home
RSS
My Take: Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality
A series of recent conferences have cast a light on gay Catholics and their families.
November 8th, 2011
12:22 PM ET

My Take: Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality

Editor's Note: Patrick Hornbeck is an assistant professor and associate chair for undergraduate studies at Fordham University.

By Patrick Hornbeck , Special to CNN

The Roman Catholic Church has long been a reliable source for one-dimensional storylines: Victims of sexual abuse call for justice. Parishes close as numbers of clergy plummet. Rosary-clad Catholics protest outside abortion clinics.

Perhaps nowhere has the storyline seemed more clear-cut than with regard to the church’s treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and their relationships.

Official Catholic teachings describe gay or lesbian orientation as “an objective disorder” and tell those who love their same-sex partners that they possess a “tendency… toward an intrinsic moral evil.”

Catholic bishops have been public advocates for laws banning same-sex marriage, and some have sought to prevent LGBT Catholics and their allies from fully participating in the Church’s rituals and activities

But neither formal teachings nor bishops’ statements tell the whole story.

A series of recent conferences at American colleges reveals the breadth of Catholic approaches to issues of sexual diversity.

The conferences, part of an effort called More than a Monologue, have happened at two Catholic universities and two non-denominational divinity schools

The events conclusively show that American Catholics are hardly of one mind, nor in lockstep with their bishops, when it comes to same-sex marriage; to rights for LGBT people at home, at work, and in church; or to the ongoing campaign against anti-gay bullying in schools.

At Fordham University in New York, a Catholic school, a proud mother of a grown gay son drew a standing ovation when she told a story about discovering the effect of church teachings on her child.

Here’s that mother, Deb Word, who has founded a group Fortunate Families to help Catholic families with lesbian daughters and gay sons, in her own words:

Fast forward to a family vacation in the Gulf. There were five of us floating—Sean and his wife, Chris, and his dad and me, holding onto each other’s rafts. And I said, ‘I think this is what Heaven is like.’ And Christopher said quietly, “except I won’t be there with you.” “Son, where do you get this stuff?” “Mom, it’s your club. You know the rules.”

And if my cradle Catholic child, growing up in a loving family, got this message, then what does Catholic mean in more conservative homes? … And I wonder, why do I stay in a club that my son says is dangerous to his soul?”

Another panelist at the event described the freedom she feels as a result of living, within the church’s rules, as a celibate lesbian.

A third, a physician in New York City, praised the Catholic tradition for its emphasis on human dignity and social justice, but added: “I am troubled by the fact that I find greater acceptance of myself as a whole person in my professional community as a physician, than I do in the official hierarchy of the church of my family, my childhood, and my life.”
Nationally syndicated columnist Dan Savage may be better known for his very public critiques of Catholic leaders than for the year he spent in a high school seminary, or for his Catholic deacon father, or for the baptism he and his husband sought for their son.
But speaking recently at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, Savage described his Catholic family and upbringing, celebrating parts of his Catholic experience.

At the same time, he refused to let the church off the hook for the part he accuses it of playing in tacitly condoning the bullying of LGBT youth.

Last month, at Yale University, a Catholic layman who teaches psychiatry spoke movingly of his attempt to offer church leaders the wisdom of his scientific field, and of his bitter disappointment when his offers were met with silence.

And at Connecticut ’s Fairfield University, scholars, clergy, and lay Catholics recently discussed the implications for the church of having many gay and lesbian people, both in and out of the closet, in roles as priests and ministers.

These public events have brought into the light the struggles, compromises and choices about meaning and love that many Catholics experience daily.

Poll numbers show that while many of their bishops have been stepping up their rhetoric on the issue, only one-in-three American Catholics describe opposition to same-sex marriage as “very important.” Seventy percent support legal recognition for same-sex couples.

All of us, Catholic or not, LGBT or not, owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to keep these new conversations going. Let’s not to settle for only part of the story.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Patrick Hornbeck.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bishops • Catholic Church • Homosexuality • Opinion

soundoff (2,880 Responses)
  1. Chantal

    What I don't get is why so many people decide to be members of organized religions and end up picking and choosing which parts of the religion they do or don't want to follow. If you were going to decide what you believed in the first place, why did you even bother to claim that you were a member of a certain religion? I don't recall ever hearing a Christian from any denomination complaining about people who eat shrimp or wear mixed fabrics.

    November 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Bob

      That's a good point. I would contend that the tenets of any Christian sect that follows the bible, taken in totality, are intrinsically self-incompatible. You just can't have all that the bible says, follow its teachings, and still believe that the god described is a good divine ent-ity, among many other problems. So, it has to come down to pick and choose, which then destroys the validity of the religion as a whole and means that the "god" isn't as advertised.

      To put it more simply, I think Christianity is complete rubbish.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  2. catholic engineer

    I suppose gay people will fill the bill as well as anyone. This blog is infested with people who were already prejudiced against religion, particularly Catholicism. They are merely exploiting gay people to feed their contempt for religion. I suspect very few bloggers have actually witnessed any Christian persecution of gays at all. I think some of these bloggers have a fragile need to believe themselves "tolerant" and "open minded". They'd use gays or anyone available.

