home
RSS
Chick-fil-A's marriage stance causing a social storm
July 19th, 2012
08:18 AM ET

Chick-fil-A's marriage stance causing a social storm

By Brad Lendon, CNN

(CNN)–The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that.

But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.

10 religious companies (besides Chick-fil-A)

"Guilty as charged,", Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

"We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," Cathy is quoted as saying.

CNN's This Just In Blog has the full social media reaction to the latest Chick-fil-A flap
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity

soundoff (1,061 Responses)
  1. Mass Debater

    The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance...

    July 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Proven.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  2. Topher

    Go Chick-Fil-A!

    July 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      yes...go...far away from us!!!

      July 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Eat more chicken!

      July 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Jack

      Save a chicken, eat a d!ck!

      July 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • derp

      Eat more bearded clam

      July 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • jimmer

      Yay for crappy fried food for dumb obese redneck christian retards.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Topher

      How far do you guys have to go to find a Chick-Fil-A? The closest one that I know of is about an hour away. But well worth the trip when you combine it with the used book store nearby.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Topher

      Hooray for ignorance, intolerance, and spreading hatred about those that are different than me!

      WWJD? Shun those lepers, tax collectors, and prosti tutes!

      July 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Topher

      Ah. I see there are still some atheists here who are cowards ... who have no better argument for their side than to steal identi.ties and use name calling?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Jack

      Topher: you posted "Go Chic-fil a!" and "Eat more chicken". What kind or argument were you expecting?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Topher

      Why should I expect an argument? I'm just talking about Chick-Fil-A. Have you ever eaten there? Yum! But I don't mind an argument if those who want to do it can act like an adult.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      To the real Topher, these atheists always steal a Christians handle to post their babble. They think they are causing confusion when it is they that are confused. Poor little children that will have their own private worm munching off of them for eternity ... suffering so.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Jack

      Exactly HS! It is obvious when some one steals a name. I find it best to ignore it, or to stick with a very common name 😉

      July 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      As opposed to your babble, HS?

      July 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • jimmer

      "Have you ever eaten there? Yum!"

      No, of course I don't eat there.

      It's lousy fast food for dumb hillbilly christards.

      Enjoy the diabetes religiot.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
  3. John

    "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Stand your ground Chick-Fil-A, stand your ground Boy Scouts of America, God bless"

    Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    July 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Romans 1:21-28

      Amen.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Actually, make that Romans 1:18-32

      Amen.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Patricia Brown-Coleman

      Amen!

      July 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Romans 1:21-28"

      LMAO – So did you skip over verse 23 or what? LOL! They were worshiping a pagan god using sex, it has NOTHING to do with the saved long term relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • jimmer

      OOoooohhh! Boogity boogity boogity!!!

      The big scary invisible Dumbledore in the sky says gay is bad.

      Oooooohhh! Be afraid!!

      You people are ret ard ed.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • phoodphite

      OMG does someone have the cliff notes on this post? But really, I guess your last paragraph should summarize it for even fundamentalists if they really want to start getting along with more people. The Bible is man's word. Period. And a good part of the new testament (unfortunately the bad part, the part that wars have been fought over and the part that has divided people all the way back to when they were written) are the words of the politician Paul, who I think smoked a little too much of something and started making up stuff for his own self-glorification. So if you're going to get anywhere with me discussing Christianity, you might want to stick with the gospels. I believe Paul's words have done more harm than good in the long run. Sorry Catholics, Southern Baptists and evangelicals – that's my firm belief.

      July 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
  4. Rocket

    There's no controversy- God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Stand your ground Chick-Fil-A, stand your ground Boy Scouts of America, God bless

    July 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      What a bunch of idiots. Too bad "biblical marriage" also includes your slave, your wife's slave, your dead brother's wife, and a few other people. So they really are for polygamy ? Why is it Christards know nothing about their own holy books ? Dumb sh1t.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      No he didn't
      The genetic pool of humans DNA can be directly traced to around 600 sets of original DNA. Not one set.
      One set is not a vialble base for any species.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Primewonk

      A couple points concerning the whole tired old "Not Adam and Steve" bullshit –

      The field of population genetics looks at how many breeding pairs a population of a species needs in order to ensure survivability. This number varies from species to species and is based on breeding statistics, genome, etc. In humans this is at least 500 breeding pairs. With too few members, the lack of genetic diversity will result in an increase in birth defects and sterility. We can see this today with isolated populations – groups who don't breed outside their small group – like Amish populations.

      Having just one breeding pair would have resulted in such a lack of genetic diversity that the species would not have survived past a couple generations.

      Now, on to your other idiocy – So your god takes a rib from Adam and makes Eve? This would have resulted in Eve having the same DNA as Adam. She would have been an exact genetic clone of Adam. She would have had the same XY chromosome pattern as Adam, instead of an XX chromosome pattern that all women have.

      In essence, Eve was a dude, dude. Adam was boinking himself. Adam was having gay incest.

      Seriously – do any of you fundiot nutters ever crack open a science journal?

      July 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • jimmer

      Bibletards are too stupid tom understand that if we actually came from Adam and Eve we would all be completely retarded (well, they are) or we would have died out for lack of genetic diversity.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • Cq

      Yes, God supposedly created Adam and Eve, with Eve being cloned from a part of Adam making her kind of a sister. Then they went on to have boys who, supposedly, mated (no marriage ceremonies mentioned until way later in Genesis) with their ... what? Sisters? Own mother? These really are the only possible choices, right? And that is what you want to point to as exemplifying God's plan for family and human $exual relationships?

