Biden's support for gay marriage matches most Catholics' views
Vice President Joe Biden went further than President Barack Obama has on supporting gay marriage.
May 7th, 2012
07:28 AM ET

Biden's support for gay marriage matches most Catholics' views

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - Apparent White House division over gay marriage - with Vice President Joe Biden saying Sunday that he is “absolutely comfortable” with the idea, going further than President Obama has on the issue – mirrors a nation that is evenly divided on the matter. Recent polls show that about half of Americans favor legalized gay marriage, while half oppose it, with support for the idea gaining significant ground over the past 15 years.

Pew’s latest polling on the issue, conducted late last year, found that 46% of Americans support favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 44% are opposed. Support for gay civil unions is substantially higher, with a clear majority of Americans supporting such arrangements.

Feelings about gay marriage correlate to various religious traditions and levels of religiosity, with those nonaffiliated with any religion most supportive of gay marriage. It’s worth noting the dramatic recent shifts on the issue among Roman Catholics, whose ranks include Biden.

Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s rigorous opposition to gays getting the right to marry, Pew found that Catholics support gay marriage by a margin of 52% to 37%. That’s a shift from 2010, when just 46% of Catholics favored gay marriage.

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

Among white Catholics, support is even higher at 57%, while Hispanic Catholics are evenly divided.

The religious group most opposed to gay marriage is white evangelical Protestants, among whom 74% oppose it, according to Pew. Sixty-two percent of black Protestants, a key part of President Obama’s political base, also oppose gay marriage.

After Biden voiced support for gay marriage, a senior Obama campaign adviser said there was no difference on the issue between the vice president and the president, who once said he opposed gay marriage but has since said his views on the matter are “evolving.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

"What the VP said - that all married couples should have the same legal rights - is (precisely) POTUS' position," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama's re-election campaign, in a Twitter message.

The issue has gotten attention recently as North Carolinians prepare to vote Tuesday on a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, reinforcing a state law banning such unions. The Rev. Billy Graham has endorsed the measure, while former President Bill Clinton has taped a robo call opposing it.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Gay marriage • Politics

soundoff (921 Responses)
  1. Yikes

    Must suck to be gay! And im an atheist lol.

    May 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Yikes

      And im no hater either, but lets be honest, seeing two dudes klss is just gross. If you wanna go do other guys, fine go for it, but stop shoving that shlt in my face.

      Im so sick of hearin about g@y ppl. I dont care what you do just stop shoving it in my face! For the record, i dont like watching a hetero couple w gross public displays of affection, the g@y display is def worse tho

      May 7, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • no god

      Your not a hater, your just a flat out a$$ hole.

      May 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Northington

      Until we make it easier for people to get together and have close relationships, I think it will always be considered kind of rude to have public displays of affection like kissing. Anything where you're slobbering over each other is better kept in a private place. Hugs are fine. Holding hands is fine, although it sort of looks like one or both are unable to walk without hand-holding sometimes.
      Just my opinoin. If they kiss I can always ignore it if I have to anyway. But it does sort of hurt my eyes. I ignore it and move on.

      May 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
  2. Haime52

    I fear that there is no overriding state interest in banning gay/lesbian marriage. There is also none in plural marriage, that I can see. What about bestiality? As long as the human "loves" the animal involved and is loving and not abusive, where is the states interest in barring bestial acts or marriage? The question is, is there any line that cannot be crossed? What about child marriage? Legal in some countries, but not here, for very good reason, I might add, but, and it's a big one, what if the relationship is a gentle, loving one? Where does the state's interest truly lie?
    These questions are easy for me to answer, but mine don't count, according to many, as they would be based on religious views and common logic, knowing the sinfulness of mankind. But then, I'm an idiot magic skyman believer and there aren't really any screwed-up people out there, it is just my imagination becuase I hate anyone who doesn't agree with me. Not!

