “commitment,” in their messaging about opposing a gay marriage ban, words that he said strike at the heart of Christian beliefs about marriage. “Our goal for the whole campaign was to emphasize those themes and talk specifically about gay people,” he said, “as opposed to making this another civil rights movement.”

Similar campaigns in other states took different approaches.

For instance in Maryland, gay rights activists emphasized outreach to African-American churches and played up civil rights arguments.

In Maine and Washington State, enormous effort went into mobilizing lay Catholics, even if their hierarchy actively opposed the gay marriage campaigns. Stevensen’s Minnesota campaign, meanwhile, targeted the state’s many Lutherans.

“Be who you are, not something you are not,” the pastor said, encouraging other gay rights activists to combat the stereotype that all Christians “are opposed to gay people.”

The right conversation

In past ballot fights, which resulted in gay marriage bans in more than 30 states, forces opposed to same-sex marriage had dominated the faith conversation.

A faithful same-sex marriage supporter was seen as an outlier.

When Ross Murray, director of religion, faith and values at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), was asked by his bosses to be one of the lead liaisons between the four state-based gay campaigns and the national gay rights organization, he knew more emphasis than ever was going to be put on religion.

Murray advised the campaigns to ask “people to vote the value that they have been taught” and “make sure that you can reach within all religious groups and get those who have passion and have them reach their friends, neighbors and co-congregants.”

That’s what Stevens tried to do in Minnesota: “We were going to either own this conversation about faith and if we can’t own it, no one is going to own it.”

Stevensen and his eight-person faith staff trained 2,500 "conversationalists," religious people who were taught how to have conversations about gay marriage with other people of faith. They were instructed to discuss same-sex marriage in terms of their religious beliefs. The campaign offered similar training sessions to more than 500 clergy.

The two-hour-long training sessions also focused on people telling their own faith stories. If someone had once been opposed to same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, they were encouraged to talk about that, too.

More than anything, said Stevensen, the conversationalists were encouraged to listen.

“People have their reasons to think what they do. [We taught how to] draw people out and make sure they are heard,” he said. “All of us like to be listened to.”

The Human Rights Campaign’s Groves said she was impressed by the lengths these campaigns went to reach deep into faith communities. As a veteran of the same-sex marriage fight, Graves was there when the movement struggled with this sort of outreach.

“It makes sense that we would have made some mistakes around that,” Groves said. “LGBT people have been harmed by the church.”

Perhaps the biggest mistake was around the gay marriage ban in California, known as Proposition 8.

Prop 8 mistakes

Debra Peevey was faith-based field organizer in Southern California during the fight against the Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008.

One reason she and her fellow gay rights activists lost that campaign was the way the religious conversation played out. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, along with the Roman Catholic Church actively campaigned for Prop 8. That framed the fight as one between secularists and believers.

“There was a resistance in engaging faith community,” Groves said. “We kind of let the religious right define the space for us and that was a real learning that we got from that.”

While religious organizations were pouring in money and manpower, said GLAAD’s Murray, anti-Prop. 8 opponents were apprehensive in reaching out to religious allies and ineffective at building enthusiasm from sympathetic religious communities and leaders.

Both Murray and Groves describe the post-Prop 8 reflection period as a “turning point” for the gay-rights community that gave rise to this year’s intense faith-based organizing.

Now, Peevey said, there’s no going back: “I can’t imagine that we will ever have a LGBT campaign where faith was not a part of the team.”

Moving forward

At pro-same-sex marriage organizations like GLAAD, Murray said conversations are turning to where the next gay marriage fights will happen.

“It is really hard to tell where this is going to come up again,” said Murray, adding that the next attempts to block or legalize gay marriage may happen legislatively in some states, as opposed to via ballot initiative.

He said gay rights groups want to tap into the Lutheran networks in Colorado, Illinois and Oregon early, to ensure that their LGBT outreach is well established by the time any ballot initiative or legislative efforts formally get under way.

By the time that happens, the gay rights community has learned, it may already be too late to frame the faith conversation around gay marriage.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Politics • Same-sex marriage • Sexuality • United States

soundoff (1,674 Responses)
  1. Brampt

    There is know doubt God doesn't approve gay relationships.
    If someone want to serve God, that person needs to make changes in order to please God, not the other way around.

    What! Do ​YOU​ not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,10nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.11And yet that is what some of ​YOU​ were. But ​YOU​ have been washed clean, but ​YOU​ have been sanctified, but ​YOU​ have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. 1Cor 6:9-12

    December 1, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • Quasimodo

      Unfortunately today, people do not recognize Bible as valid... so, you are preaching to the chore.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Damocles

      I'm with ya. There's been a few nights that I've had to wash myself clean after being a bit of a drunkard.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • snowboarder

      thankfully, in the modernized world, christianity has evolved into little more than a social club for all those except a very few extremists.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • Just the Facts

      The Holy Bible warns of false teachers just like you...

      2 Peter 2:1-3
      2:1) But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them —bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2) Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3) In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

      2 Timothy 4:3
      For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

      Please don't try to forbid marriage amongst those our Lord God created gay...

      1 Timothy 4:1-5
      Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart
      from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings
      of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are
      seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God
      created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
      the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be
      rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the
      word of God and prayer.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • snowboarder

      just – the bible is a collection of occasionally noble myths.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • Buck

      Justthefacts , you are the poster child for false prophet. Talk about twisting the truth.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • Brampt

      Just facts – your using the scriptures against your self!
      You said "Please don't try to forbid marriage amongst those our Lord God created gay..."
      God created Adam and Even, not Adam and Adam. Christ said that " men will leave he's mother and father and adhere to his wife"... Gays are of human creation not, Gods, can you read the scripture!!

      December 1, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Damocles

      @brampt

      Oh for pete's sake.... I'm so tired of seeing the same old 'my deity created everything.... except those icky things that I don't agree with'.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • Brampt

      Snowboarder – thanks for the modern world?? So your happy with a world were a lot of innocent die everyday from illness of war, a world full of greed and morally rotten??
      Well get used to the idea your modern world ( evil people) is to end soon..

