Senate gay-marriage pool update: Democrat Tom Carper — and Republican Mark Kirk — “evolve” on SSM

posted at 12:41 pm on April 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

And so, after a solid week of me picking Carper every day in the gay-marriage pool as the next Democrat to flip, only to be disappointed every time, he finally flips … the day after I switch my pick to Bill Nelson.

Congrats to JohnGalt23 for scooping up Carper after I dropped him. See why I don’t bother filling out NCAA Tournament brackets anymore?

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public’s opinion on gay marriage – and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I’ve been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that’s why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I’m endorsing marriage equality.

This is the first Democratic flip that might be worth taking at face value rather than as a transparent, cynical electoral gambit to stay on the base’s good side. Carper had zero reason to hold out this long unless he was genuinely conflicted about it. The state hasn’t gone red in a presidential election since 1988; the vice president of the United States, who comes from Delaware, is already on record as supporting SSM; and Carper himself won reelection just last year by more than 35 points. He’s in less electoral danger than virtually anyone else in the Senate. He held out, presumably, because he’s part of the 65+ age demographic that’s most resistant to gay marriage, but given the political leanings of his state, he must have been getting the pro-SSM pitch from constituents for years now. They finally wore him down.

Speaking of blue-state Senators finally changing their mind, here’s Mark Kirk of Illinois becoming the second Republican in the caucus after Rob Portman to fully endorse gay marriage.

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back– government has no place in the middle.

His statement’s less explicitly religious than Carper’s but they’re similar in how they emphasize love over legalistic arguments about equality. Kirk was one of three Republicans I named in the initial post about Rob Portman as predictable flips on this issue if only because it’d cause a problem for him in his very Democratic home state in the general if he didn’t. (He’d already endorsed civil unions.) Collins and Murkowski were the other two, and although they’re still technically “evolving” they’ll be there soon enough. Kudos to alchemist19 for predicting that Kirk would be the next domino to fall among Senate Republicans.

Let’s make the new round of the pool a little harder. Name the next Democrat and Republican to flip. Collins and Murkowski don’t count; we’ve already declared them to be de facto flippers for pool purposes. I’ll stick with Bill Nelson, thereby ensuring that the next Democrat will be anybody but Bill Nelson, and I’ll take Kelly Ayotte on the GOP side. Exit question: Now that there are 50 Senators on record as supporting gay marriage, they’ll at least try to repeal DOMA next year if the Supreme Court doesn’t do it for them, no?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Up in Canada, have there been any cases of preachers being put on trial for preaching against promiscuous heterosexual sex?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

This isn’t Canada. We have a First Amendment in this country.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

It’s not at all new. When Paul was writing the Epistles in the mid to late 50s, Nero was the dictator of the Roman Empire. During his reign from 54 to 68 AD, Nero took on several male lovers, and was involved in at least two public same-sex partnerships.

I mean obviously I did not know Paul, but when confronted with a mentally insane, gay pagan dictator who was deemed to be the Antichrist and publicly executed Christians in the streets, it’s no surprise to me that Paul did not take a friendly view of same-sex relationships in his writings.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans (55-57 AD), 1 Corinthians (56 AD), and 1 Timothy (62-67 AD) were all written prior to Nero’s “marriage” to Sporus in 67 AD. Thus, your theory is pure crap.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Gays WILL take churches to court.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Let them. They will lose.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.

JetBoy on January 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I don’t answer to you. I only answer to Christ. Work on your own sins, pray for me and I’ll pray for you.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Revelation 1:15-16

New International Version (NIV)

15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Yeah, have fun with that.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM

This isn’t Canada. We have a First Amendment in this country.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

We have a second one, too. And, it’s in the process of being infringed upon, as well.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I don’t answer to you. I only answer to Christ. Work on your own sins, pray for me and I’ll pray for you.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Matthew 18:15

New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With Sin in the Church

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Just in case you thought “The Bible” was only a TV show.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Let them. They will lose.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

You have more faith in robed tyrants and the government than I do..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM

A church (or a mosque or synagogue) is a voluntary organization/gathering of people. When we are already dealing with laws that infringe on people’s religious freedoms outside of church, churches potentially become vulnerable as the legal protection gets trampled. As that is happening, who knows where to draw the line?
The practice of religious freedom means that it would have necessary effects in the public square, although the US is not and should not become a theocracy.
If anything, the US is becoming a “theocracy” in the opposite direction in its kowtowing to the religions of antireligion, “tolerance”, and materialism.

22044 on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So, according to Kirk, those of us who haven’t “evolved” have a closed mind and less respect for others. Way to accept the premise of the Godless left who are working overtime to destroy our society! Another useful idiot exposed!

PaddyORyan on April 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Hey, at least he brought a snack to Rand Paul while Rand was filibustering. I bet no close-minded bigot would have done that!

/sarc (for HappyNomad’s sake)

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans (55-57 AD), 1 Corinthians (56 AD), and 1 Timothy (62-67 AD) were all written prior to Nero’s “marriage” to Sporus in 67 AD. Thus, your theory is pure crap.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Also, the “marriage” to Pythagoras/Doryphoros occurred well after Romans and 1 Corinthians were written, in 64 AD (the same year Nero’s persecution of the Christians is believe to have begun).