    May 7, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "What about bestiality? As long as the human "loves" the animal involved and is loving and not abusive, where is the states interest in barring bestial acts or marriage? The question is, is there any line that cannot be crossed? What about child marriage? Legal in some countries, but not here, for very good reason, I might add, but, and it's a big one, what if the relationship is a gentle, loving one? Where does the state's interest truly lie?"

      Wow this lame stupid comment again. It's about two consenting adults, a child and an animal can't consent. You obviously haven't researched this subject. DUH!

      May 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Worship Poseidon

      Wasn't Jesus a pedophile?

      May 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • sam

      What on earth is wrong with you?

      May 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • sam stone

      Seriously, Haime52, you equate two consenting adults having physical relations with bestiality? My gosh, you have a majorly F'ed up sense of ethics.

      May 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • PerceivedReality

      They should be allowed to have a union. Lets call the union "insert some word other then marriage" No tax breaks though, sorry, and no adopting because your union does not naturaly produce children who become taxpayers.

      May 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Haime52

      No one is "stupid". I'm talking about the "right" to do what one wants to do. Where is the state's overriding interest and where the lines get drawn. Being a bit facitious is rhetoric or don't you know what that is?

      And none of you commented about plural marriage. Does that mean you are in favor? They are, after all, consenting adults.


      May 8, 2012 at 4:56 am |
  3. Qwerty Elemeno

    Resist the Christian jihad against gays! Christian jihad is every bit as bad as Islamic jihad.

    Stop Christian sharia in America! Don't let them replace our great Consti.tution with their evil religious sharia.

    Christian or Muslim, jihad and sharia must be defeated. Reason must triumph over ancient supersti.tions.

    May 7, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  4. Worship Poseidon

    Jesus was so gay. He made Liberace look like He-Man.

    May 7, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • ciroc2323

      Troll alert.

      See you in NC tomm where marriage corruption will take it on the chin.

      May 7, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • ML

      Hate to be in your shoes when you stand before him on judgement day!!!!!!!!

      May 7, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
  5. Worship Poseidon

    When are Tim Tebow and Kirk Cameron getting married?

    May 7, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • PerceivedReality

      When will you grow up?

      May 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  6. Common Sense

    George, I am not completely sure what point you ate making. I am not advocating marriage as a prerequisite to receive benefits, I am saying that many employers require imarriage for hetero couples but grant benefits to same sec destic partners. if marriage IS a requirement for some, it is then unfair to deny marriage to anyone. I think education is not quite the same thing as social issues.

    May 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  7. Really-O?

    ...and believers wonder why non-believers won't "just leave them alone", after all, "their beliefs don't hurt anyone". 'Nuff said.

    May 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  8. Robert Hagedorn

    Google First Scandal.

    May 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  9. n8263

    1. Christians express dismay and are "offended" when people are critical of their religion, often going so far as to say that nobody has the right to question their religion because by doing so you are being disrespectful.

    2. But then they have no problem imposing their subjective and irrational religious "morality" on others through politics.

    It is like they are completely ignorant about how these two things are related.

    May 7, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Those that are trying to do as you say are not ignorant of the hypocrisy, they just dont care. They hide behind their assertions of divine influence and acceptance.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • Haime52

      I find it hard not to be offended at Christians who fail to live their religion and also with people who are offended simply because someone believes their lifestyle is wrong. Much as a devoted capitalist believes a devoted communist has the wrong lifestyle. One should not be offended because each thinks the other wrong.

      One man's irrationality is another man's logic. Which is more irrational, believing that a super uber being created the universe or that the laws of physics, which are dependent on matter, time and space, are such that they worked on nothing to create everything? Your choice.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Northington

      I think Haime52 is having a meltdown.

      May 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      One "shouldn't be offended"? Sez who? Since when does the offender get to decide whether others "should be" offended, you dork?

      May 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • PerceivedReality

      I am Christian, you can bash my religion all you want. Last I checked gays can do whatever they want except call their "social unions" marriage. That is not good enough for them though, they want tax breaks, as if their "union" makes future taxpayers, which it does not and never should! They are just using the cival rights laws to push back on Christians when in reality they are degenerating our society even lower than it already is. Why can't they just corn-hole each other and STFU already.