      The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” Rev 11:15

      December 1, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • Damocles

      Odd that all these bad things happen when the majority of the world supposedly believe in peaceful, loving deities.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • snowboarder

      brampt – the world is certainly no worse than it has ever been, in many ways considerably better, and your bible is a collection of myths.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Brampt

      Damocles – true. We're in a rotten world were a lot of people believe in deitys! People worship everything but the God of the bible the only true God. Not even %99 of the called Christian worship the true God. The Romans had many deitys to worship, some gods were fornicators, others assassins, others drunkerds... The immoral lifestyle of the Romans reflected the deitys they worshipped... Now a days religious people act bad because, they do not worship the true God, therefore they do not reflect Gods light, Gods Qualitys..

      December 1, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • Damocles

      @brampt

      The Romans were smart, as were the Vikings and other cultures that worshipped multiple deities. If you are going to worship deities, you need to worship a few because you simply can not have a deity that is 'everything'. You proved that when you said that gays are made by man, which is ridiculous because.... who would have taught the first gay person to be gay??!!......

      What you end up with when you label your deity as 'everything' is a culture of apologists.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "There is no doubt," says Brampt. Really? If that were true, there would be no disagreement among religious scholars. Just because YOU have not doubt, Brampt, doesn't mean there isn't any. Fundies like you think you know god's mind and all that he "approves" because you're zealots.

      YOU aren't qualified to tell anyone else what god approves. Shut up and go do something for others.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Brampt, you've been busy throwing around "facts" about some god and your cult's believes. Do you have a single bit of independent, verifiable, objective or factual evidence to support the existence of your god and your beliefs? Or are you just another delusional (mentally ill) believer, a liar or both?

      December 1, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • nadinesh

      Have you ever asked yourself about what kind of God you want? Did it ever occur to you that you create God in your own image rather than the other way around? I disagree with you about doubts: there are actual quite a few doubts in the world. Personally, I believe that life without the Divine is an empty life, but what kind of divine asks us to condemn or despise people who do harm to nobody simply because they are different from us? Not my God.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  2. Quasimodo

    Getting a religion can be easily done... but which Bible are they going to use? As far as I know, Bible accounts shows that in the old times people with the same type of practices received direct punishment via fire and sulfur.

    December 1, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Damocles

      Wow, so no matter what you practiced, you were doomed? That's harsh.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • snowboarder

      quasi – whichever bible they choose. many people now realize that the bible is not to be taken literally.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Quasimodo

      Yes I know, i just tried to sugar coated a bit because they can't handle reality.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Uh huh

      snow, if the bible is not to be taken literally, what's the point?

      December 1, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • snowboarder

      uh – exactly. when any part of the volume is not literal, the veracity of the entire work is called into question.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Uh huh

      Thank you. If the bible is not taken literally, then it should not be followed and those people should not call themselves Christians.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Damocles

      So you should literally take up the mantle of your deity and murder the hell out of anyone that dares disagree with you. Awesome.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, stop trying to be logical, you're not very good at it. There's something called traditional theology that atheists often conveniently ignore in order to trash the bible. I can't decide whether they're just ignorant of it or willfully and decietfully ignore it. Either way is right in line with the violent comments of the atheists here, though.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      I'm sorry, are you going to try and say that the bible isn't violent? That your deity doesn't come up with all manner of atrocities to show its displeasure? Your deity would be the originator of violence, the well from whence all hatred flows.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So "true Christians" believe that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, then? And people who don't believe that is literal truth shouldn't call themselves "Christians."

      You're full of crap. Millions of Christians have more brains than you do and know that the bible is open to many interpretations.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, I haven't ever seen the Bible strike anyone of its own accord, so no, the Bible is not violent. There is violence in the Bible that should be understood through context and traditonal theology, but that is not what you were saying. You were telling me I should go murder people. The Bible and theology forbid that, as any rational non-militant atheist would know.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      Let's say it inspires violence.

      Violence is violence, context is a copout. Again, you are apologizing for your deity.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Dogzilla

      You can say it inspires violence, but you'd be wrong. When Christ, the one Christians follow, said that the law could be summed up as love God and love your neighbor as yourself, it's kinda unrealistic to believe that inspires violence.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh's dog

      So your deity is/was unaware that its rather haphazard method of killing people might inspire his followers to 'be like Mike'? Your deity just keeps getting stranger and stranger.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  3. snowboarder

    you would think that everyone would be supportinve of committed, monogamous, long term relationships.

    December 1, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • Damocles

      Hey, hey, hey.... there you go again making sense and all.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:22 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      I'm a straight man, but a gay colleague told me this risque joke. "What do two lesbians take on a second date?" "A moving van" (To begin living together) "What do two gay men take on a second date?" "What second date?"

      December 1, 2012 at 8:25 am |
  4. MagicPanties

    My invisible pink unicorn also supports gay rights.

    This will be real news when I can wear a "Another atheist supports..." button and not be vilified.

    December 1, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • Uh huh

      The IPU doesn't exist, you silly little atheist.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Prove that it doesn't exist. Go ahead.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  5. paul allen

    "Uupon THIS ROCK I will build my church and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it" ( and he was not talking about the Catholics or Islam when he said it) Tis wolrd is fixing to have a new sherrif in town and he is coming back irregardless of weather you or are ready and if you beleive it or not," Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise firstThen we which are alive [and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: Get right or get left behind, turn or burn, Your soul will live forever and ever its just going to be up to you which "neighborhood" you decide to hanf out in Read and obey Acts 2:38

    December 1, 2012 at 8:00 am |
    • rick

      your quotes are only applicable to those who accept the validity of the source

      the word is "whether", not "weather"

      December 1, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • Apple Bush

      irregardless is not a word.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Damocles

      Irregardless?? Really? Don't post anything ever again.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • ChrisW

      More self-righteous bullying.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • snowboarder

      paul – those are just silly $uper$ition$.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      You are a little bit scary, all fire and brimstone. Do you vomit all over the table when people are eating there. Why can't christians realize that this is the effect they have on the rest of society with their preaching, ESPECIALLY when they quote "chapter and verse" "chapter and verse" " chapter and verse" What I'm saying is, YOU DISGUST ME. I really wish you could win a Darwin award. (These are given to people who have helped the gene pool by eliminating their own genes from it by their own stupid accidental death, sort of like that show 1000 Ways to Die) I can help you on your way, and WITHOUT wishing for your death, and by abiding by YOUR GOOD BOOK and your way of throwing around those bible quotes.

