What's Wrong with Gay Marriage?

None in my family tree, anywhere. Even if there were, I believe it to be a symptom of a larger disorder, not a lifestyle choice. Very much like practicing alcoholics would be considered a life style choice. I have met more than a few in my life and in all honesty, cannot say that any of them of either gender would posses as a character trait what could be considered emotional maturity, which is what Freud posulated long ago.

Frank Crowninshield was not gay. I met Dorothy Parker when I was much younger and I still lived in New York. She made a point of discussing Frank with me. She told me that he was just a lonely old man, and that he was not homosexual.

People would wonder because he never married. Someone thought he was gay simply because he smelled the letters he received to see if it smelled like perfume. Just because something someone does seems feminine does not mean that this person is gay. Back when Frank was alive, gay still meant happy. When people would ask him stupid questions about this, Frank would ask them if you think that I am homosexual, then who's my partner. There wasn't a male partner of course. Then the nitwit would say that he could be gay by himself. Frank would politely explain, though perhaps not so politely because he could really talk down to people, that in order to be homosexual, he would have to have sex with a man. Anyhow, Frank dated women including the broadway actress mentioned in a book I researched.

Anyhow, I did find out the real reason Frank never married. In one biography, Frank was described as asexual. I wondered, why bring it up at all. The real reason is something just terrible, and not exactly party talk. Charles Lindbergh had the same problem. Frank had been threatened, so he was concerned that they would hurt his wife and children too, so he never married. Lindbergh ignored them when they threatened him, and he did what he wanted. And after the kidnapping of Lindbergh's child, we all know how terribly things worked out for him. Anyhow, Frank would not have wanted his friends and family to worry about him. Frank got through it somehow. I don't think that this would sound better in evening clothes.

Frank Crowninshield was not gay. I met Dorothy Parker when I was much younger and I still lived in New York. She made a point of discussing Frank with me. She told me that he was just a lonely old man, and that he was not homosexual.

People would wonder because he never married. Someone thought he was gay simply because he smelled the letters he received to see if it smelled like perfume. Just because something someone does seems feminine does not mean that this person is gay. Back when Frank was alive, gay still meant happy. When people would ask him stupid questions about this, Frank would ask them if you think that I am homosexual, then who's my partner. There wasn't a male partner of course. Then the nitwit would say that he could be gay by himself. Frank would politely explain, though perhaps not so politely because he could really talk down to people, that in order to be homosexual, he would have to have sex with a man. Anyhow, Frank dated women including the broadway actress mentioned in a book I researched.

Anyhow, I did find out the real reason Frank never married. In one biography, Frank was described as asexual. I wondered, why bring it up at all. The real reason is something just terrible, and not exactly party talk. Charles Lindbergh had the same problem. Frank had been threatened, so he was concerned that they would hurt his wife and children too, so he never married. Lindbergh ignored them when they threatened him, and he did what he wanted. And after the kidnapping of Lindbergh's child, we all know how terribly things worked out for him. Anyhow, Frank would not have wanted his friends and family to worry about him. Frank got through it somehow. I don't think that this would sound better in evening clothes.

Frank Crowninshield was not gay. I met Dorothy Parker when I was much younger and I still lived in New York. She made a point of discussing Frank with me. She told me that he was just a lonely old man, and that he was not homosexual.

People would wonder because he never married. Someone thought he was gay simply because he smelled the letters he received to see if it smelled like perfume. Just because something someone does seems feminine does not mean that this person is gay. Back when Frank was alive, gay still meant happy. When people would ask him stupid questions about this, Frank would ask them if you think that I am homosexual, then who's my partner. There wasn't a male partner of course. Then the nitwit would say that he could be gay by himself. Frank would politely explain, though perhaps not so politely because he could really talk down to people, that in order to be homosexual, he would have to have sex with a man. Anyhow, Frank dated women including the broadway actress mentioned in a book I researched.

Anyhow, I did find out the real reason Frank never married. In one biography, Frank was described as asexual. I wondered, why bring it up at all. The real reason is something just terrible, and not exactly party talk. Charles Lindbergh had the same problem. Frank had been threatened, so he was concerned that they would hurt his wife and children too, so he never married. Lindbergh ignored them when they threatened him, and he did what he wanted. And after the kidnapping of Lindbergh's child, we all know how terribly things worked out for him. Anyhow, Frank would not have wanted his friends and family to worry about him. Frank got through it somehow. I don't think that this would sound better in evening clothes.

Thank you Sally Quinn for understanding. I live in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts with my husband (my partner of 20 years/yet only legal husband since the first day of marriage in Massachusetts, May 17, 2004). I could not wait to get married and we had the ceremony right here in Manchester, officiated by the Reverend Peter J. Gomes of Harvard before about 250 local people.

The reason I am commenting here is that I hope you will send your well-written op-ed to a couple that we both know. Elizabeth and Stuart Moore of Gales Point. It is part of the Massachusetts public record that Stuart Moore contributed heavily to VoteOnMarriage.org, the organization whose chairman referred to gays as "the forces of evil" and which fought so hard to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts via an initiative petition. Elizabeth Moore was brought to a scandal in our local newspaper (the Manchester Cricket) for having actually collected signature for this anti-gay petition in the child dropoff car circle at Manchester's Brookwood School, leaving parents with a difficult choice to make in front of their children. Both of these are verifiable and on the record facts.

I do not know exactly how close you are to the Moores as I only know that you lived in their guest house for a while. The reason that I am making you aware of this is that it is a lesson to us all. Sometimes we need to educate those closest to us.

I am sorry, but you and your husband are not qualified to decide whether or not dead people are gay. You are evil.

I am sorry, but you and your husband are not qualified to decide whether or not dead people are gay. You are evil.

It's a shame that the author just doesn't get it, but at least she admits it. Having a gay family member does not make sodomy a good or moral behavior. Homosexuality is heralded as a virtue in today's society, but that doesn't change the fact that it is morally sinful in all religions and physically unhealthy. Taking the bible out of context is a favorite tactic, but if you get past the diversions and rabbit trails you are still left with the simplicity that the behavior is wrong. Sodomy is not love. If the gays are going to embrace queer as their mantra, then I will bravely wear the misnomer of homophobic, though fear is not the emotion I feel towards buggery. http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm

I'm not a scholar of biblical languages nor of biblical contexts of such messages such as those you cite on condemnations of homosexuality. However, my limited contacts with biblical language scholars leads me to believe that many of those "condemnations" are not really condemnations of homosexuality but are condemnations of the behavior of the people involved in terms of their particular treatment of other people in each context. Also, if some of those "condemnations" are really serious criticisms of homosexual behavior one has to see this in the context of the real importance of fertility to survival in those ancient societies. Each person was expected to do whatever he or she could do to procreate, and to do so to fully replace all those lost in the very high death rates at all age levels. This responsibility had to be taken seriously because of the hard labor involved in providing the necessary food, shelter, and care needed for survival. The same people who made those "condemnations" in the context of those ancient societies would probably not make those judgments in most of today's societies even if they were applying the same moral values.

I'm not a scholar of biblical languages nor of biblical contexts of such messages such as those you cite on condemnations of homosexuality. However, my limited contacts with biblical language scholars leads me to believe that many of those "condemnations" are not really condemnations of homosexuality but are condemnations of the behavior of the people involved in terms of their particular treatment of other people in each context. Also, if some of those "condemnations" are really serious criticisms of homosexual behavior one has to see this in the context of the real importance of fertility to survival in those ancient societies. Each person was expected to do whatever he or she could do to procreate, and to do so to fully replace all those lost in the very high death rates at all age levels. This responsibility had to be taken seriously because of the hard labor involved in providing the necessary food, shelter, and care needed for survival. The same people who made those "condemnations" in the context of those ancient societies would probably not make those judgments in most of today's societies even if they were applying the same moral values.

Dear Ms.Quinn,

All this time I thought I hated you. I was wrong to have judged you based on the Republicans I know here in Alabama.

My partner and I have been together for 26 years. Thank you for your support.

You go on spouting off all of "the gays" you know and throw in how you know people who died of AIDS like they obviously go together. A pairing that I think you intended.

"I have so many gay friends and colleagues I can’t begin to count them."....I'm sure you could.

"In the old days, before homosexuals were at all accepted, people used to call them “confirmed bachelors” or spinsters. Then came such tags as "light on their feet," “homos" and “fags.” There was always a sense of contempt, if not ridicule."....thank God those days are gone. Obviously Judy Shepard is not one of your "countless" friends.

"they began to try to adopt children"....they DID adopt children and have been all along.

"they began to live openly together."...... look at history...Lily Tomlin (comedian) & Jane Wagner (writer) have been living together since around 1971.....Steve Gunderson (U.S. House of Representatives) & Rob Morris (architect), together since 1983
.....J. Edgar Hoover (FBI chief) & Clyde Tolson (FBI special agent), together 44 years

"They began to demand equal rights and civil unions and, finally, marriage"......sad how a group needs to "demand" equal rights for themselves.

I am not even a 3rd into your backhanded compliment of an article and can not believe your ignorance. It is sad that people are going to read your ignorant spew and believe that you have anything but an intolerant hatred underlying what you may "appear" to be a message of love.

Good point of view....I am gay, very proud of it and if one day I fall in love with someone I would like to marry her and have a family...Thanks for your comment I believe it will help some kind of people to,at least, think about it...

This article along with Sally Quinn's June 5, 2008 interview on CBS News' Early show goes to prove exactly how biased the news media and Ms. Quinn has been against Senator Clinton from the beginning of the 2008 Democratic Presidency nomination process. If Clinton had been involved in or said half the things Obama did, she would have been hung out to dry by the media. Senator Obama seems to be the Teflon Candidate, the media may report his contrary words or acts for a short period of time, but it all seems to slide away. Could this be reverse discrimination?

Matthew wrote:
"Public opinion doesn't change the moral Law of a holy, perfect, Creator. Yes, Scripture called for the death of heretics and blasphemers, and this was to heighten the sense of the holiness of God. The prohibition against gay relations is reiterated in the New Testament, however, whereas stoning is not. Both Romans and 1 Corinthians expressly addresses homosexuality and calls it a violation of God's Law."

I'm so very glad that public opinion overrides the "moral Law of a holy, perfect, Creator", because otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages.

Don't you love the "morality" taught in the Bible? The point of putting heretics and blasphemers to death is that it "heightens the sense of holiness of God". I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers were thinking the exact same thing.

I'm sorry, but your god has a very twisted sense of morality. Morality should be about compassion and consideration for others. Morality is about taking responsibility for our actions. The holiness of god has nothing to do with it.

The Christian version of morality is all about absolving the guilty of responsibility and punishing the innocent for things they didn't do.

At least you have a systematic method of reconciling the many contradictions in the Bible: count how many times it says something and count how many times it says the opposite: the one with the higher count wins. That sounds like a major breakthrough in theology.

Realist

Parker,
I'm glad your son is home safe from Iraq. That is certainly the best news I have heard today. I will keep your family and your daughter in thought and prayer as well.

I have no clue why I drifted back on here in all honesty. I usually avoid conversations of this kind whereas they are too often full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I do agree with your overarching point about helping someone out of an addiction or behavior that is obviously harmful. I agree that persuasion is in order in some cases. Of course, in order to persuade, one ought to first have a relationship with the person in need of help. For example, I would likely have far more effectiveness persuading a close friend to get help for a drug addiction than I would convincing a complete stranger to seek help.

Sometimes I think this is where the politics of morality breaks down - morality or the right and the left. They both attempt to use the power of govt. to make up for weak kneed attempts to change society on a personal level.

That's another talk though. Hope you get a chance to read this one - if not, we'll catch up some other time.

Daniel,
Thank you for your reply. I wish you all the best!

GB

"I can't imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

Of any kind, Mrs. Quinn? What about incestuous relationships? Sexual intercourse with minors? Bestiality? Or any other deviant behavior prohibited by Scriptural mandate? Your assumption here is that in order for God to be loving, He must permit anything and everything that selfish humanity desires.

The fact is, you're discussing two different things. Public opinion about gay marriage and what Scripture addresses. Public opinion doesn't change the moral Law of a holy, perfect, Creator. Yes, Scripture called for the death of heretics and blasphemers, and this was to heighten the sense of the holiness of God. The prohibition against gay relations is reiterated in the New Testament, however, whereas stoning is not. Both Romans and 1 Corinthians expressly addresses homosexuality and calls it a violation of God's Law.

Unless homosexuals repent and place their trust in Christ's atoning death on the cross for their sins, they will be judged to damnation, as will any other sinner. They may continue to struggle with their sexual orientation.

Calling something that is a sin OK does more damage to gay men and women than you realize, namely, you not telling them the message of forgiveness that the gospel proclaims.

Also... I forgot to say this. There are two pictures of God: either He is really doting and will let you into Heaven no matter what, or He is so mean that He looks for every possible way to shut you out.

The truth is, He is always there for us. He is all for human beings. But we do not want to uphold the weak part of human nature that's prone to hurt and bias and perversions and lies. We want to uphold what is noble, true, beautiful, sacred, pure... we want to encourage human beings to be the best that we can be while not abandoning or condemning each other.

Sin is a part of human nature. But the good news of the Gospel is not only that God forgave us, but also if we turn our lives over to Him, he can change us! He has the power to transform our NATURE. It is perhaps hard for you to imagine, but I used to be a lot more judgmental and presumptuous. I used to lie alot too, and not even consider them lies. You know, small white lies. I used to do a lot of things that I didn't think I could ever change. I had a very loud personality, unable to enjoy quiet moments by myself. But you know what, God has changed some of that, permanently, and it was something I didn't think He could do. But He did it. And even though I haven't changed as much as I would like to, from what He has done so far I know that He can change me even more.
So the weakness of human nature is not without cure - but there is only one cure, and that is the Cross of Christ. Beneath that every kind of man can find refuge.

I'm going off topic because I'm not really talking about homosexuality any more... but perhaps you could pardon my enthusiasm in telling you the transforming power of God. And as one song says "Love changes everything." (Michael Ball has an amazing voice...)

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Are you still here?

You asked me to seriously consider your posts, and I have tried. I have thought about it more than I thought I was going to think about it. I don't want to win this "argument" per se, because lots of our dialogue has really been about the human condition, and that calls for something deeper than a theoretical argument.

I do believe that you are a quiet thinker who has seen suffering, who has deeply sympathized with suffering, and who has thought about what he has seen. And I'm sorry for whatever disappointments you might have experienced through church or through Christians. I myself am not a mature Christian, so perhaps you will pardon me for what offense you find in my expressions. I do hope that you would not let poor representatives of Jesus lead you away from Jesus altogether. If you pick up the Gospels again and read the encounters He's had with various people - the woman at the well (John 3), Nicodemus (same chapter??), the demon-possessed man, the adulterous woman, the children... I don't think you will find another one like Him. And you probably know this: He was very much against the legalistic and the self-righteous - calling them a brood of vipers, kind of like how you go against those who are morally self-righteous, and I'm not exempt from that, surely. But also, just as you say there is not one category of gays, there is not one category of Christians. There are smart Christians, dumb Christians, weak faith Christians, strong faith Christians... we cover a whole range as well --- but our hope is that we'd become more and more like Jesus in our character.

Having said that, I also think that you mistake me for some of the Christians you've heard from. I will acknowledge my ignorance of the gays, how they feel and how they think. But I will also say that I have never thought about the bodily things that you claim most Christians talk/think about in regards to gays. And I never thought they'd have some kind of agenda, except perhaps to want to be who they are.

I do believe that as you say, it permeates through their entire being, and that they are just human --- on this part I can only agree. Actually some of the gay people I've met are much more sensitive and considerate and kind than lots of straights. And as you say --- it's not that big of a deal being gay. It'd be the same as being a myraid of other things.

But one issue I want to talk about is this: what is human nature? Lots of things are human nature! Cruelty, violence, self-righteousness, pride, some people are stoics and some are histrionics, some want to give their lives for their country and other for their religion, some go crazy about science and others about arts, some find despair in the middle of the night and kill themselves, others find God in their despair and become like Jesus... the good, the bad, and the ugly are all part of human nature. But just you are compassionate to those killed in Myanmar in China, you are also very much against Hitler and the genocide in Darfur, right? Yet all the abuse as well as the well-intentioned belong to human nature. Pedophilia did not begin just with the Catholic priests, right? The Greeks had a whole system for that! Some ancient Chinese emperors/royalties were well-known for being gay. How do you decide what to accept and what not to?
Is there a moral absolute and where is that Lawgiver? Or is everything just about human beings, and every kind of act, the criminal as well as the charitable, a part of the human DNA? Where would the legal system stand at that?

And I do not want the gays to "suppress" themselves or force themselves to normalize. That's not the point because it is not acceptance. The gay as well as the straight, the smart as well as the dumb --- no one is so good that they don't need God's Salvation and no one is so bad that they can't receive it.

Well, I don't know if you come on here any more. If you do, perhaps you can re-consider, first of all, about finding a church that practices what it preaches. They are few but are out there.

Yes, but just make sure the veterans that you thank are not gay.

"while unable, apparently, to *spell,* never mind demonstrate reading comprehension skills in the first place, ....why, again?"

Paganplace- Why don't you lighten up and quit policing these threads. As a pagan- why don't you go out and thank a veteran (or three) for all the freedoms a minority like yours is able to enjoy in America?

Ghostbuster,
Cheery hello to you. 'Son is back from Iraq, doing well. 'Have a daughter with a very serious illness, which is probably why I drifted back on here to read a few comments and try to do some thinking aside from taking care of her.

Dealing with her issues has brought the opportunity to learn a lot more about compassion and unconditional love. Even so, I have difficulty with how to deal every day with unpredictable behavior from her, and with how it impacts my wife's days. She is making slow progress through kinesiology success.

What does the above have to do with the question at hand here? Well, during her condition we have been aware that what the Savior dealt with quite often has been something present with her, including hearing unusual voices using her voice box to "speak". The lesson for me is that everything we see people do "on the suface" may or may not be what they would do if they weren't being influenced by other very real spirit energies/dark energies. There are books about this subject that focus on the ultimate healing power of Christ and the need for unconditional love.

Yet some in society seem to equate "unconditional love" with "unconditional condoning of whatever anyone wants to do to express themselves." If I really love someone and know they are doing something that ultimately will bring them less than full happiness and joy and will also impact future generations negatively, then should I condone and support the behavior or try and persuade that perhaps there are other ways to look at life? That's what these issues boil down to for me.
Sincere best wishes, all.

""that word "abomination" is just silliness" to quote Barak Obamination."

Ok. So... People who still aren't past the schoolyard level on how to treat people's names are supposed to rule based on how they read some 'sacred text' ....while unable, apparently, to *spell,* never mind demonstrate reading comprehension skills in the first place, ....why, again?

"that word "abomination" is just silliness" to quote Barak Obamination...

Dear Ghostbuster, again

Regarding my previous reply to you, I am also a little regretful that I posted it so quicly. If I could erase it and re-post I would say:

Yes, what a quandry. To make a long story short, being gay is not a big deal, and that word "abomination" is just silliness, to quote Barak Obama.

Ghostbuster

I am not sure why you think I have pretended innocense. I do not think I ever said I was innocent. I do not think I usually make personal attadks on people, but if I do, it is in reaction to personal attacks. In real life, I am a very quiet person, and almost never offer an opinion. So, as I have already mientioned a few times here, I do not really think that I am agruing with othe4r people, so much as I am arguing with myself, try to work out my own beliefs. Your attitudes towards gay people are very unusual coming from a Christian. I think that the only person posting here with sentiments like yours, who has identified himself as a Christian is Arminius. All the other Christian posts have been pretty negative.

Whan people attack atheists, I often try to point out that this anti-atheist bias means that they are uncertain in their own beliefs, and they should look inside themselves, at their oown doubts, and not blame atheists. I am able to make his point in writing on this blog more easily and more mfrequently than I can in real life, because it always makes people mad at me. I admit that I do not respect "fundamentalist" religious beliefs, and do nsot really consider "fundamentalism" to be any kind of real belief system, much less religion.

The very first comment on this thread was me. It was made in humor. It was based on my past observations that these kinds of topics on these threads often degenerate into a really mean food fight. I am a little surpised that, over all, that has not happened here. So, I am a little regretful now that I made that joke. However, I can't take it back or get it off the thread.

And also, sometimes, we posters here, get our post mysteriously blocked. I have had a few of mine blocked. I will admit that I have posted a few times, which I later regrettedd, and I wished that I had been blocked, but wasn't.

DITLD,

I'll be honest with you, well as honest as one can be on a forum board with no login.

On one hand I want to launch into you for feigning innocence while launching so many personal, hyperbolic attacks on any, and every poster who disagreed with you - starting with the very first post on this thread.

On the other hand, I partially if not fully agree with your line of reasoning. What a quandry! You see, I used to use the infamous line "love the sinner, hate the sin" all the time. Anybody ever heard of it? In reality, it was just a cover. I really hated the "sinner" too, in this case gays, lesbians, transexuals... I was a homophobe as were many of my church going friends. Not all mind you, but probably more than would admit it. Homosexuality was stigmatized as the most terrible sin, worse than just about anything else. I lived that bigotry for a long time and I felt totally justified and "right". It was only when I really began to dig into my own fear and hatred through a series of subtle events and a growing awareness that I began to realize that I had some issues to deal with. I'm still not where I want to be, but I am a lot better.

As I said, I am being honest. I'm sorry if this part offends. I've been following your posts on and off for a few months now and I've never had the impression that you were a christian. Not because of any of your views, it's almost impossible to tell what people really think on these silly boards sometimes. I made my judgement based on how you regularly treat some of the fundamentalists on here. The ironic thing I realized is that if I were posting on these
boards about five years ago (which I wouldn't have bothered to do), no one would recognize me as a christian because of some of the awful things I might write about homosexuals.

Anyways, I don't suggest books on boards cause frankly, most people who visit these places are here to blast their own opinions and find solice in "yes men", not learn about the thoughts of others. I'll break my own rules for once and suggest a book to you because I think you are genuine, it's called "What's so Amazing About Grace" by Philip Yancey. It helped open my eyes to my own bigotry against gays among other things while laying out the concept of "grace" better than any other book I've read, maybe it will help
you, or a "ghost" who frequents this site with their own "issues" with a group of people.

And now, I leave with a few quotes that no one will ever successfully debate...

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

The Reverend MLK

Enough is enough.

the ghost in the darkness.

I ammend my view of 'gifts' with respect to Paganplace's observation - perhaps a more universal understanding of 'gifts' is by way of uncommon human attributes and special talents, capacities and abilities.

Experience shows us that such 'gifts' are equally distributed across populations without regard to gender or sexual preference.

By comparison, sex is a fundamental force of nature..... 'even the birds and the bees and the peppermint trees do it'.

It ain't no thing.......

Interesting, here, Dr. Know:

"What fool said sex was a gift??"

"This whole idea of sex as a 'gift' from the great unknown indicates there might be Someone or Something lurking in the background that's going to take it back at any moment - depending on the lucky recipient's behavior. "

I guess not all of us were taught to view gifts that way.
Though you may be onto something, ...some folks do teach that sort of view, and maybe that's why they're so hung up about others obeying their tabooes.

You know, the guys who also believe it's 'sin' and needs special ritualized permission?

What fool said sex was a gift?? Here's a more modern application of purpose - inspiration, recreation and procreation, in that order. Love is optional, but recommended whenever and wherever possible.

This whole idea of sex as a 'gift' from the great unknown indicates there might be Someone or Something lurking in the background that's going to take it back at any moment - depending on the lucky recipient's behavior.

Along with sex came free will and the biological imperative, and free will is debatable. Biology is not.......

Carrie asked:

"Words-

bean queen, chickenhawk, cake boy, fruit bat, maricon, smurf, twink, SAM...

maybe ditld will tell us why gays use slang to denigrate each other?"

Because they are just people, of all sorts. There are gay professionals, gay rednecks, kind gays, mean gays, smart gays, dumb gays, and any good or bad thing that you can imagine a person to be, that is what gay people are, too. I know, it is really hard to wrap your head around, isn't it?

Daniel,
Some great posts there!

How can anyone claim that homosexuality is somehow bad for society? What kind of stupid nonsense is that?
We have an overpopulation problem on this planet in case you haven't noticed. A few more homosexuals won't hurt us. They are generally very good for society.

Homosexuality is caused primarily by BIOLOGICAL factors. The proportion of homosexuals is pretty constant amongst all people of all cultures. It is NOT a lifestyle choice! Many species of animals exhibit homosexuality. CCNL: it is no more unnatural than being ambidextrous.

There is not much danger that we will all become homosexual and society will die out. That's about the only dangerous thing that I can think of about homosexuality. So what is the problem people?

Why do you have to discrinate against people for being who they are? Imagine legislating that everyone should only have same-sex relationships. Imagine what effect that would have on your life? That's the kind of life that many Christians would like to inflict on homosexuals. Have a heart and have some compassion!

And don't give us that BS like "I care about homosexuals, but God doesn't like them: the Bible says so". That's the same God that commands you to stone your children to death for disobedience. Use the same moral sense and common sense that you use to reject those bits of the Bible to reject the one or two verses about homosexuality written by the same ignorant people.

Regards,
Realist

Very well said Sally!

Unfortunately it is natural to distrust people who are different from ourselves. Religion takes advantage of that and turns reason and compassion upside down and make's people blind to what is obvious.

Morality should be based on what is good for the happiness and wellbeing of people (and other animals) and society. Christianity bases its morality on books written by ignorant people and the ravings of deluded and uneducated preachers instead of on common sense and compassion.

I hope the US can rise above the stupidity that considers it immoral for people to be who they are care about each other.

Regards,
Realist

Again, Sex is a great gift of God, the gods and/or Mom Nature. It is the improper use of said gift that results in part of the "yucky factor", i.e STDs to include AIDS/HIV and fetal transfer that concerns everyone, Abrahamics, Atheists and et al.

"maybe ditld will tell us why gays use slang to denigrate each other?"

Carrie, can you tell me why black people call each other n*****s?

Daniel in the Lion's Den-

Your eloquent post to A Sinner had me in tears. The problem is that people like A Sinner, CCNL, and Carrie seem to be unable to see gay people as human beings. Certainly not as real people who breathe, eat, live and die just like the rest of us. They're "icky" and what they do is "yucky", so it's ok to discriminate against them, make them lose their jobs, beat them up, hang them on barb wire fences to die. It's all good, because they're gay, and God hates them.

We need a John Howard Griffin to write "Gay Like Me". Maybe then they could see gay people are a lot more than sex acts.

words-

bean queen, chickenhawk, cake boy, fruit bat, maricon, smurf, twink, SAM...

maybe ditld will tell us why gays use slang to denigrate each other?

CCNL

Your homophobia needs deflawing.

You might not like the word, homophobia, but it's a word, in common ussage, which usefully describes antigay hostility. If that word describes you, why should there not be a word for it? There are no word police in English like there are in some other languages; words earn their value, and this word has some value.

Your attitude on this seems a little childish. In fact, for awhile, I thought you were joking. But I am starting to think, maybe you are not.

Ex-gay and ex-transexual Sy Rogers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX9YMzq8cqQ

Wiccan noted:

"What the hell do they do to you Abrahamics that gets you so weirded out about sex?"

Sex is a great gift of God, the gods and/or Mom Nature. It is the improper use of said gift that results in STDs to include AIDS and fetal transfer that concerns everyone, Abrahamics etc.

For A Sinner

Since you seem at least open to discussion, I thought I would throw out a few more things to think about.

First of all, it is my belief that human sexuality is very complex, and not well understood by anyone today, nor in the days when the Bible was written. Therefore, I am giving my opinions based on my experiences and observations.

One thing that I have observed is that, for the most part, when Christians think of gay people, all they think about is the logistics of sex and sexual positions, making assumptions about individuals, which they could have no way of knowing, but can only imagine and suppose, and from this, they make all their judgements. I think this is a little simple minded, and is the reason why people who give it more consideration find Christianity to be so off-putting.

Being gay is a whole collection of traits, which are integrated into the personality, so that it is a major defining quality of the personality. Therefore, the gay orientation cannot be "erradiated" without drastically altering, changing, and damaging the personality. Even if you had the power to make this alteration in another peron's personality, I would not think that it could be done in love.

Same sex attraction is only one among the collection of traits that gay people seem to have. The actual logistics of sexual positions and sex acts varies from person to person, and you cannot know what any single person does in private, gay or straight, unless they tell you. Would you ask? If you would not ask your own relatives and neighbors about the physical details of their sex lives, why then would you ask, or even wonder about a gay person's sex life? In all cases, it would be equally none of your business. Even to suggest that you do not approve, and to suggest that they pretend to be "normal" is not your business.

And the second thing I wanted you to think about is who gay people are. People like you seem to have the feeling that there is an organization of gay people with an "agenda" and that you do not know any gay people, although perhaps, you may have met one or two along the way.

But that is a false and wrong assumption. Gay people are a part of life and always have been, They are everywhere, in all countries, in all cities, in every state, and even in little towns and villages.

If you get out of the house at all, you encounter many gay people every day of your life. When you walk through a mall, eat in a restaurant, fly in a plane, even in your Bible study group, and sitting in church, there are gay people around you. So, again, it is a little rude to discuss them, in their own presence, as though they are strange reptilian things with scales and horns.

They are just people.

A Sinner

In the past, I have considered myself to be a serious Christian. Yet the hardness of Christians on matters of human sexuality, especially homosexuality, makes me bitter against Christianity, so that I feel that I may eventually cast off from it altogether.

In no other aspect of life do I feel this seething bittersness, which troubles me deeply, as you may be able to tell from the many times I have posted on this subject.

I don't want to be bitter or to fight with people. Therefore, I am willing to see some reason in your thoughtful response to me, more thoughtful by far than most Christians.

Yet I have just one last thing for you to think about. For qualitifcation that you have for a gay person to be acknowledged as a good person, there is always a complication. I am assuming that your intention was that people who feel gay should seek to surpress it, and try to be "normal." Yet if such a man seeking to be normal, seeking to marry and take a wife for the purpose of seeming and being normal, would that be fair to his wife? Would you want your daughter to marry a man like that? Or would you prefer that your daughter marry a man who would love in a way that could make her happy? And if so, then what of this man whom you have asked to pretend to be normal, but whom you nevertheless reject? He should be always alone?

Just some things to think about.

Wow, some of you old farts and raging fundamentalists really are a sweamish bunch of fussy old ladies! You need to read more - transcend local prejudice and become global thinkers in the process.

Humans are no more infinitely variable and creative than in the realm of sexual behavior - and nothing is more relative to time, place and circumstance than sexual 'morality'.

The only universal sexual taboo that I'm aware of is incest between mothers and sons....because this has the potential to usurp the father's authority and position as 'head of household'. Morals and values usually have a pratical and utilitarian function at their core, and it usually has to do with social stability.

Googling 'intra-crural' or 'between the legs' sex, for example, you will find a sexual practice of universal scope. Boys and girls of various tribal groups (no doubt including the USA) have long used this non-penetrative sexual technique for 'experimental' and 'training' purposes - and indeed, this was very commonly practiced among the Greeks and various warrior types throughout the ages to engender male bonding among the troops, so to speak. Was this part of trench warfare, after all??

The famous, infamous, and non-famous, ranging from Alexander the Great to Abraham Lincoln were thought to have been practitioners. Wiki cites it as a 'hazing' rite utilized by upper classmen at Ivy League colleges, with Yale and Princeton particularly mentioned.

And so that's apparently what all those futurely famous world leaders were doing at the infamously secret Yale Skull and Bones meetings!! Just a little male bonding (quite a list - you can start with GWB).

Realistically speaking, humans have only ever been limited by their imagination when it comes to sexual activity - morality comes much later.

"Sorry, CB, but your opinion does not constitute a good logical reason."

My logical reason was a sly, failed attempt, at a reduction ad adsurdem. I intended to show the absurdity of a purely logical argument for gay marriage. Apparently the point was not well taken.

"Polygamy, or plural marriage, is often introduced into a discussion of same-sex marriage as an inevitable product if same-sex marriage is recognized. It’s an utterly ridiculous position to take. Plural marriage exists in the world today, primarily as polygamy, and it exists as a heterosexual institution."

As noted, I didn't introduce polygamy into this discussion as inevitable product of legalized same sex marriage. However since you've brought it up, I don't see why permitting same sex marriage won't lead to polygamy. Can you show me why it's "utterly ridiculous" to think so?

"Oh, please, CB. Neither gay nor lesbian couples are rendered barren by their orientation. That’s a patently absurd and demonstrably false statement."

I know you don't think that same sex couples produce children. So what are you trying to say?

In any case, the point of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is not to privilege one sexual orientation at the expense of another, even if that happens to be the case. The point is to recognize that only male-female couples (i.e. heterosexual in gender even if not orientation) can participate in the socio-biological behavioral complex that's recognized everywhere as marriage.

"Not all heterosexual couples are able to produce offspring in the traditional manner. I don’t hear anyone raising Cain and saying that sterile heterosexual couples should be denied civil marriage."

Yes, but no same sex couples are able to produce offspring in the "traditional manner". And, since the vast majority of human beings are and will continue to be produced in the "traditional manner", it's in society's to recognize and foster this behavior.

"The children of same-sex couples deserve to be a part of a legally recognized family, and no less so than the children of opposite-sex couples."

I agree. But I think you have conceded a point here, not me. Marriage is socially and legally privileged because of the benefits that it produces for society. Its primary benefit is that marriage replenishes the human race at all levels, demographic, social, cultural, you name it. So at the most basic level marriage really is about procreation. Quite simply, if the human race didn't replenish itself sexual procreation, marriage wouldn't exist.

A corollary of saying that marriage is about procreation is saying that marriage is about kids. So, if a society permits same sex couples to have kids then it's obligated to grant most or all of the rights of marriage to the parents, adoptive or otherwise, of those kids. But it doesn't follow that a society should grant the rights of marriage to other unions that aren't fertile by nature.

"And your simply saying that monogamous marriage is the ideal situation to produce offspring is not a sufficient argument to abridge the rights of same-sex couples who desire civil marriage."

Even if this true, simply saying that some rights (e.g., legacies, hospital visiting privildges, custody rights, etc.) that legally pertain to marriage ought also legally pertain to other unions isn't a sufficient argument to extend to the full range of marriage rights to these unions. Again, the motivation for recognizing that monogamous marriage is the optimal situation for producing offspring is not privilege one sexual oreintation, it's to recognize a fact about human biology and behavior.

As for the repeated ad hominem charge that my only motivation for thinking as I do about same sex marriage is that I think "gays are ickly"

KF, I was irritated by your response and responded less than charitably in my first repley, but I am arguing in good faith. "Gay people are icky" is not the burden of argument and it is not my motivation in thinking as I do about same sex marriage.

Are there any conditions under which you would grant that I could disagree with you about same sex marriage and not be motivated by the "gay people are icky" argument? Is everyone who disagrees with you about same sex marriage activated by bigotry, or just me?

"In other words, heterosexual unions are more stable than homosexual unions. I’d like you to tell that to the gay male couple in my church who have been together for 50 years."

Anecdotal.

"In other words, same-sex couples will lead to the end of humankind."

No, in other words, the most basic guarantee that the human race will continue to exist is it continues to reproduces. Reproduction is fundamental to the survival of the human race. That sounds to obvious to state. Profits are fundamental to staying in businesss. That obvious, too, but it's funny how many people forget it to their own detriment.

"All you have done, CB, is to restate an argument that has no basis in logic or fact."

Please restate and then assess my argument without relying on ad hominems like "you just think gay people are icky and don't know how to love". Please confine your responses to what you observe about my reasoning rather than what you impute to my character on the basis of your hurt feelings. After that you can show me that my argument has no basis in logic in fact.

"What you haven’t said outright, and I’ll give you credit for this, is the argument against same-sex marriage that says gay and lesbian people don’t really know how to love each other."

I didn't say it, because I don't think it's the case. Again, please confine your responses to what you observe, not what you impute.

"I provided you with links to more than 1,100 reasons why same-sex marriage should be recognized."

No, you linked to a list of legal rights that accrue to married couples. It's evidence that married couples accrue more than 1,100 legal rights. But what does that tell me?

But I will take a look at your links to the apa site.

Finally, the debate about same sex marriage is not a referendum on the dignity or worth of your relationship. The debate is about the desirability of redefining the nature of institution that is indispensible to any worthwhile human existence.

CCNL:

"Would a sexual desire elimination pill solve adulterous and premarital behavior of any persuasion? Eliminate or reduce the desire for gays to marry?"

Are we supposed to figure out who among us is going to "sin" sexually, and force-feed them saltpeter?

Concerned, can you stretch your mind enough to understand that the reason any couple wishes to get married is that they LOVE each other? (At Least it should be.) If it were only about mindless copulation it would be easier to remain single.

What the hell do they do to you Abrahamics that gets you so weirded out about sex?

After 500 comments, I still consider gay relationships "yucky" and they always will be IMHO. DNA issues, fear of women by men and/or fear of men by women and/or masturbation with a twist involved in the gay life style???

Mother Nature cannot be happy with her intelligent creations!!!!!!

Would a sexual desire elimination pill solve adulterous and premarital behavior of any persuasion? Eliminate or reduce the desire for gays to marry?

Wow, Daniel in the Lion's Den, you posted a lot of things for me.

For your first post --- yes, I am sure there are many people who are gay, and I am sure that many Christians, if not all, struggled at some point with their sexuality, and perhaps some have more difficulty than others.
I have just as bad tendencies. That's why I come onto this forum as "a sinner", because I need to remember that I am a sinner. I struggle with lying, with jealousies, with resentment, with lots of things that God does not approve of. They are a part of me and many times permeate through my character, like how you would describe sexual orientation and what it means to a human being.

My point is not that gays are bad. I have known some of them, and they are perhaps better beings than I am -- humanly speaking. But that does not make us holy in the sight of God. Again, to accept someone is not to condone all that they do or desire or claim to be, but is to actually see who we truly are before God --- fallen sinners loved by God.