      July 20, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
  5. The Knight of God

    I just don't get how this is news... lol I mean I am against gay marriage but this article is irrelevant. Now people gonna stop eatin Chick-fil-A?

    July 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There's a lot you don't get, Knighty. Like how providing access to bc empowers women.

      July 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "There's a lot you don't get, Knighty. Like how providing access to bc empowers women."

      Let's provide alcohol to drunks because it empowers them 🙂 Guns to lunatics, power to tyrants, scissors to babies... lol there's alot you don't get as well...

      July 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're a moron, Knighty.

      Go back to the Melinda Gates story and READ. You're too fvckin' dumb to grasp the simplest concept. Why would anyone give a crap what you have to say about the Bible?

      July 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • ME II

      @The Knight of God,
      Wow, you equate women with drunks, lunatics, and tyrants. What did your mother do to you?

      July 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      Nut of god
      You really are a looney.
      Don't you have some rabbit to blow up with your holy hand grenade of antioch or something?
      I think he soiled his armor.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "You're a moron, Knighty.

      Go back to the Melinda Gates story and READ. You're too fvckin' dumb to grasp the simplest concept. Why would anyone give a crap what you have to say about the Bible?"

      Aw... now you've gone and hurt my feelings lol. Why would any Christian care to hear what you have to say about birth control? I read the story but I am guessing you didn't. Why don't you explain the empowerment by your own words and allow me to quickly refute the point 🙂

      July 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      "You're too *fvckin' dumb* seasoned words brought to you by Tom-Tom

      .......Here is your knowledge and your perfect English clearly demonstrated! LOL! I'll say, with these words you rather described yourself!

      July 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • BamaDaniel

      @tom ,my girlfriend uses BC ,it's not about can women get it ,but making someone else pay for it. Condoms are a form of BC but I can't make the company I work for buy them for me.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      Birth Control = Family's & women specificly get to plan for a family and have children if & when they want increasing the chances for that child to have as many opportunities as possible.

      No Birth Conrtol = "God" get's to plan your family and surprise you when you least expect to become a parent, sometime via r a p e or making the poor choice to have that one extra drink at a party, increasing the chances that child will grow up feeling unwanted and ignored and abused and will likely repeat the cycle themselves when they pass puberty.

      Sorry Knight, but your God is a fvcking poor planner and is to be trusted about as far as he can throw you...

      July 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bama, shut up unless you have a clue what you're talking about. This isn't about health care mandates. Read the story.

      Knighty, I already explained to you how access to birth control empowers women. In the comments you made the completely idiotic "Empower them to do what? Have more s3x?" I told you in no uncertain terms how it 'empowers' them. You ran away. I'll repeat it. Maybe when you are actually dry behind the ears, you'll get it: Being able to limit the size of their families empowers poor women in developing countries and elsewhere to become better educated, earn an income, become independent. It has been shown that when women have the ability to plan their family's size and the spacing of their children's births, their families, communities and countries are better off economically. Women in many of these developing countries are members of cultures in which husbands, and men in general, have more rights, including the right to demand s3x whether the woman wishes to engage in it or not.

      Educate yourself, Knighty. Your responses to that story were beyond dumb.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Attempting to draw a comparison between giving alcohol to an alcoholic and providing health care to women is more evidence that you have the intelligence of a houseplant, Knighty.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Now people gonna stop eatin Chick-fil-A?"

      Yup, in the same way I would stop giving my money to a business I learned engaged in racist practices. I don't condone or support bigotry.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now, "quickly refute" my point, you little dweeb.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, that's what I thought. Crickets chirping from Knighty.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  6. Life's little instruction book

    Q: My daughter ran away with the love of her life to a different town. I know that they're intimate. Should I just learn to accept this? Try to take this young man into our family, even if they're not married? I'm supposed to be loving and accepting, right?
    A: No. Gather up all of your sons. Kill all the men in the town to where your daughter fled. Then enslave all the women and children.

    Q: ....ummmmm. What about the whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing'?
    A: Do not question your god. You're reading that commandment out of context anyway.

    July 20, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • The Knight of God

      And where in the bible did it command Christians to do that? lol

      July 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ night of god – it says it in your OT.

      Now, before you spout off that the OT isn't relevant anymore, your own Jesus says a couple times in the NT that the rules and laws of the OT remain in play until heaven and earth pass away.

      Is the earth here?

      Now obey your god and commence killing all those people god hates.

      July 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @Prime

      Like I said, where in the bible does it command Christians to do that? The Jews are God's chosen people. He gave them those commands to do stuff because of certain situations. Christians were not promised Israel. There were no Christians in the time of Ancient Israel... so again what does that have to do with us? Other than learning from it. NT is in play, we don't live by the law but under Grace. We learn from the Law to turn to Grace... never learned that in Church or you've never been?

      July 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Just passing by..but in case anyone doesn't know....the proper translation is that one shall not murder.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Be careful what you wish for.

      Primewonk, you said:

      "Now obey your god and commence killing all those people god hates."