      What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"? CASTRATE YOURSELF!!!!!!!. (Matthew 19:11-12)

      December 1, 2012 at 8:21 am |
    • Uh huh

      Nietodarwin,Paul sounds a bit harsh, but how would you talk to a group of lemming people who were running toward a fiery pit where they would suffer an eternal torment? I hope you'd say something harsh to wake them up. That's the only caring thing to do. Your post, on the other hand, is filled with hate by hoping Paul dies. I see a big difference between your posts, he seems to care that people don't burn eternally, but you want him to die. Hmm...

      December 1, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Damocles

      Can any believer provide proof (photos, journals, postcards, video) that any bad person has gone to hell and is burning as we speak?

      December 1, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • snowboarder

      heII is an imaginary place with which to frighten the children.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, no, but that is what Paul *believes*. Can you provide him with proof that it doesn't exist? If so, then maybe he'll quit trying to help save you.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      I'm so glad you feel that way. If we meet on the street, I'm totally justified in beating you up based on my deeply held personal belief that your money belongs to me. Gotcha.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, first, your example involves violence, just like nieto. What is it with atheists? Second, there is no ancient text that purports to be from God that tells you my money is yours and you should beat me up to obtain it. If you're going to believe something, at least don't pull violence out of thin air... You couldn't get me if you tried.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      Right, because molten lakes of fire aren't violent.....

      Fine, no violence, I'll just wear you down with constant preaching and guilt-trips. Is there a passage in which your deity states that your money doesn't belong to me? I'm guessing it's rather mum on the subject, therefor I can interpret the voice I hear in my head to my advantage. It's all about belief.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, if you were once a Christian, it is no wonder you left with such poor reasoning skills. It's all about belief in the ancient written word of God. Christians can be as logical or illogical as any atheist with one exception, they believe the Bible is the literal word of God and is to be followed in line with traditional theology. We don't just pull stupid stuff out of thin air like you're doing. And you might consider hell violent, but it's not a violence Christians are doing or want to do to you, it is a violence we are told will be done to those who don't believe. It is good will that causes Christians to try to help save others from hell, and that is not violence. And if there was no hell? We'd all like that, wouldn't we? However, with no threat of punishment for error, why not be as bad as you wanna be?

      December 1, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So the only thing that prevents you from murdering, stealing, ra ping, or bearing false witness is the threat of an eternal punishment, Uh? Sorry, but you're the ones who don't have a moral center if you only behave yourselves out of fear of some sky fairy.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      Are you going to smile and believe the torturer when he or she says they are doing this for your own good?

      Right on cue with my post about apologetics, here you are apologizing for your deity. 'Oh, he doesn't want to do it'. Fine, then don't do it, it ain't rocket science.

      Are you worried that without some invisible thing watching over your shoulder you would be a raving lunatic?

      December 1, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • Uh huh

      Tom, Dam, it seems you don't believe in the need for law enforcement. After all, everyone will follow the rules out of the goodness of their heart. What I'm saying is that humans are selfish and will do only what they desire unless there is punishment as an incentive to do otherwise. That means you two, too. If you think I look lightly on your previous violent comments as indicating otherwise, then think again.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If your god were so powerful, we wouldn't need law enforcement, you doofus. The fact that we do puts the lie to your god's omnipotence.

      Really, dude. Get your argument straight.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      WHAT "violence." Really, Duh, you are beyond dishonest. You're getting into Chard territory.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      I'm all for punishment. The problem with the punishment you desire for others and that you say your deity has promised, is the fact that it would boil down to killing me based on the simple fact that I disagree with you. How many people have disagreed with you, uh? Now, out of those millions and millions, how many have you killed? Now you want to offer up a loving deity who supposedly murders based on disagreement?

      I would and do punsih my child for doing something wrong, however it is not blown out of proportion. I do not beat them over something simple, I do not murder their friends and I do not punch the parents of other kids because my child did something wrong.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm cracking up, Dam, at Duh's comment that he doesn't "look lightly" on our comments. Are you sh!tting yourself in abject fear of Duh's judgment?

      What a Twinkie!

      December 1, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Damocles

      @tom

      Oh yes, I fear uh almost as much as I fear fluffy kittens and rainbows or fluffy kittens sliding down rainbows purring with pure pleasure. Truly terrified I am, I am.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, ok, now you're showing your true colors and are proving to be as close-minded as Tom Tom who has never been able to think straight and has no job. There's no point when you begin to assume, intentionally, or not, the worst in people. When You you put words in my mouth and say I desire hell for people, rational dialogue is done. Try again some day when you're actually interested in learning and not being a closeminded jerk like Miss Tom who obviously has no job or life.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      AhahhhhhaAaa! Don't let the door hit you where your stupid god split you, DUH, or should I say, Brophy.

      I knew you'd fold like a cheap suit.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I tell you, it just makes my heart glad when mental midgets like UH can't refute the arguments others have made and so call them "close-minded," then flounce away like little girls, waving their hankies. UH will show up momentarily, using some other sock puppet because Damocles has embarrassed him by beating him to a pulp.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      Oh man, I have to laugh when you say it's not ok for me to put words in your mouth, which I don't think I did, but then it's somehow ok for you to call tom and I jerks. Closeminded jerks at that. For shame!

      December 1, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Damocles

      @tom

      Stop, you are going to make me blush like a schoolboy.

      I didn't think uh would be so sensitive.

      Would the wittle fella like a wollipop? A hug? A swift kick in the britches?

      December 1, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Damocles, DUH is just a little boy who got handed his azz in some other thread. You know who he is; I can certainly spot him because he uses the same silly insults every time he posts to me or about me. It's always some infantile comment about "no job, no life."

      So funny.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Uh huh

      Tom, your meager mind can't hold a candle to mine except in your vacuous rhetoric, you just aren't interested in dialogue. Unlike you, I have a life I will now resume in spite of your puerile, schoolyard taunts. Good luck taunting others, though, it's right in line with your arrogant and angry atheist act.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ta-ta, DUH. Didn't you say you were leaving some time ago? How can we miss you if you don't vamoose?