One of my favorite poets, G.M. Hopkins, who struggled with his flesh for the sake of God, is said to have been gay. If that were true, he would belong to the gay Christian crowd. But instead of giving in to his own desires, he recognized them to be perverse and allowed God to change him and to discipline him. Nowadays we think of discipline is bad, but real love cannot be without discipline.

I kind of understand where you are coming from - I say kind of because what I know is from what you post and no more - homosexuality has been stigmatized to be something worse than lying or apathy or hypocrisy or even other forms of sexual impurities when in fact any type of sin is sinful and abominable to God. That's why Christians always marvel at the love of God who is holy yet who loves sinners. To admit our sin speaks to His love and not to our own goodness. Contrary to what some might believe, Christianity is so far from being false optimism or a "feel-good" thing because it really doesn't make us feel good about ourselves. If anything, it is painful to face up to who we are -- and all of us just as guilty. The great thing about Christianity is that God still loves us, and if we allow Him to take control, He can change us.

Am I making sense to you?

Charming Billy-

What is it called when a Christian who is losing an argument threatens you with hellfire?

Abi in malam rem?

(That's the closest I can get.)

Charming Billy

I thought that is what it meant, and that is what I was doing, so you could see what it feels like.

Daniel ITLD,

Romans 1:24-32 is pretty specific about that. I don't buy into it, though. That's Paul talking, not Jesus.

Arminius

== Charming Billy:
KJ,
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my entire post, KJ. I hope you found more benefit in formulating your thoughts than I did in reading them.
There is one very good logical reason to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage. Namely, if you think marriage is a heterosexual union, it's logical to exclude non heterosexual couples from marrying. It's perfectly logical. Not very cogent of course; but I don't believe such matters are decided exclusively on logical or scientific grounds. ==

Sorry, CB, but your opinion does not constitute a good logical reason. You don’t believe that same-sex partners can enter into marriage; many people disagree with your belief. Why should people who disagree with your belief, which you state as fact but have yet to support, be constrained by your willingness to abridge the rights of people?

== As for my "sly attempt at slippery slope argument": My discussion of polygamy does not make a case either for or against same sex marriage; it's not an argument or even an attempted argument. I mentioned polygamy in order to illustrate the point of my post; namely that the existence of religious polygamy calls into question Quinn's arbitrary and inexcusably rudimentary definition of marriage as the legal union of two people who love another. ==

Polygamy, or plural marriage, is often introduced into a discussion of same-sex marriage as an inevitable product if same-sex marriage is recognized. It’s an utterly ridiculous position to take. Plural marriage exists in the world today, primarily as polygamy, and it exists as a heterosexual institution.

==I agree that neither monogamy nor marriage are prerequisites for producing offspring. However, monogamous marriage is the ideal situation in which to produce offspring. That's why society has an interest in fostering traditional marriage. I also agree that homosexual individuals are not “rendered barren by their sexual orientation.” However, homosexual couples are rendered barren by their orientation, and marriage is about couples, not individuals.==

Oh, please, CB. Neither gay nor lesbian couples are rendered barren by their orientation. That’s a patently absurd and demonstrably false statement. Not all heterosexual couples are able to produce offspring in the traditional manner. I don’t hear anyone raising Cain and saying that sterile heterosexual couples should be denied civil marriage.

The fact is that neither the ability nor the intention to procreate are required by any state, commonwealth or territory of the United States in order to obtain a marriage license. Your opinion notwithstanding, until that happens – and we all know it won’t – the argument that marriage is about producing offspring is disingenuous.

And your simply saying that monogamous marriage is the ideal situation to produce offspring is not a sufficient argument to abridge the rights of same-sex couples who desire civil marriage. The children of same-sex couples deserve to be a part of a legally recognized family, and no less so than the children of opposite-sex couples.

== I am unable to address the following passage, because I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

"You put a lot of words in your message, but none of mean anything different than the other participants in this debate who would deny tax-paying, patriotic, hard-working gay and lesbian American citizens the right to civil marriage simply because you either think yourself superior or because you think homosexual people are icky. I guess there’s really no difference between those thoughts, though, is there?" ==

Yeah, CB, I do. Put simply, you have merely restated the same old tired arguments against same-sex marriage. You tried to dress it up by alluding to science, humanitarianism and some other nice words, but the bottom line is that you are simply restating the “gay people are icky” argument.

== Unless this is a not so "sly attempt at" ad hominem argument, in which I case I can disregard it. ==

No ad hominem intended. Just debunking your flowery language, CB.

==You've charged me with citing "a lot of myths." Please cite those passages in my post in which I cite myths, as well as the "anti gay talking points". ==

Gladly:

== Myth one: “Then, there are those who, from purely secular and naturalistic considerations, recognize that publicly sanctioned, long term, monogamous heterosexual unions resulting in offspring (i.e. marriage) are both distinct from and more foundational than other sexual pairings.” ==

In other words, heterosexual unions are more stable than homosexual unions. I’d like you to tell that to the gay male couple in my church who have been together for 50 years. Heck, I’d like you to tell that to me and my partner, who have been together for 8 years. That’s longer than either one of my heterosexual brothers managed to stay married. So much for your “more foundational” assertion.

== Myth two: “These are sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists who see marriage as the most effective human reproductive strategy. (SSM advocates trivialize the fact that only heterosexual unions are fertile, but it's mighty important that the human race does a good job of replacing itself.)” ==

In other words, same-sex couples will lead to the end of humankind. Please, CB. Provide us with some links to the peer reviewed studies of these so-called evolutionary biologists and sociobiologists who support your assertion. Also, tell that to the millions of gay and lesbian parents who have successfully procreated. They’ll laugh right in your face, CB.

All you have done, CB, is to restate an argument that has no basis in logic or fact. Gay people are icky. We don’t approve of their sexual intimacy. They’re going to cause the end of humankind.

What you haven’t said outright, and I’ll give you credit for this, is the argument against same-sex marriage that says gay and lesbian people don’t really know how to love each other. That, CB, is the most infuriating and dehumanizing of all the nasty little barbs flung at gay and lesbian people.

== While it's true that I offer not one scintilla of empirical evidence, neither do you. ==

Here:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339

== In the meantime, I remain confident that there is scientific support for recognizing that publically sanctioned, permanent, monogamous, heterosexual, reproductive unions are indispensible to the success of society. Since that’s the case, I believe there is a scientific, prudential, and moral justification for maintaining the status and protection currently provided to traditional marriage. ==

Your confidence doesn’t mean squat. Produce the evidence to support your argument, or admit that you are merely presenting your opinion as established fact.

== So, the question Sally Quinn ought to be asking isn’t “Please tell me how it could possibly be harmful to society to have two loving people form a union.” The question is whether or not we are justified in extending the legitimate status and protection we afford to traditional marriage to other unions. And, if we do choose to extend those benefits, should we simply conflate traditional marriage with those other unions, or provide a separate legal treatment for each type of union -- heterosexual, homosexual, celibate, polyamorous, or what have you? ==

I provided you with links to more than 1,100 reasons why same-sex marriage should be recognized. Now I’m asking you to specifically define the ways that same-sex marriages cause harm to traditional marriage. If you can do that, you’ll be the first. Lots of people say that recognizing same-sex unions will cause harm to traditional marriage, but not one person has ever said exactly how that will happen or what harm will occur.

If you want the government to try and enact many different types of marriages, advocate for that. The same-sex couples I know who wish to marry simply want the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities that are currently limited to opposite-sex couples only. We don’t want to complicate anything. We don’t want to destroy families or harm marriage. We just want the same thing that other couples in love have – the right to have our unions and our families recognized by the government.

Daniel in the Lions Den,

"I am not sure what ad hominem means. Am I being ad hominem?

Yes, Dan, your argument is so thoroughly ad hominen that I'm tempted to doubt your candor when you say you don't know what "ad hominem" means. Yours is a museum quality ad hominen argument.

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. Without going into technicalities, "ad hominem" means that when you're unable to formulate a reasonable argument against your opponent, you call him names.

I think that's a fair definition of your approach here.

Does anyone know of a Bible verse that says it is an abomination for a woman to lie with a woman? Because if not, then I can't see much reason to deny women same-sex marriage equality. It turns out, that it's not really an abomination after all.

And couldn't men be allowed same-sex marriage, if they promised only to masturbate and to sleep in twin beds?

That sounds like a Constitutional amendment on the horizon to me!

Problem solved! Case closed.

Charming Billy said:"

"There is one very good logical reason to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage."

Yes, it is always nice to exclude people from things. One way to make yourself feel better is to make others feel bad; one way to build yourself up is to tear other people down.

And, once again, to remind you, same-sex marriage is a grass-roos mass movement of millions of people, in contrast to polygamy, interest in which, is almost nil. However, if you are sincere in comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, then why don't you dedicate your life to making sure that polygamy is never legalized. It would be a waste of time, and of your life, though, because no one cares.

One thing that really bothers me, is how pompous people like you and Brambleton pontificate on gay people as though they are insects under a glass; and you are so dim-witted that you cannot comprehend that they are all around, among us, part of us, and part of all society and civilization, that you cannot comprehend what an insensitive ass you and people like you are.

I am not sure what ad hominem means. Am I being ad hominem? Well excuse me; I guess it slipped my mind for a minute that you might actually be a human being.

For A Sinner

I think that many people such as you who proclaim their disapproval of "people who claim to be gay" are a little confused about the whole thing, possibly because you are so sheltered from the real world. So I understand, many people such as you do not even accept the validity of the concept of sexual orientation, and therefore do not accept that there can even be such a thing as being gay. By the way that you carefully weighed your words somewhat unnaturally, I suspect this is how you feel about it. I have heard people like you deny the phenomenon of a "gay sexual orientation" instead calling it "bad people behaving badly."

However, if you accept that there is such a thing as sexual orientation, then you would see that being gay has nothing to do with sexual activity or sex positions, betweeen men, or between women; it is a whole collection of traits, including the quality of sexual attraction men for men, and women for women. However, to know just what particular sexual activities, practices, and positions a person engages in, gay or otherwise, is impossible, unless you see them engaging in sex, or you ask them and they tell you; or they may tell you to mind your own business, or worse, punch you in the nose.

Your problem is that you dismiss a whole group of people with a reflexive, unthinking rejection based on your wrong ideas and considerations. When you hear of a gay person, you imagine the kind of sex they are having; but in fact you do not know what kind of sex they may engage in; it is your projected assumptions that your "dirty" mind is making about other people. Maybe if you could get that a little better under control, you could begin to regard them a little more humanely, and therefore, relax the hypocrisy of your position against them.

Questions of gay marriage have nothing to do with sex positions, and it is a little rude for people like you to presume what other people do in bed, and to imagine, and drool, lust over, and condemn what other people do in bed. You wouldn't condemn your heterosexual friends and relatives, because all of the sexual positions and practices which you might imagine about them, would you?

No one here is trying to interfere with your freedom of speech. You have excercised it, have you not? If you are not used to being contradicted, it is not my problem, but maybe because you have been too sheltered and cloistered in your Bible-study groups and Sunday School classes; after all, what do people do in these groups, but recitie all to each other what they already believe, without much in the way of meaningful discussion or insites.

I think it is good for you to become involved in a forum like this, and to get out and stir around in the world a little (as my grandmother would say) and to see that there are other opinions and ways of thinking, which may be good an valid, besides your own.

KJ,

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my entire post, KJ. I hope you found more benefit in formulating your thoughts than I did in reading them.

There is one very good logical reason to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage. Namely, if you think marriage is a heterosexual union, it's logical to exclude non heterosexual couples from marrying. It's perfectly logical. Not very cogent of course; but I don't believe such matters are decided exclusively on logical or scientific grounds.

As for my "sly attempt at slippery slope argument": My discussion of polygamy does not make a case either for or against same sex marriage; it's not an argument or even an attempted argument. I mentioned polygamy in order to illustrate the point of my post; namely that the existence of religious polygamy calls into question Quinn's arbitrary and inexcusably rudimentary definition of marriage as the legal union of two people who love another.

I agree that neither monogamy nor marriage are prerequisites for producing offspring. However, monogamous marriage is the ideal situation in which to produce offspring. That's why society has an interest in fostering traditional marriage. I also agree that homosexual individuals are not “rendered barren by their sexual orientation.” However, homosexual couples are rendered barren by their orientation, and marriage is about couples, not individuals.

I am unable to address the following passage, because I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

"You put a lot of words in your message, but none of mean anything different than the other participants in this debate who would deny tax-paying, patriotic, hard-working gay and lesbian American citizens the right to civil marriage simply because you either think yourself superior or because you think homosexual people are icky. I guess there’s really no difference between those thoughts, though, is there?"

Unless this is a not so "sly attempt at" ad hominem argument, in which I case I can disregard it.

You've charged me with citing "a lot of myths." Please cite those passages in my post in which I cite myths, as well as the "anti gay talking points".

While it's true that I offer not one scintilla of empirical evidence, neither do you. So presumably you don't find empirical evidence pertinent to our discussion. But what's a scintilla or two among friends? Please specify how many scintillae you require, and I'll try to produce them.

In the meantime, I remain confident that there is scientific support for recognizing that publically sanctioned, permanent, monogamous, heterosexual, reproductive unions are indispensible to the success of society. Since that’s the case, I believe there is a scientific, prudential, and moral justification for maintaining the status and protection currently provided to traditional marriage.

So, the question Sally Quinn ought to be asking isn’t “Please tell me how it could possibly be harmful to society to have two loving people form a union.” The question is whether or not we are justified in extending the legitimate status and protection we afford to traditional marriage to other unions. And, if we do choose to extend those benefits, should we simply conflate traditional marriage with those other unions, or provide a separate legal treatment for each type of union -- heterosexual, homosexual, celibate, polyamorous, or what have you?

S Q said "I simply don’t get it. I really don’t."

This makes me wonder what they teach media people in school. You start with Plato, move on to Aristotle, then to Aquinas, and Jefferson. This isn't brain surgery. I think Sally is just playing dumb. Nobody is really that stupid.

Brambleton said, "My response was based on the blind supposition proposed by Darian that the Christian vote was solely responsible for OK "

Whoa, I don't know if that's an intentional lie or you just misread me, but I didn't say that at all.

I said this:

(In response to A Sinner...)

"So you may not "expect the public to follow it," but if all Christians felt that way, same-sex marriage would be legal in every state and at the federal level."

That means I believe that if no Christians opposed legal gay marriage because of the bible, we would have legal gay marriage. That doesn't mean I think only Christians oppose same-sex marriage, but that without their opposition the numbers just aren't there.

Geez, Brambleton, either read more carefully or be honest about what you read. Or both.

Sure thing, Brambleton. You've made other wrong assumptions. Chalk up another.

But I do understand you wanting to argue the point. It's just that arguing against the painfully obvious doesn't work too well.

KJ,

I appreciate your comments but your post is not on point. My response was based on the blind supposition proposed by Darian that the Christian vote was solely responsible for OK (and other states) defeating same-sex marriage amendments by an overwhelming majority.

Darian,

Nice post. Can I assume now that you have no ability to present any facts whatsoever in defense of your "indisputable" comment? Sad, really.

== Brambleton:
Darian,
I'm ignorant of the facts because you don't provide any. We know that 75% (read: 3 out of 4) of the voters in Oklahoma voted against same-sex marriage. That is called a fact. Your response? The amendment wouldn't have passed if not for Christians and religious lobbying groups. That is called supposition - or - an analysis grounded in something other than fact. If you're so close to the information because of your employment, then it should be easy to tell us all how many Christian votes counted towards that 75%. (I'm not holding my breath).

I'm not completely naive. I understand that the predominant Christian vote would be against same-sex marriage. That's obvious. And I would completely agree with you that the 75% amount would be less, maybe even much less, if the Christian vote were removed. But what would the percentage be? 70%? 55%? 35%? I don't know, and apparently you have no idea either. Which makes your "indisputable" comment puzzling.

I'll tell you what. If you're so interested in getting things "right", I'll give you gay marriage and you can give me abortion. Deal?==

Brambleton, the percent of the population that votes to enshrine bigotry into law is irrelevant. Let’s substitute another term for “same-sex” marriage. Let’s assume that Oklahoma citizens voted overwhelmingly to amend their state constitution to prohibit religiously mixed marriages. Or they voted overwhelmingly to deny left-handed people the right to civil marriage. Or they amended their state constitution to prohibit Native American marriage? Would you then stubbornly insist that the people have spoken, so no Jew can marry a Christian? Or no left-handed person can marry, nor any Native American?

Or is your appeal to the majority (argumentum ad populum) only valid when it’s gay and lesbian people whose liberty is to be infringed?

Our laws are not based on the argumentum ad populum device; our laws protect the rights of unpopular or despised minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I don’t see any way anyone can spin the right to civil marriage as anything other than a fundamental human and civil right.

I am old enough to remember the Jim Crow era, and the mighty struggle for recognition of the human and civil rights of people of color in America. This struggle is no different. The government had no rational basis to abridge the civil rights of people of color, and it has no rational basis to abridge the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens.

Oh, and, no; no deal. Civil rights are non-negotiable. Reproductive freedom is a basic human and civil right and may not be bartered or compromised.

Mike,

If you choose to, the following is a list of New Testament readings that speak directly to the subject matter:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Romans 1:24-32
Romans 8:1
Song of Solomon, Chapter 4

These scriptures clearly state the Bible's position in regards to same sex affiliations.

Brambleton said, "I'll tell you what. If you're so interested in getting things "right", I'll give you gay marriage and you can give me abortion."

Aw, did you stamp your foot real hard when you typed that?

Do you even know where I stand on the abortion issue? Or did you make yet another of your assumptions? But that's not a subject for this discussion.

I don't think you're naive. I think you're willfully ignorant.

Darian,

I'm ignorant of the facts because you don't provide any. We know that 75% (read: 3 out of 4) of the voters in Oklahoma voted against same-sex marriage. That is called a fact. Your response? The amendment wouldn't have passed if not for Christians and religious lobbying groups. That is called supposition - or - an analysis grounded in something other than fact. If you're so close to the information because of your employment, then it should be easy to tell us all how many Christian votes counted towards that 75%. (I'm not holding my breath).

I'm not completely naive. I understand that the predominant Christian vote would be against same-sex marriage. That's obvious. And I would completely agree with you that the 75% amount would be less, maybe even much less, if the Christian vote were removed. But what would the percentage be? 70%? 55%? 35%? I don't know, and apparently you have no idea either. Which makes your "indisputable" comment puzzling.

I'll tell you what. If you're so interested in getting things "right", I'll give you gay marriage and you can give me abortion. Deal?

Hi Brambleton, you just made my point.

"The "laws" you mentioned in item C are Old Testament laws. The death, and most importantly the resurrection, of Jesus Christ bridged the Old Testament to the New Testament and, consequently, made those laws moot."

So therefore, the laws saying that man should not lay with man are moot. Correct? Which then measn that the Bible does not restrict gay union. Correct?

I do have facts, Brambleton. Your ignorance of them doesn't mean they don't exist. This is what I do, so I know who is initiating, supporting, and funding drives to ban gay marriage. I know who is voting for them. And it's such common knowledge that, really, for you to suggest otherwise makes you look silly.

But I don't blame you for not wanting to place the blame for writing discrimination into law at the feet of Christians voting based on the bible. However, that's where almost all of it belongs. I don't know your age, but I'm old enough to remember hearing a lot of arguments against civil rights for black people. They were usually prefaced by, "I don't hate black people. I have a black friend." And interracial marriage was opposed, "For the children." It's exactly what we hear to day, and it's bigotry. History shows that those who opposed civil rights for blacks were on the wrong side. And that people who opposed women's rights and abolition were on the wrong side. The same thing is happening today with gay rights. It's taking more time than it should, sadly, but it's happening.

== Anonymous:
Paganplace,
Your reply begs the question. You assume that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are fundamentally the same; that they are both marriages.
But I view them as two differents things, albeit with some overlap. But not enough overlap to conflate them legally. One is marriage, the other is not. Consequently it doesn't merit the same legal treatment as marriage. ==

So you say. I don’t agree with you. I don’t see any difference at all, so why should your opinion, which restricts individual liberty, trump my opinion, which supports individual liberty?

If you don’t believe same-sex marriage is right, or valid, or whatever, don’t get married to a person of the same sex. Your personal sensibilities, however, are not a sufficient basis to deny people who disagree with you a basic civil and human right.

Mike,

The "laws" you mentioned in item C are Old Testament laws. The death, and most importantly the resurrection, of Jesus Christ bridged the Old Testament to the New Testament and, consequently, made those laws moot.

Darian,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, it's puzzling to me that you feel your opinion is indisputable when you have no facts or other evidence to support it. Your entire arguement is supposition and based on "feelings" you get from reading bulletin board posts. I would welcome any argument based on some evidentiary information.

== Charming Billy:
Quinn assumes that marriage is nothing more than a legal union between two loving people. If you believe that, then it's easy to conclude that anti-SSM views are a spiteful and arbitrary restriction of marriage to heterosexuals.==

Well, yes, CB. People who oppose marriage equality are being spiteful and arbitrary. There is not one logical or scientific reason to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.

== However, there are many who believe that marriage is more than a legal union between two loving people. For starters, there are those who think marriage is a religious and legal union among two or more people, who may or may not love each other in the romantic sense that she finds indispensable for marriage. This is along the lines of the polygamy practiced in many parts of the Muslim world. ==

Exactly how is this related to same-sex marriage? It isn’t. Polygamy is another issue altogether, and your sly attempt at a slippery slope argument fails.

== Then, there are those who, from purely secular and naturalistic considerations, recognize that publicly sanctioned, long term, monogamous heterosexual unions resulting in offspring (i.e. marriage) are both distinct from and more foundational than other sexual pairings. These are sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists who see marriage as the most effective human reproductive strategy. (SSM advocates trivialize the fact that only heterosexual unions are fertile, but it's mighty important that the human race does a good job of replacing itself.) ==

Here’s where your argument fails again. First, neither monogamy nor marriage are prerequisites for producing offspring.

Second, there is not one state or commonwealth in the United States that requires, as a condition to grant a marriage license, the ability or intent to reproduce. If your argument was correct then the government would not allow infertile couples to marry. My grandfather could not have remarried after the passing of my grandmother, and his life would have been lonely, indeed.

Furthermore, CB, homosexual people are not rendered barren by their sexual orientation. Many homosexual people conceive and raise children.

You put a lot of words in your message, but none of mean anything different than the other participants in this debate who would deny tax-paying, patriotic, hard-working gay and lesbian American citizens the right to civil marriage simply because you either think yourself superior or because you think homosexual people are icky. I guess there’s really no difference between those thoughts, though, is there?

== And these are only two pro-traditional marriage views from among who knows how many. They start from vastly different premises. Both, however, conclude that marriage is a heterosexual union. Importantly, too, neither of these views are formulated with a eye toward excluding homosexual unions. They are formulated on the basis of religious, legal, humanitarian, social, and scientific considerations. Animus toward same sex unions, even when it exists among those who subscribe to traditional views of marriage, simply doesn't account for most traditional notions of marriage. ==

Nice try, CB. There is absolutely nothing in your message here that has anything to do with science or humanitarian considerations. You cite a lot of myths, you parrot a lot of anti-gay talking points, but you offer not one scintilla of empirical evidence to support your argument. It comes down to “religious people are opposed (which is not entirely true – not all religions condemn same-sex marriage)” and to antiquated social considerations that are as outdated as denying women the right to vote or maintaining racially segregated public accomodations..

Here’s the deal. Our government confers more than 1,100 rights, privileges and responsibilities on married people. (See here: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04353r.html and here: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf ) No one has to ask them; it just happens when two people get married. Those same 1,100 rights, privileges and responsibilities are denied to same-sex couples, and for no good reason. That, CB, is denial of equal protection of the laws. As I said in a previous post, the government must not discriminate against people simply because they are part of an unpopular group. It is unethical, immoral and simply wrong to deny millions of American citizens the basic civil right they seek without a rational basis to do so.

Wow. I have been reading this stuff for days and it gets funnier and funnier. I was talking with some friends a few days ago and mentioned that there was no way that this country would elect a woman or a black man as president. Why? Because of the overwhelming amount of bigotry and racist and sexist that still holds sway in what I refer to as Red States. This whole string only afirms my thoughts. For the religous right out there I wanted to know a couple of things:

A. If marriage is not a "basic Human Right", as said here, than what is? Marriage existed long before Christianity in many cultures on multiple continents. How can you believe that it is only magically a part of Christianity?

B. If marriage is only for procreation, as said here, then what about couple of chose not to have children? Or couple who cannot because or medical issues? My wife had cancer so she cannot have children? Are we sinners?

C. How, please answer specifically not the work around you all keep using, can you not believe in stoning? And slavery? And beating of your wife? Or the eating of shellfish? If all of the Bible is Law, as stated here, and cannot be changed and we cannot choose which to follow?

If you have that stance, you have to believe those things and live accordingly. None of you do so. Not a single one of you. So there for you are all lying when you say that you hold Bible sacred if you do not stone people or beat folks. If Jesus "fullfilled the law", as stated here, then he did so not only for stoning but also for gays. You cannot have both.

Brambleton, I am telling you that without Christians voting based on the bible, the amendments would not have passed. There would not have been a majority. You seem to be confused. I didn't say every vote cast was a Christian voting based on the bible. I am saying without that group--which A Sinner doesn't seem to think exists, but which overwhelmingly funds and organizes these initiatives--the amendments would not have passed.

I really feel I am stating the painfully, indisputably obvious here, but apparently it needs to be done.

Darian,

Let's take a look a one state, Montana, to illustrate my point. Same-sex marriage was voted down 66.5% to 33.5%.

1) Are you telling me that each and every vote that made up the 66.5% was a Christian who opposed same-sex marriage? Don't think so. I would certainly expect the number to be at least half if not more, but 90%+? Doubt it.

2) Furthermore, what are the odds that the 66.5% represented every single voter who opposed same-sex marriage? Zero. Because we all know that a voter turnout rate of 50% is considered phenomenal. So we can assume that there were plenty of voters opposed to same-sex marriage who didn't actually vote. We can also assume that there were a number of people who were not opposed to same-sex marriage, but didn't feel it was a big enough issue to vote on.

Other state results...

Ohio: 61.8% Against
Georgia: 76.1% Against
Michigan: 58.6% Against
Utah: 66.2% Against
Oklahoma: 75.6% Against.

Brambleton said:
"That simply is not true. Look up the numbers yourself. Many states voted down same-sex marriage by resounding majorities, sometimes 60-80 percent."
If you remove the Christians voting because of the bible, those amendments would not have passed.

Hey, just look at this thread. Those opposed to gay marriage are mostly Christians quoting the bible. If they truly weren't trying to make everyone live by their bible, they wouldn't vote to make gay marriage illegal.

Darian,

You said, "So you may not "expect the public to follow it," but if all Christians felt that way, same-sex marriage would be legal in every state and at the federal level."

That simply is not true. Look up the numbers yourself. Many states voted down same-sex marriage by resounding majorities, sometimes 60-80 percent.

Jihadist-

Blessed Be to you and the increase of your house for the funniest post I've read on this thread! Sometimes I think you must have been Mark Twain in a previous incarnation.

"Do we hear the patter of tinny feet?"

Heh, heh, heh. Oh, my sides are hurting.

So many people posting here against gay marriage get hung up on the sex, and completely ignore the love.

A Sinner said:
"For me, I was posting to answer Sally's question as to why Christians are against gay marriage. And we have told you our position. We don't expect the public to follow it as the legal system allows for divorce and things like that..."

But that's just it...many Christians want to vote on whether or not to allow gay marriage, and want to vote against it. Many have voted against allowing gay marriage, and these people do expect the public to follow their religious beliefs. They want to legally tell someone else they must live by the bible, though, as you say, they don't seem to mind that the legal system does allow divorce and remarriage, things god is against, enough that they're considered adultery, which there's a commandment against. Those Christians are being hypocrites. Especially those who got divorces and remarried unless (for the men) their wives cheated on them. Women are out of luck.

So you may not "expect the public to follow it," but if all Christians felt that way, same-sex marriage would be legal in every state and at the federal level.

For A Sinner

All Christians are not anti-gay, and all Christians are not opposed to gay marriage. So you should speak for yourself, and not for all Christians.

And mind-blowing as I know this will be for you, there are gay Christians, too. I am sure that you are well-aquainted with some of them in your church, and probably like them, even if they have not revealed their sexuaul orientation to you.

When you are mean-mouthing people, you should always be sure that the object of your scorn is not also the one you are talking to.

LDS Mark

You said:

"Don’t fall prey to your pride."

I did not say I was more sophisticated than you. I said that there are more sophisticated people here than you are.

You are the one who listed your resume of accomplishments to prove your babble, and then accused me of pride.

I am just saying that forcing your elaborately articulated religious beliefs on other people, and insisting that they are true, simply because you say so, and for no other reason, and listing all the things that you have done in the modern world, to give yourself credibility, is a pointless waste of time, and that your attitude and way of arguing your case would be more appropriate in a Sunday School class where everyone believes exactly as you do.

Emily Dickensen was a much more sophistocated and worldly person than you are, and she almost never left her home in Amherst, MA. You should try reading some of her poetry sometimes; there are other things to read, you know, things of great value, than the Bible.

Hello Jon,

Ah, the love that dare not speak its name. Men and cars. A love too far gone in Mr. Edward Smith's case.

There's bestiality, and now there's carstiality. The first man-machine sex? Do we hear the patter of tinny feet?

1,000 cars. I hope it's not all Hyundais. A few Jags, Meseratis, Beemies and Benzes would impress some.

Mr. Edward Smith did not ask for a civil or sacred union of marraige between him and one of the cars, did he? I'd love to attend his wedding if he does, officiated by a priest - "Will you love one another in carsickness and in carburetor dying?"

Can I imagine trying to explain this to a young child? Yes. Mr. Smith needs help. He is a a very sick serial car rapist. He is a menace to all cars which can't say no. The cars are stained too. This is not a victimless crime or sex between adult man and consenting car. For heaven's sake, the cars could all be less than 10 years old. The Oz police should be ashamed of themself.

Cars! Take back the night!
Organise car vigilantes!

People who believe "I don't care what you do as long as no one is hurt" and gays who try to equate their irregular union with that of a man and wife:

There are more pervertions just waiting to come out of the closet. Here's one you may be unaware of just waiting to get behind gays for equal rights and sympathetic understanding of their "love that can not be spoken"..

"Meet the man who has had sex with 1,000 cars!

A stunning woman won't set his heart racing but a car is more than enough to leave Aussie bloke Edward Smith gasping for more."

http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=63632

Who said "the last taboo" has been revealed and accepted by the mainstream? Can you imagine trying to explain this to a young child? Sexual relations are intended between a man and woman.

Period..

The word of god is not the almighty. Religion is all in the eye of the beholder. We all have our own beliefs and thoughts. Therefore marriage is a right giving to all American citizens, whether gay or straight. We all deserve the right to marriage.

repost:

"Jesus was a Torah observant Jew his entire life on earth. The Torah forbids the homosexual act (mishkav zakhar)."

Yes, he was so observant that the Sadducee and Pharisee wanted him dead. In truth, we do not know from the bible what his complete standing or view points were on the Jewish faith.

Your statement is pure speculation. As stated before, we are a country based on the Constitution and our laws. Christian beliefs can influence the creation of laws but are not the basis for the laws. Imagine if we had laws enforcing all 10 commandments. There would be many fathers, mothers and children who would be punished.

It's not just for me, yaknow, Mr. LDS Land Speed Record.

Turns out I've been in a few car chases, myself. I can remember one, ...funny story, where a gay friend of mine borrowed his brother's truck, and I thought some 'virtuous Christian boys' had finally gotten past the stage of talk...

Heh. Funny story.

He's dead, now. Ended up face down in a hot tub cause too many people he cared about 'disagreed with his lifestyle' ....in ways he apparently found insensitive.

But this ain't just for me.

Turns out some chick loves me, and I her. Kind of a lot. As in.

This is not about your pride or righteousness.

Not even about me.

This is about *love,* Mr. Saint.

This is about, you don't even know what you're asking people to suffer for your pride.

Spare us the false humility.

Let's see fairness and justice.
Then you can open your yap.
If you must.

Oh, and, Btw, LDS Mark.

I'm sure you're very proud.

Have you ever had to leave a partner and daughter that loved you cause some proud person in power decided they knew better what your relationship meant than the family involved did?

Sorry I'm not a World Class Executive Lounge traveller or someone who could trailer some machine out to the *salt flats,*

Been kinda busy.

Never *shot* an elk, but I've *met* one, up real close with a bowstring pulled back.

Turns out if you're a not-very-big chick alone in the woods, there's not much point shooting what you can't carry. :)

I'm sure you're very proud of yourself. Maybe I never got round to Ankhor Wat, but I know a lot of places, and a lot of people. Those close to pavement as I was, and not just visiting, either, while taking a break from designing satellites.

Generated some content for em, though, here and there, between scrounging meals.

And dealing with real, sweating, loving, praying, fearing, bleeding, *people.*

I'd like my civil rights, now.

If you don't mind so much.

All right. The thing is - I don't think lots of Christians are saying this because they expect to be listened to. For me, I was posting to answer Sally's question as to why Christians are against gay marriage. And we have told you our position. We don't expect the public to follow it as the legal system allows for divorce and things like that - but I do think as a part of the public we have the right to voice what we believe in and advocating our position, just as the rest of the public does. And if our position comes from our belief, then what's wrong with bringing faith into public forums? The secular belief is also a belief system. But we all should be able to say what we think is right.

Billy:

"I still don't see how the divorce rate among Evangelicals factors in to a discussion of same sex marriage."

When people start making unsubstantiated claims based on vague fears that these guys should 'define' what legal marriage is, as opposed to those actually *involved* in a given marriage, I think it *very* much factors in.

And who guys is you guys, those that say such things.

No one asks *straights* how much benefit to society they'll be when they get married in Vegas while three sheets to the wind and enjoy 2400 legal rights and protections, even if they don't remember the oath.

DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN:

So you are more sophisticated and worldly.

Have you been around the world? …More than once?
Are you a network administrator at one of the top hospitals in the country?
Do you successfully hunt elk for food in sub-zero temperatures and 2-3 feet of snow when you don’t have to?
Have you set 2 Bonneville land speed records? …With a motorcycle you built yourself?
Have you designed satellite amplifiers for the DSS system in the late 70’s? (say thankyou)
Have you taught TDMA communications in Munich, London, Ottawa, and Jakarta?

Don’t fall prey to your pride. Don’t hide behind it when the truth of religion gets in your way.

Take the bible as the word of God and the best guide to life you will ever find.

Mark

Paganplace

"You guys seem to really resent 'government intrusion' when it comes to say, 'Hey, you can't stick your factory's tailpipe in the wetlands,' ...but you're all for it on the thinnnest excuses when it comes to blaming queers for your own failures at marriage."

Who are the "you guys" you refer to here? These aren't my views. This is an impertinent comment, at best; and a failed attempt at guilt by association, at worst.

I still don't see how the divorce rate among Evangelicals factors in to a discussion of same sex marriage.

Everything you said about gay people violating God's rules would be ok, if you were reciting it in Sunday school class, where everyone present believes the same thing, and your only purpose is to buck each other up in you parochial beliefs.

But in a public setting, with people much more worldly and sophistocated than you, who have a wide range and spectrum of beliefs, it is just silly babble.

As my grandmother used to use, "save your breath to cool your coffee."

Bethesda:

OK, since you quoted it, here is Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

How does that show that the bible is not the word of God?

DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN:

The issue I addressed was a statement that the bible is not the word of God.

As for Gays, we are all God’s children. God, or more accurately, Heavenly Father, is not the type of parent that Child Services were invented for.

God loves us all, as any parent would. Just because some have gone astray does not mean he loves those any less. But as any parent would do, when you break the rules there are consequences to your actions.

He has given us rules to live by, and they are for our own good. Some of them are not convenient, some of them are hard, and others are easy. If they were all easy, how would we prove ourselves worthy to return to his house? How would we even have a free will if life was made easy for us?

As Bethesda referenced to Hebrews 4:12: if you break the rules, you will pay the price.
We should encourage Gays not to give in to temptation and break God’s rules. Also we should not encourage them by passing laws that encourage the temptation.

Mark

Bethesda said: "My point is that the Word of God is clear about the judgment of God. If it is true, then those who reject God and His Son Jesus will, according to the Bible, be cast into a lake of fire."

Which is about two-thirds of the world's population. And you are ok with that?

Almost everyone believes they're following the correct spiritual path. Most people sure try to. It isn't about rejecting; it's about believing. We're not "rejecting" anything. We're simply believing something else, something that feels right to us. You may not believe those things, but others do. And you worship a deity you think is going to cast all these good people into a lake of fire.

I wouldn't worship any being that would cast you into a lake of fire for simply believing something different than I do. I find it disturbing that you do. I suspect if there is an afterlife and there is a loving, fair being running it, you're in for some surprises.

My point is that the Word of God is clear about the judgment of God. If it is true, then those who reject God and His Son Jesus will, according to the Bible, be cast into a lake of fire.

Umm. You likea da sheepies? That's your problem. I'm talking about my health plan and property rights after like seven years of an exclusive committed relationship with another adult American citizen here. You're talking about... Things indelicate to mention.

Wild guess, here, but it might be about *you.*

Brave Anonymous.

Homosexual act is nearly equivalent to bestiality. It's not love but crazy love. So let's rename the constitution, THE CRAZY CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES if we allow crazy love.

I mean, I dunno how it is in *your* church, Spidey, but if I want to be equated with a dog, I'll go to a furry convention, not the Supreme Court of California.

Thanks.

"People love their dog but it's a different matter if that love means having sex with their dog."

If you're implying dogs are American citizens, Spiderman, you're the one who brought it up.

Have a look at Texas, where an anti-gay law actually *legalized* bestiality, as long s you 'own' the animal.

Somehow, I get the feeling you Christians ought to work out that perceived connection among yourselves. I ain't touching it.

Civil rights, please.

