Love is Blind, or Should Be

Oh and by the way your title doesn't mean a thing to me. You have no idea whats in the Bible and your an assistant professor. I sure wouldn't want you having anything to do with teaching my kids. your worldly opinions mean nothing to God. He didn't ask you for advice. Oh and by the way what has slavery got to do with Christianity anyway? Once your saved , your not of this world anymore. If you love the world your an enemy of God. Oh and by the way sorry you can't spout off scriptures too LOL the reason for it there is none to back your theory without twisting them.

Lord have mercy on your soul. I see a bunch of overly educated fools trying to have a form or godlyness but deceiving many and sending them to Hell. I pity you on judgement day young lady.

Thank you for your eloquent defense of the human dignity of homosexuals. I pray that you are right that in a better future people who call themselves Christians will be embarrassed that their parents were so small minded.

Talk about "Cherry Picking" verses! In one breath you quote Jesus commanding us to love one another, in another breath you discount any negative mention of Homosexuality in the Bible as "tired" and "weak". For an Assistant Professor of Religion, I'm astonished at your intellectual dishonesty. The Bible is either right or it's not. Your slavery analogy is also "tired and weak." The Bible doesn't encourage slavery. (I presume you are referring to Ephesians) The apostle Paul wants newly-converted slaves to exemplify Christ to their masters through Love, as opposed to Rebellion. That's not an encouragement for Slavery. That's an encouragement for evangelizing through love in the current condition you are in. You should consider a few Hermeneutics courses during your time at Boston College. It will add some credibility to your title.

Ms. Freitas,
Do you believe that truth is dependent on your feelings? I have met nice homosexuals, but that doesn't change the rational principle that human sexuality -- apart from feelings and from a purely functional perspective -- was designed by God to procreate. Homosexual behavior is fundamentally disordered from a physiological perspective.
Not to mention, homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders for political rather than scientific reasons.
Love, passions, etc., are irrelevant. Who the heck are you to judge those who cling to orthodox Christian beliefs about human sexuality as "unChristian."
Why not say its unChristian to condemn consensual incest or gluttony for that matter? Love thy neighbor they say. Liberalism has as much to do with reason as oil does with water.
Liberals are the most judgmental people on the planet.

If you met a brother and sister who were madly "in love," would you say they should be allowed to marry or those involved in other intrafamilial sexual relationships.

Comparing homosexuality with slavery is a non sequitor. Jesus never abrogated the law against homosexual relations, which falls neatly within the topic of fornication. i.e., all sexual behaviors forbidden in Leviticus.

>>If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active.

Incorrect, a person is condemned not for their passions, but for their actions. It's what you do that matters.

The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.

>>Original sin left us subject to sin and death, and how can you say that homosexual behavior is from God and not from the demons if a) God is not the author of evil b) the Bible condemns homosexual behavior without explicit caveats.

All human behaviors and desires are learned, and a dogma of Christian faith is free will. Do you choose to act on her passions? If you choose to act on your passions, how can you not be guilty of them?

If you deny that "being gay" is a choice, all you are doing is being in denial. I choose not to sleep with women. Homosexuality is a passion like all other passions discussed in the Bible,.

As a Christian, I believe that God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, is The Creator. It is not my rules, but His. If He created male and female to be joined, so be it. If He were to change His purposes for creation it would be our privilege to comply. Please stop maligning my worship as fear or prejudice or narrow-mindedness. People do not have to align themselves with God's will, but won't you please stop distorting the truth? Once again, these are HIS rules, not mine (or yours).

You are completely missing and ignoring what the bible's position (God's position) is about homosexuality. It does not matter what YOU or anybody beleives, that is the point.

It's very clear according to God that gay sex is a sin! NOW!, does that person repent from that sin or continue to sin? That is free will.

If that person chooses to repent then only God can forgive the sin through Jesus's death on the cross. If that person is one of God's "ELECT", then Christ shed his blood for that elect person and that person would be following God's laws. Jesus said; "you shall know them by their fruits."

I can care less if someone chooses a life of homosexuality and ignores God's word. It is not up to me to judge that person and all I can do is pray that they repent and God touches them by regeneration. That is what Jesus was saying when he replied; "you must be born again."

If you choose to support your thoughts about homosexuality by not using scripture, there is no basis for your arguement.

This is the problem today we run into rules whether made by man for rule of law or for religion, it is called a status quoe the minority in one way of life does deserve to live how they want, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what in all actuality is a small minority when you take in the fact there are Billions of people on this earth, not just a few million anymore. Also all the fights for there same right's are starting to come back and prove they are in the wrong, I know I don't have to post news links, also is it right that a donor for children have to pay for someone else's poor decision. Or when a women leaves a men to be a companion or married to another woman in the hetro world we would not have to pay alimony because our obligation is taken over by another who takes our place, but yet we want our cake and eat it too. I am tired of conforming to things that are wrong to be made right. Without artificial insimnation then how do you reproduce.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Timonthy 3:1-5

Hello, If people say the are christians then they believe the (BIBLE)and nothing else. This should answer any and all questions and put an end to this (excepting) anything in America nonsence.
1st Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Everyone needs to remember we are here only for a
short time. And do you really want to be doing something that is wrong in Gods eyes when your heart stops beating?

What a bunch of small-minded fools now claim the mantle of Christianity. The God who created a universe with more stars than grains of sand on earth isn't worried about what two people do in bed. Christians, get your heads out of the gutter.

Debbie J - Maybe Jesus wouldn't be hanging out in gay bars, as you say. He probably wouldn't be spending much time in Hooters or "gentlemen's clubs" either. But who knows?

Anti-gay Christians face a theological dilemma. If gay people are to be condemned for being gay (and they are) then the celibate gay person is just as sinful as one who is sexually active. The celibate gay, simply for being what he or she is, is more sinful than the heterosexual. Some try to get out of this by pointing to the doctrine of original sin, but that doesn't hold up as original sin covers all people EQUALLY. Some people didn't get more than others. Others recognize the dilemma and insist that being gay must therefore be a choice, which of course is patently ridiculous.

Why Gay unions should not be allowed:
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- the foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.

-this leads to my second point,
-I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual. It is like saying that little johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.

-and another of my questions is, why on Earth are you comparing humans to animals. The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.

Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their bodies sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.

-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.

Now if you bring religion into it, the christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians:6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.

Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?

The answer is yes. As a christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgivness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.

Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? how Dare you confuse the living word of God. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.

These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. They question you need to ask yourseleves is what is right? And very clearly, for a christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure their is some peice of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.

Thank You

I admire your fervor but I don't think Jesus would fraternize regularly in gay clubs or in South Beach. That is a stretch.

He asked his fellow man to show tolerance and compassion for the outcast. That is what this issue requires from all of us.

As for gay marriage in a church, Martin Luther would probably recommend-- if he were alive today-- to create your own denomination rather than force an entire, entrenched theological system to bend to the winds of change.

It will not.

Henry the VIII couldn't get them to do it and he was king of one of the most powerful monarchies of his time, if my high school history serves me well.

Wow, a "Christian" that doesn't want to see bible verses. How spiritual.

How about this - A couple of strictly secular arguments.

Gays don't produce offspring and as a result, there's no future generation. So it's for survival of the species.

It's unnatural. Our bodies weren't designed to accomodate same sex unions. If this is OK, why not sex with animals, say monkee's. What is the limit? Are there none?

I pray that all those claiming to be christian will at some point finally look into the bible and look for accurate understanding. Matthew 7 talks about those who claim to be Christians but are not. Christianity is not a religion of acceptance but one of discipline. What do you think disciple means? What do you think Matthew 7 is about?

Regarding who Jesus would "hang out with" today, it would be those who accepted his teachings. If we learn nothing else from John 6, we learn Jesus didn't bend his message to make it popular. At that chapter, a "great number" went out from believing in him.

The Jews didn't accept homosexuals, why would you think Jesus would change for today?

And finally, thanks for being a fine example of 2 Tim 4:3.

HISTORY _is_ WARNING US ALL! --- When anything goes, chaos follows!

Let us be reminded of the cause of decays and downfalls of every known great civilizations --- MORALS' DEGRADATION! Avoid thinking that we are far greater than they are and will be in control with our future because ONLY technology changed in our time --- still our human hearts are deceptive and is able to blind the destructive truth of our own harmful desires! DO NOT BE DECEIVED!

Globalization may have opened doors to uplift people’s lives but it caused economic and social adversities like morals’ degradation. Advancing the worship of technology, sex, and luxury. . . Globalization wiped out the nobler purpose of education. . . it has only brought about the need to merely meet the demands in the global jobs market AND successfully produced many men and women with NO CONSCIENCE, WITH CORRUPTED VALUES, AND WITH NO FEAR OF GOD.