      December 1, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      The polite thing to do once you have run out of steam in a discussion is to just gracefully back out instead of ending it on a rant worthy of a six year old kid who rammed his finger too far up his nose and hit gray matter.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you actually DID have a life, DUH, you wouldn't be so fascinated by gay marriage or so afraid of it; you'd go about your business and let others do the same. In reality, I suspect you are fascinated by gay s3x and afraid of it at the same time. That's why you protest it so vigorously.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Or what Dam said.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  6. Johnjon

    I am a 50 year old gay man. I believe in God. I've been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for 23 years. People sometimes ask us what our secret is. I always say, "a lot of love, respect for each other, and it helps that both set of parents never divorced no matter how tough it got". We would marry in a second if we could, and we feel someday we'll be able to. I know God loves me

    December 1, 2012 at 7:08 am |
    • Apple Bush

      Johnjon, good for you my man. I am an atheist so the god stuff doesn't impress me but the 23 years does. Congrats.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:30 am |
    • drumbeg

      indeed he does love you as He is a merciful God. He's also a God of justice who purposefully had Paul pen Romans 1.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:35 am |
    • DT

      Obama loves you too, As they say he has your back. I know he will fight for all that is gay because he is a man who means what he says.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:37 am |
    • trav

      u just got dead religion bud

      December 1, 2012 at 7:52 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      I am a straight man who is an atheist and could care less if you have a long relationship or many short ones. I have always supported gay rights, and gay marriage. It the gay community is this competent at getting people of faith to support your rights, maybe they can help support the rights of children to NOT be dragged into religion and brainwashed. (You are gay because well, you are gay. You believe in "god" and that "god " made you gay because you were raised in religion. Forcing a child into a RELIGION IS CHILD ABUSE. (Can you imagine having to go to church with this "paul allen" person in the comment above yours....."read your acts and obey" !!!! SEE, I'm NOT joking about the child abuse thing.) I'm glad your happy in your relationship and your politics, and if you're still a 'believer" maybe you can do some good on this front. Here's a quote, if you get tired of this belief in "god".......I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours Richard Dawkins

      December 1, 2012 at 8:11 am |
  7. KLN

    The United States has cheapened the definition of marriage to mean anything we want and allowed people to end their marriages at the drop of a hat, and we have seen a breakdown in the culture. There is more divorce, more single parent families, more adulteress relationships, more poverty. This leads to social problems like children in poverty, mental health issues due to stress and neglect and a lack of time with parent role models at home. We have kids running the streets at age 10 because they have no one at home to watch them or care about them. It requires a two- parent, man and woman, loving household. Men and women are uniquely different in how they model to a child and their differences help balance that child's development.

    December 1, 2012 at 6:35 am |
    • david

      call them what they really are Sodimites-(skin flute players.)

      December 1, 2012 at 6:50 am |
    • TOM

      BS!

      December 1, 2012 at 6:57 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      " It requires a two- parent, man and woman, loving household"

      A loving household is vital but it does not mean it has to be man and woman. Studies have shown that children raised by same gender couples do just as well if not better than children raised by hetero couples.

      "Another meta-analysis asserts that non-heterosexual parents, on average, enjoy significantly better relationships with their children than do heterosexual parents, together with no differences in the domains of cognitive development, psychological adjustment, gender identity, and sexual partner preference"

      (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)

      December 1, 2012 at 7:41 am |
    • nope

      tr...
      nope

      December 1, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • End Religion

      Lies and ignorance like KLN's causes the most harm. It's comforting to see your religion and people like you fading away. Bye bye!

      December 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  8. KLN

    The United States has cheapened the definition of marriage to mean anything we want and allowed people to end their marriages at the drop of a hat, and we have seen a breakdown in the culture. There is more divorce, more single parent families, more adulteress relationships, more poverty. This leads to social problems like children in poverty, mental health issues due to stress and neglect and a lack of time with parent role models at home. We have kids running the streets at age 10 because they have no one at home to watch them or care about them. It requires a two- parent, man and woman, loving household. Men and woman are uniquely different in how they model to a child and their differences help balance that child's development.

    December 1, 2012 at 6:34 am |
    • zivo24

      Actually, what cheapens marriage more than anything is the ridiculous notion that what two people have between their legs is more important, than what they have in their hearts.

      YOU, KLN, dishonor and cheapen marriage the most by making a couple's genitals more of a qualification to their being able to wed than love and commitment.

      Marriage is about love. PERIOD.

      It is NOT your or the purpose of government to tell consenting adults who they can or can't love or exclude them from enjoying the same rights as other couples.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:50 am |
  9. Kenjitheman

    Some of you guys are serious bafoons. Stating the big bang theory as fact. If it had any type of factual evidence they would change the name to big bang fact. Big bang theory is as false as they come

    December 1, 2012 at 5:55 am |
    • Apple Bush

      Please review the definition of the word "theory" and then try again.

      December 1, 2012 at 6:25 am |
    • DT

      Depends on what your definition of big bang is. I think they believe in big bang just a different definition. They probably actively study the big bang on a regular basis

      December 1, 2012 at 7:39 am |
    • midwest rail

      Please review the spelling of the word "buffoon" before questioning someone else's intelligence.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:43 am |
    • rick

      spell buffoons correctly, then get back to us

      December 1, 2012 at 7:43 am |
    • ChrisW

      The cosmic microwave background radiation can be considered 'factual evidence'. It doesn't prove the big bang to be true, but it certainly points in that direction. But, judging by your tone, you probably wouldn't consider it to be a possibility no matter how much evidence is collected.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Who calls the Big Bang a fact? It is a theory and a theory in the scientific sense is different than your base knowledge of the word. The Big Bang Theory is the most accurate explanation for how the universe came to be, we do not claim to know what created/caused the Big Bang. Christian's tend to take all though unanswered questions and plug them with the god-of-the-gaps argument, which only leads us to question who created your god.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • and as always

      liar prevails is wrong

      December 1, 2012 at 8:06 am |
  10. LargeNcharge

    Religious aside , it's not equal if you cannot simply complete the circle of life. Biology 101.

    December 1, 2012 at 5:40 am |
    • midwest rail

      then using your logic, couples who are infertile or who simply choose not to have children should also be ineligible to marry.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:58 am |
    • Uh huh

      Gay activists like midwest flunked biology and want the right to marry their sheep because, after all, they tell us it can fit.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      Got a bit of a barnyard animal fetish going on, don't ya?

