New York governor basically legalizes gay marriage statewide
posted at 9:15 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Why “basically”? Because only the legislature can formally legalize it and all attempts to push a bill through have stalled so far. Which means gays can’t get married in New York … but they can, of course, now get married in California or Massachusetts and then come back to New York, where, per Paterson’s new executive order, their marriages will be recognized with full faith and credit (the same principle that lets straights run off to Vegas and then have their Nevada license recognized back home). Not the cleverest gay marriage gambit ever to be tried in NYS but still darned clever in how it (a) lets him argue semi-persuasively that he’s just following the law as it already is, (b) holds the virtue for most conservatives of at least being imposed by an elected official and not a court, and (c) nudges the legislature to make a move on passing a full-fledged gay marriage law of its own, especially since enforcement in the interim is apt to be messy:
It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.
I’m curious what the HA faithful think. Most of you are avowed federalists; here’s an example of the principle that might not cut your way. Opposition to the move is already stirring, meanwhile, which makes me wonder if the legislature won’t just duck the issue and let Paterson sink or swim on his own. Remember, too, that the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Bill Clinton, don’t forget) says states aren’t required to recognize gay marriages in other states. I wonder if some opponent won’t try to argue that because no New York state law has been passed formally granting full faith and credit to gay marriages, Paterson’s guilty of improperly/unilaterally “requiring” the state to recognize them and therefore in violation of DOMA. Seems like a stretch since DOMA’s really aimed at courts interpreting the federal constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, but any weapon to hand, I guess.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »
“Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions,” he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080128.wpopescience0128/EmailBNStory/Science/
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
…..
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists – that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist.”
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM
really? where is your proof??
again, your research, and wisdom, is lacking.
you are quite idiotic. have you even been to college?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:05 PM
right4life:
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles… what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles, for out of the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander; these are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” (Matthew 15:10, 18-20)
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 10:07 PM
bridgetown :
romans 1:
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Sure, on the Catholic gay thing. The church doesn’t allow any practicing homosexuals in its clergy. They are pretty clear on it. But, my point was about Catholics not being atheists.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
DCGamer,
You can’t believe in both evolution and Biblical creation simultaneously….they are incompatible.
Evolutionism is a lie and like all lies comes from the pit of Hell.
You can’t believe in both the Truth and a lie…when you do, you no longer have the Truth at all.
You can stop being homosexual DCGamer..
There were FORMER homosexuals in the early corinthian church..
You don’t need psychological counseling for your homosexuality DC…you need forgiveness
You don’t have to be in bondage to your habitual sin..you can be free in Jesus Christ!
Don’t think that He can’t cleanse you and change you.
He can.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM
My proof is the AIG website. Google is you friend. How hard do you think that was? You know what rocks? That I didn’t even Google it until you asked for proof that you got it from one of those pseudo science crapholes.
have you even been to college?
right4life
Here’s a hint: when you attempt to mock someone’s education, it’s best you use correct sentence structure. Shoulda capitalized that ‘H’.
Today is irony day. Perhaps you’ll come out of the closet later this evening.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists – that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist.”
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
Christoph Sch–nborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
The position of the Catholic church is much more rational than that of the two Hovindist stooges posting here. Nonetheless, the god hypothesis is not needed for evolution to work.
Annar on May 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
you really are laughable piece of trash.
Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal
New DNA research has questioned previous notions about the evolution of the tuatara
In a study of New Zealand’s “living dinosaur” the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered DNA sequences from the bones of ancient tuatara, which are up to 8000 years old. They found that, although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined. The research will be published in the March issue of Trends in Genetics.
“What we found is that the tuatara has the highest molecular evolutionary rate that anyone has measured,” Professor Lambert says.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cp-ttf032008.php
again, why no ‘macro’ evolution with all this ‘micro’ evolution??? hmmmmmm?? try to answer it instead of dancing around like a fool.
every post you make is a mockery of intelligence, education, logic, and truth.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Just out of curiousity, Right or Olaf, have you considered Christ’s position on the internal combustion engine? Is He OK with your SUV or does God prefer that you drive a hybrid? Perhaps He does not want you to burn fossil fuels at all. Maybe He wants you to ride your bike to work?
What does the Bible tell you about this? If the Bible was meant to be believed word for word as God’s truth, surely He has something to say about this?
What is God’s position on stem-cell research? Perhaps you can find a reference in your Bible?
Is Jesus OK with our efforts in Iraq or is that against His commandments? What about the Korean War? Was that just? WWII? WWI?
Hmmm…..how ’bout astrophysics? Did He happen to tell us how big the universe is?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Even better, a Discovery Institute press release. You are a piece of work.