    November 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • BRC

      I once watched a converstaion between a housemate (who claims to be an enlightened accepting christian), her boyfriend, and his Mom, where they all agreed that the gay couple back at their home church shouldn't attend the services, because they were gay. "Reasonable" people, who believe that someone shouldn't be able to engage in their faith, to speak to the deity that brings them comfort and may be a very important part of their life, because they didn't like their choices.

      The prejudice is quite real, I've seen it first hand, and I will never understand it (I did maanage to not throw a dinner plate I was cleaning at them, but it wasn't easy)

      November 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      'I suppose gay people will fill the bill as well as anyone. This blog is infested with people who were already prejudiced against religion, particularly Catholicism. They are merely exploiting gay people to feed their contempt for religion. I suspect very few bloggers have actually witnessed any Christian persecution of gays at all. I think some of these bloggers have a fragile need to believe themselves "tolerant" and "open minded". They'd use gays or anyone available.'

      And here I thought it was a sin for Christians to lie. Yes, I have seen first christians persecute gays, not just once but over years! Yes, I have even been in verbal face to face debate with them. It usually ends up with them slamming their bibles around and SCREAMING at me. You have to make that crap up so you can feel justified in your personal prejudice about gays.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Wow, a conspiracy of atheists using the gay agenda to hate on religion, because apparently that's the only reason to do so. You cracked the code cathlic engineer! Christians don't hate anyone, they're loving and accepting, and the mere fact that most of the hate filled comments on this board are from self-professed christians, it's just us evil atheists at it again! There's actually nothing stopping gay people from getting married, its just atheists who actually hold the majority in this country blocking laws allowing gays to get married to they can use gay people to hate more on christianity! You solved it cathlic engineer! Now spread the news!

      November 9, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • J.W

      Well what we Christians need to do is stop the oppression of gays. I don't know why we are allowing the atheists to do this.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Sid

      catholic sanitation engineer, that is.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • chief

      i am Christian not catholic... my view is that being gay is as wrong as being a fat chiicken eating preacher,,, as wrong as anyone who thinks mary is the mother of God and the Queen of the universe, as wrong as that joke you tell

      November 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      @chief Having called Jesus a liar, you cannot claim to be a Christian. Jesus prayed in John's gospel that "all those the Father gave him (Jesus) would be one." Since only Catholics had lived up to this prayer, Jesus must not have been talking to you seperated bretheren. Also, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, and he would be with us always. Yet according to your bunch, the gates of hell did prevail, and Jesus was absent until you folks showed up.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • J.W

      Could you go into more detail? How are Catholics the only ones to live up to it?

      November 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Ike

      Catholicism is as Christian as Morminsim is Christian. Let's see they verenate Mary, which the Bible does not. They endorse idols, which the Bible does not. They place the Pope at the head of the church, but the Bible places Christ at the head. Catholicism is not the one true church in that it has splintered endlessly and is different than it was from the very beginning. Peter was not the first Pope, but just an outspoken apostle. The present "church" harbours pedofiles. Ad Nauseum.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      @J.W. I was being a bit fasetious. There are 20,000 or more Christian groups in existence. This seems to have neutralized Jesus desire for unity. Catholicism has been mostly unified. But like any family, we've had our own infighting.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      @ IKE Protestant Christians seem to believe that the Bible came before the church. Not so. The church came first, and put the loose collection of writings into a canon. As far as Mary is concerned, the church had highly regarded her before the Bible was put into place. Much of what the church discusses and believed was not put into the bible. Read the last sentence in John's gospel.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • J.W

      Protestant churches have high regard for Mary. They just do not pray to her or believe that she was divine. I do not believe that officially that the Catholic church believed Mary was divine until the 1800's.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Ike

      No, most Christians understand that the churches came first, but the church was not the Catholic church in that all of the churches were not unified under one overseeing church, but rather the teachings of the apostels. Church, ekklesia, means assembly and people assembled. The Bible was placed into a canon later by committee, but the individual books or writings were circulating amongst the churches long before that happened. As far as Mary is concerned, there is a big difference in veneration and "highly regarding her." Paul was highly regarded and an apostle, but he is not venerated as an intecessor to God. Only Jesus was called a mediator, which is why he died. He was God in the Flesh. Mary was not. And you still did not address the blatant idolatry within the Catholic church. A graven image is a graven image, even if it of a Christian forebearer.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Free

      Ike
      "but the individual books or writings were circulating amongst the churches long before that happened."
      Actually, there were a lot more books circulating than the ones that were finally set as canon and some, like the Book of Revelation, were nearly rejected.

      The Christianity you speak of before the Catholic Church was a mixed bag of widely divergent theologies. Those that did not match the Catholic standard were branded heretical and eventually died out. Try reading Lost Christianities by B D Ehrman for more on this history.

      November 9, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
  3. Ballson Chinn

    I think it's fabuloussssssssssssssssssssssssss!

    November 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  4. hippypoet

    the only faith anyone needs is faith in themselves!
    no dead person will save you, and thinking that way is fuking crazy. All christians are lunatics! As well as all your fellow believers!Dead men tell tales, but do not save!
    If you didn't understand my post earlier – here is a sumed up version... Zoroasterianism combined with Buddhism then combined with Jewish mysticism...what do you get – the message of jesus – all three came nearly 1000 years before jesus and therefore he did nothing but combine thoughts then add the "i am the son of god" bullsh!t... do some research into history before you give yourself to anything...understanding ones beliefs should happen before one believes!