      December 1, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Uh huh

      I can tell you're not a logical person, dam. I suppose you support gay "rights" but not the "rights" of polygamists, pedophiles, etc., too.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      I support the right of two consenting adults (re-read those last three words until it sinks into your brain) to enter into a marriage. Being gay is not the same as pedophilia, nor is it the same as bestiality. You people are ignorant to try and compare them.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, by your words, you don't support true marriage equality, only g.a.y marriage. Why don't you also support consenting polygamists who love each other and want their marriages legitimized so they will stop being victimized as they are today by the law? Age of consent is arbitrary, and it is different from state to state. Why not lower the arbitrary age of consent for consenting adults, to eliminate the need to call some people pedophiles based on an arbitrary line drawn in the sand? You're a hypocrite if you think those things are wrong but g.a.y marriage is right.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, Duh. As far as the 'arbitrary line' of age of consent, if you want to allow 12-year-olds to drink legally and serve in the military, then fine, you go right ahead and lower the age of consent. If not, DUH, you're the hypocrite.

      Nobody is talking about legalizing child marriage or polygamy, and the fact that you try to use those as an excuse to withhold the right to marry just shows that you are dishonest.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and now it's sheep! You really are grasping at straws, Duh.

      I'm glad I live in a state where the level of education is higher than it is wherever you live. My state legalized gay marriage by popular vote. Guess Marylanders are smart enough to know that bestiality and pedophilia are not the issue.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      I'd watch who you call a hypocrite if you are going to bash those that your deity created a certain way.

      I answered your question and now you want to try and twist things around. I did neglect to mention polygamists in my post so allow me to do so. If they are all adults and they are all aware of what they are entering into, I'm fine with that.

      You are correct in that the age of consent is different from state to state and if the law says they can get married at X age, then I am ok with that. Would I want the age of consent lowered? Nope. I do think that if you are going to say a person is an adult at a certain age, then he or she should have all the rights of an adult.

      December 1, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Uh huh

      Dam, there are two ways to look at it: lifestyle coice or genetics. If it's a lifestyle choice, and science has yet to conclusively prove otherwise, then you have no argument. If it's genetic, which I do happen to believe in some cases, then that is how they were born. However, a predisposition toward alcoholism, violence, and depression are genetic; they were just born that way. That doesn't mean we should accept and approve such behaviors. It's ok to talk of helping people overcome these predispositions with therapy or drugs but not the other? I find it immoral not to look for root causes and provide the means to change abnormal behaviors.

      At least you claim not to be hypocritical in thinking you support true equality then, but why aren't you fighting equally hard for these others? There are polygamists in Utah how still get arrested, and polygamy is still illegal though there have been shows on TV about it. They are more discriminated against than g.a.y.s. Why do all these equality advocates never mention these other issues? Why just g.a.y.s? That is extremely hypocritical.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It doesn't matter if it's a 'choice' or not. There is no reason to discriminate against consenting adults who wish to marry.

      Research shows that orientation is not a choice and that 'therapy' to attempt to change orientation is not only ineffective but harmful.

      But it doesn't matter. We don't discriminate against people based on their choices when said choices are not infringing on the legal rights of others.

      Don't care what your version of god says about it.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And it's not a "lifestyle", you moron, any more than being straight is a "lifestyle."

      December 1, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Uh huh

      Ooh, moron. That's a big word for your Marylander mind, isn't it? Are you a fan of the terrible terrapins? That is one terrifying mascot.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      So I glanced at the ti-tle of this story again and you know what I found? Do you wanna know? Huh, do ya? Well, I'll tell you because I like you. I found that this is a story about gay marriage, not polygamy. I know, I know, it's odd to stay on topic and only talk about the issue in the story, but do give it a try at your earliest convienence.

      Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Depression, a need for alcohol and violence are not the same as being gay. I know you want it to be because you think it justifies your posistion, but it doesn't. You do realise where this is heading, don't you? Since being straight is genetic, your argument really boils down to everyone should be se-xless.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you moron, I'm not. And "Terrapins" would be capitalized by anyone with a post-middle-school education, as it's the name of an organization.

      Now, where are those sources for your claim that hom0s2xuality was uncommon in ancient Greece and Rome?

      Or are you going to pull another Chard and weasel out of providing them?

      December 1, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • End Religion

      Marylanders are especially wise in the ways of fighting religious crabs like Uh Huh.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  11. Trent

    It's amazing how quickly prevailing views on gay relationships have changed- in less than a generation support for gay marriage has gone from like 20% to about 50%. Any time before 1960 it wasn't even considered because it was considered totally outrageous. Now you are considered hateful if you don't think marriage means man-man or woman-woman as much as it means man-woman. Oh how times change, even though the underlying humans impulses haven't. A curiosity.

    December 1, 2012 at 3:38 am |
    • tokencode

      Freedom of information can quickly tear down the walls of hatred when they are built with stereotypes and silly religious dogma

      December 1, 2012 at 3:54 am |
    • The Truth

      " Any time before 1960 it wasn't even considered because it was considered totally outrageous." except for those few hundred years in ancient Greece and Rome...

      December 1, 2012 at 4:22 am |
    • SixDegrees

      What has happened in just the last handful of years is that people are finally realizing there are two distinct things called 'marriage': one is a sacrament or its equivalent recognized by various religions; the other is a legal contract issued and enforced by the state. It is only the latter that is in play in the gay marriage struggle. If we had not adopted the name 'marriage license' or 'marriage contract' for the legal benefits and requirements conferred by the state, and called it instead a 'civil contract' or some such for everyone, we very likely would not still be having this debate. The recognition that these are two completely separate, unrelated things is relatively new. But it is rational, so it is spreading rapidly.

      December 1, 2012 at 7:21 am |
    • Uh huh

      Get your truth straight, truth. While it may be no secret that it happened in ancient Greece and Rome it was still frowned upon as immoral. It was used to slander Leaders. Julius Caesar was slandered by his political opponents in this way. It was never a good thing in all of recorded human history until the past few decades as atheists have begun to crawl out from under rocks trying to convert everyone.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Baloney. Provide citations for your sources, DUH.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The word "leader" isn't capitalized, you dumb sh!t. And why would atheists try to "convert" anyone? They don't have houses of non-worship that they need to pay for so they're not in need of funds. They have no services, so need no money to pay for priests or ministers. They have no hymns, so there's no need for an organist or choir director.