This is just awesome. You proved you are dishonest little fellow. It was not something you came up with at all. It was a Discovery Institute talking point that was lifted from AIG.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
and of course whats funnier is that you never heard of the creature, until I brought it up.
tell you what, why don’t you prove your precious theory of evolution? go ahead and evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal…you can even name it!!
let me know when you accomplish this…
but you can’t…all you can do is whine ‘we need more time’ prove that evolution is a faith. you believe it, though you cannot see it.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM
eureka alert is from the discovery institute?? oh this is too funny!! are you for real??
you darwiniacs are just caricatures. laughable.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
EurekAlert! is an online, global news service operated by AAAS, the science society. EurekAlert! provides a central place through which universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research can bring their news to the media. EurekAlert! also offers its news and resources to the public. EurekAlert! features news and resources focused on all areas of science, medicine and technology.
http://www.eurekalert.org/aboutus.php
tell me, are you a liar, or just a damned fool??
BWAHAHAHAHHAH
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Olaf, do not presume to lecture me about my faith. My faith life is my own concern, not yours.
Why don’t you worry about yourself. Given your miserable performance here, you will have much to answer for when you face your Creator.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
oh yeah since a wack-job like you wouldn’t know…
the AAAS is the:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
duhhhhhhhhhhh
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Do you really want me to answer all 9 of your silly “questions”?
Yes, there are answers to these questions in God’s Word.
But you, who have learned to love the darkness because of your sin and now hate the light and Truth in your shame, will not be able to understand these things, so why should I bother explaining them to you..
You won’t be able to understand the Truth until you repent,turn form your sin and put your trust in Jesus Christ!
It’s not too late for you..you can put your horrible guilt filled existence behind you today!
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
don’t cast pearls before swine like DC
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Yes, Olaf, I want you to answer my “silly” questions. I would love to know if Jesus would drive an American car or a foreign one. Sounds like you are on a first-name basis with the Big Guy. Surely you must know.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
right4life,
I’m done. Seriously. You got your asinine talking point from some stupid creationist website. AIG, from what I gather. You also got the press release from a creationist website.
You are a fool and a liar. I know where you got it, you know where you got it and that’s all there is to it. You don’t have original thoughts.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Come to think of it, Right and Olaf, did you seek Jesus’ permission before logging on today? Perhaps you can point to the passage in the Bible where God approves of the Internet. This place is full of porn and immorality. Why are you here?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:36 PM
If these loons want to be consistent, the universe should have a radius of no more than 6000 light years for otherwise the light from the far reaches would have started coming here before the big guy said ‘let there be light.’
Or perhaps they think that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and all calculations for the speed of light are completely wrong. In that case they should furnish the revised theory and calculations for the perihelion of Mercury since they would be saying that Einstein was wrong too. The ignorance of these people knows no lower bound,
Annar on May 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM
yeah you’ve made yourself look about as foolish and laughable as a person can in one evening.
you’re a liar who doesn’t even know what the AAAS is!!! moron!!! DUHHHHHHHHHHH
you stupid piece of trash, I’ve enjoyed toying with you.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM
your stupidity is approaching krydor levels!!!
you stupid piece of trash.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Annar, Krydor, Bridgetown, et al. it was fun. Thank you.
Olaf and Right, you do not belong in the modern world. You do not deserve the Internet, electricity, and all other wonderful inventions.
Why don’t you crawl back to whatever medieval cave you came from? At the very least, stop trying to impose your narrow-minded views on the rest of us.
Good night, y’all.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
every time I argue with darwiniacs I can sure see why you desperately want to silence any who disagree.
your hairygod darwin, and his ‘theory’ cannot stand up to reason, truth, logic, or history.
laughable.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM
How does one file a complaint with Allahpundit, Ed or whomever is moderating these threads? I truly do not care what this punk says about me, but I seriously doubt that Michelle Malkin would find this kind of remark even close to being permissable on a site she is connected to.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Shocking proof of gay agenda!
Just so’s you all know, it’s a remix of “Smooth Criminal” starring Fred Freaking Astaire. No one can top Fred.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
no surprise you would try to get me banned. the gay agenda, and the darwiniac agenda are all about silencing those they disagree with.
you’re so ‘tolerant’
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM
@right4life,
you ought to be ashamed of yourself, honestly.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I do believe you pretty much broke the terms of service for commenting.
We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services.
You hit on about 3 or 4 of those adjectives. I’ll be the second to drop an email in the box. And you should know, that you and people like you, are one of the reasons many turn away from God. I hope you live with that for the rest of your life — sure you wont, but thats your gig — and God’s.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I’m not.
I’ve noticed you ‘tolerant’ libs are not upset when Christians are called names.
but I know, some pigs are more equal than others.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I dont think Ive ever identified myself as tolerant or a liberal, sorry. Dont delude yourself into thinking that youre something special — a quick read through this posts comments already prove that wrong.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM
but of course none of the darwinists, or pro-gay people broke their terms of service.