Hi Jennifer,
It is an imperative that people open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate.
I think you are being a bit harsh, majority of the contributions to this discussion seem pretty hate free.
The problem I have, is that if the bible is taken as read ,in its totality,and christianity is based on the bible, then it seems incompatible with a same sex relationship.
In much the same way ,my mixed genetic background, make any desire to be an orthodox jew[conversion not allowed?] , not possible.
This a fault inherent in christianity and the bible, rather than the people they condemn.
Hence my comment.

Hi Anonymous,
Have you had a chance to give some thought to my "certificate authorised by the government".
Keeping in mind that lots of hetero people who are married,haven't gone thru a religous ceremony.

Donna, yes Jesus hung out with the oppressed, but he never failed to point out their sins!

Donna writes:"Anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person, and Jesus’s commandment to love one another and preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, wouldn’t dare deny the right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong commitment with someone he or she loves,"

Ok, I'm married for 20 years with three kids and a stay at home wife. I cant stand my current wife but have found a lovely lady 10 years younger, Time to leave my current old bag. I hope you wont deny me or critisize my right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong .... pretty ridiculous eh ?, there are limits on everything even if they sound really really nice.

Dear Ron:

I just read your last post in which you said:
'I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.'

From my own experience, I am and was a member of a gay affirming and loving Christian church in San Francisco. My relationship with my partner was respected and blessed. The church members prayed for her during her battle with cancer, and we received the personal support and love of many who attend this church. After my partner (who was German) and I returned to Germany because of limitations with her health insurance in America, we received letters of support and visits from friends in the church . And after my partner's death two members of the church came from San Francisco to her memorial service here.
What, in the light of such love, is illogical about feeling we can be Christians?
We are Christians - simply so, thank God.

It is becoming a historical imperative that people, Christians included, open their hearts and stop the dialogue of hate taking place in their minds against gays and lesbians.

Hi Anonymous,
I note your point on the fact that the legal, social, etc benefits of marriage are MOSTLY available by other means. ie NOT All.
I have no problem with religous authorities not recognizing same sex unions in their organizations.
For them to do so ,is in fact, illogical.
Just as illogical, as practicing gays who feel they can be Christians, I might add.
The key words in your post are "certificate authorised by the government".
I would be happy if every adult had equal access to such a certificate.
As far as your reply on discrimination and law, I think you need to look again at that. Inherent in your statement is the premise, homosexual behavior is harmful and evil and dangerous to society. If so , perfectly logical to attack and contain it, any way you can.
If not, then the state should not dicriminate.

All this sad fighting aside, can anyone tell me if there is a gay-friendly church denomination in Germany where I can go, as a lesbian, and learn to be a better loving Christian - towards everyone?
Here's hoping someone has an answer for me,
Jennifer

An email from TDAY on March 6th would have been laughable, were it not so sad. This is a person - probably a male - who has truly swallowed the religious Kool-Aid.

Spouting selective beliefs is not the same as thinking. Running one's life based on a bumper sticker mentality is not the path to either knowledge or salvation.

That was the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read Steve. How about this: liberals want to create an atheocracy in the image of the Soviet Union. They want want make us slaves in the name of equality, and if we do not agree, they will send us to re-education camps, or even to the Gulags. The Left loves a good genocide now and then. Demonizing the other side is not an argument. So far, nobody has really even attempted to give in argument supporting same-sex marriage. Are the arguments really that poor?

The whole argument against gay people having equal rights is religious. Churches have the right to (not)perform various ceremonies as they believe. Gay people can get religiously married, e.g. United Churches of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist, Jewish reform, even Jewish Conservative. Also some Episcopal and Presbyterian churches do gay marriage, but the term used is commitment ceremony. There are other independent churches as well.

The whole problem is that Religious ceremonies do not give the legal benefits of marriage. That requires a state marriage license, and a signing of state legal contracts, usually done on the day of the religious marriage ceremony.

Religious conservatives want to control government as well as their religion. This is the real slippery slope. History is full of horrifying genocides and other crimes when religion gets control of government. The crusades - tens of millions murdered in the name of God, witch trials - perhaps a million women burned at the stake by Christians, their guilt 'proven'by being denounced by a neighbor, and of course the church and the neighbor shared the deceased's property. The Inquisition - tens of thousands tortured and murdered for daring to challenge the word - the infallibility of the church. Slavery, supported by biblical passages, women's suffrage - the conservatives wanted to keep women as their property, ending Jim Crow laws that institutionalized virtual slavery for a hundred years after the civil war, and of course inter-racial marriage, finally legalized in 1968. Of course, throughout history, there is the persecution of the Jews, culminating when a man born Catholic led his nation to WWII. His people were fearful due to the terrible economic collapse of the depression, he used the fear to fill his people with hate and 50 million died. This included 6 million of Jesus's own people, the Jews, whose ashes mixed in hitler's smokestack with the ashes of Gernany's Gays and others this madman deemed less then human. Nows there is the long standing abuse of children by the Catholic church - the worst part of the church's - is genocide against children almost the proper term - is the churches sweeping it under the rug, for to solve the problem they'd have to admit their infallibility is a lie, and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.

So now, we have a new group for the conservative churches to vent their anger upon. It's the gays asking for equality under the law. I've been conventionally married for 39 years, I'm from Massachusetts and am proud that our gay/lesbian citizens there have full marriage rights, and several other states give them the same (state only, not federal) benefits through the partial marriage device called civil unions. I'm proud of these states standing up for another group who fit Jesus ministry of helping the despised, persecuted and dispossessed.

The fundamental problem with conservative Christianity is that they are religions of fear. Do as we say, you go to heaven. Don't do so, you burn in hell. The leaders care only for their own power, even though they don't, and probably can't even fathom what they are doing. They really are the true anti-Christ, for they forget everything Jesus said, twisting it to their dogmas, for they themselves fear that if the truth comes out, yes, the house of cards will fall, as people learn to not check the brains God gave them at the church door, and begin to make the churches houses of social progress, not houses of terror by another name. These houses of worship promote what is really hatred, driven by the fear- hatred's companion - they create of another misunderstood group of our citizens. Via prayer (repetition)it builds a filter into the minds of the faithful so they actually cannot comprehend what they are doing, and they always have blind dogmatic responses when their fears and hatreds are challenged, for they dare not confront the demons planted in their minds.

I'll also note that all these references to the Bible - well the Bible can be endlessly interpreted and selectively used to justify many terrible deed. Marriage has evolved over the centuries, women aren't the property of their husbands and marriages aren't arranged for tribal or business relationships in America. women can work outside the home, Blacks can marry, inter-racial marriage is legal. All this change takes time, for in conservative religions there is little sense of what can be, or what is right, only dogmatic following, rather then thinking and questioning history, of which much of mankind's is so terrible that even God must question what He created.

Most of Western Europe (except Italy, Greece, and No. Ireland), Israel, Canada, the Republic of South Africa (freed of their Christian based nightmare of Apartheid), some parts of Mexico, and New Zealand have either gay marriage, civil unions that grant full nationwide marriage rights except the word, or for France, Switzerland, and Germany partial civil union recognition. America stands almost alone in advanced western nations in letting conservative churches terrorize the minds and blind the eye and heart to the idea of liberty and justice for all, upon which this nation was founded, but has struggled for the whole of its existence. It's about time more of the churches came around to recognize how they condemn and hurt gay people, or even terrorize them, and cause thousands and thousands of suicides, mostly of teen-early twenties youth who are gay. This is just another of the crimes of conservative religion, and we can pray and work that these churches people will see God's light, read the Ten Commandments, and begin to understand. I did.

RON BAUER

Many of the legal, social, and financial benefits that marriage provides can all be obtained independent of a marriage certificate authorized by the government. Many of the legal benefits that marriage provides can be obtained through other legal means, such as a will. Second, the criterion for marriage – one man and one woman – does not discriminate against anyone, as the same criterion applies to all people. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man nor can a homosexual man marry another man. Our legal system must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of subjective thoughts and feelings. For example, drug laws are applied equally to all citizens – nobody can legally use drugs, yet nobody argues that drug laws discriminate against drug users because non-users have no desire to use drugs and drug users do. All laws discriminate, but the relative question is whether or not the discrimination is warranted. To simply argue that this is “discrimination” is basically to say nothing at all. If the innovator wants to change established rules, then a good reason must be provided. It discriminates, is not an argument.

Ross
" We have to draw the line somewhere", again a perfectly valid statement. Society is built on such lines.
However, the line has to be drawn in the same place for everyone.
Gay marriage no more condones or promotes, incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc than traditional marriage.
These lines aren't crossed by allowing consensual adult relationships.

Donna,

We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we'll start paving the way towards the recognition of unnatural relationships like incest, paedophilia, gay incest etc.

Hi Anonymous,
Quite right, there is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the golden rule.
However marriage in our society provides legal, social and financial benefits.
I think I would have every right to be aggrieved if my wife and I were ,for instance, denied those benefits, if same sex relationships were the more common variety.
That is discrimination, and I feel does violate the rule.
I notice from other threads that unless procreation is involved, marriage is not appropriate[or for that matter sex]. Such attitudes would seem to outlaw marriage in a whole lot of circumstances.
No marriage for the impotent, the sterile, those women past child bearing age. No sex past the arrival of the required number of children, and in all the above circumstances.
I suppose I could get my wife of 32 years to find me someone among her servant girls to allow me to continue having sex righteously[ie for procreation], but I'd miss her, and that would all be a bit old testament for my liking.