"Guess we will find out someday, won't we?"

No, Bethesda, we won't. We'll be dead.

I mean, really, Christians.

The more 'Christian' you are in that neocon/Moral Majority way, the *worse* your success-at-marriage rate gets.

How much more *sanctity* do you think it *takes?*

Maybe sanctity ain't in gaybashing, or freaking out about others' sexuality, or in unjust laws based on the same hangups, ...and never *was.*

Maybe you got worse to worry about than whatever supernatural effects you imagine will befall you if you stop trying to hurt queer people and start paying attention to your own 'sanctified' lives.

Oh, yeah, though, Billy:

"And how does the 50% divorce rate -- though I doubt this figure -- among "fundies" factor into opposition to SSM?"

Actually, that's really among 'Evangelicals' in general.

How it figures in is that all manner of scaremongering about how 'No one *proved* gay marriage is all perfect' ...doesn't change the fact that the most extreme Christian determinism on 'Christian Sacred Marriage,' even willingly-applied, still ain't beating the odds on a coin toss.

So, butt out and let's have some equality.

You guys seem to really resent 'government intrusion' when it comes to say, 'Hey, you can't stick your factory's tailpipe in the wetlands,' ...but you're all for it on the thinnnest excuses when it comes to blaming queers for your own failures at marriage.

Actually, the first state to allow gay marriage had the lowest divorce rate in the country, and....it hasn't gone up since then.

How you like them apples, Adam and Eve?

I'll add that if my sweetie and I get handfasted, we are going to *call* it marriage whether or not you find it in your little Biblical heart to grant us equal rights as American citizens.

The only reason we're *not* religiously-married is cause I will not have her swear an oath before the Gods that the likes of *you* might prevent her from, or wreck her future for, keeping.

"Your reply begs the question. You assume that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are fundamentally the same; that they are both marriages."

Actually, I don't give two steaming ones what you call it, when it comes to the legal system, if you don't know how *very much* they are the same when you or your sweetie is in the hospital, or when straight relatives want to 'punish' a relative who they hated's gay partner by taking all the joint property.... You're the one not getting it. Or what the legal system is for.

Or fundamental human rights.

Paganplace,

Your reply begs the question. You assume that homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are fundamentally the same; that they are both marriages.

But I view them as two differents things, albeit with some overlap. But not enough overlap to conflate them legally. One is marriage, the other is not. Consequently it doesn't merit the same legal treatment as marriage.

"Paganplace,

Why would I, or anyone else, want to prevent infertile heterosexual couples from marrying?"

Then, why, would you, or anyone else, want to prevent gay couples from having our marriages recognized with equal legal protections under the law when it comes to our ability to define who is our next of kin and is empowered to run our lives?

Paganplace,

Why would I, or anyone else, want to prevent infertile heterosexual couples from marrying?

And how does the 50% divorce rate -- though I doubt this figure -- among "fundies" factor into opposition to SSM?

"In my opinion, this is why we keep getting comments like, "Well, if I'm right, no harm done, but if you're wrong...well...." All these coy little references. "

Ah. Pascal's Wager.

You know what it's called when someone promises huge returns for betting on an extremely remote possibility, only, *nudge, nudge,* they got 'inside information?'

A sucker's bet.

If you know the language of philosophy, that's actually something Pascal was trying to point out without getting burned for a heretic.

Paganplace,

Why would I, or anyone else, want to prevent infertile heterosexual couples from marrying?

And does the 50% divorce rate -- though I doubt this figure -- among "fundies" factor into opposition to SSM?

Frankly, from the most brutally-pragmatic point of view, denying same-sex couples the buffer of cooperation creates a lot more societal and economic instability than you may realize.

If conservatives think it's good for us to blow a lot of money on imported manufactured goods, it does our economy no good for gay couples to lose work cause our capitalist health plans don't cover them, or for families either to either cast them out and disadvantage them in the legitimate economy so they need public services they otherwise wouldn't, ...or for helpful families to spend money keeping a roof over their disadvantaged queer kids' heads when they could be buying that new plasma TV, whatever that's supposed to be worth.

Cooperation stabilizes the economy. It's a buffer.

Screwing people for being gay is not prosperity.

Pagan,

That's why I said it wasn't "her" fault. However, we are all accountable for the words we use, regardless of where the information is obtained. I would say the exact same thing to a Christian.

Darian,

I don't necessarily disagree with the point you are trying to make. I, myself, don't believe the Bible should usurp the Constitution.

However, I remind you that the Constitution is no different from the Bible in that it is under siege everyday from interpretation. It is not a static document. The idea that two people can read and interpret the exact same text in two totally different ways is the foundation for our judicial system. The Supreme Court is no different. How many centuries have the people of the United States been arguing over "the right to bear arms" with little agreement between them?

Actually, the Pope says the "eternal torture" is real (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1572646.ece).
And he's apparently basing that, at least in part on Matthew 25, where the punishment for those who don't believe is eternal punishment and eternal fire.

In my opinion, this is why we keep getting comments like, "Well, if I'm right, no harm done, but if you're wrong...well...." All these coy little references. I've asked several times what these people think is going to happen to me, since they're alluding to some form of punishment, but they won't come out and say. It's interesting. If it's so bad you can't say it, maybe you should think about the hatefulness of doling out such punishment to good people who simply have different beliefs.

Brambleton:
"There is no threat of eternal torture as discussed in the Bible. "

Then what the hell is Bethesda threatening me with? Look, if you Christians can't agree on this, which seems to be an important piece of the dogma, don't expect me to take it seriously.

"There are sound and defensible secular reasons to oppose SSM."

No, there *aren't.* Not unless you're willing to deny infertile straight couples marriage, and Fundies their fifty percent divorce rate.

KR,

Please note that I provided a view of traditional marriage formulated on the basis of secular and naturalistic considerations. There are sound and defensible secular reasons to oppose SSM. I have both religious and secular objections to SSM. I find both cogent but would only try to fly the latter past the Supreme Court.

Brambleton:
"There is no threat of eternal torture as discussed in the Bible. "

Many Christians disagree. That's the thing--there is vast disagreement on what exactly the Bible means about many issues. Catholics disagree with Baptists, and Baptists think Methodists are wrong. They can't even all agree that there is a hell, or if there is, who goes there. And that's the book some want to use for lawmaking. Even if every person in the US were a Christian, you'd still all never agree on what those laws should be, because you can't agree on some really basic things. And even if you did, the Constitution still holds the legal authority, not the bible.

"Wiccan,

There is no threat of eternal torture as discussed in the Bible. Not your fault, it's a common mistake people make."

Then maybe you ought to look to your own people that keep talking that, Wiccan and I are both Wiccans, but still seem to have to live in account of the 'eternal torture'-talking crowd.

Bethesda:
"But if I am right and the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then you have a serious problem."

And if we're both wrong and the Koran is the Word of God, then we BOTH have a serious problem.

What's your point?

"Where was the enlightenment in Rwanda?"

Not there. Philadelphia. In Rwanda they had post-colonialism, catholicism playing tribes off each other, and a very un-Enlightenment-defined *junta.*

"What about South Africans dealing with apartheid?"

What, that colonialist power founded by Boers who didn't like the ...Enlightenment

"Where is the enlightenment solutions to kiddie porn?"

Well, the data isn't really in on this, but as someone with some experience both in getting scammed on by clergy as a kid and confronting pedophiles as an adult, ...there's some indication that arresting kids' sexual development at young ages might result in control-based issues and fixations later in life.

" What is the response to the homeless and hungry?"

Promoting the general welfare?

" What about people addicted to crack or alcohol? "

I dunno, but there's big money in ineffectually enlisting them into calling themselves 'sinners.'

"Cannot the great myth of Enlightenment overcome the President? Say it ain't so!"

I'm curious how you derive this scenario.

The scenario where our Deist founding Fathers, who used the word Providence, not 'Biblical Literalism' to describe 'Whatever that is what grants us self-evident and inalienable human rights' ...did result in the America we were all taught to believe in going over and kicking the Nazi's butts, even if they ran on a 'family values' campaign and put all the queers they could in concentration camps.

Happen to know where that pink triangle symbol came from, Christian?

Wiccan,

There is no threat of eternal torture as discussed in the Bible. Not your fault, it's a common mistake people make.

Bethesda:

"Guess we will find out someday, won't we?"

What makes you think some of us *haven't?*

I mean, seriously, if I were to meet yer Jesus between lives I'd probably be like, 'Who's this twitch screaming at me next to you? Hi, Paul. Have a chill.'

Then again, when people say darkly, "What do you think St. Peter will say to *you* at the Gate?"

*picturing that belief system,*

I think he'd say,

"No jokes, this time, Irish!" :)

Seriously, though, I like to think I learned a thing or two from your book, but if you don't think he'd much like me, that's your problem.

Pagan,

What nation are you talking about? It's obvious that it's not this one.

Where was the enlightenment in Rwanda? What about South Africans dealing with apartheid? Where is the enlightenment solutions to kiddie porn? What is the response to the homeless and hungry? What about people addicted to crack or alcohol? Cannot the great myth of Enlightenment overcome the President? Say it ain't so!

"They are formulated on the basis of religious, legal, humanitarian, social, and scientific considerations."

I don't dispute this. However, as the government of the United States defines marriage, it is legally not allowed to take religious argument into account. Churches and independent groups of people may define it anyway they like, with or without God, Allah, the tooth fairy or what have you. No one is attempting to override that ability. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not force religions to recognize it. But the state has no place banning something for a reason that is inherently based in religious thinking.

Bethesda,
Are the Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, and the Guru Granth Sahib the word of God as well? They all say they are. You could make the same case for The Book of Mormon or Dianetics. They all claim some kind of divine inspiration, and all provide about the same level of evidence for their claims as the Bible.

Why do Christians (and to an increasing extent Muslims) automatically assume that their belief system (in its current state) sets the standard by which everything should be judged?

So say we all, Wiccan. :)

Bethesda-

I cannot worship a god who has to use the threat of eternal torture to command obedience and love. If you wish to picture the Divine as an abusive parent, you are free to do so. My Gods aren't that small.

Bethesda said:
"But if I am right and the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then you have a serious problem."

Some of you keep saying that. You're aware that the people you're saying it to are good people who just happen to believe differently. You actually believe God's going to do something terrible to us and your reaction to that is to worship him. And maybe love him, because he tells you you had damn well better love him. What a bully. Love me, fear me, obey me, or else!

But whatever...what does that have to do with laws governing marriage? If I'm going to hell, it still doesn't mean gays shouldn't have the legal right to marry. If you want the bible to have the last word on marriage, you should be trying to outlaw divorce and remarriage unless one's spouse cheats. Unless you're a woman and then you're sinning if you simply have the misfortune to have a husband choose to divorce you.

Do you think divorce should be illegal, except if one's spouse cheats? How about remarriage?

KR-

I'd put it on my little Cavalier, right next to "The Religious Right Isn't"

"Of course, secularists are not immune to this kind of behavior either. The "Enlightenment" certainly didn't help anyone in regards to concentration camps, civil rights, drug addication, Rwanda, Darfur, the Balkans, etc., etc."

Would you like to test that hypothesis in the alternate-universe wayback machine? :)

The Enlightenment *established* the notion of 'civil rights,' and made a nation that went and *stopped* the people claiming 'Divine Right' to declare a bunch of people (gays included, we forget) 'subhuman' and put them in concentration camps.

Sorry bout Darfur, seems someone decided God told him we should go elsewhere.

Quinn assumes that marriage is nothing more than a legal union between two loving people. If you believe that, then it's easy to conclude that anti-SSM views are a spiteful and arbitrary restriction of marriage to heterosexuals.

However, there are many who believe that marriage is more than a legal union between two loving people. For starters, there are those who think marriage is a religous and legal union among two or more people, who may or may not love each other in the romantic sense that she finds indispensible for marriage. This is along the lines of the polygamy practiced in many parts of the Muslim world.

Then, there are those who, from purely secular and naturalistic considerations, recognize that publicly sanctioned, long term, monogamous heterosexual unions resulting in offspring (i.e. marriage) are both distinct from and more foundational than other sexual pairings. These are sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists who see marriage as the most effective human reproductive strategy. (SSM advocates trivialize the fact that only heterosexual unions are fertile, but it's mighty important that the human race does a good job of replacing itself.)

And these are only two pro-traditional marriage views from among who knows how many. They start from vastly different premises. Both, however, conclude that marriage is a heterosexual union. Importantly, too, neither of these views are formulated with a eye toward excluding homosexual unions. They are formulated on the basis of religious, legal, humanitarian, social, and scientific considerations. Animus toward same sex unions, even when it exists among those who subscribe to traditional views of marriage, simply doesn't account for most traditional notions of marriage.

Your Constitution trumps my Bible?

Well, if you are right and the Bible is fairy tale, you'll be fine.

But if I am right and the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then you have a serious problem.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Guess we will find out someday, won't we?

Wiccan:

"...my Constitution trumps your Bible."

Is that a bumper sticker? If not, we need to make it one! I will definitely have to remember that line.

Anonymous,

I grew up in what I would consider a "typical" household (i.e., mom/dad, three brothers and a sister).

While growing up as a young man, I had numerous life experiences. Some of those were fun and easy, others painful and difficult. Who do you think I turned to 90% of the time when I wanted to share those experiences and gain some understanding? Exactly. My dad. Why? Because I flipped a coin? Of course not. Because my dad shared in a lot of those experiences himself as a young man. My mom didn't. Although she did a masterful job of empathizing with me, she truly couldn't understand what I was going through.

So please don't tell me that kids are not at a disadvantage, because they are. Sure they might be just as happy, they might be just as good in school, but they fall woefully short in those intangibles that can't be measured by some arbitrary survey.

To KJ:

::standing ovation::

very nice summary.

Let’s sum up some of these anti-gay arguments.

“It’s a choice, not an innate trait.” Those of you who believe that should try asking homosexual people about the choices they’ve made instead of telling them. It is arrogance in the extreme to infer you know more about people, whom you don’t know from Eve, than they know about themselves.

Also, if you think homosexuals choose their orientation, then it logically follows that you could make the same choice. Please do educate us by sharing the criteria you used to evaluate to which gender you would be romantically and physically attracted. Did you date members of the same sex? Did you enjoy sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex? Did you make lists of the positives and negatives of your options for sexual orientation?

Or did you, just like homosexual people, simply realize at some point in your life to whom you were attracted? The only choice homosexuals make is to accept their sexual orientation and to try and live a fulfilled life.

Besides all of that, our Constitution protects many choices we make – our religious choices, our choice of speech, our choices about what groups we affiliate with, et.al. The government should not discriminate against people who make unpopular choices. It is un-American and unconstitutional for it to do so.

“The Bible says it’s a sin.” Y’all just love to pick this one “sin” and beat people to death with it, don’t you? And you overlook the explicit prohibitions in the Bible that you find inconvenient. That’s hypocrisy at its worst, IMO.

I don’t believe in your Bible as the literal word of God. Why should I be forced to live under laws enacted by my government because it is your religious choice? How about if I insist that the government enact Islamic law and force everyone to live by its tenets? How about Rastafarianism? How about any Asian or Eastern religious law? How about Wicca? Paganism? Druidism?

You simply cannot use the government to force people who disagree with your religious dogma to conform to it. That is called a theocracy, and if that’s what you want I suggest you find yourselves an island somewhere and create your own country and government.

“The parts don’t fit. It’s icky. It’s sick.” There is not even one intimate practice of homosexual persons that isn’t practiced by heterosexual persons, and in greater numbers. Your only valid concern about the intimate practices of consenting adults is what happens between you and your partner. What other people like, or do, in the privacy of their homes is none of your business.

Your squeamishness about other peoples’ sex lives is not a valid basis to deny them equal protection of the laws or the right to due process of the law. Live with it.

“It’s unnatural.” Homosexuality is found in many species on this planet. It is found in nature, therefore, it is inherently natural. There is no logical or rational basis to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

“It’s harmful to children.” Again, the data show that children raised in same-sex households are as healthy and well rounded as children raised in opposite-sex households.

“I disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle.” First, there is no “homosexual lifestyle.” That is a phrase invented by bigots to negatively stereotype homosexual people. The lifestyles of homosexual people are as varied as the lifestyles of heterosexual people, and are more alike heterosexuals than they are different.

Second, there are many aspects of some heterosexual lifestyles that people find disturbing, but I don’t hear you calling for them to be excluded from civil marriage.

“Marriage is a religious institution.” Oh, really? Then please do explain why atheists and agnostics are not excluded from civil marriage. Where is the hue and cry about atheists degrading traditional marriage?

The fact is that there is not one logical argument to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. Many of these same arguments were made to exclude racially mixed couples from civil marriage. We now understand the ugliness, the outright bigotry of that exclusion and we condemn it, as we should.

No one should use their personal discomfort with any group of people to deprive those people of their basic civil and human rights. My moral code tells me that is wrong, it is evil, it is immoral. When same-sex couples are excluded from civil marriage their families are harmed, and there is simply no reason to allow that harm to continue.

Bethesda:

"Wiccan: I'd reverse the question. Find a scientific study, not conducted by a gay scientist or someone who is funded by a gay organization or has an axe to grind, that demonstrates a genetic source of homosexual behavior."

Bethesda, back atcha. Show me which peer-reviewed scientific studies were commisioned by or conducted by gay scientitsts. I'll agree to disregard those particular studies.

"The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a spiritual issue -- that it is one of the end results of "suppressing the truth about God." See Romans 1. I believe that. You probably don't."

Damn right I don't. My faith tradition states that "All acts of love and pleasure are my rites". When my little grandniece crawls into my lap and falls asleep in my arms, that is an act of love and pleasure. When two lovers make love, that is an act of love and pleasure. The genders of each participant in either act doesn't make a bit of difference. It is the love expressed in these acts that pleases the Lady. BUT- and this is a huge "but", nothing in these acts precludes any of us from being a full-fledged citizen of these United States.

Once again, my Constitution trumps your Bible.

"We don't have that here. As far as the "homosexual" gene is concerned, you just won't find it. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute."

There's no conclusive evidence either way. You can't prove that it IS genetic, but you also can't prove that it's NOT.

As to "you just won't find it", you cannot conclusively say that. We HAVEN'T found it, but that doesn't mean we WON'T.

Pagan,

I would agree with you completely that the past couple of centuries have led Christians down the wrong path when it comes to earthly stewardship. That's not going to change overnight, but i'm hopeful all Christians will get there eventually.

Of course, secularists are not immune to this kind of behavior either. The "Enlightenment" certainly didn't help anyone in regards to concentration camps, civil rights, drug addication, Rwanda, Darfur, the Balkans, etc., etc.

From the American Psychological Society (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html):

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

They list the studies referred to in the rest of the article. Last night, I also linked to the US government's child welfare page, which lists several studies and concludes that the consensus is that children raised by same-sex parents don't turn out any different from those raised by same-sex parents. There are those who will disregard every study, every fact but how can they disregard the living, breathing children of same-sex parents, including FT, who posted about his two dads (who must be very proud)? These kids (some grown with kids of their own) are proving the studies are right.

Try posting with a screen name, for starters.

The first is a 1993 study. It's 15 years old. That's like the stone age in genetic research. Fred Flinstone could have authored it. Besides, from the abstract, its not exactly a slam dunk, is it?

The second is not a genetic study but a demographic study.

Keep trying.

All I can think right now is how long conservative Christians have been claiming or implying it's 'gay' to pay attention to climate science.

Don't blame *me* for all that.

Or 'God,' for that matter.

Appears She made a few people just like me, and I didn't just start talking lately.

The question should not be to "find a scientific study" (for each side) from a neutral third party. Big deal. That proves absolutely nothing.

If I asked everyone to find a scientific study proving or disproving global warming, we'd have hundreds of studies within the hour.

The proof is finding "conclusive" evidence from "most" documented findings that seem to agree one way or the other.

We don't have that here. As far as the "homosexual" gene is concerned, you just won't find it. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Bethesda:

I'd reverse the question. Find a scientific study, not conducted by a gay scientist or someone who is funded by a gay organization or has an axe to grind, that demonstrates a genetic source of homosexual behavior.

Well, since you asked.

This one was funded by the NIH, and published in Science Magazine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?dopt=Abstract

Here's one from Brock University in Canada, that was published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/28/10771

(Both peer reviewed, by the way)

Shall I keep looking?

KR:

Anyone who works with scientists knows that science rarely comes up with unequivocal answers. We can't even predict the weather accurately much of the time, much less understand the intricacies of human genetics as it relates to sexuality. I've seen news reports of studies that claim a genetic basis for homosexuality. The media tends to give these lots of ink. When you get into the details, you discover the scientist is a homosexual or working for a homosexual organization.

And I agree, I'd question a scientific report published by Focus on the Family.

Awfully convenient, Bethesda, if you call peer-reviewed scientific studies, as opposed to religious-based or misconstrued ones that don't meet scientific muster, 'irrelevant' because you can Biblically call gays 'liars' and accuse any science you don't like, however well-documented, as part of 'Those people Paul warned us about,'.

"Find a scientific study, not conducted by a gay scientist or someone who is funded by a gay organization or has an axe to grind, that demonstrates a genetic source of homosexual behavior."

There's a difference between 'innate' and 'genetic.' You seem to demonstrate a misapprehension that 'genetic' means 'Mendelian,' as in, ...middle-school level at best.

Natural doesn't mean there is 'a' 'gay gene.'

*I* think the facts are consistent with an idea that sexual diversity is innate to *all* of us, ie, the systems that make all of us can respond in different ways to different conditions.

Ie, if there's a 'gay gene' it's in us all having the potential to produce offspring of any number of orientations.

It doesn't take that big a tweak to make gay mice in a laboratory, either. Gayness didn't just 'appear' in the genome when someone stuck the right hormones in utero.

It's everywhere. *making spooky sounds...* :)

We're not hybrid plants in Brother Mendel's greenhouse, Bethesda. Our endocrine systems and brain architecture are *very* complex.

Oversimplifying to 'debunk' science isn't science. It's treating science as some rival religion and cherry-picking 'scripture.'

Bethesda:
"I'd reverse the question. Find a scientific study, not conducted by a gay scientist or someone who is funded by a gay organization or has an axe to grind, that demonstrates a genetic source of homosexual behavior."

Wow, I've never seen a search function that allows you to search for scientific studies by the sexual orientation of the scientists running them! Where can I do that? Cool!

Additionally, if the scientist can't be gay, because according to your assessment, all gay scientists must have an axe to grind, or be incapable of acting professionally and putting bias to the side, then I would say we would also have to exclude any Christian scientists, or scientists of any religion that condemns homosexuality. I assume the same search that screens gay scientists will let me screen by religious affiliation?

"==But simple scientific logic precludes the existence of exclusive homosexuality as a genetically determined natural trait.=="

Too simple, not logical. Forget about scientific observation, there.

Below there's some stuff I wrote to someone who claims to disbelieve in evolution, claiming their simplistic idea of evolution somehow disproved the actual existence of gay people.

The gist of it is that individual competetive breeding is not humanity's evolutionary advantage.

We're essentially cooperative, social, hunter-scavenger-gatherers who do *not* all breed constantly and in an individualistic 'nuclear family' modality, or... we'd be dead.

Even straight sexuality is astoundingly inefficient compared to simply going into heat and rutting. There's a reason for this. Extensive and manifold social bonding creates and preserves the interdependent social groups in which our intelligence thrives.

That intelligence 'takes a village' ...not justcompetetive breeding pairs and aggresive, dominating alpha males all in it 'for themselves.'

Without non-breeding individuals, and bonding activity between them, we naked apes would have been up the evolutionary creek without a paddle.

LDS Mark: Try Hebrews 4:12 among other verses. Try reading the Bible sometime. Then you will know what it says or doesn't say.

Wiccan: I'd reverse the question. Find a scientific study, not conducted by a gay scientist or someone who is funded by a gay organization or has an axe to grind, that demonstrates a genetic source of homosexual behavior.

The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a spiritual issue -- that it is one of the end results of "suppressing the truth about God." See Romans 1. I believe that. You probably don't.

Perhaps one way you can judge the truth of this is by the fruit. Homosexuality is a destructive life choice in just about every way -- physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It doesn't matter how much you cry "gay pride," it's just a form of denial of what every homosexual knows to be true in their hearts. They are not living their lives as God intended.

Regarding religion, no one is asking the state to endorse a particular religion. In fact, that would be unconstitutional. Homosexuals are seeking to require the state to endorse their perverse and destructive sexual practices. No one is arguing that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to do what they want in their bedrooms or even have civil unions. It's the endorsement of "marriage" they are seeking.

Finally, regarding civility, I for one have not personally attacked anyone in this dialogue. The name-calling and bigotry is almost exclusively on the side of those who are arguing in favor of homosexual marriage.

==FH:
"FH -- That's an easy one. Gay people have children, and those children have just as much right to the stability of married parents. Hit it out of the park! Now wake up to the real world."
First of all...the vast majority of gay people with children brought those children from straight relationships. They just felt like being gay this year.

Second, I assume from your answer that you believe that allowing same-sex unions will promote, not detract from children being raised in stable homes. After all, when you offer a benefit...you are effectively promoting the behavior. You're serious...the two non-fitting parts...children??? And you are welcoming me to the "real world."

The fact is, this is another attempt by the far-left in this country to degrade the value of marriage, which I think is a mistake. It in no way will make marriage a stronger institution, it simply dilutes its value. All current research indicates that children are far more healthy emotionally when raised with parents of both genders. We as a society need to wake-up and decide what's best for our kids...but in the era of me, me, me...we're probably going to put another nail in the coffin of traditional marriage.==

If your marriage is so fragile it will be degraded by two loving people of the same sex being married, you need to do some serious work on it, pal.

The fact is that same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect whatsoever on “traditional” marriage. To claim that is does is disingenuous at best.

There is no attempt by the “far-left” or anyone else to degrade the value of marriage. The very fact that same-sex couples wish to be included in legal civil marriage indicates how deeply it is valued.

Also, just to clarify for your voyeuristic little mind, the parts fit just fine, thank you.

Your antipathy toward God’s gay children notwithstanding, there is absolutely no evidence that children raised in a same-sex household are harmed at all.

Find another way to justify your bigotry.

== Ben in Chanitlly:
Well,
It is pretty clear that some folks do not like having their beliefs challenged.==

Pot, meet kettle!

==But you cannot simultaneously argue that homosexuality is a caused, trait, in which a person has no choice, and argue that it is not a variation from the basic direction of human evolution.==

One most certainly can make that argument. There is absolutely no reason to believe there is no sound scientific or evolutionary value for homosexuality in human beings. You might wish it were so, and you might fervently believe it to be so, but “just because I say so” is not a valid argument.

==But simple scientific logic precludes the existence of exclusive homosexuality as a genetically determined natural trait.==

No, Ben, that is just your way of saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You couldn’t be more wrong. Homosexuality is found in nature and is, therefore, inherently natural.

==But it simply is not scientifically equateable to race or gender. it can only be equated to a disorder or condition, but talking about it as such get's one called a bigot.==

Again you state your opinion as fact. The truth is that sexual orientation can be equated to race an gender insofar as sexual orientation is not a choice. It’s just a regularly occuring variation of normal human sexuality.

Your argument boils down to your trying to obfuscate your belief that homosexual people are sick, icky and bad. You can try to wrap that in as many nice, scientific-sounding words as you wish, but that is the gist of your opinion.

==But those who identify as gay reject the idea that there can be anything "wrong" with them, and so any suggestion that the cause of their gayness is anything other than what nature intended must be wrong.==

That’s because homosexuality in and of itself is not a defect, Ben. There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual people. The fact that you keep insisting that there is something wrong just repeatedly exposes your odious bigotry.

One can try to cover one’s bigotry and prejudice with “scientific” or “logical” explanations, but, when exposed for what it is the only explanation is that a bigot’s very soul is decayed.

I really feel sorry for your sister and your alleged gay friends.
 

I don't know if you'd care to summarize, Oscar? My machine is just gagging on Adobe atm.

LDS Mark said

"If Jesus is the word of God, then so is the bible, for everything in the bible came from God through Jesus. That includes the old and new testament."

But isn't this just non-sense? It doens't mean anything; it doesn't prove anything; it doesn't advance any thought; it is just babble.

The point, same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal.

Like it or not, that is how it is.

Gay people exist among us in the world, and contribute greatly to it. They are not just "nothing;" they are not "God's mistakes;" they are not going away; they are not going back into the closet.

Now they want ALL their rights; there is nothing complicated about it; it is happening, and it is going to happen.

What part of that don't you understand, LDS Mark?

To those interested in secular legal arguments against viewing same sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, I commend to you the written dissent to the recent California Supreme Court decision which can be found here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

To find the dissenting arguments you will need to scroll to the end of the decision after the majority opinion.

*facepalming at LDS Mark.*

People claim the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so, even if that's not true inasmuch as that's not even really said in there.

It goes beyond circular into loop-de-loops to claim that that book says Jesus says he's 'Logos' and then to say that must mean the book presumed to be the Word is the Word of God cause you can say it *is* Jesus....

In any event, it's no basis for a system of government. :)

Garoth
You said:
“…a number of people keep insisting that the Bible is the "Word of God." It is not, and nowhere in the Bible does it insist that it is. It says that Jesus is the "Word of God," (logos)which is more to the point”

Your statement is self-contradicting.

If Jesus is the word of God, then so is the bible, for everything in the bible came from God through Jesus. That includes the old and new testament.

You should read it some time.

mark

Derivation of the word "Bigot:"

Someone who hurts and dominates others, using the justification, "Bi Gott."

By God.

A couple of notes:

First, a number of people keep insisting that the Bible is the "Word of God." It is not, and nowhere in the Bible does it insist that it is. It says that Jesus is the "Word of God," (logos)which is more to the point, and fits in with my point #2: the when the New Testament says that he is the "fulfillment of the law," it means the same thing Paul says when he says that he is the end of the law, that is, that now relationships with God will be defined by him, rather than by the keeping of the Torah. Jesus, by the way, was not an observant Jew, at least as far as the most observant Jews of his time (Pharisee party) were concerned. He reinterpreted the Torah in a very radical way, one which pointed it toward mercy, love and justice.

Another blogger says that the country was founded on God. In a very broad sense, that might be said to be true, but most people now realize that the country's founders were not Christians, but Deists and/or Rationalists. Their idea of God was not a Christian one, but more philosophical.

Again, so that this blog doesn't get too long, just one more note. The Constitution guarantees majority rule, but also balances that with the rights of the minority. Generally, it is more interested in making sure that the rights of the minority are not trampled, than in granting the will of the majority. That is one of the main principles behind the Bill of Rights.

mmcg1:

OK Kr; now you are saying I’m not a bigot because I disagree with “us”, whoever us is, but I’m a bigot because I discriminate against gay people. Your retorts get more confusing each time you respond. So how do I discriminate against gays? Can’t wait to hear this one. BTW, I was trying to give you an analogy (meaning parallel) by asking you if I were a sexist because I won’t vote for klinton. Do you understand the parallel, or should I draw a picture for you?

"Us" is the multiple people on this board with whom you disagree.

I don't understand why you are so easily confused. You don't believe that gay people should have the right to get married, therefore you are denying equal rights to a group of citizens because you are intolerant of their sexual orientation. Merriam Webster describes a bigot as "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". Therefore you are a bigot.

Should I draw a picture for you?

Bethesda:

"Sorry, the popular myth that homosexuality is something one is born with rather than a choice is foolishness."

Would you care to back that up with something other than your say-so? Any peer-reviewed scientific studies? Anything close to a peer-reviewed scientific studies?

"However, there is quite a difference between race or gender -- which are physical traits -- and behavior. One does not get constitutional protection simply because one chooses to engage in homosexual behavior."

How about religion, then?

That's not a physical trait. Shall we do away with freedom of religion?

How about outlawing ethnic discrimination? Ethnicity isn't strictly a physical trait...

What if you had a kid everyone *thought* was gay, from their mannerisms, or their voice... Those are physical traits, Is it OK for them to be discriminated against? After all, people think they can identify gay people and act accordingly, all the time.

Kind of like the comedian says,

"When did you first suspect you were gay?"

"When all those people were punching me in the face and saying, "You're gay."" :)

KR:
mmcg1:
"Bigotry? I disagree with your opinion, so I’m a bigot? I noticed you tried to generalize the “fundamental values of the United States” by insinuating that if people don’t have the same opinion as you, then they are bigots and don’t follow the “fundamental values of the United States”. Your argument is so opposite of what the constitution of the United States guarantee’s it’s citizens that if I were you, and thank God I’m not, I would question your IQ level. BTW, I’m not voting for hillary klinton, does that make me a sexist? Using your logic it sure would."
No, you're not a bigot because you disagree with us, you're a bigot because you discriminate against gay people. And I'm not voting for Hillary either, but I don't really know what that has to do with anything.

OK Kr; now you are saying I’m not a bigot because I disagree with “us”, whoever us is, but I’m a bigot because I discriminate against gay people. Your retorts get more confusing each time you respond. So how do I discriminate against gays? Can’t wait to hear this one. BTW, I was trying to give you an analogy (meaning parallel) by asking you if I were a sexist because I won’t vote for klinton. Do you understand the parallel, or should I draw a picture for you?

Ben in Chantilly cut directly to the heart of the anti-gay marraige/anti-gay argument: "I also happen to believe, based on a great many conversations, that some (but by no means all or even a majority) gay men self identify as gay because of reasons having nothing to do with true sexual identity. many, I believe, self identify as gay in order to "fit in" with a crowd that tells them that if they have such interests, they must be gay and if they don't "come out" then they are ostracized for not being "true to themselves", and of course they have no where to turn since the straight male community treats them like "homos" for wanting to do whatever it is they love."

Thank you, Ben. Ben, like so many others arguing against the marriage portion of the 'gay agenda', believes the gays (myself, et al) to harbor a much more sinister agenda than boring little marriage with its divorces and joint checking accounts and tax returns implies. There are people, apparently in Chantilly, who believe that some straight men are so very effeminate that they are ostracized by the straight-male community and forced further into the 'gay' arena to work as hairdressers. Once there, these straight effeminate males are then taunted so badly that they are forced to falsely claim themselves to be gay in order to be accepted by the gays around them they seem to emulate. Hahahahaha. Where is this place? How do I get there from DC? Chantilly? What the hell is a Chantilly anyway?

Well, I guess the best hope for slightly effeminate straight males in Chantilly is to move. Run away from the gay-hating mobs of hyper-masculine straights and the curling iron wielding gaggles of gays forcefully gaying you up. Come to the city. Not you Ben, you stay in Chantilly. Come to the city and you'll see that gays, after years of taunting and discrimintion, are some of the most open and accepting people you'll meet. We love our straight friends and they love their gay friends.

*note: there are no gay mobs with an agenda to turn straights gay. and ben, please have a conversation with someone other than the poor kid you bullied in high school.

Bethesda:

"However, there is quite a difference between race or gender -- which are physical traits -- and behavior. One does not get constitutional protection simply because one chooses to engage in homosexual behavior.

Sorry, the popular myth that homosexuality is something one is born with rather than a choice is foolishness."

See, you're mixing things up here though. You're defining homosexuality as just a behavior. It's not, it's an identity. If you chose not to be sexually active, you would still be straight, a gay man is still gay even if he never has sex with another man. So in discriminating against gays, you are not discriminating against a chosen behavior, you're discriminating against WHO THEY ARE. Which IS the same as discrimination on the basis of race or gender.

And I don't understand how you can be so sure it's a choice, when you've obviously never been in that position. Did you CHOOSE to be straight? Didn't think so.

Sexual orientation happens

When you focus on another person, that person becomes impressed upon your mind. This impression forms images and feelings about that person. People of one sex impress sexual feelings upon the mind. People of the other sex do not. This is sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation happens. It is an impression on the mind as much as the impression of a Spring morning or the impression of a band playing. It is the flow of sensory impressions as the flow of hot water or the flow of cold water on your skin, on your body while taking a shower. Sexual orientation is an impression on the mind, as the smell of coffee, or the taste of brownies, or the purr of a soft kitten.

How these impressions form images in our minds is an autonomic process beyond conscious control, but is a part of the mental apparatus which exists inside each one of us. When your impressions of sexual feeling come from someone of the opposite sex, you are said to be heterosexual. But when these impressions come from someone of the same sex, then you are said to be homosexual.

Under this conception of sexual orientation, it does not matter whether it is genetic or acquired, but only that it is an unconscious mental process. It does not matter whether you have been promiscuous or a virgin or what sex acts you may have already experienced, only the impression of another human being on your mind matters. It doesn’t matter how much testosterone or estrogen may flow through your body, nor whether your physical mannerisms are more feminine or masculine in character, only the impression of another person on the mind matters.

For sexual orientation happens, as vision happens, as hearing happens. Sexual orientation happens, as the beating of the heart happens, as the breath of the lungs happens, as consciousness happens.

mmcg1:

"Bigotry? I disagree with your opinion, so I’m a bigot? I noticed you tried to generalize the “fundamental values of the United States” by insinuating that if people don’t have the same opinion as you, then they are bigots and don’t follow the “fundamental values of the United States”. Your argument is so opposite of what the constitution of the United States guarantee’s it’s citizens that if I were you, and thank God I’m not, I would question your IQ level. BTW, I’m not voting for hillary klinton, does that make me a sexist? Using your logic it sure would."

No, you're not a bigot because you disagree with us, you're a bigot because you discriminate against gay people. And I'm not voting for Hillary either, but I don't really know what that has to do with anything.

Bethesda:

"There is no way that evolution -- if you belive in evolution -- would produce beings that engage in non-reproductive behavior that their bodies are completely ill-equipped to engage in. Even if it could, the gene that produced it would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool by lack of reproduction."

If you accept evolution and/or believe in Creationism, the fact that gay people exist, across culture and time and even religious belief or *personal wishes to the contrary,* then that means there *must* be purpose.

You don't have to look far for that, actually.

We are not these simplistic competetive breeders that simplistic readings of either science or religion may be constructed to claim.