      May 7, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      And exactly how is hom.ose.xuality degrading our society?

      May 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There's no need for anyone to "bash" you, Perceived. Your own posts do it for you.

      You'll be most unhappy with the future. And I couldn't be more thrilled at that prospect.

      May 7, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
  10. Reality

    ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS:--------->>>>>

    "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

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

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

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

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

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

    May 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • .....

      pot meet kettIe, kettle meet pot

      May 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • Driftin

      And what do you care about here? Do these people using mutual masturbation bother you? Are they making laws against your touching yourself? Is it when one is more masculine than the other bother you that much? Just what is your problem here?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • Reality

      No problem at all with mutual masturbation:

      The reality of contraception and STD control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
      Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

      The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

      : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

      Added information before making your next move:

      from the CDC-2006

      "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

      And from:

      Consumer Reports, January, 2012

      "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

      Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

      "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

      Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

      The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

      1a. (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
      1b. (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

      Followed by:

      One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
      Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
      The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
      Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
      IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

      Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

      Conclusion: currently, a perfect STD/conception barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one. In the meantime, mono-masturbation or mutual masturbation for heterose-xuals are highly recommended for those at risk. Abstinence is the another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?

      May 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Haime52

      And, of course, this is the last word we wil EVER hear from such "experts". No will be no "new liight" shown on this subject, case closed, right? We know no one ever chose to be anything other what they were "born to be", correct? Are pedophiles also born? What about bestial folk?

      May 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Are pedophiles also born? What about bestial folk?"

      Both of these bring harm, harm to the child and harm to the animal. DUH. Now go get some more lame unfounded claims to make... do yourself a favor and stop being so lazy and actually do some real research on this subject.

      May 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
  11. The Great Ponderer

    Who donates more to charity, atheists or Christians?

    May 7, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • asdf

      inb4 anybody actually tries to answer this...

      May 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • YeahRight

      It's equal.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Who's behavior is more controlled out of fear of burning in hell for eternity?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      How about who cares? Does that truly prove anything? Wouldn't taking pride in that be the same as those Pharisee guys taking pride in public displays of piousness?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Reality

      The taxpayers of the USA who by definition are secularists.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Driftin

      Since all of us atheist taxpayers are subsidizing charities through the governement in addition to personal philanthropy, I'd say atheists have a clear advantage in that respect. When the head slxezeball of some charity gets hundreds of thousands of dollars along with his wife/secretary, family/treasurer, and all the rest of it, I'd also say that non-religious charities are likely to do more with less money than a religious charity.
      Whadda you got? Five bucks in the plate on Sunday and suddenly you're the Carnegie Foundation? Give me a break.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • .....

      "Since all of us atheist taxpayers are subsidizing charities through the governement "
      Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.

      Guess Christians, who also pay taxes, don't count? Nice cherrypicking there. Atheists pay no more taxes as individuals then Christians. Yes churches and other religious insti.tutions aren't taxes, but were talking about individual contributors.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Driftin

      If you'll just read what I wrote, you'll see that I did not say atheists pay more. I said we have a clear advantage in our honest giving as opposed to religious people who suck on government dollars and then point to their big churches and say they did it all.
      Really, you don't have to bother. I was just driftin through. Why get nitpicky when the roots of these problems are elsewhere anyway?

      May 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  12. Huebert

    Three words to save the economy; gay bridal registry

    May 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Loserville, Population = You

      Three words to describe your IQ: Less than fifty.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Huebert

      OH come now! The joke wasn't that bad!

      May 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Driftin

      It was bad. But don't get discouraged! Keep the jokes a-comin! We need some comedy relief around here.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Eric G

      @looserville: Technically, "fifty" is a number, not a word.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Driftin

      @Eric G
      Wow Eric, that is one of the worst posts I have ever seen. You get today's Fail Award.

      May 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
  13. Curious George

    Is Jesus' message of love and peace really that terrifying for atheists? The Bible says Christians will be mocked but damn guys, cool it some.