      Are you instructing Knight of God to kill all atheists?

      July 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      Gosh thanks Uncoot yoot.
      Thank you so much for the "proper translation",at least according to you.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Matthew 5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished.

      The earth is still here. Your god's insane, sick, twisted, psychotic, schizophrenic laws remain in play. You ignorant fundiots need to follow his commands. And when you try it, we can either take you out, or stick your sorry asses in prison for life..

      July 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Who invited me?- golly gee...if your would just use the Strongs Concordance you'll see it means murder.

      You idiot.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      uncoot yoot
      The idiot is the one who believes in this man-made book of fiction.
      Who cares which translation of fiction is correct...it is still fiction.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      And of course Wonk...just before that verse Jesus said, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil.

      In Christianity...most would say that Jesus fulfilled the law.

      What is the important criteria? The fulfilment of the law or the passing away of heaven and earth?
      Of course...just after the verse you quoted...Jesus did not exclude those who did break the law. They too could be found in the Kingdom of Heaven.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Who invited me?- "The idiot is the one who believes in this man-made book of fiction.
      Who cares which translation of fiction is correct...it is still fiction."

      Well..that didn't take long. Instead of admitting that it actually means murder...you try to switch the topic.
      You tried (and failed) to use the Torah against those that believe in it because YOU did not understand the correct translation. I am sorry that your ignorance offended you so.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      uncoot yoot
      The ignorance is sitting around discussing the meanings of a work of fiction, created by men, for men and professing it is somehow devinely inspired, because men told you it was.

      There are many different interpretations of the bible, and you have chosen one group as the perfect definers...so what.

      What do you think Frodo meant when he decided to throw the ring into the fires of Mordor?
      Who cares...it is FICTION.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @The Knight – why is your god a moral relativist?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "mur·der/ˈmərdər/Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."

      "kill/kil/Verb: Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). Noun: 1.An act of killing, esp. of one animal by another.

      So whats your point Uncouth? That the scripture says thou shalt not murder doesn't mean thou shalt not kill? Okay, so the only difference is that murder is the "unlawful" killing of a person whereas God telling his people to go wipe out the women and children of another nation was the lawful slaughter of babies because God get's to decide whats lawful or not, so if he said it was okay then it's okay. Does that mean the scripture that says men who lie with men will not inherit God's kingdom means it's okay if they fvck standing up?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Who invited me?- "Who cares...it is FICTION."

      You must at some level....you are commenting in the belief section.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Ahhh – so the bible means what is says it means, unless you need to spin it so it means something else in order to justify how you want to spin it. Right. Got it.

      Your god commands you kill gay folks – in the OT.

      Your god, via his alter ego The Big JC – says that the OT laws remain in play until earth passes away.

      You fundiots can't justify obeying your god's commands, thus you have to spin it so you claim you don't have to obey your god.

      Yet, in the same breath you villify your fundiot Muslim cousins who do have the balls to obey your god's commands.

      Makes perfect sense.

      Idîots.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Mass Debater- "So whats your point Uncouth? That the scripture says thou shalt not murder doesn't mean thou shalt not kill?"

      Pretty much. Many people on here that are ignorant of the Torah will use claim the writings condradict themselves by saying, "it says don't kill but they did kill". The actuality is that Torah says not to murder and there is a difference. Now if you do not agree with who killed whom in the Torah...that's your business.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Apparently, these fundiots think they can justify god killing billions of people – as long as he doesn't murder them.

      Eventually one of these cretins will spin so fast that they collapse into a singularity.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Primewonk- "Ahhh – so the bible means what is says it means, unless you need to spin it so it means something else in order to justify how you want to spin it. Right. Got it."

      Ummm...no. Pause and think before you type. I do not believe anyone said such a thing outside your head.

      "Your god commands you kill gay folks – in the OT."

      Umm...no, God did not command me anything. Now if I was of the Nation of Israel or even a Jew..maybe you might have something there.

      "Your god, via his alter ego The Big JC – says that the OT laws remain in play until earth passes away."

      You keep ignoring the part where it says till the law is fulfilled. Odd.

      "You fundiots can't justify obeying your god's commands, thus you have to spin it so you claim you don't have to obey your god."

      Calm down little one. You are going into crazyland with your accusations now.

      "Yet, in the same breath you villify your fundiot Muslim cousins who do have the balls to obey your god's commands."

      Oops...there you went...into crazyland. Unless you are directing your comments to another...I haven't even mantioned anything about Muslims. Focus son..focus.

      Makes perfect sense.

      Idîots.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Primewonk- "Apparently, these fundiots think they can justify god killing billions of people – as long as he doesn't murder them."

      Care to point out a single person that said anything you just claimed?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Richard Nixon

      I guess God & Richard have more than a few things in common according to Uncouth...

      "I don't think a woman should be in any government job whatever. I mean, I really don't. The reason why I do is mainly because they are erratic. And emotional." Richard Nixon

      "We're going to [put] more of these little Ne.gro bas.tards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family" "But I don't believe in it. Work, work — throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key." Richard Nixon

      July 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Your god murdered, er killed, millions and millions of people in the flood, right? How many innocent babies did he murder, um, kill? How about when he commands his ignorant shepherd tribes to murder, ah, kill all the women, pregnant women, boys, etc., of opposing tribes – but hey, at least he said to not murder, er, kill the young virgin girls. Those kids your guys got to capture and use for sèx slaves. Yea!