    GO FORTH AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES!

    November 9, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Ike

      Buddhism and Zoroasterianism, have very little to do with Jesus as he was a Jew. The Jewish religion was diametrically opposed to other religions and Jesus' teachings have nothing to do with those other religions. They did begin before Jesus was born, but they were way behind Judiasm as far as religions go. Jesus was the son of a poor carpenter and had no schooling outside of Israel, so he would have gotten these teachings from where? If you taught anyone of these religions within the confines of Israel you would have been stoned.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • hippypoet

      Ike, thank you for being the first person to actually argue what is has to say.. now – i shall answer you.

      The Nabataean empire ruled the southern sinai pennisula while the Roman empire offered trade routes that were safe in the north just beyond the Dead Sea ...check the cities of Larissa to Hierapolis from there its into the Parthian empire – Zoroasterianism was even stronger in this empire – and the message of Buddha had spread to these lands from simple talk in market places and traveling monks seeking the True state of Buddha – enlightenment..

      So this is a view of history as it was if people talked to one another...think sbout it, alot! break it down, see if you believe it fits....than lets talk because i think it does and I can't, no, won't give jesus the cedit for this message... its a simple evolution of thought thru public expression and voice outlet. His combination of such ideas can be distilled in a child while traveling thru markets with a parent and hearing people.

      please, get back to me. 🙂

      November 9, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
  5. Bob

    If your gay you are not following the tenets of Catholicism and should NOT refer to yourself as Catholic.

    November 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Bob

      I'm Bob too, and I think catholicism is stupid.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Bob

      No, I'm Bob. And so is she.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • don'tbesilly

      Go away!

      November 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      That isn't what the catholic catechism says. It recognizes the people are gay and that they're born that way. It just says you can't have se.x. Not that that position is any more reasonable.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Bob

      No, I'm Bob. Knock it off you Bob impersonators. Fabulousssssssssssssssssss!

      November 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      If you are the not stupid Bob, then you are stupid.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • Bob

      I'm Brian. No, he's Brian. No, she is. Obligatory Monty Python
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9czBBKof7Yo&w=640&h=360]

      November 9, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • TR6

      Do you feel the same way about straight couples that use contrception? How about divorced but not anulled?

      November 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Bob

      It's a fine day for apt Python posts. Remember, every sp-erm is sacred:
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&w=640&h=360]

      November 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Free

      My favorite!
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ&w=640&h=360]

      November 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
  6. Terry

    Morality is not what a person prefers to think of as right or wrong. Morality is truth and truth is absolute and indivisible. It is not relative: It cannot change with the times even if many have come to tolerate, endure or accept an activity previously considered immoral. Catholic teaching on matters relating to faith and morals have not changed and cannot change over time since the Church is not the author of these laws. Their source is divine revelation so that man may conform to divine justice. No amount of talking can change divine laws.

    Now there are many Catholics who will not submit to all that the Catholic Church teaches, preferring their own understanding and personal choice on matters on which they disagree. Many of them also do not believe in judgment, heaven, hell etc. and would like to make the Church think like them.

    I have yet to meet a parent who is so joyful and enthused that their child is gay, lesbian and what not. That is because such tendencies are not normal. In the same way, no parent goes about boasting enthusiastically that their child is a habitual thief or adulturer. They know that such tendencies are an aberration even if they do not accept it as iintrinsically evil. But of course, one must love no matter what a person does, with due allowance for justice, but without compromising the true nature of the activity involved.

    Freedom, and therefore consent, has consequences, in this life and the next. St. Augustine put it nicely when he wrote that "God who created you without your consent will not save you without your consent."

    November 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      "That is because such tendencies are not normal."

      The experts in psychology totally disagree with you, it is normal, which is why parent need to love and support their children regardless of their orientation.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      So are you saying it should still be okay to stone disobedient children?

      November 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      "Morality is truth and truth is absolute and indivisible."
      So, then slavery is ok, we should be executing disobedient children, and wearing cotton blends is immoral? Ok, got it!

      "Now there are many Catholics who will not submit to all that the Catholic Church teaches,"
      Many Catholics don't even understand basic teachings of the church, so that's not exactly surprising.

      "I have yet to meet a parent who is so joyful and enthused that their child is gay, lesbian and what not. That is because such tendencies are not normal. In the same way, no parent goes about boasting enthusiastically that their child is a habitual thief or adulturer. "
      Maybe you need to get out more. I know several parent who have no problems what-so-ever with their gay children. Sixty years ago people would have had issues if their children were in interracial relationships. They were considered 'unnatural'. Whatever that means. People just need to get over their own hang ups. And as far as not being 'normal' – not sure what you mean as the RCC teaches that people are definitely born gay.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      "Morality is not what a person prefers to think of as right or wrong. Morality is truth and truth is absolute and indivisible."

      That's just your opinion and my opinion is that you're wrong.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • BRC

      @Terry,
      The Catholic church has changed its stance on several issues in the past (or do you still believe the church says unbaptized babies are either in hell or purgatory); so it does in fact adapt with the times (right or wrong).

      As for whether or not they were right to begin with, it's all just a guess, so it may as well be a guess that makes sense and keeps people engaged with their faith.