    May 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      It is hard for it to be terrifying when we don't do not believe your jesus exists due to the lack of evidence for him. Atheism is a disbelief in god(s).

      May 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      I'm an atheist, and I have no problem with Jesus' message of peace and love. I just don't believe that he was divine, or that he was born from a virgin, that he ever performed a single miracle, or that he rose from the dead. What is it about my lack of belief that scares you?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Nonimus

      "Is Jesus' message of love and peace really that terrifying for atheists?"

      It's (some of) the believer's that are terrifying, not the supposed savior.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • sam stone

      "The Bible says Christians will be mocked but damn guys, cool it some."

      I got no problem with peace and love. What problem do you have that you want to deny others's civil rights?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • Curious George

      @truth – You don't think he existed? Haha might want to consult the scholarly community (which is largely secular) on that one.

      @enjay – Your belief doesn't scare me. I'm confident in my belief so a differing opinion is no big deal.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • just sayin

      "Is Jesus' message of love and peace really that terrifying for atheists? "
      No it is the Christian Taliban we fear most. We don't want to end up like the Middle East under a God's Law.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Curious George

      @nonimus – Fair enough, I can't stand many myself. Don't, however, judge the Truth of Christianity by what some believers do. Judge it by the historicity of the Bible, the truth in the words of Jesus, etc.

      @sam stone – I don't want to deny others their civil rights, I make no reference to gay marriage in my post. What problem do you have about putting words in other people's mouth?

      May 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • Huebert

      What scares me is people who don't believe in a future. You know the people who believe that the end times are approaching. Those people scare the c.rap out of me because prophesies can be self fulfilling. Not to mention the fact that some Christians are awaiting the end times, eagerly. These people want the world to end, That is TERRIFYING.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • TR6

      @Curious George:”Is Jesus' message of love and peace really that terrifying for atheists?”

      Doesn’t bother me a bit. Wouldn’t bother me even if he were real. What bothers me is that the vast majority of Christians do not seem to have gotten that message and instead try to impose their dogmatic religious regulations on every one by enshrining them in civil law

      May 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Curious George

      You said, "Don't, however, judge the Truth of Christianity by what some believers do."
      If it is their christian beliefs that drive their actions, christianity shares the blame.

      The first responsibility to moderate the hate mongers and bigots in the christian community lies within the christian community. It should be moderate christians that form the first line of defense when WBC goes on their hate spree. It should be the moderate christians that organize protests against the discrimination of gays. It should be the moderate christians that stand up against teaching creationism in schools.

      If you don't, you can't claim the higher ground.

      You said, "Judge it by the historicity of the Bible, the truth in the words of Jesus, etc."
      Most atheists on this comment board do. that's why they're atheists.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • sam stone

      fair enough

      May 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Curious George,
      "Don't, however, judge the Truth of Christianity by what some believers do. Judge it by the historicity of the Bible, the truth in the words of Jesus, etc."

      Ah, but that's different that your first question of Jesus' message of love. The "Truth of Christianity" has much to be desired, depending of course on which version of the "Truth" you're talking about. Additionality, and related to your first question, people who claim to know the truth so well that they capitalize it, concern me alot. It often seems to indicate a personal ownership that only they can have and when someone thinks they own the truth, that worries me a great deal, especially if they have any power over others. This I think is the essence of the Establishment Clause of the Consti.tution.

      May 8, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  14. Name*DJ

    Well Pope Biden says gay is okay, so what the heck, all of us Catholics will say the pope of Washington DC says it is ok to disregard the bible, the Church, and teachings of Christ cuz old Joe says so heyuk, heyuck.
    Well, sorry Joe but no go, no matter how many Catholics you lead into the gates of hell. Your pro views on abortion, contreception, gay marriage, and leading others astray by sin against the Holy Spirit, not to mention sinfully receiving the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with full knowledge that your actions are against the teachings of Christ and his Church, cuz old Joe says so, will have to be answered for at your judgement with Christ.