To say that Paul’s stance on homosexuality was influenced by Nero is not borne out by the chronology.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Up in Canada, have there been any cases of preachers being put on trial for preaching against promiscuous heterosexual sex?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

You spin around a topic as good as any liberal.

As someone said, this ain’t Canada.

You just keep pulling up a case here and a case there…and seem to apply it as representative of all or most gays. Show me one little iota of evidence to support that claim…that the majority of gays are anti-religion.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Which leads to the issue of respect. My first rule of respect is discretion The sexual orientation of anybody is one of those areas where I don’t give a damn. When meeting or working with somebody, I don’t give a damn if they like boys, girls, or sheep. All I demand is that whatever their orientation they don’t shove it in my face.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Agreed, for the most part. Of course it does depend upon what you are defining as “shoving it in my face”. I don’t consider someone telling me in normal conversation that they are taking their boy/girlfriend to the movies on Saturday night or that today is their significant other’s birthday so they are going to buy a present for them after work, etc. to be crossing the line. Now if they want to tell me how they are going to perform XYZ on their significant other, or how they are feeling in the mood to do such with some random person they hope to hook up with, that’s where I would say they are crossing the line.

As for sheep, um…no. I don’t want to know anything about that.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Matthew 18:15

New International Version (NIV)

Dealing With Sin in the Church

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Just in case you thought “The Bible” was only a TV show.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Apparently, you missed the “just between the two of you” part there.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

If your point here, as it usually seems to be, is to belittle me, or shame me…it will never happen.

No, my point was that it was ironic that you would accuse someone of cherry-picking verses from the Bible when you have previously misrepresented what scripture says.

I don’t answer to you. I only answer to Christ. Work on your own sins, pray for me and I’ll pray for you.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

We’re all sinners. I wasn’t singling you out as such. Just pointing out you’re no biblical scholar.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Gays WILL take churches to court.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Let them. They will lose.

The activist gays and their attorneys that intend to sue churches, to make examples of and extract financial judgements, have already scoped out gay friendly judges in advance. In far too many courts, when law suits do come, they will win.

You can bet that when SSM is the law of the land, we’ll be witnessing suits to silence churches on the matter and force acceptance of SSM.

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM

We’re all sinners. I wasn’t singling you out as such. Just pointing out you’re no biblical scholar.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I don’t believe I ever claimed to be a “biblical scholar”, did I?

Are you a biblical scholar?

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I meant to add: What sin did I commit that necessitates you or anyone here that you tell me about it?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

like all liberals, he is anti-traditional marriage.

Pork-Chop on April 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Just to be clear.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Apparently, you missed the “just between the two of you” part there.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I really doubt you’d be less incorrigible if this was in private.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I’m a Liberal? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha…oh, I can’t breathe…..bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…hold on a minute….bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

You’re no Conservative. You backed Crist in Florida.

Gimme a break.

The “gay marriage” thing has never been about “love”. It is a social experiment, designed to change America’s cultural mores.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM

In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography, an Albuquerque photography studio co-owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for refusing to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex “commitment ceremony.” The court ordered the business to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees.

If it was little surprise that the commission found in favor of Willock, it was a shock when, last month, the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The three-judge panel rejected Elane Photography’s claim that forcing the business to photograph the same-sex ceremony against its conscientious objections constituted “compelled speech” in violation of the owners’ federal and state rights. It also rejected the Huguenins’ claims to protection under the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In March, Hands On Originals, a T-shirt business in Lexington, Ky., refused to make shirts for an upcoming gay-pride parade. In response, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington filed a complaint with the Lexington Human Rights Commission.

Add to Elane Photography and Hands On Originals organizations such as the Ocean Grove (N.J.) Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, sued for barring a same-sex civil-union ceremony from its property, and individuals such as Don Mendell, a Maine school counselor investigated for endorsing traditional marriage in a 2009 campaign ad, and it becomes clear that threats to religious liberty are not isolated incidents. They signal a nationwide assault on the same right at stake in the battle against the HHS mandate: the right of businesses and private citizens to abide by the dictates of conscience, free from government coercion.

(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302764/new-mexico-assaults-religious-liberty-ian-tuttle)

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM

I meant to add: What sin did I commit that necessitates you or anyone here that you tell me about it?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

We have a second one, too. And, it’s in the process of being infringed upon, as well.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Warning! Warning! Step away from the goalposts!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I don’t believe I ever claimed to be a “biblical scholar”, did I?

You opened the door when you accused someone of “cherry-picking scripture.”

Are you a biblical scholar?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

No, but I do have enough of a grasp of it to not go around writing things like “Homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.”

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Warning! Warning! Step away from the goalposts!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

The Second Amendment’s not in the Constitution? Quel surprise!

Dadgum, you’re dense.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM

You have more faith in robed tyrants and the government than I do..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I’m just going off history and history shows they’ve not compelled churches.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I’m a Liberal? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha…oh, I can’t breathe…..bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…hold on a minute….bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

You’re no Conservative. You backed Crist in Florida.

Gimme a break.

The “gay marriage” thing has never been about “love”. It is a social experiment, designed to change America’s cultural mores.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Where did I call you a liberal? I clearly said “You spin around a topic as good as any liberal”. And you’re doing it right here! Please, carry on.

Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Hey, looks like you actually read the scripture passage this time before posting it. Good for you.

Because you seemed to “take away” from that first gospel quote you put up.

Again, what’s my sin?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

The Second Amendment’s not in the Constitution? Quel surprise!

Dadgum, you’re dense.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM

More that I don’t see why you’re bringing the Second Amendment into this. I’m a lifetime NRA member and a passionate advocate of gunowner’s rights but that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed here.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Kirk supports ZERO-nada, none, bupkis-restrictions on abortion-so his ‘evolution on ssm was only a matter of time. He needs to quit pretending and just switch parties already.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

We have a second one, too. And, it’s in the process of being infringed upon, as well.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

When have we ever had a period that our civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution haven’t been infringed upon? There has always been a tug-of-war between government and the People over civil rights. Read up on US history and how short a time after the passage of the Bill of Rights we had the Alien & Sedition Act which directly violated the free speech rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Do you really think something like this will never happen again? Wrong. That was only the first time and we’ve seen in every period of American history similar attempts by government to “push the envelope”, usually by one party or the other, in seeking to address whatever “wrong” it was expedient to ignore the Constitution over. So expect that fight to continue forever regardless of what happens with SSM.

As for Canada, despite the behavior of the US Feds which needs to be constantly smacked down by the People, our structural systems just aren’t very comparable. Canadians looks at rights and the role of government very differently than we do. It works for them and they as a sovereign nation they can run their own affairs as they see fit, so this isn’t really a critique of Canada but how most Americans would view their system being implemented here in the USA. Actions by our government opposed to civil rights are aberrations which violate our Constitution, yet for Canada they are built right into their system at least from our POV. Take a look at their Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 2: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

This section seems good with much of what we find guaranteed in the US Constitution. Yet wait a sec, this is Section 2 of their Charter so what is in Section 1 you say? Here is where it gets tricky for an American POV (bolding mine):

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Uh-oh. Something like this in our Constitution would constitute a giant loophole the Feds would exploit to the detriment of the People, especially by partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. I see nothing even remotely similar in our Constitution.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I am not much for wholesale drug legalization or use but maybe that would take care of the SSM problem. I have heard everyone loves everyone when they are high. :)

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Then, you, JB, or alchemist, explain this paragraph, and why it could not possibly be happening in America.

Add to Elane Photography and Hands On Originals organizations such as the Ocean Grove (N.J.) Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, sued for barring a same-sex civil-union ceremony from its property, and individuals such as Don Mendell, a Maine school counselor investigated for endorsing traditional marriage in a 2009 campaign ad, and it becomes clear that threats to religious liberty are not isolated incidents. They signal a nationwide assault on the same right at stake in the battle against the HHS mandate: the right of businesses and private citizens to abide by the dictates of conscience, free from government coercion

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Just look at all those “normal” heterosexual married couples that have shown up on Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch!

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Sad commentary if this is to be passed off as normal.

DDay on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I am not much for wholesale drug legalization or use but maybe that would take care of the SSM problem. I have heard everyone loves everyone when they are high. :)

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s true. After a couple bowls with my lib friends I don’t even think about politics :)

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I am not much for wholesale drug legalization or use but maybe that would take care of the SSM problem. I have heard everyone loves everyone when they are high. :)

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM

LOL!

Come here, melle, give me a hug!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of kids in this world who don’t have parents and spend their lives being shoved from foster home to foster home by bored government employees.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Which is the natural outcome of the people who are currently supporting gay-sex marriage who insisted that children didn’t need parents and that unmarried and single “parents” were just as good.

The hilarity is when liberals get their way, then point to the social ills that their way caused. But that’s typical; liberals and gay-sex marriage supporters are nothing but bigoted tantrum-throwing children.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

It’s not at all new. When Paul was writing the Epistles in the mid to late 50s, Nero was the dictator of the Roman Empire. During his reign from 54 to 68 AD, Nero took on several male lovers, and was involved in at least two public same-sex partnerships.

I mean obviously I did not know Paul, but when confronted with a mentally insane, gay pagan dictator who was deemed to be the Antichrist and publicly executed Christians in the streets, it’s no surprise to me that Paul did not take a friendly view of same-sex relationships in his writings.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans (55-57 AD), 1 Corinthians (56 AD), and 1 Timothy (62-67 AD) were all written prior to Nero’s “marriage” to Sporus in 67 AD. Thus, your theory is pure crap.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Why would that shoot the theory down? I only pointed out that Nero had two same-sex partnerships during his lifetime. It’s not like one day he woke up, got same-sex married and that’s the defining moment that suddenly changed Paul’s views.

If Nero was gay, judging by his actions, he was gay long before entering those two same-sex partnerships. Like I said, he also took on numerous male lovers, as did 13 out of the 14 Roman Emperors. Nero was only 1 of 2 Emperors that entered a partnership, however.

That plus the whole Hellenistic practice of pederasty, where mostly straight adult males took on young boy lovers.

I was only commenting that if I were a persecuted religious sect that was being burned alive in the streets by mentally insane, pagan gay-acting dictators and Romans, I’d be righteously against gays too.