I was offended by much of what was said to me. Why shouldn’t they be banned?
again I know…some pigs are more equal than others.
yeah back to the silencing those who dare to disagree with the gay agenda.
thats so lame, and so overused. you hated Jesus before you ever heard of me. I have no doubt that God can save people in spite of me.
your little guilt trip doesn’t work. sorry.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM
you’re definately not tolerant, at least of christians, or those you disagree with. no surprise there!
why did you post to me then? I did not post to you.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Oh and rude is rude — honey. What someone else does or doesnt do ought not to be the premise on how you carry yourself. Youre going to have a real tough life if the only way you can justify bad behaviour is to point a finger at someone else.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:54 PM
and you know this why? Because I didnt pat you on the back for saying something hateful? Pulease, surely you can do better than that, right?
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM
I find that offensive, and a clear case of sexual harassment.
you should be ashamed of yourself. and you should be banned. Perhaps I will write a note of complaint.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:56 PM
actually, whats not just lame, but sad, is that you feel that that somehow you are self-justifying bad behaviour:
“they already hate God, so I can be hateful, it wont matter”
That’s pathetic.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:58 PM
You feel free to do so. Honey.
your_worst_enemy on May 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM
just because you think I’m ‘hateful’ means nothing. I’m sure you find anyone who dares disagree with you ‘hateful’
you probably have a nice ‘final solution’ in mind for christians, don’t you?
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 12:00 AM
not going to waste any more time casting pearls before swine.
rant away loser.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 12:00 AM
are you suggesting I’m a Nazi? Wow, you really need to get a grip. You seem to have a nice history of sitting on threads here, refreshing, and then just continuing to pick fights. You know there are words for that, right?
It’s called trolling, or flame-baiting.
That seems to be something you enjoy.
your_worst_enemy on May 31, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Big deal John, cry me a river..
Suddenly you’re offended because someone brings up the fact that thousands and thousands of catholic priests have homosexually abused underage boys, producing tens of thousands of “practicing” catholic homosexuals?
It happened..it’s a fact and not a terrible analogy.
It seems like you can dish out anti-Christian “hate speech” all day…but when someone mentions a historical fact you have a hissy fit.
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 12:12 AM
thats the gay agenda. they get free speech, and all the rights, but any who dare disagree are ‘taken care’ of.
one way or the other.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I was sharing directly from Scripture.
Would you care to share those other Bible interpretations?
Christ did refer to homosexuality. You are in denial and you appear to be woefully misinformed.
Your homosexual talking points are stale.
sinsing on May 31, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Okay, even though the attempts are futile, I am going to attempt to engage one more time.
To the people who think that there is a ‘gay agenda’ and that it will destroy their society, etc…
Can you please see that this became an ‘agenda’ because there are people who were being persecuted for just being who they are. Many of them hid it (stayed in the closet) for years because of this. They seek Tolerance.
I don’t see how you people can throw up the Bible as your reason for being so very INtolerant and hateful to your fellow humans.
People USE the words in the bible to act on hate and it’s sickening. And that is why some here have likened your words to that of Islamists/Sharia law.
Sinsing…Christ did NOT refer to homosexuality, but even in your twisted way of coming at that…IF it were correct, Christ would never have condemned, shunned, outcasted, acted as You are want to do.
If you so adamantly believe that all homosexuals are sinful creatures…..how about listening to your bibles and living in action. How about showing love and compassion, sharing the WORD with your neighbors. Nothing in the christ’s teachings says for you to be hateful as you are and actually TURN people AWAY from the holy bible. THat is what you do. You are working Against the christ that you swear to follow. Do you see that?
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 8:16 AM
All this talk of “sin”, religion, slippery slope to polygamy, personal morality issues, etc. are so beside the point that they create a smoke screen to what’s going on and aid the gay marriage activists (since people eventually throw up their hands and say “enough pious sloganeering, who cares”).
Again, all this is about changing the law. Family Law that is based on having a mother + a father. Under the new law it will now be gender neutral based on having Parent A + Parent B. In the case of gay couples — who physically cannot procreate — the equation will be Parent A + Parent C – Parent B.
If this is going to be the new model what are the rights of the sperm stud (formerly known as the natural father) or brood mare (formerly the natural mother)? Do they have any? Has this even been considered?
The proponents of gay marriage have successfully portrayed this as Romeo & Juliet in drag with homophobe conservatives as the Montagues & Capulets, forbidding the star crossed lovers from marrying. As emotionally heart wrenching as that fiction is the reality is far more complex. And the consequences are far more ominous if star chamber judges keep jamming this down society’s throat without a serious debate in the public square.
miles on May 31, 2008 at 8:48 AM
miles on May 31, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Why would laws change?
Single people, and people of the same sex are parents now. They are adopting and so forth.
The rights of said involved are the same. Why would they need to change? I’m confused as to what you’re getting at.