      You really do look silly when you write such moronic tripe, Duh.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      Holy hell, do you wear a cup strapped to your chin to catch all that drool? You just said that it's existed throughout history and then say that atheists are trying to convert everyone.

      Answer me this: in a deity driven creation, who would have taught the first gay person to be gay?

      December 1, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Uh huh

      Tom, Dam, if I am indeed talking with two different people, you don't seem to understand what you read, and then you assume. Bad atheists, bad. Tom, I did not ever write that it was uncommon in history. I'll excuse you because yours is the role of a buffoon anyway. I wrote that it has never been considered good or moral until the past few decades, but you still won't undestand, because that's not your modus operandi. It was often used as a political insult. For all your bluster about being intelligent, one would think you would already know of or would have the intectual capacity to find out about the insults used against Caesar, but alas you're merely a buffoon uninterested in truth or fact. Dam, you disappoint me, as I initially thought you were more openminded. The key is understanding what you read. Whether it existed through history has no bearing on whether it was accepted as good and moral;it wasn't. And what a silly question... Immoral people will stick it anywhere when in the mood,, won't they? You really think someone had to be taught? Who taught the first person to murder? Who taught the first person to drink or do drugs? Brother.

      December 1, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Damocles

      @huh

      Dance around it all you want. Answer.the.question.

      In a deity driven creation, who is responsible for putting those thoughts in a person?

      December 1, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ooh, "buffoon." That's a big word for someone who can't figure out how to use the internet and who doesn't know that "close-minded" is hyphenated. Why can't you provide citations for your claims, DUH? Or are you going to do what Chard always does and accuse me of being "close-minded" because I won't do your homework for you?

      I've already done my research. Why can't you do yours?

      Damocles cleaned your clock. Go lick your wounds.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      I'd advise against licking your wounds, you may end up developing a fondness for that which you despise.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Simran

      @ Damocles,
      It will take Duh a while to come up with the answer that it was Satan!

      December 1, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Eww. And hahaha.

      Dam, did you notice that DUH provided not a single cite for his claims about ancient Rome?

      December 1, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Uh huh

      No dancing necessay. Dam, you asked a different question, or did you notice? But I'll answered it just as I did the other. We were created with free will. The answer is that the person is perfectly capable of coming up with those thoughts on their own.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then those thoughts and feelings were natural and therefore part of god's creation.

      As you've been told repeatedly.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's really amusing is that DUH keeps threatening to take his ball and go home.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Damocles

      @uh

      Oh yes, I'm a bast-ard because I asked it two different ways. This is what you want to harp on?

      I gotta hand it to you, you are definitely acting like a believer because just a minute ago you said one thing (I'm leaving) and you did the exact opposite (your staying). Too funny.

      And now you want to say that your deity wants to punish people for using freewill? It's a sick, sick, little deity you have there.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Simran

      Have to hand it to Duh for coming up with free will contradiction!

      The story is told of a group of theologians who were discussing predestination and free will.

      Things became so heated that the group broke up into two opposing factions.

      But one man, not knowing which to join, stood for a moment trying to decide. At last he joined the predestination group.

      “Who sent you here?” they asked.

      “No one sent me,” he replied. “I considered the facts and decided on my own.”

      “Free Will!” they exclaimed. “You can’t join us! You belong with the other group!”

      So he followed their orders and went to the other clique.

      There someone asked, “When did you decide to join us?”

      The young man replied, “Well, I didn’t really decide–I was sent here.”

      “Sent here!” they shouted. “You can’t join us unless you have decided by your own free will.”

      December 1, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Damocles

      @tom

      I notice a lot of things about uh, mainly that he has an aversion to answering questions.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Damocles

      @sim

      Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't go with the satan option.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That's great, Simran.

      What is so dishonest about DUH's posts is that he flounced off, or promised to do so, after calling Damocles "close-minded" when DUH couldn't counter Dam's arguments. He's mad as hell that he can't refute what Dam said with anything factual, so he starts pretending that the argument isn't a fair fight, in effect.

      He doesn't like it when others don't just take his say-so but he doesn't have anything else.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Simran

      Duh,
      You might want to check what the New Testament says about free will vs predestination –

      http://richardspeaks.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Free-Will-Biblical-or-Just-a-Mean-Joke

      December 1, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Damocles

      I do see traces of chad's argument of 'everyone is picking on me' in uh's posts. Maybe they are related.... or have relations. Or related relations.

      December 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  12. AEvangelista

    Human beings are naturally spiritual. That's why religions exist and will always be around. All religions need to do is upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. Religions were created by people and can therefore be changed by people.

    December 1, 2012 at 3:27 am |
    • End Religion

      Humans are not naturally spiritual. All children are born atheists until someone foists religion onto them, fills them with guilt and so begins the control.

      It can be demonstrated that humans are naturally trusting, however, and this is where religion comes in.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)

      Religious folks do exactly what you just did, tell people their beliefs as if they are facts. Since people tend to be naturally trusting, many of them fall for this bullshit on their personal journey for a meaning or purpose to life, never bothering to think it through. "God did it" is an easy answer. It solves a lot of problems quickly and without much effort as long as you're the trusting type who doesn't want to think things through.

      December 1, 2012 at 4:39 am |
  13. Nancy

    To Rick who stated: By the way, Religion is not magic. If it were, it would have disappeared like witchcraft in the 17th century. It must have some truth to it, it's been around for 6,000 years.

    Such a scholar....you think witchcraft has disappeared? foolish foolish person who seems to be locked into their own fantasy world.

    December 1, 2012 at 2:42 am |
  14. Fritz Hohenheim

    I dont understand why christians are so obsessed with gay people and constantly think about them. I constantly think about girls, but then I'm not gay...Well I guess everybody is obsessed with the thing he desires :)

    December 1, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • counter

      The scripture are clear on this. You must ignore both the new testament and the old to think that God wants people to follow this lifestyle.

      It is not the model God designed for mankind.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:19 am |
    • LinCA

      @counter

      You said, "The scripture are clear on this. You must ignore both the new testament and the old to think that God wants people to follow this lifestyle."
      If you believe that based on your interpretation of your fairy tale, your imaginary friend doesn't approve of same sex marriage, you better not enter into one. You have no right to expect anyone else to be denied the right to marry because of your delusion.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:28 am |
  15. Zuddy

    Supporting gay marriage and being a Christian has no logic, its like being pro-life and having an abortion. I myself am an atheist and don't care either way, but you can't have it both ways.