Applying that righteous and justifable dislike 2,000 years in the future to same-sex couples looking to enter a committed, monogamous and loving partnerships … Different question entirely.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

More that I don’t see why you’re bringing the Second Amendment into this. I’m a lifetime NRA member and a passionate advocate of gunowner’s rights but that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed here.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

He’s saying that if government is already infringing on the 2nd Amendment, then a precedent has been set and many judges/legislators will have no qualms about infringing on the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Sad commentary if this is to be passed off as normal.

DDay on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

It is normal in the gay and lesbian community.

The hilarity here is that JetBoy screams and cries and complains about what heterosexuals do, but then acknowledges that such behavior is normal, expected, typical, and endorsed by the gay and lesbian community.

Gays like JetBoy can only equal the lowest common denominator of opposite-sex marriage. They aren’t capable of the fidelity, monogamy, and responsibility that normal opposite-sex couples that aren’t on Springer practice every day. Allowing gays like JetBoy to marry is nothing more than adding more Springer couples, because JetBoy and his sex partners will behave no better, will do no better, and in fact will scream and cry that asking them to do so is “homophobic”.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

OK.

The Methodist Pavilion in New Jersey was an outdoor property on a boardwalk where a number of marriage ceremonies had taken place. We’re not talking about a church itself, but rather a piece of boardwalk a Methodist group owned. In exchange for making this boardwalk open to the public the group enjoyed a property tax exemption on it. A lesbian couple wanted to use the pavilion for their ceremony, the Methodist group objected on religious grounds and the couple said they violated their promise to make the property open to the public in exchange for the tax exemption. A judge ruled that they had violate the promise to make the property open and gave them a choice, either allow the ceremony to take place on their property or lose the tax break. They chose the latter. The ceremony did not take place at the pavilion and they gave up their tax break on that small bit of property. They retained the tax break for 99% of the boardwalk but they did lose it for that one little bit. And just as a reminder, we’re talking about a boardwalk pavilion, not a church.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM

It’s true. After a couple bowls with my lib friends I don’t even think about politics :)

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

LOL!

Come here, melle, give me a hug!

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Mwahh!

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM

He’s saying that if government is already infringing on the 2nd Amendment, then a precedent has been set and many judges/legislators will have no qualms about infringing on the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The Second Amendment and the First Amendment have very different legal histories.

So does this mean you’ve given up trying to find an example of a church being compelled to perform and interracial or homosexual marriage that they objected to or are you still Googling?

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

For years, Catholic Charities didn’t adopt to unmarried couples and single parents, but it was gays that took them to court. Gays WILL take churches to court.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Like someone else has said, they will lose when it comes to churches.

As for Catholic Charities, they were recipients of public funding and chose to bow out of adoption services rather than continue taking tax dollars along with the strings attached to them. Their choice. I have little sympathy for religious groups or any others than seem to believe they are free to set their own policies (which they are) but at the same time are entitled to public dollars with no strings attached. They have a right to the former under the First Amendment, which the Supremes correctly IMO reiterated in BSA v. Dale, yet this doesn’t include the latter.

Catholic Charities is one of the nation’s most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations). (New York Times; bolding mine)

Now if there is a regulation or state law in place which prevents groups like Catholic Charities from operating even without tax dollars? I’ll gladly stand by them in that fight because such is a clear violation of the First Amendment in my view. Yet when it comes to public dollars, not a chance.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

If Nero was gay, judging by his actions, he was gay long before entering those two same-sex partnerships. Like I said, he also took on numerous male lovers, as did 13 out of the 14 Roman Emperors. Nero was only 1 of 2 Emperors that entered a partnership, however.

That plus the whole Hellenistic practice of pederasty, where mostly straight adult males took on young boy lovers.

Which is what gay-sex liberals like ZachV use in their attempts to claim that gay-sex marriage was previously acceptable.

And then, hilariously:

Applying that righteous and justifable dislike 2,000 years in the future to same-sex couples looking to enter a committed, monogamous and loving partnerships … Different question entirely.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Actually, given the behavior of gay-sex leaders and examples of community values like Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and Andrew Sullivan, Nero was an amateur.

Isn’t that funny? ZachV claims to be all about commitment and monogamy, but screams at and blasts the Christians who emphasize exactly that and supports and endorses the gay-sex marriage pushers who are doing the exact opposite.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Then, you, JB, or alchemist, explain this paragraph, and why it could not possibly be happening in America.

Add to Elane Photography and Hands On Originals organizations such as the Ocean Grove (N.J.) Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, sued for barring a same-sex civil-union ceremony from its property, and individuals such as Don Mendell, a Maine school counselor investigated for endorsing traditional marriage in a 2009 campaign ad, and it becomes clear that threats to religious liberty are not isolated incidents. They signal a nationwide assault on the same right at stake in the battle against the HHS mandate: the right of businesses and private citizens to abide by the dictates of conscience, free from government coercion

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Do you or do you not believe that most gays are anti-religion? If so, show me some source for that. You’re spinning again…changing the topic by picking up pieces of this or that with every next comment.

Answer that, and I’ll answer your cases you cite there. Quid pro quo, Clarice…

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I believe we discussed this the other day. A church is not a building.

This is the same thing that’s being pulled with Obamacare. Saying Christians can freely practice their faith in a designated building and calling that religious “liberty”.