      As for St. Augustine's little insite, if I was brought into creation without consent; I am under no obligation to follow the creator (an unwanted gift does not need to be accepted). He can give all the advice he wants, it's up to the creation to acknowledge and acept it. If he is willing to punish his creations, that did not ask to be here, for being what he made themm then he trully is a tyrant, and the only morally right position is to oppose him. It could mean eternal punishment, so it isn't easy, but doing the right thing seldom is.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Terry, your post is based on complete ignorance. There is much more evidence that being gay is innate than there is proof for any god. By the standards of reality, your belief is only unnatural thing here.

      November 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • MM

      "I have yet to meet a parent who is so joyful and enthused that their child is gay, lesbian and what not."

      Argument from ignorance is not an argument. It's a fallacy. Try again.

      November 10, 2011 at 11:59 am |
  7. Dustin

    What a cute photo CNN used for the story!

    The world needs more love and happiness like the couple in the photo.

    November 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
  8. David Appleton

    gay = ok 🙂

    November 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  9. Jacob

    I find all you religious nuts interesting. You condemn gays because you are told it is in the bible, but lets see you show me where? But then on the other hand you TOTALLY IGNORE the 10 commandments that are right in front of your face! How often do you condemn an adulterer? A Murderer? A Liar? I bet never... Heck, preachers are probably the biggest adulterers out there, yet you find it perfectly fine to hate people who are with another of their own gendor. Organized religion is nothing but a bunch of hypocites who chose to believe what they want to believe.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • don'tbesilly

      Very nicely said!!!!

      November 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Free

      Yes, let's look at Jesus' scorecard on what he was actually against, shall we?

      Divorce, mentioned 6 times.

      Being gay, not even mentioned once.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • JB

      Hi. How are ya? Check the book of Romans. It's there and it's mentioned many times. I understand what you're saying and it's an individuals choice to "NOT" be a Catholic. The religion is what it is, like any other religion. Let bygons be bygons and go your own way. Be what you are, not straight or gay, but an individual. In the end you can say that you made YOUR choices in life and you lives your life in the way that was pleasing and positive for you.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Free

      JB
      Paul wrote Romans, so it reflects his opinion, not Jesus'.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • straight shooter

      It was actually written under the guidance of the HOly Spirit after Jesus's death. Read the book before you comment on it.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • straight shooter

      Rom 1:5 Through Christ, God has given us the privilege [fn] and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      "It was actually written under the guidance of the HOly Spirit after Jesus's death. Read the book before you comment on it."

      I hope you didn't type that with a straight face. I know I laughed out loud at the fact that people are STILL being taken in by this scam, 2000 years down the road.

      November 9, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • Get Real

      Yes, tallulah... and that [fn] privilege and authority is a hoot too!

      November 9, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
    • Free

      straight shooter
      In 1 Corinthians Paul indicates that he has personal opinions about certain subjects. Can you prove that any of Paul's letters were inspired by a real Holy Spirit, and are not just his own opinion? Jesus said zip about the subject. Can you at least admit that?

      November 9, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • MM

      "It was actually written under the guidance of the HOly Spirit after Jesus's death."

      Cite, please. And no, the Bible won't do on this one. One cannot use the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible. I want an independent third party confirming that a) the Holy Spirit exists; b) it guided the authors of the Bible.

      November 10, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
  10. godish

    "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    But all the "religious" folks on Earth missed the point I was trying to make. I made gay people to challenge you. Can you learn to love or will you turn to hate? If you turn to hate you are lost. If I made them, they are perfect. If you don't love them, then you are not following my commands.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Jerry

      Let's say I have a friend who is a chronic liar and constantly uses God's name as a swear word. So, as a committed Christian, I know that his sinful behavior will cause him to spend his eternal afterlife buring in hell. Am I then loving him if I don't tell him that his actions will cause him to suffer an eternal destiny in unimaginable misery? Or, am I loving him by telling him of his sins and helping him repent and claim Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? Which is loving him?

      November 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself

      @Jerry,

      Neither – you let him live his own life and get out of his business. If your god will eternally torture someone because of a few careless words, then your god is a narcissistic sadist.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Free

      Jerry
      "Let's say I have a friend who is a chronic liar"
      If his lying causes harm then you have cause to criticize, but what harm does being gay do really? Face it, being anti-gay is just another bigotry.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  11. Reality

    The nitty-gritty of gay se-xual activities:

    Lots and lots of "gays" doing their hot and heavy things on Internet tube sites but nothing about coin flipping, who is on first, and sanitizers sites?? There must be some "Gaying It For Dummies" books out there somewhere. Hmmm, I wonder if said books/sites have to have FDA and CDC approval??

    Is said activity wrong and worthy of a trip to hell? Of course not but to the general heterose-xual population it is yucky, unusual and not normal to them. With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

    The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay se-xual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate. Such activity is associated with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

    And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still acts of mutual masturbation caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

    Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

    Again, from below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay se-xual activity is still mutual ma-sturbation caused by one or more complex issues. Some defects 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.

    Returning to the religious aspects:

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

    To wit:

    o 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] "

    "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

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

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

    November 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • JohnR

      Pathetic, Reality. I consider a lot of hetero stuff pretty yucky, and I'm hetero. I'd never say heteros whose favorite games I don't ever want to play shouldn't be allowed to marry.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  12. hippypoet

    i agree with this post. people should marry whoever they want, that includes animals and inanimate objects.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • hippypoet

      i agree with what you said, but why can't you use your own handle?