"Hi,I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......". I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify."

There is nothing contrary between traditional marriage and the Golden Rule. You are making the assumption that if I were homosexual, I would be opposed to traditional marriage. I can only speculate, but considering there are other homosexuals that find nothing wrong with traditional marriage, I would say that I would feel the same way, and thus I would be doing “unto others as you wish them to do unto you”. I would not expect society to endorse my homosexual relationship as “marriage”, anymore than I would expect society to grant me a driver’s license at age twelve.

There is nothing hateful about traditional marriage, and to subscribe these motives to proponents of traditional marriage avoids the actual argument over what the purpose and reason for marriage is. There are many types of relationships, but not all deserve to be called marriage. A homosexual relationship may be wonderful for those experiencing it, but these are private experiences that the public has no interest in endorsing. Marriage is fundamentally of public interest, and unless there is a profound reason for publicly endorsing homosexual relationships, I find no reason in doing so. Homosexuals can continue to enjoy their private relationships without government endorsement.

So, you call yourself Christian? God forbids same gender sex. No ifs, buts or maybes. He destroyed Gomorra because of it. Finding an explanation or loophole or excuse for LGBTs is like finding one for murder. Is murder wrong?

Hi,
I have to admit upfront that having been an atheist from childhood, I struggle to understand the need that requires "GOD" in peoples lives.
But even more puzzling for me, is the lack of understanding of so many "christians", of what seems to be the basic tenet of Jesus's message.
"Do unto others......".
I remind you all of the sins of Onan, got a feeling quite a lot of you qualify.

wow this is a blog
im reading this on my lunchbreak
and if what im getting is that you want to live your life as you see fit.
thats cool and is your right

what fires up most people not just christians
is the fact that we try to live our life as the bible tells us. right or wrong.
and for doing so we are called bigots haters
for letting our belifes be known.

we hear the arguments about not wanting the bible in school.
but we can have a book called my 2 dads

and as far as a hater i am
i hate that i cant watch tv with out somebody
going on and on about how gay they are or who came out of the closet. cussing and all in prime time. i hate that my kids get this forced on them at school from the tv cartoons they should be able to hear both sides.
i hate the billions of dollars that are wasted on unnessery lawsuits by groups that just look for things to sue for.

and as far as the bible is concerned if you dont want to read it dont. But dont go complaining
if we voice our oppenions you do it. fair is fair
dont force your way of life on us

i preach that each man or women has choosen thier path in life.
i will not baptise a child for the simple reason
they have to decide for themselves if they
understand and want to be baptised.
i wont marry gays not because its aginst the law
or im a hater or bigot.
but because in the eyes of my god it is wrong.
i have 2 cusins 1 male 1 female and gay
who i love very much they both have partners and they are pretty cool
i guess what im trying to get at is stick to your belifes but dont force them on others

You are incorrect on numerous accounts. What you have described as a “false dichotomy” is simply a fact. There is a huge difference between a state of being, and a state of behavior. It is impossible to act black in any true sense of the word, but homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. This is not a “convenient way to separate groups”, but a fact. There may be certain behaviors that are associated with blacks, but being black is not the cause of that behavior – we do not discriminate based on the blackness of an individual, but on that individual’s behavior. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally behavioral issues. In my initial post I never advocated for or against same-sex marriage, I only pointed out the fundamental flaw in comparing homosexuality to race. I also never claimed that homosexuals are solely defined by their homosexual behavior. You are the one that wants to turn one behavioral act into something akin to racial identity. Many things make up an individual’s character, including homosexual behavior.

The fact is that marriage does not take into account behavior. Marriage is simply defined as a unique relationship between one man and one woman. There are many different kinds of relationships, but not all of them warrant the status of marriage. Unless there is a substantial public interest, the public ought not change the meaning of marriage. I fail to see how same-sex marriage is in the public interest. The burden of proof is on the one advocating change - a burden I feel that is far from being surpassed.

You ultimately could not grasp the point behind mentioning the fact that men act more violently. The point is that it is the behavior itself that is wrong, regardless of the underlying causes of that behavior. I thus did not advocate that supporting the discrimination of homosexual behavior is as equally justified as discriminating against violent behavior. You simply jumped to that conclusion. In fact, I never advocated that it is warranted to discriminate against homosexual behavior at all – it may or may not be. There are certainly some forms of behavior that are completely irrelevant. After we agree that the underlying causes of behavior are irrelevant to the morality of that behavior, we can then discuss the morality of homosexuality.

All morality is based on discrimination. The entire basis of morality is discriminating against right and wrong behavior. Your attacks are nothing but platitudes and slogans without any substance. Simply shouting “discrimination” is not an argument. In fact, it shows a lack of argument. The argument is akin to this:

If you support tax cuts, you hate poor people.

Oh how I have heard it all before.

Your argument depends on a false dichotomy--being gay is "only a behavior" while being black or female "doesn't involve behavior." This is a convenient way to separate groups and thereby rationalize discrimination against some but not others. Unfortunately, there is more to being gay, and more to gay people, than what "behaviors" you imagine they exhibit in their bedrooms. (And your imagination must be active and restless, to such energy to these images as a way of rationalizing discrimination against the people who practice them.) Likewise, one could easily argue there are behaviors associated with being black, or female, or obese, but these behaviors do not constitute the characters or identities of these people either. The fact of the matter, as you like to say, is that being gay is not a behavior, any more than being straight is simply a behavior.

You say that men have a tendency to act more violently than women, but we don't discriminate against men as a result, we only curtail their violent behavior. And then you invoke a false analogy, based on a false assumption (so many falsehoods!). Categorizing violent behavior as "inexcusible" is easily justified--it causes undeniable harm, there are undeniable victims, and so on. So, you analogize that discriminating against gay behavior is equally justified--without supporting the assumption that gay behavior is inexcusible. Discrimination is always condoned in the mind of the discriminator because he believes the differences he has chosen to focus on make the target group bad or inferior. To me, it's just a false assumption.

Although you may set your moral compass using discrimination as a guide, racism, sexism, and homophobia are not platitudes--they are offensive behaviors that are enabled by attitudes and arguments like yours, and they should be curtailed instead of excused. It is ironic for you to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, when all I am attacking is your discriminatory "behavior."

RAFAEL

My assumption has nothing to do with the causes of behavior. The fact of the matter is that whether or not behavior is determined does not excuse the behavior. It is a fact that men are more conditioned towards violence than women are, but this does not mean that men are excused from committing violent acts, nor does it mean that our criminal justice system is sexist because most prisoners are men. Acts of violent behavior are wrong, regardless of the cause of that behavior. Likewise, the argument for same-sex marriage must be independent of the cause of behaving homosexually.

I most certainly act straight. Whenever I engage in a heterosexual act, I am behaving in a particular manner. Whatever the cause of this behavior is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it has to do with behavior. Nothing about race or color has anything to do with behavior, thus the comparison between homosexuality and race is logically invalid. I discriminate against peoples behavior, like we all do everyday. There is nothing ontologically immoral about discrimination – in fact; it is morally irresponsible not to discriminate. You may not believe it is warranted in the case of same-sex marriage, but your accusations of “discrimination” are meaningless and ad-hominem. I may in fact agree with you if the arguments are convincing, but platitudes of “racism, sexism or homophobia” are weak and pathetic.

KS,

Your argument about false analogies is built on a logical problem known as a false assumption. You assume that sexual orientation is a behavioral choice--as you say, like what food someone chooses for breakfast. If you would spend a moment listening to those who know better, you might come to understand that the majority of gay people feel they were born that way, just as you were born straight.

Would you characterize yourself as someone who "acts" straight, or someone who *is* straight? If you're not merely acting, what's the basis of your logic that gay people are acting? When you say that "one most definitely acts homosexual," are you talking about what they do in their bedroom? Do you think it appropriate to use those private actions to classify, as grounds for discrimination, the identity and character of that person?

You've given nothing more than a weak rationalization for discriminating against a group of people for being who they are.

"I wholeheartedly believe that this country and its many Christians will some day look back on its conversations about the gay community as we do now about segregation laws and sanctioned discrimination based on race."

The problem with this statement is that it suffers from a logical fallacy known as a false analogy. It is logically invalid to compare race to sexual orientation, because the two are fundamentally different. Race is simply a state of being, or an appearance – it has nothing to do with character of behavior. On the other hand, sexual orientation has to do with actions and behaviors. One does not act black, but one most definitely acts homosexual. A homosexual lifestyle is more akin to one’s diet than one’s race. It is inappropriate to discriminate against anyone based on their race or color, but it may be appropriate to discriminate against people based on their behavior – in fact we do that all the time. Whether or not such discrimination is warranted in the case of marriage is a separate issue, but the fact is that any comparison between homosexuality and race is fundamentally flawed. There may be wonderful arguments for publicly endorsing same-sex marriage, but turning it into a civil rights issue is not one of them.