Meanwhile anything that churches sponsor or support is up for grabs as are the ways in which individual Christians try to live out their beliefs as Christians in how they conduct their business.

This isn’t religious liberty. This is creating Christian ghettos.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM

as did 13 out of the 14 Roman Emperors

I hate to burst your anti-historical bubble there, but there were many, many more than 14 emperors. Unless you stop counting at Hadrian in 138 AD, and ignore everyone through Romulus Augustulus in 475/6.

I was only commenting that if I were a persecuted religious sect that was being burned alive in the streets by mentally insane, pagan gay-acting dictators and Romans, I’d be righteously against gays too.

ZachV on April 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

But Paul’s objections to homosexuality were written prior to the Roman persecution of Christians beginning in earnest. 64 AD marked the real starting point.

And I’m not sure what Hellenistic pederasty has to do with your theory, since the only Hellenized people persecuting the Christians were Jewish authorities, who also condemned homosexuality.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

So tell those who aren’t against religion to speak out against those who litigate against Christians. Speak out amongst gays you know. Tell them it’s an outrage that Christians are sued for their beliefs.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

So does this mean you’ve given up trying to find an example of a church being compelled to perform and interracial or homosexual marriage that they objected to or are you still Googling?

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Actually, you’ve already provided an example of a church being sued and punished for its dismissal of a minister according to its own requirements.

What you won’t deal with is that the fact that the case had to be litigated through multiple levels at a cost of MILLIONS of dollars in order to even get to the Supreme Court, and along the way, bigoted leftist judge after bigoted leftist judge voted against the church’s religious freedom and in favor of punishing the church.

Meanwhile, I have already posted examples of how gay-sex liberal bigot Christine Quinn and gay-sex liberal bigots in Chicago openly violated the First Amendment and inflicted financial harm on a business to punish it for not supporting gay-sex marriage — and Christine Quinn was in New York, a state whose gay-sex marriage law supposedly contains “religious protections”, but which got her nothing but the kudos of the bigot gays you endorse and the bigot Obama Party you obey.

And finally, we have lesbian bigot Chai Feldblum, endorsed and supported by the LGBT community and currently with the power to punish churches directly given her position at the EEOC, stating flatly that there is no such thing as religious liberty and that churches must be forced to do whatever gay-sex bigots like her say to protect the “dignity” of gay and lesbian people.

By the way, lesbian bigot Chai Feldblum was the reason the first church mentioned made it to the Supreme Court, given her insane hatred of religious beliefs, so now we have a direct example of a lesbian bigot abusing her governmental position to file frivolous lawsuits that directly violate a church’s rights.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

This is one time I wish I were an openly gay senator so I could proudly proclaim, “I am not in favor of gay marriage. Let gay couples register their unions at city hall, have a party… whatever, but do not call what they have ‘marriage,’ because it’s an impossibility.”

dpduq on April 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Please run for office. We need people that will speak the truth.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Again, what’s my sin?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Again, what’s my sin?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Which is also a lie, BTW (you know, the 10 commandments?).

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Do you or do you not believe that most gays are anti-religion? If so, show me some source for that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Ayup.

With the full endorsement and support of the gay and lesbian community and the gay-sex marriage-demanding community.

You lose, liar.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Then, you, JB, or alchemist, explain this paragraph, and why it could not possibly be happening in America.

Add to Elane Photography and Hands On Originals organizations such as the Ocean Grove (N.J.) Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, sued for barring a same-sex civil-union ceremony from its property, and individuals such as Don Mendell, a Maine school counselor investigated for endorsing traditional marriage in a 2009 campaign ad, and it becomes clear that threats to religious liberty are not isolated incidents. They signal a nationwide assault on the same right at stake in the battle against the HHS mandate: the right of businesses and private citizens to abide by the dictates of conscience, free from government coercion

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I believe I said that “there has always been a tug-of-war between government and the People over civil rights” and “expect that fight to continue forever regardless of what happens with SSM”, among other things to indicate that we’ve never “had a period that our civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution haven’t been infringed upon”. I do not know about every case you cite here, but I would say that the HHS mandate is a violation of the First Amendment. As for the Ocean Grove case, this involved a tax exemption they were granted for their pavilion by New Jersey which included a proviso that it be open to use by all the public – not just those folks they wanted to allow.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Hobby Lobby is not a church.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

And a church is not a building.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Actually it has been awhile, but I believe that the Massachusetts branch stated they would not take state money and were told that they still could not refer out. They couldn’t get licensing in Illinois, Mass or D.C if the didn’t adopt to homosexual couples.

Like I said, in Illinois they had allowed Catholic charities to refer UNMARRIED couples out for decades.. Unmarried gays came along and suddenly it was discrimination.

Catholic Charities was one of the most successful adoption agencies especially in Massachusetts. Apparently the state cared more about a small group of the population than the did about the “children.”

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

So tell those who aren’t against religion to speak out against those who litigate against Christians. Speak out amongst gays you know. Tell them it’s an outrage that Christians are sued for their beliefs.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

LOL.

Have you not seen JetBoy and his fellow antireligious bigot ZachV and enabler alchemist19 ranting at me and calling me a self-loathing traitor to the “gay cause” for doing exactly that?

One must understand that the gay and lesbian community is overwhelmingly made up of bigots who want all Republicans and Christians dead and order gay teenagers and adults to vote as the Obama Party orders or kill themselves.