    December 1, 2012 at 2:11 am |
    • LinCA

      @Zuddy

      You said, "Supporting gay marriage and being a Christian has no logic"
      I agree with the "being a Christian has no logic". To be a believer you have to leave logic securely locked away. The other part doesn't make any sense, on the other hand. Since the christian fairy tale book is full of contradictions, you'll have to pick and choose what parts to follow, and what parts to ignore.

      To support same sex marriage as a christian, all you'll have to do is ignore the nasty interpretations of the nasty parts.

      But even if a christian doesn't support same sex marriage, he or she is not required to participate. If they feel their imaginary friend doesn't approve, they can abstain.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • DocReality

      Who says you can't have it both ways? Wow. Who knew Atheists were just as rigid as religious fanatics? It's possible there could still be a god or supreme being out there who created all of this but does not subscribe to the b.s. humans use to inflict cruelty upon one another. If there is a god, religion in many instances has little to do with what god is about. It's called living in a "grey zone" and learning to co-exist in freedom. Conservatism in its purest form should have nothing to do with religious fanaticism; and uber-Left bleeding-heart-socialist-nazis muck up the Dems. Life is muddy. Deal.

      December 1, 2012 at 3:03 am |
    • DT

      You are wrong, I think they are having it both ways. It just depends on what position they are in

      December 1, 2012 at 7:41 am |
  16. organically

    Religion is the biggest scam in the history of humanity and based on hypocrisy. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives, but this is being prevented by religious radicals and therefore religion is detrimental to the preservation of life. Religion has been the greatest cause of war and conflict throughout human history and has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people throughout history, therefore religion is detrimental to the preservation of life.

    December 1, 2012 at 2:09 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      nail on the head.

      christianity is a force for evil. the bible says to kill g.ays, disobedient children, non-virgin brides and anyone working the weekend. the bible supports slavery throughout. god drowns babies in his great flood. BABIES.
      the bible is disgusting.

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y&w=640&h=390]

      December 1, 2012 at 2:11 am |
    • and as always

      Footybunk is wrong.

      December 1, 2012 at 8:05 am |
  17. shawbrooke

    What!!! Someone with a social cause actually cares about what people of faith think? How revolutionary! Where is the negative rhetoric with so many assumptions that prejudice comes to mind?

    In other words, the gay marriage cause thinks that it is not winning and is willing to look at some unorthodox (pun intended) supporters.

    December 1, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • LinCA

      @shawbrooke

      You said, "In other words, the gay marriage cause thinks that it is not winning and is willing to look at some unorthodox (pun intended) supporters."
      Since there isn't a rational argument to be made against same sex marriage, there is little doubt that eventually it will be just as normal and accepted as mixed race marriage. It may take time, but with discussion, education and outreach even the staunchest opponents will relent or become the extreme fringe.

      For those that see the writing on the wall, there is still time to join the rational side in this discussion before they become the lunatic fringe. Consider this a public service announcement.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:48 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      the only opposition to g.ay marriage comes from the religious, christianity in this country. one church backs g.ay marriage while the other churches spout bigotry and h.omophobia.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Athy

      This will soon become just another nail in the coffin of religion. I just hope I live long enough to see the final burial.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:55 am |
  18. Johnny 5

    Attention "People of Faith"....you and your bigotry are slowly becoming extinct. The antidote for your poison is here and its called REALITY.

    December 1, 2012 at 1:27 am |
  19. jarhead333

    Disappear? I don't think religion is going anywhere. It has as much proof of creation as any current scientific theory.

    December 1, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Please name one thing that has ever been proven true by religion....if you answer you would be the first....

      December 1, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • Gadflie

      Actually, no. There is a significant amount of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. There is none at all supporting creationism.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • End Religion

      Yes, disappearing. Religion is dwindling. CNN posted the story a couple weeks ago. Plus:

      http://www.skyejethani.com/the-disappearing-church/1036/

      http://www.kwqc.com/global/story.asp?s=11837427

      there's more stories on it: google "churches disappearing"

      Sorry, jarhead, you'll need to find another sky daddy. I hear Leprechauns are next up for godhood. Better start polishing that blarney stone!

      December 1, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting

      Which is the "proof" that all religion is, is a "god of the gaps" *app* for an otherwise missing (apparently "needed" explanation). As soon as there IS a better explanation, ... bye bye god.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Earthling

      Spoken as only the truly ignorant can. Evidence for evolution – mountainous. Evidence for the standard model of how the universe began – overwhelming. Evidence for creationism – nonexistent.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • jarhead333

      Name one thing proven by religion? Ok, since every atheist is a "scientist" tell me the origin of the universe. I have yet to hear an atheist prove that either.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • End Religion

      lol... practice avoidance much?

      December 1, 2012 at 1:43 am |
    • B(iraq) Hussein Osama

      "since every scientist is an atheist"

      Newton (one of the greatest of all scientists) was a practising christian. Einstein, originally raised in a secular environment) became more and more religious as he grew older.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      More proof that all god is, is the missing explanation.
      There is no reason an omnipotent god could not have made a race of universe makers, who also made a race of universe makers, who told them to do whatever they wanted, but not to bother them about what was going on in it.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheese makers

      Jarhead,

      You could have been the first....I was really hoping. You are the one that said religion has as much proof of creation as science...I guess you were just talking out your ass.

      Science does not know everything.....Religion doesn't know anything....

      December 1, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • jarhead333

      Avoidance? Are you kidding? That is the question every atheist and evolutionist dodges, and you just proved it again.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      religion has ZERO proof.

      go to your local community college and take any science class available. your knowledge of science is at a 5th grade level.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:51 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheese makers

      Yes Osama, some scientists are religious...so what. Did they prove anything using their religious belief?

      Of course not...their religion was meaningless to the scientific discoveries they made.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      jarhead, there is evidence to support the big bang theory. there is none for god. see the difference?

      December 1, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • Athy

      Nah, he can't see the difference. Otherwise he would be one of us!