George,

Gods laws are still in force, the consequences involved with ordinances are different with regard to old covenant (before Christ) and new covenant (after Christ). One example, old covenant ordinance for the Passover was to kill a lamb. New covenant teaches that Christ was the new passover lamb, thus we are to partake of the symbols of the wine (His blood) and unleavened bread (His body) now at the Passover. True scholars of biblical history know this. Daughters sold into slavery? True then, true today. The point is that it is mans way of doing things, not God's. As a disbeliever, I dont see that you really grasp what has transpired with regard to mankind and God since Eden. I dont expect you to, and I certainly not here to change you or others..just to comment.

Harry Chris,

I wish I could answer all the questions that are being thrown at me but I'll attempt it.

Chris: I believe these were your question:
Did you choose to be heterosexual?
No, but there are many people with man conditions who would same the same thing. ie violent people not get the dubious distinction of being "programed"

Was it a choice you were presented with?
When I was a child I had "and experience" with another person in my congregation. Did it impact me, yes. Was I young and formable yes. Am I homosexul no.

Why would homosexuals choose it?
In our society we believe in paradoxical things, we belive a persons choice should NEVER be condemned (except when it's illegal) and we also have science telling us that we are genetically determined.

Harry and Chris. The world view of the scriptures is not scientific, theres no question about that. Our modern view however is akin to science worship(scientism). Our modern view of humanity is that he/she is chemicals bouncing against other chemicals overwhich he /she has no control. This degrates humanity down to chemistry. There is no higher purpose, there is no soul to it. Read the existentionalist this is their greatest outcry we don't have souls anymore. We are mechanical beings at the whim of DNA. Just because a gene has been found in common with homosexuals does not follow that they are genetically deermined. Teh christian world view is against this materalistic view of humanity. Man is not simply chemicals bouncing around against other chemicals, there is a higher life. Sex does not just serve for pleasure or procreation. Family and marriage, in teh christian world view, illustrate the community of God. Will the world come crashing down Harry? No but that was never the point of the post. the Church is supposed to stand AGAINST the spirit of the age and call people to a higher standard, Does god love homosexuals, yes, he may even allow many into heaven just like many other sinners, (that's his call not ours) this issue is really about view's of the world. the church should be standing squarely against any view that turns humanity into lables or puppets on a string. homosexuality isn't really the issue it's a question of how we view humanity. The church should be viewing humanity through the eyes of God not through the eyes of science.

Sorry Tday,

The Bible is very clear that we are to stone those who work on the Sabbath (among other "stonable" offences)

The Bible is also very clear on daughters being sold into slavery.

Robin made a good point.

You responded with a semi-coherent mish-mash....

Mike: your comments seem to have an undertone that because we are "non-believers" we don't or can't have a full understanding. I find the "believers" see through a prism of their religious reality and are unable access a situation objectively. You are free to believe what you believe...more power to ya...but one can not legislate your beliefs. I have yet to hear how, why, when...if Tom and Bob get married how all of a sudden the foundation of civilazation will come crumbling down. Please, explain this is in detail...event by event AND show example of this happening...like say in Canada. And when explaining NOT use a biblical story (where was Sodom and Gamora...the actual location?)

Rapheal: thanks for you posts!

Mike,

I have to ask, why do you assume I don't understand how "messy" it all can be. Frankly all of your posts have been quite easy to understand. The history of the Bible is frankly pretty easy to grasp too.

You sound more than a little arrogant with your assumtions about my ability to understand the implications (which you never named BTW) of it all.

Generally speaking America's view of and adherence to the Bible has changed tremendously over the years, yet organized religion flourishes, perhaps more so today than ever before. "Theological implications" be damned. Society changes religion changes along with it. You would have to be an absolute fool with no concept of American history or theological history not to see that. I do not take you for a fool.

Hey, who the last slave owner you knew, or the last Jim Crow law you followed? The last whitch you saw burned at the stake?Like I said the list of changes goes on and on. The church and Christian's views on the Bible do change. Not my opinion, just the way it is.

Yet the Christian church florishes....

I am glad it does, I love my church.

I thought my writing was clear and I think my answers to your posts have been clear and well defined.

Frankly Mike, you have not even made much of an attempt to answer the points in my posts. All you seem to want to do is bellyache about how nobody understands, etc, etc. You never seem to come to an actual point. I made many clear points, most of which you failed to address.

Robin stated above:

"So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?"

This is the epitome of the fallacy of the reasoning of those who disregard the presence and authority of a Creator God...as if HE caused humans to do the things they did to be stoned- it was the capital punishment of that day and time. So, apparently these who claim there is no God are against the 'stonings' of modern day law (capital punishment) for those who have no remorse in the crimes against humanity that they commit. It seems that there is a correlation to be identified here...such who do not believe in God are opposed to ANY authority over them. Slavery was mans invention. Not God's. If He had suggested guidelines for it, that was His perogative for his purpose. Lets always be certain to put the blame where it belongs. Man rejected God since Eden, hes being doing it, as ol' blue eyes crooned, 'My way' ever since. It is amazing to see all of the 'high intelligence' of those who claim God is not real on this forum. Consider, wether your a believer or not, if mankind had followed the example of how and why Adam and Eve were created, and followed the guidelines in the old and new testament that show the misery that adultery, homosexuality and any type of perversion brings against what was originally ordained as good, then wouldnt we have a world with little or no sexually transmitted disease? The ones who consider those who follow biblical principles as base need to search their minds. Its not rocket science, folks.

There is a way that seems wise unto man......

Chris i realized that I failed to answer the question but something happened to the site last night so I couldn't answer.

Who knows if homosexuals choose, choice it's self is very difficult to understand and I oubt you unerstand the just how messy the whole thing truely is
Yes you failed to unerstand the analogy thats why your logic is flawed, No I it's not something I don't want to hear. all three of you once again failed to understand ANY part of what I was saying. YOU all ust don't care what the theological implications of this change may be, this COULD be because your not christians, I dont know don't want to be presumptious. But that was my main point, none of you seem care what your "chrisians should ...." implies this is a discussion for christians if your not what makes you qualified to tell us what we "should" believe/

Paul S.

you said.... As far as "cherry picking the Bible goes"-The Holy Bible either is the Infallible Word of God or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. How can you call yourself a true Christian when you don't accept the Natural Law and sound biblical doctrine?

So, whens the last time you stoned someone? If you have or will ever have a daugher will you sell her into slavery?

Lets face it *all christians* cherry pick! Yes, I am quite sure *you* even.

"In homosexual sex there is no procreation there is NO purpose to it other than gratification."

So Mike, I guess we can assume that you and your wife NEVER do "it" unless there is a realistic possibility of conception, right? Doesn't sound like much of a marriage if you two don't do it just for the fun of it. Or don't you see it as fun? My wife and I sure do; and I hope my kids do too, someday, when they're ready, emotionally, financially, socially ....

Hate to do this to you Mike, But I gotta go.

You do seem like a good guy but i have to say that your morality seems a bit selective. There are plenty of things in the Bible that have been changed and/or ignored over the past 2000+ years.

Women's rights, divorce, dietary laws, the list goes on and on and on. I should know, my Grandfather is a minister, he has pointed out the changes to me since I was a kid.

God bless and good night.

Mike,

My argument is not flawed in the slightest, it is just not what you wanted to hear. In fact much of my post you did not bother to address.
If procreation were the main purpose for sex then there would be about 300,000,000,000 people on this planet instead of 6.4. Do you have a kid every time you have sex? I bet not, but I bet that you enjoy yourself each time.

I am puzzeled though,
You still did not answer the questions:

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

Was it a choice you were presented with?

Why would homosexuals choose it?

Chris,
What I meant was that they are actions murder child abuse they are all actions that have been around for a long time. By the way you seem to have confused crime with morality. Just because something is illegal it does not follow that is is immoral. The converse is also true. So your argument is basically... flawed, we are discussing whether the church should consider homosexuality morally acceptable behavior, viewing it as an action like murder, child abuse and sex IS helpful for these are all actions. Is the act moral or immoral for the church.
Your language seems to suggest you are not part of the body of believers. What makes you think your qualified to tell me (a confessed believer) what the church should or should not confess? however since you do want to talk abot it: Yes the undeniable purpose of sex is for child raising. It is the PRIMARY function of sexuality. My wife and I have children and we enjoy a healthy sex life. But sex, like my wife is not there PRIMAIRLY to please me. Pleasure is not the ultimate purpose of sexuality, or family, it is community creating, it is honoring of the other, it is about accepting one who is not like me. These are decidedly christian virtues. By the way, much hetrosexual sex in america is practiced in a non christian way. Should the church accept this immoral sex as well simply because it is already being practiced? I don't think so. the church should be preaching and teaching about sexuality that is NOT about self gratification but complimenting and creating a union between man and woman. God is trinity, god is community, god is family, the family is supposed to be a reflection of the trinity of god. In many christian understandings homosexuality is not about community creating but physical gratification and sexual glorification.