      November 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Sharon

      "i agree with this post. people should marry whoever they want, that includes animals and inanimate objects."

      you realize you're an liar and that is a sin.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • hippypoet

      how is this lieing?

      November 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • MM

      Since animals and inanimate objects can't legally consent to getting married or enter contracts, your entire point is ridiculous and irrelevant. Try again.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Free

      However, "animals and inanimate objects" are not a 'who', correct? Marriage is a contract for only consenting adults, and only between two people due to equality of responsibilities between parties. Animals and inanimate objects cannot be 'consenting adults' any more than children can.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • hippypoet

      well first off the original post wasn't me.... i was just agreeing with the overall concept, marry who you want. so i am sooooo sry i confused some of you... And why not marry a lamp... you could tell all your friends that you finally saw the light and you love it!

      November 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  13. asf

    wer

    November 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  14. BRC

    Here's the point that confuses me. How does someone else being gay affect your life? Even if "god" was real, came down to Earth, and promised to immolate anyone as soon as they admitted they were gay (with holy fire that oly burned them). How would that affect your life? If you really think your all powerful deity is that closed minded and limited, good for you, go about your business and believe that lots of people won't be in heaven. But railing on an on about how it's evil, when there is absolutely no verifiable proof (no, the Bible doesn't count, I said verifiable), is foolish.

    For guys, look on the bright side, the stereotypical gay man usually knows how to dress, knows how to dance, and spends a fair amount of time working out. Him not being interested in women removes a significant challenger from the mating pool (2 if he's in a relationship). It works in your favor, so move on.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yea...except for them darn lesbians taking up all the women...lol

      November 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Normon

      You'd think so wouldn't you. In reality it just sets straight women's expectations too high. 😦

      November 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • Normon

      ... I suspect that is the real problem straight men have with gay men.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • fred

      1)Being gay or straight is not the deciding factor but lifestyle choices effect everyone around you. High risk behavior, poor diet, exercise etc ramp up our health care cost and divert limited resources towards unnecessary consequences of individual choices.
      2)Attacks against the foundational beliefs of a nation (church, faith, bible) divide a people. Gay issue is used as a political tool to create division across the board –result divided nation
      3)If the bible is wrong on $exual immorality (all kinds which just happens to include ho mo $exual) then it is wrong period. Toss the Bible. This country has never experienced a period of godless existence, behavior or outlook. We are risking future children in order to conduct a large scale $exual experiment. That is irresponsible.
      4)Without a moral reference point society loses its bearing. God has been the standard for morality in the Western World going on 2,000 years. A new standard will be required as measurement requires a standard of measure. Some group will develop a standard to replace God. Stalin did this and certainly others wish to repeat the experience. What banner will you raise high?

      November 9, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • J.W

      I have a couple questions fred. What makes gayness a high risk behavior? And if someone disagreed that gayness is wrong, why does that mean that we need to toss out the Bible? The verses that are used against it are a pretty minor part of the Bible. Adultery is emph.asized in many places in the Bible, but the references to gayness are kind of v.ague and the Bible would not include the word Hom0s3xuality if not for a mistranslation.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      Box of Hammers = Fred

      November 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred,
      The Bible is wrong on many more things than just se.x, so yes let's throw it out. What shall we base our ethics on? I say we base them on the consti.tution and other secular laws that have been in place for the last 200+ years.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • BRC

      @fred,
      1) A monogamous LCBT couple in a long term relationship poses no more medical threat than a hetero couple in a monogamous relationship. That is a specious argument (though I agree, risky behavior and poor health habits can cause elevated costs, which is why I say universal healthcare should be determined on a case by case basis, if you're sick/injured and it's obviously your fault, pay for it yourself. But that's a different discussion)

      2) Christianity is not the foundational belief of our nation, so wrong from the start. What’s more, the only thing that divides a nation, is closed minded people who are unwilling to accept the alternative lives of others, even though they do not impact them whatsoever. If you put the laws of a church that say being gay is bad, over the laws of a nation founded on freedom that really doesn't care, then you are going to feel tension, but that's your own fault, and doesn't need to be fixed by anyone else.

      3) The bible is wrong on many things, but it's hung in there. There are plenty of people in this country who are good upstanding citizens that have never had anything to do with the bible, so again, specious argument, does nothing.

      4) Agreed, societies need a moral reference point, but they don't need a bible to produce one. The moral reference point is reflected in the laws we "democratically" agree on. If society doesn't make a law that being gay is illegal, than the majority of society believes that it is morally acceptable. Don't like it? seek public endorsement for change, don't engage in it yourself, or find a new society.

      I will raise a banner of personal responsibility and reasonable action- drawn up by my felling human beings and thoroughly considered before being chosen as the banner, and with the understanding that with time and experience our banner may change, for the better.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • J.W

      My thing is that the morality spoken of in the Bible is a lot more than s3x, in fact s3x is a very minor part of it. So why has it become such a focal point. Its like if you say someone is a lying stealing murderer but they don't sleep around so they are ok.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Free

      BRC
      The problem for these Christians is that they have read the Bible and they believe that their God will carpet bomb the entire country indiscriminately because of gay acceptance, and they themselves may become collateral damage. So, basically, they are just worried for their own skins.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Sue

      @Alien Orifice
      A box of Hammers is at least potentially useful, whereas fred ...