    May 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Hi Name*DJ. Could you please point out where in the New Testament Jesus said anything about ho</Imosexuality? I'm curious what his teachings were on the subject.

      I'll help you out here. He didn't say a word about it. He did, however talk about love. Your post suggests to me that you might not have as much love in your heart as Jesus did. But I could be wrong.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      God did not make people gay! As with any addiction, the person is held in bondage to it as long as they appease the condition and don't fight to resist it. Satan's and his followers of false teachers/preachers tell you that it's okay and that God made you that way so that you become ignorant to His righteouness while you continue to sin. God doesn't honor satan (the father of all deception and lies and these folks ( wolves in sheep's clothing) that follow satan have absolutely no authority to speak for God. God told us to NOT pay attention to liars ... to read His truth on our own (the Bible) No one is born gay, or born an adulterer or a thief. It's a choice that they make with the free will God gave us.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Driftin

      So he gave you free will, a two-thousand page rulebook that can't be followed, and forces you to obey or burn? LOL

      May 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Enjay, here's some to obey.

      1 Corinthians 6:9
      Deuteronomy 23:17
      Exodus 35;2
      Genesis 19:5
      Hebrews 8:10-13
      Hebrews 9:22
      John 8:41-48
      John 14:15
      2 John 8-11
      Jude 7
      Judges 19:22
      Leviticus 18:22-25
      Leviticus 20:7-16
      Leviticus 20: 9-10
      Leviticus 20:13
      Luke 9:23-26
      Matthew 18:7-9
      Matthew 19:3-12
      Matthew 23:31-36
      2 Peter 3:9
      Romans 1:18-32
      Romans 1:21-28
      Romans 1:26-27
      Romans 3:19-26
      Romans 3:21
      Romans 6:11-23
      Romans 6:14
      Romans 6:23
      1 Timothy 1:10


      May 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • just sayin

      Obey the words of Man

      May 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Driftin, I'd turn back if I were you.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • Erik

      "No one is born gay"

      Being gay is not a choice. I hate to burst any bubbles, but science, in fact, is actually not in dispute on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      This is not an issue in dispute. According to modern science: gays were born this way.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      That was great HeavenSent. Now can you answer the question I asked, and tell me what Jesus himself said about the subject?

      I couldn't care less what Paul had to say on the subject.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Erik, the people you speak of get a paycheck. If you can't figure out that they will tell you anything so that they get that dollar, there's a bridge over in Brooklyn that's for sale.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Driftin

      You ain't me, though. That's something you hate to think about, isn't it? That there are people out there you can't control and make us all march along with swastikas flapping in the wind as we all do exactly as you decree?
      Take the Pope, with his pointy pen1s hat, and shove him up your ass. You say you have free will but you insist on making us slaves of your interpretation, chained to your beliefs, yet your god can do nothing because it doesn't exist.
      So your god isn't helping you or backing you up on anything you say.
      Sounds to me like you are going against your god yourself. And you worship yourself and your own opinion so much you come here to try to force people to follow you.
      You are so disgusting to read with your bigotry and hate. You say we have free will but we don't.
      We are not controlled by your hateful fake god but by physics. Go peddle your crusty old ass somewhere else, ho.

      May 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Erik, the people you speak of get a paycheck. If you can't figure out that they will tell you anything so that they get that dollar, there's a bridge over in Brooklyn that's for sale."

      In other words, you can't refute the findings so you made up this garbage. LOL! By the way Priests all over this country get a paycheck too. LOL!

      May 7, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • I41Christ

      Amen to that! Devout & Faithful Catholic knows the Truth

      May 7, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • TR6

      @HeavenSent:”Enjay, here's some to obey.”

      And here is lovely bible verse for you HS where Moses (god’s man on earth) commands the murder of prisoners and condons the rpae of little girls:
      And Moses said unto them “Have ye saved all the women alive?... Now therefore Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him, but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” Num 31:1-2, 9-11, 14-18

      May 7, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest


      And cue the cries of "context" and "interpretation".

      May 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • ciroc2323

      Pope Biden also gets his moral compass from watching cancelled fictional television shows.