Mike,

Murder? Child Abuse?

Mike those are crimes. There is a purpetrator and a victem.

A couple of consenting, adult gay guys or lesbians building a life together is hardly comparable.

As for slavery well, since that is fully sanctioned by the Bible, so I'll leave that for you and God to chat about. I happen to be against it, I guess that is another bit of the Good Book that I disagree with.

Am I to understand you that the purpose for sexual intimacy is for procreation? I hat to break this to you but for most people, gay, straight or otherwise, that simply is not the case. Many billions of dollars are spent worldwide on contraceptives and birth control.

People LIKE the gratification of sex. I know I do....so does my wife (it's one of God's gifts to us, especially the clitorus, serves no other purpose other than her pleasure). But I don't want a kid every time so we take precaution. You know like billions of other people across this planet.

You seem like a genuinely good person but I am afraid you are not making much of an argument.

Sorry, I have known way too many wonderful homosexuals and way to many horrible "Christian" heteros to buy any simple solutions or ideas.

BTW, you never did answer my basic question:

Did you choose heterosexuality?

Did you have a choice?

Rafael

If it's my bible, my faith how do you know what my context is? how do you know what my position is? Are you a christian? If not are you trying to see the world through a believers eyes? Why do I have to be like you? Injustice? how far does your memory go back or how limited in scope? Have you not seen the william wilber force movie. Much of the "problems" you complaine about are not inherent to christianity as much as secular men parading in christian words. Yes we enable words such as repent, sin seperation from God. This is the confrontation of Christ. Christ confronts all of us. Every one of us in our sin and calls us to repent. There is no sin we can justify. What you want is to change our message. Who are you to tell the church it must change? Are you a believer? Do you understand the complexities of the issue? No your viewing it from the outside. that's fine thats the view of some one standing outside looking in. You can pretend to have empathy and love but true empathy is viewing things through others eyes. I know thomas aquinas.My memory goes back 2000 years that's my tradition that i have to honor. For me it is a serious thing to call Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St Ignatious all liars and frauds. that may seem like small potatoes to you but to me and the church that's a huge task.

mike

WOW, theres a lot here to deal with where to begin:

"Homosexuality which has existed since time immemorial in every corner of the globe, marginalizing approximately 8-10% of the population often times as mere second class citizens, is to you simply a behavior no different than "crossing a street or milking a cow".

Once again you have chosen to not see the spirit and only view the words, Yes homsexuality is a behavior. If a man has sex with a woman not with a man ever is that person homosexual? Of course you can play phychological games but technacally no they are not.
According to your anology homosexuality has been practiced since time immemorial. so has murder, child abuse, slavery, hatred. Since these things have happened since time immemorial does that make these behavior right. Just because something has been around a long time does not make it right. My problem with homosexuality is that it is not concerned with anything but self gratification. In homosexual sex there is no procreation there is NO purpose to it other than gratification. Oh right the emotional part. Men can love each other intensly without having sexual relations it is only our sex craved society that equates love with sex that can not make this jump. If a man loves another man intently why does it HAVE to be sexual in nature?

I too have a very close friend who has leaning this direction. He was intensly wounded by his father and never properly made good male relationships, isn't it possible that our huge homosexual pop has been created by our touchless abusive, sexual, love starved intimacy starved society. If it's possible than perhapse he loving thing to do is to not give in.

mike

No need to apologize to me--perhaps you should direct apologies to those who suffer under the kind of misrepresentation you are trying to push about Christianity's position on gays. It's not hate speech, it's love speech, because only by showing our love can we bring gays to repent for their sin. By sympathizing with these ideas you enable them.

I didn't say you were a Muslim extremist, I said you sounded like one. I didn't say your view is that you should kill others, but your Bible certainly says that you should, for homosexuality, adultery, speaking back to your parents, and so on. Your statement about the sacred scriptures being affronted said a great deal about your attitude toward justifying Christian injustices. It was hardly dissociated from the spirit of your message.

Mike,

Let me see if I can get this straight. Homosexuality which has existed since time immemorial in every corner of the globe, marginalizing approximately 8-10% of the population often times as mere second class citizens, is to you simply a behavior no different than "crossing a street or milking a cow".

Fascinating analysis there.

Full disclosure: I have a gay aunt and gay co-worker who I am close friends with and one of my bosses is gay.

Over the years I have had a chance to talk with not only each of them but many, many other homosexuals that I have been aquainted with along the way. I have asked each of them point blank when they "knew" and if they chose to be gay.

To a person they knew in puberty (like most heteros) and no they did not or could not choose to be gay. Why would they? Why would ANYBODY choose to be treated badly and marginalized?

Are you under the impression that homosexuals are all in on some vast pratical joke where they choose to irk society?

Why would you think people would choose such a thing?

Do you think Mary Cheney woke up one day and said:

"Hey, I know what I'll do....I gonna go GAY! Yeah, that will be a fun way to go through life. Allright!"

How about you? Did you choose to be straight?

Could you quit your straight tendencies if you wanted?

I doubt it, I know I could'nt.

I know I did not wake up one day during puberty and say:

"Well I could go for either boys or girls....Hmmmm, I gues I will choose the girls"

Of course not. I always liked the ladies. I put no though into it, I did not choose it.

Neither did homosexuals.

Rafael:

I'm sorry, you seem to think that Im a Muslim extremist. It appears there is little i can say that will have any impact upon your view. My issue is not that we should kill others, I don't know where you got that. Simply that this issue is difficult for Christians to deal with. You apparently completely missed the spirit of my post and chose to center in on one phrase sacred scripture. I'm sorry you feel that way.

mike

Mike, you sound like a Muslim extremist talking about the sacred scriptures being affronted. Last year they were out killing people because they didn't like line drawings of their prophet. The problem with all extremists is that they don't understand that other people aren't subject to the beliefs or rules they've created for themselves.

You're welcome to believe what you believe. You can all kill each other for your perceived sins, as the bible directs you to, for all I care. But why don't y'all leave the judgments of others to God? If you think gays will all be damned in the final judgment, why not let Him take care of the problem? Since He knows absolutely where to draw the lines on sin and what to do about it, while Christians all seem to have their own imperfect interpretations, why are y'all trying to do His job?

America! America!

By
Stan Moody

America, America,
God shed His grace on thee!
It’s time to step aside, Dear God,
And leave it up to me!
We’re really not ungrateful, Sir;
You did real fine back then.
But things have changed a lot, You see.
The world’s not what it’s been.

We’ve all gone off to college;
Learned how to read and ponder.
We’ve even read Your book, You know.
If You don’t mind, we wonder, Sir,
Why You don’t update that thing –
Bring it up to date.
Your plan just didn’t work for us;
We can’t afford to wait.

McChurch is doing well, though,
You’ll be proud to hear.
The brightest folks are deacons;
The temple’s free and clear.
It’s all become big biz today;
The coffers do You proud.
The Jesus group is on the tube
Whipping up the crowd.

We’ve licked the population scare,
That had us in a fright.
Land was getting scarce, You see;
Food was out of sight.
The pill has really done the job,
But in case we make a slip,
We have a way to change our minds
That’s painless, sure and quick.

You must be proud as punch
When You look down and see
How we’ve turned our fields and streams
Into productivity.
We’ve tamed our natural resources,
And we’re quite prepared to fight
When anybody tries to curb
Our growing appetite!

There is a nagging problem, Sir;
We wish You’d concentrate
On wiping our those nations
That thrive on fear and hate.
We’ve done so well ourselves,
We’re quite appalled to see
People all around the globe
Denied their dignity.

Why can’t they be like us, Lord?
Our people we have freed.
That leaves us time for helping You
Stamp out lust and greed!
How can we keep it going, Lord?
They’re shutting off our crude!
(We’ll turn our wheat to methanol
And whip them with our food!)

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Dear Betty:

"Jesus hung out with the marginalized, the oppressed, and the outcasts during his lifetime, then who do you think he’d choose to hang out with today?"

I hear this a lot It comes from a particular perspective that I don't agree with. Jesus didn't intentionally hang out with margionalized people or oppressed people, Jesus "hung out" with everybody. Pharisee's Sadducee's Tax collectors, sinners, ect. I have a very close friend who is homosexual I don't hate him or hate bash him as a matter of fact he has helped me see how my language (ie "fag" or "queer") makes him feel. however this has not change my view on this particular behavior. In the scriptures homosexuality is a behavior not an identity, it is a practice like crossing the street or milking a cow. That is what the scriptures condems and by the way what most christian who disagree with the mainstreem believe. It's not the person that is the problem but the behavior. I have no problem with anyone but homosexuality as a behavior is in my humble opion, unscriptural.

"Hey Donna, go ahead and screw a dog if you want. It is simply a matter of sexual orientation and none of us has a right to question your sexual orientation."

I can tell you are Christian by your love.

