The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Subversion and Destruction of Marriage

Occam's Tool| 7.5.11 @ 4:24PM

Marriage is the best way to raise healthy and contented kids. An attack on the institution of marriage is an attack on future generations. I see the results of Liberalism on families every damn day.

Alan Brooks| 7.5.11 @ 5:38PM

A dog is man's best friend- not the wife.
The slogan:
"make Alpo, not love"

Chelsea Thomson | 7.5.11 @ 7:15PM

You are absolutely right - depression, anxiety
and rootlessness in kids from divorced homes
right and left . No standards . No God .
No hope .

There is a right and a wrong and there is a God
His commandments are for our good and the good
of our children .

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 1:27AM

Why can't the gay guys in my neighborhood stop disturbing the peace at 2:00 AM with their hissy fits in the middle of the street outside my apartment. Why don't I feel comfortable being ogled by them in exercise clubs?

We need a DADT policy in civilian life. Not to mention the military.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:43AM

Because you can't accept the fact that other people exist who are different from you?

Because there's something wrong inside you that makes you hate others for who look or act different than you do?

Those are the likely answers..

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 12:31PM

And gays don't have abortions.
But these people don't care, Aaron: abortion was mostly a wedge issue - except for True Believers. Notice they don't discuss abortion as much? they got their mileage out of the abortion issue and that's that.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 1:15PM

:-) Excellent point Alan!

BPac| 7.5.11 @ 4:32PM

Attitudes about cohabitation, divorce, etc., have changed dramatically over the past half century or so. Gay marriage isn't doing any new damage to the institution of marriage.

tonypal| 7.5.11 @ 4:57PM

Do you have some sort of evidence to support your claim? Now before you respond by saying that I need to prove gay marriage IS doing harm, you're the one making the claim. Therefore, you're the one who must support the claim. So we await your supporting evidence.

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 6:09PM

Actually, Tony! Those arguing against gay marriage have nothing to support their claims US courts of law. Additionally, baseless claims about "unknown" effects of treating people equally or "changing the definition of marriage" are deliberate, childish scare tactics consistently used by Anti-American forces to support their "beliefs" against marriage equality.

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 6:40PM

Actually, Joe, we have plenty to support our claims, not least of which being history (gay marriage has never been normative anywhere at any time and is simply a fad today), biology (gay marriage is barren, always), politically (the vast majority of the American people remain firmly opposed to gay marriage, which is why you want to go through the courts rather than the ballot box), morally (homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexuals and far less likely to be faithful partners), demographically (U.S. birthrate is at replacement levels, encouraging gay marriage can only reduce birthrate below them), economically (with the Baby Boomers retiring, we need larger generations, not smaller), etc.

Meanwhile, gays have a false and insulting analogy to the civil rights movement (one reason it's false---gays can pass as straights quite easily---and do all the time---but blacks could rarely pass for whites). It's homosexual BEHAVIOR we object to, not orientation, and if you want to see evidence of the behavior we find repulsive, attend any "pride" event and wait a few minutes.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 6:52PM

(U.S. birthrate is at replacement levels, encouraging gay marriage can only reduce birthrate below them)

What?

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:24PM

Exactly, what? Because strait people that would have kids are going to get gay marriages and not have kids? This isn't going to make more gay people, it's going to let the ones that are gay, and in a committed relationship do nice things, like adopt all those kids us straight people didn't want or made by accident.

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:51PM

It's a pretty simple argument: anything society lends imprimatur to we get more of. Thus normalizing the drug lifestyle gets you more people who partake of it, normalizing the thug lifestyle gets you more thugs, etc. Since homosexuals don't have children, much less more than 2.1 children, the birth rate will drop as homosexuality grows. This will be the slight effect. The larger effect is unmooring marriage as the key institution for having and raising children will further lower birthrates as the expectation of children from marriage will necessarily diminish. The argument is made quite powerfully by Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae", a singularly prophetic document. Again, you don't have to AGREE with the argument, but you do have to acknowledge the argument does exist.

CalEquality| 7.6.11 @ 1:11AM

The argument certainly exists, but that battle was lost when homosexuality no longer was taboo. The most important points were probably the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the large-scale uncloseting of gays, and the repeal of DADT. You are not in any realistic sense arguing for a return to 1950's taboos against gays, along with wholesale discrimination. (perhaps you are, but it will never happen). In this real world that we live in, your opposition to SSM simply discourages monogamy among gays, rather than encouraging gays to be straight. Keep arguing, but your argument became hopeless a few decades ago, and has become worse with each passing year.

Tara| 7.5.11 @ 7:16PM

Wow. Are you kidding? That is the most offensive post I have ever read, and I'm straight. This is a joke, right?

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:53PM

You must live in a tiny bubble where no one ever makes the case against gay marriage, then. Or are very, very young.

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:13PM

"the vast majority of the American people remain firmly opposed to gay marriage, which is why you want to go through the courts rather than the ballot box"

If by 'vast majority', you mean 'slight minority', than I agree with you completely, Teflon.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n.....-minority/

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:21PM

You are correct. Gallup's 9 point jump in a year is shocking to say the least:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147.....riage.aspx

The shift is entirely from Democrats and Independents, but it looks as though the tide has turned in terms of public opinion.

I'll sell my bonds.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:37AM

Actually, in ancient Rome, it was.

Seeing as how several other countries have legalized gay marriage, I can hardly call it a 'fad'.

Gay couples can STILL have children, wither adoption, artificial insemination or a surrogate. In any case, I wasn't aware being able to have children was a prerequisite for marriage. And may i remind you that there are plenty of couples out there who either don't or can't have children. There are also elderly people getting married. Should we stop them?

Who says homosexuals are 'more promiscuous'? Because goodness know that strait people NEVER sleep around in excess!

Ever think that there are OTHER reasons for the declining population? Like say, the fact that people are marrying later in life and choosing not to have children?

All assumptions and you fail to provide the SLIGHTEST BIT of scientific evidence to support them.

PattyMor| 7.5.11 @ 5:00PM

Wait until we get the persecution of the conservative churches. If gay marriage is legal, how long will it take them to "force" conservative churches to perform their ceremonies or else lose their tax exemptions? Hummm. That's my prediction.

Wayne Wymore | 7.5.11 @ 6:30PM

Oh, Yeah. But I think it's more than a prediction - it's on their agenda. Along with NAMBLA and Obama they want to destroy ANY thing that stands in their way of practicing the vilest acts, unimaginable to any person with a conscience.

Like a "doorway drug" this can lead to the complete destuction of public morals. Pick out any policy or institution which depends on public morals. Pedophiles will be on this bandwagon saying "Why can't my lesbian lover" be 17 / 16 / 15 / 14 / 13 / 12 / 11 / 10 or even younger???

Where do you draw the line???

Think I've taken this to far? They are teaching this in the public schools NOW! These pervs are looking at our children when they pass this "homosexual marriage" bill. We must Fight This Now!! And Never, Never, Never Give Up!

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:24PM

I, and Americans who want our country to be true freedom and justice for all, will draw the line at religious extremists attempting to interfere with mine, or anyone else's human rights to openly find, love, and spend our lives with a mate, with the same legal benefits and honor accorded towards a heterosexual couple. Since there is nothing abnormal about it, or sinful, that is where the line will be drawn. It will be the same as allowing blacks to have full equality, women to vote, and reason and education to speak openly without a particular religion's attempts to suppress it, and after that legislation has been passed, it will take another couple decades before the hate and irrationality that has been spouted here, to be erased, and the younger generation to accept all natural variants of humanity as equal.

Jo Bloo| 7.5.11 @ 7:35PM

There is nothing abnormal about it? Really? Because you say so? If recall correctly, the APA considered homosexuality a mental disorder until they bowed to political pressure; nothing scientific there. And I know homofascists well enough to know that their interpretation of 'religious extremists attempting to interfere' means that if they are not given full affirmation, they will intimidate, threaten and harass. And I can tell you, as a freedom-loving American, that's where I'LL draw the line.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:39AM

oh, are YOU a scientist? Can you PROVE they're wrong?

jo blo| 7.6.11 @ 9:03AM

Hey, genis (yeah, that's right)

the scientists had ALREADY concluded that it was a mental problem; there was no science to back up their politically-driven reversal of that position.

Thinking is your friend. Try it sometime. Then you might quit being a lib.

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:24AM

No, actually, they DIDN'T have the proof. They simply relied on past 'studies' that were largely based on assumptions about gays. None of it was actual hard proof based on real supporting evidence. Psychology is, for all intents and purposes a 'new' science compared to all the others. We're discovering new things all the time.

Can you PROVE they were wrong to change it?

I DO think. Can you think outside your irrational fear?

jo blo| 7.8.11 @ 5:32AM

I like how you put the word 'studies' in quotes. I presume that you are the sort that will deem a scientific experiment invalid if it doesn't produce the results you want. A clear symptom of a lack of critical thinking or intellectual honesty. Those scientists had far more evidence of the abnormality and insanity (literally) of 'gayness' than the political hacks at the APA who bowed to homopressure.

James M. Baker| 7.6.11 @ 7:14AM

Religious extremists? Those are the same values ALL denomenations taught until some of them became "liberalized". Not sinful? You had better reread just the New Testament, where those that follow a gay lifestyle are condemned in the strongest terms. Not to even mention the Old Testament where they were to be executed without mercy. On one point you are right, it is a natural thing in so far as all mankind is evil from birth according to scripture and given to wickedness.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 6:05PM

That's odd... gay marriage has been legal in many countries and states for years now, and not one church has been 'forced' to perform same-sex marriage... after all, there are thousands of congregations who already happily do..
Sky is falling syndrome obviously..

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 6:40PM

The Church is dead in those countries. Wonder what killed it?

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:26PM

It was suicide.

JeffreyRO5| 7.5.11 @ 7:41PM

No kidding! Religion is being destroyed from within. Not too shabby!

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:54PM

It was murdered by secularism.

You can't even make an argument, Joe. If the Church IS dead in those countries, as you concede, your point about no church being forced to perform same sex marriages is mooted, isn't it?

People who'll believe anything believe nothing.

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:54PM

It was murdered by secularism.

You can't even make an argument, Joe. If the Church IS dead in those countries, as you concede, your point about no church being forced to perform same sex marriages is mooted, isn't it?

People who'll believe anything believe nothing.

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:04AM

I made no such argument about churches not having to perform marriages. Of course, considering the number of gay affirming churches in the US and abroad, why should they be prevented from doing so if they believevin it?

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:40AM

No, they simply don't allow their religious views get in the way of due process or equal rights for their citizens. They can keep their religion out of their politics.

Because it's not about religion. It's about equal rights.

W| 7.5.11 @ 6:55PM

gay marriage is part of the obama economic plan. gay marriages will lead to pre-nuptial agreements and divorces, this will create work for lawyers, courts, accountants, and therapists.

Margie| 7.5.11 @ 6:55PM

We can thank those who believe that God "made people that way" and sell this bogus lie, for "Gay" Marriage.
It's an abomination to God, and so are those who promote it, or "look the other way".

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:26PM

You believe.

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:00PM

God may well have imbued homosexual orientation, Margie. Many homosexuals can point to evidence of this orientation from their earliest memories and I don't doubt their honesty.

Behavior is another thing. People can and do live chaste lives. Many people with homosexual orientation do this, although certainly not a majority.

The agenda in play here is nothing more than seeking popular endorsement for the more extreme aspects of the homosexual lifestyle: cruising, polyamory, etc. Whereas most heterosexuals do not endorse equivalent behavior in male-female relationships, it is far more difficult to find homosexuals who will condemn this type of conduct in their own community, no doubt in part because the community is much smaller and therefore much more sensitive to such criticism.

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:35PM

Also, possibly because that community had no way of forming legal, stable relationships of any kind until the recent past.

Margie| 7.6.11 @ 12:41AM

"God may well have imbued homosexual orientation, Margie."

~Is that what your Babylonian Religion teaches you?

"These things you have done and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you." Ps. 50:21.

"..just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7.

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:07AM

Unnatural lust, you sure that means homosexuality? It couldn't also be translated as 'other flesh'.which suggests something other than humans?

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:08PM

More Guardino uber-despair.