      What a swell guy you choose to worship!

      July 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Sloppy technique considering your username. Just keep on with your Tea Party tactics and make up stuff I didn't say.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      You seem to be deflecting much of the OT criticism by saying "Well, that was to the jew's of that time, not to me so it doesn't apply". Fine. Then why do you even include a single disgusting word from that gross work of fiction? Grow up, grow some balls and take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming some invisible creation of your imagination for all the evil you enjoy perpetrating on mankind by continuing the cycles of bigotry and racism and hate. To bad you will be long dead before most of humanity finally realizes that there is no Jesus coming to rescue them from themselves. Hopefully it won't be too late and all humans will work together to throw off the dried and crusty remains of the used condom that is organized religion.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Primewonk- my gosh you wag your finger like an old church lady. Calm down a minute will ya?

      "My god"?? Did I make some affiliation and make it a talking point in this conversation that I wasn't aware of?

      I find it funny that when the concept of inifinite works in the favor of the "evil argument" the atheists are all over it. But when the concept of inifinite knowledge of how everyone will be or what is innocent...then it's oh no...we want to ignore all that. You pansies are pitiful.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Who invited me?

      Uncoot yoot
      I said "
      Gosh thanks Uncoot yoot.
      Thank you so much for the "proper translation",at least according to you.

      You responded by putting words in my mouth saying:

      "Well..that didn't take long. Instead of admitting that it actually means murder...you try to switch the topic.
      You tried (and failed) to use the Torah against those that believe in it because YOU did not understand the correct translation. I am sorry that your ignorance offended you so."

      Yes your argument is pretty sloppy.
      You wanted me to admit that it means murder vs kill.
      I didn't argue it one way or the other.
      And you call me an idiot....back to school little one, you have a long way to go.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      Do you think that the first 10 comandments should be followed?

      July 20, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Primewonk

      If everything was fulfilled, the earth would be ended. That is the ultimate fulfillment. Again, you are trying to justify not following your psychotic god's commands.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Mass Debater- "Then why do you even include a single disgusting word from that gross work of fiction?"

      You you you...jeesh...you are as bad as the old church lady on here with the finger pointing. The Torah, Tanakh and NT isn't just about the killing you cherry pick out of it's pages. There is more to it than that but that is for you to explore. No one can make you realise it's other facets.

      "Grow up, grow some balls and take responsibility"...bla blab blab...

      I take responsibility for my life. I am not racist or a bigot and I try not to hate anyone. I am concern about your hate though with your mass assumptions you seem to make though.

      "rescue them from themselves."

      I believe that mankind can improve upon itself in many ways. I think we have in many ways. You are too closed minded to think that a person of faith's morality starts and ends with a book.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Who invited me?- my apologies..I got an idiot confused with someone who is just rude. It happens on here when talking with multiple people.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @hawaiiguest- "Do you think that the first 10 comandments should be followed?"

      I always find it interesting when a general topic becomes on focused on a single person.

      I always thought one should try to follow them as long as it is not detrimental to one's spiritual growth. After all, even Jesus taught that strict obedience to the law doesn't trump common sense and doing what is good.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Primewonk- "If everything was fulfilled, the earth would be ended. That is the ultimate fulfillment."

      Hmm..care to point out where in the 613 mitzvot that says the earth will pass away. I would love to see that law.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      @Uncouth – "to think that a person of faith's morality starts and ends with a book." I was a Christian for almost 30 years, have read the bible numerous times cover to cover, and i'll agree, I don't think people should base their morality on one book.

      That is however, what many many many Christians claim to do which is why I might make some assumptions at times about commenters that seem to try and toe that line of "The bible is infallible and if it says anything I don't like that part doesn't apply anymore but the parts that I feel are inline with how I feel must be truth, especially the ones about how special I am and how I get to live for eternity in happiness while those who don't agree with me get to burn in agony."

      To cherry pick the verses that refer to gay's and to stand by the bibles claim that God hates them so much that he will torture them for eternity or at least deny them access to his Kingdom, that is bigotry. Even if you are claiming to be adopting God's view on it, that just means you worship a bigot.

      July 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Mass Debater- "To cherry pick the verses that refer to gay's and to stand by the bibles claim that God hates them so much that he will torture them for eternity or at least deny them access to his Kingdom, that is bigotry."

      That's why I try to just worry about my spiritual life and not what others are doing. I mentioned it once but again, Matt 7:1-5 is something that all believers and even non-believers should take to heart.
      I would also be careful in assumptions. Usually the whole eternal punishment thing is in the NT and I don't recall anywhere that Jesus even made a comment on gays.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Hmmmm

      ".the proper translation is that one shall not murder."

      "Killing" is a word that represents the concept of one or more entities taking the life of one or more living entity. This is a concept of action that is a first level action, as it involves a relationship between two or more metaphysically existent entities.

      "Murder" is a word that represents the concept of the crime of killing another person with premeditation or intent. This is a moral concept that is an abstraction from an abstraction. That is, you cannot understand the concept of murder without understanding the action concept of killing, the moral concept of crime, as well as the consciousness concepts of premeditation and intent.