If two people, or one person Adopt children…
there are already laws to deal with these things.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 9:02 AM
propoganda. the only people who are being persecuted are christians who are persecuted by the gays and their allies. as I have documented you have not documented any examples of ‘gay persecution’. let me guess, you’ll talk about matthew shepherd!!! please.
this is the big lie. they do not seek ‘tolerance’ they seek acceptance and the suppression of any word, thought, or deed that they do not approve of. so much for freedom.
the truth is, you and your gay allies are the intolerant hate filled people. you hate christians, and will do whatever it takes to silence them. people like you want to impose a gay sharia law.
its called projection…because thats exactly what you gay imams are seeking to do.
by this you mean ‘re-interpret the bible so it doesn’t upset gays’ your ‘love and compassion’ is not loving at all, it is a lie. is it ‘loving’ to tell drug addict everything’s ok??? the truth is loving. you hate the truth. and anyone who proclaims the truth is ‘hateful’ to you and your gay allies.
I see your ‘christ’ is not the Jesus of the Bible.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 9:49 AM
The bible is full of things that sinners (that would include me) don’t like to hear. People are free to go on sinning but don’t for a minute think that God condones sin. The words in the bible are not part of God’s stand up comedy routine, He means every word of it. You can do all the mental gymnastics that you want but in the end it says what it says.
1Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals…
1Timothy 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
(In Jesus’ words)
Revelation 22:13-15 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Point being we’re all sinners and nobody is able to practice what they preach. It is the human condition. Just don’t around preaching what you practice.
Mojave Mark on May 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I’m not even gonna try to jump back in this thread (much too nice of a Saturday), but I wanted to clarify that for you:
The point was that they used to institutionalize them because they thought something was wrong with them.
SouthernDem on May 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I guess it is all in your interpretation. And you people that are preaching hate for the sinner and not the ’sin’, if you believe homosexual acts to be sinful, are, in my opinion misinterpreting the word you swear to live by.
Matthew 19:11-12
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. These men were commonly used to protect the harems. Since the Word of God is for everyone we can apply the spiritual concept found in Galatians 3:28 where the Apostle Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, a eunuch can be male or female in this passage
There are several major holes in the theory that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. First, The idea that “all” the men of Sodom were gay is ridiculous. For one thing, Lot’s daughters were pledged to be married to men of Sodom. Second, if all the men were homosexuals, why did Lot offer his daughters to appease them? What good would it do to offer a gay man a woman to have sex with? Finally, these people threatened Lot. If he didn’t comply with their wishes they said they would do WORSE to him that to the two visitors. They were also trying to force the door down. They were obviously violent and they were trying to get at two unwilling guests. Whenever you mix sex with violence against an unwilling person you do not have homosexuality, you have RAPE.
In the account in Judges the wicked men were appeased with the female concubine. This proves they were not homosexuals. They were after sex for power or rape. If you read further you’ll learn that the tribe of Benjamin was almost totally destroyed because of this incident. Neither the tribe of Benjamin nor the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because of homosexuality. Both of these accounts clearly describe rape. What the men of Sodom were going to do to the angels in Genesis was what the men of Gibeah did to the traveler’s concubine in Judges.
Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? What were the grievous sins that God judged them worthy of such destruction? What was the great outcry God was referring to in Genesis chapter 18? We don’t need to wonder. The Bible tells us exactly why these cities were destroyed.
Ezekiel 16:48-50
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (NIV)
Ezekiel Chapter 16 is an allegory God used to compare unfaithful Jerusalem to an adulterous wife for committing religious adultery. As you can see God listed the sins of Sodom. No homosexuality is listed there. Those detestable or abominable acts mentioned refereed to the religious rituals popular in that time.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM
my post at 11:08 is not my wording. I only wrote the first paragraph. Just FYI I found my thoughts written out better than I could have done, so I copied and pasted and have no idea where I got it from now, so I cannot give credit where it is due.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Okay, then what are the rights of birth mothers and natural fathers in gay families? And why is not even being discussed?
Right now the law is weighted toward biological parents. Though there are certainly bad parents in all strata of society this is still the proper focus (i.e. the mother + father model). Redefining what a parent is by classifying gay unions as “marriage” is a pendulum swing away from that.
miles on May 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM
miles on May 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Every divorce, or problem with children of biological parents has different circumstances to weigh and judge. Each case is different. Each case is judged differently For The Good Of The CHildren, we hope.
I don’t see how that changes anything.
If a man and woman marry, and the woman has a child, and the man adopts that child, and years later they go through a nasty divorce. I don’t think the courts will side with Mom just because the Father is not a biological father. He gained his rights during the adoption process. All facts would be weighed to find judgement under the rule of law.
I do not see how anything changes with gay couples.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM
yeah 2000 years of Christianity, and 1,500 years of judaism before that, were all wrong. I’m so glad you’ve come to show us the ‘truth’
you must the new messiah!! that the world has been waiting for!! let me know when you recover from a fatal head wound….
the arrogance, and presumption.
its actually much worse…they knew those ‘men’ were angels. do you think they would just rape everyone who came into town?? obviously not…all trade would cease…the sodomites knew they were angels. This is why the Lord destroyed the ancient world with the flood. this is a gross evil
Jude 1:
6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
you totally rewrite the bible to meet your political correctness.
you are a liar and a deceiver. the truth is not in you.
and given your ‘logic’ then nothing is a sin. your arguments for gay marriage can be used by NAMBLA and other pedophiles. ditto for beastiality, polygamy…after all, according to you, they were born that way.
