No, and Newsweek Should Know Better

Yes indeed then there is the other side of the gay couple defect scenario i.e. what drove Rock Hudson and drives "macho" gay men in general?? What was the defect? Hormone imbalance ? Eye and brain connection failure? Phermone recognition failure? Procreation safety? Any other ideas/reasons??? Dr. Ruth where are you???

You mean like Rock Hudson and Judy Holliday?

Homosexuality is not a defect? Then what is it that makes gay guys so effeminate and gay gals so masculine?

Stem cells from both species should hold the key. Once found, the wonderful world of natural procreation will be opened to all.

CCNL

The hope of stem cell research is the eventual understanding of the genetic controlling mechinism, as yet, unknown, that differentiates the origniating "stem cells" of the fetilized egg and subsequent zygote, so that these stem cells form all of the many different organ systems and tissues of the body, with all their variety of functions

The hope is that, if you have diseased or damaged tissues, these tissues can be regenerated from your own body by mimicing the stem cell mechanism of cellular differentiation.

If you have liver damage, new liver tissue can be re-generated.

If you have a spinal chord injury, new nerve tissue can be be generated.

I you have a damaged heart from a heart attack, new heart tissue can be generated.

If you have juvenile diabetes, the missing tissues in your pancreas can be generated.

Any tissues damaged by cancer, or caner related surgery or chemotherapy can be regenerated with new tissue. This is the great hope of stem cell research.

So how is there any hope in stem cell research for "curing" gay sexual orientation? I think that sexual orientation is much more complicated than merely replacing some diseased of defective tissues. It is a much more complex set of characterists than racial skin color, or hair texture.

How does stem cell research hold out any promise for changeing gay people into straight people? And since being gay is not even a disease process in the first place, why waste valuable research funds on curing it, when it would be better to spend the money on heart disease, or diabetes, or breast cancer which are real diseases.

So, CCNL, what is your reply to this?

And by the way, In PaganPlace's (and my) religion, homosexual intercourse is not a sin, and therefore requires no justification.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist :
Lepidoptera: "Does that somehow make us less married?"

Not at all. I agree with what you say about friendship and marriage, but PP seemed to be redefining marriage as a subset of what it actually was, in order to make room for her behavior, and that ought not be used as an excuse to justify sinful behavior, anymore than you could say, "My husband is my friend. I have sexual relations with him. I'm also friends with his best friend. Therefore it is OK for me to have sexual relations with him as well".
That's all I was trying to say.
****************************************************************************************************
While I can't speak for her, I think I know her well enough from our online conversations to say that you have misunderstood her intent.

PaganPlace, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

She was not saying that because her partner is her friend, that fact alone makes it ok to have sex with her, and that it's therefore ok to have sex with any friend. I am friends with my husband's best male friend, but I have no desire to have sex with him.
What she was saying was what a lot of hetero spouses feel about each other - "My husband/wife is not only the love of my life, and the person with whom I have mind-blowing, toe-curling sex, but also my best friend." Marriage is about the commitment, not the orgasm. The person to whom she has romatically committed herself also happens to be her best friend. Without that friendship, sex, no matter how good, will not hold a marraige together.

The household arrangement she describes is fairly typical of many hetero marriages - one spouse generally makes the lion's share of the income, and one spouse generally handles most of the domestic chores. Sex is merely a physical expression of their romantic love for each other, not the reason they got married, nor the focal point of the marriage. I happen to think it's pretty cool that the only person I want to make love with is also my best friend, and that I get to see the face of my best friend first thing when I wake every morning.

Dr. Mohler,

As someone who has great respect for you and the positions you hold, I think you are wrong on this one. Marriage should be allowed for all people, regardless of their sexual preference or theological positions. A church, institution, etc., should never be forced to perform something, however, that their particular tradition does not believe. This, to me, seems to be the simplest solution to this complicated issue.

And the brain of Dan in the Den continues to swirl in the yuckiness of homsexual sex. Fear not Dan, it is all biology and therefore the yuck is fixable. Embryonic stem cell research especially from the embryos of gay sperm and gay eggs will lead us to the final solution.

WWTCD? What would Tom Cruise do? Does anyone stop, think, and consider this question?

It seems to me that most of the heteros objecting to gay marriage are worried about gay men, not gay women, and their sexual activities.

Now, this may come as a shock to some, but straight men and women are intimate, both orally and anally, quite routinely, and it's considered normal. I wouldn't swear to this, myself, but I've heard Mr. Mohler has some pretty interesting preferences along these lines.

How, or how, can we have all these perverse anal and oralizing marriages annulled?

CCNL

You are merely stating the obvious. Your answer is irrelevant to my question.

Why don't you pipe down and leave, if you can't contribute an adult comment here?

Lepidoptera: "Does that somehow make us less married?"

Not at all. I agree with what you say about friendship and marriage, but PP seemed to be redefining marriage as a subset of what it actually was, in order to make room for her behavior, and that ought not be used as an excuse to justify sinful behavior, anymore than you could say, "My husband is my friend. I have sexual relations with him. I'm also friends with his best friend. Therefore it is OK for me to have sexual relations with him as well".
That's all I was trying to say.

Anatomy, particularly brain anatomy, is destiny,

and trumps all ancient scriptures which are not

in accord with that fact.

Dan in the Den,

Tis called the sex drive i.e. the major reason people wed, typically the sex drive is naturally present to provide procreation of the species something a gay marriage does not provide with the exception of some lesbians going outside their "marriage" to get artificially inseminated. Would that be called "gay adultery"?? Hmmm???

CCNL said:

"Daniel in the Den does have significant problems understanding the specifics of gay sexual activity."

I am not sure what your point is. I thought we were talking about gay marriage.

In marriage I suppose the sex is implied, if not stated in the ceremony, but in reality, how much time does anyone spend engaged in sexual activity? 0.5% ? 1% ? Not very much, right?

In marriage, there is all that other stuff, like for better or for worse, in sickness and in health; sometimes that stuff takes up alot of your time, alot more than sex.

Being gay is a lot more than same sex attraction. And same sex attraciton is alot more than sex positions.

Why don't you think about this some, and then try and answer me, what you think I mean by all of this quizically complicated stuff? Think about it and say what you think; don't copy and past.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist :
paganplace: "I'm pretty much the domestic one, ...I do the support-the-breadwinner thing: I also fix the car and do the carpentry and defend the household and grow my nails a . My partner takes care of most of the outside business and decisionmaking, and a lot of the typical 'modern guy' stuff. ...
It's a marriage."

Actually, it sounds more like a friendship or a business arrangement. You don't have to or need to add an extra element of sinful sexual behavior to it. You can't arbitrarily pare down the meaning of marriage for your own convenience.
****************************************************************************************************
Seems to me that the best foundation for a happy marriage is a close friendship. My husband is my best friend. He's the first one I seek out when I'm in pain and need a shoulder to cry on, and the first one I seek out when I have joyful news to share. There is also the element of a business partnership to marriage - we make decisions together about how the household income will be spent. If we didn't discuss finances, and put a budget down on paper, before long we wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage or buy groceries.
Sex is not the most important element of a marriage. We're both past middle age and neither of us has the libido we had twenty years ago, so sex isn't a big part of our relationship. When it happens, we both enjoy it immensely, but if a few months go by without it happening, it's no big deal. Does that somehow make us less married?

Captain Ahab:
"Personally, I think that heterosexuals themselves have so damaged the concept of marriage that they themselves have set the stage for the ultimate change in definition. ... Acceptance of out of wedlock child birth, destigmatized infidelity, no fault divorce, and finally same sex marriage, means that marriage really no longer has any strong social meaning at all."

Tragically, that's correct. I'd also add abortion to the list (sex is all important, the child is a mere byproduct to be eliminated). But people committing heterosexual sins generally do not hold adulterers pride parades or divorcees pride parades. They are not desperately trying to lie to themselves and others that what they do is not sinful.
****************************************************************************************************
"Sin" is in the eye if the beholder. Not everyone considers extramarital sex a sin. Some people have open marraiges where both spouses are free to seek sexual pleasure with other people. Such an arrangement would not be to my liking, but to each his own.
Not everyone considers divorce or abortion a sin.
Perhaps the reason that divorcees, women who have had abortions, or people who have chearted on spouses don't feel the need to hold pride events is because they have never been denied housing, jobs, health care, the right to marry, etc. because of their "sins."

Posted on December 10, 2008 02:17

Farnaz2 :
The Bible is irrelevant in this discussion. All citizens have the right to marry. Therefore, gay citizens have the right to marry.

Marriages should be performed by civil servants. If certain religious institutions like Mohler's wish to develop separate secondary ceremonies to honor marital unions, it's up to them.
****************************************************************************************************

Couldn't agree more.

ANY consenting adults, regardless of gender(s) who wish to LEGALLY unite themselves should have the right to do so, and should be required to appear before an officer of the court in order to do so.

Religious blessings of unions should not have legal bearing.

SpongJohnSquarePantheis:

"you are indeed responsible for your actions and you ought to do the right thing."

I'd say you're correct, that you must take your own good advice 'lest gravity fail you, and up you go skyward to dwell amongst all the other hot-air balloons.

Daniel in the Den does have significant problems understanding the specifics of gay sexual activity.

CNNL said

"One could consider gay sexual relationships as being mutual masturbation."

So, what is that supposed to mean? I have never known a gay person as weird or as freaky as you, so why shouln't they be allowed to get married, if you are allowed to?

One could consider gay sexual relationships as being mutual masturbation. One wonders then why not just buy a lovable blow-up doll??? There have been reports of lovable robotic dolls in the D of of R&D. Do lovable blow-up dolls come in both gal and guy variations?? e.g. DeGeneres, O'Donnell, Hudson, McGreevey ??

SpongJohnSquarePantheist

You say you are not afraid of gay people. Then you give a series of arguments that are all silly and are all based in mindless fear.

You are a poor ignorant, fearful fool.

I am sorry that you think gay people make your life so hard. Maybe a psychiatrist could help you adjust and cope with the changeing times.

Daniel: "Just what is it about gay people that you are so afraid of?"

Don't fall into the trap of believing your own jargon. It's not about fear. It's similar to concerned citizens in a neighborhood picketing a porn shop in order to close it down. They're trying to limit a bad influence, and an attempt to numb people to what is sinful. I could turn the question around and ask why are you so afraid of Dr. Mohler? Not he nor anyone else is preventing you from living your life in private. You are the one trying to impose your views and lifestyles on others. People can't even let their kids go into public restrooms unaccompanied anymore since it is not safe, and when laws are passed to prevent this, activists react by saying this is 'homophobic'. It doesn't seem to square with your statement that there's nothing to be afraid of.

"Maybe you're afraid that you're gay? If that is your worry, then I am sorry, I cannot help you with that."

Maybe you're afraid Dr. Mohler is right, and you should change your ways, even though it might be painful to you, like plucking out an eye or chopping off a hand. Maybe the existence of people like Alan Chambers is your ultimate nightmare, since it proves that you are indeed responsible for your actions and you ought to do the right thing. If that is your worry, I'd say it's correct, and you should stop trying to suppress it.

neel1: "This post reminds me of why Thomas Jefferson took a knife to the Bible and kept only the teachings of Jesus. It's becoming increasingly clear that those who try to follow Christ's teachings and "Christians" are different people."