To expect JetBoy or the other gay-sex marriage supporters to do the right thing is a lost cause. They are nothing more than typical Obama Party minority brainwashing subjects, with no sense of right or wrong and no ability to think for themselves.

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

As for the Ocean Grove case, this involved a tax exemption they were granted for their pavilion by New Jersey which included a proviso that it be open to use by all the public – not just those folks they wanted to allow.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM

So, their religious beliefs should not be taken into consideration?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Again, folks, if you want to defend the rights of religious organizations to make their own decisions on whether or not to marry gays, get ahead of the Dan Savages and make sure minority churches are among the first sued for access under gay marriage laws.

This will cause enough of a backlash that the tactic will become political poison for any gay couple who tries to sue a conservative religious organization into compliance.

Sekhmet on April 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Actually it has been awhile, but I believe that the Massachusetts branch stated they would not take state money and were told that they still could not refer out. They couldn’t get licensing in Illinois, Mass or D.C if the didn’t adopt to homosexual couples.

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

If that’s the case then I’d support them in a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:03 PM

So, their religious beliefs should not be taken into consideration?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Of course not, don’t you know religious freedom only belongs in church..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Again, folks, if you want to defend the rights of religious organizations to make their own decisions on whether or not to marry gays, get ahead of the Dan Savages and make sure minority churches are among the first sued for access under gay marriage laws.

This will cause enough of a backlash that the tactic will become political poison for any gay couple who tries to sue a conservative religious organization into compliance.

Sekhmet on April 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Actually I look forward to the Dan Savages of the world trying to marry in a mosque, but I know the chance of that happening is the same as pigs flying..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

So, their religious beliefs should not be taken into consideration?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Not when it comes to receiving tax dollars because to do so would violate the religious beliefs of those who do not practice their particular faith tradition. To put it another way, you have no more right to take money from my pocket to support your faith tradition than I do to do likewise to you in support of mine.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

First off, I believe that the majority of the 3% of Americans who practice your lifestyle, do not attend church, nor could care less about “gay marriage”. It has been proven that most gay couples only stay together a couple of years, at best.

It is only a vocal minbority of gay Americans, who are lobbying for the use of the word “marriage”.

As my dear, fellow Christian INC , told you…perhaps you need to tell those gays who have such hatred against Christians, as was demonstrated in Lansing, MI, in that Catholic Church, to stifle themselves, if you wish to be perceived as “main stream” and not a “threat” to American Christianity.

To repeat myself, LeRoy and Bubba, do not constitute “man and wife”, and therefore, will never be a “marriage”.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Then, your president has no right to give my tax dollars to the murderous Muslim Brotherhood.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

northdallasthirty on April 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I hadn’t seen the recent rants (I didn’t go back through the thread), but I wrote that without any expectation of JetBoy saying oh, yes, I have been, and I will.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM

INC on April 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM

You always have beem smart. :)

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Then, your president has no right to give my tax dollars to the murderous Muslim Brotherhood.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012.

As for giving money to the Muslim Brotherhood, I’m not certain what exactly you are referring to. If you mean sending US tax dollars to Egypt which is currently ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood party, I would agree that we shouldn’t do so but not on First Amendment grounds.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Thank you!

Not my own wisdom, as you know!

INC on April 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Is Islam not a religion?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Actually I look forward to the Dan Savages of the world trying to marry in a mosque, but I know the chance of that happening is the same as pigs flying..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

No. In the Westboro Baptist Church. Put that on pay-per-view and you might raise enough revenue to balance the federal budget.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

And a church is not a building.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM

We’re talking about buildings though, or is there something else in mind when those opposed to SSM are talking about churches being compelled to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Actually I look forward to the Dan Savages of the world trying to marry in a mosque, but I know the chance of that happening is the same as pigs flying..

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Dan Savage probably wants to get married in a Catholic church or a conservative Protestant one, just to stick it to the religious people he hates. So head him off at the pass by helping a gay couple whose *back of hand to forehead* one dream is to get married at Ebenezer Baptist Church. Let’s see Dan Savage’s enthusiasm for suing Whitebread Street Bible Church once MLK’s old congregation has its tax-free status threatened.

The thing about tribalism is that all you need to do is set the tribes to war with one another….

Sekhmet on April 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Is Islam not a religion?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Yep, sure is. Yet the money in this case was given to the Egyptian government, not a religious group. That a religio-political party like the Muslim Brotherhood currently controls that foreign government is immaterial. It’s stupid move for the US to give a foreign government money that works against us but it’s not unconstitutional.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Dan Savage probably wants to get married in a Catholic church or a conservative Protestant one, just to stick it to the religious people he hates. So head him off at the pass by helping a gay couple whose *back of hand to forehead* one dream is to get married at Ebenezer Baptist Church. Let’s see Dan Savage’s enthusiasm for suing Whitebread Street Bible Church once MLK’s old congregation has its tax-free status threatened.

The thing about tribalism is that all you need to do is set the tribes to war with one another….