Annanias and sephira were killed for lying to God…people were killed for taking the Lord’s supper inappropriately…
you have no idea what the God of the Bible is really like….you are lying about Who He is.
you desperately need to repent.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You are seriously going to bring up 2000 years of Christianity and what was wrong? How about where the church has stood, in the past, on Slavery, and on the treatment of Women???
Oh, that’s right, you said that I was a good excuse for women Not being able to vote.
Well…can’t argue with a closed-minded, evil-headed gentleman, now can I?
Again, you canNOT logically equate same sex relationships with those that exploit and harm a child or an animal against their wills. Born that way or not, if you harm a child or an animal, if you rape them, it’s not okay. If two adults agree to a loving sexual relationship, it should be between them and God, not you and your idea of your God.
I do repent. All the time. Don’t you worry about my personal relationship with God. We will be just fine. Trust me. or Trust God on that one.
You should join me. Repent for your hate filled words that do nothing but create more animosity and hate and fear and harm on this planet, all in the name of your God.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Wow, it’s great to see such rational debate happening here… I cannot recall the last time I’ve seen so many fallacies of relevance in one place. What purpose does calling others names or questioning their education really serve? I mean, good grief, this site is normally a good place for rational discourse, but I see this particular comments page is not one of those places.
Send_Me on May 31, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Send_Me on May 31, 2008 at 1:04 PM
You’re right. I guess we get a bit worked up.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 1:19 PM
That’s every cult and false religion too!
Mojave Mark on May 31, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Am I the only one that looks at that picture of Governor Paterson and sees Governor William J. Le Petomane?
Natalie on May 31, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Wow! Miss alot when not tied to a computer.
I have previously posted my views that homosexuality is listed as sinful in the bible, along with so many other acts that are common today (lying, stealing, sex outside of matrimony, etc). I find it interesting how some attempt to nullify clear (or a least common reading) of scripture to prove how biblical teaching of homosexuality was actually speaking of something else. Even if every teaching of homosexuality is eliminated, where can it be shown that it is to be accepted as identical to the natural order of male and female.
And quoting general references to God being loving doesn’t cut it. Obviously God loves us sinful people otherwise he would not have sent us a savior. The bible is clear that God does not tolerate sin, any sin (I guess that makes God “Intolerant”). But Gods love does not trump Gods justice. Sin is a crime against God that must be punished. Jesus’ sacrifice paid for that punishment so we don’t need to.
That’S the meaning of John 3:16.
As a christian, I should engage with those who continue in sin (again, all sin, not just homosexuality) just as Jesus did in the gospels, not to justify the in, but to show them that it is sin and to convince them to sin no more.
AverageJoe on May 31, 2008 at 2:08 PM
uh yeah ever hear of WILBERFORCE??? without christianity, slavery would be still worldwide. and without christianity, women would still be just chattel.
your knowledge of history is even worse than your knowledge of the bible.
first of all, animals don’t have wills. where you got the idea they do is beyond me. and really what is the age of consent? do you know? does the Bible say? no. your friends at NAMBLA would argue that what they do is good for children….and you really have no logical reason to opppose them.
and why just 2? how intolerant of you. your ‘logic’ is laughable. by your ‘logic’ anything goes. and everything is OK because there is no sin. laughable.
what do you repent of? since homosexuality is OK for you, what do you consider a sin, and why? according to you, there is no sin, so what do you repent of??
sorry, there is no fellowship between darkness and light, the truth and a lie.
my words are not hate-filled. yours are because you tell people a lie about the God of the universe, and allow then to go on their merry way to damnation.
Ezekial 3:
17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for [a] his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
you do not warn wicked men, you encourage them.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 2:19 PM
It is certainly OK for churches to teach that homosexuality is a sin. It is also OK for organizations to be against meat eaters, race mixers, abortion, polluters, pornographers, etc. That is different than asking what rights are homosexuals entitled to under law.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Well, it is obviously a matter of interpretation of the scriptures.
But, then, this country is based on law, not on anyone’s holy book.
This gay marriage issue is about rights of people being denied those rights because of someone else’s religion.
According to the bible, in your view, I’m pretty sure, divorce is also sinful. Why is that allowed to be in our legal system? Why are you so hypocritical on that issue?
Don’t bother answering. Just think about it.
I realize my speaking to someone who thinks I’m going to Hell is pointless at best.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 3:02 PM
That is the most ridiculous,gross,misinterpretation I have ever seen…
That is just deliberately deceitful!
First you argue that Jesus never condemned homosexuality..when He clearly condemned it multiple times.
Are you also not aware that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law?