      The interesting part of the debate becomes when killing is really used with intent such as war, then it is also fits the definition of murder.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Uncoutrh – Your Jesus said that the OT laws remain in play until heaven and earth pass away. Sorry you choose to ignore him making that statement.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Hmmmm- "The interesting part of the debate becomes when killing is really used with intent such as war, then it is also fits the definition of murder."

      Though most that participate in war would probably say they are defending themselves at some level from a threat. In the case of murder....it's usually one person killing another for personal offensive reasons. Just like the Trayvon situation....did Z-man kill Trayvon. Oh yes. But was it murder? The answer is more murky.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Primewonk- I didn't know I had a Jesus. I thought all the world could claim him?

      I have ignored anything. You have though ignored the part about the law being fulfilled and that was what Jesus came to do. Read beyond the one verse you picked out.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Primewonk- "If everything was fulfilled, the earth would be ended. That is the ultimate fulfillment."

      Hmm...care to point out where in the 613 mitzvot that says the earth will pass away. I would love to see that law.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      A lot of comments...been fun. Will be back on later if I can.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Hmmm

      "Though most that participate in war would probably say they are defending themselves at some level from a threat. In the case of murder....it's usually one person killing another for personal offensive reasons."

      And those in war usually choose to go into that war for offensive reasons, it's still murder by definition.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Snow

      "I have ignored anything. You have though ignored the part about the law being fulfilled and that was what Jesus came to do. Read beyond the one verse you picked out."

      So that gives you right to only pick and choose what you like in OT to follow, while gleefully shove away the things that make you look stupid? what kind of logic is that?

      July 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      That was a lovely non-answer to a very simple yes or no question.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      hawaiiguest- "That was a lovely non-answer to a very simple yes or no question."

      Sorry that you don't undertannd that you didn't ask a simple yes or no question.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Snow- "So that gives you right to only pick and choose what you like in OT to follow, while gleefully shove away the things that make you look stupid? what kind of logic is that?"

      Don't know what kind of logic that is since I never said anything like it.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Hmmm- I guess we will just have to agree to disagree when it comes to our view on murder and war.

      I would doubt that most of those who have fought in war would consider there participation as murder. But maybe you might call the Israelites murderers and the US Army too...I dunno.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry uncouth, but we're talking about what Jesus said regarding the OT laws. Not sure why you keep trying tto move the goalposts. Although it is a common fundiot ploy.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      Gee, I was unaware that the question of following the first 10 comandments or not was so difficult for you.
      Adding on your little qualifier opens the door to so many justifications it's ridiculous, and boils down to "if you feel like following them".

      July 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Primewonk- Exactly...I have. For some reason you keep ignoring the verses that came before the one you cited. There is no ploy except the typical ignorant one on your half of ignoring that which you do not like.

      Also..you implied there was something about the end of the earth in the laws. Maybe I misunderstood you on that. That's why I asked about you offering some citation from the 613 mitzvot.

      July 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @hawaiiguest- is faith personal? If so..then why all the confusing over me not answering you in the manner you wanted me to?
      You are incorrect about the whole "feel like following them" biz. As with most beliefs, creeds and faith...one studies and looks at it with an open mind. Sure, there are those that picks and chooses....heck, I've know atheists to do the same thing. But what of it? That's their concern and not mine or even yours.

      In the future...if you only want one of two answers....write the question out as thus. Don't get all upset when things (and answers) don't follow your preconcieved notions.

      July 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      And how does what you said not boil down to "if you feel like it". If it is supposed to be personal to every person, then it would necessarily fall to the preferences of which to follow and which not to.

      July 20, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @hawaiiguest- mostly because when you say the whole "if you feel like it" you seem to be lumping together the ppl that do no studying, no research and no introspective thinking to those that do. That would be foolish.

      While one's faith is personal there is a standard that exists for such things like faith, justice and even morality. In the case of Christianity...there is a core belief that most would say one needs to be of that faith. But beyond that core belief...that's where one has to study out there faith.
      In the NT, one was not to do any work on the Sabbath. Even some ultra-orthodox still hold to that. But Jesus taught that there is no harm in doing work if it's for the good. Obviously one has to make a personal call based on what there background and spiritual knowledge.

      July 20, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      And what are these core beliefs then, and who decides what those are?

      July 20, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @hawaiiguest- that's dependant on which denomination one belongs to in many cases.

      As you probably know..most Christians hold the Nicene Creed as a litmus test for the core beliefs. Of course, the creed and the many discussions that help mold that creed were discussed for many decades ans centuries following the Apostolic Age of the church.

      July 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Uncouth

      A core belief would be denomination independent, otherwise, it is merely a belief that many or a majority of denominations share.

      July 20, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Not exactly. There is such a thing as that which defines a group. Otherwise instead of being "Christian" it would be "those guys over there".

      July 21, 2012 at 5:50 am |
  7. pervert alert

    AIDS into to the world via San Francisco qu eers with the intent to take as many people with them as possible. Qu eers murdering innocents with disease throughout recorded history.

    July 20, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • myweightinwords

      I am very sorry that your heart is so filled with fear and hatred. It must make your life very hard to live.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • Sue

      Why don't you put the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of all the straight parents who had gay kids?

      July 20, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • HeavenSent

      You do realize that AIDS is a result of African Christians fvcking monkeys.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Ho'mophobes are latent gays. So says the government scientists. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      July 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • pervert alert

      A lot of africans and monkeys in San Francisco is there?