Neel1, can you please read Matthew 19:4-6 and tell us what your thoughts are? Thanks.

" CCNL
"The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. "

Surprisingly non-inflammatory of you, CCNL, but, no, AIDS does not have to 'remain a stigma on the gay community.'

Maybe eventually more people will realize that it's Reagan and the Religious Right, who rubbed their hands in glee at the idea of a 'gay disease' killing off all gays and lesbians' while the epidemic spread. The bigotry is what really deserves the stigma.

If it were really about AIDS, people wouldn't be calling *lesbians* 'disease-ridden' when that's actually the lowest AIDS-risk group out there by a *long* shot. (Not that a false sense of security is warranted, folks, but those are the numbers.)

The AIDS epidemic among the gay bathhouse scene in San Fransisco was born, somewhat, of the fact that at the time, just about all VD was treatable, pregnancy, the usual only reason for condom use in any population at the time, was obviously no concern, and most gay men simply had nothing to look forward to in terms of settling down. Frankly, it's shame and the closet and internalized homophobia that most leads to anonymous sex among males, often involving drugs and alcohol among those who can't accept themselves fully, or look forward to anything better.

(Frankly, there's nothing confined to the gay community about *that:* if you like a pint at the pub once in a while, you see there's a lot of folks out there who seem to need to get a load on: straights have plenty of problems with STDs and unwanted pregnancies, themselves, cause they're so ashamed about sexuality they can't pay attention to what they're doing.)

It's nothing intrinsic to gayness, CCNL. Straights had a lot of swingin' times in the Seventies, too, and now there's Spring Break...

Retroactively saying gay people ought to be stigmatized about it would be a bit like me coming back from some strange future and stigmatizing convertible drivers for not having the foresight to anticipate the invasion of the One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters of 2011. Whatever else you can say about that whole scene, it seemed to make sense to some at the time.

Gay unions and gay rights are really about people wanting something better.

Dear Jesus,
Please protect us from your followers.
Amen

fr edbyronadams:

>... When Californians voted to throw off the fiat of the black robed kings and restore the definition of the word "marriage" to its traditional meaning, the balance in the vote had nothing to do with "hate" as the opponents of Prop. 8 claim. Californians still support the extension of full rights to gay and lesbian couples (older people with pension issues as well) via a domestic partnership law.

We have no "kings" in California, except the basketball team in Sacramento.

Once again, domestic partnership is a great thing, but it does NOT give the GLBT community the full RIGHTS that we all deserve. Prop H8 was just that, full of HATE, fueled by purple kool-aid servers such as "dr" dobson of the "fotf" cult.

Reiterating:

"Beyond what the bible may or may not say, the general population to include many California voters, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activies to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community. "

What is it some of you do not understand about the words, "which is of course wrong".

And the coming out of the gay community was the result of AIDS? Hmmm, not really!! It just showed that the global community at large is becoming more educated and more tolerant of what appears to be a natural variant in some peoples' genes and hormones.

Neel: I'm an atheist, so I could never say this, but my mother, a devout Christian, says 'if Jesus Christ had known that people like this were going to call themselves Christians, he would have got down off the cross and refused to die'

This post reminds me of why Thomas Jefferson took a knife to the Bible and kept only the teachings of Jesus. It's becoming increasingly clear that those who try to follow Christ's teachings and "Christians" are different people.

Bun-Bun, the Flatulent One:

Your obsession with passing gas, as recently exhibited on Eboo's blog, has long infected your poor efforts at posting. As per all right wing religious types infecting America, you brand AIDS as a homosexual disease. Have you ever heard of a continent called Africa? Perhaps you are like St Sarah the Moose Slayer, who thought it was a country. No, it is a large continent, where AIDS originated, and AIDS is epidemic there to a point that makes our home problem small. And you know what? ALL the AIDS there is transmitted by heterosexual sex. I suggest that, once and for all, you withdraw your cranial appendage from the orifice from which your farts are expelled, and try to join the human race.

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong . Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

Being gay is more than same sex attraction, and same sex attraction is more than sexual positions.

Most anti-gay people live in complete and total ignorance on these matters. It is an ignorance that they are happy to maintain, and any knowledge or information offered to them is unwanted and unwelcome.

So, I think, overall, despite their very, very hard heads, this type of forum is a little helpful.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist

Your empty ignorant words cannot change the whithered state of your crumbled and faded religion.

Just what is it about gay people that you are so afraid of?

Maybe you're afraid that you're gay? If that is your worry, then I am sorry, I cannot help you with that.

Hi, Efavorite,

Nice post, and good to see you back. Just visiting, or here for a while?

" It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage -- it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.'

So what? A vast majority of people thought Iraq had WMD, does that make it true?

A vast majority of Americans once thought slavery was justified. Does that make it true?

Please use your head. Don't insult our intelligence.

"But people committing heterosexual sins generally do not hold adulterers pride parades or divorcees pride parades. They are not desperately trying to lie to themselves and others that what they do is not sinful."

Because adulterers and divorcing couples are generally beating up on their spouses, trying to hurt them. In the ensuing dust up, kids are hurt, parents are hurt, friends, etc. What's to be proud of.

However, despite what you beieve, gay people are not sinners and simply want the same rights heteros have. which- I do believe- they are entitled to under the laws of this country.

Basically, you can believe whatever ridiculousness you want. You're entitled to a self-righteous, ignorant, bigoted prig. You can even throw yourself a parade since you think you're so right. You just don't have the right to
tell everyone else what to do. But somewhere deep down inside, you know, and I know, a really "christian" person wouldn't be wasting all this time worrying about what gay people want, but how to make the world a better place.

chuckbarb23: you need to distinguish between civil, ceremonial and moral laws in the Bible consistently.

And if you are tempted to level the accusation that this is not a valid distinction but 'picking and choosing', please bear in mind that not even a liberal would say that because, say, eating shrimp is prohibited in the OT but not now, therefore murder should also be allowed since that too is prohibited in the OT. See? Everyone acknowledges these distinctions, not just orthodox Christians.

Mohler's argument is preposterous. If he wants to use the bible for justification of anything, he's going to have to reconcile the bible's savage and nonsensical injunctions about one thing and another --- stoning women, killing the unfaithful, for instance -- with the passages of which he approves. He cannot do that, obviously. What the whole bible - gay rights argument is really about is how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Danielinthelionsden:
"It's about ignorance and ignorant people."

It's about getting angry when people remind you of what you are trying to suppress in your own conscience. ;)

"I think that this kind of discussion helps because it throws a little light on the subject."
I agree.

"Baptists and other Conservative Religionists don't want to know the truth, but if they hear it, and if they see it, it might sink in a little, in some of them."
Homosexuals and sinners in general try to suppress the truth, but if they hear it bluntly, perhaps they will no longer be able to rationalize their wrongdoings. Perhaps a few might even ... repent, and escape their bondage to their base impulses. These are not your identity. You can be better than that.

"I think that it is a very good sign that the anti-gay arguments have been getting sillier and sillier, and that the anti-gay people seem more and more afraid; their mocking, smirking grins have all gone "plop" as the awful realization has come to them that gay people will someday have complete equality."

I think it's very good for people to see how a little thought reveals all the pro-gay pro-ssm arguments to be illogical, and hypocritically inconsistent with other beliefs held by those that espouse them. I think it's good for people to see how they have no counter arguments: they attempt to 'refute' morality by ad hominem and trying to convince themselves that conservatives must have 'bad' or 'ignorant' motivations behind their beliefs, a charge that could just as well be leveled against the activists themselves.

paganplace: "I'm pretty much the domestic one, ...I do the support-the-breadwinner thing: I also fix the car and do the carpentry and defend the household and grow my nails a . My partner takes care of most of the outside business and decisionmaking, and a lot of the typical 'modern guy' stuff. ...
It's a marriage."

Actually, it sounds more like a friendship or a business arrangement. You don't have to or need to add an extra element of sinful sexual behavior to it. You can't arbitrarily pare down the meaning of marriage for your own convenience.

"Most of the male baggage brought to sex and sexuality, particularly with regards to sanctified homophobia, is really about *dominance* and competition *among* males for letting each other have *access* to potential mates."

I realize you were responding to CCNL, but be careful what you do here. You can't negate the evil of an action by speculating about the motivations of people who call that action evil. That's ad hominem. That would be like a lawbreaker telling the judge that the judge enjoyed being 'holier than thou' and bossing people around, therefore the criminal should be let off. Maybe the criminal is right, but it's irrelevant.

You would not tolerate such deconstructions of moral principles you hold to be true, so again it's hypocritical of you to do this yourself.

Captain Ahab:
"Personally, I think that heterosexuals themselves have so damaged the concept of marriage that they themselves have set the stage for the ultimate change in definition. ... Acceptance of out of wedlock child birth, destigmatized infidelity, no fault divorce, and finally same sex marriage, means that marriage really no longer has any strong social meaning at all."

Tragically, that's correct. I'd also add abortion to the list (sex is all important, the child is a mere byproduct to be eliminated). But people committing heterosexual sins generally do not hold adulterers pride parades or divorcees pride parades. They are not desperately trying to lie to themselves and others that what they do is not sinful.

Daniel in the Den,

Glad to help you out in understanding some of the nuances of homosexual sex.

danielinthelionsden:

Would you please specify what I am paranoid about?

Personally, I think that heterosexuals themselves have so damaged the concept of marriage that they themselves have set the stage for the ultimate change in definition.

If changing the definition is not the final deconstruction of what marriage has been understood to be, then what is it?

Finally, let me say that personally I don't feel threatened at all if the the definition is changed.

If I was really paranoid, then I would feel threatened. I don't. I believe, as do multiple state supreme courts, that society and the state have an interest in maintaining the current definition, but I would live with any change that a state legislature instituted.

I just think that we should stop fooling around with the semantics that allows us to pretend. Let's finally address what is really happening. That's what the California struggle has shown us.

While I support homosexuals' right to marry, I must agree that the New Testament does not.

Based on Bruce18's comments, anyone that has sex outside a marriage should be denied the right to marriage. Once again the religious right picks and chooses what they want.

Perhaps I have an old fashioned view on this. I am a guy who realized I was attracted to other guys in 1973 when I was 13. The GBTL movement was just getting it's footings at that time and it was definitely not cool to out yourself (as you could be committed).

I've never felt any need to be "married" in the religious sense to my male partner of 12 years. I think the GBTL community is doing themselves a dis-service by what seems to me to be insisting on calling the legal coupled state by the term marriage. I don't give a flying.... what we call it.

What I am interested in is whether or not my partner can freely inherit my home, possessions, bank accounts, retirement accounts, can freely visit me in the hospital as my spouse, make decisions for me if I am incapable of doing so, and otherwise has all the legal rights that hetero legally "married" couples have.

Some GBTL people argue that not allowing same sex couples to marry but instead only allowing them to have domestic partnerships is akin to "Separate but Equal" treatment. I don't see it this way. I think the problem here is as another poster has stated, that the term means two different things in our society. One religious and one legal.

Let the religions have the term "marriage". If at the governmental level, ALL legal relationships were called legal partnerships or some other term, then there is no separate but equal from a legal perspective. As long as all of these relationships are considered legally equal, I'm cool with that.