      The man is a complete and utter loser.

      May 7, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • ciroc2323

      Gays are much less than 1% of the votes and not all are stupid. Democrats will say anything then do as they please as they did with obamacare. Never, never, never trust a democrat

      May 7, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      ciroc, do you think only blacks cared about the Civil Rights movement? Do you think only gays care about marriage equality?

      Yeah, you probably do.

      May 7, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  15. Primewonk

    Fred wrote, " If we had honored marriage and each other as God commanded there would never be a gay issue. We have a gay issue because the Church has been torn down one stone at a time. "

    No. This is wrong. We have a "gay issue" because a specific proportion of the population is born gay, and the ignorant môronic fundiots are pîssed about it.

    May 7, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  16. Too Easy

    How do you make an atheist mad?

    Tell them that you believe in something bigger than one's self in this world. They normally can't handle that because all their rationalizations to explain their so called "morals" fall flat on their face. Which probably also explains why so many of them are just shltty people in general.

    May 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Which probably also explains why so many of them are just shltty people in general."

      That's a lie, it's hysterical to see people claiming to be Christian and they can't even follow the basic commandments. LMAO!

      May 7, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Chuckles

      personally, I love when you people say stuff like this, it only drives home the point that many atheists try to make. THANK YOU!

      May 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Too Easy


      Where did I claim to be Christian? LOL!! What's hilarious, although not surprising, is to see you put words in my mouth that I never said.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Driftin

      Don't feed the trolls.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Too Easy


      Why no response? Because you look like a fool? Typical atheist, has a shlt argument and once exposed he tucks his tail and runs and hides. I rest my case.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • sizzlemctwizzle

      Our morals and based on love and respect for one another.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • Huebert

      You can convert more people to atheism with one post than I could with a hundred. Thanks for all the help.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Huebert

      Last post was @Too Easy

      May 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Too Easy


      Don't think comments on here have ever converted anyone to anything. Try again.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Why no response? Because you look like a fool? Typical atheist, has a shlt argument and once exposed he tucks his tail and runs and hides. I rest my case."

      Nope cause your posts continue to show you're own stupidity. Keep going.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      I'm an atheist Too Easy, and your post didn't make me mad. It made me chuckle, if that counts. I don't care what you believe, but I'm not going to insult you in the crude way that you just insulted me, simply because you disagree with me.

      Your hatred of an entire class of people, though, does have a name.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Driftin

      You guys keep feeding this stupid troll. Stop responding to it.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Too Easy
      "How do you make an atheist mad?"

      ... ask stupid rhetorical questions?

      May 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • ciroc2323

      An militant atheist and a preacher are sitting in a room, how do you tell which one is the atheist?

      The atheist is preaching.

      May 7, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Define "militant atheist". Oh, wait, you did that, didn't you? Only you were posting as "Matt".

      May 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  17. Hmmmm

    If l have anger problems should I work on them? What about if I like to steal, should I work on that too? Afterall, I'm born with those gut impulses so it seems wrong for me to try and change or work on it.

    These are all hypotheticals ofcourse.

    May 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "so it seems wrong for me to try and change or work on it"

      Lets see you try this line on the hundred of thousands of experts that have stated that gays don't need to be cured. LMAO! Only prejudice people try to make the excuses you are so obviously you were to lazy to do your homework on this subject.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • George

      No they are not hypothetical. We all have those such urges. It is in our DNA and the ADA protects us because of it. Seriously, though, this period wil become known as the period when people could not, or would not, control themselves. I would venture that most periods in our history we are least proud happen during such a period. It is the old- live for the flesh or strive for something greater.The pendulum never stops swinging but it will take something big and extremely sad for many people before it swings back.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Hmmmm


      I don't think they need to be cured. Seems like you have a knack for putting words in people's mouth. I'm asking a hypothetical question? Can one resist their impulses or are we merely animals who react on instinct and hence really can't change ourselves on a wide array of things.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • J.W

      But Hmmmm the problem with stealing and lying and things such as that is that they negatively affect other people. I think if there was a way that hom0s3xuality was negatively impacting other people I would be in favor of trying to do something about it, but I just don't see that it is.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Your anàlogy is false. Instead you should be comparing folks born gay to folks born left-handed or green-eyed.