      July 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  8. Rynomite

    So what would marriage law look like if the U.S. codified it to mirror the Bible?

    1. Marriage would be a union of 1 Man and 1 or MORE Women. Gen 29:17-28, Sam 3:2-5
    2. Marriage would not impede a man's right to take concubines in addtions to his wife or wives. II Sam 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chron 11:21

    July 20, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Rynomite

      3. A marriage would only be considered valid if the wife was a Virgin. If she was not, she shall be executed. Deut 22:13-21
      4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. gen 24:3, num 25:1-9, ezra 9:12, neh 10:30

      July 20, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Rynomite

      5. Marriage is for life. Divorce is not permitted. Deut 22:19, Mark 10:9
      6. if a married man dies without children, his brother must marry his widow. If he refuses he will be punished. gen 38:6-10, deut 25:5-10

      July 20, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Rynomite

      7. A victim must marry the man who forces himself upon her. Deut 22:28-29
      8. U.S. Military Personnel operating in hostile territory may take young enemy female captives as their wives (if they find them attractive). Deut 21:11-14

      July 20, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Rynomite

      9. In lieu of Marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required you get your father drunk and use him for your pleasure while tag teaming him with any sisters you may have. (This rule only applies if you are female.) Gen 19:31-36

      July 20, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • The Knight of God

      Now let me correct this: All of what you quoted was for the Israelite Government in ancient times. So yes that was the law they lived by, it was to physically show how things are spiritually for us. When you read something, ask yourself: To whom is he talking to? Atheists claim to use logic... not when it comes to reading books huh?

      July 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Knight of God,
      "All of what you quoted was for the Israelite Government in ancient times."
      Just curious, what is the basis for this?

      July 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "When you read something, ask yourself: To whom is he talking to?"

      Right, because when God wants something from his humans, we have to ask ourselves, well which humans and what time period were they living, because those things must adjust what the never changing creator wants, right? Whats good for the gefilte fish isn't good for the gentile...

      July 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
  9. Life's little instruction book

    Q: I'm getting a little bit on a side. That's a bad thing, right? I mean, I kinda feel guilty about it. This moral compass that God apparently gave me is telling me that I should stop.
    A: If it's good enough for the original founder of your religion, its good enough for you. Just don't lie about it – your SO will be fine with it. After all, she should just be keeping her trap shut, anyway, and obeying you.
    -Too many references to list about concubines and the subservience of wives.

    July 20, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  10. YeahRight

    "Cater to the moral majority and let the whining qu eers go hell. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS."

    Typical prejudice stupidity from this bigot. The fact that you're clueless about AIDS just shows the world how dumb you are.

    July 20, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Who invited me?

      well to be fair, he did try to warn you what he was in his name....

      July 20, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • YeahRight

      "well to be fair, he did try to warn you what he was in his name.."

      Duh it's just a troll with low self esteem issues, nothing more.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Peter

      "it's just a troll"

      who uses many handles, aka, Bob, junior, herbert, just sayin, etc...

      July 20, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  11. pervert alert

    Here is common sense in successful business. Cater to the moral majority and let the whining qu eers go hell. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS.

    July 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you are the head of what 'successful business' that has provided you with the experience to know what makes all businesses successful?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Gay people did not give the world AIDS. In fact, it is likely that AIDS spread as rapidly and unchecked as it did due to the fact that hetero people BELIEVED it was a gay disease, continued to sleep around unprotected, and spread it.

      It was also spread through the sharing of dirty needles, an action that can not be attributed to any particular orientation.

      I'm not saying that it didn't also spread through the gay community, and I had an uncle who likely died of AIDS (it was in the early days of the disease, when it wasn't really understood, and he died of some undiagnosed virus) who was a closeted gay man. It is likely that fear also contributed to the spread among gay men, along with misinformation or disinformation and a culture that praised straight men for the same activity it condemns among gay men.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • chubby rain

      The atheist Bill Gates seems to be doing a bit better...

      July 20, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  12. HeavenSent

    Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth Jesus truth

    Got scrotum on my chin.

    Amen

    July 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  13. Life's little instruction book

    Q: I have a wife. It's ok to have sex with her, right?
    A: No. Jesus is coming soon, so you probably don't have time anyway. You should act like you don't have a wife.
    1 Corinthians 7:29

    July 20, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Q: "Life's little instruction book" is completely ignorant of scripture while still able to recite verses out of context. Should he continue posting?

      A: Of course, anti-religious people will always misconstrue out of ignorance and bigotry. They call it free speech.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How's that shoe fit when you're wearing it, Bill? The believers do the same crap. That's the point.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Life's little instruction book

      "You're reading it out of context" – typical fundie response to deflect the focus away from the obvious evil and immoralities in the bible.

      Tell me, oh great Deacon, in what context should I read that it is ok to beat your slaves to death as long as that death is slow. Please enlighten us how beating slaves to death is moral, oh wise one.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • TR6

      @Bill Deacon: “Q: "Life's little instruction book" is completely ignorant of scripture while still able to recite verses out of context.”