      November 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Free

      J.W
      "So why has it become such a focal point."
      It's a particularly American thing. We're completely accepting of all manner of violence, gore, and bloodshed, but prudes when it comes to displays of se.x. Christianity in other parts of the world has a more balanced, fair view of both. Even within the RCC it's the regional cultural att.itude differences that are driving the view, and not the religion as a whole.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • J.W

      Oh I see. Thank you.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • fred

      BRC
      What is the #1 thing you claim the Bible is wrong about that can be proven?

      November 9, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      @Fred

      Sorry to BRC for stepping in here but I've got one. THE FLOOD. Never happened and proven by geologists. No amount of wishful thinking or pseudo-science will help you get around that fact.

      November 9, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • BRC

      Scientifically- The order of appearance of life on earth.
      Morally- The acceptance of slavery and the endorsing of genocides

      Just 2 quick easy ones.

      November 9, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • BRC

      @Steve,
      No worries, Academic discussion welcomes all.

      November 9, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      @BRC

      Thanks. However I'm sure Fred will come back with some idiotic hypothesis that completely ignores the awesome span of geologic time, how sedimentary rocks are formed, what plate tectonics do to shift land and sea levels or how fossil fish in mountain top rock proves his point. 'facepalm'

      November 9, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • fred

      Over a time period broken up in a biblically significant number of days (6) each of unspecified duration we have the following ordering of the chaos on earth : Solar system, earth, light, water, separation of land ma-sses, vegetation , water creatures birds ma-mmals (neh-pesh), more nep-hesh related to humans, humans. Day 7 God rests and reflects on what is very good. An alternate interpretation has to do with the opening verse. “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”……………………then we have “now, the earth was formless and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters of the deep. There was a beautiful heaven and earth when a violent battle between good and evil resulted in the devastation of the heavens and the earth. This accounts for all the fossils, geologic and evolution accounts where we are simply digging down in this original earth. Then God brings order to the chaos on earth resurrecting all then making man out of what was previously created. This would be about 6,000 or more years ago depending on if the genealogy shows entire blood line of Jesus or just important parts. Either account works fine with what evidence we have today. The main point being the Bible is not a scientific docu-ment but one of relationship between man and God.

      Genocide is only objectionable to man with a limited vision of time. In short was it better remove Stalin’s and Hitler’s mother or clean up after the fact. Take for example the wicked generation of Cain, a wickedness so ho-rrid God relented on creating man in the first place. Either way it is noted this bunch was blotted out which could mean it was if they never were born or erased. Bottom line is that the pain / suffering / unknown evil out of this bunch was such that to allow them to con-tinue was unacceptable. The Amalekites are a little different in that they constantly attacked the chosen ones and blocked their path physically and relationally. The bad news is that the chosen ones did not listen and failed to kill every last one of them. Their descendents today are the Palestinians by some accounts. There are many accounts, reasons and excuses behind these evil events. If God is working for the overall best interest in love for his people it is as-sumed there is good cause.

      Slavery was fact for all people and has not stopped. Some of the slavery accounts relate to man being a slave to his own desire / sin, others are actual. In most cases Gods people were given instructions as to how one is to treat others fair and with compassion. There were always evil slave masters and that was sin. The proper relationship with one that is a slave was important. Economies have changed so the new slave is the man in a cubical or bent over in the hot sun under a harsh king or boss. Same result just different economy. God never approves abuse of another

      November 9, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Dr. Zeuss

      Yeah, fred. Uh huh. Nice story. And then Snow White jumped over the moon while shagging the Red Dwarf, Gandalf ran off with Marilyn, Frodo married Hagrid, and the Green Giant joined a female Budhist convent on Pluto.

      November 9, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
  15. Unacceptable journalism

    To give a mere two lines to the obedient celibate Catholic who adjusted her ways in light of the Church's authority and in contrast to give the other two panelists who seek to adjust the Church's authority in order to satisfy their ways is abhorrent journalism. I also add that all of the "Catholic" universities mentioned are of a particular priestly order: Jesuit. These are not universities faithful to the Catholic teaching. I know. I attended one: Loyola in Baltimore.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Sid

      The reality that you need to face is that hardly anyone cares about the details of your now-outmoded and outdated Catholic supersti-tions. And yeah, celibacy, that's a popular one...

      A few more decades, and catholicism will be pretty much gone.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Sid,
      The Church has been around for 2,000 years and 2B people on Earth today claim to be Christian. This not the first time the Church has been attacked and won't be the last. The only thing that will be gone in a few decades is you.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Sid

      Southern, while you are likely right about the last part about me, catholicism is in steep decline and has been for decades. Don't take my word for it. Just google it or look at adherents.org.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  16. TruthPrevails

    Okay, we concede...AtheistSteve and I are sinners. We live in a relationship without a piece of paper; we support gay rights; we do not believe in god or the delusions taught by the buybull; we smoke; we drink on rare occasion; we pay homage to our earth; we spend our Sunday's watching NASCAR and The Atheist Experience (and of course on here laughing at christards); we work our a$$es off for all we have; we have good morals and are law abiding citizens (neither of us has a record of any form...not even a driving infraction); we love our neighbor (they are good Catholics who don't shove it down our throats; we love our families (mostly); we support the freedom of women to practice whatever birth control method they see fit; we believe that love comes from within and is not taught from a 2000 year old book; we believe that science provides more evidence for our existence than the buybull does; we believe in evolution and the big bang...