Sekhmet on April 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Would be a way to pit one pet Democratic victim group against the other. I often wondered what would actually happen if a gay gene was discovered and how that would play out against the prochoice lobby.. Seriously do the Dan Savages of the world believe that these woman who would abort a girl baby or a down syndrome baby because it doesn’t fit in their perfect world wouldn’t abort a gay baby?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

No. In the Westboro Baptist Church. Put that on pay-per-view and you might raise enough revenue to balance the federal budget.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Very tempting I must say, but alas still unconstitutional. I’d also be quite annoyed having to stand with WBC in defending against such an egregious violation of the First Amendment.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM

So, any money that any religious groups has recieved from Uncle Sugar is un-Constitutional? What about the Faith-Baswd Initiatives?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Would be a way to pit one pet Democratic victim group against the other. I often wondered what would actually happen if a gay gene was discovered and how that would play out against the prochoice lobby.. Seriously do the Dan Savages of the world believe that these woman who would abort a girl baby or a down syndrome baby because it doesn’t fit in their perfect world wouldn’t abort a gay baby?

melle1228 on April 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Guess what? This very question is a big reason some of our gay posters started questioning the Leftist orthodoxy and ended up here…Am I right, y’all?

Sekhmet on April 2, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Very tempting I must say, but alas still unconstitutional. I’d also be quite annoyed having to stand with WBC in defending against such an egregious violation of the First Amendment.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM

You’re absolutely correct that it would be totally unconstitutional. Hilarious, but still unconstitutional.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2013 at 4:29 PM

So, any money that any religious groups has recieved from Uncle Sugar is un-Constitutional?

No. Any money received by such religious groups that seek to exclude others based on religious grounds quite possibly is.

What about the Faith-Baswd Initiatives?

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:27 PM

A foolish deal religious groups should never have entered into with government. Once you invite government in you open the door to all sorts of mischief. Tell me that you aren’t as disturbed by the Faith-Based Initiative under Obama as more liberal-minded folks were under Bush. I doubt you can. Accept the king’s shilling and you are bound to do his bidding.

JohnAGJ on April 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM

So tell those who aren’t against religion to speak out against those who litigate against Christians. Speak out amongst gays you know. Tell them it’s an outrage that Christians are sued for their beliefs.

INC on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I do all the time! ALL. THE. TIME!

What’s your friggin’ point?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 4:53 PM

First off, I believe that the majority of the 3% of Americans who practice your lifestyle, do not attend church, nor could care less about “gay marriage”. It has been proven that most gay couples only stay together a couple of years, at best.

It is only a vocal minbority of gay Americans, who are lobbying for the use of the word “marriage”.

As my dear, fellow Christian INC , told you…perhaps you need to tell those gays who have such hatred against Christians, as was demonstrated in Lansing, MI, in that Catholic Church, to stifle themselves, if you wish to be perceived as “main stream” and not a “threat” to American Christianity.

To repeat myself, LeRoy and Bubba, do not constitute “man and wife”, and therefore, will never be a “marriage”.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I didn’t ask what you “believe” about most gays and religious faith…I asked for some evidence of such. Forget it…you’re a lost cause at this point…this whole thread, all you’ve done is spin, spin, spin…”Well what about this?”…”Well what about that?”…”Well what about…” over and over.

But hey, you do what makes you happy. Like I said, pray for me if you truly care. I promise I will pray for you.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Again, what’s my sin?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Nutstuyu on April 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans (55-57 AD), 1 Corinthians (56 AD), and 1 Timothy (62-67 AD) were all written prior to Nero’s “marriage” to Sporus in 67 AD. Thus, your theory is pure crap.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Paul is not a very good example, anyway, because he also wrote that women should be silent in church. So why obey him on homosexuality, but ignore him on other topics? That’s not consistent.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM

This way, they can silence their opponents and seek to teach the youngsters that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle choice. It is already happening now in second grade classrooms with curriculum that includes a book about two princes falling in love, marrying and living happily ever after. We are talking about indoctrinating 7 and 8 year olds in the public school system. Yet, teaching against homosexuality from the church pulpit is considered a hate crime in Canada. Do you see how religion is totally under siege here?

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I view that not as a problem of SSM, but a different problem entirely which does need to be addressed. And one that I think is far more important in general than is SSM.

Schools shouldn’t be teaching sexuality in any way, shape, or form, in my opinion. Not heterosexuality, not homosexuality, and not what is or isn’t “normal”. That’s a parent’s job. I think the problem you are citing is far more basic… SSM just expands on it. The problem is many years of parents slowly abdicating their responsibility to teach their kids about morality and how to function in society, and handing it over to the schools where it never belonged in the first place.

Parents should be teaching their kids about morality, religion, personal responsibility, manners, and sexuality, not the schools. The school’s job should be to teach them math, science, and how to properly write and speak the king’s english.

If parents of every political flavor got up and told the schools to get bent when it comes to teaching things that belonged in the “classroom” at home, then we wouldn’t have to worry about whether schools were teaching moralities (or immoralities) with which the parents didn’t agree.

gravityman on April 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM

You’ve indicated in the past that you are a Catholic who practices his faith. So what does your priest say?

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Homosexual acts are condemned in, among other places, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:22, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Which leads to the issue of respect. My first rule of respect is discretion The sexual orientation of anybody is one of those areas where I don’t give a damn. When meeting or working with somebody, I don’t give a damn if they like boys, girls, or sheep. All I demand is that whatever their orientation they don’t shove it in my face.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

But that’s practically unavoidable. Can’t I hold hands with my husband in public, because that shoves my sexual orientation in other people’s face?