      In what context is it ok to force a rpae victom to marry her rpaest? Deut 22:28-29

      In what context is it ok for daughters to drug their father and gang rpae him. Gen 19:31-36

      July 20, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Life's little instruction book

      Ever notice how 'you're taking that out of context' comments never come with whatever the proper context 'should' be?

      July 20, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Topher

      That verse just means that marriage should not get in the way to your devotion to the Lord or your service to Him.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • AuTHEISTic

      YES!:

      It's okay to beat your sláve to death if he's/she's/it's a dimwit and immoral atheist.

      A rápe victim should marry her rápist provided that he's not gay.

      It's okay to have a 3some with your father as long as they aren't both AIDS producing gays and a.ss.hat atheists.

      July 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  14. YeahRight

    "Truth from the Glorious HOLY One .... beats lies from man's famous (LOL).

    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; "

    Yes we know Christians don't want to hear the REAL truth so they can hold onto their unfounded hatred and prejudice toward the gay community. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

    Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

    July 20, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  15. Shawn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    July 20, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Who invited me?

      do you really think anyone is going to read your long winded cut and post?
      no matter which side of the debate they are on?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Truth from the Glorious HOLY One .... beats lies from man's famous (LOL).

      3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

      4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

      2 Timothy 4:3-4

      Amen.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Chad

      "4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth"

      The effects of prejudice and racism are all around–constant fighting in Israel and Palestine, wars in the Middle East because of religion and killings in big cities and small towns all over the world because of the color of someone's skin or sexual orientation. This affects mankind deeply and can lead to cynicism and hopelessness. Unfortunately, many people misinterpret the Bible and use it to support their violence and prejudice against others. They take portions of verses and use them out of context so they can feel better about the horrible way they treat others. You really need to apologize for your gross injudiciousness and prejudice.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Eric G

      @heavensent: Did you just say "glory hole"?

      July 20, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • HeavenSent

      "@heavensent: Did you just say "glory hole"?"

      Yes, I said glory hole. Being a fat smelly dimwitted trailer park dwelling red neck, a glory hole is the only way I'm getting some dick. Nobody would ever bang me if they could actually see or smell me.

      Amen

      July 20, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  16. PrimeNumber

    Throughout countless ages, marriage has been understood as an arrangement between females and males. The reproductive capacity of hetero- relationships has been immense evidence that this arrangement is what nature intended. Chick-fil-A upholds what humanity has always upheld. But since the churches won't cave in to this modern idea of gay marriage, we're going after a fast food chicken outlet. Why am I not surprised.

    July 20, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Who invited me?

      Procreation is not the only reason for marriage. otherwise you would deny marriage to anyone who cannot have children or choose not to have children.
      Throughout mankinds existance there have been societies that accept and marry same s e x couples. Your relgion does not have an exclusive right to marriage.
      If you get married without a legal license, but do it in a church with a preist, you are not married.
      If you have a license, and have a civil ceremony without religious reference...you are married. What does that tell you?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • HeavenSent

      End of days children re-writing history ... too funny as they believe themselves as a group to be gods.

      3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

      4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

      2 Timothy 4:3-4

      Amen.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • HB

      Invited,

      It tells me that you are confusing two definitions. The marriage license grants couples all of the legal rights afforded to a married couple and that is great. A religious marriage is being married in the eyes of God. The two are not interchangeable and serve different purposes. Yes, being married in a church without a marriage license is not recognized by the state as a legal marriage; however being married with a priest (or similar) is recognized as a marriage for most Christian (and other) denominations. They are two different things. The religious community does not advocate for ignoring the legal aspects of a marriage.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Who invited me?

      HB
      So if two people, ANY two people who are of legal age, choose to marry in a legally recognized marriage, you would have NO opposition to it?
      Who caresif YOUR religion recognizes it or not, it is the legality of it that is the question.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • myweightinwords

      There have been cultures and societies all over the world throughout time that have recognized same gender unions and blessed them.

      The word "traditional" is deceptive. The truth is the word "marriage" has been used to mean a mult.itude of things over the millenia. At one time only the nobility married. At one time it was "traditional" to marry your cousin or even sibling if it meant keeping the wealth in the family. At one time a man married as many women as he could afford.

      Tradition is only worth it's relevance to today. We make new ones all the time. We shed or modify existing ones to suit the needs of our lives. For that matter, the definitions of words change too. They grow, shift, even come to mean the exact opposite of what they once did. This is because language, and the society it serves, is a growing, changing, living thing.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Sue

      Slavery was also accepted throughout countless ages, but times changed.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • FYI..u'ren'tnvited

      Church marriage has long been acknowledged, recognized and accepted as legally co-equal with civil union by the society, laws and government.

      What you were saying was, you want to make your own mob rule.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Primewonk

      I'm sorry Other Prime – But throughout the vast majority of history, "marriage" had nothing to do with love or children. It had to do with power and money – who had it, who wanted it, who could get it. Is that what you want us to return to?

      July 20, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Who invited me?

      FYI..u'ren'tnvited
      My point was that any two consenting adults should be allowed to commit to each other in a legally recognized union.
      you know that whole "liberty and justice for ALL" part.
      BTW I go where I please, invitation or not, here I come.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "Church marriage has long been acknowledged, recognized and accepted as legally co-equal with civil union by the society, laws and government"

      That's a very ignorant, uninformed, and incorrect opinion. 1. church marriage is not de facto sanction by the state. The person performing the ceremony must be certified by the state and the couple must have a license. 2. civil unions lack many of the protections and privileges that marriage confers. Get your head out of the sand.