      Perhaps you, like most of these fundiots, need to spend less time listening to "Pastor Dave", and more time cracking open science journals.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  18. YeahRight

    "That people are what govt should spend most time working on and what should be the primary criteria to elect the officials.. right folks? eh.. eh..? right?"

    If all states legalized gay marriage there would be huge boom in the economy, just think what the average wedding costs and all that goes into them. LOL!

    May 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • You Sir, Are A Tard

      You really think that'll provide a boom to the economy? Is so then my name is aptly applied to you.

      Regardless of my view on the position saying that it will affect the economy is absolutely moronic.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Driftin

      @You Sir, Are a Tard

      You are a Tard yourself. A new market opens up and you seem to think this will have ZERO effect on the economy? Tard.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • You Sir, Are A Tard


      I didn't say it will have zero effect, I said it's effect will not change the economy at all and it won't. guess you consider an increase in GDP of .0000000001% to be making a difference. I, and anyone with a functioning brain, don't.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Driftin

      I am not the one saying it will be a major boom to the economy. I agree with your assessment that it won't be a big deal, but it will have an effect, and that effect will be noticeable, just not to any great degree. Yet it will be there. I will be a difference.
      That you say a difference is not a difference just shows me you don't grasp the concept of "difference" too well. Tard.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Regardless of my view on the position saying that it will affect the economy is absolutely moronic."

      Hey idiot, I was being sarcastic.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  19. Common Sense

    I favor allowing gay marriage since the only real threat to hetero marriage is divorce. Also, hetero couples must marry for most employers to grant benefits to a domestic partner, so it seems only fair to everyone to requie marriage. Also, who am I to decide who others should love snd commit to?

    May 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • George

      Common sense: You make that decision all the time. Every marriage ever performed is based on your decision to have and support marriage. If you do not believe people need to be married in order to share in ones health benefits, pensions, make life deicisions, etc, you are still making decisions about what folks in love, or not in love, do. This is being part of a society. So, while it may seem like a small thing, it may have a larger mpact on society than you think or would want if you knew them all. I am not saying it should not happen only that you may be oversimplifying how groups of people keep peace among each other and how communities wish to live. We tell everyone they must seek education where they are told how to think...what right do you have to do that? Your arguments will probably go to how it is good for all of us. Some can make that argument about gay marriage too.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • BRC

      Those two things are wildly incomparable. An educated population has a clear and observable positive impact on society, but what's more, an uneducated society has an an equally clear and observable negative impact. Same gender marriages may or may not have a positive effect (I believe that any increase in healthy, monogomous, stable relationships would benefit society), but there is absolutely no evidence that there would be a negative effect. Someone could claim it would, but not with any evidence, or with anything other than prejudice.

      And this sentence- "Every marriage ever performed is based on your decision to have and support marriage." Makes no sense. I am married, but I have never had any say in anyone elses marriage. I don't "support" marriage, it is recognized by the state for the law, and by varying religions for individuals, has nothing to do with me or my choices.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  20. Snow

    well, it doesn't matter if the economy is in doldrums.. it doesn't matter if people struggle to feed their families.. But what we should spend most time about is considering if a dude sticks it in another dude's you-know-what. That and what a woman can or can not do with her own body.. That people are what govt should spend most time working on and what should be the primary criteria to elect the officials.. right folks? eh.. eh..? right?

    May 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Primewonk

      If you want to complain about jobs, go ahead. But put the blame where it belongs. Where is your outrage over tea bagger groups like Tea Party Nation having their members sign pledges to not create a single job, or hire a single person, unless Obama was kicked out?

      Your own political masters are the ones who a stated goal of doing whatever it takes to get rid of Obama, including destroying the nation.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Driftin

      I think that was sarcasm you took as gospel, there, chief.

      May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.