Rafael- thanks. You are doing an important public service. xoxoxoxo

Are Mormons Christians?

Just as the Mormons were the last group in America to recognize the rights of Blacks,

they will probably be the last group to recognize the humanity of gays.
Ms Freitas, Catholic columnist on this website, says in her current column:

"as a Christian, I have no idea how anyone can call herself a Christian and not agree with this viewpoint.

Anyone who believes in the dignity of the human person, and Jesus’s commandment to love one another and preach the Gospel to anyone who will listen, wouldn’t dare deny the right of one human being to enter into a sanctioned and lifelong commitment with someone he or she loves, or refuse a committed Christian to speak on behalf of his or her beliefs. And if, as the gospels tell us, Jesus hung out with the marginalized, the oppressed, and the outcasts during his lifetime, then who do you think he’d choose to hang out with today?"

This is what many of us mean when we say

THE MORMON POSITION ON GAY RIGHTS IS UN-CHRISTIAN.

I guess you Mormons are the only ones with a prophet who gets direct revelation from God, so I guess it makes sense that you would be alone in oppressing the marginalized when even the enlightened Catholics have seen the Un-Christianity of marginalizing Gays.

My sainted Mormon mother must be rolling over in her grave.

Anonymous
That was my point: I dont' know what your background is but what you consider "hate language" is not hate language. In the christian context it is language of sin and repentance. do you understand what christians mean by this? Not in your understanding but through an emphatic understanding. Do I understand your position. Actually yes I do... I understand how easy it is in our culture to think that labeling a person is a form of power language a form of dominance control. By calling a person a sinner the church is advocating a mindless violence, I see how you could think that. I understand given our culture and how much hate flows and how easily. but do you really understand what christians mean when we talk about sin? do you really understand what they mean why they talk about repentance? do you understand the anxiety that is created with in the believer when, in the christians view the sacred scriptures are afronted. The church can change anonynous but do you know what it's like to change 2000 years of memory? That's true listening.

mike

Religious people sure do like to channel Jesus with the "pearls before swine" comment...

Mike, what have you listened to? What have you learned? What have you contributed, other than another example of what you claim is pointless dialogue in these discussions?

If you'd really open your ears to what is said in this culture, as you advocate others do, you'd hear a great deal of hatred directed against gays. And that hatred is generated entirely out of religious doctrine.

I know this is a lot like casting pearls before swine but anyway...

What the real problem here is these kinds of debates are really difficult to accomplish. The real problem with blogs like this is: it's snippet dialogue, or fake communication. Are we really listening to each other? No. If mrs. Freitas had written a five thousand word essay on the topic, hardly any of us would have read it. Like wise these blogs contribute to comercial communication. Communication that is really about talking and not listening. If you really want dialogue you have to truely listen.

Yes Ms Freitas, Jesus spoke of loving each other. However he also spoke on hell just as much. Simply because people disagree it does not follow that they hate. My son lied to me the other day. By calling his lie I do not hate him, I correct him and that is a loving thing to do. In many christians eyes the homosexual is harming not only himself but the other person. It is here that the communication breaks down. Instead of trying to see what the other is truely saying, epitaths serve.

"you sound like an incoherent person"

"Godless pagan"

"liberal nut job"

"right wing fanatic"

The problem with this type of discussion is that its not... no one is looking a person in the eye and calling them epitaths. True communication begins with hearing what is said and truely communicating.

mike

"So you are saying all vertebrates have the same basic desgin...by chance, correct?"

No, certainly not by chance--by descent from a common ancestor. Common ancestry is a remarkably simple and consistent explanation for why related animals share traits. It explains why vertebrates all have skulls with similar basic features, why mammals (but not other vertebrates) all have mammary glands with similar basic features, why primates (but not all mammals) all have opposable thumbs with similar basic features. The ancestors of each of these nested groups had the feature in question, as well as many others that we could also point to, that were then passed on and modified in descendents.

"What determines that a cell will/did grow into a cephalapod or jellyfish?"

You seem to be asking about the basic principles of developmental biology and genetics. A cell has DNA, which encodes RNA, which translates proteins, which interact to form structures and processes that compose the body. These processes set up body plans that differ fundamentally in cephalopods and jellyfish. As a result, the evolution of camera eyes in these two groups began from different starting points, which is reflected in their differences in construction.

"Seems that you have just effectively explained how they work, not how they came into being. Are we missing something? It is certainly easier to cut and paste something that only tells how it works."

We understand a great deal about how these structures came into being. Several fields of scholarship in biology are devoted to analyzing not only developmental mechanisms that produce these structures but also patterns of change in those mechanisms that correspond to different degrees of relatedness among organisms. By understanding these patterns it is possible to demonstrate how simple changes can be responsible for modifications to structures. I know you would like to see evolution happening before your eyes--and would cling to that requirement in order to defend a Biblical view of the Earth--but unfortunately evolution doesn't happen within your timeframe. Unless you'd like to throw out geology, astrology, and chemistry along with biology--that is, our entire modern understanding of the world and how it works--these processes have had a long time to operate. And within that time frame, such changes are not hard to understand.

"We've come a long way in our understanding of the world since your big book was written"
"Have we really?"

It amazes me that anyone can claim with a straight face that our understanding of the world has not advanced radically in the last two thousand years. Every day you reap the rewards of advances in manufacturing, transportation, and communication, all gained from our more modern understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. Nearly every aspect of what you rely on in life has been changed from what it would have been 2000 years ago.

"When you effectively prove to all contributors within that each of the 10 commandments mean nothing with regard to benefiting mankind, taking your comments seriously will be impossible."

Why would I want to prove that guidelines provided by the 10 commandments mean nothing? Not killing people, not committing adultery, not stealing, they all still work. They worked before the Jews, and they work in cultures outside of Western religion. But agreeing that they are useful neither validates the rest of religious dogma nor does it question advances in the rest of our understanding. There is no reason to get stuck in time just because some basic ideas are still useful.

I invite you to come join us in the 21st century, and to better align your practices--which certainly take advantage of the benefits of our modern understandings--with your preachings.

-TDAY

Rafael didn't make up the theory of evolution, nor is it fair to ask him to explain all of the details of it to you in a forum. This stuff is taught to elementary school children and is really not all that difficult to grasp.

>>"We've come a long way in our understanding of the >>world since your big book was written"

>>"Have we really?"

Well, apparently not all of us.

As for your ten commandments challenge:

Most of the commandments are common sense. C'mon, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Yeah, that was lost on civilizations before Moses, and wow, we've really come a long way since then!

Sorry, but I believe that science has been more of a benefit to mankind than the bible or the ten commandments, and I really don't need to explain these benefits to you as I'm sure you'll remember them the next time you start up your car, go to a hospital, turn on the lights of your house, and post another response to this thread.

Rafael stated above:

"..since all vertebrates have the same basic design of camera (image-forming) eye."

So you are saying all vertebrates have the same basic desgin...by chance, correct?

What determines that a cell will/did grow into a cephalapod or jellyfish?

Seems that you have just effectively explained how they work, not how they came into being. Are we missing something? It is certainly easier to cut and paste something that only tells how it works.

"We've come a long way in our understanding of the world since your big book was written"

Have we really?

When you effectively prove to all contributors within that each of the 10 commandments mean nothing with regard to benefiting mankind, taking your comments seriously will be impossible.

Hey Donna, go ahead and screw a dog if you want. It is simply a matter of sexual orientation and none of us has a right to question your sexual orientation.

Tday: "Presuming you believe in evolution (if not, my apoligies), can you explain how a human eye evolved, yet you or I could educate ourselves and learn to make a human replica (to an extent) of that human eye."

Thanks for the question, though I'm not sure what you seek in an explanation.

The human eye is an easy one: we inherited it, as have all vertebrates, from our common vertebrate ancestor. That is the simplest explanation, since all vertebrates have the same basic design of camera (image-forming) eye.

Related, non-vertebrate animals have various types of eyes. Some have lenses to concentrate light, but don't form images, while others lack lenses and are used for detection of relative levels of light only. The vertebrate eye evolved from a simpler version of eyes as a result of benefits to focusing light into an actual image, though many organisms get by without such an image.

The challenge for you, Tday, is to explain why there are two other groups of animals that have camera eyes, and yet their designs are completely different from those of vertebrates. Wouldn't your diety have come up with one way to create a structure that you think is impossible to explain through evolution?

One is cephalopod molluscs. Cephalopod eyes have lenses that move back and forth, rather than changing shape as in vertebrates; they have the nervous layer on the outside of the retina, rather than on the inside as in vertebrates; and the arrangement of pigment and sensory cells is such that cephalopods can see polarized light, which you cannot. The reason their eyes are designed differently is that they evolved from structures that are positioned differently during their development. That is, our eyes form by inpocketing of nervous system tissue from the outside, which puts the nerves on the "wrong" side of the retina. The vertebrate design means that light has to pass through nerves before it is received, and there is a blind spot where the bundle of nerves has to pass through the retina before it goes to the brain. Both of these make the human eye, which you hold up as some inexplainable standard, a relatively inefficient design.