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM

You’ve indicated in the past that you are a Catholic who practices his faith. So what does your priest say?

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Any conversation between myself and any priest was in the confessional…and it’s private. If your asking if I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuals, and homosexuality, then yes…I know.

But my question remains unanswered: Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the bible.

JetBoy on January 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Yup, the Bible speaks of it in such glowing terms:

Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Genesis 19:5 – And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. … [7] And [Lot] said, I pray you, … do not so wickedly. … [8] … only unto these men do nothing; …

Deuteronomy 23:17 – There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, … [31] …, without natural affection, …

1 Corinthians 6:9 – …, nor effeminate, …

2 Timothy 3:2 – For men shall be lovers of their own selves, … [3] Without natural affection, …

Jude 7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, … going after strange flesh, …

And, for the record, concerning the matter of homosexual marriage:

Genesis 2:24 – Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: …

Matthew 19:4 – And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: …

See, also, Mark 10:6-7 and Ephesians 5:31.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM

But my question remains unanswered: Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Asked and answered, supra.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Homosexual acts are condemned in, among other places, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:22, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I didn’t say “homosexual acts”…I said “homosexuality”.

If you’ve even read the bible yourself and not simply go googling for quotes, you’d see heterosexual acts like pre-marital or exra-marital sex is condemned as well…but you never seem to mention that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Paul is not a very good example, anyway, because he also wrote that women should be silent in church. So why obey him on homosexuality, but ignore him on other topics? That’s not consistent.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM

The prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) is likely a later interpolation. In 1 Cor 11 Paul already acknowledges that women are able to speak, pray, and prophesy aloud in church. In many of the earliest extant manuscripts, the prohibition against women speaking in church actually appears at the very end of chapter 14 (after verse 40), indicating it was a later addition.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Apart from some mistranslated texts there…”effeminate” as a term for homosexuals, for one…not one single passage you quoted condemns homosexuality.

You did better than steebo77…so I’ll give you credit for the effort…but nothing you quoted says anything about condemning homosexuality.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

If you’ve even read the bible yourself

I have.

and not simply go googling for quotes

I’m not.

You’d see heterosexual acts like pre-marital or exra-marital sex is condemned as well…but you never seem to mention that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Because no one was stating or implying that the Bible doesn’t include prohibitions against them as well.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

If you’ve even read the bible yourself and not simply go googling for quotes, you’d see heterosexual acts like pre-marital or exra-marital sex is condemned as well…but you never seem to mention that.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

The difference is, most here see pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex as the sin that it is. The fact that they do it, makes them sinners, and they know it. That is precisely why we look to Christ – because we are sinners. And because we will always be sinners.

You homosexuals, on the other hand, appear to believe that your conduct, with those of your own sex, is not sin and, therefore that you have no need for Christ when you engage in same.

Sin is sin – some understand that. Others don’t.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I didn’t say “homosexual acts”…I said “homosexuality”.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Having an attraction to members of the same sex isn’t inherently sinful, so I do see the distinction you’re making.

However, am I right in concluding that you believe the Bible prohibitions against homosexual acts would not apply to homosexual acts conducted between the two parties of a homosexual “marriage”?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Apart from some mistranslated texts there…”effeminate” as a term for homosexuals, for one…not one single passage you quoted condemns homosexuality.

You did better than steebo77…so I’ll give you credit for the effort…but nothing you quoted says anything about condemning homosexuality.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Yes, yes, of course, it wasn’t a proper translation.

You’ll see what you want to see. That’s why I, normally, don’t bother debating the subject with you.

But, with your posts, supra, I felt the duty.

JB, I don’t point my finger at you and say, sinner! I am, too. We all are.

What I object to and hoped to bring to your attention is that your homosexual conduct is sinful, and needs to be recognized as such.

But, you will continue to excuse it, deny it and call it righteous in the eyes of God.

That’s your prerogative.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Any conversation between myself and any priest was in the confessional…and it’s private. If your asking if I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuals, and homosexuality, then yes…I know.

But my question remains unanswered: Where in the bible does it condemn homosexuality?

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM

JetBoy, I was not asking you what you said to a priest in a confessional, but your bringing up confession in the context of my question about your homosexuality indicates to me that you inwardly really do know how God feels about this issue.

KickandSwimMom on April 2, 2013 at 5:33 PM

You did better than steebo77

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM

How did he do any better than me when we cited the same verses?

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Like I said, I’m not getting into the scripture tossing. The entire gay marriage debate has…no read this carefully…nothing to do with religion. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. If you want to condemn me, have at it. If you don’t like me, I’ll live. If you don’t care for gays, I’m sure most won’t lose any sleep over it.

And for the record, the bible speaks of many, many things. What we, as God’s creation, should and shouldn’t do…how we should treat each other…how to live our lives. And when you get right down to it, God is pure LOVE. His Son endured the cross and grave for all our sins. Yours. Mine. Everyone’s. So keep on using the Word of God to bash on gays if that’s what makes you happy…but I’m guessing….only guessing…that His love for all sinners trumps your own disapproval of certain ones in your mind.

Peace…JB, out.

JetBoy on April 2, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4