I think that insisting on the term marriage is causing an awful lot of un-necessary reactions from social conservatives and religious people who are viewing the issue as an attack on them. Keep the word folks, just give me the same rights.

Oh yeah, and one more quick beef here. Why are there so many hetro people on here talking about gay sex and making references to which one of us plays the man or the woman in a same sex relationship? How stupid is that? Why do relationships have to be defined by roles? Mine certainly does'nt

captn_ahab

Eveything you said is false. It borders on paranoia.

Gay people just want to get married. So what? They're not coming to get you. They're not gonna bite you. If gay people were allowed to get married, I am sure that you would not even notice that anything about life has changed, especially if you keep your head buried in the sand.

Pagan Place

It's about ignorance and ignorant people.

I think that this kind of discussion helps because it throws a little light on the subject. Baptists and other Conservative Religionists don't want to know the truth, but if they hear it, and if they see it, it might sink in a little, in some of them.

I think that it is a very good sign that the anti-gay arguments have been getting sillier and sillier, and that the anti-gay people seem more and more afraid; their mocking, smirking grins have all gone "plop" as the awful realization has come to them that gay people will someday have complete equality.

At least, I hope so.

edybyronadams:

In a large sense you are right. It is control of language and through language control of social convention that the gay rights group desire. If they can change the definition of marriage, then they have finally and conclusively changed the definition of homosexuality itself. Once marriage is the social and state recognition of the sexual and romantic relationship between any two consenting adults, then ultimately is no social difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Biology has been totally deconstructed into a new social reality. That is really what this is all about. The deconstruction of the definition is the ultimate expression of post modern theory.
The marriage of any two consenting romantically adults is the ultimate postmodern social construction. Acceptance of out of wedlock child birth, destigmatized infidelity, no fault divorce, and finally same sex marriage, means that marriage really no longer has any strong social meaning at all. It is merely reduced to the acquisition of the 1,100 rights and privledges that gay rights groups have identified and the state will bestow on any two people who can present a valid license. Welcome to the post modern society!

Hi, Paganplace,

You just delivered the best description - and defense - of same sex marriage that I have ever read. As you know, I am on you side, and I commend your good sense and your courage. Hang tough, Paganplace, ya got friends.

Or to put it more briefly, any religious views based on the notion that gay marriage isn't supposed to make sense, aren't about gay people or same-sex marriages.

They're about the fact that your view of gay people and marriage *don't make sense.*

Not when they meet reality, anyway.

ETHANQUERN, I think you need to coordinate your excuses and rationalizations with GSCHMIDT9 :)

To use revisionist Robert Prices quip, it's like saying: 'Your lawnmower was broken when you lent it to me, and besides that I never borrowed your stinkin' lawn mower in the first place!'

Apart from that Ethan, I find it odd that you yourself must distinguish between a propensity towards behavior and the actual behavior, in everyday life (such as the temptation to steal, and actual robbery), but you hypocritically pretend this vital distinction doesn't exist for your pet sin. I guess you must be 'extremely arrogant, self-centered, and meaninglessly self-righteous position' as well...

Can you see now why the majority of people in California aren't buying it?

@ Nunyo555: You are absolutely right.

In Germany, and possibly other European countries, couples go to townhall to get legally married. Only that marriage is recognized by law.

A religious ceremony is "fluff", nothing else. It does not bestow any legal rights or obligations and is unnecessary, except of course for people who believe the religious "mumbo-jumbo".

Therefore, I don't understand the furor over the whole thing. American citizens have the right to marry and that includes gays. They can not, however, force a church to marry them "before God" if the church is unwilling to do so.

So what are we endlessely debating here?

Some pose of indignance about 'Who's the man in your marriage' is only about the heterocentric notion that that's the only way to be in the first place. It's about heterosexual men only being able to imagine homosexual sex (And, tellingly, they only talk about gay men, and sex acts, in the first place, even if we gals get just as much of the bigorty and condemnation)

...As what 'homosexual acts' and talk about them *are* to straight men in this culture: acts of dominance and aggression, not love and affection.

Men who are secure in themselves aren't 'grossed out' about gay sex cause they can tell the difference between themselves and someone else. They don't *fixate* on one kind of sex when someone's talking about their legal rights and families, cause they can see past that.

(Actually, a lot of gay men don't care for that sort of sex in the first place, btw. It's apparently a *religious* teaching that that's all being gay is about. Cause that's how that religion defines the world, as a bunch of clinical things not to do. )

Most of the male baggage brought to sex and sexuality, particularly with regards to sanctified homophobia, is really about *dominance* and competition *among* males for letting each other have *access* to potential mates.

That translates into a lot of men, straight and gay, being entirely befuddled that what men tell each other gives them sexual/macho status among each other, and what's actually attractive to most women, are two very different things.

Walking up to a same sex couple and saying, 'Who's the man in this' is the same false premise that makes you think that's your concern in the first place.

My partnership is neither based on sex acts, nor some strict division of gendered-roles according to someone else's scheme.

I'm pretty much the domestic one, ...I do the support-the-breadwinner thing: I also fix the car and do the carpentry and defend the household and grow my nails a . My partner takes care of most of the outside business and decisionmaking, and a lot of the typical 'modern guy' stuff. It works. It's not based on what some God or random dude thinks about penises or absences thereof, or any of the other stuff people try to bring penises into when it comes to people living as free Americans.

It's a marriage.

I think where a lot of people let themselves be confused on this sort of thing is, all you have to do is watch a sitcom to see there's a divide between what straight people think a marriage is 'supposed' to be (for themselves) and what they actually do.

They're afraid to break certain 'illusions' about gender roles, cause that's all they are.

Well, you're right there, Daniel, the kind of arguments CCNL and others use to justify their bigotry, is based on ignorant notions about gay people not really existing and instead just being straight people who 'choose' to sin.

Their view of homosexuality 'not making sense' actually shows nothing more than that their view of homosexuality *doesn't make sense.* Right from base premises.

For starters, if you're actually a straight person, you can only have a visceral reaction to it if you are thinking of *yourself* doing it, and that just shows boundary problems.

Other people exist, you know. Only some religious-based view points claim everyone is 'supposed to be' the same, and any difference must be evil.

Go away bigot!

Equating "sexual behavior" as a choice is so extremely ignorant, it would be almost beyond human comprehension if it weren't so widespread. What you are saying is, is that given the right conditions you, a straight man or woman, would be capable, willing, and eager to have sex with a member of your own gender. Is that really what you mean?

If not, then do not assume that gay people's "sexual behavior" is any more immutable than your own. The immutability of gender object of one's sexual interest, except for the small group that claims to be bi-sexual, is the same for both straight and gay people.

Thinking otherwise is an extremely arrogant, self-centered, and meaninglessly self-righteous position.

Ouote: Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Paul wrote a lot of things, and gave a lot of directions on what Christians should do that seem to be in direct contrast with Jesus's own words and which we do not follow today. However, I would like to point out Paul's discussion here is directed toward people who "exchanged" and "gave up" their natural affections--in other words, they were people who made conscious decisions to go against their own natures and did these things for selfish, lust-based reasons. He wasn't talking about people who are homosexual--he was talking about people who are heterosexual but chose to act otherwise for the thrill of it.

This is America! That is why Southern Baptists are free to believe as they wish and express their beliefs.

This is America! That is why Southern Baptists should not be free to impose their beliefs on others!

This is America! That is why the government was not meant to legislate morality as defined by religion!

To oppose gay marriage is not [necessarily] hate. It is just showing ignorance of the freedoms on which this great nation was founded.

Come out of the closet, already, Mohler. Your refutations are explicitly refuted in the article. Restating them just makes you look desperate and self-loathing.

I find this entire discussion confused. The problem comes from the fact that we use the word "marriage" to mean two different things. To most people, it is a legal status that provides for such things as shared property ownership and child custody. To Christians, it is a sacrament.

If by "marriage", we mean "Christian sacrament", then the state should have no role in it whatsoever. Marriage should be the unique province of churches, and have no implications whatsoever for legal rights. A second name would then be needed to describe the process of two people changing their official legal status to domestic partnership. Actually, in practice, we have this already -- Christians getting married are married both at their church and at town hall.

The Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about people entering legal agreements to share property or child custody, and extending these rights to people of any gender or any sexuality has no consequences or implications whatsoever for Christian marriage. Such partnerships need not even imply a sexual relationship of any kind.

All of this sound and fury comes from people who want a legal partnership being refused by people who don't want to extend the Christian sacrament. They are not even talking about the same thing; the conflict comes from the fact that the word "marriage" has more than one meaning. Attempts to find a basis for homosexual marriage in the Bible are both fruitless and beside the point.

A real problem, however, arises if people want the Christian sacrament but cannot find a church that agrees that they are entitled to it. However, this is a private religious issue, not a public policy issue.

captn_ahab, you have it exactly right. When Californians voted to throw off the fiat of the black robed kings and restore the definition of the word "marriage" to its traditional meaning, the balance in the vote had nothing to do with "hate" as the opponents of Prop. 8 claim. Californians still support the extension of full rights to gay and lesbian couples (older people with pension issues as well) via a domestic partnership law.

The issue is control of the language.

Sometimes those who claim to be Christians engage in extreme hate speech against homosexuals - for instance Fred Phelps and his family in Kansas. But this is not representative of the vast majority of Christians for whom the teachings of the Bible appear to be quite clear. What critics of the majority Christian view do not seem to realize is that there is no sacred book of a major world religion, to my knowledge, that condones homosexual sex. Marriage is almost universally stated to be between woman and man in these texts. Therefore, it cannot be conveniently passed off as a "problem" created by "fundamentalist" Christianity. Rather, it is an issue involving multiple revelations and basic human nature.

The only case for gay unions is in the civil realm where a state can decide that preventing homosexuals from having such unions is discriminatory. But for religious marriage in the eyes of God, the sacred texts of the world's religions do not support marriage between two men or two women.

CCNL

Thank you for your enlightening comments. You have revealed a great deal more about yourself, than you ever have before.

Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation. Then there are those "made in China" toys/strap-ons. Lets hope the FDA has checked them for lead and other toxic components. And do said "toys" come with sanitizers and/or sterilization instructions.

Lots and lots of "gays" doing their hot and heavy things on Internet tube sites but nothing about coin flipping, who is on first, and sanitizers sites?? There must be some "Gaying It For Dummies" books out there somewhere. Hmmm, I wonder if said books/sites have to have FDA and CDC approval??

The problem has been created by the conflation of gay rights with a change in the traditional definition of marriage. It is possible to support gay rights and traditional marriage, and it is possible to do both from a secular basis. However, as demonstrated in California, where gay couples are offered the rights and privledges associated with marriage, this is not sufficient. It is the desire of gay rights groups to change the definition of marriage itself, rather than to acquire rights and protections. Thus, the idea that to defend the traditional understanding of marriage is to be a bigot and worse than that a religious bigot arises from the political struggles of the gay rights groups to change our understanding of marriage. The gay rights groups desire our social understanding of marriage to become the state recognition of the romantic and sexual relationship between any two consenting adults. Nonsense. As several State Supreme Courts have ruled, there is a real relationship between procreation and marriage, as we have understood it in the West, and that there is no inherent right to same sex marriage in most state constitutions. Thus, there is no civil rights violation, and it is up to the legislature to change the definition of marriage if society so desires it. Of course, in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut the supreme courts by narrow margins have found the requirement to change the definition of marriage in the state constitution. That is the beauty of federalism.