We're cooperative social animals, and through our evolutionary history have required close communal bonds in *small groups, not all of whom are breeding* in order to support the survival of the group.

Homosexuality being innate to an individual does not mean that it is a single gene: more likely we *all* share the genes that will produce a certain number of LBGT folks when conditions arise.

It's too complex to 'breed out' of an individual, even if you wanted to, and in our evolution, or how we're made, there are plenty of purposes it can serve. If everyone were focused on breeding and competing for heterosexual mates, there would be more conflict and division, and less concern for the group as a whole: I find it's an intriguingly-common attitude among straights that if they don't personally breed, there will be no more babies.

Maybe Nature provides among us some who see things differently, and create bonds and comforts *between* those who breed. Maybe the fact that we don't go into heat and rut, but rather have a sexuality which is almost *always on but rarely procreative* ....one which involves extensive bonding activity and social engagement *does* serve important purposes for social primates such as ourselves.

A purpose which some ideologies *love* to subvert into aggression and obedience, but exists, nonetheless.

Diversity is *good.* It's *strength.* We aren't *made* to have as many puppies as possible and try and croak everyone else's. We're social.

And a gay sibling who's sharing, rather than competing for, resources, is a *big* survival advantage. We share most of our genes with our siblings.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality - http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

I actually have two dads and am deeply offended by anyone who tries to tell me there is something wrong with that. I am very close with them and was raised in an extremely supportive enviroment. This is what counts. I am so relieved I was lucky enough to be in this situation than to be raised by close-minded judgemental people who put all there faith in a book and not in their fellow mankind.

I actually have two dads and am deeply offended by anyone who tries to tell me there is something wrong with that. I am very close with them and was raised in an extremely supportive enviroment. This is what counts. I am so relieved I was lucky enough to be in this situation than to be raised by close-minded judgemental people who put all there faith in a book and not in their fellow mankind.

Anonymous:

No one would argue that there are cases where courts have had to step into to protect the constitutional rights of individuals against laws that would violate them. Clearly, discrimination on the basis of race is one area where courts have contributed to our society.

However, there is quite a difference between race or gender -- which are physical traits -- and behavior. One does not get constitutional protection simply because one chooses to engage in homosexual behavior.

Sorry, the popular myth that homosexuality is something one is born with rather than a choice is foolishness.

There is no way that evolution -- if you belive in evolution -- would produce beings that engage in non-reproductive behavior that their bodies are completely ill-equipped to engage in. Even if it could, the gene that produced it would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool by lack of reproduction.

Homosexuals may feel strongly that they were born as homosexuals, but that is a delusion. In their heart of hearts, they know that what they are doing is contrary to both the laws of nature and of God. That is why there is so much self-loathing among homosexuals.

"candide:
Having marriage only between one woman and one man in no way violates the rights of gays/lesbians. They can have civil unions which gives them every bit as many rights as married people"

You can make this argument when it is the case. Certainly, if there were nationally-guaranteed civil unions with full faith and credit and total legal equality (harder to manage than you'd expect: many laws and company policies which fall under such regulations refer to 'marriage,' after all. In the case of the private sector, claiming that word for straights alone might conceivably take a lawsuit for every company that would rather not provide equal benefits.)

"without overturning the wisdom of the race. We need all the wisdom we can get."

Well, I don't know what 'race' you're talking about, but there was some wisdom in setting up our country based on the principles of equal rights for *all,* even minorities, even if, as in the case of actual races and ethnic groups, it's taken some time and a lot of struggle to really start living up to it.

Bethesda:

"It takes activist judges like the one in California to create new "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise the American people."

Bethesda, please. If the judges' decision goes against your side, then it's judicial activism. If the decision go along with your side, then they've rendered a just and proper decision. (You do know that the judges who rendered this verdict were Republican appointees, don't you? You'd think they would get it right, wouldn't you?)

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not. Either all Americans are equal in the eyes of the law, or they are not. If you claim any right as an American, you have de jure and de facto granted that same right to each and every American. Or should we say that some Americans are more equal than others, and just repeal the Fourteenth Amendment?

KUATO;
MMCG1:
I think your bigotry is disgusting. Do you think I should pursue efforts to limit your constitutional protections? You might be singing an entirely different tune if there was an IQ requirement that blocked you from marriage.
Shame on you for elevating your own prejudices above the fundamental values of the United States.

Bigotry? I disagree with your opinion, so I’m a bigot? I noticed you tried to generalize the “fundamental values of the United States” by insinuating that if people don’t have the same opinion as you, then they are bigots and don’t follow the “fundamental values of the United States”. Your argument is so opposite of what the constitution of the United States guarantee’s it’s citizens that if I were you, and thank God I’m not, I would question your IQ level. BTW, I’m not voting for hillary klinton, does that make me a sexist? Using your logic it sure would.

tim:

KR-

"Melissa Etheridge told her children who their father was after they rejected the 2 mommies story. They knew (at a very young age) there was a father and they questioned her. As a loving parent- she told them they were right and introduced them to their dad (something that was NOT the original plan when he donated sperm).

What is significant is that (like so many other little kids) they didn't buy into the 2 mommies story. It wasn't right. They sought to know the truth. And Melissa and her partner at that time Julie (the kids mom) were loving enough say OK here's the truth- this man is your dad. This is exceptional because many parents would have simply blown it off and screwed up their kids.

Melissa has been so honest about her own sexual history (she was molested by her sister, Jennifer, over five years as a child). And she has shown she loves her kids."

Dude, you must have misread my post. I'm totally on your side. I think Melissa's done right by herself, her kids and her family. More power to her.

Fh wrote:
"Pam, love the way you insult my intelligence (definition of a theory) and then question my sexuality in your post. You are an elitist lib...just curious how twins could in one instance both be gay, and in another have one gay, and one straight...all in the same environment??? Just a thought."

I don't have to insult your intelligence, you do a good enough job of showing how little you have.

BTW, I don't find either "elite" or "liberal" to be perjorative words - you'll have to try harder.

Each twin is a self-contained body with its own hormonal environment. Did you think I was speaking of the uterus? The fetus is separated from that by the amniotic sac, you know.

What used to be thought of as "junk" DNA is now known to affect the timing of the actions of other genes, and timing can make *all* the difference. Look up "neoteny" for an example. Humans are basically neotenized apes. Domestic dogs are neotenized wolves.

FH also wrote:
"Sorry you have to be in a world with the little people...it must be hard for you...sigh."

Yes, sometimes. Often saddening, sometimes frightening when I consider the prospects of the human race. Mostly after watching "Jaywalking" or reading some of the posts in this forum. People have such a determination to cling to benighted ideas.

one of the issues i see is the placement or morality within the christian context, as if christianity itself is the well spring of our sense of morality, our sense of "right" and "wrong", and what is "just". But these notions existed long before Christianity existed. The problem as I see it, is with viewing moral issues through any religious context - it doesn't really matter if its Christianity, Muslem or any other religion. The religious baggage in each case is too crushing and tends to muddy the issues that really require clairity of thought. So if you stop trying to rationalize the morality of homosexuality within the Chrisitian context you'll stop running into the inevidiable contradictions. After all, Christianity is not based rationality, it's based in belief. Trying to reconcile the two is too problematic - like trying to reconcile fairy tales with reality. Remove the religious context, and the resolution to this issue is clear and as it should be.

Bethesda:

"It takes activist judges like the one in California to create new "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise the American people."

Like the activist judges who legalized interracial marriage? Or the activist judges who made schools desegregate? I suppose you think that those rights should be revoked, as well? I mean, at the time, the decisions were not supported by a majority of Americans.

MMCG1:

I think your bigotry is disgusting. Do you think I should pursue efforts to limit your constitutional protections? You might be singing an entirely different tune if there was an IQ requirement that blocked you from marriage.

Shame on you for elevating your own prejudices above the fundamental values of the United States.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:

Anonymous

You said:

"But why keep messing with the sanctity of Matrimony."

Since you brought it up, what do you mean by the sanctity of matrimony?

John McCain is the Republican candidate for President. He is the candidate representing the conservative view point Bla bla bla bla....””””
______________________________________

Really is that all you've got. I never said marriage was perfect but it should be between a MAN and a Woman the rest are circumstances you cannot control people’s wrong doings.
To make my point, McCain re-married a WOMAN; the guy is not a Saint or the best example for a good husband or a good man, but as long as he keeps re-marrying females, he is inside the guidelines... Marriage is Between a MAN and A Woman, not with same gender or with two or three of opposite sex, or between siblings or with a dog or your cat. A MAN and A WOMAN.
Opposites attract. This law actually confirms the basic principles of the Law of Attraction.

Darian- Homosexuals will always be in the minority. They must shelter under another's kindness and protection. I can't believe the twisted thinking I'm reading on these boards by people who ought to know there is a real threat to open gays on this planet right now working to end their lives. What is up?

"Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries. Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen. It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria and the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines, or corporal punishment. In Egypt, openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality laws. On the other hand, homosexuality, while not legal, is tolerated to some extent in Lebanon, which has a significantly large Christian minority, and has been legal in Turkey for decades. In Saudi Arabia, the maximum punishment for homosexuality is public execution, but the government will use other punishments—e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping—as alternatives, unless it feels that homosexuals are challenging state authority. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts. In Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, homosexuality went from a capital crime to one that it punished with fines and prison sentence."

MMCG1 said: "Trust me, these kids don’t stand a chance of growing up normal and having a happy childhood. This is the problem that homosexual parents don’t understand. The kids will grow up confused and angry because they didn’t have a solid family structure."
Trust you? Rather than study upon study proving you wrong? Rather than my own eyes and ears, which see many children of all ages who have same-sex parents? Rather than the millions (yes, millions) of kids who were and are being raised by same-sex parents who turn out just fine?

Why not get to know these kids, who love their parents and want them to be allowed to marry instead of speaking (falsely) for them!

You're hurting the children of same-sex parents, not their parents.

candide:
Having marriage only between one woman and one man in no way violates the rights of gays/lesbians. They can have civil unions which gives them every bit as many rights as married people without overturning the wisdom of the race. We need all the wisdom we can get.

----------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but the word "marriage" has legal as well as socio/religious meaning, and a civil union does NOT give all the same rights as legal marriage.
And exactly what "wisdom of the race" is overturned by allowing a same-sex couple to have the same legal status as a hetero couple?

FH wrote:
"From the dictionary:

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."

And this differs from my explanation exactly how?

Anonymous said: "Sure, everyone has a right to think what they want. It is free will. If you are right, and the Bible is a lie, then you don't lose anything, and neither do I. But if I am right, I still don't lose anything, and you, well..."

Well, what? Don't be coy. Come right out and tell me what the god you worship is going to do to people like me. I don't believe in god. I tried, but my experiences and education led me to a place of unbelief. I am a good person. Lots of people who don't believe in your god are. The majority of the US might be Christian (though the numbers are declining) but most of the world isn't. What happens to the majority of us?

And what has that to do with the laws of this land? Why should any law regarding marriage come from the bible. And if one should, why not all? Your god doesn't want you to divorce or remarry unless your spouse cheated on you. If no one cheated, it's adultery (a commandment-worthy sin). If a woman doesn't want to be divorced and her husband divorces her, she's an adulterer and so is anyone who marries her. If a woman's husband beats her and her kids, but stays faithful, and she divorces him, she's committed adultery. That's the bible talking, not me. So why are the anti-gay marriage people ok with divorce and remarriage (except with infidelity) being legal?

You talk about free will. So let same-sex couples marry. It doesn't hurt anyone, and if you think they'll get the same "well..." I will, let them. It's free will, after all.

Wiccan:

Please. There is absolutely no possibility that the writers of the 14th amendment nor the state legislatures that approved it believed that they were protecting the right of men to marry men or women to marry women.

It takes activist judges like the one in California to create new "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise the American people.

Michelle:
God is a loving God. He has given commandments to his children because he loves us and knows what will make us truly happy. We don't get to decide which commandments we agree with and which ones we don't. It is audacious to imagine that we know more than God. He has said that all sexual relations outside of marriage are sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what God has ordained. The argument that you can't imagaine a loving God that would find anything wrong with homosexual marriage so it must be okay is not even a logical argument. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. The bible is the word of God. You can't just discard the parts you don't like. God doesn't change with the flow of popular opinion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all "sins" are crimes, nor are they grounds for denying people the right to legally marry.

The Bible says that drunkenness is a sin, but it is not a crime to get drunk. People can get married while drunk - happens every day in Vegas.

The Bible says that divorce is a sin, but it is not a crime to divorce one's spouse,even if the spouse does not wish to be divorced. And divorced people can legally marry.

The Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but it is not a crime for consenting adults to have sex, regardless of their marital status. And non-virgins can legally marry.

Sex outside of marriage, gay/lesbian sex, and even group sex are not sins according to MY religion. So why should secular law that applies to EVERYONE be written according to YOUR religion's definition of "sin?"

ANONYMOUS:
"The kids are still being raised and loved by two women."
Well actually their mother is now married to a man and Melissa is in relationship with another woman and their dad and his wife also see them. So these chidren have lots of parental influence.
--------------------------------------------

Trust me, these kids don’t stand a chance of growing up normal and having a happy childhood. This is the problem that homosexual parents don’t understand. The kids will grow up confused and angry because they didn’t have a solid family structure.

Wiccan:

Please. There is absolutely no possibility that the writers of the 14th amendment nor the state legislatures that approved it believed that they were protecting the right of men to marry men or women to marry men.

It takes activist judges like the one in California to create new "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise the American people.

The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong but more and more of the Nation is saying it is right.
This Nation was founded on God, and that is why it has been blessed. Why do nonbelievers want to remove God from this Nation? Why are they so offended by something they don't even believe in? Just as you all claim to exercise your Nation-Given right of freedom of expression, of being who you think you are, and of speech, I exercise my right of freedom of religion. I am a Christian who is tired of being ridiculed by the nonbeliever. I am proud of my faith, and feel sorry for those who enjoy ridiculing me. If I were Buddhist or Muslim or a Witch I would be more welcome. What is it that is so unsettling in the guts of the nonbeliever about Jesus and God? Why is it so uncomfortable? It's really quite simple. No one likes hearing that what they are doing is wrong.

We all have to die with the decisions that we make. Anything can be justified to a person who is not religious. Without religion there are no moral expectations. Without God we don't have to feel guilt. The Ten Commandments clearly define what is wrong. The legal system does not, and accountability can be bought around. Religion holds you eternally accountable for your actions. A world without God is Hell. And as we strive to remove God and his word from our Nation, we will feel the isolation of Hell. God will ignore our nation and all those who forced him out will forget the blessings he gave us. History always repeats itself, we never learn.

No person can force their beliefs on another. The stubborn that despise God will not change their ways unless they witness a life changing event. Even the miraculous resurrection of Christ was not enough to change the lost. We are so stubborn and so proud.

Sure, everyone has a right to think what they want. It is free will. If you are right, and the Bible is a lie, then you don't lose anything, and neither do I. But if I am right, I still don't lose anything, and you, well...

"The kids are still being raised and loved by two women."

Well actually their mother is now married to a man and Melissa is in relationship with another woman and their dad and his wife also see them. So these chidren have lots of parental influence.

KR-

Melissa Etheridge told her children who their father was after they rejected the 2 mommies story. They knew (at a very young age) there was a father and they questioned her. As a loving parent- she told them they were right and introduced them to their dad (something that was NOT the original plan when he donated sperm).

What is significant is that (like so many other little kids) they didn't buy into the 2 mommies story. It wasn't right. They sought to know the truth. And Melissa and her partner at that time Julie (the kids mom) were loving enough say OK here's the truth- this man is your dad. This is exceptional because many parents would have simply blown it off and screwed up their kids.

Melissa has been so honest about her own sexual history (she was molested by her sister, Jennifer, over five years as a child). And she has shown she loves her kids.

Actually, KR is gay. He was my lover in Chelsea back 20 years ago. He hates himself so much that he lashes out at the gays and blames them for his non acceptance. I used to feel sorry for him; now I wish he'd shut up.

"Polygamists believe they have the right to love and be married to all their wives, is this wrong?
Can I marry my wife and my girlfriend if I love them both equally and they both love me and they are OK with each other?"

Why not indeed? Look at recent events. The FLDS compound was not raided because of polygamy - it was raided because of the suspicion of child abuse. As long as all of the parties entering into a polygamous relationship are consenting adults, and they have the division of property and inheritance worked out, where's the problem? The FLDS cult was forcing underage women into marriage, committing incest, and abusing the wives and children.

Like it or not, society's definition of procreation and marriage are changing.

Kr;

Actually, I'm not gay, and I don't see how that's relevant, but I have several very close friends and family members who are. Having been right next to my best friend while he was coming out to his friends and family, and seeing the pain he went through as he chose how to tell people, I know that this was not a choice that he made.
He flat out told me that if there was a pill he could take to make him straight, he would. Because even with all of the steps we as a society have taken towards equality, being gay is still terribly difficult, no thanks to intolerant bigots like you. Did you ever stop and ask yourself WHY would someone ever make that choice? How could it possibly be a choice? No one would ever make it, that would just be a masochistic thing to put yourself through.
You are obviously not gay, and I doubt you've ever been intimately close with someone who is, so how can you presume to know how they came to be gay? That's awfully presumptive of you.
By profession, I’m an engineer and I’m well educated. I have read literally thousands of articles, scientific, secular and non-secular on homosexuality. Not one of them showed data that augments your belief that homosexuality is not a choice. Again, if homosexuality could be scientifically proven, then and only then, I would have all the sympathy in the world for these people. Unless otherwise proven, I remain steadfast in my observations and beliefs.

I feel that this may be an appropriate time to bust out an old favorite in regards to making arguments using Biblical verses. Anyone who abides by all of this is free to make all the Biblical arguments he or she wants. Others, please stick to logic.

From:
http://www.mun.ca/the/news/drlaura5.html

Dear Dr Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how best to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:&. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15: 19 - 24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev 25: 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6 - 8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves.

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24: 10 - 16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? Lev 20:14.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

" Brambleton:

"How about heeding your own advice and stop over dramatizing everything. Disagreeing with one's lifestyle and "hating" the same person are mutually exclusive."

That's funny, cause so many Christians insist I 'hate' them for disagreeing with their lifestyle choice to spend all that time trying to get my government make me kneel to their religious opinions.

Tim said, "Out of the mouths of babes. And this happens so often. Reminds me of lesbian Melissa Ethridge and her "partner" who were planning the "you have 2 mommies" explanation in raising their children. When the children demanded to know who their father was (and I think they were still pre-school age)- she eventually had to tell them."

So, they learned who their biological father was. Something that adopted children don't always know. Or the children of single parents, to name a few. Sometimes women, even married women, use sperm donors. Want to outlaw that, too?

But if you're going to use the example of one child to argue against same-sex parenting, why not consider the happy, healthy, normal kids of gay parents who love their moms or their dads and want for nothing except the right of their parents to marry?

Garoth,

Though a bit long, your piece was very well spoken and enlightening. Good work.

To everyone else:
The Bible makes wonderful sense to those who lived thousands of years ago. It clearly states one should not eat pork. Yet how many Christian groups have decided not to abide by that one. They choose to ignore it because it doesn't make sense anymore.

It made sense back in the day because pork very easily spoils and can cause some major harm if injested like that, moreso than other domesticated animal products. We've done away with that statement from the Bible because we have refrigeration and various other means of keeping pork safe.

It's the same with a lot of other points the Bible (aka 'the field guide for how to survive and prosper in ancient times').

Bethesda says:

The issue at hand is whether the state -- i.e. "We the People -- should endorse homosexual unions by granting homosexuals the right to marry. A California judge has decided that this is not an issue to be decided by "We the People." Rather, this judge unilaterally made the decision for "We the People," declaring it a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists and their supporters disparage anyone who believes "We the People" should not endorse homosexuality by making these unions equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call us "bigots" and "hateful." In their view, there can be no debate. You are either on their side or you are a bigot and a "homophobe."

The point of my posts was to show why it is that I do not want "We the People" to endorse homosexuality. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is not God's intention for men and women. Therefore, I do not support the state endorsing homosexuality.

Now obviously my vote would be cancelled out by your vote. But guess what? A California judge has decided that you and I have no say in the matter. He is the almighty judge who will decide the issue for us.

wiccan points out:

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states." Wikipedia

"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I notice the only qualifier in that statement is "any", not "unless the person is gay, or black, or non-Christian, or red-headed"...nope, these qualifiers aren't mentioned at all.

"The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

So the court in California is doing exactly what the Constitution demands of it, enforcing the principle that all men are created equal.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If this is no longer the guiding principle of America, it would behoove someone to let the rest of us know.

Anonymous

You said:

"But why keep messing with the sanctity of Matrimony."

Since you brought it up, what do you mean by the sanctity of matrimony?

John McCain is the Republican candidate for President. He is the candidate representing the conservative view point. Does he believe in the sanctity of matrimony?

He through his wife over, and took a new trophy wife young enough to be his daughter. Now she is getting old too.

Maybe he will trade her in for a freshened up model, this time young enough to be his grand-daughter.

This is your hypocrisy. You don't care about marriage at all. You just say anything to obstruct the pursuit of happiness among your fellow Americans, whose equality you persistently resist.

tim:

"Out of the mouths of babes. And this happens so often. Reminds me of lesbian Melissa Ethridge and her "partner" who were planning the "you have 2 mommies" explanation in raising their children. When the children demanded to know who their father was (and I think they were still pre-school age)- she eventually had to tell them.

Scripture tells us the Word of God is written in our hearts and even small children get a check of right from wrong in their consciences."

First of all, babes usually mimic what they see from the adults around them, usually their parents. So his kids are probably just mimicking the bigotry of their father.

Second, I fail to see what the issue is in your anecdote about Melissa Etherige's family. So they told their children who their genetic father is. The kids are still being raised and loved by two women. An adopted child is no less the child of its adoptive parents because it knows who it's biological father or mother is. This is no different.

Third, you are welcome to believe what you like about the scripture. However, everyone is not Christian, and everyone does not read the scripture the way you do. So arguments from it are moot. Try logic, that's tougher to argue against.

"I am raising 3 beautiful children and when they see a homosexual couple holding hands or physically embracing, they get freaked out and cover their eyes."

MMC..

Out of the mouths of babes. And this happens so often. Reminds me of lesbian Melissa Ethridge and her "partner" who were planning the "you have 2 mommies" explanation in raising their children. When the children demanded to know who their father was (and I think they were still pre-school age)- she eventually had to tell them.

Scripture tells us the Word of God is written in our hearts and even small children get a check of right from wrong in their consciences.

mmcg1:

"First of all, homosexuality is a CHOICE, not a genetic defect. I'm sorry if your gay, but again it's your choice and a bad one at that."

Actually, I'm not gay, and I don't see how that's relevant, but I have several very close friends and family members who are. Having been right next to my best friend while he was coming out to his friends and family, and seeing the pain he went through as he chose how to tell people, I know that this was not a choice that he made.

He flat out told me that if there was a pill he could take to make him straight, he would. Because even with all of the steps we as a society have taken towards equality, being gay is still terribly difficult, no thanks to intolerant bigots like you. Did you ever stop and ask yourself WHY would someone ever make that choice? How could it possibly be a choice? No one would ever make it, that would just be a masochistic thing to put yourself through.

You are obviously not gay, and I doubt you've ever been intimately close with someone who is, so how can you presume to know how they came to be gay? That's awfully presumptive of you.

Reader:

You said

"To really understand the Bible, one has to develop the mind of God"

So, tell me, did you choose to be psychotic, or were you born that way?

To really understand the Bible, one has to develop the mind of God. we too often base our understanding on what other men tell us, forgetting that our creator knows what is best for us, the same as a parent knows what is best for the child. Yes, the Bible does say we are to love each other, but that is something different when it is of the same sex. The Bible is very clear. God also said "The wisdom of the world is foolishness with Him."

Frankly, I don't understand why the religious leader of this country are so confused about the issues of sex, or should I say peoples preference regarding sex. I ask the question, "Do people really want to know how God feels about it or is it how man feels about it?" Those who feel that being gay, lesbian, etc is ok with God, are really looking to men for approval and not the creator of the marriage institute. One can never accept parts of the Bible they agree with and discard those they don't agree with. people cannot serve God according to their own principals. our worship MUST be according to the word of God. Therefore, this is what the Bible says about the activities mentioned above. Whether you accept it or not will be up to you. But, the payment for it is God's.

Romans 1:24-27 says "24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

This is what the Bible says. obviously people are not being taught God's word properly and that is why this world is sinking deeper and deeper into a morass of moral decay. Are you sincere, because anything else is not God's way.

mmcg1:

"My reasons for being against homosexual marriages are too voluminous to mention on this post. But I will share with you my main reason. I am raising 3 beautiful children and when they see a homosexual couple holding hands or physically embracing, they get freaked out and cover their eyes. When this happens, I get the same ole question from them, “daddy, why are they like that?” I tell them the truth. It’s their choice to be that way, but they could get help and change their life style if they wish."

Did it ever occur to you that possibly your children are picking up on YOUR obvious distaste and bigotry for gay people and that is why they are reacting as they do? I know plenty of children raised by tolerant parents who have no qualms with seeing a gay couple in public. Certainly children raised with two moms or two dads are not going to be grossed out by that. It's not an inherent instinct, it's how the children learn to react from their parents.

This is not to mention, of course, that at some ages, children think anything romantic - even between hetero couples, is gross.

Where does it stop?
Where do we draw the line?
Polygamists believe they have the right to love and be married to all their wives, is this wrong?
Can I marry my wife and my girlfriend if I love them both equally and they both love me and they are OK with each other?
What if a person is Bi-sexual can that person marry to Adam and Eve?
There are some people that love their pets so much they might want to marry them.
If siblings love each other should they get married?
This is not even about religion any more. Marriage is defined as the union between two people, a MAN and a WOMAN, Male and Female. SIMPLE.
Gay people have civil unions. I have nothing against Gay People, Society has already accepted them. But why keep messing with the sanctity of Matrimony.

There are two issues here, one dealing with the secular institution of marriage, and the other dealing with Biblical prohibitions concerning homosexuality. Our church (Lutheran), at least, recognizes that marriage is not a "sacred" institution, but a secular one. Even when done in a church, before a pastor, he or she is operating as an agency for the state. In that sense, it is the state that defines the institution. In fact, also, the nature of marriage differs from culture to culture. Those who wish to find some kind of biblical norm for marriage will have a gread deal of difficulty doing so. While marriage may be "divinely ordained," therefore, it is usually considered one of the "orders of creation," which, like the order of authority - the fact that we are all subject to authority - leaves a great deal of leeway for how that "order" is expressed in the real world.

We tend to bless our own cultural values, and think they are God-ordained. Jesus says that there will not be marriage in heaven - there, he says, we are like the angels, having a "face-to-face" relationship with God and, by implication, have the kind of in-depth relationship we celebrate in marriage, with everyone.

Regarding the prohibitions against homosexuality, the church has had a hard time with this - some of the prohibitions of the Old Testament had cultural value at the time - the need, especially, to be able to pass on inheritance, and to have children to take care of parent in their old age. Homosexuality was also viewed as an act of aggression, a practice often perpetrated then - and sometimes now - by heterosexuals as a display of power against weaker victims. The kind of unions we experience in our culture, in a cultural setting like ours where we do not see a need for children to be present in every relationship, is not something adressed in scripture. All protestant churches have, in fact, backed off of a definition of marriage that necessarily includes procreation, and did so long before the issue of gay marriages came up (in other words, it had nothing to do with a liberal plot or liberal theology).

Some of the objections to gay marriage stem from a basic lack of understanding of the Gospel message. The Lutheran church, for example, talks about the proclamation of "Law and Gospel," but the term "Law" is often, and perhaps usually, misapplied. Luther, following Paul, said that the law has only two uses: there is the Civil use, which helps to order our life, and which has nothing to do with the Gospel. It is, for instance, that law that says that we are not to exceed fifty-five miles per hour on the highway. That is not God's law, but a human one.

The other purpose is to drive us to Christ. For this use, we do not even need laws - Luther says a leaf falling to the ground as we are walking through the forest can serve this purpose. Paul says that when we come in contact with the law, we understand ourselves to be sinners, and in need of saving. The leaf falling may spark some fear in us, making us think there is a bear or other creature lurking, and drive us to realize our sinfulness if we should perish. Or, on the other hand, it might remind us of the one who made the leaf, of the greatness of God, and our insignificance, and our need for salvation since, like the leaf, one day we shall also perish.

These are the only two purposes of the law. for a Christian to take "laws" out of scripture and apply them to our relationship, with a "thus says the Lord," is anti-Gospel. It makes our relationship dependent upon the law, rather than upon Christ. We may, certainly, find principles upon which to found our relationships in Scripture (Melancthon and others called this the "Third Use" of the law), but we have to be careful not to turn basic principles - the ideals toward which we strive - into legalism. Paul's Letter to the Galatians is an argument against this very kind of thing.

Paul, although he argues against homosexuality (again, we have to be careful about these arguments - for instance, he also condemns long hair on men, and women speaking in church - things that reflected cultural values of his time rather than some divine norm, the central message of the cross, for him, is the overcoming of divisions. God does not consider race, nationality, color, or sex, just as there is no divine value placed on a sunflower over a dandylion. There are simply expressions of his creative genius, to be celebrated, rather than used as instruments for establishing value and power relationships. What does it matter to God what piece of flesh is on our chest or between our legs? How can a relationshp with God be based on such trivial matters (or upon how much coloration is in our skin)?

A final note (I know I've gone on rather long here - my apologies): Relationships are not just about coitus, although that always seems to be the heart of the debate. As a culture, we are very sex-centered. The sex act, for us, seems to be one of our "gods," which is, certainly, one reason why we cannot entertain the thought of changing it (any more than we can tolerate the changing of even hymnals in the church). Homosexual relationships are more like heterosexual relationships that they are different. It is, in fact, about two people loving and supporting one another, and committing themselves to one another for the duration. As in marriage, sex may play little or even no part in the relationship.

The problem is not with the Bible, nor with God, but with our cultural values and cultural "gods," and with a form of Christianity that is, at heart, not Christian, but simply another form of legalism. Our culture can debate whether gay marriages are good or bad for the culture - and whatever it decides must be judged by scriptural values like justice and love. But it cannot claim "thus says the Lord" for something that is merely a secular law.

To really understand the Bible, one has to develop the mind of God. we too often base our understanding on what other men tell us, forgetting that our creator knows what is best for us, the same as a parent knows what is best for the child. Yes, the Bible does say we are to love each other, but that is something different when it is of the same sex. The Bible is very clear. God also said "The wisdom of the world is foolishness with Him."

Frankly, I don't understand why the religious leader of this country are so confused about the issues of sex, or should I say peoples preference regarding sex. I ask the question, "Do people really want to know how God feels about it or is it how man feels about it?" Those who feel that being gay, lesbian, etc is ok with God, are really looking to men for approval and not the creator of the marriage institute. One can never accept parts of the Bible they agree with and discard those they don't agree with. people cannot serve God according to their own principals. our worship MUST be according to the word of God. Therefore, this is what the Bible says about the activities mentioned above. Whether you accept it or not will be up to you. But, the payment for it is God's.

Romans 1:24-27 says "24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

This is what the Bible says. obviously people are not being taught God's word properly and that is why this world is sinking deeper and deeper into a morass of moral decay. Are you sincere, because anything else is not God's way.

Kr;

First of all, homosexuality is neither a choice NOR a birth defect. It's genetic, like blonde hair or freckles

First of all, homosexuality is a CHOICE, not a genetic defect. I'm sorry if your gay, but again it's your choice and a bad one at that.

My reasons for being against homosexual marriages are too voluminous to mention on this post. But I will share with you my main reason. I am raising 3 beautiful children and when they see a homosexual couple holding hands or physically embracing, they get freaked out and cover their eyes. When this happens, I get the same ole question from them, “daddy, why are they like that?” I tell them the truth. It’s their choice to be that way, but they could get help and change their life style if they wish.

Truth, you said I would have to answer to God for my "rejection of his Revelation." I asked what he's going to do to me, since you seem to know. You didn't answer me. Can't or won't? What you said instead was, "Have you ever lied? Have you ever lusted after someone that you were not married to? Have you ever taken things that do not belong to you? Have you loved God with all your heart all the time? If you have broken one of these commands God says you fall short of His standard. Stop comparing yourself to other people that you think are worse than you. Compare yourself to God's standard and you will see that you are a vile sinner that only deserves God's wrath. Your self righteousness is like a dirty rag in God's eyes."

God's atrocities are worse than dirty rags, at least the ones in the Old Testament and the ones you think he's going to commit (you said he's going to destroy California because of same-sex marriage, but they've apparently got a few years since he's not gotten to other countries and Massachusetts yet).

I don't love God. Mostly because I don't believe in him. A lot of people don't, or don't believe in the same God you do, or don't believe he meant the things you think he did. Of all those people, many believe same sex marriage should be legal. Your religion shouldn't be the law of the land when not everyone in that land follows it. It's fine for you to follow your religion and not get married to someone of the same gender, but who are you to impose your religious beliefs on others?

Does your wife remain silent while inside your church? If so, she doesn't follow the whole bible either.

Sherry Freeman:

"And if all homosexuality is is the love between to consenting adults then why are we oulawing prositution? that's also an arranement that's consentual."

Not to distract from the topic at hand, but this is an excellent point. There's really no good reason to outlaw prostitution. If it were legalized, it could be regulated. Workers and customers could be protected from disease and exploitation. It could be taxed and be a great source of revenue for the government.

mmcg1:

"Homosexuality is a choice, not a birth defect. I don’t think gay marriages should be allowed for obvious reasons!"

First of all, homosexuality is neither a choice NOR a birth defect. It's genetic, like blonde hair or freckles.

Second of all, the reasons you think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed are actually NOT obvious. I don't have a clue what they are, and I'm a pretty well-educated lady.

But Bethesda, aren't the gays people, too?

You're sort of all mixed up in your head, I think.

And if all homosexuality is is the love between to consenting adults then why are we oulawing prositution? that's also an arranement that's consentual.

Bethesda,

Actually, the 'We the People' of CA have already voted twice to allow gay marriage. It was the govenor of that state that declared 'We the People' wasn't good enough and vetoed it. Twice.

And actually, the judge in no way went above or beyond the people in this. "We the People" have already decided to declare 'All men are created equal'. As I see it, some activist politicians are trying to skirt the Constitution and ban some people from having equal rights and equal respect under law. The judge in this case was meerly defending 'We the People' from those who wish to alter it to fit their own personal beliefs.

Daniel:

The issue at hand is whether the state -- i.e. "We the People -- should endorse homosexual unions by granting homosexuals the right to marry. A California judge has decided that this is not an issue to be decided by "We the People." Rather, this judge unilaterally made the decision for "We the People," declaring it a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists and their supporters disparage anyone who believes "We the People" should not endorse homosexuality by making these unions equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call us "bigots" and "hateful." In their view, there can be no debate. You are either on their side or you are a bigot and a "homophobe."

The point of my posts was to show why it is that I do not want "We the People" to endorse homosexuality. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is not God's intention for men and women. Therefore, I do not support the state endorsing homosexuality.

Now obviously my vote would be cancelled out by your vote. But guess what? A California judge has decided that you and I have no say in the matter. He is the almighty judge who will decide the issue for us.

The issue at hand is whether the state -- i.e. "We the People -- should endorse homosexual unions by granting homosexuals the right to marry. A California judge has decided that this is not an issue to be decided by "We the People." Rather, this judge unilaterally made the decision for "We the People," declaring it a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists and their supporters disparage anyone who believes "We the People" should not endorse homosexuality by making these unions equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call us "bigots" and "hateful." In their view, there can be no debate. You are either on their side or you are a bigot and a "homophobe."

The point of my posts was to show why it is that I do not want "We the People" to endorse homosexuality. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is not God's intention for men and women. Therefore, I do not support the state endorsing homosexuality.

Now obviously my vote would be cancelled out by your vote. But guess what? A California judge has decided that you and I have no say in the matter. He is the almighty judge who will decide the issue for us.

Religion aside I believe that gay marriage should have nothing to do with what people think is right or wrong but rather it should be about equality and giving equal rights to all citizens. I understand the church not accepting or allowing homosexuals to marry, but there needs to be a separation of church and state.

If anything i believe gay marriage strengthens the institute of marriage. Why not see two people who love one another be legally committed and bound. After all that is what marriage is, a legal binding together of 2 people.

As someone who married a man of a different racial background I can't help but think that there was time when this would not have been allowed because some believed that different races shouldn't mix and it was actually illegal.

I am so greatful to be in my mid 30's and live in a society which, increasingly, respects my right to be left alone about being gay. The next logical step is to be treated 100% equally, which is on the near horizon. If I were 80, vs. 34, I would most likely be divorced, from a loveless and cold marriage, and in therapy. I'm glad to see Sally sees the obvious - I am not a threat to her marriage, or her sense of worth. I am just like her, only gay.

Bethesda

Maybe you should get your own sex-life, and stop fretting and worrying so about everyone else's.

Uh-oh, Jesus made a typo...

he put 'their' instead of 'there'.

Some god, eh?

It's a good thing for you that you don't have to imagine it. The only Jesus, or God who is revealed in Jesus, that really exists is not the one of your imagination, but the one who is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. He says no to all kinds of misplaced loves: self (Matthew 16:24), money(Luke 16:13), same sex (Romans 1:26-27), possessions (Luke 12:15), mistresses (Mark 10:11-12), even misplaced love of family (Matthew 10:37).

I didn't write it God wrote it. He infact didn't plan on having a Kingdome in which none of his Children would be there to enjoy which is why Christ the only sinless being to ever walk the Earth died so that when we loose this flesh(becasue of Adam the flesh must die that's the rule) we'll not experience eternal seperation from our Abba. Think about that.

Blessings to you, all of my children, for I have returned.

Those who cherish the Lord's Temple shall inherit all the blessings bestowed upon the Lord's Creation. Remember how I destroyed the Temple and promised to rebuild it in Three Days? Thus it is so. The human body is the Lord's only True Temple and it is created by Him through His creation of Nature.