    Sounds like the typical sinner to us.

    ***please to all our Atheist friends: do note the sarcasm in the use of the word sinner here and HippyPoet: stop bogarting that damn 'j'...we have told you that sharing is important :-)***

    November 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
    • J.W

      All that is ok with me except the NASCAR part.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      Ugh, nascar. Blasphemous.

      November 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Sue

      Real, live NASCAR is just as exciting! 🙂

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxfgPs1mj34&w=640&h=360]

      November 9, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
  17. mer

    I argee 100%, why don't they go elsewhere. If they don't agree with the teachings of the catholic church, which is of the bible that clearly states that God created man and a women. Not a man and a man or a women and a women. What part of that is so hard to understand. I'm very happy for the churchs stance and I stand behind.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      So you support a group that hoards pedophiles? You're a sick pig!

      November 9, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • CanOnTo

      As an atheist, I have to agree with mer's point, although for different reasons. "Membership" in any religious group is voluntary. Don't like it the way it is? Create your own church!

      November 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Nonimus

      "... He created man and woman."
      So who created hermaphrodites? Or conjoined twins? Or babies? There weren't any babies created by God, so maybe we shouldn't be making them either.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Free

      CanOnTo
      "Don't like it the way it is? Create your own church!"
      As so many thousands have since the beginning of the Reformation. What are the actual odds that any one of these groups lucked into the original, intended faith of Jesus?

      November 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • straight shooter

      Romans 1:19 – 32

      November 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      "Romans 1:19 – 32"

      Yeah it's about romans using sex to worship a god. "immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." It has nothing to do with what we NOW know about gays and lesbians.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • straight shooter

      Try verses 26 and 27 and see if you still feel that way.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      "Try verses 26 and 27 and see if you still feel that way."

      Yo moron you can't just take the text out of context you have to read what came before it. I even put the quote in because prejudice christians don't read they were worshiping a pagan god while having sex in that scripture. Read a history book on Roman culture before you comment.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • TR6

      Since the bible mentions many polygamous relationships amongst gods favorite people shouldn’t the catholic church support polygamy?

      November 9, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • JB

      First of all I'm not a Christian but I have read the Bible many times. In verse 5 id doesn't say this this is just for "Romans" it says that it's for GENTILES. You and I that are not Jews (that is if you're not a Jew). Therefore it is in context. DOn't get angry and resort to name calling just because I provided biblical evidence to back up the churches side of the argument. They are correct, this is their belief and it's in black and white, written in almost every language and they even provide a concordance so that you can trace the translations back to the Greek and Hebrew for better understanding. It's there in their scripture and around it. Before you pursue this argument with any validity I suggest you sit down with a Bible and a concordance and read, thoroughly. Arguing with an ignorant Christian is one thing. Arguing with someone (christian or not) that is educated in this facit of theology isn't the best idea.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • JB

      The church sides with monogamy because Jesus personally states in the New Testament that every man should have one wife.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      "In verse 5 id doesn't say this this is just for "Romans" it says that it's for GENTILES"

      Yo moron – it's Peter talking about Roman culture duh. They worshiped their pagan god using sex rituals it has nothing to do with how we know and understand gays today.

      November 9, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • JB

      Really? He was speaking just to the Romans eh? This entire conversation is about the Catholic church, and their faith resides right here in these scriptures, so why don't you try reading them.... completely. These books were written to use as a guide and a safeguard, not just to one group of people. This very chapter is the backbone of the churches argument. If you want to be Catholic then you will agree with this. It's your choice. Personally I disagree with some things so i'm not a Catholic.

      Rom 1:14 For I have a great sense of obligation to people in both the civilized world and the rest of the world, [fn] to the educated and uneducated alike.

      Rom 1:15 So I am eager to come to you in Rome, too, to preach the Good News.

      November 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • HAHAHA

      "He was speaking just to the Romans eh? "

      Wow dude do you have a reading comprehension problem or what. Have some more wine...maybe you can read even more into it. LOL!

      November 9, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • straight shooter

      Wow you have a nack for mocking. America is knows today around the world as the modern ROMAN EMPIRE. The message in ROmans was the same as the one Abraham had while he was in Sodom. Take theology class, because your ignorance and lack of understanding is becoming annoying. The book explains what is supposed to be Gods feelings towards these actions, not these people. Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

      Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.

      November 9, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Free

      straight shooter
      Which theology class should he take? There are as many individual theologies as there are branches of Christianity, yes? New branches pop up as a result of some preacher developing his own theology and selling it to the Christian consumer. Even with that, how could you possibly determine which one best approximates the original teaching, and if you could why would you wish to use a 2000+ year old set of morals to guide your life today?

      November 9, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
  18. Alien Orifice

    I think the strangest part of the bigotry of Mike and people like him is that there have ALWAYS been Gay people. It is not new. Do these people think that one day someone just said, hey! I feel like being persecuted, I think I will swing the other way and be kicked out of my villlage to starve to death. I mean, W T F??