      December 1, 2012 at 1:57 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      Osama wrote:
      "Einstein, originally raised in a secular environment) became more and more religious as he grew older."
      absolutely false. einstein never became religious. the religious sure like to spread that propaganda.

      "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
      (Albert Einstein, 1954)

      Einstein died in 55, btw. so i guess he got religious in the year between writing the above quote and his death? lol. silly fundies and their lies.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Bootyfunk
      Your name suggests that you are very highly educated. I do read up on science, as I belive that science and God are not seperate. But I do notice a trend. All of you loud mouths have a lot to say against Christianity, yet none of you have the balls to state your theory on the origins of life. Don't give me "big bang", I want no life one day... life the next day.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheese makers

      Even if science could not prove anything regarding creation.....that still gets us no closer to your god did it.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      "Your name suggests that you are very highly educated"
      and yours suggests you have no education, just a hive mentality.

      "All of you loud mouths have a lot to say against Christianity, yet none of you have the balls to state your theory on the origins of life. Don't give me "big bang", I want no life one day... life the next day."
      this kind of statement tells me you're lazy. you have a computer right in front of you. the big bang theory explains the origin of the universe, not life on earth. never heard of primordial soup? since you are too lazy to type "scientific origin of life on earth", i will give you a link:

      http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

      any of these are better than turning your brain off and saying "goddidit!"

      December 1, 2012 at 2:06 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Bootyfunk
      Primordial soup? You must be the last one. Most abandoned that theory decades ago. It was attempted to be recreated and was never close to succesful, even with the ingredients. Do you even know what it takes for a single celled organism to sustain basic life function? It takes about 250 proteins with amino acids and perfectly coded DNA to even support the basic functions of life. Your scientific knowledge blows me away.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      wrong again, jarhead. to say the primordial soup theory was abandoned tells me you really don't keep up on scientific periodicals. here's a story about how scientists back the primordial soup theory. and it was written last February:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/evolution-may-have-created-life_n_1290810.html

      and here's more:

      http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/03/taking-a-stride-toward-synthetic-life/

      http://phys.org/news/2011-01-scientists-synthetic-proteins-sustain-life.html

      http://www.science20.com/catarina_amorim/scientists_develop_method_works_create_proteins_laboratory-85404guess

      http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&Itemid=62

      jarhead, sounds like you ignore facts and research you don't like. seriously, do a search for these things yourself instead of coming on here to talk nonsense. try to know what you're talking about before you start typing...

      December 1, 2012 at 2:21 am |
    • jarhead333

      Do you even read your own articles? I suggest you do prior to posting them.
      "The advance breaks a 40-year period with little progress in artificial ribosome creation, Church said."
      So not all evolutionists, but most have abandoned it. That article replicated fake ribosomes, which are a part of one protein, and like I said takes 250 proteins with perfectly coded DNA to support life. Is that what you consider proof? Even Charles Dawkins does not commit to a "origin of life" theory. Most of you only want to break down Christianity but the truth is, both sound like nonsense to the current human mind. I understand that I can't show you God, just as nobody can prove the origins of life. I just think it's funny that Intelligent Design is so far fetched to you people, yet you want to believe that ALL life (plant and animal) came from stewing mud. That is even after what we know about the complexity of cells today. Whatever helps you sleep though.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:36 am |
    • Athy

      Jarhead doesn't only "ignore," he doesn't "explore." His mind is made up, don't confuse him with facts. He can't handle it.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:37 am |
    • Athy

      So, Jarhead. You're saying some intelligent designer started life? So where did this "intelligent designer" come from? Wouldn't he have to be at least as complex as the 250 proteins you claim is necessary to be called "life?" Give us a reasonable answer, please.

      December 1, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • Norris Lewis

      http://y-jesus.com shows evidence JESUS walked this earth, died & arose 3 days later. It is by faith we will spend eternity with him & not with the destoryer of life.

      December 1, 2012 at 6:40 am |
    • End Religion

      @norris: First, please don't send Chuck after me for setting you straight on this but you said, "...evidence JESUS walked this earth, died & arose 3 days later. It is by faith we will spend eternity with him & not with the destoryer of life."

      No one on the planet has evidence any supernatural dude walked the planet, let alone another nutter with his WordPress blog. It is by faith you believe events that are impossible because it soothes your fears about our current life and afterlife. There are no gods, angels, demons, devils, leprechauns or unicorns.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
  20. uoıƃılǝɹ ɟo plɹoʍ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɥʇ

    Atheism: Acceptance of facts and recognition that the real world is exactly what it seems.

    ɔıƃɐɯ uı ɟǝılǝq :uoıƃılǝɹ

    December 1, 2012 at 12:40 am |
    • Akira

      Man, I wish I could do that...that is so cool.

      December 1, 2012 at 12:47 am |
    • Rick

      Neat, I'd like to do that.

      December 1, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • Helpful Hints

      Akira and Rick,

      You can do it too. Google "upside down text" or "flip text" and give it a try.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Rick

      By the way, Religion is not magic. If it were, it would have disappeared like witchcraft in the 17th century. It must have some truth to it, it's been around for 6,000 years.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Athy

      Kindly explain the "truth" of religion for us.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • Akira

      Helpful hints: thanks!
      I will!

      December 1, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Astrology has been around a long, long, time so I guess there must be some truth to it.....*facepalm*

      December 1, 2012 at 1:20 am |
    • End Religion

      "it's been around 6000 years," Rick says, as it disappears from under his nose.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • Gadflie

      Rick, Astrology has been around for at least that long. Oops.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • B(iraq) Hussein Osama

      Truth of Religion.
      gassing jews (simply because they are jewish) by the millions in custom built factory like gas chambers is not good.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Ah, memories of Bucky. Where is he anyway ?

      December 1, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • Earthling

      So if being around for 6000 years is proof of religion's validity, how long did it have to be around before it became valid? Was it fake for the first 4000 years, and then became true? The first 1000? What's the magic age for a myth to become reality? Inquiring minds want to know.

      December 1, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      On the flip side, how long does something (such as christianity or islam) have to be around, with no supporting evidence, before it gets discarded?

      December 1, 2012 at 2:52 am |
    • ɥsnq ǝןddɐ

      ¡ʞɹoʍ s,ןıʌǝp ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ ¡ou 'ɐɹıʞɐ

      December 1, 2012 at 6:30 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
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.