The other animal is box jellyfish. They too can form images on their retinas, and they use these images to hunt down their prey. Again, these eyes are designed completely differently and in accord with other features of the design and development of jellyfish and related organisms.

We've come a long way in our understanding of the world since your big book was written. It never ceases to amaze me how much people want to cling to an ancient understanding of the world out of fear of giving up superstitions that they think give their lives meaning. The more we understand about the natural world and how it actually came to be, the more beautiful it becomes.

OK Donna, I didn't start this, but one of the commenters just stated "The Holy Bible either is the Infallible Word of God or it isn't".

He should immediately make known his views on the morality of long hair on men, slavery, and whether good Christians should hold to the Old Testament laws. And maybe one other thing, right off the top of my head, he might do me the favor of answering a simple question about the narratives of the Gospels: was the Last Supper a Passover meal or not?

The point is that there are different answers to these and many many other questions depending on where you look in Scripture. The undeniable proof of this contention is the existence of so many theologically distinct denominations and sects of Christianity that are all based on the same scriptures. They are mutually contradictory on many very fundamental points.

Each say they are correct and the others are wrong and cite verses in their favor. Each weights different verses differently, or they try to find a context that is not explicit in the text to support their own unique theology or Christology. Large swathes of fundamentalist protestantism consider Catholicism to be the work of the anti-Christ.

It is crazy that people spend their whole lives on this, but it is dangerous when it is used as a justification to deny people equal protection under the law.

With all due respect, the Bible can be both factual and not-factual. The Bible can be right and wrong. Jesus is God AND man at the same time. The Bible is written by MEN. And yes, many will say that it is "God Breathed". But As I have thought about this many times, how is NOT possible that things written in the Bible have a realm of political, historical, and culutral basis that we do not care to look at. What I am saying is, the old testment is history, Jesus is present. So who are WE to say that being gay is right or wrong. And DON'T point back to the Bible on this one.
We are a country of equal rights, political and religons freedoms. Understanding and acceptance SHOULD be our moral code. Not denial and judgement.

Donna,

Thanks for a civilized and humane post.

I always enjoy a nice game of Battling Bible Verses, meaningless though it is, but I imagine it won't materialize on this thread. No new ground is covered in the process.

Donna,

There are many observations about the homosexual/transgender lifestyle. I think a lot of good Bible believing Christians including myself are getting sick and tired of homosexuals always being portrayed as the "victim". The cult of Victimology does not help society in general or the person with the disorder of homosexuality. Since when is anybody who is opposed to the abhorrent gay lifestyle a "bigot,racist or the favorite liberal manufactured word "homophobe". That word is used to berate or demonize anybody who is not politically correct.

Jesus did forgive the woman caught in adultery, but Jesus did say "go sin NO MORE" not to continue in her debauchery. As far as "cherry picking the Bible goes"-The Holy Bible either is the Infallible Word of God or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. How can you call yourself a true Christian when you don't accept the Natural Law and sound biblical doctrine? Either you are for God and will try your best to keep his commandments or you are a liar-as it says in I John. Love the sinner and hate the sin, NOWHERE in the bible does it in any way, shape or form condone homosexuality but it certainly does condemn it. Remember Sodom and Gommorah??

TDAY-

You ask if Terra can explain the evolution of the eye, so I ask you:

Can the bible explain: What's the geometrical meaning of the central extension of the algebra
of diffeomorphisms of the circle?

My belief is that to affirm a creator because we don't know the answer to a problem is puny thinking.

Tday,

Slavery, mass-murder, segregation (to name a few) were "PROBLEMATIC"!?!?

Uh yeah, sweetie, "problematic" might be a word to use. A few others come to mind:

Evil, is the main one.

Do you honestly think that "Aids, HIV, drug abuse and corruption" are worse that the examples I listed?

Disease and corruption have been with us since the dawn of time.

What is your point?

Aids/HIV while still deadly is treatable and avoidable. Corruption was definately worse in the bad old days. Although the Bush admin. is giving them a run for their money (mainly they are just incompenent and delusional). As for drug abuse, you have got to be kidding, it has existed for hundreds of years in this country and frankly was way worse 20-30 years ago.

Our society today is healthier, we live longer, have more civil rights (women and minorities in particular have more opportuity than at any time in history). Food is more abundant and fresher, travel is easier, education is widely available, communication is light years ahead of where it was just 50 years ago (we are all communicating through this magic box, right? Not too shabby). Medicine is more abundent and more accessible than ever. Politics is more transparant (not that Americans pay any attention) than at any time in our country's history. Sanitation and emergency services are light years ahead of where they were in most communities than just 50 years ago. We are the world's sole superpower.

The list goes on and on.

Compare today's America to the old days and there is no comparison. We have it made compared to them.

And you have the gall to say that we are in decline and in danger of collapse. Lovely.

I saw where you responded to my post but other then your sadly, hillarious "problematic" line, you provided no items of merit.

In fact upon re-reading your response you offered nothing of any substance to my rather detailed post.

Sorry that modern life is so glum for you, but your arguments are weak and easily refutable. And frankly need to be refuted.

You are wrong! Life is great!

The sky is NOT falling!

Life aint perfect, but if you would stop your b_tching for 5 minutes and take a good look around you might come to the healthy realization that we have it pretty good and there is no reason to believe it wont stay that way and in fact keep getting better.

This is a great time to be alive and an American.

"Religion cannot teach us about human sexuality, only science can. Religion teaches intolerance of people who are in the minority. My God says this is morally wrong."

Mine too.

Terra,

>>You can not have love (Jesus) but make exceptions.

Clarify, please.

Terra states above:

"But then I am just a "godless" Pagan...
and TDAY, I hope I and my children's children are long gome before your kind of world appears. I will weep for this loving and abundant earth."

>>Interesting response, Terra. I would like to hear your reasoning on how a world where people learn that the 10 commandments bring abundant living would not work for you or yours. I challenge you to go thru each of the 10 and tell me how any single one of them could not benefit mankind.

and..

"I dream of a time when all creatures are respected for just being. When respect and mutual care is the norm, when all love that does no harm to any is accepted as right and good. For it is the act of love that is sacred...but then TDAY and fellows like him are always with us...like locust and the plaque."

Is it safe to say, then, that you believe you live in a world, at this time, where all creatures do not respect each other and have mutual care for the same? If so, I agree. My point is that will change at the return of Jesus Christ. I believe in my God, you believe in your godless realm. Presuming you believe in evolution (if not, my apoligies), can you explain how a human eye evolved, yet you or I could educate ourselves and learn to make a human replica (to an extent) of that human eye. My belief is that to deny a creator when we can create is puny thinking. Is it any wonder that 'godless' people have not been able to sway the bulk of humanity over to their ideaologies thru millenia past.

Religion cannot teach us about human sexuality, only science can. Religion teaches intolerance of people who are in the minority. My God says this is morally wrong.

Terra, thank you for your comments regarding my post. About what God did or did not allow in the Bible (the things you mention in your first paragraph), of course he allowed them. He's allowed all kinds of evils since the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean He liked them. And about the whole theme of the Bible being love, I would agree. Why is it that in order to love someone, I have to agree with everything they do? Why can't I disagree with my gay friends who want to get married and still love them? Of course I love them, we just disagree.

But, honestly, I wasn't writing to you or any other non-Christian when I posted. I was addressing my comments to Ms. Freitas who says she's a Christian. My position comes from a Christian worlview which, if you're not a Christian, you can't have. Therefore, we disagree on the most fundamental ground and though we could discuss it, I would use different language and reasoning if we were to do so.

First off Bible is just Greek for BOOK. Its a book. It's written for men by men for a purpose. If it was read in full and not cherry picked then you would gain some wisdom. Seems to me that jesus said the word was LOVE...and that it would be from the beginning of time. You can not have love (Jesus) but make exceptions.

TDAY,
As far as histroy, maybe you need to study some... it was the Pagan with their many gods that created civilization and our form of democracy. For the Helleens it was the coming of Christianity and the One god that destroyed those ancient civilizations, and the knowledge they had.

There are many reasons why civilizations die...most because of imperialism and greed. They get over run by invaders and they fall. But immorality(what ever that is in what era?) has never been a reason why...politics and someone being power hungry is.

NJS07,

As far as god createing marriage, just where did that come in with noah and his two daughters and a jug of wine...and was it his sister that Cain married after killing Able? How about Abraham and his wife's servent...which in those days would have been called his concubine? I mean his wife gave the woman to him. How about the book of Ester...just because the king's wife did not want to parade around naked in front a room full of drunken men he divorces her and takes a new wife. But he has rounded up every virgin in his land to choose from. Those not chosen can stay in his harum. Nice umm? But it was allowed by god.

As far as where marriage originated? when people started owning things. When power and land was joined through families, when taxes were gathered and inheritance left to off spring. Love being a reason for marriage is new, very very new.