    There are Gays in every country, every religion, every walk of life, every continent, every century. Always have been and always will be. And there are plenty of Gay Christians, they aren't human and not immune. Yes in spite of persecution they still show up at church. You should be thanking them.

    Funny, if you went through a list of all the people throughout history that these Gay Bashing bigots admire, 20% or so of them were gay. They know people, work with people and may even live with people they don't even know are gay. *sigh* Imagine a world without the arts? That is pretty much what you would be left without hom0se xuals. Theater, movies, music, television…

    There is a complete lack of rational thought from these Gay Bashing bigots and they hide behind religion as if we can't tell what horrible people they are. They won't even get a sniff of heaven.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • hippypoet

      right on, you're the smartest dude alive!!!!!!!!!!!! You're amazingly smart, dude you're so smarttttttttt.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      You are making me blush fake Hippy Poet. But it is nice to fans like you sweetheart.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • hippypoet

      thank you for knowing it wasn't me... granted, you are very very smart... i just don't normally say that to people unless it truly wows me.. like completely blows my mind... like if stephen hawking were here – i'm sure i'd be beyond wowed!

      November 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      HP, I loves me some Hawking. I have read two of his books. Awseome stuff. There is a doc umentary on Netflix by him called "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" I am going to watch it soon.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Fun fact, I ran into stephen hawking once.

      When I say ran into stephen hawking, I mean I was reading while walking down the street and didn't see him and plowed right into his chair, not really hard, but enough to give it a shake. It's one of the more mortifying things to happen to me in my life, but I can now say I've come into contact with one of the smartest men in the history of humanity.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      Great story Chuckles LOL!

      November 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • hippypoet

      its only 3 episodes thou... there is another one about the stars and moons and black holes – it has 7 or 8 in it...both are great .. i just saw both over the past weekend.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • JB

      AO, in regards to yoru origional post, do you think it would be ok to call you a Bigot because you disagree with the church. I don't. I also don't think you should resort to calling someone else a Bigot because their views differ from yours. This closes the door for communication before it's even opened.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      No. There is a difference between a "differing view" and predjudice and intolerance towards other people because they are different than you. You are a BIGOT and you can't hide behind your religion.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • JB

      Actually I have a lot of tolerance and even empathy. I wouldn't fight wiccans to be accepted into their community if I didn't agree with their religion. The same goes with Christianity, Jedaism etc. Calling people Bigots because they are voicing a point of view or their own perspective on the issue actually makes you the Bogit. Do you show tollerance to both sides? From reading your posts you don't seem to have any tolerance at all. So who is the Bigot now?

      A person that can express their opinion with tolerance to the opposing point of view is simply mature. How about promoting that for both sides instead of throwing ill fitting lables on people.

      November 9, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • JB

      So as you can see he is headed to ROme, but his words are not solely for the people of Rome.

      November 9, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • JB

      If you look in the Old Testament, Abraham had a similar message for Sodom and Gimora (I misspelled that).

      November 9, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
  19. Alien Orifice

    I'm also hippypoet, and father o'blivion. I use all 3 of these tags (and probably others) and then respond to my own posts. I thought I was fooling people but I just got called out 😦

    November 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • hippypoet

      yeah thats kinda dumb.. whoever you are, you need a life of your own.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Hear This

      AO fake,

      Please don't go into forensic examination and identification as a career (or even as a hobby). You suck at it.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Is this some metaphysical "we are all hippy poet" kinda thing?

      November 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • hippypoet

      AHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOO.... there is only one hippypoet – and it is me. i can prove said ID by answering a number of questions... but i don't think i should have to... I THINK CNN SHOULD GET ITS @SS ON THE BALL AND FIX THE ISSUE WITH handle stealing, once you handle, always your handle...damn children!

      November 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Father O'blivion

      No I am not HippyPoet. He is much smarter than I am. I am Alien Orifice and Father O'blivion though. I just using the silly Irish accent in my posts. I am a bit of a nerd. Now you fakers run along, you are wastin' the good Father's time. Bless ya.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      The only one I'm aware of who praises himself with alternate post handles is Chad. Hippy, Father O, Alien Orifice, Chuckles, Mirosal, TruthPrevails and myself are all distinct and separate allies in the fight against religious fuctards.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Well I stand corrected by FatheO/Alien O...well that's the beauty of a scientific mind. We can adapt to accept new information.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      Well I am just a rebel what can I say. But you know I am both so it is really the same thing.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      Oh, and I sure as hell don't respond to my own posts! That is weak. I just have fun with Father O, he amuses me.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      @AthiestSteve
      Sorry, I thought everyone new I was both. I never tried to hide it.

      November 9, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @AO: ah but we respect you just the same and the fun we all have watching you make the christards squirm is always a pleasure.

      November 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Alien Orifice

      Thanks Truth, right back atcha! 🙂

      November 9, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  20. hippypoet

    @really, i am not sure why it doesn't work for you, it works for me... but here try this one. http://www.avesta.org/timeline.htm and i'm not angry – i am trying to get others to see whats clearly the truth, and i don't need faith in anyTHING or anyTHOUGHT ... all i need is faith in me.

    may that help you find the light at the end of the religious dark age.

    November 9, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
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.