Do not seek to define what is Nature, for the Lord created Nature to encompass all. And their is not a stain or blemish upon It or upon Him. Man is of Nature but is not Its only blessed form. Men who lay with men in love as a man may lay with a woman in love, who cherish the Lord within one another do what the Nature has intended. And because Nature is of the Lord, Nature is the way, the truth, and the light.

Love all, for to love the body is to serve Nature. To serve Nature is to worship the Lord.

Blessings to each and everyone alike. For We are all of Nature.

Homosexuality is a choice, not a birth defect. I don’t think gay marriages should be allowed for obvious reasons!

Dave

1) The Bible was written by humans inspired by God to write His Word. It is God-breathed. Everyone is free to believe or not believe that.

2) The notion that the epistles were merely commentary on the Gospel ignores the fact that most of the epistles were written before the Gospels.

3) Romans 1 clearly states that homosexuality by both men and women is a perversion of God-given sexuality.

I think gay marriage is disgusting and should be outlawed federally. Being gay or lesbian is a choice, not a condition or sickness. If I thought for one minute that there was a defective gene in the human body that was the cause for being homosexual, then I would have all the compassion in the world for homosexuals, but again, it’s a choice being homosexual and I think that choice is disgusting!

No one is saying that God is going to punish America if it legalizes Gay Marriage. If God were out to punish countries for that reason Switzerland and the Netherlands would already be gone. Let's not get things twisted. ALL SIN IS WRONG!! Lying, stealing, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, child molestation etc. the problem that once you allow the Court to make this decision it becomes the catalyst for other forms of sexual immorality. Polygamy is a relationship between consenting loving adults. Are we to allow this too? According to CA we should.

I have read through about 1/3 of these comments, and it's the same old song and dance of live-and-let-live vs. strict right-wing, religious-types.

Did any of you that propose that homosexuality is wrong because it "goes against nature" stop to think for one second that homosexuality is nature's way of saving ourselves from overpopulation?

Humans refuse to take responsibility for their reproductive rates - God forbid you suggest to ANYONE in this country that they should only have 1 or 2 children, they'll call you a Communist - but it is a serious issue.

Maybe God took a hand and homosexuality is more prevalent now so we don't literally breed ourselves out of house and home.

Just one option.

Oh, and I am a Roman Catholic that is PRO gay marriage. Why should I care what makes someone else happy?

Michael

I think I've been punked.

SHERRY FREEMAN

You wrote, "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God?"

I have met God and God is a Being of Pure Love, so any of us, by the above statement that you wrote, would fall into the category of "unrighteous and the wrongdoers", in comparison to God.

So do you really think that God came up with a Plan so that He is the only One in the Kingdom? Something to think about.

Some other things to think about: forgiveness, grace, love, justice, mercy, non-judgementalism, there are others but this can be a start.

Remember when Jesus said to think of God the Father as ABBA, which translates as Dad or Daddy and Jesus also said that God the Father was infinitely better than the best human father on earth, this is something else to think about but that is your choice.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I'm sorry, Daniel,

I just realized what it was that you've been saying. I guess I just haven't thought of it that way.

There is definitely potential for there to be gay people in my family, they just haven't approached me about it because they've probably been afraid to, what with my past rhetoric and all.

Maybe if I were just willing to be a bit more tolerant and open my eyes to different perspectives I could honestly find out. I'm sure then whatever gay family members I have will be relieved to know that they aren't going to be immediately judged on my part. I think we would all be more willing to be open with one another if I were to take the first stand and tell them, 'You are family, and your well-being is important to me no matter what else.' That way, perhaps we can be true to one another and open and comfortable with who we are. I really do think that that is what FAMILY is all about. Love and trust. Keep the politics out of family.

Thank you, and I would encourage all others to think about the love they have towards their own families before they unintentionaly isolate those they hold most dear.

Oscar Wilde wrote:
There are several secular arguments for maintaining the current universal definition of marriage, while still giving all the civil benefits allowable to marriage partners to gay domestic partners.
*********************************************
Please enumerate them.

michael wrote:
Dan in den says-

"everybody is related to one (homosexual)."

Gee, I hate to disappoint you. There are no gays in my large family. Never has been. This is probably true for many families. Maybe homosexuality does run in some families, but nowhere near all..
************************************************
I'm sure you meant to say "There are no gays, THAT I KNOW OF, in my large family.". The fact is that you don't know whether there are any gays in your family if they choose not to tell you. By the tenor of you posting, I'm not suprised if they choose not to reveal themselves.

well, the way I see it is this way. If everyone decided to become homosexual on the planet and get married, and no one really cared one way or another about the ways things were before, life as we know it would cease to exist in 100 years. No procreation unless babies are spawned in test tubes or cloned, and the natural process of hormones would mean nothing. But yet and still, females who want to marry pleasure themselves with phallic objects but deny the man the right to birth them children because of an emotional attatchment to the same sex. think of this as well. If you left children alone together during puberty without adult supervision and left them to their own means of sexual exploration, I don't think any of those children are comoing out of the room gay or lesbian. Those are thoughts fought for by grown adults who have thought this process out and want a way to feel good about who they are and the lives they've chosen for themselves. It's just a thought...because God sure didn't make reproduction organs to go to waste if you can't use them properly. Thats like saying He made a mistake...uh...I think he begs to differ.

There are several secular arguments for maintaining the current universal definition of marriage, while still giving all the civil benefits allowable to marriage partners to gay domestic partners.

Many of these arguments have been examined in the state Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the current definition without denying gay people access to civil marital benefits, and some have in fact been articulated in the dissent to the California Supreme Court decision.

Those secular arguments can easily be located on the Web by using Google.

Why are only conservative religious arguments always highlighted when there is opposition to changing the definition of marriage?

Highlighting the religious arguments always makes it seem like the only ones in favor of maintaining the definition of marriage are religious fundamentalists, religious conservatives, and religious kooks.

Look at the opposing argument featured by the Washington Post on this web site. The only arguments featured against changing the definition are the conservative Christian arguments of Cal Thomas, as if to say those are representative of the opposition to changing the definition.

The Washington Post should do better than that, if it does not want to misrepresent the arguments of the opposition.

Michelle

Thankyou for telling all about what God and Jesus think. I don't expect Jesus himself could have done a better job.

Darian,

Have you ever lied? Have you ever lusted after someone that you were not married to? Have you ever taken things that do not belong to you? Have you loved God with all your heart all the time? If you have broken one of these commands God says you fall short of His standard. Stop comparing yourself to other people that you think are worse than you. Compare yourself to God's standard and you will see that you are a vile sinner that only deserves God's wrath. Your self righteousness is like a dirty rag in God's eyes.

"But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6).

Dave- this is a post from yesterday

Jesus was a Torah observant Jew his entire life on earth. The Torah forbids the homosexual act (mishkav zakhar).

“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

The Torah considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing (to’evah).

Jesus certainly understood the Torah- in fact He was the Torah made flesh and as Angela likes to point out to readers- He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.

If you believe God has somehow changed his mind about homosexuality- you are mistaken.

Many times in our past, Americans have used the power of law or the power of government to eclipse the rights of one demographic group or another. While anti-misogyny laws are the most relevant example in this case, they are by no means the ONLY example (slavery, Chinese Exclusion, Japanese Internment, Jim Crow Laws, etc.).

Numerous as those examples might be, I cannot think one that we dont look back on with shame. Future generations will judge us for our current prejudice and short-sightedness in the same way that we pass judgment on our ancestors for theirs.

In any case, I think that the huge increase in homophobia and homophobic governance we are experiencing is evidence of a conservative backlash against a broad increase of support for homosexual rights in our country. The trend is towards acceptance, which is why homosexuality's opponents are screaming so loudly. These opponents have become so panicked that they are using documents that were created specifically to protect the rights of Americans (state constitutions) to eclipse the rights of a specific target group (homosexuals).

I am really trying to make two points here. The first is that I think we will all look back on this time in our history with shame in the same way we do every time we discriminate. The second point is that we are getting very close to the place in our cultural evolution that will give us the perspective necessary to recognize the shamefullness of our behavior in this case.

So, while I have no doubt that this argument will continue, we need not fear that bigotry will prevail. Since the birth of our wonderful nation, the trend has been towards universality and acceptance. All people have a right to equal protection under the law. Americans believe that theis right is natural, and we have written constitutions to preserve it. The bastardization of those constitutions, which are being warped to fit the exclusive bigotry of closed minds, will not stand. This type of bigotry is unnatural and un-American. Couching it in the language of religion does not change that.

What the Bible says has NOTHING to do with the legal definition of marriage in the United States. We are governed by the Constitution and secular laws, which are for ALL of the people, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, Christian, atheist, Pagan, Hindu, Moslem, etc. At least we were, the last time I checked. I should check CNN to see if Bush and friends have declared the Constitution null and void yet.

The question, framed outside of religious terms, should be: Should same-gender couples be afforded the same rights to enter into a legal marriage as mixed-gender couples do? Is there any LEGAL reason why this right should be denied? While I'm not a lawyer, I see no legal reason why the right to a legal marriage should be denied to two people of the same gender. Religious organizations can choose to deny the rite of "holy matrimony" or not. But there is no legal reason why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to marry.

Someone can go to Nevada, get a marriage license, and be married within a matter of minutes. This is a legal, binding marriage - even if it was done by an Elvis impersonator. Yet gay couples who have been together for decades can't marry? Where's the logic here?

Here's what I don't get -

The intolerantly religious -- those saying homosexuality is an abomination and that god will punish America if we allow it -- shouldn't they think that their beliefs will get them one of those spots they covet in heaven? So if the American government allows gay marriage and then someone's god does indeed punish America with rivers of blood, etc, shouldn't they think they'll be safe from the punishment?

So, honestly, what does it matter if the US allows gay marriage? According to them, I'm the one who is going to burn and not them. They're safe from the consequences. And judging by some of the vitriol they hold for the 'pro-gay marriage' people in this forum, it seems like they'd be more than happy to watch us burn.

Look, that's all I'm asking. Please, don't try to save me. Let me burn. I don't happen to think I will burn since I don't believe in heaven or hell, but please, just be content that you've 'saved' yourself. Just protest quietly in your house when you pray, but allow the rest of us to have gay-marriage OKed by the government. You won't have to burn because of it.

Michael

Well, if gay people are not everywhere, then where are they? And if you cannot detect any evidence of them being anywhere, then I don't see what the problem is.

My comment about Cher, that is called humor. When you mentioned your brother, I thought maybe you were trying to be a little humorous, so I was replying with some humor.

Well, you don't seem to have a problem, don't worry. If you think that there are no gay people in your family, then it is not your problem.

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

I never said that Jesus hates "the gays" as you put it. Jesus Christ loves everyone, but that does not mean that he condones any and all behavior and choices. I do not hate homosexuals just because I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. That's easy for you or anyone to say that those who disagree with homosexual marriage are bigotted. I am not bigotted because I hold a different viewpoint than you. We are all free to form our opinions and in a democratic country it is absurd that judicial activists can overturn a law put into effect by a majority vote. We are allowed to have our viewpoint and to create a country "of the people, by the people and for the people". You can disagree with our viewpoint, you can even call us hateful bigots, but it doesn't make it true.

it is just so sad to see one more item of control over people being loosened. what will be next? the strings on polygamy? The end of the drug war?
my goodness folks will soon be able to live the lives they wish and will only be constrained when their actions have a negative impact on others. sounds like a horror world,eh? well it unfortunealy probably does to some of our fellow citzens - the ones who now have the controls firmly(they assume)in place.

Bethesda:

1) "Clearly you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. Rather you believe that a significant portion of the New Testament is the opinion of man."

You're correct - I don't think there is a serious Biblical scholar alive that believes that the Bible wasn't written by a number of human authors and compiled by humans. I'm not talking about your pastor, but about people who actually study the Bible in a scientific way. Many are also believers!

Perhaps it was inspired by God, but that's not for me to say. But, the New Testament clearly presents itself as the words and opinions of the apostles - except where it quotes Jesus.

2) "Jesus, in fact, condemned sexual immorality. To a Jew, this clearly would include homosexuality, since it is strongly condemned in the Torah."

You are interpreting an extrapolating the words of Jesus at this point. Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. If it were so important to condemn it, why not?

You just admonished Sally Quinn not to bring up the Torah. Without the Torah, how do you know that any form of consensual adult sexuality is "immoral" in the view of God.

You have to admit that you personally are thinking of Leviticus, not just the New Testament when you condemn homosexuals.

3) "My point about Christians not being under law was to refute the statement that the Bible supports stoning heretics."

But your point also obviates the strongest statements - supposedly by God - that male homosexuality is immoral. By the way, where's the prohibition against female homosexuality?

And if you need to get an idea of how not having a Mother and Father family unit affects children please look at the statistics regarding the emotional unheath of Male and Female children who do not have both a Father and Mother. I doesn't say anything about the emotional health of "loved" children regardless of the sex of the parents.

Bethesda:
In response to Dave:

1) Clearly you do not believe the Bible is the Wod of God. Rather you believe that a significant portion of the New Testament is the opinion of man. OK, that's what you believe. I believe otherwise. My point simply is the Bible affirms that homosexuality is not the intention of God for man and indeed is the result of men suppressing the truth about God.

2) Jesus, in fact, condemned sexual immorality. To a Jew, this clearly would include homosexuality, since it is strongly condemned in the Torah. Furthermore, Jesus clearly endorsed marriage as being between a man and a woman. The notion that God would endorse a marriage between two men or two women is ridiculous from a Biblical standpoint.

3) My point about Christians not being under law was to refute the statement that the Bible supports stoning heretics. Yes, under the law of Moses, God commanded the Jews to stone heretics. But honestly, that's child's play compared to what the Bible says in Revelation about what God and His angels will do to those who reject salvation. The wrath of God is real. We ignore it at our own peril. Fortunately, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins is also real. Mercy triumphs over judgment for those who are willing to bow down before God.

Your analasis could not be more spot on. I agree whole heartedly!!!

"Cher should slap you in the face and say, "snap out of it!"

You mean the woman who almost had a breakdown when she found out her daughter was lesbian? I should slap her face.

And now gays are thinking they are evenly distributed through all families. I guess that blows the gay gene argument. Give it a break. Your brain is mush..

And if it's about love and personal choices that the state should not limit, then we MUST extend that to plural relationships. Polygamy cannot be excluded.

Michael

Isn't there an unmarried uncle, or a musical cousin or anything, or an artistic son, daughter, neice or nephew?

I think you are a narcisitic fool; Cher should slap you in the face and say, "snap out of it!"

I think that what we as Christians need to truly understand is that First and foremost He says to Love the person, but we are to HATE the SIN! Whatever God call sin we as His children need to hate it as well. It's hard. Now, if you are not a Christian God will allow you to be guided by the depravity of your heart. But as His Child we are taught the rules and way of our Father. Just like your parents gave you guidance and you give your children guidance and don't allow them to to things that would hurt themselves. You protect them from the world and from themselves. You don't let your 3 year old run with sissors. The true questions that beggs to be asked is found in Romans 6 vs. 2:Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?

Mental conformity to doctrine or dogma is not belief; and fundamentalist certainty is not faith.

With regards to relious belief, all is speculative. Alot of people don't want to acknowlege that this is true.

With regards to Christianity, there is no human authority to tell us what the Bible means or what God wants us to do.

In the Catholic Church, if you believe some church teachings but not others, they call you a "cafeteria Catholic" as though there is something wrong with being true to your own inner beliefs, and as if there is something wrong with a cafeteria. But the church authority doesn't mean much; it is all custom and tradition and respect (or lack of it); no one is going to be burned at the stake anymore for making "cafeteria" selections.

And in the Protestant churchs, all authority is shattered and fragmented. They are divided up, group into group, each with their own authority, and the multitude of individuals claiming authority, interpretting "key" points with many differing shades of meaning. The Protestant motto should be "how many ways can we split a hair?"

And in this struggle for authority, the passions of religious ferver are let loose, and can descend into animalistic brutishness, and verge on the maniacal, and even to insanity.
And in this way, they accuse each other, regretfully, and with recrimination, that I am better than you, or we are better than they, or this group or that group is in apostasy, when in fact, none of them have any authority, knowlege, or insite that is more valid than any of the other's.

So much for the theory that God hates gays.

DID-

Do you really believe all families have homosexual members. It is impossible. I do know some families have many homosexuals- nowhere near all.

My family is known for producing too many children. When my mother dicovered my brother had two "wives" in the same city with three children born to each wife over a four year period- all we could say was- well, at least he has lots of stamina..

So. That's my family. Now apologise.

Catherine:

There are several theories that explain the transfer of the AIDS virus to human beings that are taken seriously by the scientific community. The notion that AIDS was transferred to a human being through sexual intercourse with an ape is not one of them. In truth, there is no universally accepted explanation for the advent of AIDS in the human populatuion.

It is bad form to openly criticize someone else for not doing their research when you have not done your own.

Of course, the notion that AIDS springs from homosexuality is inaccurate AND offensive - so you were right to correct that error.

Sherry Freeman:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God?"

Who exactly is unrighteous and a wrongdoer? Do you have the insight to judge how God judges people?

The Pharisees and Saducees once made such judgements on Jesus.

Michael:

You and that Senator from Oklahoma - can't recall his name just now. He announced on the Senate floor that no one in his family had ever been homosexual.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? Really - HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Because they were married? Because none of the males spoke with a lisp? None of the women were masculine? How can you make such a statement? You are wallowing in stereotypes and fantasy. And believe me - if there were any gays in your family, do you think they'd let it be known by the sounds of it?

A few years ago, Britney Spears, in a drunken frenzy, married an old high school boyfriend and promptly obtained an annulment a matter of days later. Mary Cheney has been with the same partner for years and is raising a child with her. The only stigma that was attached to Spears was her bad taste in over indulging. 48 states make it illegal for Ms. Cheney to formalize her relationship.

Like Ms. Quinn, I don't get it.

This is such irrelevant drivel. People will be with who ever they choose to be with and the state has no right to make it illegal nor can they legislate this.

Leave the sanctity of marriage up to religions and cohabitation up to the states.

Please lets move on. We have more important things to discuss like Global Warming, our economy, jobs, education, our health research, funding new discoveries.

Enough with the stupid wedge issues.

Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

That is 1st Corinthians 6:9. This is God's inspired word explaining who will not inherit His Kingdom. If Homosexuality was right in God's eye's, He would not have omitted them from His Kingdom.

Michael

How do you know that no one in your family is gay? Gay people do not have scales and horns; they do not have a sign tatooed on their foreheads. I am sure that many gay people would remain closetted in the presence of their homophobic and rejecting relatives. So, how do you know?

I think that someone like you would be the last to know.

Between love and hatred, God will ALWAYS be on the side of love. I'd like to note that there are many people of faith who wholeheartedly support gay marriage, including this Christian. As for the others, their hatred is motivated by fear and ignorance, and they certainly don't speak for all of us.

Anyway, in deciding the legality of gay marriage, religious beliefs should have nothing to do with it. Banning gay marriage is discrimination, pure and simple.

I can't wait until my generation is in the position to make these decisions--I promise you, it won't be an issue.

In response to Dave:

1) Clearly you do not believe the Bible is the Wod of God. Rather you believe that a significant portion of the New Testament is the opinion of man. OK, that's what you believe. I believe otherwise. My point simply is the Bible affirms that homosexuality is not the intention of God for man and indeed is the result of men suppressing the truth about God.

2) Jesus, in fact, condemned sexual immorality. To a Jew, this clearly would include homosexuality, since it is strongly condemned in the Torah. Furthermore, Jesus clearly endorsed marriage as being between a man and a woman. The notion that God would endorse a marriage between two men or two women is ridiculous from a Biblical standpoint.

3) My point about Christians not being under law was to refute the statement that the Bible supports stoning heretics. Yes, under the law of Moses, God commanded the Jews to stone heretics. But honestly, that's child's play compared to what the Bible says in Revelation about what God and His angels will do to those who reject salvation. The wrath of God is real. We ignore it at our own peril. Fortunately, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins is also real. Mercy triumphs over judgment for those who are willing to bow down before God.

Kristen wrote:
Maybe you should go and study the bible again. Following the word of God means you dont always get to do what you want when you want it. Wrong is wrong and right is right. Two men or women getting married is wrong.
The bible has clearly stated that marriage is between a man and women. The purpose of marriage is to procreate. Two of the same can't do that, can they? No.
*********************************************
By your standards, an infertile man or woman should not be allowed to marry. How about a fertile man and woman who decide they don't want children? Should they be denied the right to marry? Of course not. That dispenses with your main argument. Gay couples can always adopt, the same as a male/female couple who, for whatever reason, can't or won't procreate.

Now as for the bible. I'm sorry to point out to you that the bible doesn't have the last say in America. This is not a theocracy. If the benefits of marriage were only afforded within a religion, you might have a point. But that is not the case. The GOVERNMENT affords all sorts of benefits to married couples that have NOTHING to do with religion.

Tax breaks, health care availability, medical decisions, property rights, and a myriad of other privleges are granted to married couples and denied to couples who are not married. If a gay couple's church won't marry them, there are many others that will. And they can always decide to have a civil ceremony.

No matter how much you disapprove, it is not required that they receive your permission.

All the reasons people have against gay marriage are either for reasons of religion, reasons of hate, or just plain illogical (and often times a mixture of one or more).

But all three, no matter what combination, should have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the laws of the United States.

Please, for all of you who want to believe in a god, I encourage you to. But please don't force the rest of us to live by or put up with your god's rules.

The religious intolerance of gay marriage is what hurts society and progress (along with religious intolerance of cloning, stem-cells, etc.). Tolerance for your fellow man benefits everyone, especially for the religious. Remember, separation of Church and State was meant to protect your religion from the demands of another's religion - so please don't try to force it on the rest of us.

Can't we all just get along?

Dan in den says-

"everybody is related to one (homosexual)."

Gee, I hate to disappoint you. There are no gays in my large family. Never has been. This is probably true for many families. Maybe homosexuality does run in some families, but nowhere near all..

Anyone else notice that this topic attracts posts that stretch the truth?

Ciap:

The AIDs virus came from apes, not homosexuals. The virus came to infect humans from a man having sex with an APE not another man. Please do research before you start spouting off hate filled tirades.

Bravo Ms. Quinn! Respect and equality for all, what a novel concept.

I love this! this is exactly my point every time this issue comes up.

"Homosexual couples are simply two people who love each other. Please explain to me how that can be wrong in the eyes of God."

... Exactly! Someday people will have to get over the fact that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Thanks for the great insight!

To answer Ms. Quinn's question, "What is wrong w/gay marraige?" is this: it doesnt fit the definition of marriage. Marraige is a sacremental union of a man and a woman before God. So, for one, the government should get out of the marraige business and make everyone get a civil union for governmental purposes.

How many plagues does God have to throw upon a group of sinners to get their attention?

Aids- Anal flesh eating bacteria-

We have people practicing perverted sex which in turn has caused thousands of deaths by disease caused by the perverted sex.

Hey, I have a great idea. Lets make it easier for Gays so they can draw more people in and influence kids to become Gay so they can cause another disease of unmentionable horror to be loosed upon us.

Spiderman2:

"The same goes with the Constitution. Only a stupid government will make a provision that would legalize a kind of "love-making" that's not normal.

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Confine the foolishness to yourselves and leave the Constitution alone."

The Fourteenrh Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Spidey, I looked at each word in the 14th amendment. Nowhere do I find the words "except for homosexuals or anyone else who doesn't follow Spiderman 2's interpretation of the Christian Bible".

The Constitution is the supreme law of this land, not the Bible, not the Torah, not the Qur'an. Try to understand this: If one American citizen does not have the equal protection of the law as all other Americans do, then no American is protected by the law.

My Constitution trumps your Bible. Case closed.

Jesus was all about following the Law, but interpreting it in a loving way. It's hard to say which side he would pick. The New Testament prohibitions are Paul's opinion. You'd hope Jesus would pick your side, of course. What does Rabbinical Law say about homosexuality?

Gay people exist abundantly. Everybody knows one; everybody is related to one. Failure to recognize and accommodate their existence is a striking dysfunction in the world today, and especially within Christianity and Islam. This dysfunction needs to be addressed.

There are millions of gay people in the world. In the past they have been mute. Now, more and more of them are finding a voice. Now, when a gay person is slighted, there is a good chance that he will speak up. Merely speaking up for oneself is the "problem." And it is a "problem" that will not go away.

In the progress of humanity, sexual orientation is now viewed differently than it was in the past. I have noticed that the younger generation seems to be quite transformed in its consideration of sexual orientation and homosexuality. To them it is just part of life. Alot of young people even regard a gay person as an interesting, even exotic type of person to know, instead of an unacknowledged subject of taboo.

The old taboo against gays is gone, and it can never be brought back. The fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates this to be true. That is the progress of history. There is no tactic that anyone can devise that will undo this fact. When right-wing Christians rant against gay people, and trump up all kinds of "proof" that God is on their side, that only hurts them, and imperils the position of Christianity in the world even more, as each new generation extends to Christianity less and less credibility.

Even if the Constitution is amended to ban gay marriage, that will just mean more turmoil and distress in the resistance of progress, until the amendment is repealed. I believe this firmly.

Truth said:
"Well you are wrong and you will answer to God for your rejection of His revelation."

What's he going to do to me?

Bearing in mind, I am a good person, do more volunteer work than most, try to be kind and daily make the world a better place.

The rest of your entry just proved my point. Most Christians don't live by every word of the bible. If your wife speaks in church, neither does she, no matter what he employment status is.

Darian,

Look at the state of the family since women left in mass to the work force and made themselves more important than their kids (I am not talking about those women who have to work because either their dirty dog husbands left them or they have become widows). It is an unmitigated disaster. Women are different than men and God made them to raise the children in the home. My wife does exactly that and considers it a privilege to be shaping the character, the minds, and the hearts of our children to be successful polite people in this world. Again you have changed the topic of this thread as if that somehow discredits what the Bible says. Well you are wrong and you will answer to God for your rejection of His revelation. Your so-called Christians who do not follow the Bible are disobeying God.

Joel:

Sally Quinn is not Christian. She is a life-long atheist.

Sally - Thank you for this thoughtful insight into your views on gay relationships. It's such a shame that there aren't more Christian people who are as compassionate, forward thinking and intelligent, such as yourself. How sad and disheartening it is to read some of the replies that other Christians have left here.

"I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

Neither can I.

Sally - Thank you for this thoughtful insight into your views on gay relationships. It's such a shame that there aren't more Christian people who are as compassionate, forward thinking and intelligent, such as yourself. How sad it is to read some of the replies that other Christians have left here.

"I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

Neither can I.

Dear Angela

Your Christian interpretation is primitive, backward, and shallow. All you ever do here is assume the voice of God, and then speak in a commanding tone to others, as though you are God. You are not God. In fact, I find your impersonation of God to be offensive.

"Personally, I believe that a homosexual relationship is wrong and immoral. That is NOT to say I hate homosexuals. Not even close."

Bambleton, I think your ignorant, narrow-minded unaccepting view of others who are different than you is wrong and immoral.

No one has a monopoly on morality.

Can't have it two ways-

Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God. And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.

1 John 3:4-6

Yeah pick and choose parts of the bible that justify your hate. Why don't people understand the bible has been translated over and over by man, who Christians believe is inherently sinful anyway. Stop quoting passages from a book that a few lines before says you can't plant two crops next to each other. Also, stop using procreation as an excuse it just makes you sound even more ignorant. In that case post-menopausal women, sterile men, or others who can't conceive should not be allowed to marry. You can be a convicted racist and still get married, yet you are denying two people who love each other based on something you don't understand or want to understand because you are incredibly narrow-minded and unenlightened. And also, people settled here long ago to free themselves from religious persecution. So stop trying to bring us back 200 years by writing your beliefs (which are not shared by everyone) and hatred into law. Maybe if you actually met a gay person...by the way none of this is directed at the many true loving Christians out there who do not judge or make assertions on behalf of god.

Massachusetts hasn't burned, by the way.

"Please do not quote the Jewish law of the Old Testament on this. If you actually knew something about the Bible, you would know that Christians are not under law but under grace.

The Bible does clearly state that homosexuality is not God's intention for human beings."

Bethesda:

You can't have it both ways. Leviticus condemns male homosexuality, but Leviticus does not apply to Christians as they are "under grace." Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The rest of the New Testament is not God's word, but the apostle's opinions - so where does the word of God condemn homosexuality for Christians?

"Adams told us to watch closely what the Christian Right did to homosexuals. He has seen how the Nazis had used "values" to launch state repression of opponents. Hitler, days after he took power in 1933, imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations. He ordered raids on places where homosexuals gathered culminating with the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin . Thousands of volumes from the institute's library were tossed into a bonfire. Adams said that homosexuals would also be the first "deviants" singled out by the Christian Right. We would be the next."

-Chris Hedges, "American Fascists"

Below is a copy of a letter I sent this week to the local newspaper. It may be published. My family is beginning to tell me I should use a pen name when writing. They're afraid of recriminations. We do live in a county that votes Republican. Democrats haven't won a national election here as long as I can remember.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Most Americans are familiar with that sentence from the Declaration of Independence. Notice it says "all men", and "men" is used as a generic term for males and females.

Any attempt by legislatures to prohibit two people from forming a legal union which is known as marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation is denying those citizens their unalienable rights.

The California Supreme Court agrees. Kudos to California for recognizing that. Now, if only Pennsylvania would get on board and dismiss any thought to passing any law that would violate a citizen's right to enter into a legal union with the partner of their choice.

It must be election time, the gay rights issue will be forefront on the republican hate-filled agenda and the religious right will be out in force voting for the candidate that wants to restrict gay marriage as if that portends the end of our democracy and way of life.

Rather, I would suggest that our democracy is threatened by the demogoguery of an administration that has plunged us into a relentless conflagration in Iraq, ignored the public's outcry for help with health insurance, watched helplessly as the oil rich nations held us over the escalating oil barrel, ignored the mortgage market's increasing frenzy with profit taking as many homeowners lost everything and those that didn't saw their house values free fall and touted public education and "no child left behind" that does just that-leaves those kids behind.

The next election should not involve gay rights or a debate question about gay rights.

Rather, it should focus on the life and death decisions that need to be made by the next President of the United States.

Dear Sally; Still more ignorant agitation/propagander. Rather than attacking Biblcal thinking you might be intelligent enough to understand that the question is truly not one of theology but one of "natural law" which is - of course - recognized by the Bible. Homosexuality/lesbinism serves no worthy purpose. These misguided people fail to recognize the natural value of sex.

To: Daniel in the Lion's Den,

What's very sad about your posts is that I wonder if you ever think about what you consider judgmental. You are a liberal and maybe you should examine yourself as you seem to want to change or ignore God's warnings about sin. God's word is clear and most on this post do not hate homosexuals. Lying, stealing, cheating, coveting are sins just like homosexuality which God's word says it is. Sin is sin. What's wrong with Christianity is that there are so many lukewarm Christians like you who are sitting on the fence. Be strong in the Lord, and instruct those in biblical authority about what God considers His truth. Your truth only leads those going astray down a slippery broad path. I will pray for you.

Let me put it to you in simple english.

The word, "Marriage", up until the past few years meant, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Ask the overwhelming majority of people around the entire world what the definition of marriage is and you will get the same answer.

Now I have nothing against allowing same sex couple to have the same rights of inheritance, join venture, and beneficiary designation that the rest of us traditionalists have. That falls under the Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But "same sex marrigage", or "gay marriage" does not mean "marriage". A civil union between two people of the same sex that bestows all the rights and obligations (too many partners of any type forget that second part) enjoyed by a a civil union between two people of different sex is fine.

When you have to resort to using 2 or 3 words to describe a condition that is similar to, but different than a condition already described by a single word, then the use of one word to describe both conditions is wrong, dishonest, in short, it's a lie.

And I stipulate that the gays and lesbians of the world who insist that their unions are marriages are all bald-faced liars. I ain't buying your neo-Newspeak redefinition of the English language to suit your agenda.

Please fix that "cut & paste" blunder in your blog. "Sadly, these views is...." toward the bottom.
Otherwise...awesome blog...couldn't agree more!!! I try to talk about this issue with my teenage son because I keep hoping his generation will be the one that finally achieves for the gay population what Martin Luther's generation achieved for black civil right sin the 60s. I can hope, can't I?

Oh I forgot, da, this enity also allowed his son to commit suicide,( can hear the holy grails dropping all over the country) and in the Bibles second Peter (the non sexual one)said he/she's going to come back. "like a thief in the night" and once again commit mass murder by burning down the neighborhood and only the blood thirsty will survive. And all I want to do is worship the "creation" (romans) in particular my partner of 24 years. Wheres the (blood sorry) love???? Yes the 95 % may be mentally ill or at the least with border line personality discorders!

good

Re: >

Please read the Bible before you make ignorant statements about what it says. There is no Scripture in the Bible that instructs Christians to stone anyone to death for heresy.

Please do not quote the Jewish law of the Old Testament on this. If you actually knew something about the Bible, you would know that Christians are not under law but under grace.

The Bible does clearly state that homosexuality is not God's intention for human beings.

amazed that something (ggodd sic) who "mass murdered" the planet with love (sic) has the moral authority over what I do in bed!!!!!!

This is what the Bible has to say on the subject. From Romans 1.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man----and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

"America's society, culture, and values bear very little resemblance to Africa's."

Well. Thomas. Its NOT Africa that is encroaching on homosexual rights- its Sharia Law.

"Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries. Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen. It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria and the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines, or corporal punishment. In Egypt, openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality laws. On the other hand, homosexuality, while not legal, is tolerated to some extent in Lebanon, which has a significantly large Christian minority, and has been legal in Turkey for decades. In Saudi Arabia, the maximum punishment for homosexuality is public execution, but the government will use other punishments—e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping—as alternatives, unless it feels that homosexuals are challenging state authority. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts. In Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, homosexuality went from a capital crime to one that it punished with fines and prison sentence."

When you call me a bigot- you forget your real enemy. American homosexuals are at war with the people who are sheltering them from something truly horrific.

Anonymous, America's society, culture, and values bear very little resemblance to Africa's.

Thank God.

If you're that desperate for an irrelevant comparison to a foriegn nation's laws, why can't you find a better analogy? Like England or Spain or the Netherlands - oh wait. They all provide equal rights to gay couples.

I'm not the one who needs more education. Based on your dubious debating skills, I'd suggest that you acquaint yourself with some solid research techniques.

"History won't be kind to you, though. *shrugs*"

Really, Thomas? In America- you are sheltered. Educate yourself:

"The President of Gambia has seriously denounced the practice of homosexuality in the country and has given last Friday as the ultimatum for culprits to leave the country.

Speaking last Thursday at a victory celebration held at the Buffer Zone in Tallinding, President Jammeh said that a legislation“stricter than those in Iran” concerning the vice would be introduced very soon.

He maintained that The Gambia is a country of believers, noting that such sinful and immoral exploits as homosexuality would not be tolerated in this country.

He avowed that he would “cut off the head” of any homosexual caught in The Gambia."

Anonymous: My point remains unrefuted. Just because this decision might get opponents of decency and fairness riled up doesn't mean that attitudes towards gay people are not evolving in their favor. In fact, the more that people demonize gays and the nastier they get, the more thinking people - like Sally - and the more younger people come around to our side.

Don't be bitter, though. You tried, using every trick you had, some rather dirty, and you had a good run. Now it's the 9th inning and the game is about over. Thanks for playing.

History won't be kind to you, though. *shrugs*

Thomas-

You can't do your own homework-

"Last week, when California became the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, same-sex couples celebrated and began planning June weddings. Good for them. But the unfortunate and unnecessary impact of the California Supreme Court ruling might well have been to set back the cause of gay rights more broadly."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080522/cm_usatoday/ourviewonsamesexmarriagecaliforniarulinginvitesbacklashagainstgayrights

Anonymous - this is thread concerning American jurisprudence. America is not a backward Middle Eastern country, nor is it a theocracy. If there's a propagandist here, it's you.

I suppose it must be "Do A Bigot's Homework Day".

From USA today: "A recent Gallup poll shows that although 40% of Americans say marriage for same-sex couples should be legal, up from 27% in 1996, 56% still are against gay marriage. At the same time, the nation is far more accepting of homosexuality than it used to be. Several polls have shown that most Americans favor civil unions — which convey the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage — as a reasonable balance between the hard-line attitudes expressed in the two opposing views below this editorial. Eight states allow gay couples to enter civil unions or register as domestic partners."

You've lost the war. Don't bother to continue the battle.

"I also think that your rather smug analysis of how society views gay people is in for some very shocking challenges over the next few years. Poll data shows a lot of changing attitudes on this issue."

Oh. Really? in Iran? Saudi? Pakistan?

Please document your statements. You sound like a propagandist.

Dave says: "Taken to the extreme, homosexuality is the end of the road for mankind - that is, there would be no more creation of life. It is not hard to see why homosexuality was and is condemned by many religions on this reason alone."

Well, then religion needs to meet science, because gays as a percentage of the population have remained constant over time. No one is arguing that all people should be gay. You're just trying - feebly, I may add, to justify why gay people should be harrassed and persecuted.

On to:"The word "gay" itself is a result of feeling better about homosexuality. It is a more kind reference, sort of like the term "undocumented worker". It sounds better. He is gay, not a homosexual.

As has been noted several times, the word homosexual is used almost exclusively as a demonization tactic, and you prove it with your usage "a homosexual" is a thing, whereas "He is gay" requires the reader to consider the person's humanity. And I know, that must chafe you.

I also think that your rather smug analysis of how society views gay people is in for some very shocking challenges over the next few years. Poll data shows a lot of changing attitudes on this issue.

Sally wrote--

"Sadly, these views is still too prevalent."

Hmmm, can someone loan Sally a grammar book?
--Bob :)

Taken to the extreme, homosexuality is the end of the road for mankind - that is, there would be no more creation of life. It is not hard to see why homosexuality was and is condemned by many religions on this reason alone.