      But let's assume that what you said were true. Are you really just arguing semantics then? Do you really want to argue for something that's 'seperate, but equal'? Because the last time we tried that as a nation it didn't go over so well.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • God

      Just so we're clear, everyone is invited. Of course, if you don't accept the invitation, then I'll torture you.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:57 am |
  17. Reality

    What Mr. Cady should have said:

    Only for the new members of this blog–

    The reality of se-x, contraception and STD/AIDS control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    (or why we the citizens i.e. government concern ourselves about disease, etc. transfer)

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity on the part of both heterose-xuals and h-omose-uals as fits the case:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual 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.

    July 20, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Reread response

      July 20, 2012 at 8:03 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Should have said? Is that the same thing folks are doing with Jesus Christ's truth today? His truth that you deny realitynot!

      July 20, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Reality

      Sorry about the back to back repeat.

      July 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
  18. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    The reality of se-x, contraception and STD/AIDS control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    (or why we the citizens i.e. government concern ourselves about disease, etc. transfer)

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity on the part of both heterose-xuals and h-omose-uals as fits the case:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual 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.

    July 20, 2012 at 7:49 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Duh shut up and smoke kush

      July 20, 2012 at 7:53 am |
    • HeavenSent

      There are no new members ... it's all you reality with your multiple handles.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:30 am |
  19. Bootyfunk

    marriage is a legal device, not a religious one.

    get married in a church with church approval but without a gov't issued marriage license = not legally married
    get married in a courthouse without church approval but with a gov't issued marriage license = legally married

    you can add ritual and ceremony to a marriage, but it's not necessary. marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. if g.ays want to get married, you can tell them they can't do so at your church, you can deny them that particular chruch's ceremony, but you shouldn't be able to deny them the legal right to marry. that's pushing your own religious views on others.

    plus g.ay marriage is very good for the economy.

    July 20, 2012 at 7:27 am |
    • WASP

      @booty: funny thing is the "religious" don't seem to understand that part about marriage. i guess they think you HAVE TO get married in church for it to be "legal in god's eyes".......brillant how well brain-washed religious folks are isn't it.
      next thing is they try and use "the slippery slop" defense; funny thing is the only folks you hear about trying to marry their daughters, sons, cows, etc etc etc are the religious folks. ROFLMFAO.

      July 20, 2012 at 7:40 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      @booty ,true and well put,but like I said along time ago it's an old tradition maybe the oldest tradition world wide .it is going to take a long time to change. Smoke kush

      July 20, 2012 at 7:44 am |
    • Mirosal

      I always have to laugh when the fundiots tell us that marraige is a Christian thing. So the other 5 pont something billion on this planet are not and never will be married because they don't follow an archaic moldy goat-herder's manual? They just don't realize that marriage predates their cult by thousands of years... so those people were never married either? rather arrogant thinking wouldn't you say?

      July 20, 2012 at 7:58 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Oldest tradition all cultures have practiced since the beginning of man,because man wanted to have in house pus sy

      July 20, 2012 at 8:06 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Oh, the dragon lovers are going to explain Jesus' truth about marriage. ROTFLOL.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • WASP

      @HS: we "dragon lovers" aren't trying to explain your fairytale version of marriage, but TRUE marriage in this secular nation we call the united states of america. true legal marriage in america is authorized by the state you choose to marry in; it can be done at the magistrates office or in a "elvis themed" chapel in las vegas, to get to the point only the state can declare any TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to be married. so that takes the whole jesus bs out of the equation.

      July 20, 2012 at 11:40 am |
  20. llɐq ʎʞɔnq

    What a bunch of idiots. Too bad "biblical marriage" also includes your slave, your wife's slave, your dead brother's wife, and a few other people. So they really are for polytheism ? Why is it Christards know nothing about their own holy books ? Dumb sh1t.

    July 20, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      the bible... the greatest story never read. christians have no idea what their guide book says. lol.

      July 20, 2012 at 7:00 am |
    • Mirosal

      It's also ok to sell your daughters into slavery, which explains their minimum wage ... it's also ok to offer your daughters up for ga'ng-ban'gs too, if it will save you and your stuff. Just ask Lot.

      July 20, 2012 at 7:04 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      What they hear from the being spewed at them from the pulpit is basically all the 'good' and none of the 'bad'...when the bad is brought up they blame it on their other imaginary friend failing to comprehend that the god they believe in so highly is not something any rational minded person would believe in and if that thing existed in the world, it would have been in jail or hung long before now. All religion does is stops an otherwise normally functioning brain from working.

      July 20, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • HeavenSent

      If your so set against Jesus' truth about marriage Bucky, why do you insist on being included?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Hey Scott, I noticed you resorted to using multiple computers.

      July 20, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Bob

      HeavenSent, why do you insist on following the Christian doctrine of hate?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      HS, have you seen a doctor about that brain tumor?

      July 20, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Life's little instruction book

      Q: My wife isn't a virgin. That's not a problem, right?
      A: Incorrect. You need to stone her. But first have your village elders verify that she's not a virgin.
      Deuteronomy 22:13

      July 20, 2012 at 10:49 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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.