I don't remember any marriage rite joining Adam and eve..and in some bibles first there was Lillith, and because she was not fond of the subservient way she was treated, she took off, and then Eve was created. Poor Adam he had some bad luck with his women, that God made.

Really, you would think that the closer to the seven day creation of Earth, that its population would be more correct on how to behave. But seems the further away from the beginning when God (supposedly)walked the earth the better his followers like it.

But then I am just a "godless" Pagan...
and TDAY, I hope I and my children's children are long gome before your kind of world appears. I will weep for this loving and abundant earth.

I dream of a time when all creatures are respected for just being. When respect and mutual care is the norm, when all love that does no harm to any is accepted as right and good. For it is the act of love that is sacred...but then TDAY and fellows like him are always with us...like locust and the plaque.

test test test

Lad

Sorry gotta side with Rafael on this one. You were rambling pretty good up there.

>>respectfully, same back at you (rambling)

Some might argue that our society is actually more morally sound today then in the past.

>>Oh yes, our society is getting so much more morally sound. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Or do you miss the good old days of Jim Crow Laws? Or dropping nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm sure that made Jesus proud. Very moral. Or how about those innocent days of slavery? Or those olden times when we used to slaughter Indians?

>>Who ever stated on this dialogue that mankind has made the right decisions? Hello?

Good times...

>>Better times are coming, for sure.

Or hey how about when those good Christians used to burn whitches at the stake.

>>Or those good inquisition warriors who burned those who followed Christ in truth at the stake. Whats the point? (Again, no one I know of has stated that mankind has made the right descisions in all this dialoue.)

Ahh yes, America's golden, moral past....

>>Problematic past in some ways...agreed. But today..well...how golden can you get: AIDS, HIV,
drug abuse, corruption, (not enough room to list all)

Why don't you organize a parade tday?

>>I know the previous comment I made will be branded as negative. But, seriously there is hope. The absolutes that the 10 commandments give us will one day be in place...soon. A 'parade' is already in the making. No more will humans be deciding what is right and wrong.

Lets celebrate!!

>>we will!

The pride is back.

>> not quite..but it will be

I am perfectly calm Mark, thanks for the concern

I know nothing of this woman yet I can tell she's my type of gal.

Be well, fair Donna....

St. Michaels here I come.

Calm down Hopper - you're right, but calm down.

Donna,

How does it feel to be so darn cute?!?

I could just eat you up!

I am considering whether, if "we" are going to deny LBGT people the legal right to marry and enjoy everything else the law provides (or recognizes) in the way of "rights" to married people, we shouldn't then exempt LBGT people from the burden of taxes and the other prices we pay to live in our society, since we deny them "the equal protection of the laws". And since we're talking about what we render unto Caesar, and what Caesar "accords" to us, the Bible shouldn't have anything to say on this point. Comments?

Of course, it should have been "interpret" rather than "interrupt", but I was quoting the "Bobster".

Re: "Why cannot some religions be allowed to practice the bible as to how they interrupt its scriptures."

All religions should be allowed to practice their faiths, but none of them should be allowed to legislate those beliefs, thereby imposing them on others, or to use those beliefs to do harm to anyone else. People who do, no matter what their "faith" tells them to do, should be punished according to the law. It is so simple.

I expect that some bloggers here will find fault with this statement, but I challenge them to articulate what is immoral or wrong with this statement.

Tday,

Sorry gotta side with Rafael on this one. You were rambling pretty good up there.

Some might argue that our society is actually more morally sound today then in the past.

Or do you miss the good old days of Jim Crow Laws? Or dropping nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm sure that made Jesus proud. Very moral. Or how about those innocent days of slavery? Or those olden times when we used to slaughter Indians?

Good times...

Or hey how about when those good Christians used to burn whitches at the stake.

Ahh yes, America's golden, moral past....

Why don't you organize a parade tday?

Lets celebrate!!

The pride is back.

Rafael,

There is nothing incoherent about the fact that societies have fallen when their immorality and absence of virtue increased. To think or believe that is not true, sir, is a head in the sand mentality. Babylon, Sodom, Rome...all debauched at the end. If you dont believe there are absoultes to human behavior, then perhaps you are the one that needs help.

You certainly don't have to cherry-pick the Bible to come up with the position that gay marriage isn't what God intended when He created marriage. If God didn't create marriage, then where did it come from? The state? The state only benefits from marriage because it produces more stable families--parents and children--which, until recently, was impossible within gay relationships because they couldn't naturally produce children. And if God did create marriage, which the Bible teaches and I believe, then shouldn't we follow His rules about it?

Ms Freitas, quite convenient to say not to spout Bible verses. Here is my issue with liberal Christians...you have an aversion to call sin sin!
Sin was there from the beginning and God did not change His mind over time. Of course Jesus hung around with the folks you mentioned. He wanted to show them the way to salvation. There are many examples of it in the Scriptures. You may recall he accepted people in a loving way, but he never failed to point out their sin. And that's where you part company with Jesus. You are afraid to call sin for what it is. The Bible is clear, homosexuality is sin, just like adultery, lying, stealing etc. I, a sinner saved by grace, hold prejudice against sin and so should you. But judgment is not mine, it is God's, in due time.

Jesus said to love one another; true, but he did not say to love one another in ways that contradicted God's commandments given to Moses or His instructions provided in Leviticus and Numbers.

If we were to take 'love one another' literally, then adultery would be an 'okay and accepted' thing to do and marriage, in itself, would have no meaning.

To 'love one another' was not meant to be a physical expression of love but rather to act with compassion and kindness to others despite their own failings (which we all fail).

I do not despise gays and I have always treated them fairly but I am against gay marriage. It violates God's laws and His laws take precedence over political correctness.

Ms. Freitas,

Your incredulity that anyone calling themselves a Christian would advocate for the opression of gays is probably best addressed with Shaw's famous quote:

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."

This clearly applies to you as well; as you said, your moral stance derives from your sense of political justice and LBGT friendships. You've crafted your religious belief around that, taking from the bible what is useful in supporting your position.

Other people with a weaker moral sense take the same bible, and use it to attack, condemn and oppress.

What I don't understand is why do some people think that their "beliefs are the only true beliefs." Ms Freitas states how others may "cherry pick scriptures" to bolster their arguements against homosexuality. And those who don't agree with her beliefs in regards to the bible, not to "go spouting biblical verses to the contary." Is she not guilty of the same behavior she is criticizing? Why cannot some religions be allowed to practice the bible as to how they interrupt its scriptures. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that is why there are so many religions, and churches for one to choose from. And no. I am not religious, nor political.
But then I don't view Gay, lesbians, transexuals, etc.. from neither of those two beliefs systems.
And that is all a religion is, a belief system. And the same for a political party. Nothing more than a belief system that a person buys into for various reasons. I must admit that I do admire some of the religions and their members who continue to practice their beliefs while the press and others continue to scream and yell at them because they dare to actually think and believe different then the rest of so called society. And why is it now called prejudice to disagree with someones sexual orientation.

Tday,

If you could only hear yourself...you sound like an incoherent person rambling to himself on the street, his paranoia like a little voice in his head telling him that the "influence of the church" is all that stands in the way of society's evils. I urge you, for your own sake and the sake of others around you, to get some help.

Sorry, but your liberal thinking is just the thing that ended civilzations that touted the same views as yours in millenia past. Read some history.

You claim youre a Christian..but 'dont spout bible verses at me to the contrary' Amazing. Your education lacks re: slavery in the bible, etc. You forget (or do not know, perhaps) that mankind set his own way at Eden. As man set out on his own way, God, too, still involved Himself in the ways that He chose. If He felt He needed to intervene with ways humans were doing things their way, that was His perogative. You're not grasping that our loving Father is sitting back and letting us learn a lesson prompted at our own (mankinds) request. The bible is clear with guidelines to follow...if we only would. You may want to read in scripture where mankinds 'wisdom' leads us. Picture a few centuries in the future. The church now has no influence on societies. Homosexuality is the norm. The tide has turned, and male/female relationships/procreation are now 'in the closet' Disease is rampant, artificial insemination is no longer safe. Another 100-200 years later, very little or no children born. Mankind, at that time, ages and the last man is gone. Guess what? Scenario for a sci-fi movie? Perhaps. But the reality is, just as enlightened people claim evolution over creation...here is an 'evolution' for you to consider. And the adversary laughs all the way...for he has systematically destroyed the mankind he hates so much.

Scripture says that Jesus Christ (the Word who was with God the Father at creation) is the same yesterday, today and forever. Now, who changed His/their mind on verses such as Romans 1:27 (And please, dont tout back to me that Im looking down on the person...the bible is clear that it is the action, not the person)

Donna,

A wonderful piece of writing, directly and simply stated.

Does your work with college students bear out the oft-expressed opinion that young people are all in favor of gay rights and that as my generation dies off, gays will encounter far fewer obstacles to enjoying a full life?

Today you are an exemplar of Vermont values (likely of more importance and validity than the Church's eternal verities).

Congratulations and best wishes.