There are still hundreds of millions of people of all faiths and no faiths all over the globe that believe homosexuality is wrong no matter how "trendy" or commonplace it seems to have become. In the US it seems that being gay is being promoted everywhere you turn. The word "gay" itself is a result of feeling better about homosexuality. It is a more kind reference, sort of like the term "undocumented worker". It sounds better. He is gay, not a homosexual.

Same thing with gay marriage. It is another attempt to legitimize homosexuality in the mind of the homosexuals. We can be married in exactly the same way as conventional (straight) couples. As a result, our homosexuality is accepted in society.

Face it, society in general, does not accept homosexuals. They are tolerated but not accepted by the world as a whole.

so-

MSM makes those who practice it a common vector for a number of diseases (HIV, hepatitis, MRSA..) found in higher proportions in their comunities. Better take ownership of that fact and educate yourself.

uh oh..

The CDC believes that although MSM are only one-to-two percent of the population, they are 64 percent of all syphilis cases. Imagine that?

hmmm...

According to the FDA, MSM “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

"Uh, actually, all sexual activity carries disease risk.."

Oh. Really? Can men who have sex with men (MSM) donate blood? For some reason the CDC believes that if MSM were permitted to donate blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

Near as I can tell, God (Himself) wrote 10 things.

None of them mention gay marriage.

Here's the deal: Life is one big roulette wheel. You place your bets on either "tolerant" or "intolerant" and wait to see where the ball lands.

But, frankly, if you have to be intolerant to get into heaven, then I'm not sure it's a place I want to go.

Quote:
"Ben in Chantilly:
Daniel ITLD,

I am a Christian. I love gay people. Just as much as I love blind people, deaf people, people with high blood pressure, people with ADHD, people with diabetes, cancer, or any other disorder, people who are criminally insane, people who choose to engage in risky or ill-advised behavior, or even people with nothing wrong with them (don't think there are actually any of us with nothing wrong).

But why is it we can discuss all those other things as negatives that require treatment or should be addressed - WITHOUT saying there is anything wrong with the person, but with homosexuality we cannot have that discussion?

I could really care less if homosexuality is a sin.

I think it's clear that homosexuality as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society, and that - all other determiners being equal - heterosexual life is far more healthy and productive for society.

I do not think gays should be mistreated or forced to hide the fact they are gay.

But at the same time, society should not equate homosexual life as purely without negative considerations. And marriage for same sex couples would do that.

I have no problem with civil unions, any more than I have with braille in elevators. But I don't see anyone saying that blind people should be able to drive. Society makes accommodation for them, but you cannot equalize everyone and homosexuals, by choice or not, are excluded from some of societies offerings in the same way a person who is deaf is excluded from hearing movies. We don't make everyone in the theater watch the film with subtitles, we make reasonable accommodations"

Ben,

Let me first start by your obviously subpar analysis of the situation. You clearly attempted another "Let's compare Homosexuality to something else" in order to make people realize that Homosexuality is bad, like Criminals right?
What you didn't count on was your own obviously subpar intelligence getting in the way.

Let's start with the obvious mistakes you made.
1. You compare homosexuals with criminals, people with ADHD, and people who engage in risky behavior as negatives who need treatment. Thats fine, but I fail to see how homosexuals are a huge threat to society? Do homosexuals rob you at night? Do they drive drunk? No, your personal characterstics determine those things, not your sexual preference

2. You compare homosexuals to people with Cancers and Diabetes. First of all, you cannot diagnose homosexuality. Second of all, it is NOT a disease with adverse effects. I seriously doubt that Homosexuals need radiation treatment or to monitor their blood levels.

Now that I think everyone realizes how poor your "argument" is from the comparison point of view, lets move on to your finer "wisdoms" concerning homosexuals and society:

1. You say homosexuality degrades society, and is therefore "bad" for the society and its people.

I really would like for EVERYONE quoting this like the scripture, to please let me know WHY homosexuality is bad for society. Do people somehow lose family values if homosexuals are living near them? Do people enjoy their dinners less if homosexuals were allowed to exist?

You say that heterosexual people are more productive and better for society. I, as an Econ major from 1 of the nations top universities, would like to congratulate you on knowing absolutely nothing about the market or society. You imply that somehow being gay makes you lazy, or stupid, or nonproductive. You obviously made the flaw of actually believing in your previous comparisons of gays to criminals and the mentally insane. See, where criminals go commit acts of violence, the gays dont go around looking for easy victims. Where the mentally unstable may sit and not be able to do much with their lives, the gays actually get jobs. So you see, and brace yourself here, the gays, *gasp*, actually do things that normal people do. Hard to believe I know.

In conclusion, I think Ben's comparison of a civil union with the "braille in elevators" about sums up his intellect.

As for the rest of those who cry that homos somehow "degrade", "harm", "hurt" family values, marriage, or society as a whole, I beg of you, please go back to school. Not only is there no solid proof that homosexuals have adverse effects on society, they are PEOPLE, not charactersitcs/traits. A violent person may be a criminal, a careless person may be a drunk driver, and a mentally unstable person may be a sociopath, but these are the persons personal CHARACTERSITCS. Homosexuality, believe it or not boys and girls, is NOT a characteristic that someone has in which you can attribute their actions to(besides having sex with samesex partners). Homosexuality is something that people cannot help in most cases, like being black, or a woman. To say that homosexuals are bad for society is like saying that women can't drive, or that blacks are all criminals.

Homosexuality is today's accepted way of being prejudiced and discriminating against people you dont like. You wouldn't dream of marching against giving blacks the right to vote, you shouldn't march against giving homosexuals rights.

Its quite simple, they are a unique group of people that cannot help the way they are, and they contribute no ill to society; therefore, they should not be prosecuted and discriminated against.

I, as a 21 year old student still in college can see this, yet many of the older, more "wiser" cannot. I am increasingly more dissappointed with some of those affiliated with the various "do-good" religions. I question your intelligence, and your ability to think for yourself. You not only refuse logic and reason, but you are the most likely to point your hypocritical fingers at anything you can find. Gay bashing is just the flavor of the year.

FYI: I am not gay, have a girlfriend, and do not have any gay friends. I am merely more insightful than apparently 50% of the population in this post. I am not pro-gay, nor am I anti-gay. I am merely someone who thinks its fair to treat another normal person as a human being, which, many of you have forgotten.

Those religious fanatics who call out homosexuals as being sinners and should be punished:

Enjoy the irony that is your life. You believe in hell, and you persecute without full knowledge against your harmless fellow brothers/sisters. It is you who will burn in hell, which you so whole-heartedly believe and quote.

From Spiderman (1 or 2...don't care to remember):

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Is there anyone promoting Marriage equality that is actually asking that the Constitution be amended on their behalf? I'm pretty sure all the 'amending' requests are coming from the opposite side of this debate.

I think that all supporters of Marriage equality are focusing on the fact that the rights already stated in the Constitution should be available to all Americans...regardless of sexual orientation.

Did I miss a memo outlining a new Amendment to the Constitution for Same Sex Marriage rights. No, didn't think so. Pay attention. You are the ones that are proposing amending the Constitution not us.

jonathan wrote:

>doesn't homosexual activity have medical
>consequences? The fact is that sexual relations >between men is clearly associated with disease
>risk.

Uh, actually, all sexual activity carries disease risk, because it's the most biologically intimate thing two people can do, regardless of their gender. That's what distinguishes sexually-transmitted diseases; they are by definition the hardest diseases to transmit.

And your word "associated" is meaningless. Night is associated with murder, so night should be banned.

My family has been in California since the mid 1800's and we have always believed in live and let live as long as it doesnt scare the horses. Same sex marriage is simply an equal protection under the California State constitution issue with me. As long as religious institutions aren't required to perform or bless a union of any kind I couldn't care less. And the fact is, California's heterosexual marriages that have resulted in divorce have nothing to do with gays and lesbians. And if heterosexuals were to get their own house in order things would be a whole damn lot better. Come to think of it, around 2000 I recall Dr James Dobson the Christian conservative noting on his radio show as I was looking for another program, that the divorce rates for Christians were higher than for non Christians.

you are all crazy. what difference does it make to you what someone else does, if it doesn't hurt you? if I screw a goat in my own house, what do you care? drinking alcohol is worse for society, as is killing in iraq for oil and israelll. being a single minded religious freak is worse than anything.

Of course same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. The resistance is all in people's minds, creating problems where there aren't any.

The Bible contradicts itself, which means that Christian people are choosing their standpoint on private grounds. So you will have to look for the answer in psychology, rather than religion. In what way do the nay-sayers feel that gay marriage is hurting THEM, personally? There is your answer.

The real problem with gay marriage is the “M” word…marriage. It spooks the right (religious or not), a great deal of people in the middle, and to be fair a small number of those on the left. The Right side uses religion and their beliefs of immorality (and worse) to scare those fine people in the center who according to what has been preached to them from a pulpit, would ordinarily think that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their own business. If they literally believe what has been preached to them they then choose to cast the stones rather than examine the issue of love between two people and choose to turn blind eye to other religious prohibitions cited in the Bible, Talmud, Koran, and other religious books.

The equation of marriage as a religious rite not a civil right is the issue that is straining any honest discourse on the subject. What I think is the real solution, and the one that many in the gay community believe is not enough, is civil unions. I say that civil unions should be fore everyone, not just the gay community. The true separation of Church and State in the US would be to make marriage a religious union of two people but not a legal one. A separate legal ceremony would need to take place in order to confer the rights of a union of two people in the eyes of the State. The sacrament of marriage – and whether an organized religion wishes to accept couple within the church is no longer a responsibility of the government. This takes the wind out of the sails of the right and gives equal civil rights to all citizens of this country.

I dont think you need anything explained to you. I think you understand it perfectly.

doesn't homosexual activity have medical consequences? The fact is that sexual relations between men is clearly associated with disease risk. There is also a clear correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity.

This in turn has public policy and social health consequences.

How people 'feel' is one thing, but the concrete effects of their actions may be something else again.

God bless California sublime court.

Chris Fox-

When I said:

"anything I say is foolish to you."

I was confident in my statement. Glad to see you and I finally agree on something.

"For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power of God.. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

Maybe you will remember our posts later in life..

First of all, I don't think the Bible says anywhere that we should stone to death people who don't believe like we do. I've been a believer and a student of the Bible for 30 years and I've never heard or read a Scripture that supports such a thing and I've never been a member of a church that even remotely suggested anything like that.

Secondly, Romans 1 implies that the "homosexualization" of a society (and that is very definitely what is happening in our society) is not merely something that incurs the wrath of God, but rather it is manifestation of the wrath of God. It is a sign that God is done with us. These certainly are both the best and the worst of times in this Disneyland country of ours.

Thirdly, I think that as a society, we want to die. I'm not saying that it's a conscious decision for the death of individuals. It's more like a collective self-destructiveness. Look at the way our society resists doing the things that ensure our survival and insists on doing what will contribute to our destruction.

Lauren

Is there is major political grass-roots movement among millions of people to have sex with their mothers and fathers? I have never heard of such a thing. Please explain your fantasy in more detail

I don't see anything about earthquakes coming as judgment. Jesus talks about that issue of tragedy striking people, that it didn't happen as a judgment or a way of teaching them. We're all making various errors every single day. Where was the lightning bolt to kill the apostle Paul when he murdered Stephen? That's very natural thinking. If anything, the worse the sinner, the more time He gives them on this planet to reconsider, wanting to give them at least this life. Jesus stopped his disciples from wanting to rain down lightning. God the Father had to force Jonah to speak to Ninevah whom Jonah wanted destroyed, but obviously God did not want to. The issue of bad things happening is when people don't follow Him enough to know How he wants to protect them. Many believers have testified to having a sense of warning when dangerous things are coming at them. We're living on a complex, living planet that belches volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. It's the kind of place that it sure helps when you see God is watching over you.

just a reminder:

>You've already said "You don't buy the bull" so
>anything I say is foolish to you.

you can put that in the bank

But we are not dumb animals!!!!

Spiderman2 said:

"Gay marriage attracts the wrath of God. Trouble is coming and Im here just to announce the coming trouble. Im just the messenger of a bad message. A VERY BAD MESSAGE.

CALIFORNIANS, TAKE COVER. Sodom Destruction, Part 2."

Well, with all those capital letters, it must be serious.

Except it's hard to take such nonsense seriously. Especially because as same-sex marriage becomes legal more and more places, the scare tactics stop working on most people.

What's truly scary, though, is that you believe God would wipe out millions of people--gay, straight, old, young, babies, and even the animals you seem obsessed with--and you seem ok with it. Who'd worship such a monster?

"ahabah" is the word for love between Jonathan and David. It is a Hebrew word depicting love between friends. It is Strong's H160. It was posted on a Key West Community Church site that is given as a Biblical proof that Jonathan and David were gay. The Strong's Concordance illustrates the meanings in the original language. In 2Samuel:1 it talks about a bond between the descendants of Jonathan and David. The descendants obviously were going to come because of their physical relations with women. That comment clarifies any misunderstanding. They were really close friends. It was a spiritual closeness, and in this relationship they had a greater spiritual intimacy than they did with women. If you look at David's wives, you could see why he felt close to Jonathan!

Religion needs to stay out of the gay marriage debate. Our country is not Christian nation eventhough the majority of the population are Christians. Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, established the separation of church and state.

Essentially, its the right of each citizen to choose the partner he/she wants and have the government recognize it as such, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.

If gay marriage is against your religion or sense of morality, then don't have one. Its that simple! But, do not try to shove your religion down my throat, I do not appreciate it and its un-American.

This is a free society. And, being part of a free society is having to tolerate things, ideas, and people that you may not like.

I realize that no one cares what I think, but because I do care about you folks and about this great country of the U.S.A., in my opinion:

State governments, the court system, or the federal government may re-define words all they want, but what really matters is what the people feel in their hearts. The government cannot legislate, buy, or adjudicate hearfelt respect nor the intrinsic happiness of the people.

The commandments seek the optimum happiness for the individual and the community. Government seeks self-preservation for those elected or appointed. We can't trust those in government to seek the happiness or the true long-term (hundreds of years long-term) well-being of the collective society they govern. They seek short-term solutions, quick fixes, and to look good. At the end of the day, there will be very few statesmen, and they will be out-numbered and out-voted. But the majority of people in this great country will follow their heart and truth will win out.

Peace to those struggling to figure out how to find their own way through the darkness of our times. Follow the light, and be energized by its increase in your life.

Killer wrote "Hey Spiderman, no one is trying to amend the Constitution to allow homosexual sex."

The mere mention that gay marriage will be allowed in the Constitution means their homosexual sex acts will also be condoned by the Constitution.

It would make the Constitution fit for the garbage bin.

Gay marriage attracts the wrath of God. Trouble is coming and Im here just to announce the coming trouble. Im just the messenger of a bad message. A VERY BAD MESSAGE.

CALIFORNIANS, TAKE COVER. Sodom Destruction, Part 2.

Chris Fox-

You've already said "You don't buy the bull" so anything I say is foolish to you.

Let me show you something you refuse to acknowledge:

"A movie just came out about an old high school buddy of mine, Ken Pinyan, who graduated in 1978. The movie is called "Zoo". It just won a big award at Sundance Film Festival 2007. The movie is a documentary style study of my friend and what they call "the last taboo"."

http://www.fuuse.com/article.php?story=20070123062654558

And leave you with words you won't understand-

"There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."

Sally, you are so dense. Would Jesus say no to one engaging in sex acts with their mother or father? Hmmm? Maybe?

But why? I mean, they are consenting adults and they aren't hurting anyone, right?

See, that argument does not go too far, does it?

I have favored civil unions or domestic partnerships for some time, but I now understand that these are not acceptable to some. I cannot object to exclusive legal unions of any two people. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, what should be done when a 55 year old woman and a 60 year old man want to marry? Other things are also important, mainly a satisfying companionship. Some say that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. I would point out to them that heterosexual couples living together and having chilren without any marriage at all is much more common these days and that seems to be accepted as normal.

OK, Thomas, I can see why you would take issue with my statement about the fact that we're talking about a minority of people, and that was a point well taken. I was discussing this from the point of view how the comparison to racism is different because the whole of scripture runs against that notion, while it is a different story with various forms of immorality. The Jews were encouraged to be kind to foreigners of various nationalities living with them (when they were willing to live in agreement with their practices and not take them down the road into theirs). Jesus showed kindness to the Samaritans who were outcasts in their day. Peter received the revelation that the scriptures were for all races and nations. The whole of scripture is profoundly against racism. I think it is true that Jesus generally wasn't targeting any specific sin. The focus on sexual immorality as a whole is mentioned at least once in the context as being essentially bad physically for a body. Jesus identified sin without dwelling on it; the focus was that it was curable and He, in His person, was the antidote. He didn't check out how "holy" someone was before he healed them, for example. There is a scripture about how men are to "reverence" their wives as "joint heirs"... a lot different from some of the chauvinistic comments on this blog. It's translated that way in other languages much more than the English. As it relates to homosexuality, though, it isn't accurate to say the Bible has no negative mention. But the Bible does not advocate throwing stones at anyone either. This is what I'm trying to say...the issue for Christians is one of spiritual agreement or affirmation of the practice for which we then have to give an account personally. That's the barrier that can't be crossed. Fairness from a legal standpoint is not something, however, that people oppose per se. Redefining the word marriage though is a problem.

A contraceptive institution is not equal to a generative institution.

Venom (because the Spiderman in the comics is nothing like our poster)...

I take it that you are actively hoping for the destruction of California because of their tolerance for same-sex marriages. If so, then why do you hate America? If taken out of the U.S., California would be the world's fourth-largest economy on its own. So, you are hoping for the destruction of a major portion of America's economy.

To all of the GLBT folks posting here... please remember that not all straight people are against you. Frankly, I'm happy ecstatic that this has happened, and I'm looking forward to marriage equality in Maryland for my own gay friends.

Darian: thanks for your kind remarks. Honestly, bigotry plays a very distant and subdued role in my life, I've never really felt much in the way of shame and bigots are usually such silly and demented people that I wouldn't dream of taking one of them seriously .. and no I don't say that in defiance or in denial. People who use the n-word, who cares what they think?

Anyway I'm a software developer and in my industry anyone who even hinted at bigotry would be escorted out and might never work again. So no, I don't feel it much, though the slow progress on full equality is a little maddening sometimes.

We spent thousands in Vermont when they passed the civil union law .. now we'll spend thousands in California.

Hey Spiderman, no one is trying to amend the Constitution to allow homosexual sex. The Constitution does not outlaw homosexual sex and hopefully it will never say anything on the subject one way or another. It's so sad that someone as pathetically ignorant has such strong views on anything. It's also sad that someone that is as ignorant as you who also has such strong misguided views is afforded the right to vote. There are some real negatives to democracy and you sir illustrate the biggest one.

FYI, I'm not sure about horses, but there are tons of examples of animals that engage in homosexual behavior.

just a reminder wrote:

>If there is no God then all is permissible that does no harm.

And that one is called a non sequitur.

The if and the then in your sentence have nothing to do with each other .. belief in God is in no way a prerequisite to moral thinking. In fact the atheists I know and correspond with are much better at moral thinking, and I'm not using that as a euphemism for rationalization either.

Two posts from you, two glaring logical fallacies.

Doesn't speak well for your views.

Chris Fox said:
"I'm a gay man and part of a gay couple, we've been together a dozen years. What I've noticed in talking to straight couples, married couples, is how much what they go through in their relationships sounds like what we go through in ours.

All the Timothy and Leviticus references don't mean anything next to that."

You made me smile. I'm a straight married woman and I've noticed the same. I have lots of gay friends, and lots of gay married friends. We worked side-by-side against the proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage here in MA, and even though we have marriage equality on a state level, many of us are working to help other states.

I can't imagine in a million years what it is like to endure the bigotry and hatred you and other GLBT citizens have to, but I got the tiniest, most minuscule taste of it when I started to volunteer for a gay rights organization. All that did was make me a gay rights advocate for life. You deserve the same rights I have. I hope I see you get them in my lifetime.

Sally Quinn wrote "I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

People love their dog but it's a different matter if that love means having sex with their dog.

A male horse copulating another male horse? Will there be a horse owner who would make a stable exclusively for gay horses? None of course.

The same goes with the Constitution. Only a stupid government will make a provision that would legalize a kind of "love-making" that's not normal.

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Confine the foolishness to yourselves and leave the Constitution alone.

Stupidity always attract trouble. The kind of trouble which slavery brought. It brought death to millions of people thru civil war.

Gay marriage is as troublesome as slavery. God has set an example by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

***

MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION

It's a sign from God that the place is marked for destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah was set as an example. If the enemies of America are looking for SOFT TARGET, then this is it. They can fire their weapons at will and God will be the one who will put more destructive power to it. It is best that the people of God start moving away from this place. GO , BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

***

COME INTO MY PARLOR, SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY.

The flies all over America would hopefully settle in Califonia attracted by this gay marriage law. Then the Spider would make it's move. Ah, how intelligent is the Lord. His Wrath can no longer wait to whip all these flies with one strike.

SEE THE HAND OF THE LORD WORKING. IT IS SLOW BUT IT'S GRINDING EXCEEDING SMALL.

Chris Fox-

You are the bigot. If there is no God then all is permissible that does no harm.

When you say to me-

"you can't tell the difference between a human and a beast or a corpse"

Its like me telling you-

"you can't tell the difference between a male and female--a v and an a-hole"

Don't be so judgmental of those you clearly don't understand.

Tara, since you asked, as long as it's sane, safe, and between consenting adults, I have no problem with what anyone does with their happy parts.

Not that what I think is perverse or not has anything to do with anyone's civil rights.

Sorry JustAReminder but if you can't tell the difference between a human and a beast or a corpse then the problem is not on my side of the keyboard.

I draw great comfort that you guys are left with such transparently dismissible arguments as slippery slopes.

Moreover my respect for your religion's beautiful teachings and its uplifting first few centuries .. does not extend to those such as yourself to whom it is nothing more than a rationale for bigotry.

And don't kid yourself.

Darian:

Is any sexual behavior deviant to you? Where do you draw the line between sexual permission and sexual perversion?

Is Sally right to say "a loving God (will not) say no to love of any kind.

Well, it's late, and I'm off to bed to cuddle with my wife. Somehow, the knowledge that 12 gay people in my apartment building are doing the same exact thing will not send either one of us screaming into the night that our relationship is over.

Some of the things you people have said on this thread may keep me awake a little while, though. I understand what Ghandi meant when he said: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are not like your Christ."

One last thing for Just A Reminder: If Christ was so adamantly against gay marriage, we will never know, because He was literally silent on the subject. One wonders what was up when he cured the Roman Centurion's "beloved male servant", though. Hmm. Interesting word use in the original text: pais

http://www.mcckeywest.com/textpages/040627.htm

Heh, Truth, there have been no straw man arguments from me. You said: "Woman are not to teach or have authority over a man in the church. Wives can speak under their husband's authority. Woman are to be subject to man has Christ was subject to the Father."

Yep, that's in the Bible. Not that most Christians follow it. But those ideas cost women years and years of equal rights. People came around on women's rights, and also rejected slavery, despite the Bible. We went from most Christians believing one thing to most Christians believing something else. Same Bible, different readings. Same thing is happening with gay rights. I think you'd be surprised at just how many religious people, including Christians, have no problem or actively support gay rights, including the right to marry.

To Kevin Bateman Smith

OK, the scripture is 1 Corinthians 6:9....the word translated as homosexuals is the Greek word "arsenokoites" which is defined as "one who lies with a male as with a female." So, it is there. Now as relates to the Revelations scripture (Rev 21:8), the word I translated homosexual is defined a little differently in the original language, Greek. It is "pornos"....translated as 1. male prostitute, 2. a man who prostitutes his body, and 3, a man who engages in unnatural sexual intercourse. No 3 is kind of a loose definition there. I stand corrected, partially, as it relates to Revelations. You can find the original language on blueletterbible.com, using the Strong numbers, you will find the original language and its definitions. You don't have to agree with what is said, but this is a clarification of what the document says. I apologize for any distortion. By the way, for the other blogger, I am a woman, and I am not sulking around men at all. That stuff is seriously misinterpreted. But that's another topic!

It is amazing how all the reprobates are trying to justify their sin by pointing to other things their depraved minds cannot accept on the Bible. Homo sex is clearly unnatural just like the Bible says and it does not take a Ph.D. to figure that out.

Hey Chris Fox-

You don't buy the bull? Fine. Just don't judge other types of sexuality (bestiality, necrophilia, etc) as an offence. As you know- they are still in the closet and must be treated equally

Thank you Just a Reminder for telling us what God thinks.

Explanations of God's will from low class, stuck-up snobs is always impresseive.

Anonymous says: "To declare something like marriage, which by definition is between a man and woman, is now going to be redefined by the state, something that has had this same definition for millenia, is asking too much."

No it isn't.

Actually, many marriages were arranged for property transfer purposes as late as Victorian times, and women weren't even allowed to own property. It didn't become something couples did for love alone until much later. It is disingenous to argue that marriage hasn't changed over time. Read "The Other Boleyn Girl" for an eye-popping account of how marriage worked in Tudor England.

As for this: "With the term marriage, this is a symbolic quest for affirmation and agreement. We are, as of yet, still talking about a minority; to be generous, 10-20% of the population. This is not the same as the issue of racism AT ALL."

Of course it is. That's the uncomfortable truth that no one wants to face. It doesn't matter how many gays there are to discuss provision of equal rights.

Darian,

Woman are not to teach or have authority over a man in the church. Wives can speak under their husband's authority. Woman are to be subject to man has Christ was subject to the Father. No problem I do believe what the Bible says from cover to cover so take your straw man argument and throw it in the garbage can. Homosexuality is evil and there is no question about that truth.

Hey JustAReminder .. please produce God and let Him speak for Himself, I don't buy the bull.

I'm a gay man and part of a gay couple, we've been together a dozen years. What I've noticed in talking to straight couples, married couples, is how much what they go through in their relationships sounds like what we go through in ours.

All the Timothy and Leviticus references don't mean anything next to that.

As one of the other columnists already noted, we'll come to the time where we wondered what all the fuss was about, probably a solid generation behind the rest of the world.

Thomas-

Jesus was a Torah observant Jew his entire life on earth. The Torah forbids the homosexual act (mishkav zakhar).

“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

The Torah considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing (to’evah).

Jesus certainly understood the Torah- in fact He was the Torah made flesh and as Angela likes to point out to readers- He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.

If you believe God has somehow changed his mind about homosexuality- you are mistaken.

I'd like to address your comment about the following: "Inheritance rights, medical descision-making, tax advantages - all are accorded equally to childless couples as well. There's no 'intention to have kids" attestation on a marriage license." I did use the word "mostly" for a reason. Inheritance: anyone can put anyone in a will (without a marriage license) Medical decision-making: anyone can have a living will. Tax advantages: most gay people do not have children, have double incomes, and don't have the need for a tax deduction for the purpose of raising children. That's why that tax deduction was given for straight people. I think one could argue for the minority of gays that do have children and one caregiver at home that they should receive that tax deduction, irregardless of marriage-- basically anyone who has a child in the home. That should apply equally for all those black grandmothers in cities all over the country who are raising their children's kids and not getting a deduction. The laws evolved around caring for children. However, a believing Christian cannot put themselves in agreement by their vote to affirm what they believe to be contrary. However, that does not mean that they would make any effort to stop any of the above rights such as inheritance, etc. Many straight people live together without marriage and are considered common-law and the laws in various states handle that differently. To declare something like marriage, which by definition is between a man and woman, is now going to be redefined by the state, something that has had this same definition for millenia, is asking too much. However, equal treatment in terms of the above should be afforded with other vehicles to do so, most of which already exist but may need to be enhanced. With the term marriage, this is a symbolic quest for affirmation and agreement. We are, as of yet, still talking about a minority; to be generous, 10-20% of the population. This is not the same as the issue of racism AT ALL. Though racists may have thought the Bible supported their view, it clearly does not. To the contrary, it says God created all in His image. It does not anywhere state that one must specifically shun biracial contact or be in danger or judgment (of course this is not so, but this is how strongly it would need to be worded to make it a fair comparison). Everyone is being bombarded by sexual immorality, gay and straight, in the media. No one asked my opinion. I have no rights to not have it on a big screen in Walmart or on the airplane. Corporate America is doing that to sell products. If gay people want straight Christians to go along with saying their lifestyle is sanctioned by the state in terms of being defined as a marriage, they won't do it. But as I said, they aren't opposed to basic rights at all, especially as it relates to the care of children. It's a matter of wording and agreement. However, if you push Christian straight people on this matter and force them to specifically speak and act contrary to scripture, you are going down an unproductive path. Christians believe it is an individual walk with God....we are accountable for our own behavior, no one else's. But we also cannot declare something to be right concerning someone else when it runs contrary.

Brambleton said:

State after state after state after state has voted against same sex marriage - and not by a narrow margin. The people have spoken.

Doesn't this make the whole discussion rather moot?

No it does not.

The Constitution was amended to ban alcohol. Did that make the discussion moot?

No, it did not.

This question will never end, until all of the homophobic people lay down and die, and the new generations rise up with fresh new outlook, and wonder at how backward the past generations were.

@ Just a reminder:

Not all judgments made by people are good, sound, rational, fair-minded judgments.

Nor are all judgments made by people who claim to base them on the Bible valid.

"...while on the other hand upon the self-willed who disobey the Truth and obey unrighteousness will fall anger and fury, affliction and awful distress, coming upon the soul of every man and woman who deliberately does wrong.."

That sounds a lot like what anti-gay bigots have coming to them.

To all of you who keep saying you don't hate gays, just our actions, or think we've made a mistake, but still love us, etc, etc.

Stop lying. If you think we've committed a terrible sin, continue to commit it, are violating God's law, corrupting children, and helping bring about the downfall of America, you SHOULD hate us. At the very least, you should NOT love us. Who loves people who do things like that?

That's one of the things I absolutely cannot stand about Christianity. The concept of loving everybody is sick on multiple levels. You can't always separate people from actions. And if you "love" everybody, how do you know when you truly do love anybody? It cheapens it.

And PS, if you try to legislate against my happiness, and pray for me to change, those aren't loving actions, no matter what you claim you feel.

I'll repeat: NOWHERE in Revelations (as 'Anonymous' suggests) are "homosexuals" singled out as a group. They very fact that you would employ the term signifies that you're not reading the actual text. The concept of homosexuality, again, derives from the 19th century. It refers to _more_ than same-sex love or sexual relations, it implicates these within the discourse of medicine, not religion. Whether or not you posit a divide between the Old and New Testaments is irrelevant to the current debate since nowhere in the New Testament are same-sex relationships critically addressed. Those who use the Bible to advance positions of bigotry take recourse to the Old Testament exclusively, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to direct our attention to that book.
Your assumptions about what the role of the state ought to be vis-à-vis marriage are also extremely poorly developed from an intellectual standpoint. It was made very clear in this decision, as it had in others, that the state has far greater interests in regulating the institution of marriage than a simple interest in children. Taxes? Power of attorney? Spousal privilege?

By the way, the scriptures on homosexuality are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, and both are talking about different kinds of sexual immorality. The term "homosexual" appears in many English translations, German, Italian, Spanish, and French. If you go to www.biblegateway.com, you can get translations of scripture into any major language and see the variations. The quote from Revelations I mentioned earlier is a general reference to sexually immoral people. In other words, pretty much all of society is in trouble. You are not being singled out.

Concerned the Christian: Yuck is not enough to base social policy on, and the remainder of your phrases have no verbs or objects to clarify what you mean.

Anonymous says: "The reason the state is involved in straight marriages is mostly for the purpose of protecting children."

Not true. Inheritance rights, medical descision-making, tax advantages - all are accorded equally to childless couples as well. There's no 'intention to have kids" attestation on a marriage license.

"But gays do not have that. It's in your face. You must agree. That creates a backlash. It's not worth it."

Sure it is! I can snap on a TV, pick up a magazine, or go to a movie and see my heterosexual lifestyle depicted all over the place. If that's not in your face, I don't know what is.

Rosa Parks said "I'm in your face and you must agree."

The suffragettes did the same thing.

Martin Luther King did too.

Should they all have said "live and let live"?

Of course not. They said "We want equal treatment under the law." And eventually, they got it.

Any rights struggle isn't going to be a quiet one - particularly this one. No need to expect it to be.

As for backlash - well, the overheated anti-gay rhetoric of the Religious Right sure generated one... though not in the direction they wanted. Recent polls suggest a large shift towards parity for gays, and it's one I'm glad to support.

Why?

Because no one has answered Sally's question yet. You can't do it credibly and honestly.

Thomas-

"The fact is that in the stubbornness of your impenitent heart you are treasuring up against yourself anger on the Day of Anger--the day when the righteousness of God's judgments will stand revealed. To each man He will make an award corresponding to his actions; to those on the one hand who, by lives of persistent right-doing, are striving for glory, honour and immortality, the Life of the Ages; while on the other hand upon the self-willed who disobey the Truth and obey unrighteousness will fall anger and fury, affliction and awful distress, coming upon the soul of every man and woman who deliberately does wrong.."

If you believe in God's Word- Judgment awaits us after this temporal world with its trials and pleasures passes away..

If you don't believe in God's Word. Well- anything is permissible and you are a hypocrite. If there is no judgment- who are you to judge?

The New Testament does not have any scripture that talks about killing your enemies. The New Testament is the basis of the Christian faith. It says, some of you "were" homosexuals and are no longer so. It says in Revelations that adulterers, homosexuals, and cowards will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. The disciples all ran at the crucifixion; in other words, they were cowards. Something happened to them post-crucifixion that changed them from serious cowards to very courageous people. The heart of the New Testament is that God is able to help with every single challenge. It doesn't single out any issue, sin, or problem. It also does not say to kill anyone like Muslim fundamentalists do. You are talking about the Old Testament and the history of the Nation of Israel. The U.S. is a nation. It does kill people in certain circumstances. The Nation of Israel was living in a very different period of time, and by those standards was by FAR the most civilized of the nations around them. You're educated. Why haven't your read both the Old and New Testaments? Why don't you know the difference between them? Your comments suggest deep ignorance or a desire to be very sloppy with the facts. It's kind of like you want to be ignorant so you won't have to reckon with what's in that book. Don't bring it up unless you want to actually read it. No one cares to come in and break up a gay couple. But what gays want is for the state to say it is approved. The state really doesn't have a purpose in doing that. The state is just a representation of the people. Many people do not desire to state specifically that gay marriage is a good thing (nor do they want to declare it's bad). The reason the state is involved in straight marriages is mostly for the purpose of protecting children. Most straights have a live and let live view. But gays do not have that. It's in your face. You must agree. That creates a backlash. It's not worth it.

After 181 comments, I still consider gay relationships "yucky" and always will be IMHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?

Mother Nature cannot be thrilled!!!!!!

Perhaps a comment like this has already been posted, but nowhere - let me reiterate - NOWHERE in the bible is there any mention of "homosexuality." "Homosexuality" is a 19th century concept used to describe men who love men and women who love women as biologically or psychologically sick. Referring to gays and lesbians today as "homosexuals" is equivalent to calling asians "orientals;" both terms demean and degrade their referents. With regard to the Christian holy book though, homosexuality is never mentioned and same-sex relations are mentioned only once in Leviticus. Before you, and journalists like you, begin to point out that those who are engaged in this activity are referred to as "abominations," why don't you contextualize what an "abomination" is in the Bible? Sin in general is abomination (Isaiah 66:3). Idolatry is abomination (Isaiah 44:19). Adultery is abomination (Ezekiel 22:11). Yes, these are all somewhat serious things, but let's look at what else is an abomination. Shepherds were abominations unto the Egyptians (Genesis: 46:34). Haughty eyes, lying, conniving, and having "feet that are swift in running to mischief" are abominations (Proverbs 6:16-18). Cheating in the market through the use of rigged weights is an abomination (Deuteronomy 25:13-19). Eating seafood without fins and scales is an abomination (Leviticus 11:11). Eating insects is an abomination (Leviticus: 11:23 and 11:41). So is being proud (Proverbs 16:5). If men's having sex with men or women's having sex with women is an abomination on par with being an insect-eating shepherd, then it strains the imagination for religious zealots to think that they're committing the sin of all sins and that they therefore deserve to be excluded from the institution of marriage.

Over 178 comments and no one who opposes gay marriage has answered Sally's question beyond saying "My Bible says it's wrong." or "I think gay sex is icky." No harm in allwoing gays to marry has been articulated with any support.

Those waving the "ick" flag do so, invariably, with disinformation and straw men to bolster their arguments. In so doing, they often reveal a lack of knowledge of gay people and sex in general. They seem very, very angry, and don't hesitate to trot out defamatory language comparing gay marriage to marrying siblings, kitty cats, and dead Auntie Grizelda's moldering corpse.

Those basing their arguments on the Bible seem to be a trifle less shouty, but it escalates as the logical challenges to their position mount up. Few of them, if questioned with particular passages regarding slavery and subordination of women, can sustain a view that the Bible is 100% to be taken literally. This forces them to admit that they do indeed "cherry pick" and that our understanding of the Bible's role in social justice has changed over time.

But I don't hate them. I just hate their sin. :)

Morton Salt said:

"To quote Reagan: "There you go again". Assuming that the Bible is the only proper view of God. The Bible was written by Jewish Scholars in captivity in Babylon. They combined stories such as "Gilgamesh" and The Iliad and The Odyssey, mixed in the concepts of Zarathustra - heaven, hell, monotheism, divine morality, and devine judgement and those scholars crafted a story that they used to lay claim to Palestine - Israel and Judea.

That is what the Bible is. It is NOT better than Gita or Homer or any other text that describes a mythology of God.

Please do your homework before you come spouting off about the Bible. I - a buddhist - should not know more about your religion than you do. You should be ashamed."

First of all, buddhist, you're not as smart as you think you are. My faith does not come from anyone even the president of the U.S. The Bible is the only inspirational Word of God. Nothing comes even close to that. The Bible was written by the prophets and Apostles.