Then you try to make a ridiculous argument that the sodomites were not homosexuals when they are clearly referred to as homosexuals..anyone can disprove you just by opening the Bible..it is mentioned numerous times all throughout scripture, from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
but is it is absolutely pathetic that you would try to claim that God is condoning homosexuality by saying “there is neither jew nor greek,slave nor free, neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
You’re really claiming that this scripture is condoning homosexual fornication?? Really?
That is such a deceitful misinterpretation..it’s shameful.
Don’t you care that if some foolish person buys into your lies and ends up in Hell that you are responsible?
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Yes, I realize it.
And if I am responsible for someone else going to hell, then I shall own up to it.
My spiritual path has lead me to work to open people like yours’ hearts to other ways of seeing things.
I read the exact same words you read in the same book.
We come to different conclusions.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 3:29 PM
and one other thing….
The kingdom of heaven is Within you.
Who said that?
I believe it. The kingdom of heaven is within you. As can be the depths of hell. Right here and now. I do not believe that our bodies have to be shed to know these truths.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM
You have a serious problem with reading scripture in context Bridgetown.
Do you realize who Jesus was talking to when He said that?
He was talking to the pharisees, and telling them the kingdom of heaven was within them right now but they couldn’t see Him right before their eyes.
He was literally standing right in front of them and they couldn’t see Him for what He is.
In no way could you make a case for that to mean that heaven and Hell are within a person.
that is another gross misinterpretation.. you have to always consider Scripture in context.
That is exactly what cult leader Michael Beckwith says…while he preaches buddhism,islam and hinduism are all true and sells those materials at his cult “church” named agape in L.A.
As a cult leader he is leading all those who are foolish enough to follow him straight to hell…in other words he is satanic and preaching a satanic message, just like you are.
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 3:43 PM
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Again, my friend, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the scriptures.
I would very much enjoy spending time explaining my discernment on these issues and conversing with you about everything, but I would be typing A Lot and I really don’t want to break Hotair’s servers. ha ha
I’m joking, but seriously….I’d rather talk in person or in a forum that was about this. This thread is about the gay marriage issue and the law of this land.
I’m not sure how to pack all that I know or think into a small comment box, and I’m not sure it is even appropriate to do so.
Please do not say that I have ‘gross misinterpretations’, as I of course could say the same about you. We simply come to different conclusions and we must agree to disagree here. That’s obviously all that can be accomplished….I think…
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 4:11 PM
SaintOlaf,
because I’d never heard of him, Michael Beckwith….
I looked him up, read as much as I could find about who this person was and what was being taught by him.
I didn’t find very much info, but what I Did see, I don’t see where it contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Though I could be wrong, because there isn’t much out there.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 4:34 PM
uh yeah right…lets see, my interpretation fits the last 2000 years of orthodox christianity, yours does not, but of course you have a new revelation
sure.
translation: knowing you’ve lost the argument about christianity, its time to divert
its about you saying they have a right to marry. There is no ‘right’ for gays to marry. just as there is no ‘right’ to healthcare. your ‘rights’ are whatever the politically correct opinion of the day is…just as your ’sins’ are whatever offends gay people.
you know you should really read the bible. its pretty plain and simple:
Matthew 19:
7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
so divorce is allowed. and in the right circumstances is not a sin. please.
I have not mentioned divorce as I am aware of until now. and you have the gall to call me a hypocrite. who do you think you are? you are a lying hypocritcal piece of trash.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I hear you. You think that I am trash.
Please do yourself a favor and stop addressing me.
Thank you.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Dare I jump in with this?
For those against gay marriage, how does Adam and Steve…or Mary and Jane…getting married HURT YOU in ANY WAY?
For now, God should be left out of the argument. I’m very God-rearing myself as a Catholic, but this is secular legislation. And if there’s churches who choose to perform gay marriages, then that’s fine too.
But please….stop acting high-and-mighty and stay out of other peoples business.
It’s the same old broken record from you guys and gals. gheesh.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 5:10 PM
LoL Jetboy, Good luck to you.
I tried to get an answer for that question many posts ago.
It won’t happen, but I assure they will tell you that you are going to Hell if you don’t see it their way. It is rather exhausting.
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Maybe its the transcendent gayness of their marriage that would somehow make me feel my plain old straight marriage wasn’t so special. Alternatively, perhaps the exclusive club of marriage that I was joining, somehow would get less exclusive since now they let the gays join. Somehow the stigma gays would give to marriage would weaken my marriage commitment which is based more on societal peer pressure than on the love and comfort of my wife or the devotion to nurturing my children.
Anyway, that’s my best shot at it.
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I answered this quite a few posts ago…but since I know doing any research is difficult for you libs, try this:
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences….
There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
I know that facts are wasted on you gay imams.
*we* are the ones that will have to pay for the societal breakdown that occurs from family breakdown…just like in the black community.
really??? well why don’t you high and mighty gays stop trying to silence, intimidate, and harass all who disagree with you? stop trying to force your lifestyle down our throats.
yeah you lies and BS get old too.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM
you’re a liar. I posted this before.
appparently its written at a level beyond your level of education.
and I’ll address anyone I please. but I will not cast pearls before swine.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 9:00 PM
do you ever have an independent thought?
just curious.