People who “disapprove” of people who “claim to be gay" are a little confused about the whole thing, possibly because they are so sheltered from the real world. So I understand, many people do not even accept the validity of the concept of sexual orientation, and therefore do not accept that there can even be such a thing as being gay. I have heard people deny the phenomenon of a "gay sexual orientation" instead calling it "bad people behaving badly."

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

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

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

fr edbyronadams:

>...Okay, Wikipedia is not without its flaws but it is a darn sight better than appealing to your own authority, which is precisely what you are doing.

Um, try logging onto CNN, the BBC, the AMA or the APA websites, and avoid like the plague the "fotf" and "afa" cults, as well as whirlednutsdaily, or Wikipedia, which anyone can log onto and make changes to any article they want, be they correct or flamingly WRONG.

CCNL : “And again Daniel in the Den again comes through with some "everything is rosey with everyone" commentary even though problems exist especially religious and sexual issues that he thinks should not be discussed or pointed out.”

Sexual issues? You support abridgement of the right to civil marriage for same-sex couples because of what you imagine we might do in the privacy of our bedrooms?

The only sexual issue I see there is your own mental voyeurism. Why is it that the people who are most adamantly opposed to equality under the law for people who are homosexual seem unable to keep their minds out of our bedrooms? I find that quite perverse.

CCNL

Why this fascination with the "mystique" of gay sex?

The question here is not the "mystique" of gay sex; the question here is gay rights. There is more to being gay than same sex attraction, and there is more to same sex attraction than sexual positions.

But why don't you go ahead and tell us what is about this "gay sex" that seems to fascinating to you.

Your basic problem here is ignorance. You are as ignorant as the Conservative Religous people whom you seek to deflaw. Why don't you deflaw yourself first?

You know, there is an easy way to cure ignorance: "read a book."

If the bible is going to be the determinant on whether christians accept gay marriage I have to ask, who owns the bible and its laws? We all know who owns American law, or French law or British law. We know who is accountable for flaws or misuses of those laws. We know to whom those laws apply and where they can be applied. But laws from the bible are not owned by anyone but God yet christians act as though the laws in the bible are theirs to apply not just to themselves, not just to other christians, but to everyone. That is the flaw in this logic of gay marriage being some sort of Heavenly illegality.

The truth is that homosexuality is as old as man himself. It exists in every culture too. It is a condition of humanity, not some psychotic disease. It existed in Jesus' time and I really have to wonder about Jesus himself who as a Jewish man went unmarried to the relatively elderly age of 30+. And though christians point to the bible for support in their opposition to homosexuality, there is no "law" in the bible, just annecdotal evidence against homosexuality. In other words, its a stretch, used to reinforce the distaste for homosexuality, or "yuckiness". Christians need to remember that the same bible was used to validate slavery, and there is a lot more support for slavery in the bible than there is against homosexuality.

This debate is pointless and hopeles. One side argues for rule of law and application of constitutional principles while the other side argues for imposed religion, routine and systematic violation of the Constitution and flat out bigotry.

The threat to freedom in our country does not come from terrorists or Muslim extremists or whatever, it comes from Christians who don't believe in the Constitution or the core values of our country. George Orwell summed up your entire argument in one sentence: 'All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others'. To extend the analogy, you want to keep all the apples and milk for yourselves (if you don't understand that reference, you have to read the book, assuming that you can read).

You neo-Stalinists are destroying our country.

And again Daniel in the Den again comes through with some "everything is rosey with everyone" commentary even though problems exist especially religious and sexual issues that he thinks should not be discussed or pointed out.

Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is not an issue that can be decided based on what a bible or bibles say or do not say. Obviously, the first amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. says that Congress can't make any laws respecting the establishment of religion. That means that this issue must be decided according to secular arguments, not religious arguments. So, this discussion about what the New Testament says or does not say is irrelevant.

CCNL: typical passive-aggressive anti-gay homophobic bully.

Jacoby's article would pack a little more punch if it weren't intellectually fraudulent. She picks and chooses verses, ignores or dismisses-without-rationale most counterarguments, and when her point loses steam, she moves on to another one (usually within a paragraph, which speaks to their depth.)

It would lend credibility to Newsweek to hire people who actually know something about they topics they're hired to write about. Jacoby has never been one of those.

Bully gays?? Not in the general population.

But the general population, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activies to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

Let me get this straight:

Baptists are willing to overlook the inferiority of black people because they cannot help being born that way, but it is different with gay people because they choose to be gay.

Have I got it right?

R. Albert Mohler Jr. has made his biblically-oriented argument against homosexuality and gay marriage about as well as it can be made. Too bad it’s completely irrelevant to the issue because, at least at in this matter of Government and Law, the Quran, Book of Mormon, Torah, and Bible have exactly identical relevance and authority...that is, none.

I observe three primary justifications of the anti-gay:

1) “The Bible forbids it and that settles it because the Bible cannot be wrong.” Sorry Mr. Mohler, Focus on the Family, and several of you posting here, but the Quran, Book of Mormon, Torah, and Bible have exactly identical relevance and authority in this matter of Government and Law...that is, none. #1 is more limited that it might seem, as it’s the position only of Fundamentalist religion—quite a small minority actually, as noisy as they may be.

2) “Homosexuality presents a grave danger to society so I will attempt to block any action which seems to give it any kind of approval, especially Gay Marriage.” Sorry, but this is simple assertion, entirely unsupported by evidence. Now that we are starting to get some evidence (States of Massachusetts and Connecticut and, for a few months at least, California), all (and I do mean *all*) actual evidence indicates extending marriage to same-sex couples improves societal stability by giving those directly involved (the couples) a greater stake in the success of our shared society; and certainly has had no negative effect on traditional marriage. So, #2 is losing strength and adherents as we gain experience of the actual favorable impact of same sex marriage on society.

3) “Yuuuuk, that's Icky!” This is simple disapproval (often but not always religiously motivated) of what is perceived to be anothers poor morals and distasteful choices. For those not claiming 1 or 2, this appears to be the sum of their objections. I'll just note I don't see this as adequate reason to deny fundamental rights and civil liberties to a significant minority of the American people. #3 still seems the strongest, but it’s fading too, as more and more people discover how many of their admired neighbors, co-workers, and family are gay

One of the things that is encouraging me is how much the argument has changed in only a few years...in 2004 there would have been a lot more 'Leviticus/Abomination' comments here, and to-the-death opposition of any legal recognition of same-sex couples. Today, even conservatives pretty much accept civil unions, and their positions on calling it marriage are softening as they slowly reason out the fact that nothing bad is happening.

In the end, I see this as a simple matter of civil liberties. Although a member of neither community, I'm a supporter of both Gay rights and Religious rights—as a sometimes obsessive civil libertarian, I support extending rather than restricting rights, as has been the history of our country.

Alex511, Okay, Wikipedia is not without its flaws but it is a darn sight better than appealing to your own authority, which is precisely what you are doing.

Gee, whenever this conversation comes up, it always gets around to the argument that straight people feel bullied and threatended by gay people.

But that is exactly backwards. Straight people, including conservative Christians, including Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics are the bullies; they are the ones that bully gay people.

Gay people have finally found a voice. And that makes them threatening? Taking a stand against bullying and persecution is threatening?

What a bunch of bull!

"I think it is unethical and indefensible that you think government has a right to indoctrinate children on your behalf and force Christian businesses and churches to act against their consciences. You are not simply asking to 'live and let live'. And this is one of the problems with SSM. I believe 5% of homosexuals have availed themselves of SSM in Canada since it was enacted there. So this isn't really about 'rights'."-spongebobsquarepantheist

Yet you and those like you seem to think you can indoctrinate the rest of us to your religious viewpoint. Face it, if Christian businesses and churches had a real social conscience they would stop trying to deny gays full rights. Instead, their idea of conscience is to force a sectarian lifestyle and viewpoint on all Americans, irregardless of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the "common good."

Instead you fearmonger about "indoctrination" as if being gay was being a communist or a nazi. You speak out against the idea that everyone is equal, and everyone should be treated with the same respect you demand for yourself and your religion. You demand we respect your freedom of religion to the extent we should abide by it- sorry, but respect has to be mutual.

Ken16 : “Astonishing how such a chain of fallacies gains such currency. "Gays" have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. What they do not have is the right to ignore human history and the lessons of civilization to redefine the word marriage to cover something it has never meant.”

That is a disingenuous argument. The Commonwealth of Virginia used essentially the same argument when they defended their anti-miscegenation laws – their position was that since neither race could intermarry then no one was being discriminated against. The Supreme Court soundly rejected that argument.

The fact is that two people of the opposite sex can enter into a legally recognized marriage for whatever reason they wish, and with that legally recognized marriage comes more than 1,100 federal rights, privileges and responsibilities that are denied to same-sex couples, and for no good reason.

The definition of marriage has never been static. It has been adapted over the ages to meet the needs of societies as they have evolved. If you dispute that, then explain why women are no longer considered to be the property of their husbands, or why women no longer have to cede title to all of their property to their husbands, or why it is no longer legal for a man to beat his wife.

=== Sex is binary and complementary. A union in which both inhabit the same side of the divide is unlike one in which the partners transcend the divide. Two unlike things can never be equal. Equality relates to unlike things as "pink" relates to "smell".===

That’s merely your opinion. Frankly, I find it quite perverse that you would insinuate your imagination into the sexual activity of any person with whom you do not have an intimate relationship. That seems to be rather common in the heterosexual community, though.

===” Miscegnation is not analogous. Skin color is part of who you are, like height or eye color. Sex is something you do, like dining out or playing hopscotch.”===

It most certainly is analogous, since sexual orientation is not chosen, and is an essential part of one’s humanity. People who are homosexual are not defined solely by the sexual activty we enjoy. We are as diverse, well-rounded and, well, ordinary as people who are heterosexual. The fact is that one can be homosexual and never have a physically intmate relationship. It’s more about with whom we fall in love than it is about what we do with our genitals.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist : “I think it is unethical and indefensible that you think government has a right to indoctrinate children on your behalf and force Christian businesses and churches to act against their consciences. You are not simply asking to 'live and let live'. And this is one of the problems with SSM. I believe 5% of homosexuals have availed themselves of SSM in Canada since it was enacted there. So this isn't really about 'rights'.”

Please do specifically cite where I, or anyone else, have advocated indoctrinating children on my behalf. Please do specifically cite where I, or anyone else, has insisted that businesses or churches must act against their consciences.

You. Can’t.

The people of California were fed despicable lies by religious fundamentalists and right-wing extremists about what legal same-sex marriage really means. You have just perpetuated those lies. Don’t the Ten Commandments have something to say about bearing false witness?

It doesn’t matter what percentage of people exercise their right to marriage. What matters is that the right is not abridged by a petulant majority. Others have tried to use the “there are so few of them it doesn’t really matter” argument. Sorry, but it didn’t work when the issue was mixed-race marriage, and it does not work now.

Astonishing how such a chain of fallacies gains such currency. "Gays" have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. What they do not have is the right to ignore human history and the lessons of civilization to redefine the word marriage to cover something it has never meant.

Sex is binary and complementary. A union in which both inhabit the same side of the divide is unlike one in which the partners transcend the divide. Two unlike things can never be equal. Equality relates to unlike things as "pink" relates to "smell".

Miscegnation is not analogous. Skin color is part of who you are, like height or eye color. Sex is something you do, like dining out or playing hopscotch.

If Dr. Mohler was using Scripture to support his position, it's because he was responding to a claim about what Scripture said.

The regnant generation is not the apex of civilization and morality. The people of antiquity were not morons, stumbling about in darkness, waiting for you to come along and explain to them the mysteries of being human.

The people of God are not obssessed about sex and what peopel are doing behind closed doors. In fact, we'd rather they kept it there.

Christianity is as inclusive as "whosoever" and as exclusive as "believeth in me."

edbyronadams : “That may be your view and, by all means, try to change people's opinions. From where do rights arise in your opinion if not from an established consensus of the people? Surely you don't want to go down the "endowed by the Creator" route.”

Civil and human rights are not derived from an established consensus of the people. Human and civil rights belong to every individual by vitue of our citizenship on this planet.

You seem to want to think that civil rights belong to a majority, and that the majority gets to decide who is worthy of having their rights recognized. That is simply not the case. If a tyrannical mob gets to determine who is worthy of having their rights recognized, then the rights of minorities will be forever abridged.

Do you really not understand that if civil rights are owned and bestowed by a consensus of the people that anyone, at any time, can be subject to the extremes and devices of the politically powerful? What happens to the people who are currently in the majority when their status changes? Do they have to grovel at the feet of the newly powerful majority and plead for recognition of their rights?

I simply do not understand the objection to same-sex civil marriage. It causes no harm to anyone, and it is good for same-sex couples and our families. No one can require any religious institution that objects to same-sex marriage to perform them. Denying same-sex couples the right to have our marriages legally recognized will not make us go away. It will not make us stop sharing intimacy. It most certainly will not make us go back into the closet. What, then, is the reason behind your objection? Is it simply to punish us?

fr edbyronadams:

>...Keep on fighting but when that fight includes lies expect to be called on it.

From Wikipedia:

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (...

Um, just to let you know, "Wikipedia" is NOT a reputable site, as anyone can go in and change any definition they want to. Your "point" is still moot.

Human sexuality is very complex, and not well understood by anyone today, nor in the days when the Bible was written. Therefore, I give my opinions based on my experiences and observations.

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

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

Same sex attraction is only one among the collection of traits that gay people have. The actual logistics of sexual positions and sex acts varies from person to person, and you cannot know what any single person does in private, gay or straight, unless they tell you.

Would you ask?

If you would not ask your own relatives and neighbors about the physical details of their sex lives, and the sex positions that they engage in, why then would you ask, or even wonder about a gay person's sex life? In all cases, it would be equally none of your business. Even to suggest that you do not approve, and to suggest that they pretend to be "normal" is not your business.
.
And the second thing I wanted to mention is, who gay people are. People seem to have the feeling that there is an organization of gay people with an "agenda" and that they do not know any gay people, although perhaps, they may have met one or two along the way.

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

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

They are just people.

kpharmer: "there is no connection between sexual orientation and paraphilia."

My main point in bringing this up is that you too believe in sexual ethics, even if it would do no immediate observable harm (such as incest that did not result in pregnancy or necrophilia). The moral law is written on your heart as well as everyone else's and you shouldn't expect an exception. I'd say exactly the same to an adulterous heterosexual who was seeking to justify himself.

"It is unethical and morally indefensible to deny same-sex couples legal recognition of our marriages and our families."

I think it is unethical and indefensible that you think government has a right to indoctrinate children on your behalf and force Christian businesses and churches to act against their consciences. You are not simply asking to 'live and let live'. And this is one of the problems with SSM. I believe 5% of homosexuals have availed themselves of SSM in Canada since it was enacted there. So this isn't really about 'rights'.

This is such a SAD discussion. How can ANY religious denomination speak a word or lift a finger to thwart what amounts at it's most basic, intrinsic level, and open expression of LOVE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?

You can rant all you want about Biblical exegesis, but in the end, all it does is pervert the humanity of the religious cause and alienate others.

No secular government can consider itself truly free if it is bound by the moral strictures of religion.

What is truly heartbreaking on this Human Rights Day is that we so callously deny the rights of others. Just imagine what it would do to your life if you were prevented from fully sharing it with the person you love. That is the inhuman, utterly cruel, and perverse act that every straight person commits when they deny other people the right to share their own love and admiration for each other.

EDBYRONADAMS...

I don't get your point. Are you saying that it's okay to discriminate against people with certain genetic characteristics as long as their twins and other siblings are not outwardly affected by that genetic characteristic? By that logic, we can target left handed people since many of them have siblings who are right handed. I am just trying to make sense of your argument because it doesn't seem to make much sense.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist:

"The truth of the matter is sexuality is not a choice, and therefore there is no logical or secular argument to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry."

Nobody's sinful proclivities is a choice. How they react to those proclivities is. Do you think spoiled children have the right to behave badly if a genetic component to their behavior can be found?

Hope this helps.
***********************************

And where do your "sinful proclivities" come from to judge and exclude others in the name of poor old Jesus? Do you have the right to behave badly because your parents made the wrong choice to raise you in your intolerant beliefs and you made the wrong choice to continue to live in them?

Hope this helps.

kpharmer

"In 1967 it was the consensus of the people in several states that the word “marriage” was a union of two people of the same race. The consensus of the people was wrong then, and it’s wrong now."

That may be your view and, by all means, try to change people's opinions. From where do rights arise in your opinion if not from an established consensus of the people? Surely you don't want to go down the "endowed by the Creator" route.

===” Equating sexual preference with skin color in terms of discrimination is a farce.”===

"No, it isn’t. Sexual orientation is no more of a choice than skin color."

When surveys of male homosexual identical twins show that their genetic identical has the same sexual preference only 50% of the time and less correlation with lesbians, it is clear that more than genetic fate is at work here. That is not the case with darker skin color in which the genetic marker shows up with strong fidelity.

I did not say it was entirely a choice, nor is it entirely genetic. I say precisely what I intend. Don't muddy it with your polemics.

Alex511

"And you are completely and totally WRONG. California GLBT's in domestic partnerships do NOT "have the same rights as married couples". We can still be evicted, kicked out of our partner's hospital room by a "real family member", prohibited from joint credit, joint home ownership, freedom from being expelled or fired from jobs, prohibited from getting health insurance on our partner's plan.
.....
We WILL win this fight!"

Keep on fighting but when that fight includes lies expect to be called on it.

From Wikipedia:

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships most of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

* Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
* Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
* Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
* Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
* Sick care and similar family leave
* Stepparent adoption procedures
* Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
* Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
* Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
* The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
* Access to some survivor pension benefits
* Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
* The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
* The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
* Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
* The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
* The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

But, SpongJohn, engaging in a loving act is not the same as a child exhibiting bad behavior. There are no negative outcomes from two men or two women entering into a marriage. In fact, it's very healthy for them and society. And the word "sin" is a religious term that has no place in a discussion on a public policy issue. I hope this helps!

SpongJohnSquarePantheist , there is no connection between sexual orientation and paraphilia. You sound like the type of person I’d warn my grandniece and grandnephew to stay away from since you apparently cannot discern the difference between acts of love between consenting adults and the predatory acts of pedophiles.

Those priests were not gay; they were pedophiles. Their victims were not solely young boys; there were young girls who were violated as well.

SpongJohnSquarePantheist : “I don't think anyone's against SSM because the participants weren't declared 'married' to begin with. So I'm not sure why previous immoral behavior would mean that adulterers should not be allowed to do the right thing after doing the wrong thing. Hope that's clear now.”

Uh, no. That’s not clear at all. You say you are opposed to same-sex marriage because of the sexual behavior of same-sex couples. It is illogical, then, for you to favor marriage for heterosexual people who have engaged in immoral sexual behavior.

Your opinion, then, is hypocritical. Your issue is not “sexual behavior.” Your issue is that you simply disapprove of same-sex couples. Thank you for allowing me to point that out.

Recognizing same-sex marriage also does” the right thing after doing the wrong thing.” It is unethical and morally indefensible to deny same-sex couples legal recognition of our marriages and our families. Neither you nor your church has to recognize our legitimacy; only the government has to do that. It is analogous to the legal recognition of mixed-race marriages. No one has to like them or approve of them, but the government may not discriminate against mixed-race marriages because (according to the Supreme Court) marriage is a basic civil right.

globalone : “kpharmer, "the government should not be in the business of enforcing your religious dogma, and it should not be in the business of codifying discrimination against people who make unpopular choices."

---> If that is the case, then you would agree that laws against polygamy should be abolished, correct? And that the prohibition on incestual marriages be lifted as well?”

I do believe laws against plural marriage should be abolished, as long as all of the participants are informed, consenting adults. I don’t think the government has any business interfering in the private and harmless decisions of consenting adults.

The “prohibition on incestual marriages” varies from state to state. These statutes were enacted to reduce the probability of conceiving children with horrendous genetically-derived birth defects. I have mixed feelings about these laws. Again, I think the government should not be involved in regulating the private and harmless decisions of consenting adults.

If you are trying to establish a slippery slope argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will result in legalizing plural or incestuous marriages, try again. The only thing that will happen as a result of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples will marry and be happy. There is simply no logical basis on which to construct that slippery slope.

There are millions of gay people in the world. In the past they have been mute. Now, more and more of them are finding a voice. But, merely speaking up for oneself is the "problem." And it is a "problem" that will not go away.

In the progress of humanity, sexual orientation is now viewed differently than it was in the past. The younger generation is transformed in its consideration of sexual orientation and homosexuality. To them it is just part of life. A lot of young people even regard a gay person as an interesting, even exotic type of person to know, instead of an unacknowledged subject of taboo.

The old taboo against gays is gone, and it can never be brought back. That is the progress of history. There is no tactic that anyone can devise that will undo this fact. Gay people want same sex marriage. The Baptists, and other Conservative Christians, as well as the Catholics and Mormons can do all in their power to block their progress, but they cannot silence the voice of gay people; they cannot compel them to stop asking for the simple justice that is due everyone.

"The truth of the matter is sexuality is not a choice, and therefore there is no logical or secular argument to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry."

Nobody's sinful proclivities is a choice. How they react to those proclivities is. Do you think spoiled children have the right to behave badly if a genetic component to their behavior can be found?

Hope this helps.

edbyronadams : “It's because the consensus of the people is that the word marriage is a heterosexual union. It's that simple.”

In 1967 it was the consensus of the people in several states that the word “marriage” was a union of two people of the same race. The consensus of the people was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.

The Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a basic civil rights. Civil rights are not subject to “the consensus of the people” or to plebescite. If they were, then our constitutional republic would allow the tyranny of the majority to trample the rights of despised minorities.

===” Equating sexual preference with skin color in terms of discrimination is a farce.”===

No, it isn’t. Sexual orientation is no more of a choice than skin color. The only choice people who are homosexual make is the choice to accept ourselves as we are and to live our lives openly and without shame.

But even if sexual orientation was a choice, again, the government should not be in the business of codifying discrimination against people who make unpopular choices.

People who say that sexual orientation is a choice are deceiving themselves. I think they have to do that to justify their fear and loathing of people who are homosexual, because, after all, if we are born gay and lesbian then God creates us that way. And if God creates us that way, then they’ll have to find another group over which they can feel superior.

Yikes. So in order to discern right from wrong, in order to read plain statistics (such as 80% of abuse by Catholic priests being committed by homosexuals), one needs 'scientific and medical credentials'. I guess that disqualifies a lot of people (including Lisa Miller) from pontificating about morality.

It’s always fun to argue with people, such as Mr. Mohler, who are on the wrong side of history. Certainly, Mr. Mohler and his colleagues at the Southern Baptist Convention should be able to establish policy that governs marriage in their churches. But religious views should not at all play a role in deciding public policy on any issue, much less how we define marriage.

Mr. Mohler embarrasses himself by saying, “She (the Newsweek Editor Lisa Miller) then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is ‘exactly the same thing as skin color when it comes to discrimination.’ As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.”

Is Mr. Mohler suggesting that we set up a Committee of the Oppressed (e.g., Jews, Palestinians, Armenians, Greek Orthodox Christians, African Americans, Hutus, Tutsis, etc.)? Perhaps he thinks that such a committee will then be able to determine the next group that gets into the club. Oh wait, some of them may start disagreeing about the groups that are already in the club!

The truth of the matter is sexuality is not a choice, and therefore there is no logical or secular argument to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

If organized religion is going to continue to be a viable part of our society, then religious leaders, such as Mr. Mohler, are going to have update their views and spend their time working on issues that make a real and positive difference in people’s lives.

MarkFoxenberg, please provide us with verification of your scientific and medical credentials. Since you present your opinions as verifiable facts (which they are not), one must presume that you have these credentials and have conducted research on homosexuality that has been peer-reviewed and found to be credible.

If you have no such credentials, your statement makes you just another garden variety bigot, parroting the same old lies and spewing the same old character assassination platitudes that have been debunked for decades.

kpharmer: "I see, Bruce. So, do you advocate denying the right to marriage for opposite-sex couples who have engaged in pre-marital or extra-marital sexual behavior? Or is it just same-sex couples who meet your stern disapproval."

I don't think anyone's against SSM because the participants weren't declared 'married' to begin with. So I'm not sure why previous immoral behavior would mean that adulterers should not be allowed to do the right thing after doing the wrong thing. Hope that's clear now.

alex511: "I married my partner, now WIFE on June 28, and we are FIGHTING to take back the RIGHT to marriage that the sheeple (who swallowed "dr" dobdork's and the mormon "church" 's lies and purple Kool-Aid about GLBTs) took from us."

Why do you want to be controlled and enslaved to your evil desires? They run you like an automaton, like an animal right now, but it doesn't have to be so. You can be free - stop telling yourself this is your 'identity'. You know it's not true.

And don't think you have the 'right' to force the rest of the nation to enshrine moral evil into law, just in order to salve your conscience and self esteem - that's just being babyish. It's a kind of denial.

And to all who attack Dr. Mohler. Don't you think it's a tad hypocritical on your part? Do you think incest, zoophilia, necrophilia and pedophilia are OK? If not why not? Don't you think it's hypocritical of you to say that our moral sense cannot be informed by our religion?

What do you think the moral basis of law *should* be informed by? Your urge at the moment? Your feelings at the moment? Your convenience?

Come on, stop hatin' on the the good Doctor. Practice some of that love and tolerance your always yakking on about - stop being such judgmental left wing Pharisees and remove the beam from your own eyes.

HOMOSEXUALS WERE HERE MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THEIR PECULIAR INTERPRETATIONS OF "GOD'S WORD" AND WE WILL OUTLAST YOU BY MANY MILLIONS MORE

HAVE A GREAT CHRISTMAS.

YOU LOOK LIKE AN OBVIOUS CHILD MOLESTER.

Daniel,

"Future prediction: gay marriage will come, and you will get divorced several times."

---> I can no better see the future than you, so you may be absolutely correct in regards to gay marriage. As for my own marriage, that's not likely to happen my friend. My wife and I both added the words "divorce is not an option" to our wedding vows. (And believe me, we needed that for the first two years of our marriage.)

mdembski1,

"The bible encourages marriage, period, end of discussion."

---> Just as an FYI, you are certainly more than entitled to your opinion, but supporting your argument with a book that you have obviously never read (or perhaps even opened) only makes you look foolish. Not a sermon, just a thought.

kpharmer,

"the government should not be in the business of enforcing your religious dogma, and it should not be in the business of codifying discrimination against people who make unpopular choices."

---> If that is the case, then you would agree that laws against polygamy should be abolished, correct? And that the prohibition on incestual marriages be lifted as well?

bruce18 : wrote: “Gay people are not bad, but their gay sexual behavior is inherently sinful and disordered
*******************888

Baptist, Mormon and Catholic neochristians are not bad, but their intolerant and downright mean, judgmental and exclusionary religious behavior is inherently sinful and disordered.

fr edbyronadams:

>I carefully stated that domestic partnerships and marriages are the same in California within the power of that state to grant equality. If you have a problem with the DOMA or other states' laws or international law, take it up with the appropriate authorities. As for California, gay couples who take out a domestic partnership contract have the same rights as married couples...

And you are completely and totally WRONG. California GLBT's in domestic partnerships do NOT "have the same rights as married couples". We can still be evicted, kicked out of our partner's hospital room by a "real family member", prohibited from joint credit, joint home ownership, freedom from being expelled or fired from jobs, prohibited from getting health insurance on our partner's plan.

I married my partner, now WIFE on June 28, and we are FIGHTING to take back the RIGHT to marriage that the sheeple (who swallowed "dr" dobdork's and the mormon "church" 's lies and purple Kool-Aid about GLBTs) took from us.

We WILL win this fight!

More importantly, why does what the religious writings of one religion have any impact at all on the civil definition of marriage? Who cares if christians are for or against it?

I completely respect the right of a christian church to refuse to perform services for same sex marriages if they are opposed to them, but why do christians get to dictate who can participate in the civil institution of marriage?

bruce18 : wrote: “Gay people are not bad, but their gay sexual behavior is inherently sinful and disordered. And gay sexual behavior is not at all equivalent to skin color. No one has control over their skin color; we all have a choice to make over our sexual behavior. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful. Its the choice about the behavior that is the critical difference.”

I see, Bruce. So, do you advocate denying the right to marriage for opposite-sex couples who have engaged in pre-marital or extra-marital sexual behavior? Or is it just same-sex couples who meet your stern disapproval.

Sexual behavior might not be equivalent to skin color, but sexual orientation, because it is not chosen, is certainly analogous. But even if it wasn’t, the government should not be in the business of enforcing your religious dogma, and it should not be in the business of codifying discrimination against people who make unpopular choices.

What you, and others of your ilk, are advocating for people who are homosexual is a life that is devoid of physical intimacy. You advocate that simply because you disapprove of two people of the same sex falling in love and expressing that love. I think that is cruel and morally indefensible.

You can choose not to judge people who are homosexual. You can choose not to advocate abridging human and civil rights for people who are homosexual. It is the choice about engaging in tyranny and supporting individual liberty that is the critical difference.

As per a large number of contemporary historic Jesus exegetes, the problem with the NT is that 70% of it was not said or done by the simple preacher man aka Jesus. The book is basically an embellishment of the life of Jesus to make him in to a deity/prophet to compete with the deities of the Romans, Greeks and other pagans and the prophets of Judaism. "Prude" Paul, M, M, L, and J are the embellishers and we have been duped for 2000 years with their mumbo jumbo of resurrecting bodies and hoax miracles.

May the God and his Son Jesus Christ, that Mohler and his intolerant Baptist followers pretend to profess, open their cold closed hearts and their "my way or the highway" little petty minds by blessing them with a gay child or grandchild of their own. If it worked for the old hateful Cheney, it might work for them as well.

Bin Laden and the Taliban agree wholeheartedly with the Baptists.

The perpetrators of 9/11 agree wholeheartedly with the Baptists.

The Mumbai terrorists agree wholeheartedly with the Baptists.

You can tell ones character by the company one keeps.

pgf9 wrote:

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have a well-written article that explains their theological and sociological support for Prop 8, which agrees with Mr. Mohler's writings. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

________________

The well-written article that explains the Mormons theological and sociological support for Prop 8 fails to mention their gay-bashing motives evidenced by how they have treated their own gays, some as young as 15, by placing an arousal sensor around their young penises, showing them homosexual pornography against Utah State and Federal laws and shocking the bejeus out of their arms and wrists if they became aroused to "cure" them of their homosexuality. I painfully remember a gay friend in high school in Utah who had no other way out from the Mormon oppression of his family and Bishop other than to take his father's gun (Second Amendment, right?) and blow his brains out in front of me. Mormons are a part of the American Taliband and threaten our freedoms no less than the original version. Poor Jesus that Mormons have the gall to use his name.

The Bible was written by fallible, struggling individuals who were searching to find a God who was already reaching out to them. We have their inspired, but often flawed, words as our guide to understanding the mind and spirit of God. Let us not use our esoteric theology to deprive love, committment and joy to any one person or group of people. We all know in part and each one of us has something to offer the other. Truth is not the absolute gift of any one person so let grace prevail where theology collides with theology.

"There are plenty of straight perverts, plenty of real sickos, wife and child beaters (pedophile priests? anyone)- they can still get married. How is that? Just because of gender?"

It's because the consensus of the people is that the word marriage is a heterosexual union. It's that simple. Convince the people otherwise. Alas, that is not going to be the tack taken by the supporters of gay marriage. They will seek an edict from the black robed kings. To hell with the people.

Equating sexual preference with skin color in terms of discrimination is a farce. Levels of homosexuality have varied in recorded history (if we are to believe anything about the Greeks) and studies of identical twins show that while there is a genetic predilection, it is nowhere near the level of genetic fidelity that skin color is. Sexual orientation is a murky blend of genes and choice, so murky as to confound the ideologues on either side of the debate.

Cherry pick scriptures all you want and close your exclusionary pretending-to-be Christ-like religions to gay marriage all you want - the fact remains that, in a free society, denying gay partners legal and financial rights offered to heterosexuals is just discriminatory and wrong.

Go primp, posture, pretend, pontificate and pray all you want with your own on Sundays but give gays civil rights to share the social, legal and financial benefits that heterosexual married couples have and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

edbyronadams- you are not dealing with the truth. As much as you want to believe separate but equal is the same as equal=eqaul, you're very wrong. Why should- since we're talking equal rights- a particular group of people not have that same access to an institution the rest of us do?

Why should gays be expected to obey the laws and pay their taxes, yet be treated as second class citizens, or as deviants or perverts. There are plenty of straight perverts, plenty of real sickos, wife and child beaters (pedophile priests? anyone)- they can still get married. How is that? Just because of gender?
If that isn't stupid, shortsighted and hypocritical, what is?

Sparrow and DMZ,

I carefully stated that domestic partnerships and marriages are the same in California within the power of that state to grant equality. If you have a problem with the DOMA or other states' laws or international law, take it up with the appropriate authorities. As for California, gay couples who take out a domestic partnership contract have the same rights as married couples. Since Prop. 8 affected only Californians, the fight was about the use of the word.

As to the 14th, it protects individual rights, not couples rights. If it applies to couples, why should any limitation on the number of people who have access to a marriage contract hold?

MarkFoxenberg said he is not Baptist, but he used the new Catholic code words "objectively disordered" to describe gay people, so it is probably a safe bet to say that he is Catholic. This new Catholic buzzword is sort of a wishy-washy half-way point between saying it is a sin to be gay, and saying it is a mental illness to be gay.

This is not the consensus of psychiatrists; it is is the new Pope's new invention. But isn't the Pope gay himself? He sure seems to be gay to me. What hypocrisy; what denial!

And it seems to me that MarkFoxenberg thinks the entire world is ruined, and America is completely lost. Gay hating Christians would rather express their hatred and disgust for America, than admit that being gay is ok.

They would drag the whole world down with them, to win their un-win-able argument.

Just three thoughts:

1. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is a helpful guide to build strong marriages and families. The Bible teaches us how to follow Jesus Christ. And the closer to Jesus we are, the better we treat our spouses and children. Anyone who suggests that biblical teachings have nothing to do with contemporary families has not carefully studied the Bible.

2. One person wrote: "the issue of same-sex marriage is neither a religious or a moral issue. It is exclusively a legal issue". Not true. Same-sex marriage is a moral issue, and religious persons have every right to weigh in.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have a well-written article that explains their theological and sociological support for Prop 8, which agrees with Mr. Mohler's writings. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

What the Bible does or does not say about same-sex marriage is moot, because religious doctrine has no place in the civil law. "The Bible says" as a basis for law is establishment of religion, pure and simple. Churches can do what they please. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorce - that has absolutely no effect on the LEGAL status of divorce or subsequent remarriage. By the same token, no state authority can force the Baptists or any other church to recognize same-sex marriage - but that does not mean that gays should not have the right to be married in the eyes of the law.

Religious leaders can debate whether or not the Bible permits or prohibits same-sex marriage with the same fervor as medieval monks debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The point is that the results of their debates - if such can ever HAVE a result - do not belong in our federal or state constitutions or statute books.

Though not a Baptist, I agree with all that Mr. Mohler said, but he left out one important argument, and that is that homosexuality is objectively a disordered condition and that it cause great harm to society and to the individual. Homosexuality comes from an unstable or traumatic childhood. It causes more trauma and instability in the person's life. All that is needed is to look closely at the gay world. But the real problem is that the straight world has slipped so far that the problems of the gay world don't seem so bad, but actually seem quite familiar - promiscuity, emotional break ups, mental breakdowns, divorce, serial monogamy, "hooking up", loneliness, and children with no stable parents. Am I talking about the homosexual world here or the heterosexual world? Both. That's my point. Once the straight world has slipped to the level that it is at now, homosexuality, which is pathologically unstable, can become the norm too. The common cause for both the gay and straight mess is selfishness. Against this we have the Christian idea of sacrifice. We're living in a new Roman age - an age of material pleasures and dissipation. Homosexuality is just part of that, but is and always will be a life of the flesh. That's hard for many people to hear. It took me a long time to accept and to understand that. Christ's message is not to do what we wish. His love, real love, means to remind us that we're made in the image of the Father, and that human life is sacred. That means no to adultery, promiscuity, divorce, homosexuality... any of the modern gods. It's a complete change of world views from what we have today. Just ask yourself one thing - would you want to be a child growing up in a family as unstable as it is now? I pray for America and for the world, because we really need it now more than ever.

Religious arguing is pointless, because people do not form their religious beliefs based on arguments with people trying to convert them or change them. The development of belief is a mysterious confluence of experiential contingencies; moderated and filtered by the acuity of ones own senses, and the dexterity and cleverness of ones own intelligence. The emergence of belief is something that comes to you as you mature; it seeps into your mind, and is sculpted and formed by your own personal doubts, and by your own psychological reactions to doubt and its consequent fears. The emergence of belief is something mysterious, as mysterious as just about any other aspect of our lives. You cannot argue me out of mine, nor can I argue you out of yours.

If, I, as a Christian, say I believe in God, it is by no scientific proof that I would say such a thing. For I know that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God, and I respect science as a credible way of looking at the world.

A sincere belief in God, is a way of looking at mysteries, which we cannot explain, and a way to set a trouabled mind on a more peaceful course; faith does not mean knowledge; these are two very different concepts; yet few people would make the distinction, in trying to impose their own beliefs on others.

It is only when religion becomes wrapped up in and entwined with political affairs and institutions that the truth of one belief or another has real political meaning, even a threat, that it becomes necessary to "prove" your religious belief beyond doubt, and to label people of different beliefs as heretics, apostates, or infidels.

With regards to religious belief, all is speculative. A lot of people don't want to acknowledge that this is true; yet, it is true. Mental conformity to doctrine or dogma is not belief; and fundamentalist certainty is not faith. Christian homophobia is based on false assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge and belief. Anti-gay Christian doctrines are not merely false; they are stinking, and rotten; rotten to the core; and this blight ruins and diminishes all of Christian theology, and in fact, all of Christianity.

"Furthermore, in the issue of California's Prop. 8, the one that has brought this to the fore in the public consciousness, that state already provides a domestic partnership law that provides all the rights currently conferred on married couples by the state."
-------------
I don't know why people keep insisting that domestic partnership laws and civil union laws are the equivalent of marriage. They aren't- many of them do not confer the same rights and benefits that marriage does, they don't offer the same legal protections, they can vary widely from state to state and if a gay couple go from one state to another, depending on the state, their legal status can change drastically if that state doesn't recognize their union. employers and insurance companies don't always recognize them.

there was a story last week of a gay couple who have legally adopted a child but cannot visit one set of grandparents because that state doesn't recognize their civil union or the adoption. Should they set foot in the grandparent's home state, and police were notified, their child could very possibly be taken away under child abuse laws which, although wouldn't be appropriate, could be used by malicious people.

When was the last time you couldn't take the kids to see the grandparents because of that? Legal marriages and marital rights are recognized in all 50 states. So defend to me again why gay couples do not get the same treatment? 2 simple words- religious bigotry.

EdByronAdams:

Nonsense. There is very clear 14th Amendment discrimination in CA. The civil union laws do not provide the same tax treatment. Moreover, separate is not equal. That has been settled law since 1954. The current definition of marriage is unconstitutional, period. No amount of disguised bigotry can cover up flagrant discrimination.

Anyone opposed to gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves and question their own religious beliefs. The bible encourages marriage, period, end of discussion. Denying gays the right to marry is denying them their civil rights. The Baptist should go back in their hole and see what other hatred their can spout.

Mr. Mohler, you said:

"He insists that "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt." No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches -- and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey."

Fine. But here's the thing - the Bible has no standing in determining what is legal in the United States. The bible says that you can stone your wife and sell your daughter into slavery. We have laws against both of those things. If you have a legal argument against gay marriage, I'd be happy to hear it, but constantly repeating 'it's an abomination in the eyes of God' is really just a lot of noise. We have many, many laws protecting our right to do any number of things that are an abomination in the eyes of god. (This is a very good thing for Red Lobster whose entire business model is based on an abomination.)

Stop using Jesus to justify your bigotry. It's bad for our democracy. It's also bad for the moral standing of your religion, but I guess that doesn't really bother you...

Until the bible thumpers start a massive campaign against divorce and throw divorcees out of church until they repent, there is no reason to take their efforts to protect "traditional marriage" seriously. They are nothing but hypocrites promoting their personal bigotry in the guise of religious conviction.

There is no discrimination under the 14th amendment. All persons have available to them the state contract of marriage as currently defined. There is no discrimination against any individual. Furthermore, in the issue of California's Prop. 8, the one that has brought this to the fore in the public consciousness, that state already provides a domestic partnership law that provides all the rights currently conferred on married couples by the state.

This entire fight is about the use of the word "marriage" and the demand that the public see gay unions in the same way that they see hetero unions. While the majority in California have no wish to injure gay couples by denying them rights, we still see such unions as fundamentally different from heterosexual unions. Remaking the dictionary will have to wait for a time.

I am an atheist, so the Bible means absolutely nothing to me. Mr. Mohler has the right to view and interpret the Bible any way he wishes, and I have no right to interfere in that. BUT, the issue of same-sex marriage is neither a religious or a moral issue. It is exclusively a legal issue.

The 14th Amendment is unambiguous. It requires equality under the law. Therefore, any status recognized by the government that confers benefits and privileges must be available to ALL citizens. Not only must the status be conferred and recognized equally, the wording use to identify the status must be exactly the same for all citizens.

A huge majority of my family and friends abhor your concept of religion, Mr. Mohler, but I don't really care. It's actually none of my business. But I care very much when you use your religion to subvert the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution represents the sole set of principles under which we the people consent to be governed. The Bible, the Declaration of Independence and any other documents are completely and totally irrelevant to the law of our country. So, it is your un-American and anti-American subversion of our core principles that angers me.

BTW, until her death one year ago, I was married to the same woman for 37 years, and not a single element of our relationship and commitment had anything to do with religion. Same sex marriage was, is and will always be irrelevant to anyone else's marriage.

What does the word "marriage" mean in today's world? It is a legal contract between two people, with rights and priviledges ordained by the state, not by any church or religion. It is not for the sole purpose of having and raising children, otherwise, the state should deny the rights and priviledges of marriage to childless couples.

My wife and I both have children by previous marriages, but got married not because we wanted more children but just to be with each other and benefit from the state's rules on taxes and inheritance and insurance. Why cannot gays do the same thing?

So why is the institution of marriage denied to gays? One word: discrimination. While organized religions should be allowed to refuse to marry homosexuals on the grounds that it is against their religious views, there is no reason at all for the state to do so, and in fact in doing so is violating the spirit and the laws embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It is shameful and unjust that the religious leaders and sanctimonious politicians are again using religion as an excuse to discriminate against human being. Once again religion is used as a weapon, not as an instrument of God's Love.

The "yuckiness" of homosexual sexual activity does make one want to exclaim Faugh, Faugh, Faugh but hey there are many "Faugh, Faugh" things that go on 24/7 and in general bring no harm to anyone.

episode from previous nation.

a man in his life span killed 99 souls and he wanted to repent ,the man looked for a priest and asked the preist if he can repent ,the priest told the man no way you can repent ,uppon hearing this the man killed the preist scoring 100 .

the man still deep in his heart want to repent but he does not know how or where or what to do ,the man met another preist and asked the preist if he can still repent ,the knowledgable preist told the man what stops you from repenting ,the all forgiving god can accept your repentance,plus here is some prescription for your illment,

change the enviromonment,leave this land and go to a better land .

the man followed the prescription and left heading to a better land ,half way before reaching the better land the man died .

1-the knowledgeable preist offered the man a spirtitual solution as well as practical solution .

2-what is the biblical solution for homosexuality?

3-can the bible contain liberalism?

4-why liberalism and homosexuality are going along with juchristianity?

Globalone

What are you afraid of? that you will loose your precious scapegoat to blame everything on?

Future prediction: gay marriage will come, and you will get divorced several times. Who are you going to blame that on, I wonder?

Matthew 19: 1-8 According to many contemporary historical Jesus exegetes, this passage was not said by the historical Jesus but was again another passage added to embellish the life of the simple preacher man, aka Jesus.

e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/252_Moses_and_Divorce

The "yuckiness" of homosexual sexual activity does make one want to exclaim Faugh, Faugh, Faugh but hey there are many "Faugh, Faugh" things that go on 24/7 and in general bring no harm to anyone.

Mr. Mohler,

"Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek's responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda."

There is not an agenda. Agenda is rhetoric. Newspapers, magazines, all media outputs are about sales.
You will buy it if it is interesting and controvesial. You will not if it is boring.

That said, there are no small number of people that are done and fed up with living life based on the fantasy that the bible is the actual Word of God, literal and uncorruptable.
It was corrupted as soon as a human placed their perception on it.
You teach that. We are all Fallen.

Take your biblically inspired and tight tailed morality and enter the 21st century. I for one wish to be freed from the pain of being connected to Abraham.
Too much death and war in that Way. Painful and ugly.
Regardless of what you may say it is not the God that I Adore.

The Bible is irrelevant in this discussion. All citizens have the right to marry. Therefore, gay citizens have the right to marry.

Marriages should be performed by civil servants. If certain religious institutions like Mohler's wish to develop separate secondary ceremonies to honor marital unions, it's up to them.

End, really, of discussion.

My strong recommendation to the American gay community is for them to initiate a class action suit.

Daniel,

"Gay people are not going to bite you."

---> Actually, my post did not address my views on "gay people". Reading is Fundamental. Give it a try sometime.

"Why don't you worry about something better than how to assert your superiority over your fellow man?"

---> I can only assume that your liberal, "everyone is a victim" education has brainwashed you into believing that correcting/exposing another person's mistakes is inherently mean. It's not. We should all be accountable for what we say and do. I would expect no less of myself.

Besides, it's about time someone turned your Bible on its head. Everything you types say it's about ends up backwards.

The bottom line is, you can only speak for your sect of your religion and those who choose to follow it.

But this is America.

The people you conservative Christians just *had* to have in total power the past decade or so, *screwed everything up.* What makes you think you're the one to dictate for people with our own ways in a free country in the first place?

What makes you think even what you think are the noblest ends could ever be served by the means of civil injustice?

Why is it you've been so preoccupied with other people's sex lives that you both can't even see beyond your own tabooes when we are talking about stable partnerships and families and equal protection under the law?

Why is it you've spent so much energy to *hurt* and *oppress* us over abstractions while the real suffering of real people in the real world has gone on and on and on unchecked, and then you blame us for your own fixations and imaginations in order to justify your lassitude, hypocrisy, and tyranny?

What makes you think you're the ones answerable to on the question of who swears what oaths before whom?

Haven't you noticed what happens to everything your policies touch yet?

My dear one and I are not the ones who need justifying.

Why don't you give it up Globalone? Gay people are not going to bite you. Why don't you worry about something better than how to assert your superiority over your fellow man?

Drew,

"Perhaps each word of the Bible is equal to all others, but then why is no deference given to the more absurd Levitical laws?"

---> If you are speaking to Jews, then you will find that they still follow the laws as outlined in Leviticus. However, Christians generally consider much of Leviticus to be "non-binding" as we are members of the New Convenant through Jesus Christ.

"There are certainly instances where the Bible clearly condones slavery"

---> Again, this is what happens when you don't actually study the Bible or you simply regurgitate talking points. I suggest that you research the definition of "slave" as it was used in Biblical times and compare that to our use of the word today. In some cases, people actually "sold" themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts. Others requested to be "slaves" so that they could have a higher standard of life than if they had to keep struggling to find housing or food on their own. Additionally, "slaves" were considered to be part of the family and lived in the home (as opposed to slaves in nineteenth century America).

Baptists do not have any moral credibility in any of this.

Buying and selling black slaves is a choice; inciting violent insurreciton and treason is a choice; lynching freed black men is a choice; resistance to the aboliton of apartheid is a choice.

The Baptist Church has been complicit in all of these choices, and has never admitted sin nor apologized, but just dishes out even more, now against gay people.

All of the wicked and sinful practices that define the history of the Baptist Churh were willful acts, freely chosen in a mean spirit, in defiance of all that is Christian; gay people, on the other hand, do not choose to be gay, but just are that way.

travis wrote:"It's central message is not love, unity, and some euphoric sense of idealized community where everything under the sun is permitted. That is perhaps an American ideal, perhaps a religious ideal, but it is not the view of the Bible. The Bible is moving forward a point, that is evident to see over the course of its development and as that point is developed it mentions various sins along the way. One of those sins is clearly homosexuality. You can play all the semantic games you want too. You can play all the word games you want too. In the end you are playing games though. Read the passages and you will find that nobody was stuttering and mincing their words.

This is all a big game being played out by those who want their cake and eat it too. Mixing our American heritage and our religious heritage is a tight line to try and walk. "

I, for one, have no intention of mixing them. I am an American. I live in this country, therefore I obey its laws and abide by the Constitution. My religion is personal and I expect not everyone to agree with it, nor do I push it on anyone. There are things that may conflict with certain aspects of my religion- not because they are necessarily wrong for the country, but they are wrong for my religion. well, as an American I accept that- therefore the principles of justice and equality as defined by the constitution take precedence in the public square. My synagogue may claim gays have no right to "marry" but it has no right to demand the rest of the country adhere to that. No right to say another American should has less rights and benefits than I do.

If the constitution is not in agreement with the bible, bible thumpers will just have to deal with it, as Americans.

This whole debate requires people to be literate as to what the Bible truly has to say. The problem is that most people in America have to trust the learnings of others. They do not have the ability nor the patience to truly research the central core truths of the Bible for themselves.

It is important to understand what the entire Bible is trying to say and do as it reports the history of the world. It's central message is not love, unity, and some euphoric sense of idealized community where everything under the sun is permitted. That is perhaps an American ideal, perhaps a religious ideal, but it is not the view of the Bible. The Bible is moving forward a point, that is evident to see over the course of its development and as that point is developed it mentions various sins along the way. One of those sins is clearly homosexuality. You can play all the semantic games you want too. You can play all the word games you want too. In the end you are playing games though. Read the passages and you will find that nobody was stuttering and mincing their words.

This is all a big game being played out by those who want their cake and eat it too. Mixing our American heritage and our religious heritage is a tight line to try and walk.

It might be time for us to go back in time a little bit and read Robert Bellah's argument about a Civil Religion in America. That is exactly what a lot of Americans are trying to preserve here. We are not debating about what is Christian and in the Bible and what is not, we are arguing about the best religion that expounds on the ideals of America.

As to Molher's points, they are excellent scholarship with a clear understanding of what the original author meant to say in the given context it was being said.

Milller asked interesting question. It's obvious this issue makes Rev. Mohler very uncomfortable, but the point is conservative christians do cherry pick, despite their insistance on the veracity of everything in the bible. It's clear that society cannot function as it did in biblical times. we don't accept slavery. Polygamy is not allowable, women have equal rights, we don't condone wiping out the next village because they don't believe as we do, and Saul notwithstanding, the little old lady down the street with umpteen cats is not the Witch of Endor.

So Dr. Mohler, why so desperate to declare gays sinners and deprive them of their rights? It does not personally impact you except as it offends your personal religious beliefs. And that's your personal problem. You live in American in the 21st century. time for you to accept that, and deal with it as an American.

Mohler's real message: Obey my inerrant interpretation of my Bible.

Mohler seems to criticize Miller's argument by saying "the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts."

But isn't the point of reading old texts an attempt to find universal lessons? Isn't that the only non-historical reason to study scriptures? Reading old texts DEMANDS interpretation. How else can we see its lessons except through our own 21st century eyes and minds?

Mohler goes on to concede the necessity of interpretation when he says "the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches". He uses the phrase "ACTUALLY TEACHES" instead of "literally states" to show he agrees that the importance of these texts rests not in the literal reading, but in interpretation[s]. However, it is revealing that Mohler goes on to direct people of faith "to accept, teach, apply, and OBEY [what the bible actually teaches]."

I read Mohler's REAL MESSAGE to be: I, and only those who agree with me, know the real interpretation of the bible, and it's time you OBEY my understanding of it.

Such is the human sin of pride!

Gay people are not bad, but their gay sexual behavior is inherently sinful and disordered. And gay sexual behavior is not at all equivalent to skin color. No one has control over their skin color; we all have a choice to make over our sexual behavior. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also sinful. Its the choice about the behavior that is the critical difference

I would have appreciated it had Mr. Mohler addressed specifically addressed the opening lines of the article:

"Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists."

How can you say that in the Bible "the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment" considering the rampant polygamy in the Old Testament among Judeo-Christian fathers?

It seems to me that American evangelicals consistently place Paul ahead of Jesus. Perhaps each word of the Bible is equal to all others, but then why is no deference given to the more absurd Levitical laws?

How can you be a biblical literalist whilst picking and choosing what you take literally? Meacham is exactly right in calling this unserious.

There is a fine line between interpreting what the Bible teaches and accepting what the Bible says verbatim. Fundamentalists generally accept first and only reinterpret when all arguments for strict literalism are exhausted.

There are certainly instances where the Bible clearly condones slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46. I'm sure that Mohler doesn't condone slavery and has all kinds of Biblical arguments to debunk any pro-slavery passages in the Bible, but it just makes me wonder why Rev. Dr. Richard Furman didn't see such arguments in the early 19th Century.....probably because he was a fundamentalist in a racist time which meant he was never forced to rectify his Biblical interpretation with contrasting social conventions.

R. Albert Mohler is a fundamentalist in a time when it is still acceptable to publicly spurn homosexuals.

Now, what else would I expect from a Southern Baptist preacher?!?!?

Newsweek's article is sensible and humane, and logical. I recommend it.

Christians always choose and pick what they want to believe from the Bible, what rules they wish to follow and what rules to abandon. Bottom line is their personal preferences and views.

Gay people are not bad, they are not sinful; they are not perverted. When you vilify and demonize gay people in the name of Jesus and God, then you are spreading false doctrines. You can listen to false doctrines all you want, and can repeat them over and over to yourself and to others, but that does not make a false doctrine true.

Being gay is not a sin. Repeating this false statement does not make it true. Appealing to Jesus against the gays is futile because Jesus does not hate gays. Likewise, such an appeal to God is without meaning.

Gay people are normal. Gay people are good; they are as good as straight people. Denial of these facts does not change the facts that gay people are as good as straight people.

Baptists think they are better than other people; they walk around with sure knowledge that gay people are "perverted." Perhaps the Baptists should look in the mirror. Perhpas Baptists should look up the word snob.

Same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, both gay and straight, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal. Like it or not, that is how it is.

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

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

Gay marriage is coming. Baptist views on it are irrelevant, because it is coming. All your explanations about what causes people to be gay, and how being gay in unnatural and will ruin society are pointless.

It is coming, and there is nothing that Conservartive Christians can do to stop it. They can spend all of their efforts for the rest of their lives campaigning against the rights of gay people, but it will be all a waste. Or they can do something more constructive. That is their choice.

While there is no such thing as "Same-sex attraction Disorder," there is such a thing as "religious mania" which can be either an obsessive compulsive neurosis, or it can also be full-blown psychotic illness. This type of mental illness often centers around the person of Christ in which case it can be called a "Jesus-mania" and please rest assured, it is a very real mental illness.