The fact is, you're probably more confused about yourself and religion than when you first became a buddhist.

Have you even read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation? Try to do that first before you say anything....

Can someone marry him/herself?

Brambleton, you said:

"Re: the accidental incest case in the UK... I would say no, I would not advocate in favor of siblings marrying. Children of such a union might be horribly deformed, and there are emotional problems inherent with tinkering with such a close family relationsh."

The horribly deformation can be true. But I'm curious, what happened to Adam and Eve's descendants? They married among them and nothing serious that I know affected humanity. Are the old books wrong on this also?

Peace to all,

JAC

Brambleton, it sure doesn't. The majority should never get to vote on the civil rights of the minority. State after state after state did the wrong thing. The majority sometimes does. That's why we usually give civil rights questions to legislators to decide. In the year 2000, Alabama let the voters decide whether or not to strike down a law that said interracial marriage was illegal. THe law was struck down, but pretty narrowly. Shockingly, 40 percent of voters wanted to keep that law on the books. Had the vote gone the other way, would you suggest that the people had spoken and interracial marriage should be illegal?

State after state after state after state has voted against same sex marriage - and not by a narrow margin. The people have spoken.

Doesn't this make the whole discussion rather moot?

about We had beechnuts we watched huge tree bellowed

from the Old Testament Book of the Song of Solomon

Chapter 2

3 As an apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among young men. With great delgiht, I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.

5 Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am sick with love.

6 O that his left hand were under my head, and that his right hand embraced me!

Kmams said: "however you try to put it no matter what religion you are they all state at the end that its not the right thing to do"

You're wrong. There are religions that do not believe homosexuality is wrong, and that allow same-sex marriage.

Kmams also said: "I feel like you should not spoil what is the marriage, "Bond between MAN AND WOMAN" "
I have one of those bonds. I am a woman who has been happily married to a man for fifteen years. For four of those, I've lived in a state that allows same-sex marriage. My marriage didn't change a whit. It's as strong and committed and happy as ever. If someone else's marriage can spoil your bond, the other couple isn't the problem.

I don't have anything againest same sex couples, i have friends that are gay and we get along just fine, I feel like you should not spoil what is the marriage, "Bond between MAN AND WOMAN" I feel like being a partner and getting all the same rights as a married couple would do just fine without pulling in the religion factor into the mix, if its truly about love why should it matter if its done by a judge or your pastor. however you try to put it no matter what religion you are they all state at the end that its not the right thing to do, My religion does not allow for someone to interpert it in they own way but to follow it the way its stated.

I don't have anything againest same sex couples, i have friends that are gay and we get along just fine, I feel like you should not spoil what is the marriage, "Bond between MAN AND WOMAN" I feel like being a partner and getting all the same rights as a married couple would do just fine without pulling in the religion factor into the mix, if its truly about love why should it matter if its done by a judge or your pastor. however you try to put it no matter what religion you are they all state at the end that its not the right thing to do, My religion does not alloow for someone to interpert it in they own way but to follow it the way its stated.

BRAMBLETON

I think that there is a difference between judgementalism and justice, actually a big difference.

One of the ways that I look at it is when people try to force their personal morality on others rather than trying to live up to it themselves.

As it should be obvious to anyone there is much suffering in this world whether from natural disasters or man-made and as is going on right now some natural disaters are made much, much worse by the inhumanity of man.

When people blindly blame a "group" for all of the troubles in the world chances are, they are not a member of that "group". All anyone can do is to try to do the best that they can and also realize that no one can do it all and that we are not going to perfect this world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what we can.

Bringing someone to justice is one thing but seeking revenge is quite another. Forgiveness, as Jesus taught, is a very hard thing because if people are honest with themselves, it can be very human to want a pound of flesh, is it not?

One of the things that I do try to get across is that there is more to being a "Christian" than knowing God's Name.

Also God's Justice is sometimes meted out thru human actions in the here and now. God can also chastise us thru other people. I am not advocating chaos but I am also saying that we should not force ourselves or our beliefs on others but out and out wrongness should be taken care of. Justice and Mercy should go hand in hand.

There are reasons that there are laws and governments and they have their rightful places but we sure can sometimes go overboard in telling others how to live, can we not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

For A Sinner

I think that you probably cause upset and hurt feelings on a regular basis, to people who do not reveal themselves to you as gay. But as long as you are not aware of this, then I suppose it does not matter.

Go ahead, live in, and enjoy, your ignorant bliss.

Dear Datourist

Millions of gay people in America yearn for same-sex marriage. It is a mass grass-roots movement. There is a demand for it, and it will come to pass, eventually.

You suggest, flippantly, and dismissively, that marriage can be sanctioned for threesomes or foursomes or moresomes by the same logic.

Do you know of any 3-somes who want to get married? I don't.

Do you know of any 4-somes who want to get marriaed? I don't.

Do you know of any moresomes who want to get married? I don't?

The fact is, this is your sarcastic argument to belittle and make fun of gay people, as though they are not as good as you. And that makes you a stuck-up snob.

Millicent Salt:

Truth, it is absolutely NOT off topic. You cannot cherry pick the Bible. If you are going to use the Bible to support your supposition that homosexuality is a sin then you have to accept the entire Bible. In the Bible slavery is not a sin. It is not a sin to force a woman to have sex with another man - by assigning him a wife.

These are considered DESPICABLE and immoral acts in our society today. But they were not so during the time that Exodus was written.

If slavery can be moral then and immoral now then homosexuality can be immoral then and moral now. Society changes. We are not ruled by a Christian version of the Taliban. We recognize FREE WILL and the sanctity of the life that Our Creator has given us. So stop picking and choosing the parts of the Bible to beat us with. Either you are a hypocrit or your Bible is terribly flawed. Which is it?
--------------------------------------

I want to try to answer this with just one quote from Jesus - it was meant for divorce, but it applies here too.
Matthew 19:8 - ...because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

So Moses allowed certain things to happen not because it was meant to be, but because people couldn't take that high of a standard of living, and they cannot take it now. That's the whole point of the separation between church and state.

And I might point out that Paul encouraged slaves to obey their masters and for their masters to now treat their slaves as brothers (if they believe). Peter also told the believers who were slaves to suffer under their masters because it is commendable if they endure hardship and injustice for the sake of God. It is not commending slavery, but commending suffering under injustice for the sake of God's glory. Christians are asked to uphold the civil laws the best they can --- actually to obey God's laws, which demand far more than any civil law because there is no limit, no caps on loving God and loving others.

The Bible is internally consistent throughout. You are free to reject it as a whole, but you cannot say that it self-contradicts.

What's having all these relatives got to do with it!

If my uncle is a murderer, does that mean I'm more sympathetic and protective of murderers?

I think that Sally and other liberals blur the difference between TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE.

I can tolerate samesex behaviors of consenting adults as long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of my life; i. e., as long as I don't have to observe it as close range.

However, once I invite the neighboring samesex married couple over for a barbecue and dancing, I'd say that was acceptance.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:

For a sinner

My point was this:

Why is your approval or disapproval required in other people's conduct of their personal lives, which is basically none of your business?

Why not just mind your own business, and don't worry about what is going on inside of other people's heads, and inside men's pants, and underneath women's dresses, because, frankly, it really is none of your business.

I see that you are trying to be nice and polite, but somehow, it is coming accross, once again, as kind of snobby superiority.

For you and people like you to proclaim your disapproval of homosexuality is to cast suspicion on anyone, anywhere, for how they might appear, what they might think or do in private.

"I disapprove..." is your claim. That is a very arrogant proclamaiton. You could be a little more humble.
----------------------------------------

I could always be a little humbler.

So your question is why should I "approve" or "disapprove" anything?

My question to you is: why should you care about whether I approve something or disapprove of something?
Even if I am so arrogant, why should you raise your eyebrows at my arrogance, which is also none of your business?

See, the thing is, we can't stop making judgments because we know in our hearts that some things are right and some things are not! You post up comments not because you think you rule the world, do you? You post comments because -- why not? You have a sense of what is right and you say what you think.

Let's be honest that our value systems offend each other. You think I'm being intolerant and arrogant; I think that you are being self-contradictory.
By saying that I could be a little humbler you are judging me to be arrogant, and judging arrogance to be annoying, right? I might agree with you on both of these, but that doesn't mean you are not making any judgments on me. It seems like I sound so bad merely because I disagree with you.

But I will give this to you --- I'm not saying that people should follow what I say. I am not the one to judge the people or the policy-makers or people who disagree. But I will uphold that I believe in the Scriptures as the Word of God and that God, as the Giver of Life and of absolute morals, is the only one who can judge any of these issues.

Now we'll go back to why the Christian God, won't we?

Actually, nothing keeps consenting adults from engaging in samesex behaviors if they want.

Nothing other than the law keeps folks from counterfeiting money either. Why shouldn't they? Well, other than breaking the law, which should hardly trouble any free spirit nowadays, it cheapens and devaluates the general currency, adding a factor of inflation.

If the religious, social, and legal standard of marriage is for a contractual bond between one man and one woman, then samesex marriage is counterfeit marriage, cheapening and devaluating the integrity of the honorable institution.

Once marriage becomes a constitutionally sanctioned legal contract between samesex couples, it can be sanctioned for threesomes or foursomes or moresomes by the same logic. Two persons is just as "arbitrary" as the requirement of one man and one woman.

Gays are overwhelmingly Clinton voters. Along with AFSCME, 1960's feminist Bolshevik's, and other racists and social parasites, no actual Democrat, and certainly no liberal, will ever see them quite the same nor ever support them again. I can't wait for the Fundimentalist to put some "Gay Rights" issue on the ballot; they can count on my vote and the vote of enough Obama supporters to shove it down their throats. The same applies to tax initiatives that fund any government agency represented by AFSME. I voted NO in yesterdays election, as did a lot of otherliberqals and it narrowly lost. I just want to you understand that there will be a very high price to be paid for your support of Clinton.

Truth, it is absolutely NOT off topic. You cannot cherry pick the Bible. If you are going to use the Bible to support your supposition that homosexuality is a sin then you have to accept the entire Bible. In the Bible slavery is not a sin. It is not a sin to force a woman to have sex with another man - by assigning him a wife.

These are considered DESPICABLE and immoral acts in our society today. But they were not so during the time that Exodus was written.

If slavery can be moral then and immoral now then homosexuality can be immoral then and moral now. Society changes. We are not ruled by a Christian version of the Taliban. We recognize FREE WILL and the sanctity of the life that Our Creator has given us. So stop picking and choosing the parts of the Bible to beat us with. Either you are a hypocrit or your Bible is terribly flawed. Which is it?

To Pammy:

If your going to be smarmy, at least be correct in your smarminess.

From the dictionary:

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Truth quotes Romans to say homosexuality is wrong. Paul wrote Romans. Is he the same guy who said women shouldn't speak in church? And should be obedient to their husbands?

I don't know many Christians who believe women shouldn't speak in church. They sure feel free to reject that part of the Bible.

'I know, I know, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination.'

Of course, dear Sally, you know, you know, but you still don't get it. It's not just you, Sally. A lot of other liberals know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but they don't get why they shouldn't engage in samesex behaviors if it feels good.

Basically, Sally, you believe that man is the measure of all things, and that God is a myth, okay for children, not good enough for adults. It's not a modern thing, Sally. There's ample precedent in the history of Western Civ of folks who believed like you.

Why so defensive?

Millicent Provokativ,

Yes people sold themselves into slavery and parents sold their children into slavery. Notice that the slaves here were Hebrew. Anyway you are really off topic. The topic is the practice of homosexuality. God says it is evil as I have already posted what the book of Romans says about the unnatural practice of homosexuality.

Oh, yeah, another thing they leave out, is ....the bloodsport of the Coliseum went on for three hundred years *after* the Empire was Christianized.

Good thing we now have the technology to fake it on TV.

Just don't have *sex* some Christian doesn't like, then you're fair game.

Go watch Rambo.

"Study the fall of the Roman Empire and you will discover Rome's destruction was indeed self-inflicted."

*Actually* study it, and you may find that it wasn't as decadent as presented. A convenient thing Christians leave out about it is that characters such as Nero were scandalously in violation of the values of the Pagan people of the time, and in fact forcibly removed for abuse of power.

Certainly, it had nothing to do with people flogging homophobia to get them to vote against their own interests.

Till Constantine, anyway.

It is unnatural and God says it is wrong and a sign of His judgment on a people:

Romans 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Christians who quote the Bible, PLEASE respond to this from KJV Exodus 21:4 -

"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

These commandment condones slavery since the "him" in question is a slave. The slave does not chose his wife but is "given" a wife (woman is forced to be the slave's wife). When the man slave is set free the family is to be torn apart - the wife and children stay with the master.

Tell me, why can you quote certain parts of the Bible that support your hatred of Gays but not also fight for the right to own slaves and assign marriages? And the Bible clearly says that families may be split up on a whim. How is that in support of family values.

I dare any one of you to respond thoughtfully to my post.

Pam, love the way you insult my intelligence (definition of a theory) and then question my sexuality in your post. You are an elitist lib...just curious how twins could in one instance both be gay, and in another have one gay, and one straight...all in the same environment??? Just a thought.

Sorry you have to be in a world with the little people...it must be hard for you...sigh.

Lord help me if I ever turn into one of these simpletons who get out of bed every morning judge what everyone else is doing and who they are doing it with.

I find it hilarious all these so called christians are quoting old testament scripture as well, as if they understand it. Please don't believe your armchair reading of the English translation of scripture qualifies you to interpret it for others.

Let me put it bluntly for you guys. Your "christian" leaders use this issue to control you. Thats all its used for, thats why it rears its ugly head every election cycle.

For a sinner

My point was this:

Why is your approval or disapproval required in other people's conduct of their personal lives, which is basically none of your business?

Why not just mind your own business, and don't worry about what is going on inside of other people's heads, and inside men's pants, and underneath women's dresses, because, frankly, it really is none of your business.

I see that you are trying to be nice and polite, but somehow, it is coming accross, once again, as kind of snobby superiority.

For you and people like you to proclaim your disapproval of homosexuality is to cast suspicion on anyone, anywhere, for how they might appear, what they might think or do in private.

"I disapprove..." is your claim. That is a very arrogant proclamaiton. You could be a little more humble.

Dear Sally,

Rarely do I respond to any article; however, I must respond in this instance. F

First, let me state that I admire you attitude towards people who are gay. I too, believe we should love all people regardless of religious beliefs. But in loving the sinner, we should not accept the sin.

I cannot accept this lifestyle, nor condone those who would promote marriage for same sex couples.

My observation is not just based upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. It is also based upon society and the degeneration that will occur. Study the fall of the Roman Empire and you will discover Rome's destruction was indeed self-inflicted.

I hope this comment helps you understand why we should be careful of allowing this to become a Federal Law.

Respectfully,

joe

Anonymous says "The secular world, i.e., those who do not uphold true classical Christianity belief, should not view God from their personal perspective but rather view God from the Holy Bible."

To quote Reagan: "There you go again". Assuming that the Bible is the only proper view of God. The Bible was written by Jewish Scholars in captivity in Babylon. They combined stories such as "Gilgamesh" and The Iliad and The Odyssey, mixed in the concepts of Zarathustra - heaven, hell, monotheism, divine morality, and devine judgement and those scholars crafted a story that they used to lay claim to Palestine - Israel and Judea.

That is what the Bible is. It is NOT better than Gita or Homer or any other text that describes a mythology of God.

Please do your homework before you come spouting off about the Bible. I - a buddhist - should not know more about your religion than you do. You should be ashamed.

"You are taking an admitted hypothesis(not even fit to be a theory) and passing it off like it's a fact. Then you pass judgement on all those who doubt it's veracity. And history is replete with those who desired both men and women...can't make themselves desire it??? Google the Roman's, or Spartans. Bottom line...not a good evolutionary mutation...that's just common sense people."

*Sigh* - like most of your ilk, you haven't the foggiest notion of the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science. A hypothesis is an observation-based idea that is still being tested. That doesn't make it wrong, nor weak. A theory groups and unifies a number of facts, observations, and disciplines - it's an encompassing overview.

You can "doubt" the "veracity" of the hypothesis I presented all you want, but it fits all the observed facts better than any other explanation that I've come across. Can you give me a better one that also fits the facts?

Yes, I do realize that there were and are bisexuals - people who find both sexes attractive. Also that people stuck in unnatural situations long-term, like prisons and priesthoods can be driven to do things that they would not do otherwise. What's your point? Can you, specifically you, FH, make yourself desire someone of your own sex? Hmmm - maybe that's why you protest too much...?

Not a good evolutionary mutation? First of all, not likely a mutation at all - no one has been able to demonstrate a genetic difference between gays and straights. Yes, to the extent that it's an evolutionary dead end (assuming that the gay person in question actually does stick only to his or her own sex and doesn't get artificially inseminated), but why is that a bad thing? This planet is seriously overpopulated - it's the root cause of all our ills - global warming, scarce oil, depleted fisheries, cropland converted to growing fuel, starvation, pollution, species extinction due to loss of habitat, high-priced land and housing - you name it. I'm all for anything that keeps people from having more children. "Be fruitful and multiply"? Bah!

This is a society question, not a spiritual question. God is not our president or even a Supreme Court Justice. God doesn't vote. GOD DOES NOT LIVE IN THE USA.

So let's keep this where it belongs - in the secular world. Those who are so concerned about marriage and family values: the divorce rate is 51%. Over half of all marriages fail. If you really, truly care about family values then you will forget about the tiny issue of Gay marriage and tackle the divorce rate. What is wrong with our society and our understanding of relationships that causes us to enter a sacred vow so casually that we will walk away at the first sign of crows feet?

I am straight and married and a father. I have absolutely no fear of gay marriage. I know that my wife will not slap her forehead and say "I could have had a wife!!!"

Don't worry about Gays. Pray for the married.

Anonymous,

It's Darian, actually. And sadly married people got syphilis, too. Often in great numbers. STDs used to kill a whole lot of people, many of them straight married people. Yet no one used that against straight people. No one tarred all straight people with the same brush.

Straight people can get married without anyone caring if they are having a secular ceremony or planning to have kids or without anyone quoting the numbers of them who have or have had STDs. Why the double standard?

Darius asks-

"Why didn't anyone try to ban straight marriage back when syphilis was often fatal?"

Syphilis was found primarily in prostitutes and their clients not straight married couples.

So then they should have banned prostitution and make it illegal.

And thats what they did.

What do STDs or any other diseases have to do with civil rights? Why didn't anyone try to ban straight marriage back when syphilis was often fatal?

Thomas says-

"HIV and MRSA are rsing health concerns for all promiscuous people. That's what I'm saying."

Truth is-

"Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected (with MRSA) than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114173913.htm

And MRSA is NOT sexually transmitted so you don't have to be sexually active to become infected. MRSA has just found an easy reservoir in gays.

Darian says:

Those Christians who are so concerned about making the Bible's definition of marriage the only legal one should be out there holding signs and ranting about making divorce and remarriage illegal. Why aren't they?

Please, don't give ideas to the extremists...

Peace,

JAC

Pam

"The most promising (IMO) working hypothesis for homosexuality currently being researched is that at a particular point in fetal development, the brain is wired to be either a male brain or a female brain according to the hormonal environment then present."

You are taking an admitted hypothesis(not even fit to be a theory) and passing it off like it's a fact. Then you pass judgement on all those who doubt it's veracity. And history is replete with those who desired both men and women...can't make themselves desire it??? Google the Roman's, or Spartans. Bottom line...not a good evolutionary mutation...that's just common sense people.

Thomas:

Daniel, I agree. What "A Sinner" did was basically say that Sally Quinn and I, both of whom are Christians, "don't know God" and are therefore incapable of seeing homosexuality as "perversion".

I'm on the vestry for my Church, went to Episcopal schools all my life, and ascribe to the Doctrine of Reason when it comes to reading Scripture. And yet, I don't know God, according to A Sinner.

Likewise, Sally's years of study were all for naught, and she probably isn't qualified to write this column, according to A Sinner.

What patronizing nonsense.

Christianity won't fade away anytime soon, I think. It will change as people start to realize that taking the Bible literally is a form of insanity.

-----------------------------------------------

Thomas, since you want to talk about "tolerance", here it goes.
First of all, I made no comment as to who is qualified to do what. The word "qualify" was not even a point in my post.

You seem to object mainly to my point that: if people don't know God, it is hard to see why homosexuality is a perversion.

Why is this statement a problem for you? If we go by God's holy standard - even if it means it condemns us - we would at least agree what is right and what is wrong, though we probably don't do what is right all the time. If we create our own standards, or confine religion or whatever to a little corner where we are comfortable, of course we are going to have a hard time seeing God's standard. Now, I am talking about the Christian God as is described in the Bible - our Holy Father, Creator, Redeemer.

Now back to the issue of tolerance. Does tolerance always mean approval? Just because you tolerate your kids (I hope you do more than that), do you always approve of what they do? Just because you tolerate your friends, do you always approve of what they say? When I say that I do not approve of homosexuality, am I necessarily being intolerant, or are you simply unable to see the person apart from their sexual orientation? A person is not defined by his/her sexual orientation. A person's dignity is accorded by God and that's how the person is loved by God - unconditionally. But Love always rejoices with the Truth, that is how in Jesus grace and truth came together. Truth is black and white, but God goes into the gray to tease out the black and white.

Anyways, my point was/is simply that just because we respect people and their freedom does not mean that we approve of everything that they do. Just like you - are you being intolerant of Christians because of what we believe about homosexuality? When you frown upon priest pedophilia are you being intolerant of those people? I don't think so, even though we are angered by the crime committed.

And we won't discuss whether you are merely "religious" or you are truly devoted to God. But consider this: what do you trust more, your own reasoning or some form of revelation from God?

Well, we all know that "good Christians" can't be gay, right. I wonder how Pastor Ted Haggard is doing in his struggle to de-gay himself? And Senator Larry Craig? Certainly it was those evil gays that were sneaking around in restrooms tempting him into public lewdness!

One of the posts on a different thread says something that is quite possibly the most intelligent and well thought out, yet concise, statements I have ever read on this website.

"We speak a different language, when you refer to "sins of mankind" or "God's laws," because you assume we all invest some authority in particular versions of holy scripture. So there's not really any starting point for a discussion"

Think about it.

Why do people of any one faith believe that their religion-derived morals will apply to everyone? I was raised Catholic my entire childhood yet I work in the BioTech field. In the past decade I have come to realize that this sort of discourse is a joke. No one is going to change anyone's opinion on a topic as important as marriage or abortion or whatever because of an online posting. The religious might say that I am a sinner and will go to hell because I do not believe in God. That's fine because if I do not believe in God or hell, then there is no way that I will possibly go there.

Leave it alone. Marriage, in some form or another, was around way before Christianity. Don't use Christianity to define it.

The secular world, i.e., those who do not uphold true classical Christianity belief, should not view God from their personal perspective but rather view God from the Holy Bible. He is holy and demands righteousness and because we are sinners, unrighteous people, God will punish those in sin. But there is hope, Jesus Christ died to save sinners from the wrath of God to those who believe in Him.

Marriage is a covenant ordained by God for man and woman. This is his standard. Anything other than man and wife is against God's design for marriage.

Just because one of your family member is a homosexual doesn't mean it's ok or condone it. Those who are in Christ are to glorify God and exalt him for he is God. King of kings and Lord of lords. Those who don't know God whould seek forgiveness by confession and repentance.

One of the posts on a different thread says something that is quite possibly the most intelligent and well thought out, yet concise, statements I have ever read on this website.

"We speak a different language, when you refer to "sins of mankind" or "God's laws," because you assume we all invest some authority in particular versions of holy scripture. So there's not really any starting point for a discussion"

Think about it.

Why do people of any one faith believe that their religion-derived morals will apply to everyone? I was raised Catholic my entire childhood yet I work in the BioTech field. In the past decade I have come to realize that this sort of discourse is a joke. No one is going to change anyone's opinion on a topic as important as marriage or abortion or whatever because of an online posting. The religious might say that I am a sinner and will go to hell because I do not believe in God. That's fine because if I do not believe in God or hell, then there is no way that I will possibly go there.

Leave it alone. Marriage, in some form or another, was around way before Christianity. Don't use Christianity to define it.

Please forgive me, I'm doing a CCNL and reposting something from another thread:

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states." Wikipedia

"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I notice the only qualifier in that statement is "any", not "unless the person is gay, or black, or non-Christian, or red-headed"...nope, these qualifiers aren't mentioned at all.

"The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

So the court in California is doing exactly what the Constitution demands of it, enforcing the principle that all men are created equal.

So what is it? Are all men created equal, or are some more equal than others? Should the Fourteenth Amendment be repealed? Or did these judges make the legally correct decision?

Thomas-

This "mythical" we are those working with men dying of AIDS during the early 80s.

And if you would re-read my posts- I have never said gay people should not be allowed to marry. I have asked- why not allow any loving sexually active "couple" to marry if as you stated-

"There's no harm in it, no one knows what causes it, attempts to change it cause problems, and why would anyone want to?"

Who's the bigot. Your intolerance of my views are evident.

Start with the assumption of humility. How can one assume to know God's will when God made both straight and homosexual people -- and allowed them both to have loving relationships. How are we to know that God prohibits such marriages when they are solid, loving and committed. The bible condemns promiscuous sex, practice by the Canaanites, both homosexual and heterosexual. Did God say that thou shall not allow them to marry? Can you be sure that you understand God's will in this?

One additional thought. I am sure that there will be some who say that they know God's will from the bible. Remember, that before Copernicus it was thought that the bible taught that the sun went around the earth. The bible didn't change, but our understanding of God's creation changed and we modified our interpretation of the bible to fit the real world.

We know know that homosexuals are born that way and don't chose to be so, no more than a heterosexual made a conscious decision to be that way. We need to change our view of the bible to fit the real world, no different than we did when we learned the truth that the earth circles the sun.

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." ~Anne Lamott

You want science, Ben?

The most promising (IMO) working hypothesis for homosexuality currently being researched is that at a particular point in fetal development, the brain is wired to be either a male brain or a female brain according to the hormonal environment then present. Normally, the hormones are those of the fetus itself. Occasionally, the timing is off, and the fetal hormones aren't what they should be at the critical point, and the brain then doesn't match the body.

Sooo...a baby boy may be born who thinks like a baby girl. He'll grow up liking things that seem like "girly" things - he'll be more nurturing, less into macho physicality - he'll have more design sense, maybe like to cook and create in one form or another. And when puberty arrives (often even before) he'll find that it's other boys who look good to him - he's using a woman's brain to see what's attractive. He has no more control over this than you do over your attraction to the opposite sex.

Did you *choose* which sex turned you on? Could you change this tomorrow if you wanted to? When I hear the bigots talk about "lifestyle" and "choice" and "hedonism" it makes my blood boil. If gay sex is more hedonistic (i.e., more pleasurable) than heterosex, why do so many who are neither religious nor anxious to procreate not indulge in it? The answer is that they can't make themselves desire it.

If homosexuality is a choice, why would anyone choose it? To be discriminated against, hated, and ostracized? What fun! Many gays in the old closeted days committed suicide - particularly those from very religious families. Some choice.

Gayness can't be cured. It isn't chosen. They're here, they're queer, and you need to get over it. There is no reason on Earth why they shouldn't be accorded the same rights and respect as anyone else on this planet.

Marriage is not only about procreation - else we shouldn't allow the post-menopausal or the sterile to marry.

And for those who insist on quoting Leviticus, I trust you're stoning your children to death when they mouth off to you, and ladies, I hope you're not darkening the church door when you're menstruating.

All of you please stop using the wholly babble as an excuse for your own prejudices.

@Anonymous - read this and tell me that the similarities aren't rather striking. They resemble your comments almost word for word.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

Who is this mythical "we" that was shutting down bathouses in the '80s? Are you Rudy Guiliani's dressmaker?

Some gays are promiscuous. Others are not. Some straights ( a lot more, in sheer numbers ) are promiscuous. HIV and MRSA are rsing health concerns for all promiscuous people. That's what I'm saying.

And it has NO bearing on the discussion, BTW. If you think that no gay couples will want to get married, why not let them? It would only be one or two, based on your argument.

Moody noted the "to the point" sanitary issues with homosexuality although heterosexuals can and sometimes do the same unsanitary acts.

And as noted on some of the other threads:

Gay relationships are "yucky" and always will be in MHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?

It saddens me to see that we can't have a debate without both sides resorting to name calling. With that said. I am neither opposed to or for gay marriage. I am Christian. I have gay/lesbian friends. I am entitled to believe what I chose and so are they. I do not treat them any differently than I treat all my other friends. Why should I? They are people just like any other.

The bible says a lot about free will and the ability to chose whether we will believe in God and follow his rules or not. I have chosen to believe what the bible says and I try to follow the standards he has put forth, but I have no right to tell everyone else in the world that they have to make the same choice I did.

No matter what the government decides there will be people who disagree so I say let them do what they want. Who am I to decide how others should live there lives? People will be gay whether they are allowed to be married or not.

Daniel, I agree. What "A Sinner" did was basically say that Sally Quinn and I, both of whom are Christians, "don't know God" and are therefore incapable of seeing homosexuality as "perversion".

I'm on the vestry for my Church, went to Episcopal schools all my life, and ascribe to the Doctrine of Reason when it comes to reading Scripture. And yet, I don't know God, according to A Sinner.

Likewise, Sally's years of study were all for naught, and she probably isn't qualified to write this column, according to A Sinner.

What patronizing nonsense.

Christianity won't fade away anytime soon, I think. It will change as people start to realize that taking the Bible literally is a form of insanity.

Stand up, Christians!

Just stand up and admit you hate gays, you wish they would die and rot in Hell with the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, unbaptized babies and those 3rd world tribes that hadn't been exposed to the Bible!!

C'mon, just admit it!

The "marriage" issue is a only matter of semantics. Marriage in modern America is a civil relationship with civil law benefits for all married couples as well as a religious institution for some percentage of married couples. I can be married by a civil clerk of the state or I can be married by a priest, minister or rabbi. It makes no difference to the state -- I still get to file joint tax returns and a spousal exemption on inheritance tax, as well certain recognition in hospital settings as the spouse. So it is a matter of civil law, not religious law (and we do have separation of church and state, right?). Why not call all marriages (hetro and homosexual) civil unions and let people who want to have a church sanction have an additional "marriage" recognized by God under their own denomination. Pray tell me why that is wrong.

Homosexuality is wrong!!!! Period!!!

Thomas- The real canard is "gays are the new jews".

Please- when we tried to shut the bath houses in the 80s the gay community rose up to fight the restriction of their freedom (even though it was killing them.)

So are you saying the most gay people aren't promiscuous? HIV is not an increasing and deadly concern for gays? MRSA is not a rising concern for practising gays?

Thomas- what are you saying?

One more post:

A sinner, tried to be nice and tolerant, but somehow, he / she couldn't be. That is what is so sad about the corruption of the teachings of Christ to persecute gay people. I fear, Christianity is doomed and will fade away very quickly, just as it has done in Europe.

Kristen said:

"Marriage to me is a serious lifetime commitment. I do not think same sex marriage should be legal and as far as divore unless you are being cheated on or abused (whether that be physical or emotional) I dont agree with divore either."

Ah, but there you go--you are going against God's word. Neither he not Jesus made any allowance for divorce based on abuse of any kind. "Fornication" only.

So, you going to start a movement to make divorce illegal? You said you don't agree with it, but do you think it should be illegal?

I'll get back to you on the verses. I want to cut and paste, since I feel it's very important to look at how the Bible delayed certain groups (women, African-Americans to name two) getting rights. Because we're seeing the same thing today. I bring up the LOC because you can read actual sermons that quote verses and preach against abolition and women's rights. But I figure anyone whose taken a history class knows the basics.

The whole "gay people are diseased" canard is an old one dating back to Heinrich Himmler, who used it against the Jews in WWII. In fact, MUCh of the rhetoric on this thread was generated then, with a different target.

So, the theory goes that gay people are diseased and they get it from being promiscuous, so we shouldn't let them get married, because then they wouldn't be promiscuous anymore and stop getting HIV, and we might wind up with a gay population explosion. Is that about the size of it?

Kristen

The bible says "a silent wife is a good wife". wondered how you felt about that.

I know my wife had an issue with it. i hope God doesn't kill her for that.

Thomas- if faithful loving gay relationships were common- HIV would not continue to be the scurge of homosexuality- and now they must deal with MRSA..

I think there has been lot of misunderstanding of the Christian stance, much of it due to what Christians ourselves say. Let's get this clear.

People who claim to be homosexuals are NOT demons or bad people. They are like any other human being, made in the image of God, loved fiercely by God, but who has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, like all of us have.
Homosexual couples can be happier and more faithful to each other than heterosexual couples or polygamous couples.

The problem with many Christians, I myself included, is that we tend to condemn the person along with their sins.
Now, let's establish what the Christians believe about sex and marriage.
Sex is a sacred expression of love that can result in the formation of another life. Sex in itself is good. But people tend to perform it at the wrong time in the wrong place with the wrong person (let us not consider, uh, animals at this minute).
Marriage is the commitment made between two people, ordained by God, that spells love and purity and trust. Sex is the expression of such special love between a man and a woman (See Proverbs that says how the way of a man with a woman is a profound mystery).

So this is the purpose of the gift of marriage and sex. The purpose is given by God, so if you don't know God, it is hard to see why homosexuality is a perversion.

But does God hate people who claim to be homosexuals? No, the same way a parent loves the child but hates it when the child lies. The more the parent loves the child, the more the parent hates the lie.

And we go to hell for rejecting the Salvation found in Jesus Christ - rejecting the proper relationship with Him - one of Sonship, worship, and stewardship. We don't go to hell just for sinning, but for the refusal of cleaning up our sins.

As for those who don't believe, the question is not about infringement on anyone else's "freedom" per se, but about this: What do you want life to be about? What do you want people to be about? Shouldn't we desire to be noble, aspire to be pure, and always try to do what is right and good and true instead of settling for what is perverse? It is not only the Christians who consider homosexuality to be perverse --! Consider this. Let us accept the people but reject the wrong.

Darian unless you can quote scripture from the Bible then getting information from the Library of Congress and Susan B. Anthony does not do anything for me.

Marriage to me is a serious lifetime commitment. I do not think same sex marriage should be legal and as far as divore unless you are being cheated on or abused (whether that be physical or emotional) I dont agree with divore either.

I have to go but nice debating with you :)

"Don't feed the troll."

Hey anon,

Does that mean- don't respond to a poster you don't agree with who's winning the argument??

Anonymous, we most surely do NOT agree that committed, loving gay couples are rare. There are 12 of them in my condo complex alone, and thousands of gay marriages have been performed where allowed. In fact, California has had to hire more people and open more facilities to accomodate the gay couples who will be marrying on June 16.

You want to know:
Do you encourage all forms of love expressed in all forms of sexuality? If not- why not?

I already answered this using the limited and insulting examples you, or some other Anony gave further down on the thread. What part didn't you understand?

Also, pick a handle already. It's just lazy and confusing not to... but then, if I were you, I sure wouldn't want to sign my name, either.

The anti-gay drum-beat of the religious right is sickening and disgusting to me. I hate to say it, this rarely happens, but I am in a bad humor over this thread.

So for now, I'm out.

"I'm not going to quote you on the slang terms for sexual acts you mentioned. But I know what three of them are, and they sure aren't the exclusive property of gay people. I am scratching my head as to why you'd think they are."

its gay slang and originated in the gay community.

Kristen,

So God gives us free will, and yet the Christians (or the religious fundamentalists) insist upon being judge and jury to those decisions, including demanding that civil laws be enacted to persecute, marginalize, or even prosecute gays because of their religious doctrines.

you don't find anything wrong with the manner in which gays are treated by christians?

as i said, you don't have to invite gays to your church or your house. but nobody has the right to infringe on their ability to live their lives.

thank God our civil laws don't allow gays to be executed in this country, because i think the Fundies would open up a bloodbath!

Kristen said:
"As far as what people used to do regarding females and African Americans what does that have to do with this?"
Everything. You said that the Bible doesn't say forbid interracial marriage. And I am explaining that you are wrong. There's extensive documentation about this. The Library of Congress is a good place to see documents that would show you that. And about women's rights. Susan B. Anthony said, "The Bible and Church have been the greatest stumbling block in the way of women's emancipation." Same with slavery. Most Christians were sure that the bible meant for slavery to continue and for women to be denied many rights, including the right to vote. It's the same with same-sex marriage.

Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?

What about divorce and remarriage?

For that matter, since you said, "can not just pick and choose the parts of the bible I will follow and the parts that arent politicly correct ignore."--Do you speak in church?

Marriage, the sacrament officiated by our churches (and limited however they please, in accordance with biblical or any other dictates) should be distinguished from marriage, the legal term, with all the associated legal implications, administered by those licensed by the state (your minister can't perform a marriage recognized by the state unless he or she follows the state's rules) to those who obtain a license to get married.

With enough legal work, I can give my partner and I most of the incidents of marriage. Domestic partner and civil union laws make that much easier. Unless the point is to subsidize lawyers, I have heard no one attack civil unions on the grounds that allowing automatic property inheritance is an abomination or offense to the Lord. If we don't oppose giving gays the opportunity to obtain the same legal situation as married folks, what earthly, or heavenly, reason is there to make sure that neither gays nor the state use the same word to describe those who are civilly united as those who have received the sacrament, or who have not but had a court clerk perform the ritual and are heterosexual?

Don't feed the troll.

Michelle said: "God is a loving God. He has given commandments to his children because he loves us and knows what will make us truly happy. We don't get to decide which commandments we agree with and which ones we don't."

I suppose you follow all 613 "Mitzvotim", then. Or maybe you pick and choose from them.

Darian we will just have to agree to disagree. To me marriage is a union between a man and women that is bound by God. No matter what some court says this is what I believe. I can not just pick and choose the parts of the bible I will follow and the parts that arent politicly correct ignore.

No, I dont think that religious beliefs should be law. I stated that God has given us a free will to do as we choose. I am not innocent by far, but on this particular issue I just feel marriage is between a man and women end of story.

As far as what people used to do regarding females and African Americans what does that have to do with this? Nothing. The bible does address this issue about marriage and as for what you mention it does not address it. I am not at fault for people mis quoting the bible back in the day. As an African American women I feel like these are different issues that do not stand to be compared.

Darian we will just have to agree to disagree. To me marriage is a union between a man and women that is bound by God. No matter what some court says this is what I believe. I can not just pick and choose the parts of the bible I will follow and the parts that arent politicly correct ignore.

No, I dont think that religious beliefs should be law. I stated that God has given us a free will to do as we choose. I am not innocent by far, but on this particular issue I just feel marriage is between a man and women end of story.

As far as what people used to do regarding females and African Americans what does that have to do with this? Nothing. The bible does address this issue about marriage and as for what you mention it does not address it. I am not at fault for people mis quoting the bible back in the day. As an African American women I feel like these are different issues that do not stand to be compared.

"FH -- That's an easy one. Gay people have children, and those children have just as much right to the stability of married parents. Hit it out of the park! Now wake up to the real world."

First of all...the vast majority of gay people with children brought those children from straight relationships. They just felt like being gay this year.

Second, I assume from your answer that you believe that allowing same-sex unions will promote, not detract from children being raised in stable homes. After all, when you offer a benefit...you are effectively promoting the behavior. You're serious...the two non-fitting parts...children??? And you are welcoming me to the "real world."

The fact is, this is another attempt by the far-left in this country to degrade the value of marriage, which I think is a mistake. It in no way will make marriage a stronger institution, it simply dilutes its value. All current research indicates that children are far more healthy emotionally when raised with parents of both genders. We as a society need to wake-up and decide what's best for our kids...but in the era of me, me, me...we're probably going to put another nail in the coffin of traditional marriage.

For Angela, and Michelle, and Brambleton, and all the others obsessed with homosexuality, and why it is so bad, try this thought experiment:

Suppose you were to give a Bible to someone who had never before heard of the Bible, and did not know what was in it. Suppose, then, that person began to read it, and found it interesting, and read and studied it for the rest of his life, but without instruction or guidance from anyone else, but only on his own.

What do you think would be the odds that this person would derive a strong anti-gay feeling from this book? What, even, are the odds, that this perons would even notice that there is a verse or two at all, that mentions "men lying with men" in a sort of cryptic reference to this kind of sexuality?

I do not think it would even be noticed at all. So, aren't you guys being just a little silly and disingenuous, to attributw your anti-gay bias to Jesus?

"Anonymous," I'm not going to quote you on the slang terms for sexual acts you mentioned. But I know what three of them are, and they sure aren't the exclusive property of gay people. I am scratching my head as to why you'd think they are.

And a lot of people who think like you do got quite an education when same-sex marriage became legal here. They saw couples who had been together decades come forward to do something they'd been waiting for, sometimes with grown children by their sides. One of my best friends waited 22 years. He and his husband celebrate their fourth anniversary soon. They love each other the same way I love my husband. They pay their taxes and work on their house and help their neighbors. Nothing but good comes from them being on this earth, and from their being married. I love them and as happy as I am for them, I am sad for those who don't live in states that have marriage equality. Yet.

Thomas- I'm pleased to see that we agree that loving homosexual pairs are rare. Since you believe these couples deserve the right to marry- how can you deny any other "loving couple" the same right. Why are you avoiding my question by claiming argument victory?

Your words-

"There's no harm in it, no one knows what causes it, attempts to change it cause problems, and why would anyone want to?"

Please answer-

Do you encourage all forms of love expressed in all forms of sexuality? If not- why not?

OK Anonymous.

We are not speaking of gay sexual practices (and I had only heard of one on your list). We are speaking of gay couples seeking marriage. For you to deny that such couples exist is preposterous.

For sheer depravity, nothing beats heterosexuality - "swing clubs" do a thriving business, as do escort services and brothels, and when I learned what a key party was, I was rather shocked to see what we good old heterosexuals got up to back in the "good old days".

Should we deny ourselves the right to marry because some of us don't do it right? Or can we dispense with the dishonest, immflammatory rhetoric that anti-gay bigots always resort to when they are losing this debate? Hmm?

Kristen said:
"The bible doesnt say only white men and white women can be married. "

Some people thought it did. And that we should keep slaves. And that women shouldn't vote. Don't believe me? Read some old sermons and editorials on interracial marriage. The bible was often cited as a reason people from different races shouldn't marry. And that women shouldn't have equal rights and that slavery should not be abolished. Fortunately, people came around and arrived at alternate readings. Same bible, different interpretations.

But do you think your religious beliefs should be law? If so, do you think adultery (which, according to Jesus, includes divorce, being divorced by one's spouse, and remarriage, unless someone cheated) should be illegal?

This country was founded on freedom of religion. Which includes freedom from religion. You should really read up on the founding father's views on religion. The "one nation under God" in our pledge is part of the McCarthy era. Before the 1950s, there was no mention of God in the pledge.

Angela

If anyone can ever remember me calling someone stupid, then please speak up now, or forever hold your breath.

Whenever a bigotted person is called on their bigotry, they often respond by pointing out how they actually know "one of those people" and they really like them, so how could they be a bigott.

Gee, whiz. You know what? I am so NOT impressed.

OK Thomas-

You say- "loving pair-bonded relationships".

Perhaps you are unaware of gay culture. Do you know the meaning of "change machine" "chicken with a basket" "cluster" "teabagging"..

I could go on and on. But I'm sure you know the lifestyle is NOT based on "pair-bonding". So don't paint me a picture. And don't accuse me of falsehood when you are the one with truth hidden.

According to your parameters- any sexual expression is OK as long as no one is hurt. Why are you against some forms of sexuality and not others?

Maybe you should go and study the bible again. Following the word of God means you dont always get to do what you want when you want it. Wrong is wrong and right is right. Two men or women getting married is wrong.
The bible has clearly stated that marriage is between a man and women. The purpose of marriage is to procreate. Two of the same can't do that, can they? No.
Comparing this to interacial couples, well it just can not be compared. The bible doesnt say only white men and white women can be married. God has only put the stipulation that marriage be between a man and woman. Deal with it because this country was founded "one nation under God". If we as a nation turn our backs on the God that brought us to such a wealth, well God just have mercy on our souls.
With the morals of some people in this country going out the window anyway with sex being a casual everyday thing, am not even surprised by the supreme court decision. I will just continue to pray because no matter what kind decisions our government makes, "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord".

I would just like to say I try not to be judemental because were given a free will and all have fallen short of the glory of God, my self included. I agree that people should be given equal rights, but marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman. It is not a basic human right to be married.

Angela

there was a woman who was raped not too long ago in our town; shall we force the rapist to marry her and pay her father?

again, god's law, right?

Angela

Actions speak louder than words.

Deny, deny, deny...that you are a snob. Hide behind Jesus to justify your personal bigotry.

Take the Lord's name in vain to promote your own personal agenda; do not love your neighbor; set yourself up above your neighbor, and look down on them.

You are the one who has snipped a verse out of the Bible, which is unclear and ambiguous, a verse out of how many? thousands? and then made unto it, a graven image, an idol to worship, to fulfil the harshness in your own heart, to fulfull the brutish and animalistic passion against your fellow man, and then call it "Christian." Gee, what sensitivity.

That is what I believe about you and about people like you. So keep on using the Lord's name in vain to promote your agenda against gay people; you are not fooling anybody.

Brambleton, that was me responding to you, not stealing your ID. Sorry.

Daniel in the Lion's Den; I'm not a snob but you are always the one to degrade others by calling them stupid and the like; as long as God is glorified your opinion really doesn't matter. In addition, there are several gay people in my family and I have many of them as friends: I love them dearly but I don't approve of their lifestyle. God's word and laws are written on my heart. If that's something that's offensive to you; not sure what to say!

Re: the accidental incest case in the UK... I would say no, I would not advocate in favor of siblings marrying. Children of such a union might be horribly deformed, and there are emotional problems inherent with tinkering with such a close family relationship.

Plus, I can attest that, based on personal experience that sharing a bathroom with my sister while growing up was sufficient horror for one lifetime to hold. Also, any 3 novels by VC Andrews pretty much make the case against consensual sibling incest.

Brambleton said

"Your fascination and addiction to the word "hate" is comical."

I am not fascinated with the word hate. Nor am I addicted to it. What a weird thing to say.

I guess I am just not PC enough to give the bigotry of Christians a pass, because they appeal to God, to justify their own personal bigotry, and hide behind Jesus, taking his name in vain, to justify what you know is an un-Christian attitude.

This is nothing but ugly, mean-spirited snobbery, and will kindly leave God and Jesus out of it, PLEASE!

Thomas,

Wasn't there a case in Europe recently where two people had married each other not knowing that they were actually brother and sister? I believe the marriage was later reversed by court of law.

I'm curious if you would allow such a marriage when both participants obviously love each other.

Thanks.

Dear Angela

You are a real snob. I feel sorry for the blockage in your heart, that Lepitor cannot help.

Gay people have found their voices, that you do not want to hear. They have come out of the closet. If you cannot live in such a world, then perhaps it is you who should go into the closet, and let everyone else live in peace. If you cannot find the lock, we will all lock it for you, and slip your food and water under the door. Good luck.

Anonymous says: You can't just abitrarily prefer homosexuality and dislike bestiality and necrophilia.

It's not arbitrary at all. Loving pair-bonded relationships require consent, something that animals and corpses cannot give. Also, children can't consent, so there goes the pedophile argument. Incest and polygamy have been shown time and time again to be abusive and to cause harm to the one(s) who have no power in the relationship.

Gay couples, by marked contrast, are much more analogous to straight couples than any of the other scenarios you propose. In fact, they are identical in every way but one.

Oh, and as for the Bible? There is a specific commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor. Please don't do it again with your false analogies, ok?

Fate,

The very fact that God allowed His Son to die for us, is the ultimate expression of His love for us. It was necessary for Christ to suffer for our sins and to die for us so that we can return to live with our Heavenly Father if we repent of our sins. It was necessary for Christ to die, so that He could be resurrected and make it possible for every one of us to be resurrected. He loves us and wants us to be able to return to Him, and it is through the atonement of Christ, our Savior, that this is possible. So yes, I believe that God is a loving God.

What is amazing is that people just believe that we are judgmental, Pharisitical people. I love all God's creation. If I lie, murder, commit adultery, disobey my parents, covet, I'm a lawbreaker. Jesus did say that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. All through scripture Jesus states: if you love me, you will obey me, Go therefore and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt and teaching them all the things that I commanded you and I will be with you. We are saved by grace (undeserved favor) through faith in Jesus Christ, which doesn't mean we can continually break His law; we'd have to examine ourselves to see if we really believe and obey Him; it's not legalism; it's obedience. Also, tolerance, yes, but it should also be disscernment from God's perspective not from the world's truth; to have the ability to distinguish the false from the true; or better, the false from the half true. Today (more than not) Mathew 7:1 (Do not judge, or you too will be judged”)... is ripped out of its context, and applied as if it were meant to promote and teach blind, ompromising “tolerance” of all sins as acceptable, and all viewpoints as necessarily equal in value. But our responsibility as members of the body church is to distinguish biblical Christianity from the counterfeit spirituality and value's of today's world. We should learn how to “judge” in the biblical sense.

Thomas says

"bestiality practicers and necrophiles-show how there is any similarity (with homosexuality)"

Well Thomas- they are all against the law of God. If this means nothing to you- then we must use your own parameters:

"There's no harm in it, no one knows what causes it, attempts to change it cause problems, and why would anyone want to?"

You find this true of homosexuality and NOT bestiality and necrophilia? Please explain. You can't just abitrarily prefer homosexuality and dislike bestiality and necrophilia.

Do you encourage all forms of love expressed in all forms of sexuality? If not- why not?

Daniel,

Your fascination and addiction to the word "hate" is comical. Keep up the good work! LOL.

Ben, you can't argue that homosexual relationships should not be given legal status because they are rarely lasting and productive. That's some fairly shoddy circular reasoning. You can't deny them the right to form a legal union and then complain that the relationships don't last.

Also, what scientific research were you referring to? Multiple studies have shown that children raised by two parents, whether gay or straight, are far better off than children raised by a single parent. If you were really concerned about the children, wouldn't you make it a priority to ensure that the parents have a way to solidify their committment to one another.

Angela said:

"Darian, we live in a country that has more and more begun to want to live a life separate from God; leave him out of it and I believe that's why things are becoming worse and worse. The laws are what they are however, I do believe that God's word is clear and sin is sin. "

So, since God made a commandment against adultery and Jesus said divorce and remarriage (in many cases) are forms of adultery, we should outlaw divorce and remarriage?

That's a very simple question. I'd really like a yes or no answer.

"What I'm saying about the panelist's post is in response to her quote: What's wrong with gay marriage. It's in opposition to God's word and we will one day pay the consequences for our turning our backs and hearts away from Him. I believe the Bible is God's word and I stand by it; not some of it; all of it! Hope that answers your question."
No, you sure didn't. It's looking like you want everyone to have to follow your religious beliefs, regardless of their own.

So, if you want everyone to have to follow what you think God said about marriage (aside from how ok he was with polygamy, I assume) on one issue, do you feel the same about what Jesus (who didn't speak about gender as relates to marriage) said about marriage. Do you think divorce and remarriage, except in cases of "fornication" should be outlawed?

Angela,

I did some work on Sunday. Would you like to have me stoned to death??

If you are a person who reads the standard translation of the Bible Homosexuality is a sin, period. Nothing ever tells us to hate them only to execute them. I think in the modern world this is obviously absurd. You can not have it both ways; either you take the Bible at face value or you reject it. The bottom line is that marriage in the traditional sense is a religious sacrament sanctioned by the Bible and administer by a clergy member. By it's very nature it is religious.

That said I think since we are a society that separatates church and state the government should recognize no marriage at all, hetero or homo. Why not allow each person to designate a life partner with the government for tax purposes, health benefits, next of kin decisions like a "pull the plug" scenerio and leave it at that. It would simplify things. That would allow marriage to become something akin to a Catholic comfirmation or a Jewish Barmitzfa, something celebrated privately. The Jewish people consider a boy a man at 13 and celebrate the Barmitzfa; however, the same boy is not a man in terms of the law until 18 and not with full rights to everything "adult" until 21. Use the same principle in the case of couples. That way the religious anti-gay crowd can still feel religiously pure. The gays can have the benefits they deserve and should be entitled to. If a gay person insists on a religious cermony then let them find a church that has no ban on it.

Michelle

That is all fine and good. But tell me again, why does Jesus hate the gays.

Darian, we live in a country that has more and more begun to want to live a life separate from God; leave him out of it and I believe that's why things are becoming worse and worse. The laws are what they are however, I do believe that God's word is clear and sin is sin. What I'm saying about the panelist's post is in response to her quote: What's wrong with gay marriage. It's in opposition to God's word and we will one day pay the consequences for our turning our backs and hearts away from Him. I believe the Bible is God's word and I stand by it; not some of it; all of it! Hope that answers your question.

Those of you who keep comparing gay people to incest perpetrators, bestiality practicers and necrophiles should probably show how there is any similarity whatsoever between them. Otherwise, your analogy fails and just looks stupid.

Fate,

The very fact that God allowed His Son to die for us, is the ultimate expression of His love for us. It was necessary for Christ to suffer for our sins and to die for us so that we can return to live with our Heavenly Father if we repent of our sins. It was necessary for Christ to die, so that He could be resurrected and make it possible for every one of us to be resurrected. He loves us and wants us to be able to return to Him, and it is through the atonement of Christ, our Savior, that this is possible. So yes, I believe that God is a loving God.

LDS Mark said:

Lev:18:1
"And the Lord spake to Moses...."

Lev: 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So tell us, just what does that mean? And how would you interpret it to judge other people? What do you think "abomination" means? What should happen to abominable people? Or is it just a mean word, like ugly or fat? Should these abominable people just be looked at funny, or ostracized? Or should some kind of action be taken against them? Should they be punished, incarcerated, beaten, or worse? Just what should we do with them?

If your answer is "nothing," then what is your stupid point? Just to be mean? Just to express your jealousy and sour-grapes? Just to obstruct other people in their pursuit of happiness, because you are not happy?

I just plain don't get this. You must explain better, and if you cannot, then please shut-up.

You want respect extended to you, but you would not extend that respect to other people. In short you feel special and entitled. In short, you are a stuck-up snob.

Michelle:

so God kills people because they make Him mad (a little reactionary, eh?), but when 900 children die in a fire, we excuse God from any responsibility by saying we don't know. maybe God killed those children for making Him mad. did those children think "God has plans for me; he's burning me alive!"?

again, sun revolves around the earth, too. god's law???

"I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

how about incest? what is your definition of love? some people commit horrible acts in the name of love
I think when Jesus speaks of love he speaks of a love that forgives sinners and give them a chance to do right. He does not accept the sin he accepts the sinner.

Angela, did you mean me when you addressed "Darius?" I've read all the verses, studied them even. And there are different interpretations. But even if there was no dispute about the meaning, I still want to know why anyone thinks their religion should be law? Why should those whose religions do not condemn homosexuality have to live by the laws of your religion? Do you want to live by theirs? Freedom of religion, separation of church and state. Do those ring a bell?

Also, Angela, do you think divorce and remarriage should be legal or illegal? I think you probably know the verses in which Jesus speaks against divorce and remarriage (except in cases of fornication). Do you think we should amend the Constitution to ban divorce and remarriage, except in cases of "fornication?"

Several years ago I saw and heard Trent Lott on TV say that being "Gay" is a choice. He's never heard of the "testosterone burst" that occurs in MOST males about the time of birth.
It's a shame that so many, especially Far-Right fundamentalist "Christians", are so ignorant of the Biological and Earth Sciences.
They trash gays, and evolutionists (many even think AND PROCLAIM, THROUGH THEIR TREMENDOUS POLITICAL POWER IN BUSH'S REIGN, that the Grand Canyon was created by "The Flood" AND, in Kentucky, some actually believe THAT NOAH included paired dinosaurs on the Ark!

The Ghost of "Christmas to Come" in Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" revealed two urchins to Scrooge from under its cloak - - - POVERTY & IGNORANCE.

The vast IGNORANCE (especially of of Religious Fundamentalists), as Dickens tried to tell us, is one of the most destructive forces on earth.

Thomas says-

"There's no harm in it, no one knows what causes it, attempts to change it cause problems, and why would anyone want to?"

So you encourage the social acceptance of bestiality too? And how about sadly misunderstood necrophiles?

Thomas,
Just because people do try to pick and choose the commandments they follow, doesn't make it okay. It we profess to believe in God then we should follow all of his commandments and not just the ones that we like. As for the leviical code and the law of Moses, we do not follow those laws today becuase they were fulfilled in Christ. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-18). So the fact that we no longer follow that law is not a result of picking and choosing, but it is because the law has been fulfilled.
I don't know why you think that biblical censure of homosexuality has little to do with people today because they can form lasting attachments. Homosexuality wasn't condemned in the bible because the people who practiced it couldn't form lasting attachments. Homosexuality is condemned because it is against God's law.

Thomas Baum,
Christ did say to Love on Another and that this is the greatest commandment. He did say Judge not that ye be not judged. Of course we do not live other people's lives for them or force their choices. I never said that we should. That does not mean that we sit back and refuse to fight against evil. The problem with making homosexual marriage legal is that it puts a stamp of approval on a behavior that is sinful and says that homosexuality is good and desirable. It isn't judging other people to say as God did that homosexuality is a sin. To demonstrate love for each other doesn't mean we walk around saying everything is okay. We should condemn the sin. Homosexuals do have the choice to act however they want, but that doesn't mean that we should be forced to say that their actions are good when thy are not. Loving others does not mean that we should say sin is okay or to raise it up as something desirable. We should certainly treat people who define themselves as homosexuals with love, but that does not mean we should allow marriage to be redefined and sullied.
Trying to legalize homosexual marriage isn't about equal rights, its about saying homosexuality isn't wrong. God does love all His children no matter what they do, but He doesn't change His commandments just because we refuse to follow them.

Fate,
Your examples do not show that God is not a loving God. He destroyed people in the old testament because they did not follow His law. In every example you gave, he sent a prophet to warn the people and tell them to repent or they would be destroyed. The people chose not to repent and were thus destroyed. God gives us laws because he loves us. If we obey the law, we find happiness and joy. If we don't obey the law then we will suffer the consequences.

As for the natural disasters. We do not know all the reasons why some things happen. I do know that God loves us and He has a larger vision of things than we do. He knows what the future holds and I would guess that death isn't the worst thing that can happen to us, since I do believe that our lives do not end with our death here on this Earth.

Darius: Read Romans 1:18-32, read 1 Cornthians 6:9, Read Proverbs 14:12 (Old and New Testament). God's word doesn't change.

"Daniel in the Lion's Den said:

The Pope says that gay people are "intrinsically disordered."

To me this is the height of hypocrisy and confusion, since the one making this homophobic statement seems pretty gay to me.

Yes, there I said it; it seems pretty obvious to anyone with eyes, that the Pope is gay.

I am not saying this to be mean, or to cast him in a bad light, since I said in an earlier post, that I love gay people. But I see what I see, the elephant in the room. It is he, the closetted Pope, who seems to have ALOT more problems than merely being gay."

OK, you just proved one of my points.

Is homosexuality more than simply a sexually relevant definition.

You've just stereotyped a persons sexual behavior based on what? clothing, mannerisms, choice of abstinence?

Have you ever seen or heard anything to suggest the pope participates in sexual activity with other males, or desires to do so, or suppresses as desire to do so?

Homosexuality is specifically the desire to exclusively participate in sexual activity with persons of the same gender.

It's not about anything else.

And yet you make such a stereotype based on what?

It would in fact be fair to make such a comment about nay priest accused or convicted of molesting boys. Then the person has displayed a behavior related to the question at hand.

I personally could care less what you call the Pope, I'm not a huge fan of his.

But what you said is equivalent to saying that I must be gay because I like flowery shirts and was in drama and choir as a kid.

By the same standard, "butch" gay guys must be straight, right?

The whole point is that as a group, homosexuals are clamoring for recognition as a status group that has no logical extension from the fact of the homosexuality. Homosexuality has nothinig to do with dress, mannerisms, interests, hobbies, jobs or anything else.

It has to do with the compulsion (real or chosen, I cannot claim to know for sure which) to have sexual intercourse with the same gender.

And while such behavior take place elsewhere in the animal kingdom, those few creatures which do so with exclusivity DIE OUT. Natural Selection does not allow for it.

So exactly how again do we arrive at the conclusion that there is nothing undesireable about being gay?

By the same logic, there is nothing undesireable about being deaf or blind or Bi-Polar.

Wanting to have a positive self image and not be discriminated against is not the same as pretending that something doesn't work the way it is supposed to work.

Leviticus, Mark? The same place it says eating lobster is an abomination? And that adulterers should be killed? And people who work on the Sabbath? You agree with all that, too? Or just parts of Leviticus?

Sally Quinn; just because you think it's ok by God's word, He doesn't think it's ok.

@Ben: "Look, gay people have been mistreated for centuries, and their treatment in this country over the last 2 centuries is no exception."

Then why are you perpetuating the mistreatment by suggesting that they are problematic?

Human sexuality is far more than just genetic design. Anyone with even a basic textbook knowledge of the subject knows that there are profound emotional, psychological and other factors that play a role in how it develops. Within it, you have guys who get aroused when they smell cinammon, women who find brown-eyed men attractive, and countless other variations, gayness included.

Your argument sounds like:

"I happen to like blue-eyed people and think that our society should have more of them. I don't think we should give brown-eyed people tinted contact lenses, though. Rather, lets get women who like brown-eyed men a cure."

In reality, gayness is more analagous to being left-handed. There's no harm in it, no one knows what causes it, attempts to change it cause problems, and why would anyone want to?

Sally Quinn,

you said:
"Homosexual couples are simply two people who love each other. Please explain to me how that can be wrong in the eyes of God?"

God answers your qeestion as recorded in the bible:

Lev:18:1
"And the Lord spake to Moses...."

Lev: 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It is wrong because he said it is.

His law is crystal clear on this subject.

Mark

let's face it folks. the religious community hates gays, will NEVER accept gays, and wants to impose that hostility into civil laws.

i believe the bible also says the sun revolves around the earth. wondered if anyone would care to elaborate on that one.

they talk about protecting children. what about all the poison you give to your own children, teaching them that it's OK to treat homosexuals poorly, but to diguise it as "God's love"?

someone brought up a good point about those 900 children who perished. why didn't God save them? maybe all 900 of them were going to grow up to be gays?

"I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind.

Somebody please explain this to me because I just don’t get it."

For a noted journalist- Sally can say some really stupid things. In the same way the mention of Kenneth Pinyan makes me involuntarily retch- some people find homosexuality revolting.

For those who don't know who Pinyan was- here's the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan

The Pope says that gay people are "intrinsically disordered."

To me this is the height of hypocrisy and confusion, since the one making this homophobic statement seems pretty gay to me.

Yes, there I said it; it seems pretty obvious to anyone with eyes, that the Pope is gay.

I am not saying this to be mean, or to cast him in a bad light, since I said in an earlier post, that I love gay people. But I see what I see, the elephant in the room. It is he, the closetted Pope, who seems to have ALOT more problems than merely being gay.

Well,

It is pretty clear that some folks do not like having their beliefs challenged.

Gay people should not be considered 2nd class citzens any more than any other group of people who share a common trait/condition/aspect (choose your word).

But you cannot simultaneously argue that homosexuality is a caused, trait, in which a person has no choice, and argue that it is not a variation from the basic direction of human evolution.

Demonize me if you must, I don't happen to see any of those who disagree with me as bad people or evil minions of a "gay agenda".

But simple scientific logic precludes the existence of exclusive homosexuality as a genetically determined natural trait.

The only fashion in which it can exist scientifically is as an variation from the genetic norm. And yet we cannot talk about that way. it must be afforded the societal protection and stigma of talking about race or gender.

But it simply is not scientifically equateable to race or gender. it can only be equated to a disorder or condition, but talking about it as such get's one called a bigot.

Look, gay people have been mistreated for centuries, and their treatment in this country over the last 2 centuries is no exception.

But that is no reason to pretend that homosexuality is something it is not.

But those who identify as gay reject the idea that there can be anything "wrong" with them, and so any suggestion that the cause of their gayness is anything other than what nature intended must be wrong.

But you can't have it both ways.

Ben: "But I happen to believe a society which had found honest, ethical and humane ways to "cure" gay people would be a more desireable society than the one in which we live."
--Why would that be desirable?

Ben: "Whatever that something is, if it could be changed, and homosexuals could be not gay, what would be the harm in OFFERING that option to them?"
--If there were a way to transform all non-white people to become white, what would be the harm in OFFERING that option to them? I think the harm is that you are sending a message that there is something wrong with them to begin with.

Ben: "Most gay people I know are secretly very depressed with their lives."
--This is because of the social stigma, discrimination, lack of understanding and compassion, and in some extreme cases, harassment and violence that they face due to the fact that their are gay.

Ben: "many, I believe, self identify as gay in order to "fit in" with a crowd that tells them that if they have such interests, they must be gay and if they don't "come out" then they are ostracized for not being "true to themselves", and of course they have no where to turn since the straight male community treats them like "homos" for wanting to do whatever it is they love."
--Believe what you will, but this is simply false. No amount of sexual desire or lust alone could motivate people to create social clubs, political organizations, and an entire subculture simply to appease that lust. Rather, people come out of the closet and join gay communities because it of the acceptance and safety that they find there.

Ben: "You ask what harm granting "marriage" as a right to gay people serves. Quite simply, it makes a subjective valuation to all of society that in fact there is nothing at all undesireable about being gay."
--That is exactly right! And it is true: there is absolutely nothing at all undesirable about being gay!

Ben: "I happen to disagree, just as I would disagree with a similar statement about any other condition, disability or choice (I use those terms in conjunction deliberately as I have no more evidence than you as to what exactly causes homosexuality)."
--It is your right to disagree. However, your belief is not a valid basis upon which to base the laws of the land. I have a right to believe that black people are inferior to white people. But such a belief would also not be a valid basis upon which to base the laws of the land.

Ben: "The day someone shows me proof that homosexuality is an inherited trait which is beneficial to society, I'll cease to raise any objections."
--So, a trait needs to be beneficial in order to deserve legal rights and protection?

Anonymous said

"Ben in Chantilly:

Even assuming everything you say is true, I'm not sure that a "cure" for homosexuality would be so welcomed. Talk to some people in the Deaf community and see what the feeling is about the cochlear implant as a "cure" for deafness.

Or imagine researchers announcing a "cure" for the "genetic defect" of being inclined to believe in a single supreme being. That's an intentionally extreme example, and I don't think any reasonable person thinks spiritual beliefs come from genetic defects, but you get the idea."

Not sure I understand the implication of your second paragraph. You seem to be equating a cure for a genetically determined defect with a cure for a belief.

I was under the impression that homosexuality was believed - by those who advocate for it - to be an physically or genetically determined trait, not a belief or choice. Your argument would make sense only if you were saying that homosexuality is no more a physical part of a person than their religious identity - and we all know that religious identity can change.

And your comment on the deaf community actually helps to prove an ancillary point. We have moved so far as a society on the pendulum of subjective morality that we now have some deaf persons requesting to have their children be deformed in order to be like them.

Face it people, the idea of pure equality is a myth. the idea that we would let people intentionally deform their children to be like them is, in my opinion, shear lunacy.

And a coclear implant is a treatment, not a cure. A cure implies that the condition would no longer exist, and if we found a way to reverse, or cure, deafness, I'm guessing the vast majority of deaf people would be excited about that.

By the same logic, if homosexuality is a condition or defect, than sexual re-education is a treatment, not a cure, and one which I happen to think has not proven particularly effective, though a few folks I know who have participated have told me in confidence that it did work for them.

But how many gay people would want their children to be gay? And if it was discovered that a particular treatment in-vitro, or in early childhood could honestly prevent persons from being gay (as opposed to masking or hiding it), would many people object to that?

Ben - a definition

False analogy: X has property Y. Z is like X. Z therefore has property Y.

Use analogical comparisons to connect the item in question to another item that has desired characteristics. You can then claim that the first item has the desired property.

Polygamy, obesity, sloth and gluttony are in no way analogous to gay people in committed relationships. Your suggestion that they are is what is so offensive.

Likewise, your profession of pity coupled with your desire to have less gay people in our society rings very false.

Your mask is slipping.

Ben in Chantilly said:
"You ask what harm granting "marriage" as a right to gay people serves.

Quite simply, it makes a subjective valuation to all of society that in fact there is nothing at all undesireable about being gay. "

So, you prefer to make the subjective valuation that is it undesirable to be gay? You prefer to stigmatize gay people and their children and loved ones? Deny them rights to make a point?

And since you want to remove religion from the debate, you want this for purely scientific reasons, even though science overwhelmingly says children of gay parents do fine and

You are talking about hypothetical harm, but how about the harm done every single day to gay people when they are denied rights. The harm done when a man can't say a bedside goodbye to someone he loved for decades? Or even find out what's going on in a medical crisis because he's not "family" to the person he shared a life with for decades. Children have less security because you want to make a point.

How do you feel about divorce and remarriage? Want to make those illegal because to have them legal sends the message there's nothing undesirable about divorcing and remarrying? God and Jesus both said there was. Should we make some laws about marriage that will restrict the rights of vast numbers of straight people? Science says divorce is hard on children and the bible is against it. Why, then, is there no push to make divorce and remarriage (at least in many cases) illegal?

"I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

Well Sally- if love of ANY kind is right by you and Jesus:

Please share your thoughts on Kenneth Pinyon's particular love in life (and death). Should his kind and their love partners be married by the state or in church, synagogue, or mosque?

Ben in Chantilly wrote: "...society should not equate homosexual life as purely without negative considerations. And marriage for same sex couples would do that."

Have you considered that by requiring homsexuals to live outside of marriage commitments that homosexuals are driven toward the very negatives you associate with homosexuality? If marriage were banned for heterosexuals, would heterosexuals become more promiscuous? You bet ya. There would be nothing to keep a couple together or the commitment each needs from the other to build a home and monogomy.

If you have nothing against homosexuals but are worried about their negatives, consider that allowing them to marry, with the legal and moral obligations that marriage carries, might erase many of the negatives you associate with the homosexual lifestyle. In other words, you arguments about the homosexual lifestyle's negatives may be due to the prohibition on gay marriage itself. Its something to think about.

First of all we need to see that word, “marriage" or "marry" originates from where? It originates from religion. And all religions unanimously describe it as spiritual binding between man and women only. And all Abrahamic religions disapprove gay or lesbian relationships or binding. So, if somebody wants to bind them self in the same sex relationship then WHY insist on word marriage (or in other words seek religious approval)??? If you can choose to live your way, then why ask religions to change their meanings or ways according to your rules! If you have the legal right, YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RELIGIONS ARE ALSO LEGALLY BOUND TO CHANGE THEIR MEANINGS TOO!!

@Ben in Chantilly: With each successive post, more is revealed. You state:

"A proper analogy would be to say that, if given the opportunity to "not be gay, and by definition, be attracted to women", would some gay men choose that.
I happen to know many who would."

And: "Most gay people I know are secretly very depressed with their lives."

And: "I also happen to believe, based on a great many conversations, that some (but by no means all or even a majority) gay men self identify as gay because of reasons having nothing to do with true sexual identity."

Are you making gay friends at a some sort of self-loathing convention? While some gay people do have problems, all that means to me is that they are exactly like any other segment of the population - in other words, human beings. Further, no matter how feminine a straight man's mannerisms are, if he's truly straight, NOTHING is going to make him fall in love with another man, have lots and lots of gay sex with him, and want to marry him.

"Why is it that my disagreement with you means I am a bad person?"

I don't know you well enough to call you a bad person, Ben. But your ideas are truly wacky, defamatory, and discriminatory. People who continue to defend such ideas are often bad people. At a minimum, I can say you're a terrible brother and friend to your gay "friends". They all deserve better.

You cross over into ridiculous with this: "Quite simply, it makes a subjective valuation to all of society that in fact there is nothing at all undesireable about being gay."

The ONLY thing that's undesirable about being gay is constant discrimination, and the gays I know have developed great coping mechanisms when confronted with it. Your desire to stamp gay relationships with second class citizen status for no reason is yet another example of this.

"Daniel in the Lion's Den said:

Ben in Chantilly said:

"I think it's clear that homosexuality as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society"

Yes, it is very clear, isn't it?

That clarity is what makes you a bigot and a homophobe. I expect you to become angry at me for saying this. But I do not expect you to "get it.""

That is your right to feel that way.

Would I be bad to say that Polygammy as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society?

I happen to believe it is.

Would I be wrong to say that obesity, sloth and glutonny as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society?

I happen to believe it is.

I can say both of those things without saying the individuals caught up in those practices are bad people.

I think for you to presume to know what is in my heart is the height of arrogance.

You probably think I love the death penalty, I happen to be opposed to it as a devaluation of human life.

I value human life, all human life, even despicable tyrants. Judgement is for God, not me.

But I am also convinced, based upon science and reason, that society can find a way to both reduce the hatred and bigotry against gays while still working to identify ways for society to reduce the number of gay people.

gay people are not an ethnicity, and I am not suggesting any type of "cleansing".

But I happen to believe a society which had found honest, ethical and humane ways to "cure" gay people would be a more desireable society than the one in which we live.

But I reiterate, I would never force such a hypothetical cure on anyone, any more than I would on a blind or deaf person.

A homophobe, by definition, is someone who is afraid of homosexuals.

Well baby, bring'em on. I could care less, and am quite comfortable in their presence. I'm uncomfortable in the presence of people who call me a bigot for disagreeing with them, even though I do so with respect and substantiate my arguments with logic and science

Homosexuals don't scare me. they make me sad. Mostly sad for them that for whatever reason they have been denied the ability to appreciate life at it's fullest. In the same way any other person who is missing out on a big part of life would would similarly make me sad.

Could I be wrong, sure. Until someone offers me some kind of proof, and not emotional whiplashing that compares me a racist or bigot, I'll retain my faith in science.

"Daniel in the Lion's Den said:

Ben in Chantilly said:

"I think it's clear that homosexuality as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society"

Yes, it is very clear, isn't it?

That clarity is what makes you a bigot and a homophobe. I expect you to become angry at me for saying this. But I do not expect you to "get it.""

That is your right to feel that way.

Would I be bad to say that Polygammy as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society?

I happen to believe it is.

Would I be wrong to say that obesity, sloth and glutonny as an encouraged lifestyle is bad for society?

I happen to believe it is.

I can say both of those things without saying the individuals caught up in those practices are bad people.

I think for you to presume to know what is in my heart is the height of arrogance.

You probably think I love the death penalty, I happen to be opposed to it as a devaluation of human life.

I value human life, all human life, even despicable tyrants. Judgement is for God, not me.

But I am also convinced, based upon science and reason, that society can find a way to both reduce the hatred and bigotry against gays while still working to identify ways for society to reduce the number of gay people.

gay people are not an ethnicity, and I am not suggesting any type of "cleansing".

But I happen to believe a society which had found honest, ethical and humane ways to "cure" gay people would be a more desireable society than the one in which we live.

But I reiterate, I would never force such a hypothetical cure on anyone, any more than I would on a blind or deaf person.

A homophobe, by definition, is someone who is afraid of homosexuals.

Well baby, bring'em on. I could care less, and am quite comfortable in their presence. I'm uncomfortable in the presence of people who call me a bigot for disagreeing with them, even though I do so with respect and substantiate my arguments with logic and science

Homosexuals don't scare me. they make me sad. Mostly sad for them that for whatever reason they have been denied the ability to appreciate life at it's fullest. In the same way any other person who is missing out on a big part of life would would similarly make me sad.

Could I be wrong, sure. Until someone offers me some kind of proof, and not emotional whiplashing that compares me a racist or bigot, I'll retain my faith in science.