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Independent of what: political party, book learnin’, Madison Ave?
dedalus on May 31, 2008 at 9:26 PM
right4life on May 31, 2008 at 8:58 PM
That doesn’t answer the question. Actually, what that says is that there is No evidence there to say that gay marriages have anything to do with the decline of hetero marriages. Where does it show that it harms You or your marriage.
I am not a “lib”, or a “liar”, nor am I a “gay”
And what in the world does the black community have to do with gay marriage? I’d blame that problem on Welfare….
Debating the breakdown of the ‘family’ is one thing, but to blame it on gay marraiges, which would be what, like 2 percent of the population? doesn’t add up.
Did you even READ what you posted a link to?
Try some honesty, eh?
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 9:35 PM
First, let’s clear the air on a couple of things…
A) I’m most certainly not a “lib”
B) I’m not now, nor ever plan to be, a “gay imam”
C) I’m no “BS’er” nor am I a “liar”.
Name-calling and unsubstantiated labels are out of the liberal playbook. Are you a liberal? Ok, Ok…I know you’re not a liberal.
Now…let me reflect on you last post there, and show you that you’re wrong. Remember, I’m gay, but I’m no liberal. Politically I’m probably more conservative than most.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Bridgetown, why are you still trying to reason with Right or Olaf? Based upon many of their comments above, it is obvious that they are very narrow minded bigots who will absolutely refuse to hear the other side. They profess to be Christians, but their words betry them as anything but that.
DCGamer on May 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM
DCGamer on May 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM
I know. I think you’re right. I guess I think that if I keep trying to shine the light in, I’ll hit upon a crack in their misguided minds.
Their profession to be Christians is the saddest part of it, don’t you think? ugh!
bridgetown on May 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM
First of all, please tell me where, on any marriage license, does it say couples must have children. And leave the Bible out of it for now…as far as the laws of this country are concerned, marriage is a secular joining. Like I said, you can be married in a church if you like, but it’s not a requirement.
Yeah…let blacks get married, and all hell breaks loose. Is THAT what you’re saying?
How is it “high and mighty” to defend one’s self? You’re the one throwing accusations around. Telling people “no!”.
When have I ever “silenced, intimidated, and/or harassed anyone around here because I disagreed with them?
Again, all this adds up to that broken record.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Good to see rational discourse like yours, and others as well, around. But there will always be someone around the corner waiting to crack a Bible upside our heads.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 10:02 PM
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I have no problem with Christians. I am a practicing Catholic myself. However, I cannot abide bigots. By their own words, Right and Olaf have identified themselves as bigots. This thread would have had a much more rational debate had these two not showed up.
DCGamer on May 31, 2008 at 10:19 PM
You just flunked the spiritual discernment test bridgetown.
Beckwith and his “agape” cult are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
He is a part of “the secret” cult also which you probably love and think is Biblical.
You know the book “the secret” it’s the same thing the Oprahbama and her cult preach nonstop…”all roads lead to God…islam,buddhism,hinduism are all true religions”
Meanwhile…Jesus Christ teaches that the only way to the Father is through Him.
You are lacking in the gifts of the Spirit…most importantly spritual discernment which is vitally important in these end times.
What is it that makes you defend homosexuality and claim that it is acceptable to God?
I am assuming you are a woman..maybe you have had some lesbian experiences in the past and are trying to justify yourself? What is it?
If so.. what you need is not justification of sin..you need forgiveness for sin.
There were former homosexuals in the early corinthian church, just as there are former homosexuals in the church today. They were cured and cleansed by the Spirit because they repented,turned from their sin and accepted Jesus Christ.
They are not still practicing homosexuals, because you cannot be a Christian and continue in sin (and homosexual sin is one of the most serious sins listed in the Bible).
I pray that you will repent from leading people astray with satanic lies about God and sin and I pray that you will accept the Holy Spirit and receive insight and the gift of discernment.
SaintOlaf on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Absolutely. After all, two men who love each other are much more dangerous than a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.
I sure wish that garlic or a crucifix would scare you away, Olaf. Your bigotry is unwelcome here.
DCGamer on May 31, 2008 at 11:11 PM
The great and all-knowing SaintOlaf has spoken! Bow down, ye heathens, and be struck on the back of ye head with SaintOlaf’s Bible Bat!
Gheesh…doing the great work of Christ by condemning in His name. If I recall, the Bible clearly states NOT to judge. For he who judges will be judged accordingly in his own time.
Splinters to logs, my friend. Splinters to logs.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I think that as we’re both Catholic, in that sense we don’t go around condemning anyone else. We’re taught to look within our own sins ant transgression, and do what we can to lead the best Christan lives we can. The Evangelical/Fundamentalist crowd see’s it their mission to condemn in God’s name.
Which is entirely anti-Biblical.