Hey, Guardino: the Left has been trying to murder marriage since the 1960s. Their frontal attack--"It's just a piece of paper"--flopped, so now they're trying to subvert from within.

We conservatives have been fighting the good fight, doing very well at it, and yet we keep losing. I can't help but think that at some point, God will finally decide to listen to us, and have His say.

P.S. For all you "Woe is us, all is lost, America is soooo wicked nowadays" moralizers: there are large numbers of good people doing the right thing. Your blanket statements are an insult to them and to the possibilities for redemption.

Seek| 7.5.11 @ 7:25PM

Most people on the Left get married, including the Obamas. What do you make of this seeming contradiction? If the Left really were trying to "murder marriage" for the last half-century, as you insist, we wouldn't have so many people on the Left, straight or gay, seeking to marry, now would we?

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:44PM

You prove my case by denying it.

In the 1960s, Leftists were agitating for an end to marriage, because "Marriage is just a piece of paper." It failed because people kept getting married, including a whole lot of "free love" hippies who reversed course when the b.o. and pot fumes cleared.

Or are you suggesting that the widespread "marriage is just a piece of paper" and "free love" movements were a conservative thing?

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:19PM

It's sort of amusing, but also very pathetic, how self-styled ‘conservatives’ in general these days blame ''the media'' ''the elitists'' ''the intellectuals'' and ''liberals'' for not being ''true'' Americans..

Do they not realize that all of those groups they constantly attack are people who are almost always: ''educated''.. people who aren’t afraid to travel the world and learn about other cultures… people who realize that the United States isn’t the only country in the world???

These groups that they daily condemn are people who have generally spent a significant portion of their lives devoted to studying and learning, and who are aware that everyone on this planet isn't some isolated ''folksy'' xenophobe who goes to some church every Sunday to have some holy-roller pastor get them all pumped up on how righteous ‘they’ are, and how wrong the entire rest of the world is.

It's as if they actually value ignorance. They usually choose alias photos of things like the American flag with a fierce eagle superimposed over it, or a weeping statue of liberty, or the old “don’t tread on me”, as if that will fool anyone when they trot out their hatred and attacks on the government, on our president, on people who value human diversity, or who value freedom of religion… ‘freedom of religion’ meaning that you don’t get to impose ‘your’ version of religion on everyone else.

They forget or most likely never knew, that the original ''Americans'' (other than the indigenous inhabitants) were the type in the original 13 colonies who were well aware of world issues, who were well-read, who valued literary education.

They were not some pioneer and likely poorly-educated family living in a sod hut on the prairies shooting ‘Injuns’… that came later, after we decided to push westward and forcibly take the rest of the continent from its original inhabitants through murder and war.

The Founding Fathers, who tended to be brilliantly intellectual and well-educated men, were completely opposite in nature to these myopic, culturally-unaware, and mentally-isolated type of people, who in their self-proclaimed ‘patriotic’ fervor, attack everyone and everything around them on a daily basis, and have an amazing penchant for conspiracy theories.

You have only to look at one of their typically insane and rabble-rousing blogs on any given day that they eagerly swallow… hook, line, and sinker :

“Grandma’s gonna die because of Obama.”

“Government is going to force your children to become homosexuals.”

“God will kill the evil-doers.”

“Obama born in Africa to pagan witch doctors.”

“Democrats to impose martial socialistic/communist law.”

Thank God that their xenophobia, hostility towards education, bigotry, and devotion to unregulated markets, and what that has gotten us, are pretty apparent to all now after 8 years of their miserable stewardship of our nation.

Liberal= root word ''liberty''.. to them, the word liberty is only for those who look, think, and act exactly like them... to liberals, that freedom is for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious belief, as long as that religious belief is not used to deny other citizens their human and civil rights, or to constantly condemn them as ‘going to hell’.

If they want to live a life where everyone follows the same ‘fire and brimstone’ type of religion, and values ignorance and fear of the world around them over education and cultural awareness of the world, they should go invent a theocracy on some remote Alaskan island, with Sarah Palin as their high-priestess if they want to force everyone to think like them, but they should also stop calling themselves ‘Americans’ if they want to deny everyone else ‘their’ liberty in personal life and religious freedom.

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:05PM

They're not "educated", but "miseducated". I've lived for extended periods of time in 3 countries on 3 different continents as well as all over the United States. I am a service academy graduate and will compare my transcript with anybody---we weren't allowed to take the garbage sociology that comprises most of today's Ivy League curriculum.

Nor have I spent my adult life in academic or government bubbles, far away from the real world, as so many of the Starbucks crowd has.

Sexual orientation is not the issue---behavior is. The attempt to elevate perverse behavior to left-wing sacrament is disgusting and doomed to failure---at least so long as there are still plenty of Americans who didn't have to take Queer Studies at Harvard.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:55PM

Ahh... of course Teflon!! All universities and higher places of learning are suspicious to you because you don't really like higher learning, huh?

There you go folks!! We should just not allow anyone to have higher than an 8th grade education, because otherwise they might become non-conservatives, and follow the crap you're fed.. :-) Or worse.... "COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST/NAZI/ELITIST/HOMOSEXUAL-AGENDA/DEMOCRATIC/AFRICAN-BORN/SATANISTSSSSSSSS!!!!"

:-)

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 1:34AM

Precisely so, Aaron. Most libs never advanced beyond Jethro Bodine level.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:19PM

For the people who are angry that 3 separate U.S. Supreme Courts have come up with almost identical rulings in favor of the rights of gay Americans to marry each other, with more to follow... and who want this issue put to a 'popular' vote, you are incorrect in your assumption that this is an issue that can currently be allowed to be decided by 'the People' when the people ignore the constitutional requirements of equality for all citizens because they have been falsely taught to hate people who are homosexual and/or to think that they are somehow less than human, or deserving of equality.

Here is a brief synopsis of some of the abuses of the law in our history over this subject:

Today, when one out of every fifteen American marriages is interracial, many people are surprised to learn that laws prohibiting interracial marriage (otherwise known as miscegenation laws) were so deeply embedded in U.S. history that they would have to be considered America's longest-lasting form of legal race discrimination--they lasted far longer than either slavery or school segregation. All told, miscegenation laws were in effect for nearly three centuries, from 1664 until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional in the Loving decision.

One of the first things defeated white Southerners did at the end of the Civil War was to pass new, and stronger, miscegenation laws as part of their infamous black codes. Determined to overcome Southern resistance, the federal government built its Reconstruction program around the promise of equality, then embedded this promise in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens "equal protection" of the law.

But it soon became apparent that Reconstruction would not survive long enough to become a turning point in the history of miscegenation law. As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.

Here are four of the arguments they used that are identical to the ones being used now to argue against allowing gay citizens to marry:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was 'contrary to God's will.'

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus.
Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

During the late 19th century, this judicial consensus laid the basis for an ominous expansion in the number, range, and severity of miscegenation laws. In Southern states, lawmakers enacted new and tougher laws forbidding interracial marriages. Seven states put miscegenation provisions in their state constitutions as well as in their regular law codes, and most raised criminal penalties to felony level. In Florida, for example, the penalty for interracial marriage was a maximum of 10 years in prison; in Alabama, 2-7 years. Meanwhile, western states set off in a new direction by expanding the racial coverage of the laws. A dozen states passed laws prohibiting whites from marrying American Indians; a dozen more targeted Asian Americans; nine targeted Filipinos.

In 1948, the Supreme Court of California took a giant step toward ending the regime of miscegenation law when it broke an sixty-five year string of post-Reconstruction judicial precedents and declared California's miscegenation law unconstitutional. Speaking for a deeply divided court, Justice Roger Traynor flatly rejected the shopworn claim that miscegenation laws applied "equally" to all races. "A member of any of these races," Traynor explained, "may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable." "Human beings," he continued, "are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."
"The right to marry," Traynor insisted, "is the right of individuals, not of racial groups." Nineteen years later, in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court agreed, this time in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. "There can be no doubt," Warren wrote, "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." Denying the freedom to marry solely because of sexual orientation or identity is equally as unconstitutional as doing so because of race.

The Loving decision spelled the formal end of America's three-century-long history of miscegenation laws, though opponents of interracial marriage didn't give up overnight. Alabama, for example, waited until the year 2000 to remove the miscegenation provision from its state constitution.
By and large, however, Americans adjusted remarkably quickly to the new judicial consensus that interracial marriage, like marriage itself, was and is, as Earl Warren had insisted in Loving, "a basic civil right."

When the campaign for same-sex marriage succeeds, it will be not only because of the efforts of lesbian and gay activists but because of the civil rights advocates (black, white, Asian American and American Indian) who spent so much of the twentieth century working to put an end to America's shameful tradition of these type of disriminatory laws.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 7:47PM

What Aaron said!

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:09PM

Except that homosexuals were not enslaved for centuries to produce cotton and sugar.

Except that homosexuals were never denied the vote.

Except that we did not have to fight our bloodiest war to liberate the homosexuals from shackles and spend the next century fighting to grant them the ability to vote, hold office, own property, or even drink from the same water fountain as heterosexuals.

Except that unlike the miscegenation laws, homosexuals are neither imprisoned for their relationships nor denied the legal equivalent through civil unions.

Except that unlike blacks, homosexuals are quite able to disappear within the heterosexual population should they so desire.

Except that race is not based whatsoever in one's behavior, whereas homosexuality is defined by it.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:43PM

Really???!! You mean although slaves were allowed to show their affection for each other and to even get married, that 'homosexuals' have not been subjected to hatred, ridicule, beatings and murder for centuries now???

Hmm... 'you' have some stranger like yourself attempt to interfere or deny 'you' your relationship with your loved one, or encounter multiple individuals who either want to beat you, dehumanize you, or murder you... and 'then' see how much you would dismiss the correlation between the former slaves, and ourselves..

Oh... wait! That would require you to first have a conscience and a recognition of right and wrong, so never mind! ;-)

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:46AM

I suggest you look up homosexuals and the holocaust and see what you get.

Uh, huh. 'Legal equivalent'. The whole 'separate but equal' claim. Nevermind that they're not recognized everywhere and most certainly DO NOT provide all the same right and protections offered in marriage. http://www.factcheck.org/what_.....union.html

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:14AM

And I suggest you look for a history book on the civil war, hint: it wasn't about slavery, it was about equal representation of the south in congress on many issues, slavery was merely one of them. The southern states decided to exercise their right at the time to secede from the union, and Abraham Lincoln ignored the articles of confederation and declared war on the southern states.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:43AM

BRAVO!!!! :clap:

john dubose| 7.5.11 @ 7:42PM

If you believe that marriage is between a man a woman and God, there is no such thing as "gay" marriage. If some pairs of females or males decide to claim that they are married, that is just their shooting off their mouths. If they want to have a ceremony so what ?

The real public question is about various legal rights that couples may want to exercise. That is a job for state legislatures and it is mostly done already. Civil unions with terms similar to legal marriage are becoming the norm. Even where there are explicit laws against gay marriage, gay people can form ordinary partnerships with extra terms concerning life issues.

As long as conventional marriage gets priority, there is really no policy to decide. We are wasting electrons with the discussion.

Dogzilla| 7.5.11 @ 8:11PM

If you believe that marriage is between a man a woman and God, there is no such thing as "gay" marriage.

And if you believe that marriage is "until death do us part" then there is no such thing as a "second marriage" if either person is divorced.

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 8:36PM

Non sequitur.

Your hate is showing.

john dubose| 7.6.11 @ 8:01AM

Excuse me !! Dogzilla has a point and it is NOT the least bit hatefull.

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:46PM

Welcome, "Aaron," one of the Obama/Facebook "phony people by committee," or at the very least a paid Soros operative.

Amazing, isn't it, how people (if he is an actual person, and not a fabricated Obama-spammer identity) like that have all this time to write lengthy screeds at a website espousing views that they hate.

Evil, thy name is Liberal.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:45PM

Oh great George Soros... leader of our great Communist Revolution!!! Thank you for all the billions of dollars and Kool-Aid you make me write!!!

(um.. yeah)... Evil... thy name is fully seen by those who know Good..

CalEquality| 7.6.11 @ 12:59AM

Well said, Aaron. CalMark, I have seldom seen such an poor response. You would have done better to ignore the post, than respond with an empty personal attack, completely devoid of content. Aaron wins by default, when you stoop to such a level.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 7:48PM

Not what CalMark said!

BV| 7.5.11 @ 7:56PM

I'm in a gay "marriage" and let me tell you, if my spouse ever got polyamorous on me I'd beat his brains in. I don't care what Dan Savage says.

Dogzilla| 7.5.11 @ 8:12PM

if my spouse ever got polyamorous on me I'd beat his brains in.

Thus proving that gay marriage leads to violence!!!!!!

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:50PM

I'll bet if a 'straight' man said that he'd do that to his wife or girlfriend if she messed around on him, he'd suddenly not apply that same reasoning to 'heterosexual' relationships.. no matter how many times we see it in the news.... (Don't say 'hypocrite'.. it might make the person be seen as such!)

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:16PM

Which is proof that faithfulness is possible, if not practiced widely. The only way gay "marriage" will become normative is were your situation to become the norm, BV, much as it became impossible to oppose civil rights for blacks in this country once one was exposed to Martin Luther King Jr and his cohorts standing up to brutal violence with such dignity. Americans are a very tolerant people but respect is always earned. The behavior on display at "gay pride" events combined with the shrillness of gay advocates---most of whom mind not at all displaying their religious bigotry in the most vulgar terms possible---will simply never persuade a majority of Americans of the merits of a lifestyle so alien to their own. The example of a Camille Paglia on the other hand certainly erodes barriers; there are simply not enough of her type on display to achieve this.

Wonder why that is?

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:58PM

Have you ever been to a St. Patrick's Day parade, or Mardi Gras, or a football game? It's really not hard to find mobs of drunken heterosexuals acting like idiots in public. I imagine the reason you're wrong about the American public is that more and more Americans have been encountering homosexuals who weren't attention-hungry advocates, or boozed up guys in thongs at a parade. They're their family members, neighbors, co-workers-and they're pretty normal.

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 8:40PM

Legalism to justify wickedness (like gay "marriage") is the resort of scoundrels.

Liberals demolish centuries of legal precedent with a some intellectually-indefensible ruling. "Bad precedents," they say, "must be overturned." Then they declare the new, morally and legally worthless standard is the gold standard precedent for all time.

And liberals think people of faith are inflexible, bigoted zealots.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:46PM

So those darn 'liberals' who demolished centuries of legal precedent by demolishing slavery were wrong?? :-)

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 3:15AM

Aaron,

Umm.....I believe a Civil War and 600,000 dead Americans demolished slavery, not legal precedents.

Would the homos like to go to war over this so-called civil rights struggle?

What are they going to do, throw their lipsticks at us and do our hair? Unless, they're lesbos. They're scary!

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:11AM

:-) Wow... so mature... (um... yeah)

They'll do the exact same thing they've been doing... seeking their equality through the courts, and through public discourse, which is why it's legal in most modern nations now, and why it is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington D.C., New York, and California soon again.

That quite a lot in only 7 years, and I guarantee you that the people you demonize and ridicule on this subject will keep it up until ALL are equal and free to marry their partner such as you are able to do. They never stop being born, and will seek their equality, but the bigotry you spout is rapidly dying..

You're on the loosing side of history on this subject, although you can't admit it..

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 1:56PM

Aaron,

Let me introduce you to a term I've recently come across that most accurately describes this subject: Counterfeit "marriage".

Addressing two men as "married" is like calling a dog a cat. Or, a tranny a girl. You can say the sky is brown or that snow is hot, it doesn't make it so.

These so-called "marriages" will always be counterfeit, i.e., not real.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:36PM

Nick,

I can't absolve or excuse your bigotry and ignorance... so you'll have to deal with it yourself on a spiritual level at some point.

Your acceptance or agreement with what I say is not required...

We'll just have to agree to eternally disagree, man... deal with it. :-)

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 10:57PM

Aaron,

I love you, my brother!

(This doesn't mean we'll be taking long showers into the wee hours of the morning. Like perverts.)

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:06AM

Don't worry, you're definitely not my type..:-)

Anthony M| 7.5.11 @ 8:48PM

Gay marriage is a gift from the left to the right, if the right is willing to use the issue. No democrat can run for office now without showing overwhelming support for sodomite marriage, the overwhelming majority of Americans support traditional marriage, thus handing the country to the right. Of course this presupposes that like Bush and Willie Horton, republicans actually use a decisive, winning issue.

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:48PM

"Sodomite marriage"... Hmm... that's funny because as every man here who can be honest knows... just LOVES 'sodomy' when performed with a woman who's willing. (Oh wait... you want to keep that under wraps and not acknowledge, huh?!... yep... that's the hypocritical and liar's way, so rock on hypocrites!!) :-)

DREd| 7.5.11 @ 11:32PM

Where do you guys get this idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans support 'traditional' marriage? You're flatly wrong, and you haven't been right for some time now. As a society, we seemed to have passed a tipping point when it comes to acceptance of the idea of gay marriage.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 3:06AM

Aaron,

BZZZZZZZZZZ! WRONG!

It's disgusting, no matter what combination of genders you use.

There is a reason a man and a woman fit together so perfectly: God made us that way!

The disgusting acts that homos and heteros commit, like sodomy, are unnatural. Heteros can always get back on the natural side of creation, while homos can't. Unless, the homo remains chaste, that is.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:47AM

Prove it's unnatural.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 1:39PM

Red,

Prove that you're rational.

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:27AM

You first.

And this isn't about me. If you're going to make irrational, baseless claims, you need to support them with actual EVIDENCE.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:27AM

Hmm... so the buzzer sound he makes automatically makes those he disagrees with wrong? Interesting..

However Nick, if you're the type who only makes babies for 'the Lord'... it's unsurprising that you have such a Dark Ages mentality about sex, and know so little about your fellow males.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 1:43PM

Aaron,

Dark Ages?

Nope. I go back almost 2,000 years, all the way back to the "mentality" of Jesus Christ.

And, we all know the homos have a big problem with the Son of Man.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:38PM

WOW!! "2,000 year"....!! WOWZA!! :-)

(I think he's completely unaware of tens of thousands of well-known human behavior and history, and hundreds of thousands of relatively documented and studied history, let alone the millions of years of 'normal' behavior for our species... but then again, he probably thinks the world is only 6 or 7 thousand years old, thus his apparent amazement at merely the past '2000 years' that he really doesn't know much about anyway.)

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 11:09PM

Aaron,

Nice grammar.

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:07AM

Thank you Nick... nice bigotry.

BV| 7.5.11 @ 9:52PM

Gallup Poll: A majority of Americans support gay marriage. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/147.....riage.aspx

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 10:00PM

BV... even though now 'all' reputable polls show the truth of what you said....certain people on here cannot handle the truth..

It's very similar to when racists were no longer allowed to openly vent their hatred of those who had different skin colors... and could no longer torment, beat, lynch, or murder them with relative impunity... each era... from the Inquisitors who held up the cross while they tortured and murdered those they deemed 'heretics'... to the recent racists of the past... could never quite get it through their thick skulls when their Evil was recognized as such and no longer tolerated by the majority of their society and civilization...

No matter... their grandchildren will look upon them in shame, and they will have to fully recognize the pain and evil they have caused to others.. when they die and meet their maker..

bobmontgomery| 7.5.11 @ 11:05PM

Some children are born and abandoned; some children are born and their parents are killed. Some children are abducted. Some children do not receive they love they should. Some children are adopted. There are hundreds of scenarios. But Elton John deliberately....deliberately....made a plan ...that a child born into this world will never know....will never know...will never ever know....a mother's love.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:48AM

Says who? You?

Lillith| 7.5.11 @ 11:12PM

Don't you think it's ironic that young people who are not gay are less likely to marry. It appears that homosexuals are the only large section of US young people who DO want to get married.

Jonathan | 7.6.11 @ 12:32AM

Regardless of what Dan Savage says, there are laws that enforce marital fidelity. Marriage equality doesn't change the law. If a spouse cheats, the other spouse can sue for divorce. John R. Guardiano presents a classic red herring argument.

That isn't to say that married couples don't have the liberty to allow infidelity. They do. But the recognition of marriages between people of the same sex doesn't have anything to do with the treatment of infidelity under the law.

Dogzilla| 7.6.11 @ 12:54AM

All fifty states allow for no-fault divorce. You can get a divorce if your spouse hangs the toilet paper the wrong way or whatever you consider to be "irreconcilable". Also for infidelity, or for buying that vile Miracle Whip stuff instead of real mayonaise. Whatever. The courts don't care.

But it's still traditional marriage, dammit, because it's a man and a woman having affairs or arguments or whatever and getting divorced and moving on to new relationships. It's Adam and Eve (and then a rebound fling with Eva, and then a second marriage to Evette and an affair followed by a third marriage to trophy wife Evelyn), not Adam and Steve. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand?

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:39AM

Why is it so hard for people like Godzilla to understand that other people do not have to conform to his religious beliefs??

But, since he's so focused on the Old Testament, I feel it's time to share one of my favorite scriptural passages and stories.... in such detail that the sexual aspect is undeniable to any rational and honest 'Christian' who wants to follow a true translation.. and not one that more and more churches and entire countries are abandoning.

... the biblical love-story of Jonathan and David. This was a relationship deemed so important to write down, that it is the only one in the Bible of its kind... describing this beautiful relationship.

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David’s beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David “was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh ‘ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro’i, #2896, #7210].” (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as “a handsome [to’ar, #8389] person” (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was “a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar’eh, #3303, #4758]” (17:42, NKJV). Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob (“beautiful, handsome” in both cases), along with to’ar and mar’eh (“[in] figure or shape”). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro’i (#7210, “a … sight [to behold]) and admoni and ‘ayinim, translated as “ruddy” and “eyes” respectively in the NRSV – although the last two Hebrew words present a challenge to translators.

Jonathan’s intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an ado about David’s looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].” Then (v. 3), “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.” Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that “Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul.” (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly” in David” (NKJV). So, in response to three references to David’s beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan’s love for him – two of them twice using the verb “love” and the third using the related verb “delights [in].” Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise),” along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of “love” (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, “He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160].” (NRSV)

The Bible records three pacts that Jonathan and David made. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: ‘as himself,’ nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: ‘tunic’], and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, “the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul” (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of “loved,” “bound [to]” (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan’s love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself). Jonathan’s attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire “giving away [of] one’s own self,”.. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): “Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.” (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, “Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.’” The repetition of aheb/ahaba (“love/loved”) and of nephesh (“as [much as] his own life”) in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): “Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord…” the pact made in 23:18 is not merely “a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact” described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and “lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything.” The third pact is best understood as a “fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship.” In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David’s beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan “loved” David (18:1,3; 20:17). Interestingly, the same word aheb (“loved”), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as “Michal had fallen in love with David”, or “…fell in love with David” Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take “great delight [kaphes] in David” (NRSV), since kephes usually appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love. This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob’s daughter).

Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including “loved” (aheb), “heart” (nephesh) and “delighted [in]” (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of “longs [for]” (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: “bound [to].

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David stayed together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel’s army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul’s jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David’s life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen. Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness? [‘erwa] For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’” (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king’s table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul’s insult is usually translated like “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!” (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, “You son of a slu.!” or “You son of a BLEEP!” Interestingly, Lucian’s version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe (“effeminate man”) here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, “Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]…” (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning “to choose,” the more ancient Greek text uses the noun metochos (Strong, #3353), meaning “to partner with, or companion with”.

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads “…and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]?” (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including ‘erwa (“nakedness”), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth (“shame”), which is usually used in a sexual context. One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully – to receive such an insult as this?

In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

Not that this will play any part in the courts and legal systems, but people like him always have to bring up the Bible in every situation, so wanted something for him to chew on.. :-)

Jonathan | 7.6.11 @ 11:19AM

Dogzilla,

Please don't compare the most precious institution on earth to sandwich spreads. I find that to be very disrespectful.

Adultery is a legal definition. In many states, adultery is a criminal offense, even if not enforced. Adultery is considered by the courts in divorce proceedings, particularly with respect to alimony.

I thought that respect for covenantal commitments, marriage and family was a conservative value. I guess you know better because you are able to say "Adam and Steve". How clever of you.

CalMark| 7.6.11 @ 12:43AM

I see the Aaron-bot was busy today.

What will his/its name be tomorrow, when the Obama/Facebook conspiracy switches up?

Dogzilla| 7.6.11 @ 12:57AM

CalMark, don't ever let anyone try to convince you that you're a paranoid nutcase! Your efforts are much appreciated! Show the world what a True Conservative is really like!

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:31AM

Ah... just had a lovely time with good ol' George overtaking the world and plotting the downfall of civilization, but now am back..

Now, back to reality... so Cal-Mark... anyone who disagrees with you means that they must be part of some vast George Soros/Obama conspiracy, huh?

Have you thought about seeking professional counseling??

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 1:27AM

We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God's words to condone their hate.

Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:24AM

Thank you for the resources, I'll have to add them to the sites I cite elsewhere.

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 1:28AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 1:36AM

This is the perfect example of how anti-gay people change the bible's words for their anti-gay agenda.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate?

Absolutely.

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:30AM

Truth. Malakoi means soft (like a pillow) which when used to describe a person, typically means licentious, corruptible, weak willed. Arsenokoitai is a direct reference to Leviticus 18 and 20 which calls man laying with man arsen koiten. This passage in Leviticus is a clear reference to pagan rituals to various fertility gods. If Paul wanted to condemn all same-sex activity he would most likely have used the Greek term that actually meant that, androkoitai.

Margie| 7.6.11 @ 12:16PM

The Words of God are clearly written, and it is not a matter of one's own interpretation, for they speak for themselves. And it isn't "hate" to tell the truth, nor is it "arrogant" or "bigoted" or even like the "Pharisees" of old as some who even bear the Name of Christ try and accuse me of doing~ but in fact every Christian is called by God~commanded to preach the Gospel to the World.

That is why I want to tell you His truth, so that you may know the way of escape, from Sin:

God even explains the reason why one becomes "Gay", and it is because they reject God, and He gives them over to insanity.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." Rom. 1:24-32.

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.
Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren." Jas. 1:13-16.

"They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved." 2 Pe. 2:19.

Sin is the problem, Christ is the answer:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God.
And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." Jn. 3:16-21.

There is only one Way of escape from Sin, death and Hell~ for all of us~ Homosexual or not~ and that's through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Pe. 3:9.

This promise is talking about that of His second coming. He is giving us time to turn from Sin now, because when He returns, there will be no time left.

"For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." Ez. 18:32.

The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. The Old Testament foretold of Christ's first coming~ His death and resurrection, and the New fulfills it, and tells of His Second coming~ where He comes to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 12:36PM

It's a good thing the Church isn't in power like it was during the Dark and Middle Ages, or we'd once again be having Inquistors thrusting the cross at accused 'sinners' and 'heretics' while they tortured and murdered them in the name of Christ.

I highly suggest following Jesus' clear teachings to not take it upon yourself to judge the 'sins' of others...

Margie| 7.6.11 @ 1:51PM

The Inquisitions were not made up of Christians~ they were Catholics.

And as to not judging others~ sorry, my God commands me to tell the truth, His truth to the lost, in hopes that they may turn and live.

You've read His Words, above~ it's on you whether or not to listen.
I've done my job!

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 2:26PM

Margie... Catholics consider themselves 'Christian' just as you do... you cannot say that only 'your' version of Christianity is correct. Also, Red makes a perfect point below... America is not a theocracy, and you cannot use or force 'your' religious beliefs to condemn or dehumanize others.

That said:

Leviticus 18:19 says "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness" and we all agree this is unimportant now, but where is the warrant for saying that verse 19 is irrelevant and verse 22 is God's holy word, tampered with at risk of condemnation?

Where are the literalists thundering about obeying God's holy word at the church's ignoring the ·clear word· on treatment for leprosy (Lev. 14) or shaving the edges of beards (Lev. 21:5)? One verse certainly implies that a fetus is not a person (Ex. 21:22, in imposing a reduced punishment for causing a miscarriage), yet it has not stopped those who oppose abortion.

Even more amazing is Proverbs 11:1: "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but an accurate weight is his delight." Why does the word "abomination" mean in Leviticus a situation on which our whole faith stands or falls, but when the same Hebrew word appears in Proverbs it is "politics" or "social action" and therefore to be waved away? This is all the more significant as there are more verses in the Old Testament devoted to false weights than there are verses devoted to homosexuality.

Various figures in the Old Testament are allowed moral practices that would not be considered acceptable by those opposed to homosexuality: multiple wives, aggressive military campaigns, and slaves.

Strangely, no one seems to think there is any problem with rejecting these practices, yet they are in the "law book" of scripture. Conservatives tend to advocate strict application of the rules on homosexuality, but do not tend to feel that way about ·economic· texts that command tithing (Deuteronomy 14:22) or the forgiveness of debts (Deuteronomy 15:1)

Flogging when done by followers of Islam many consider to be primitive or ungodly, yet it is commanded for certain offenses by Deuteronomy 25:1-3.

Conservatives tend to advocate strict application of the rules on homosexuality, but do not tend to feel that way about ·economic· texts that command tithing (Deuteronomy 14:22) or the forgiveness of debts (Deuteronomy 15:1) Flogging when done by followers of Islam many consider to be primitive or ungodly, yet it is commanded for certain offenses by Deuteronomy 25:1-3.

Nor is your selective application limited to the Old Testament. What opponent of homosexuality considers Matthew 5:39 (" do not resist an evildoer") normative, either for personal conduct or for a nation's foreign policy?

Sodom, Gomorrah and Sodomites:

The assertion is often made that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is primarily about homosexuality (as opposed to gang rape or inhospitality which is what the story actually refers to). We 'all know' that it is about homosexuality, except that the Bible doesn't seem to know this. When the story is referenced later in the Bible, the focus is not on homosexuality but uses the fate of the city as a warning of the ultimate punishment God can inflict.

Still more compelling is the point that if the attackers are homosexual, then the tactic of offering them a woman will not likely be effective.

Yet, because Sodom, in modern usage, is considered a synonym for homosexuality, it is common to assume these verses condemn homosexuality.

Here are some scriptures on which those Christians who find it so easy to hate can dwell upon instead to truly follow Christianity's message. If you can't follow these as well, you are not a 'Christian'....you would be a 'hypocrite'....

Here you go:

Isaiah 56. God·s welcome of foreigners and eunuchs into God's 'house of prayer for all peoples.'
Book of Ruth and 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1. A modeling for same-gender couples in the love relationship heralded in scripture in the stories of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth) and Jonathan and David (Samuel).
Micah 6:8. The emphasis of justice in the prophets: "God has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."
Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18 and Luke 10:25-28. As other rabbis of his time would have, Jesus blended Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (·Love God·) and Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself" -note this comes between Leviticus 18 and 20!) in Matthew 22:34-40 as one of the greatest commandments, and the lens through which to interpret all of the law and the prophets. To confirm this was a common pairing, see Luke 10:25-28, in which Jesus solicits the same conclusion from an expert in religious law.
John 9. Jesus dissociates a human condition from a sinful cause when he declares a man was not born blind because of his sin or that of his parents, but so that the glory of God may be made manifest.
John 4. Jesus reveals his messianic identity to the outcast Samaritan woman at the well who had had five husbands and was living with a man unmarried. She becomes the first evangelist, bringing others from her village to meet Jesus.
Luke 10:25-37. The parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the most hated person to Jesus' listeners ·loved his neighbor as himself· in helping a victim of robbers...what a priest and a lay priest failed to do.
Acts 10 and 11. The full welcome of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church, whose lifestyles were repugnant to the Jews. Galatians 5:1, etc. The many letters of Paul that assert freedom from law and custom in Christ, such as Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free."
1 John 4:16. "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them." What follows repeats the theme emphasized throughout scripture to not be afraid, 'There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.' We love because God commands us to.

Here are some scriptures on which those Christians who find it so easy to hate and condemn others using Biblical verse can dwell upon instead to truly follow Christianity's message. If you can't follow these as well, you are not a 'Christian'....you would be a 'hypocrite'....

Here you go:

Isaiah 56. God·s welcome of foreigners and eunuchs into God's 'house of prayer for all peoples.'

Book of Ruth and 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1. A modeling for same-gender couples in the love relationship heralded in scripture in the stories of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth) and Jonathan and David (Samuel).

Micah 6:8. The emphasis of justice in the prophets: "God has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."

Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18 and Luke 10:25-28. As other rabbis of his time would have, Jesus blended Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (·Love God·) and Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself" -note this comes between Leviticus 18 and 20!) in Matthew 22:34-40 as one of the greatest commandments, and the lens through which to interpret all of the law and the prophets.

To confirm this was a common pairing, see Luke 10:25-28, in which Jesus solicits the same conclusion from an expert in religious law.
John 9. Jesus dissociates a human condition from a sinful cause when he declares a man was not born blind because of his sin or that of his parents, but so that the glory of God may be made manifest.

John 4. Jesus reveals his messianic identity to the outcast Samaritan woman at the well who had had five husbands and was living with a man unmarried. She becomes the first evangelist, bringing others from her village to meet Jesus.
Luke 10:25-37.

The parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the most hated person to Jesus' listeners ·loved his neighbor as himself· in helping a victim of robbers...what a priest and a lay priest failed to do.

Acts 10 and 11. The full welcome of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church, whose lifestyles were repugnant to the Jews. Galatians 5:1, etc. The many letters of Paul that assert freedom from law and custom in Christ, such as Galatians 5:1, "For freedom Christ has set us free."
1 John 4:16. "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them." What follows repeats the theme emphasized throughout scripture to not be afraid, 'There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.' We love because God commands us to.

Red| 7.6.11 @ 1:57PM

Except, you're over looking something crucial; the United States does not pass laws that support a single religious view. Not everyone shares that same view. So why would you force it on them through the law?

There are millions of people in this country and not all of them Christian. There are many, many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, etc. They all have different views of God, so why should we force your single-minded view on everyone?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 2:21PM

Red,

"They all have different views of God, so why should we force your single-minded view on everyone?"

Because it was the Christian worldview that made this country great. It was the secular humanist worldview which began our decline.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 2:36PM

That's not true, but I'm sure your church tells you that.. you should read the writings of the Founding Fathers and see why it's so important that we have separation of religion and state..

JP| 7.6.11 @ 4:35PM

Aaron,
At least try to acquaint yourself with some history of philosophy. Western Enlightenment didn't come about from thin air. The philosophical ideas that led to things such as the Rights of Man, Nature, and Justice, etc... came out of the Roman Catholic Church and its centers of learning in Paris, Louvain, Venice, Rome, Krakow, and Cologne. The Catholic Scholastics in turn were heavily influenced by Saint Thomas Aqaunis and Saint Augustine. From these two men, flowed almost all philosophical ideas that would be studied and debated during the Rennasaince. And all of ancient antiquity would have been lost if it wasn't for the Benedictine monks of Northern Europe. In short, ideas such as the Dignity of Man came from St Thomas. His treatise which was derived from Catholic Theology laid the groundwork for what would become the Rights of Men.

What we call The West is so rooted in Catholic thought that few today are even aware of it. However, the evidence is there as clear as day. Just look at Islamic philosophy or Hindu philosophy and you get a good example. Democracy is a purely Western idea. As are the ideas of equality before the law, and Human Rights. But, without the Church none of this would have come about. The United States and its ideals are derived from this legacy.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 6:21PM

JP, my studies have been history.. classical history to be exact.

What you say is true, but they were building on was mainly from the same Greek culture that our Founding Fathers decided to base the form of our government on.. from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thales of Miletus, who founded the Milesian School, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus... I'm sure you get the point.

As soon as the church gained political power in the late 3rd Century and early 4th Century CE, the public schools were closed, the schools of science and philosophy were banned, the theatres were closed and outlawed, the schools of medicine were closed, and even the gymnasiums and the Olympics themselves were shut down.. thus beginning the Dark Ages..

Closed and banned from the same very type of 'Christian' fanaticism and intolerance such as we see on some of the comments put forth on this site.. some 1600 years later..

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 7:36PM

Aaron,

Let me guess, you're what...21...22?
Your parents might as well be throwing the thousands they are wasting on your non-education down the toilet.

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:11AM

No... I'll be 41 in August. As to education, from your amazingly ignorant statements about history, we'll have to just disagree on who wasted their education..

JP| 7.7.11 @ 8:58AM

Aaron, err.. there were no public schools in the Empire. Sheeesh... there were institutes in various places like Alexandria and Rome. But they were private and remained opened until the Fall of Rome. Muslims burned down the libraries of Rome in the 7th Century; various invaders sacked Rome and other large cities in the 6th and 7th Centuries. However, as I stated earlier, the Benedictine Monks perserved much of the classics of antiquity in various monastaries in Europe. Until the High Middle Ages, learning ceased mainly due social and political chaos. It wasn't until the rise of Catholic schools did learning return. And most of what we have today can be attributed to those schools.

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:12AM

JP.... err... I highly suggest you study the classical learning system in place throughout Greece and later, the Roman Empire before you highlight your ignorance on the subject..

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:37AM

No, actually in case you were unaware, one of the main reasons this country got started was because the Church of England and how they didn't allow for religious freedom. Our Founding Fathers saw EXACTLY what would happen if such a theocracy were to take hold in this country, so they were very clear and specific in the writing of the Constitution. I also advise you read up on the Establishment Clause

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Which simply means that there will be no state religion, no preference given to any religion and people may worship as they see fit. Which means laws that favor one religion over others would be in violation of said clause. I don't think you would like it if another religion were to force it's religious ideology onto you through the law, would you?

So what makes it okay for YOU and others here to think that it's okay for you to do so? Because it's NOT.

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 9:43PM

Funny :) You rant on and on about "sins", yet in your entire post, you fail to address my links and post which prove that homosexuality is not a sin. Every verse that you try to pull out does not condemn homosexuality. Since Leviticus is one that is commonly pulled out, let's examine why homosexuality is not a sin here.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 11:06PM

Jorge,

BZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!! WRONG!

Homosexual acts have always been condemned as sins against God by both Judaism and Christianity.

Peddle this nonsense somewhere else, please.

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:38AM

No, he's right and there are other biblical scholars who have studied the Bible for YEARS who can support his statements.

Nick| 7.9.11 @ 12:30AM

Red,

No, they can't.

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:14AM

He really likes that 'BZZZZZ!!' expression... maybe he thinks he's on a game-show and is the host?? :-)

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 1:36AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

JP| 7.6.11 @ 4:45PM

Jorge, there is no way that researchers can know that. Where do you get your talking points?

However, some researchers are convinced that there is a "gay" gene. Just think of the possibilites!! Abortionists and gay activists on opposite sides! How many parents, pray tell would abort thier child if they found out the child had the "gay gene"?

jp| 7.6.11 @ 9:40PM

You wanna know how i can tell you didn't read my post or links? You mention "genes" when the links are talking about biological and logical proof. Of course, anti-gays never like facts and evidence =)

jorge| 7.6.11 @ 1:36AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

caitlin| 7.6.11 @ 10:11AM

I've not read anything about any grown children of gay unions, adopted or some other way. Is it too soon?
I'm reminded of a piece from a George Carlin routine where he wondered why the churches who condemn abortion would also condemn gay unions because if there was any couple who wouldn't have an abortion it would be a gay one.
50% of marriages end in divorce, is it the same for gay relationships?

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 11:01AM

(http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf)

The intensive study done above should once and for all silence critics of same-sex parenting. Not that it will, but it certainly should. It turns out gay and lesbian couples are perfectly capable of raising happy, healthy kids.

There has been a growing body of research demonstrating that same-sex couples can rear well-adjusted children. But this is the first study of gay and lesbian parents to compare parental reports on adopted children's behavior and development with evaluations by outside caregivers.

A major criticism of past research has been that it relies on self-reported data from parents (and, fair enough, we know parents don't always offer the most accurate evaluations of their offspring).

But now we have this fine bit of research that looks at kids adopted at birth by 27 lesbian couples, 29 gay male couples and 50 heterosexual couples.

Parents, teachers and caregivers evaluated the preschoolers in terms of behavioral adjustment and gender development. The outcome: "Regardless of whether they had one mother and one father, two mothers, or two fathers, children were thriving" and showed "no signiﬁcant differences ... on measures of internalizing, externalizing, or total behavior problems."

It's also true that "most boys exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged boys, and most girls exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged girls." That throws a wrench in the old argument that kids needs a male and a female role model at home for "proper" gender development.

The takeaway here, researchers say, is that there is "no justification for denying lesbian and gay adults from adopting children." Here's hoping Florida, Mississippi and Utah, which outlaw same-sex adoption, are listening.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 2:01PM

To all the liberals and libertarians out there trying to change the centuries old definition of marriage:

Please explain, with logic and reason, why it is wrong to invent rights for members of the same gender, rights that only a man and woman enjoy in the state of a licit marriage; but, it is not wrong to deny marriage rights to a man and his adult daughter, or to a woman and her adult son, or to a man and several women, or several men and several women?

You can't be against father/daughter "marriage", et al, and, concurrently, be for the latest abomination that occurred in New York, i.e., counterfeit marriage. Not without being intellectually dishonest, that is.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 2:43PM

It's not 'inventing' rights... the Native Americans had same-sex unions or what we would call marriages for thousands of years and flourished... (until we arrived that is..)

Since people who hate or mock homosexuals also tend to have a very dim grasp of human history, I'm including some knowledge for those of you who are honest enough to confront human history or for those of you who are gay, or have a gay family member or friend. This concerns the original Native Americans, famous life-long partners from Greece, China, and Japan, although I could go with a list of every human civilization. It goes on and on. Those type of people have no idea of history because all they know is what their pastor or church has told them, and the poor fare offered in public high-schools prior to university.
It shows the utter absurdity of those who will call homosexuals ‘abnormal’ or ‘evil’. This Nation is also is not a theocracy like Iran. Our Presidency is not a religious pulpit, and the White House is not a white church on a hill. Regardless of personal religious hang-ups regarding sexuality, citizens cannot force their private religious beliefs of ‘sin’ on other free citizens who do not view themselves as a sin...anymore than a Muslim could force free American women to wear a body-covering because they might view not doing so as a sin.

Just so that no one can say they weren't aware:
The American Psychological Association,
The American Psychiatric Association,
The American Medical Association,
The American Academy of Pediatrics,
The American Counseling Association,
The National Association of Social Workers,
The American Association of School Administrators,
The American Federation of Teachers,
The American School Health Association,
The National Education Association,
and last, but not least, the Interfaith Alliance Organization are all medical, scientific, educational, and religious nationwide organizations that recognize homosexuality as being completely natural, normal, not a choice, and thus unworthy of stigmatizing for any reason.

The viewpoint that homosexuality is a choice has been repudiated by all reputable scientific and educational associations in this country, and across the entire modern Western world.

There’s no doubt that none of those people will take the time to read this, since it’s beyond their intellect or comprehension level, but for those gays who want to know of their proud history, and for heterosexuals who do not have hatred or bias in their heart… the following is what is the truly ‘normal’ and healthy human behavior as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of years of history. This has been turned on its head by the fanaticism of a Christianity overtaken by men with their own fears and prejudices for the past 1600 years or so, but as you can see, humanity is regaining its reason, and have realized the utter evil that has been perpetrated by the high-jacking of an entire religion of love and peace…. For the first 400 to 500 years of Christianity, there was no problem with this natural aspect of our species and almost all other mammalian species. Here are many examples proving that ‘they’ are the ones misled about the normalcy and goodness of homosexuality:

NATIVE AMERICANS:

Gay traditions were prevalent in almost all American Indian tribes. There are many reports of both women and men living in same-sex marriages, of women who dressed and acted as men and men who acted and dressed as women.

The European chroniclers who first came across such behavior and customs described them in terms that belonged to their own world. So American Indian homosexual men were called 'berdaches' - French for 'slave-boys', used to refer to passive male homosexuals. The name stuck - although its servile connotations were quite inappropriate in the Native American context where berdaches were accorded considerable social prestige.

Indeed, gay transvestites were often the shamans or healers of the tribe. Sometimes they had specific religious duties. Among the Crow Indians, for example, the tree that was used in the Sun Dance ceremony would be cut down by homosexual men. Berdaches were regarded as having special intellectual, artistic and spiritual qualities.
They were also reputed to be hard workers. Their ability to combine female and male qualities often put them into the role of mediators between the sexes. When asked 'when you die ... what will you be in the spirit land? A man or a woman?', one Sioux 'berdache' naturally replied 'both'.

It appears to have been fairly easy for women in North American Indian societies to take traditionally male roles and live as men. Girls in the Yukon who declined marriage and child-bearing would dress as men and take part in hunting expeditions, reported Edward Carpenter in the late nineteenth century. This was also true of Sioux women who became warriors and married women. In the Kaska Indian families of Canada, parents would raise one of their daughters to become a warrior. Her sexual experiences would be with other women. Indeed, if there was sexual contact with a man it would ruin the lesbian's luck with game.

But it was not all hunting and war-making. The Kutrenai Indians of the Plateau speak of a woman who left the tribe for a year and married a white man. When she returned she had changed her name to 'Gone to the Spirits' and from then on behaved 'as a man'. She went on to achieve fame not only as a hunter and warrior, but also as a shaman, healer, prophet and guide.

The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual was not always clear or constant. Friendship rather than identity could determine the course of events. As women spent most of their time with women and men with men they were often emotionally closer to members of their own sex than to members of the opposite sex. A nineteenth-century army officer, who studied Indian customs closely, reported on male pairs, saying: 'They really seem to fall in love with men and I have known this affectionate interest to live for years.'

The union of two men was often publicly recognized in a 'friendship dance'. Historian Walter M Williams argues that these friendships were not necessarily homosexual, but that for all males who felt erotic attraction to other men, these relationships provided a natural avenue for same-sex behavior. He cites a report from the 1920s saying that for the Yumas: 'Casual homosexuality among both men and women is well known. This is not considered objectionable.'
GREEKS:

Here, then are textual references for long-term (in some cases life-long) homosexual relationships in the Greek texts.

Orestes and Pylades,
-Orestes is the hero of the Oresteia cycle. He and Pylades were bywords for faithful and life-long love in Greek culture.
-see Lucian (2nd C. CE): Amores or Affairs of the Heart, #48
Damon and Pythias
-Pythagorean initiates
-see Valerius Maximus: De Amicitiae Vinculo
Aristogeiton and Harmodius
-credited with overthrowing tyranny in Athens.
-see Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, Book 6
Pausanias and Agathon
-Agathon was an Athenian dramatist (c. 450-400 BCE). He was famous as an "effeminate" homosexual. It was in his house that the Dinner Party of Plato's Symposium takes place.
-see Plato: Symposium 193C, Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae
Philolaus and Diocles
-Philolaus was a lawgiver at Thebes, Diocles an Olympic Athlete
see Aristotle, Politics 1274A
Epaminondas and Pelopidas
-Epaminondas (c.418-362 BCE) led Thebes in its greatest days in the fourth century. At the battle of Mantinea (385 BCE) he saved the life of his life-long friend and lover Pelopidas
-see Plutarch: Life of Pelopidas
Members of the Sacred Band of Thebes
-see Plutarch: Life of Pelopidas
Alexander the Great and Hephasteion
-Atheaneus, The Deinosophists Bk 13
The Greeks of antiquity produced a substantial quantity of literature on both warfare and homosexuality. The cities of Ilia and Thebes regularly exploited the homosexual ethos for military purposes, customarily posting pairs of lovers beside each other in battle. Little else is known of Ilian military practice, but the ‘Sacred Band of Thebes,’ organized in 378 B.C., not only was composed entirely of homosexual lovers but formed the hard core of the formidable Theban army until it was defeated by Philip of Macedon at Chaeronea in 338 B.C. The Theban commander, Pammenes, advocated pairing lovers in battle as a principle of military organization, and it was a practice among their warriors for the elder members of romantically linked pairs to present sets of armor to the younger members when they came of age.
Plato and numerous other classical authors attested to the military value of armies made up of lovers. When Epaminondas fell in battle at Mantineia, his lover died beside him. One of the most formidable and feared Theban warriors of the era was Kaphisodoros, who was part of the Sacred Band. Among the Spartans, it was common for lovers to be in battle together, but unlike the Thebans, such pairings of individuals were not integral to their military organization. Instead, the Spartans practiced a deliberate transference of authority from fathers or families to groups of older males, who were in turn responsible for the younger men.
The most counterintuitive aspect of ancient same-sex eroticism is not it’s frequency, which is well known, but its long and hallowed relationship to democracy and military valor. Modern military officials tend to find this difficult to accept. But since sexual orientation was a matter of no concern to most of the city-states of the ancient world, with citizenship being the crucial privilege and obligation of all adult male citizens, many persons who would now be considered ‘gay’ played prominent roles in the military, taking part in the earliest form of democracy through such involvement.
The association of homosexuals with democracy and the military was intense and widespread, extending from Harmodius and Aristogiton, a pair of lovers who founded the Athenian democracy by overthrowing the last tyrant of Athens, to the noted generals Pelopidas and Epanminondas, to the great military genius Alexander the Great and his male lover Bagoas.
Of Harmodius and Aristogiton, no less acute a mind than Plato’s observed that: “Our own tyrants learned this lesson through bitter experience, when the love between Aristogiton and Harmodius grew so strong that it shattered their power. Wherever, therefore, it has been alluded to be shameful to be involved in sexual relationships with men, this is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice in the part of the governed.”
Gorgidas, the leader of Thebes created the Sacred Band, composed of 300 men, who were all paired lovers. They were known as the ‘sacred band’ because as Plutarch later explained, “even Plato calls the lover a friend inspired of God.” Philip of Macedon and Plutarch recounted how the greatest heroes in the Greek’s own history were all known to prefer other males rather than women: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, Epaminondas, Asopichus, and Caphisodorus. Even Hercules was famous for his male lover, Iolaus, who fought by his side. In Plato’s ‘Symposium,’ he noted the eagerness of the great warrior Achilles to join his lover and military partner in death as an explicit parallel to a wife’s being willing to die for her husband. Their bones were burned and mixed together in a gold amphora, as was done in the case of married heterosexual couples.
Aristophanes said that “..males who prefer other males are the finest men becauses they have the most manly nature. Their behavior is due to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like.”

CHINESE:
The names of the emperors, with their acknowledged male lovers, were recorded in the official histories of the period by Sima Qian and Ban Gu.

The Ten Han Emperors [with "lovers"]
Emperor Gao r.206-195BCE and Jiru
Emperor Hui r.194-188BCE and Hongru
Emperor Wen r.179-141BCE and Deng Tong, and Zhao Tan, and Beigong Bozi
Emperor Jing r.156-141BCE and Zho Ren
Emperor Wu r.140-87BCE and Han Yan, and Han Yue, and Li Yannian
Emperor Zhao r.86-74BCE and Jin Shang
Emperor Xuan r.73-49BCE and Zhang Pengzu
Emperor Yuan r.48-33BCE and Hong Gong, and S. Xian
Emperor Cheng r.32-7BCE and Zhang Fang, and Chunyu Zhang
Emperor Ai r.6BCE-1CE and Dong Xian

Following emperors from later periods also had open homosexual relationships:

Pei Kai 237-291
Yu Xin 513-581 and Wang Shao
Zhang Hanbian c.265-420 and Zhou Xiaoshi
Emperor Jianwen c.550
Emperor Xizong r. 874-889 and Zhang Langgou
Emperor Wuzong r.1506-1522
Emperor Shenzong r.1573-1620
Emperor Xizong r.1621-1628
Emperor Pu Yi - the last Qing [Manchu] emperor
JAPAN:
SAMURAI TRADITION

A well-known example of samurai 'bonding' is Oda Nobunaga, one of Japan's most revered and powerful daimyo. He was killed in an ambush in 1582, along with his teenaged lover, Mori Panmaru. This is but one example in a long history of same-sex relationships between daimyo and their "beloved retainers". (Leupp, 42)

The love of the shogun has been referred to as "martial homosexuality" (Leupp, 27), developing out of relationships of fealty between warriors and their younger page-youths. Often, these lord-vassal relationships were valued above those between men and women, since dandoshi or 'male bonding' extended to the loyalty of the sword-bearer, who would fight--and even die--for his lord. During this period, the Chinese characters (ai - love) and (chu - loyalty/fealty) were nearly interchangeable. (Tanaka et al) In exchange for loyalty, the younger partners received education and military training.

There is some evidence that the younger partner in these relationships assumed a 'feminine appearance'--a possible precursor to the androgyny of the later Tokugawa period. Furthermore, the importance of same-sex relationships may have flourished, in part, due to the lack of female influence in the battlefield. Nevertheless, many of the lord-vassal relationships among the samurai were highly valued, and exhibited strong commitments and bonds between the men. Furthermore, they built on a long history of same-sex traditions that existed in monastic communities.
MONASTIC LOVE:

"By the time of increased samurai ascendancy from the thirteenth century, there was already a well-established homoerotic tradition in Japanese monasteries in which young men, not women, were constructed as fitting objects for adult male desire, a tradition which was well suited to the masculine ideals of an increasingly militaristic society."(Jnanavira)

Even before its adoption by the samurai, male-male love was a common practice in the Buddhist monasteries. Sexual relationships between a monk and his acolyte were widespread. These acolytes or 'youth-lovers' were also known as chigo, and a collection of stories known as chigo monogatari ("acolyte stories") details many of these relationships. "Though the Buddhist code of discipline prohibited monks from any sexual activity, many monks felt that this did not apply to same-sex relationships. This inspired art and literature centered on the young male ideal and the love which sprang between monks and youths."

Although chastity among monks is one of the precepts of Buddhism, in Heian era Japan this came to be understood as sex with women. Sex between monks and their acolytes came to be viewed as the 'beautiful way' (bido), and the idea developed that homosexuality was "a reasonable and forgivable compromise between heterosexual involvements and complete sexual abstinence" (Leupp 35). Because Japanese Buddhism often focused on the intentions or outcomes of acts, rather than the acts themselves, same-sex involvements could be identified as a way of communicating with the Buddha.

The prevalence of monk-acolyte relationships in monastic communities, particularly in the Buddhist centers of Mt. Koya and Mt. Hiei, is said to have originated with the monk Kukai (774-835), also known as Kobo Daishi, who brought back Buddhist teachings from his travels in China to found the Shingon sect. Folk tales accrediting Kukai with the beginnings of shudo or 'The Way of the Young' did not emerge until the 11th century, but Kukai's insistence on celibacy makes such assumptions questionable. However, the fact that China itself had a long history of revered same-sex relationships suggests that such beliefs may have been imported from the mainland. At the same time, as Buddhism blended with the existing Japanese indigenous beliefs, so did the acceptance of homosexuality. ("Kukai)

So, although those are way too many examples to take in for people who like to believe that homosexuality is somehow not entirely natural, normal, and beneficial..... for those who are gay, or want to combat those hateful people, this brief history just goes to show that their limited understanding of homosexuality throughout human history is extremely flawed, not to mention skewed. It's ‘their’ very recent view of it as a 'sin' that is the abnormality, the norm is quite apparent to anyone who knows history.

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 3:28PM

Aaron,

Geez, that sure is a lot of words!
And yet, none of them even come close to addressing the questions I asked. What a shock!

p.s. The American Indians were bronze-age savages up until Christopher Columbus arrived on the scene. They performed human sacrifices and had no problem with taking the babies of their enemies by the feet and smashing the baby's head against a tree. (I know I'm stating a broad generality. I'm sure not every single tribe engaged in these barbaric acts. But, many did.)

JP| 7.6.11 @ 4:22PM

I've seen people like Aaron do these cut and paste jobs at other blogs. Their Strawmen usually don't fool anyone. And, little does he know that his long post just makes our point. The Christian ideal of marriage was totally foreign to the Roman Empire and its diverse groups of tribes. Pagan barbarism, which was cruel, savage, as well as homosexual , as well as polyamorous, was a normal way of life from Great Britain to Asia Minor and ponts in between. Christian marriage took almost 1000 years to become common place in Europe. And the social, economic, and political benefits to the West were immense and long lasting.

What took 1000 years to build is being torn asunder in less than 50. And gays may regret the day the decided to wage an all-out assault on marriage. Nature abhors a vaccum. If Christianity continues its decline, Islam is waiting in the wings.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 6:32PM

I call that the 'Sarah Palin' syndrome.. such people when alarmed at the truth of words try to deflect attention from the words themselves to the manner in which they were conveyed... (think the 'teleprompter' fixation they have with any speech President Obama might give)

(CUT & PASTE!!! OH MY SWEET JESUS, CUT & PAAAASSTE!!)

:-) ... they 'do' tend to have trouble reading more than a few paragraphs.. especially when the words don't fit into their limited world-view and knowledge..

JP| 7.7.11 @ 8:49AM

No Aaron, I read your post right up to your endorsement of pedastry. Your long, disjointed post only underscores the true nature of homosexuality.

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 9:16AM

Then no amount of education on the subject will ever make it past the mental blinders you have. I won't loose any sleep over it..

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 6:26PM

Nick..

From your statements it's obvious you know nothing of history and thus your questions will never be answered, because you cannot see or think past the simple version of history, religion, and reality that you've been told by your pastor or church.

Regardless, time and reality move forward and homosexual citizens will soon win their freedom from your religious intolerance and bigotry, and they will attain the equality guaranteed them by our Constitution.

You are on the wrong side of history, and the losing side of this debate.. no matter how much ignorance and blindness of thought you wrap yourself in..

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 8:03PM

Aaron,

Defend father/daughter "marriage." You can't defend counterfeit "marriage" between the same gender, and not defend the other combinations that I described. Not without being a hypocrite, that is.

Quit trying to change the subject of my original comment.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:26PM

Nick...

Get used to the fact that the world has changed, and your innate bigotry is now viewed as the Evil it is by the majority of the country..

I don't need to 'defend' anything to you... either deal with it, or don't... it isn't any proverbial 'skin' off my back.. :-)

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 10:54PM

Aaron,

You won't defend it because you can't.

By the way, I'm a proud Roman Catholic, therefore, I don't hate anyone. If I can love Charlie Manson and Casey Anthony, as I'm called to do as a Christian, I can certainly love homos.

I pray they see the errors of their ways and break free from the slavery of their sin.
God Bless!

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 11:04PM

God Bless, Nick!!

Your 'Christian' 'love' and sincerity is so over-powering, I really can't detect it!! :-)

mejamom| 7.6.11 @ 2:08PM

That's interesting. A male cousin of ours had a child out of wedlock with a lesbian. The mom gained a partner when the baby was about a year old and our cousin had shared custody. After 4 yrs. or so, the 2 lesbians split up and the mom decided she might be straight. Seems her mother was a lesbian and her daughter just assumed she was as well. She's in counseling now trying to figure out what her orientation is. Are there any studies that show anything of this sort?

jamel| 7.6.11 @ 9:39PM

We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God's words to condone their hate.

Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)

***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

jamel| 7.6.11 @ 9:44PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

jamel| 7.6.11 @ 9:44PM

This is the perfect example of how anti-gay people change the bible's words for their anti-gay agenda.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate?

Absolutely.

jamel| 7.6.11 @ 9:44PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

jamel| 7.6.11 @ 9:45PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:29PM

jamel..

Unfortunately for the people you refer to, they would first need a 'conscience'... and also need to follow Christ's message of love and acceptance...

But no... instead they wrap the Bible, the cross, and the mantle of 'Christ' around themselves in a futile attempt to legitimaze and hide their Evil towards other fellow souls..

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:31PM

'legitimize'.. ;-)

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:43AM

And this, I think, is a greater evil than they ever profess against. The condescending tone in their replies, their' Holier Than Thou' rhetoric, speaks volumes.

I don't think God likes it when people use his word as an excuse to demean and discriminate against his children for being who they MADE THEM to be.

jamel| 7.7.11 @ 11:42PM

Yeah i agree. The sad part is, i've known some people who said they were against gay marriage because they think it's a "sin". But the last time they went to church was like 20 years ago, and some of them never even went! People are just looking for an excuse to condone their hate.

Nick| 7.7.11 @ 3:14PM

As usual, NOBODY can defend counterfeit marriage and simultaneously condemn adult incest and polygamy. You lose!

I WIN!

Aaron| 7.7.11 @ 4:20PM

Wow...

Someone thinks that by typing 'BZZZZZZZZ!' or self-proclaiming they 'win' in bold capital letters, that they've somehow 'won'..

Nick, 'you're' the one combining the two.... they have nothing to do with each other... if millions and millions of polygamists want to march in the streets, have 'polygamist Pride' parades, and contact their elected representatives and then go through the courts... that's fine with me, man... doesn't affect 'my' marriage at all.

But... where are they??? Where are all these millions of incestous couples, and polygamous people marching in the streets and going through the courts?????

You live in a crazed, religiously-fanatic world that has nothing to do with goodness or reality..

You win nothing except in your own twisted mind..

jamel| 7.7.11 @ 11:40PM

Actually, you lose :) Let me show you why the slippery slope argument fails with my copy/pasta.

Let us take the 4 common arguments: beastiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. First off, all 4 of these are fetishes, and irrelevant to homosexuality, which is a sexual orientation. Let me distinguish this for you using incest as an example. If a guy into incest is straight, he'll choose his sister, and if he's gay, he'll choose his brother. See the distinguishment? Now pedophilia and beastiality will never be legal, because both are non-consenting and harmful, whereas homosexuality is 2 loving consenting adults that is not wrong or harmful. Incest, also has been shown to lead to genetic defects, so that is also out of the question. Incest also is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. I have never seen a person exclusively attracted to their brothers/sisters etc. Polygamy also is a choice. No one can choose who they would or will be attracted to, but they CAN choose to be in more than one relationship with more than one person at the same time. Polygamy can be damaging, as it can cause jealousies and resentments among the participants and any children produced. Those 4 fetishes can be seen to be harmful and wrong, whereas gay marriage is neither harmful nor wrong.

To those of you trying to bring up irrelevant issues, like polygamy, i will show you why the slippery slope fails. First, if you want to press for polygamy, or incest, those are completely separate issues irrelevant to gay marriage. Go advocate for them if that's your concern, prove they are not wrong and prove they are not harmful. We have already proven that homosexuality/gay marriage is not wrong/harmful. But those two things are irrelevant to gay marriage. And gay marriage does not lead to polygamy nor any other type of fetish.

Gay marriage has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and i don't see anyone pushing for polygamy there. The slippery slope is a myth meant as a scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.

Nick| 7.8.11 @ 1:37AM

Jamel,

Finally! Someone, at least tangentially, tries to address my questions. You get a point for that.

But, you fail at the rest.

I wasn't making a slippery slope argument. I was making a hypocrisy argument.

If an adult man and his adult daughter are in love, who are you, Jamel, to say what these two 2 adults can do in the privacy of their bedroom? And, if these same two people want to get "married," who are you to deny these two loving adults the same rights as others?

Sound familiar?

Plus, you can use any combination you would like. Mother/son. Brother/sister. Brother/sister/brother. One man/2,3,4, or more women. One woman/2,3,4, or more men. 2 or more men/2 or more women. Etc., etc, etc.

It doesn't matter, if they are all consenting adults, correct? Also, birth defects are a non sequitur, as vasectomies and tubal ligations would address these situations.

Finally, the numbers of people involved advocating for a supposed civil right does not make the claim morally correct, or immoral.

You cannot claim that counterfeit marriage is a right for only two adults of the same-gender, and, concurrently deny these rights for all adults who want them in any combination imaginable, e.g. incestuous, polygamous, bi-sexual, etc. Not without being intellectually dishonest, that is.

p.s. It is "sexual preference" not orientation. People choose with whom they wish to engage in sexual conduct, unless they are raped.

jamel| 7.8.11 @ 11:09PM

Let me continue to show you why your argument fails :)

It's pretty obvious you didn't read my post, in the section which says it is irrelevant to polygamy/incest etc. There are clear reasons why those can be harmful and wrong, whereas there is no good reason why homosexuality is harmful and wrong.

Also, isolating homosexuality to this is also wrong. If we have straight marriages, when by your logic, we can say why also can't we allow polygamy, incest, etc? Straight marriages have just as much chance as gay marriages to lead to those things. The point is, those are separate issues. As i stated in my previous post, if you advocate polygamy, then by all means, go do so and prove that it's not wrong and press for it to be legalized if that's your interest. However, don't expect gays, or even straights to advocate your interests. It's not the gays, or straights job, to advocate any of your interests, whether it be polygamy, incest, black rights, womans rights, religious rights, catholic rights, etc etc.

You are implying that gay marriage leads to polygamy/incest etc, and i proved that this was false. In fact, if you look at a map of the world where polygamy is legalized, you will see that the most anti-gay regions are more likely to have gay marriage legalized, whereas the more modernized regions outlaw it. Something to think about =)

Nick| 7.9.11 @ 12:28AM

Jamel,

"If we have straight marriages, when by your logic, we can say why also can't we allow polygamy, incest, etc?"

Were you ever taught how to diagram a sentence? Some of your ramblings are incoherent.

"There are clear reasons why [polygamy/incest] can be harmful and wrong [...]."

Then, by all means, please list these reasons. I have already refuted your bogus birth-defect argument.

And, again, your argument that if enough people protest and the courts impose counterfeit "marriage"; that this makes it morally acceptable, is just plain wrong.

Right and wrong are not dependent on how many people advocate for some issue. If they were, you would have to argue that the nazis were morally right.

Are you prepared to do that, Jamel?

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:14PM

"Were you ever taught how to diagram a sentence?"

Ahhhh, insults! Getting desperate for a reaction are we :D This tends to happen either when your trolling is failing miserably, or you are losing an argument. In this case, it's both ^_^

It's also evidence you failed to read my post properly, to where i said if you think polygamy/incest is right, then by all means, go advocate for it and get it legalized. But don't expect everyone to fight your fight if it doesn't concern them. That's just being lazy =)

My argument in regards to same-sex marriage is we already proved that it's not wrong nor harmful. Now how come you can't do the same for your polygamy/incest views :D

You are right about one thing. Right and wrong is not dependent on how many people advocate on an issue. So, i'm sure you can clearly prove homosexuality/gay marriage wrong then right?

^_^

Tom| 7.7.11 @ 10:46PM

Social conservatives defending traditional marriage in the 21st century are like Japanese holdouts still fighting WWII: the war was already lost a long time ago.

Aaron| 7.8.11 @ 9:56AM

P.S.. it is orientation... you never woke up and 'chose' to only be attracted to women, and homosexuals never woke up and 'chose' to only be attracted to the same sex.

You have no basis in rationality... as jamel pointed out, gay marriage has been legal for 6 years now in MA, and legal many other places for years... the 'polygamists, bestialists,and incestous lovers' you thunder about never materialized, because what you say is crap..

Nick| 7.8.11 @ 2:36PM

Aaron,

It is a preference, know matter how much you choose to be in denial about it. What about bi-sexuals? They choose with which gender to commit their perversions, all the time. The same goes for those who take ecstasy, thus, proving that same-gender attraction is a mental disorder.

Also, I have never mentioned bestiality once. But, then again, all you know how to do is throw up straw men, rather than address what I have actually written.

I know it must be frustrating for you, because you cannot refute my superior logic and intellect.
This is why.....YOU LOSE!

But, I still love you, brother! And, pity you much.
God Bless!

jamel| 7.8.11 @ 11:11PM

Nick: I was already aware of your trolling because you make it too obvious =) But let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Nick| 7.9.11 @ 12:07AM

Jamel,

You are suffering from projection.

I have been posting here, at AmSpec, for almost three years now. This would make you the troll.

Plus, you offer no facts, whatsoever. So, stop promoting perversion.
But, I still love you, my brother!
God Bless!

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:16PM

News at 10 o clock.

The time you post at a forum is irrelevant to whether or not you're trying to troll.

But the sad thing is, you admit to posting for 3 years, and your trolling is this bad. I would think after 3 years, you would be a good enough troll to where we can't tell from your first post ^_^

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:16PM

News at 10 o clock.

The time you post at a forum is irrelevant to whether or not you're trying to troll.

But the sad thing is, you admit to posting for 3 years, and your trolling is this bad. I would think after 3 years, you would be a good enough troll to where we can't tell from your first post ^_^

Aaron| 7.8.11 @ 5:43PM

I know it's frustrating for you that the modern world and Nation are moving rapidly beyond your ignorance, and bigotry, and gay marriage will be a right for all homosexual citizens within the decade.

I'm sorry your head is so buried in the sand on this issue, but 'your' disapproval and inability to comprehend that there are other human beings and free citizens who do not have to live their lives subject to your religious fanaticism, and will do so soon... one state after another, and 65 to 70% of the majority of people under 50 wish gay marriage to be legal.

It's only a matter of time, so sit and spin in your hatred all you want, but it will accomplish nothing except for the price you will have to pay when you die for the pain you've attempted to inflict upon other souls..

Nick| 7.8.11 @ 7:43PM

Aaron,

How many times do I have to tell you?
I'm Catholic. I don't hate anyone.

I'm trying to help homos, by slapping the upside the head with the truth. Just like I would to anyone who has become a slave to sin. Like a drug addict.

Aaron| 7.9.11 @ 12:44PM

Makes sense now, no wonder he's so self-repressed and out of date! :-)

(and you wonder why his church has so many scandals around the world.. they've pretty much lost most of Ireland now, after all their years of lies and abuse to the population)

Nick| 7.9.11 @ 4:45PM

And at what age would you like to see the age of consent lowered, Aaron? Down to 12? 10, maybe?

More projection.

Just Joe| 7.9.11 @ 5:20PM

Nick and JP,

Aaron/jamel and probably Red, too, are the same guy. He's prowled here before as shadow man. He's got a whole raft of pre-drafted, pro-homosexual propaganda that he pastes. He's done the same before here at the American Spectator.

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:19PM

Lmao, i'm sure your accusations are believable after we pretty much exposed your failed trolling :D

Aaron| 7.9.11 @ 10:03PM

I'd say 18 would be a suitable age... what, in your fevered and sick imagination you were thinking younger?? :-)

That's why the Catholic Church has been filled with child-rapists... you repress normal human sexuality to the unnatural point where priests molest children because they are forbidden to enjoy sex..

You and your ethics are truly sick, depraved, and unnatural... not homosexuals..

Oh, and 'Just Joe'..

Yeah, it's just one big George Soros conspiracy... after all, if more than one person disagrees with your bigotry, you have to think it's the same person because you're so out of touch with reality that you cannot conceive that the majority of the modern world looks upon you with disgust..

Nick| 7.9.11 @ 10:58PM

Aaron,

"[...] you repress normal human sexuality to the unnatural point where priests molest children because they are forbidden to enjoy sex..[sic]" (Emphasis mine.)

So, you admit that hetero sex is "normal" and homo sex is "unnatural". See, even deep down, you know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil.

In your zeal to try, and fail, to hurt me by attacking the Catholic Church, your subconscious couldn't help but tell the truth about the perversion of homo acts.

Also, it's not heteros who are pushing to lower "age of consent" laws, Aaron. It's the homos. In Britain, the moment the homos got the age of consent down to 14, they immediately started lobbying to lower it to 12. Because they are perverts.

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:22PM

Let us examine why your trolling fails so miserably :)

name-calling and insults

Nick wrote: "homo sex"
Nick wrote: "You are suffering from projection."
Nick wrote: "Were you ever taught how to diagram a sentence? Some of your ramblings are incoherent."
Nick wrote: "It's the homos."
Nick wrote: "Because they are perverts."

Good trolls don't make it this obvious

Ciao!

Aaron| 7.9.11 @ 11:08PM

No... I say that 'both' heterosexual' and 'homosexual' sex is entirely normal, and I say that you are so obsessed over other people you will never know or meet getting married, that you must either have no life, or else are terrified and ashamed of the homosexual desires within yourself, that you constantly have to attack them, lest anyone suspect you..

There's no other rational reason for your obsession with the subject..

Nick| 7.10.11 @ 4:17PM

Aaron,

Obsessed? Moi?

Umm....go look at how many times you have posted on this thread!
Pot calling kettle.

And, don't try to deny it. Everyone can see what you wrote, in black and white.

I still love all you homos and homo defenders. Just not in the sick, perverted way you wish!
I love homos because they are children of God, made in His image and likeness.

I feel sorry for them because they don't know how much they are hurting themselves and how they are grieving God. I hope they find out, before it's too late.

Aaron| 7.9.11 @ 11:10PM

It's odd that this is the one 'sin' you obsess about, when you don't attack people who go to Las Vegas (gamblers), you don't attack with the same obsession any other of the thousands of 'sins'.... only this one...

You are truly sick in the spirit... but your kind is a dying breed thank God..

jamel| 7.9.11 @ 11:27PM

He's trying to troll ya. Prove him wrong with facts, but just make sure he never incites anger, because that's what he wants =P

Aaron| 7.10.11 @ 12:29AM

Good point jamel... hope you have a good night and weekend, man!

Nick| 7.10.11 @ 4:51PM

Jamel,

"Ahhhh, insults!"

I was not being insulting. I was stating a fact. The sentence of yours, which I cited, was incoherent. You won't even capitalize your "I's". So, you have proven that you don't put much thought into your comments.

"It's also evidence you failed to read my post properly [...]."

If I did fail, it's because you write incoherently, as I have already covered. English and reading comprehension seem to be more stumbling blocks for you. I am not advocating polygamy or incest. I'm not the pervert supporter. You are.

And, I have shown that you are a first-class hypocrite, because you wont' defend counterfeit "marriage" for incestuous and polygamous adult couples.

"My argument in regards to same-sex marriage is we already proved that it's not wrong nor harmful." (Seriously, proof-read next time, would you?)

You have proved no such thing. I, and others on this thread, however, have proved that homo acts and counterfeit "marriage" are harmful. To list but a few reasons:

Homo acts are an abomination to God.
Homo acts are a perversion of the marital act.
Homo acts are unnatural and unsanitary.
Homo acts damage the soul.
Counterfeit "marriage" relegates the word marriage meaninglessness.
Counterfeit "marriage" opens up a huge can of worms to further pervert the institution of marriage.
Counterfeit "marriage" harms the children held hostage in such un-Holy unions.

I hope this helps you see the truth, Jamel.
I love you my brother!
God Bless!

Jamel| 7.11.11 @ 4:16AM

Lol, let's examine all your insults, lies, and failed trolling :D

name-calling and insults

Nick wrote: "homo sex"
Nick wrote: "You are suffering from projection."
Nick wrote: "Were you ever taught how to diagram a sentence? Some of your ramblings are incoherent."
Nick wrote: "It's the homos."
Nick wrote: "Because they are perverts."

Putting words in mouth
Nick wrote: "And at what age would you like to see the age of consent lowered, Aaron? Down to 12? 10, maybe?"

-
Caught lying

Ahh, also looks like you're lying here, more proof of your trolling!

Nick wrote: "Plus, you offer no facts, whatsoever."
jamel wrote: "(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
"

-
Laughable arguments

Nick wrote: "If they were, you would have to argue that the nazis were morally right."

It's really hard to take you seriously after all that ^_^

Aaron| 7.10.11 @ 6:42PM

People like this are brainwashed... and no amount of science or education can help them... no wonder it took them a few centuries after everyone else to realize the world wasn't flat..

Still.. they'll be gone within a short time, so their ignorance won't stop homosexual citizens from attaining their equality and freedom.

Jamel| 7.11.11 @ 4:16AM

He doesn't care about science :D All he wants is to make us angry, but since we know he's trolling, he's failing badly

Nick| 7.11.11 @ 5:31PM

And, yet, you hang on my every word, don't you, Jamel?

You, and Aaron, keep coming back to see what words of wisdom I will write next, don't you?

Someday, you guys will stop supporting counterfeit "marriage" and the perversion of the marital act.
I'll pray for you guys, because I love you my brothers!
God Bless!

Jamel | 7.12.11 @ 2:27AM

Because owning a troll is very fun :D I could go the old route and simply ignore a troll, but that would be too easy for me ^_^

Nick| 7.12.11 @ 5:15PM

You couldn't ignore me, if you tried, Jamel.

Jamel| 7.13.11 @ 2:10PM

I wouldn't be able to own you if i ignored you now would i? =)

Nick| 7.13.11 @ 5:35PM

So, now you're in favor of slavery, Jamel?

Is there no perversion you won't condone?

Jamel| 7.14.11 @ 12:41PM

Now you're trying too hard ^_^

Nick| 7.14.11 @ 10:29PM

And, you keep coming back, don't you, Jamel?

Jamel| 7.17.11 @ 6:11AM

Of course, because i like watching your trolling fail so miserably :D I wouldn't come back now if i wasnt having any fun ^_^

Nick| 7.18.11 @ 12:07AM

Jamel,

No, you keep coming back because, deep down, you want to hear the truth. For instance, the fact that you are a hypocrite.

Jamel| 7.18.11 @ 12:42PM

You also keep coming back, which is clear proof that you don't like the fact your trolling has failed so miserably. That's exactly what a troll-buster wants :D

Nick| 7.18.11 @ 7:14PM

Jamel,

I do not keep coming back. As I stated previously, I have been posting comments here for almost 3 years.

It is you, Jamel, who keeps coming back. To hear the Truth. Like a little kid who knows that he needs discipline.

Jamel| 7.18.11 @ 7:20PM

If you do not come back, then how are you posting? :D Don't be mad at me that your trolling has failed so miserably ^_^

Nick| 7.19.11 @ 12:39AM

Jamel,

Who's mad?
I love you, my brother!

Stop supporting perversion, you'll feel better.

Nick| 7.21.11 @ 10:08AM

Bwahahaha! Your mistake is trying to incite anger when i already know you're trolling. That's fail ^_^

Jamel| 7.23.11 @ 7:07AM

=)

Jamel| 7.23.11 @ 7:07AM

=)

Nick| 7.30.11 @ 9:31PM

Jamel,

Are you saying that you want to be like me, because you used my name?

Nick| 7.30.11 @ 10:51PM

Nick,

Are you saying that you want to be like me, because you used my name?

Aaron| 7.13.11 @ 12:26PM

Next week marks the sixth anniversary of same-sex marriage becoming legal in Canada.

In the run-up to Bill C-38 being passed, the naysayers darkly predicted the seismic crumbling of Canadian society as we know it; they said the "gay agenda" would undermine heterosexual marriage and families.

They predicted that in this new anything-goes Canada which would be created if Paul Martin's government sanctioned gay marriage, people would be marrying their cats, pedophiles would be marrying children, priests would be forced against their religious beliefs to officiate at gay marriages, and on and on. Each imagined scenario was more dire and ridiculous than the last.

Oh, and polygamy would be the next step down the proverbial slippery slope to that inky abyss of promiscuity and immorality where everyone would be frolicking.

None of it has happened. Even polygamy is still in the same dreary holding pattern in Bountiful, B.C.

Earlier this week when I opened my front door to get the newspaper, I found the neighbour's tabby cat sitting on my porch, looking up at me and meowing. I don't think it was a marriage proposal.

But maybe that kitty is already to married to some other human. I mean, it's quite possible that Canada fell apart while none of us was watching.

A year after Bill C-38 became law, when Parliament was gearing up to hold a free vote on whether to revisit the same-sex marriage issue, Charles McVety, president of the Family Action Coalition, complained to CBC that the bill had passed without proper study. "Why don't we simply study the impact of this on the age-old institution of marriage?" he asked.

Study completed, Mr. McVety. It hasn't had any impact at all. Nobody talks about it anymore. I haven't even heard that odious phrase "gay agenda" in years. I guess there wasn't one.

Nor has gay marriage undermined straight marriage, though how that undermining was supposed to play out is still unclear.

So despite the passage of Bill C-38, the sun has continued to come up each morning. Nobody has married their cat, their tree or their favourite living room chair. No priest has been forced to marry same-sex couples, and no pedophiles have married children.
I've long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, and I got married, too, just last fall — to a man.

By Naomi Lakritz, Postmedia News

America's a little behind the times on this issue, but as the article above shows, gay marriage hasn't harmed anyone anywhere it's been implemented.

Nick| 7.13.11 @ 5:43PM

Aaron,

This doesn't change the fact that you and Jamel are first-class HYPOCRITES, does it?

Both of you support counterfeit "marriage" for one kind of perversion, homos, but, condemn it for many other forms of perversion.

Who are YOU to say what two, or more, adults do in the privacy of their own home? Who are YOU to say that two, or more, adults who are in love aren't entitled to the same rights as their fellow citizens?

Such hypocrisy.
But, I still love you, my brothers!
God Bless!

Nick| 8.7.11 @ 4:19PM

We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God's words to condone their hate.

Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)

***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Nick| 8.7.11 @ 4:19PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Nick| 8.7.11 @ 4:19PM

This is the perfect example of how anti-gay people change the bible's words for their anti-gay agenda.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate?

Absolutely.

Nick| 8.7.11 @ 4:19PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Nick| 8.7.11 @ 4:19PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Nick| 8.12.11 @ 6:04PM

Nice try, whoever you are.

The several pro-homo posts, from above, are not from me, Nick from Detroit, who was smacking down Aaron and Jamel, repeatedly, in this thread.

Committing homo acts is a sin and God hates those sins. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is deluding themselves.
Please, ask for God's forgiveness.

yisong| 10.28.11 @ 2:20AM

Slewing ring may be used for slewing conveyer, welding arms and positioners,light,medium duty cranes,excavators and other engineering machines. http://www.1stbearing.com

The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

The Subversion and Destruction of Marriage

View all comments (216) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Occam's Tool| 7.5.11 @ 4:24PM

Alan Brooks| 7.5.11 @ 5:38PM

Chelsea Thomson | 7.5.11 @ 7:15PM

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 1:27AM

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:43AM

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 12:31PM

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 1:15PM

BPac| 7.5.11 @ 4:32PM

tonypal| 7.5.11 @ 4:57PM

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 6:09PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 6:40PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 6:52PM

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:24PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:51PM

CalEquality| 7.6.11 @ 1:11AM

Tara| 7.5.11 @ 7:16PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:53PM

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:13PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:21PM

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:37AM

PattyMor| 7.5.11 @ 5:00PM

Wayne Wymore | 7.5.11 @ 6:30PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:24PM

Jo Bloo| 7.5.11 @ 7:35PM

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:39AM

jo blo| 7.6.11 @ 9:03AM

Red| 7.7.11 @ 3:24AM

jo blo| 7.8.11 @ 5:32AM

James M. Baker| 7.6.11 @ 7:14AM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 6:05PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 6:40PM

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:26PM

JeffreyRO5| 7.5.11 @ 7:41PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:54PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 7:54PM

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:04AM

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:40AM

W| 7.5.11 @ 6:55PM

Margie| 7.5.11 @ 6:55PM

Joe| 7.5.11 @ 7:26PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:00PM

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:35PM

Margie| 7.6.11 @ 12:41AM

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:07AM

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:08PM

Seek| 7.5.11 @ 7:25PM

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:44PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:19PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:05PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:55PM

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 1:34AM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 7:19PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 7:47PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:09PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:43PM

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:46AM

Joe| 7.6.11 @ 8:14AM

Red| 7.6.11 @ 5:43AM

john dubose| 7.5.11 @ 7:42PM

Dogzilla| 7.5.11 @ 8:11PM

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 8:36PM

john dubose| 7.6.11 @ 8:01AM

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 7:46PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:45PM

CalEquality| 7.6.11 @ 12:59AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.5.11 @ 7:48PM

BV| 7.5.11 @ 7:56PM

Dogzilla| 7.5.11 @ 8:12PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:50PM

Teflon93| 7.5.11 @ 8:16PM

DRed| 7.5.11 @ 8:58PM

CalMark| 7.5.11 @ 8:40PM

Aaron| 7.5.11 @ 9:46PM

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 3:15AM

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 10:11AM

Nick| 7.6.11 @ 1:56PM