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 11:19 PM
And Jesus never mentioned it even once. btw, whatever Bible you’re reading, fornication and sodomy as you know it, isn’t taken from the direct translation.
If I may ask, which Bible do you read?
JetBoy on May 31, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Sorry to hit and run, its just that I’m only checking the thread every now and then.
My two bits. How does gay marriage harm me or my own marriage? Actually it wouldn’t if I did not have to acknowledge it. But as it can clearly be seen here, anyone who will speak out saying that there’s something “un-natural” about same sex couples are called intolerant, bigoted, backward, and worst. As things are going, and the classification of gays as a protected class, any such talk will be criminalized as “hate speach”. I will be marginalized, possibly jailed, or at least sued for preaching what I believe. My kids will be indoctrinated in school, undermining my teachings and desire to continue my religious and cultural heritage.(I can see the day when teaching my religion to my kids will be classified as child abuse, and ‘child services’ will get the courts to take them away.) Its not just that those promoting, dare I say it, the Homosexual Agenda want “equal rights” (as they put it) but they want everyone forced to accept as normal what is obviously, biologically speaking, not normal. Any disenting viewpoints must be crushed.
Other than that, I guess gay marriages do not affect me at all, so let them get married.
AverageJoe on May 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM
And, to turn this thing full circle… the Gov. of N.Y. should not be allowed to circumvent the legislature by just declaring state agencies recognized marriages that otherwise are illegal in the state. But unfortunately, the Dems wont touch him and the Republican are in a shambles in NY. I can’t wait to see what other edicts he’s going to impose one he realizes this.
AverageJoe on June 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Jetboy…yes Jesus clearly condemned homosexuality(as I explained in earlier posts).
Tell me do you think that Jesus came to destroy the Law(which also clearly condemns both homosexuality and fornication)?
You clearly do not want to see the Truth.
Because you are darkness(due to your sin) you hate the light and have learned to love the darkness. The very same darkness that will lead you straight to death and Hell.
Do you really want to debate me about scripture?
You won’t believe me no matter what I say(because you hate the Truth) but who is someone to believe?
Do you really think anyone believes you, an apostate “catholic” homosexual who never quotes Scripture except one verse out of context?
I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly…you’re on a path to destruction jetboy.
We are in the endtimes and make no mistake..when the church is caught up before the day of wrath comes…you will not be among them.
If you are a practicing homosexual, you are not a Christian.
And like all non Christians, when you die you will go to Hell, unless you repent,turn from your sin and accept Jesus Christ.
Make no mistake about that.
And because you practice one of the most serious sins against God possible, you will suffer a far more extreme punishment in Hell.
Do me a favor and watch this video, which clearly explains how those who commit the more serious sins(like homosexuality) will suffer more intensely in Hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pez2nv2BUZA
I don’t want you to got to Hell Jetboy.
But I’m not going to lie to you and tell you something that will make you feel comfortable in your sin.
I sincerely hope you will repent,turn from your sin and put your trust in Jesus!
It’s not too late for you..
You can be cured of your homosexuality…you don’t have to die in your sins.
SaintOlaf on June 1, 2008 at 12:30 AM
There is no rational discussion with SaintOlaf or right4life, so I’m going to address:
AverageJoe on May 31, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Average Joe, you said that it is biologically not normal for a person to be gay.
Where do you get this information?
bridgetown on June 1, 2008 at 9:05 AM
You see no difference because you are close minded on this subject. Citing divorce custody disputes is apples and oranges. There is a family history for judges to base rulings on.
Gay marriage opens the door to a whole new family structure. Yes, there are some existing gay parents and examining those families should be part of this debate. Melissa Ethridge & Lou Diamond Phillips’ ex-wife were trumpeted as being the ideal lesbian parents, featured on network shows and major magazines. Yet within two years they broke up and fought over the kids. Sure, these things happen. But if you’re going to be the spokeswomen selling this enlightened new lifestyle then the consequences of what you’ve done should be examined. Is breeding a bunch of dysfunctional kids really in society’s interest so their parents can feel better about their self image?
Gay marriage inherently implies that these families will have at least three parents involved — in ADVANCE of having children, not after a break-up. What is wrong with asking for that fact of nature to be acknowleged? Existing law was not written to deal with it. Are we going to need a “Biological Parents Bill of Rights” or what?
miles on June 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I said it is obviously, biologically speaking, not normal for same sex coupling. There is no denying that. Its obvious in the form and function of the body organs in question. The ways in which homosexuals attempt to use their bodily organs to simulate the normal natural uses also prove this . Square pegs in round holes, if you will. Sure you could probably do this with external manipulation, but succeeding to get the square peg into the round hole would not make it normal.
One could argue that man has transcended the confines of their biological limitations, and that their mind has allowed them to adapt to evolving types of relationships (Homo v Hetero sexuality). That would take the conversation outside of biology and into psycology. Therefore, my statement that heterosexual unions are obvious, biolgically speaking, still stands.
AverageJoe on June 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »