Political Insider

By Chuck Anziulewicz

December 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

TO RICHARD LAND & RALPH REED:

No one is forcing you to approve or accept marriage for Gay couples. Gay couples aren’t interested in “forcing” churches to marry them, any more than Muslim couples demand to be married in Catholic cathedrals. And I can PROMISE you that when Gay couples get married, it affects heterosexual marriage NOT ONE BIT. Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they have always done. None of that will change.

But eventually you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that Gay Americans exist. We are every bit the taxpaying, law-abiding citizens out Straight counterparts are, and as such we pay into the system of legal and financial supports that marriage conveys. To deny us a place at that table is NOT equal protection under the law.

I don’t care whether you call it “marriage” or “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships.” Lesbian & Gay Americans are finally fed up with being treated like second-class citizens. Nothing but complete fairness and equality will suffice.

By Chuck Anziulewicz

December 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

TO RICHARD LAND & RALPH REED:

No one is forcing you to approve or accept marriage for Gay couples. Gay couples aren’t interested in “forcing” churches to marry them, any more than Muslim couples demand to be married in Catholic cathedrals. And I can PROMISE you that when Gay couples get married, it affects heterosexual marriage NOT ONE BIT. Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they have always done. None of that will change.

But eventually you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that Gay Americans exist. We are every bit the taxpaying, law-abiding citizens out Straight counterparts are, and as such we pay into the system of legal and financial supports that marriage conveys. To deny us a place at that table is NOT equal protection under the law.

I don’t care whether you call it “marriage” or “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships.” Lesbian & Gay Americans are finally fed up with being treated like second-class citizens. Nothing but complete fairness and equality will suffice.

By Scott Sueker

December 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

The reality of the biblical “ban” on homosexuality it this: God created everything on earth including gays. The “ban” is a simple truth test of faith. God would not deny one of God’s creations! How dare we!

By Unhealthy for Society

December 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Nothing I read stated that Land and Reed believe that churches will be forced to “marry” gay or lesbian “couples.” But I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the next step.

You’ll note the New Mexico case where a gay couple brought legal action against a photographer who refused to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of the couple. The photographer “declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony”. The photographer was ordered by the court to pay the gay couple $6,600. Why couldn’t they just secure a photographer who thinks homosexuality is hip, trendy, and just a “lifestyle”. It is gays, not Christians, who want to shove their lifestyle down peoples’ throats (no pun intended).

The decline of civilizations tracks closely with the growth and approval of homosexuality. Have you assessed the state of our society lately? Even if homosexuality were not a sin, a society would be wise to minimize its destructive impact on civilization. From a public health perspective alone there is justification for not advancing homosexuality by granting gay couples the same marital status as heterosexuals.

You may not like it, but this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, one of which calls homosexuality a sin. Don’t blame me, blame the Bible. But many people (including yours truly) happen to agree with it. Don’t like it? Take it up with God.

The equal protection clause is a flimsy means to advance your goals. So is trying to compare racial discrimination with being opposed to gay “marriage.” Heck, if gays can be “married” under this justification, why not brothers and sisters and cousins? Don’t they merit equal protection?

One question for you: If gays just want to be treated the same as heterosexual couples, then why do you people—in your so-called “gay pride” parades—often wear disgusting S&M leather costumes that promote bondage, perversion, and aberrant sexual behavior? And remember: all of this is in public view in front of children.

I don’t see heterosexual pride parades with people acting out simulated sex scenes on public streets.

There may be “religious” case for gay marriage but not one that God approves of. Many people who are “religious” are not believers in Christ.

Obey God and leave all the consequences to Him.

By f*** you

December 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this

F*** all of you F*!

By Sloppy Joe

December 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this

Why do we need a religious case to justify gay marriage? So the Mormon and Catholic Churches are against gay marriage. If another chuch will marry two guys or two gals then why does one chuch get to dictate God’s Law to the other? And why does any church get to make their so-called God’s Law to the state?

By beachmom

December 8, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

It is telling that members of the Religious Right merely condemned Newsweek, while not responding to the biblical references from the article. They do not care to engage in debate or use reason or logic to defend their position. I don’t see how anyone can follow them when they can’t back up their beliefs with a credible argument. The truth is the Bible is full of contradictions. To use it to defend intolerance is wrong.

By beachmom

December 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

It is telling that members of the Religious Right merely condemned Newsweek, while not responding to the biblical references from the article. They do not care to engage in debate or use reason or logic to defend their position. I don’t see how anyone can follow them when they can’t back up their beliefs with a credible argument. The truth is the Bible is full of contradictions. To use it to defend intolerance is wrong.

By pand0ra

December 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

@Unhealthy for Society “Even if homosexuality were not a sin, a society would be wise to minimize its destructive impact on civilization. “

Destructive impact?! It’s narrow religious beliefs like that, that lead to extremism and intolerance. Quantify your statement and back up your words. Name something that was physically destroyed because of someone being gay. You make it sound like gay people go running around raping people to death.

And do you tell your gay friends statements like that? Do you even have any gay friends?

I am God and I command you to be a tolerant person.

By Unhealthy for Society

December 8, 2008 7:26 PM | Link to this

You are accurate on one count: Christianity is a narrow religious belief. The only way to get to the Father is through the Son: One Way. A narrow path indeed.

Homosexuals “enjoy” shorter lifespans, are associated with more physical abuse than heterosexual relationships, and are seldom monogamous over the long-term.

As for quantifying my statement regarding the destructive impact of homosexuality, you must be Rip Van Winkle.

If you want details, here’s your link: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdffiles/statisticsonhomosexuallifestyle.pdf

By Cherokee

December 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

yeah unhealthy - Lou Sheldon is a totally reliable source.

Everything you said in your second paragraph is a lie. Wonder what the Bible says about bearing false witness?

By Karen

December 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this

To “unhealthy for society” - I see that you like to hide behind the Bible and use it as your weapon to treat gay people as second class. That is weak. Unless of course you also follow all other parts of the Bible just as literally.

For example, I assume you: throw stones at menstruating women who attend church (Lev. 15), abstain from ever trimming your hair (Lev. 19) advocate death to all who work on Sundays (Exodus 35), encourage parents to sell their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21), refrain from eating shellfish which are also an abomination(Lev. 11) refrain from wearing cotton blend fabrics, or eating pork, etc. etc. etc.

But you don’t, do you? No. Instead, you are content to be just another holier-than-thou hypocrite hiding your bigotry toward people you don’t understand behind a curtain of smug religion-based false righteousness.

As a Christian myself, my priority is to promote God’s offer of salvation to the world. Personally I don’t see how keeping gay people from certain secular benefits in life serves that purpose.

By Julian Morrison

December 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Link to this

Don’t you suppose there’s a reason gay lives can be full of stress? How about you and your cronies piling on the abuse, discrimination, and bigotry? And you have the temerity to blame the victim. Shame on you!

By Kelsie

December 8, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

Fortunately, reason and law is finally eclipsing legislated disdain (whether it be masked as religion-based or not). That’s why even Republican-leaning State Supreme Courts (such as California’s) are deciding cases in favor of all adults being able to chose their spouse, rather than some being able to, and some not. The Newsweek article says, O.K., you want to use the Bible regarding marriage, well what about this? In response, Richard Land and Ralph Reed say, don’t confuse the issue with facts!

By Thomas Alex

December 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Link to this

If you want Traditional Marriage back, why stop there. Start taking all Traditions Back, end ;interracial marriage, unmarried childbearing , premarital sex, divorce, and adultery.

Does Marriage fall under the definition of Church or State? If so, should there be a separation of the two?

Why are there no straight pride parades? Maybe because straights already have all their Rights and Freedoms. Sexual perversions, I find it funny when the straight community blames the gay community for such acts. When it was the straight community that created such perversions, the gay community are just followers.

Homosexuals don’t have monogamous relationships. I really would like to know where people get this misinformation from. I find a 50% divorce rate to be a red flag, supporting that heterosexuals don’t have monogamous relationships either.

By Unhealthy for Society

December 8, 2008 8:35 PM | Link to this

As a putative Bible scholar, you know that with the resurrection of Jesus Christ many tenets of the Old Testament were fulfilled. For example Christians don’t sacrifice animals today as atonement for sin.

In an effort to provide the truth, nothing in Leviticus 15 makes any statement about stoning women. I just read the chapter twice and notice you fail to cite the verse. But I don’t believe it is the part that you don’t understand that bothers you.

God’s message to us indicates that He is not interested in our “secular benefits” or whether He is keeping gays (or anyone at all) from the “secular benefits”.

“Secular benefits” is a code word for sin. Sin separates us from Almighty God.

Romans 2:27 says in part: “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

This particular “secular benefit” separates man from God and subjects the “beneficiaries” to His judgment.

Your argument is not with me because any judgment I make has no consequences to you.

Your argument is with Jesus Christ. Might I suggest that this approach is unwise?

By Unhealthy for Society

December 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Link to this

A final note: Gay activists produced and ran a despicable anti-Mormon ad aimed at defeating California’s Proposition 8 which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The ad depicts two Mormon thugs breaking into a lesbian couple’s home, stealing their wedding rings, and ripping up their marriage certificate. [And we’re all familiar with those lawless Mormons, right?]

In today’s society people of faith are fair game for anything one wants to throw at them. Expressed differently, religious persecution exists in America and is a growing trend.

Gays have been the aggressors, not the victims, in this debate. By resorting to anti-religious bigotry, homosexuals have revealed their true nature.

I am unaware of any prominent gay groups decrying the commercial. Between the disgusting parades referenced earlier and this anti-religious bigotry, homosexual groups haven’t garnered much sympathy for their cause.

It is unlawful to discriminate against homosexuals in an employment environment and many, many other protections remain that apply equally to gays and heterosexuals. Nobody I know favors harming homosexuals; we just favor the traditional definition of marriage.

But most Americans—even liberal Californians—agree that marriage should remain exclusively between one man and one woman.

Regardless of any obfuscation of the issue, If you have an “anything goes” attitude regarding marriage, you are in the minority. Most Americans favor the traditional definition of marriage.

That is why Prop 8 passed in California despite the hateful ads.

By ron mexico

December 8, 2008 9:58 PM | Link to this

Maybe God is a little queer, after all we are all made in his/her image

By Kelsie

December 9, 2008 12:09 AM | Link to this

Unhealthy wrote: “Gays have been the aggressors, not the victims, in this debate” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. That’s a good one.

Listen, Unhealthy, religion is a choice. If you chose to believe in talking snakes, virgin births, transsubstantiations, and a whole lot of other things that couldn’t possibly be true, don’t complain when it causes you conflict with reality. It’s YOUR choice.

By Gene S., Chicago

December 9, 2008 12:10 AM | Link to this

The Religious groups that are leading their crusade against gay marriage are systematically destroying the very institution they seek to “protect”. When the tide turns, and believe me, it will, most people gay or straight, will be so turned off by the idea of marriage that no one will want it. Marriage is getting linked dangerously to the idea of exclusivity and discrimination and religion is making itself all the more irrevelant everyday it does by causing it to so. The less religion is able to adapt to the modern world, the less we need it.

By Gene S., Chicago

December 9, 2008 12:13 AM | Link to this

The Religious groups that are leading their crusade against gay marriage are systematically destroying the very institution they seek to “protect”. When the tide turns, and believe me, it will, most people gay or straight, will be so turned off by the idea of marriage that no one will want it. Marriage is getting linked dangerously to the idea of exclusivity and discrimination and religion is making itself all the more irrevelant everyday it does by causing it to do so. The less religion is able to adapt to the modern world, the less we need it.

By jerry beauchamp

December 9, 2008 12:40 AM | Link to this

I am so tired of “traditional marraige”. Read history, back only 3 or 4 hundred years ago royals were getting married at 5 and 6 and they had to perform the act by 12. This is what marraige was then. If these people want to rely on tradition then they are in big trouble. The history of marraige is not what they think it is.

By Dale

December 9, 2008 3:58 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is that the issue was fairly voted upon and the side that lost was/is not happy. Why can’t anyone ever accept the will of the people? Let each state decide, then deal with it or move to an area with the same beliefs. It is really that simple. No name calling is necessary.

By Julian Morrison

December 9, 2008 4:58 AM | Link to this

Why can’t those negroes accept the will of the people (as it was in the 1960s) and keep to their separate drinking fountains, separate schools, etc? Why can’t those gays accept their second class status? How about, because rights are too important to be voted away. The majority is wrong.

By Tom

December 9, 2008 6:58 AM | Link to this

Unhealthy for Society at December 8, 2008 7:26 PM: “Homosexuals … are seldom monogamous over the long-term.” Sounds like some Republican politicians I know. Can we ban those?

By Carlos Navarro

December 9, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this

The Mosaic Law did prescribed the death penalty for homosexuality, but it also did for murder, rape, kidnapping, witchcraft, idolatry, treason, sedition, contempt of court, temple desecration, cursing one’s parents, pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, and bestiality—this last sin apparently a nagging problem in the shepherding culture of the Chosen People, not only for the people, but for the sheep and goats as well.

Mentions of sodomy—sexual perversions in general—crop up several times in the Old Testament, but homosexuality as such only twice. In the New Testament, Paul denounces both male and female homosexuality, but Jesus Christ, the ultimate authority on sinfulness, doesn’t mention homosexuality at all. Clearly, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because foilka there were violent and wicked, not because they were queer.

By Carlos Navarro

December 9, 2008 7:27 AM | Link to this

The Mosaic Law did prescribed the death penalty for homosexuality, but it also did for murder, rape, kidnapping, witchcraft, idolatry, treason, sedition, contempt of court, temple desecration, cursing one’s parents, pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, and bestiality—this last sin apparently a nagging problem in the shepherding culture of the Chosen People, not only for the people, but for the sheep and goats as well.

Mentions of sodomy—sexual perversions in general—crop up several times in the Old Testament, but homosexuality as such only twice. In the New Testament, Paul denounces both male and female homosexuality, but Jesus Christ, the ultimate authority on sinfulness, doesn’t mention homosexuality at all. Clearly, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because folks there were violent and wicked, not because they were queer.

By Carlos Navarro

December 9, 2008 7:33 AM | Link to this

The Mosaic Law did prescribed the death penalty for homosexuality, but it also did for murder, rape, kidnapping, witchcraft, idolatry, treason, sedition, contempt of court, temple desecration, cursing one’s parents, pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, and bestiality—this last sin apparently a nagging problem in the shepherding culture of the Chosen People, not only for the people, but for the sheep and goats as well.

Mentions of sodomy—sexual perversions in general—crop up several times in the Old Testament, but homosexuality as such only twice. In the New Testament, Paul denounces both male and female homosexuality, but Jesus Christ, the ultimate authority on sinfulness, doesn’t mention homosexuality at all. Clearly, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because folks there were violent and wicked, not because they were queer.

By Copyleft

December 9, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

Who CARES what a random religion has to say about homosexuality? We’re talking about marriage, a civil contract under U.S. law.

Since when have religious beliefs been a concern when making law in this beautifully secular, free nation?

By Camus

December 9, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

The most unhealthy influence in our society is the idea that people who believe in lunatic fairy tales are proffered respect because they call their lunacy religion. If someone tried to argue that gay marriage is wrong because a unicorn from Neptune came to her in a dream and recited bad poetry, we would laugh that person out of the public square and straight into a mental ward. Why then should we tolerate the injection of indefensible lunacy into our public discourse and allow these fanatics to use their hallucinations to force other people to follow their rules?

Everyone should be allowed to believe what they wish. Everyone should be allowed to worship, or not, as they see fit according to conscience. I would not dream of trying to force someone to live or believe as I do. Everyone should even be allowed to say whatever crazy sh!t they want, as long as they are willing to bear the repercussions of their actions, such as mockery and ridicule.

But when people start to act like their imaginary sky fairy gives them the right to dictate what other people can do, they are no better than the Taliban, and there is no reason to offer them tolerance or respect.

By The Problem With This Country

December 9, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

You need to go out to the internet and find the entire article by Land and others. They did not fail to quote the Bible on this. It was conveniently left out of this article.

The Bible is for every generation. People like to make it meet their needs by saying that it doesn’t work for this generation. This generation doesn’t work for the Bible. That is what is wrong with this country. If eveyrone went back to the Bible and tried their best to live as Jesus did, this country would not be in the turmoil it is in. The Bible is very specific about marriage and sexual immorality. It is also specific about how we should live our lives and love one another and not judge others. Pray for those that don’t know Jesus. Jesus will be the judge on Judgement Day and see who’s name is in the book of life. You can only get in the book if you ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior and your life will change because of it. That does not mean your life will smooth sailing and you won’t sin anymore. It just means you will know you have a place in Heaven and that you will be forgiven. Your life must change if you have truly accepted him.

Quoting chapter and verse, Land argued that the Bible lays out a very clear prescription for opposite-sex marriage, starting with the passage in Genesis where God pairs Adam and Eve and proceeding through Ephesians, in the New Testament, when the apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church.

“How can you address the subject of marriage from a religious perspective and utterly ignore the two foundational texts that deal with marriage: Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5?” Land asked. “If a student turned a paper in to me on a religious argument for or against gay marriage and neglected to reference the two foundational texts, I would give them a pretty poor grade based on that alone.”

The Bible constantly refers to man and woman as becoming 1. It says in Letivitccus something about “a man shall not lie with another man as he lies with a woman”; Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the sexual immorality that was happening and homosexuality was a very key thing happening in this city, but it was all sinful.

ANYONE can come to Christ and ask for forgiveness and ask Jesus to live in them. It is from then on that you must try to live a life like Christ, but it does NOT mean you will be perfect and won’t still sin sometimes. If it did, then you would immediately got to Heaven where you would be perfect. Christ loves all and there is no sin greater than another. He says not to judge but to love. Hate the sin, but love the sinner. That means anyone that has lied, stolen, murdered or commits sexual immorality (including homosexuality). Pray for all to find Jesus so they can live in Heaven when he returns. If you accept Jesus, you will go to Heaven, but that means your life should change. If it does not, then you didn’t really mean it when you asked him to live in your heart. If you don’t mean it, he will know. That is what this country and world needs - Jesus. Pray for the lost, strive to not sin or judge. Love one another as he has loved you.

By Ralph Reed

December 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Thanks to the poster who reminds everyone of my personal favorite passage from Scripture:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.”

I have always felt this of great importance, and practice this every chance I get. It is of course ridiculous to think a man could “lie” with a man the way he would with a woman. You have to flip the man over and prop him up a bit to get a decent angle of approach.

And everlasting thanks to my very good friend Lindsay Graham for ministering to me on this important point.

By Laura

December 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Virtually nobody on the side of gay marriage wants to talk about the needs of children.

Biologically, only one sperm can impregnate one egg. Male and female together are required for every new life. Fathers need to support and protect the mother throughout their pregnancy. Once born, babies definitely need the nurturance of a mother and the protection of a father.

Children need both a mother and a father — One of each, together in the home, loving one another and teaching by example how to form a healthy love relationship. This is an ideal we cannot afford to forsake, no matter how far away it may seem to some.

The devastating impact of widespread divorce must be acknowledged and changed—many religious leaders are finally leading on this issue. Why would we want to usher in another devastating social change for our children to deal with: Homosexual “marriage”?

Men and women are not the same. Children need both a father and a mother. It’s really not so complicated. Any kid could tell you that.

By Copyleft

December 9, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Laura: Good point. I eagerly await the sermons and church-led demonstrations to outlaw divorce. And childless couples.

After all, if the entire purpose of marriage is to have children, then surely divorce is a MUCH bigger threat that gay couples, right? And therefore, all the church action will be focused on putting an end to divorce rather than worrying about what “The Gays” do, right?

C’mon… ‘fess up. “Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!” is right out of The Simpsons.

By Newshound

December 9, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

What is Newsweek?

By Karen

December 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Laura, do you mean to tell us that two parents who are male and female who abuse, neglect, and torture their children make better parents than a same-sex couple (adoption, invitro, surrogacy) who love, nurture, teach, and adore their children?

Thank makes no sense.

Please, use your head. good parents are good parents, be they single or a couple, gay or straight, black or white.

Your cute little ideal only worked on Leave It To Beaver, and I hate to break it to you but that wasn’t real.

By Laura

December 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

The idea that children need both a father and a mother is really not my point, you know. It’s ingrained into our DNA as a matter of fact. As I mentioned, only one sperm can impregnate one egg — so biologically, we are “predetermined” to require both a father and a mother.

And of course there are multitudes of sociologists and psychologists who affirm the fact that kids get screwed up when they are raised in homes which don’t meet their needs — divorce, violence, abuse, and, yes, two gay women trying to raise a boy to be a man. Or two gay men trying to raise a daughter in a way that’s optimal for her. Children need both a mother and a father. This is common sense. It’s not necessary to quote the Bible or the Koran or any religious scripture.

By Copyleft

December 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

So where are your arguments against divorce, Laura? Where are your cries to make single-parent homes illegal?

True, male and female gametes are needed for reproduction—that’s true throughout the animal kingdom. Does that mean every animal species is demonstrating “responsible parenting” in the way you hope? Abandonment is common—heck, even cannibalism occurs! Combining gametes into a zygote results in ZILCH when it comes to actual parenting practices.

Come on, you know better than this. Biology has nothing to do with what we humans choose to do as a society in setting social rules.

By Karen

December 9, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Laura: no, I will not grant that a child necessarily needs a mother and a father…at least not enough for it to be a factor in denying gay couples legal marriage.

Two good friends of mine are single mothers raising boys. Both are spectacular parents with amazing children who are (at ages 10 and 14) so far perfectly well adjusted in every way. I also know a couple raising a boy who’s currently 8 and that father is such a screwup their boy is a mess and getting worse.

My point is, if a child is raised in a parental situation other than one man one woman, there are teachers, uncles, family friends etc. of the “missing” gender to provide role models.

The other point being: even when both a mother and a father are present, there is no guarantee the child will have a proper home.

Using this as an argument to deny same-sex couples legal marriage licenses or the right to adopt children is either woefully obtuse or dreadfully shortsighted.

By susan bower

December 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

This has got to be the sickest article I have read. The bible does say marriage is between a man and woman.

I will never understand how two men or two women can love as a married couple. It is not normal. Something is wrong somewhere.

God Help Us

By thewillies

December 9, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

To Coyleft:

“Using this as an argument to deny same-sex couples legal marriage licenses or the right to adopt children is either woefully obtuse or dreadfully shortsighted.” Your are so progessive! If it is vile and discusting, then you are for it? I doubt it is love but a warped sense of lust. You get excited seeing two women going at it dont you? Why not watch two men? I will send you a vomit bag.

By Answer to Copyleft

December 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

*Since when have religious beliefs been a concern when making law in this beautifully secular, free nation?

ANSWER: Since its inception.

By Other dude

December 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

I have read every word of these responses. No one is standing up for man-boy love! Where are those who will stand up and represent men who only want to give boys the love they need? If I want to marry a boy, why not?

Who is there who will cast the first stone?

By Simple Answers

December 9, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Q: Is there any better illustration of the correlation between a person’s fear of their own latent homosexuality than to read the crazed rantings of the “christians” on this topic?

A: Nope, this is about as clear as it gets.

Simple Answers strikes again.

By Joe

December 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

My goodness…Christians, as a whole, are so dumb! You believe some of the most ridiculously outrageous STORIES and yet you have the nerve to judge people for their beliefs. If there is a hell, MOST Christians will be there. Ridiculous. You people are such weak-minded fools.

By Joe

December 9, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

My goodness…Christians, as a whole, are so dumb! You believe some of the most ridiculously outrageous STORIES and yet you have the nerve to judge people for their beliefs. If there is a hell, MOST Christians will be there. Ridiculous. You people are such weak-minded fools.

By Old School

December 9, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

Gays really don’t want to be married in the same way that straits are. At the heart of the matter, gays want the respect they deserve. It isn’t about being married or not. If we have the right to be married, then it shows that society accepts us. Accept us or not, we can’t reproduce so get over it.

We’ll be gone in a generation.

By Depends

December 9, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this

I do not respect butt pirates. Now hot chicks, that is a different story.

By Karen

December 9, 2008 7:54 PM | Link to this

“Old School” you are so obviously a retarded straight person who thinks they know what it is to be gay. No gay person would write any of that dribble.

Gays have been around forever and always will be. Somewhere between 3% and 10% of the population.

Gay people don’t give a hoot whether idiots like you respect or understand or approve or any of that. Why would they? Why would they care about what’s in your little mind?

Gay people are finally standing up for themselves, for the simple equality promised to all of us in the Constitution (“…liberty and justice for ALL.”). We’ve been denied equality all along and those days are OVER.

By Open Mind

December 9, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this

I agree with Depends. I do not like the idea of fudge packing. But hot lesbian chics are primo. I say let all the hot lesbians get married, if they want. I would just like to attend and watch the entire deal. I am pro lesbian hot chic marriage.

By Kurt

December 9, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this

I expect nobody to force churches to do anything, except to be affronted by Newsweek’s lies about what the Bible has to say about love, marriage and God’s approval of homosexuality.

By Queer Nation

December 9, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

How ‘bout a religious argument for being a sexist, racist, bigoted homophobe, who has naughty thoughts about thy neighbors wife, husband, or granny-meat

By Old School

December 9, 2008 9:09 PM | Link to this

Karen, Don’t pretend you know me. You don’t know me! Don’t push your hate on me girl! You are such a hater! Don’t you want to be accepted? I know I do! By the way, I think you have the constitution confused with the pledge of allegiance. I would spank you anyway sweetness… Laters!

By david

December 9, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how those that say the bible is full of cntridictions and don’t believe or accept it as the Word of God, quote it to argue their point. They can’t tell you which verses are true and which aren’t. They’ll take a verses and take it completely out of context to suit their belief. One argument is that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. Then again He never spoke against thongs and crack cocaine either. Jesus is the perfect representation and image of the Father. He is one with the Father. He never contridicts the Father. Therefore, the will of the Son is the will of the Father. If you reject Truth, you reject the Son. If you reject the Son, you reject the Father. If you reject the Father, you reject life

By david

December 9, 2008 9:29 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how those that say the bible is full of cntridictions and don’t believe or accept it as the Word of God, quote it to argue their point. They can’t tell you which verses are true and which aren’t. They’ll take a verses and take it completely out of context to suit their belief. One argument is that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. Then again He never spoke against thongs and crack cocaine either. Jesus is the perfect representation and image of the Father. He is one with the Father. He never contridicts the Father. Therefore, the will of the Son is the will of the Father. If you reject Truth, you reject the Son. If you reject the Son, you reject the Father. If you reject the Father, you reject life

By david

December 9, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this

It’s funny how those that say the bible is full of cntridictions and don’t believe or accept it as the Word of God, quote it to argue their point. They can’t tell you which verses are true and which aren’t. They’ll take a verses and take it completely out of context to suit their belief. One argument is that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. Then again He never spoke against thongs and crack cocaine either. Jesus is the perfect representation and image of the Father. He is one with the Father. He never contridicts the Father. Therefore, the will of the Son is the will of the Father. If you reject Truth, you reject the Son. If you reject the Son, you reject the Father. If you reject the Father, you reject life

By Pragmatic

December 9, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this

Here’s the top ten argument for homosexuality;

By Copyleft

December 10, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

And the point remains: REGARDLESS of what your particular religion, denomination, cult, or superstition may say about homsexuality, it’s irrelevant.

The point is about MARRIAGE, a civil contract recognized by the government. And the government is bound to treat all citizens equally, with ZERO regard for religious beliefs or practices in setting its policies.

That’s the beauty of a secular government. You can believe whatever nonsense you want… you just can’t turn it into law and deny people their rights because of it. Do what you want in your church—but don’t start thinking you have the right to dictate policy because of it.

By New School

December 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Copyleft?

I think you missed the point.

“you just can’t turn it into law and deny people their rights because of it.”

They did that in California by changing the constitution.

Get over it.

By Abomi Nation

December 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

What a bunch of bunch of crap David.

One glaring example of how Bible thumpers create their own Bible reality is divorce. Which Jesus DID talk about! He allowed it in cases of adultery ONLY!

55% of all Southern Baptist marriages end in divorce. That means millions of divorces that ended because of the SIN of adultery or the Abomination of a divorce not allowed by Jesus.

You have given yourselves a great big waiver.

Guess what! Divorce is a CHOICE. Adultery is a CHOICE! God created “Adam and Eve,” not Adam and Eve then Cindy!

Its in the BIBLE! If you reject Truth, you reject the Son.

Is that how it goes David?

By Abomi Nation

December 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Right on New School!

Same with abortion. The Supreme Court decided that issue long ago.

Get over it.

By Abomi Nation

December 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Laura, You cannot willfully choose to blog here and say that you are a follower of Jesus, that is blasphemy to God. God is long suffering, He gives us many chances to turn away from our sin and to accept Him as our Savior. The Bible tells women to keep quiet in these matters. Its a choice that you blog here. You Laura are an Abomination, you will burn in Hell. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man

By Clay

December 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I bought my last AJC! Accept the love GOD gave us to give unto others or go shoot us all ! How dare U deny the rights of love. I can bet it is the same that want in God we trust off everything, ( closet bigots and hate mongers, Part time homo’s). The Bible was translated ( many times)before any of the words have the present day meaning. Would Jesus have cast that first stone. I bet if he did, It would shatter your GLASS houses! I may consider the Gay lifestyle as they have more compassion in their little finger than the self rightous few who need to contact Anita Bryant and find out her demise.

Try reading { What the Bible really says about Homosexualty. } David A. Helminiak, Ph.D.

recent findings by top scholars Forward by John S. Spong Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ

I do recall my last visit to the Presidential Church service was Episcapal

Clay who loves all and is straight!

By Steve

December 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

The only thing I want to comment on is a comment made that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This is absolutely incorrect. The founding fathers were not Christians but deists and theists. Jefferson wrote a paper explaining the amendment on religion which denounced Christianity which all of the founding fathers agreed with. People need to do their research before stating inaccurate facts. Ben Franklin frequented prostitutes and his wife took in and raised the son he had with a prostitute. Washington ran stills and made moonshine. These were not god-fearing and religious individuals. The Christians need to get off their soapbox. Under god was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1957 and in god we trust was not put on money until around 1961 and had to be voted in by Congress. This just goes to show that Christians have b******* what this country was built on. Again get the facts straight before posting what is not true.

By Elizabeth Craig

December 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Hmmm, the christian churches have persecuted each other, killed jews, the jews have killed christians,(check out THE cursades, for example), the Koran says if the infidel does not convert to Islam teachings, then it is okay to kill them. Yet all of you beat your chests, quote verses out of the bible that anone can take out of context and pretend to be as loving as the religion you adhere to! What hypocrites. Let’s do another quote, “Judge not, that you be not judged”. The self-smug belief that gay people have no access to heaven, nor any of the people you judge as sinners will is the teachings of churches who control their people as well as the govt. does. And isn’t it very interesting that if one reads the bible and about Christ that he did not ATTEND RICH PEOPLES HOMES ALL THE TIME, GOES TO SOCIAL PARTIES BUT SPENT HIS TIME WITH THOSE WHO SOCIETY AND THE PRIESTS.JUDGES AND THOSE IN POWER IN HIS TIME LOOKED DOWN THEIR NOSES AT?? So for all of you who have never commited a “sin” that is described in the bible, never hit your wife, never cheated on your spouse, never committed adultry, never lusted for someone you had no right to lust for, never stolen even a paper clip from work, never hated anyone, never disliked a person for no reason, never betrayed a friend and on and on, then you stand there and judge. BUT WE WON’T HAVE TO WORRY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NONE WHO PASS ALL THESE TESTS!
WHAT SANCTIMONIOUS PEOPLE YOU ARE.

By Erik

December 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

I am gay and christian, and I have to say, alot of these liberal comments are really just awful.

Everyone percieves god differently. God may not be proud of the decisions we make in our lifetime, but hes never going to flat out hate us, we are his creations, theres a bond there.

By Copyleft

December 10, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

You seem to have a misplaced word, Erik. The only ones talking about who God “hates” are the conservative Christians who claim to serve Him.

Liberals, quite rightly, recognize that a God who hates people is unworthy of worship.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

December 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Fudge packing is a sin. Like it or not.

By clay

December 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Steve, So go have kids with all the ladies of the evening u desire, if the wife is of no use 2 U, raise them and let the rest live with out your hatred! But Taxes will pay and that is All of America who try and stay legal and let government run rampant corrupt! clay

By SilenceDogood

December 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

That article said:

“Neither Jesus nor the Bible explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

B-S. Matthew 19:3 and following state:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test Jesus. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4”Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The problem is, people read Newsweek instead of Jesus.

By Abomi Nation

December 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.””

Of course that is one of the biggest points in article. Divorce is an abomination,”let man not separate.”

Thats ok divorced sinners, as the saying goes, “love the sin hate the sinner.”

The problem is, people read what they want instead of Jesus.

Divorce will one day lead to people marrying animals.

Anyone up for an anti-divorce amendment?….Didn’t think so.

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” ….what a bunch of hypocrites.

Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of the pick and choose Christians Silencedogood. Good job.

By All Knees Will Bow to the King

December 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this

If we continue the same sin on a regular basis, then we have not made an honest commitment to God for repentance. Repentance has 2 parts: Asking for forgiveness of our sins and a declaration that we will seek to avoid sin.

My prayer is that all who read this blog will accept His free gift of salvation. But whether you accept His gift or not, one day all knees will bow to the King.

Phillipians 2:8-11 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

By Abomi Nation

December 10, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this

All Knees Will Bow to the King, please list your sins so we can judge you. Since you judge homosexuals we are allowed to judge you.

Its in the Bible.

By Tim

December 10, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

This is some of the best entertainment I have had in months. I have laughed so hard I cried and my wife thought I should be shipped to the Looneybin!

Homosexuality is a sin, just like any other, including divorce, lieing, stealing, coveting, etc etc. No less, no greater. Sin is dealt with on a personal level with God. That’s how God deals with people: on a personal level. Homosexuals are no more or less a sinner than myself or anyone else on this planet. You may not like their “lifestyle” or their “choices” but it’s between them and God. Not you, them, and God.
“Pull the beam from thine own eye …”

Jesus did hate one class of people: dogmatic hypocrits.

By Burpeh the Magnanimous

December 11, 2008 12:17 AM | Link to this

Masturbation is a sin of unless you leave the light on

By Evilrug

December 11, 2008 3:50 AM | Link to this

As a gay, Orthodox Jew, it always amuses me to see Xtian’s who condemn homosexuality, but think nothing about a bacon and sausage breakfast.

Xtians are curious souls. They pick and choose bits and pieces of another religion’s holy books to justify their own prejudices, and yet, excuse their lack of willingness to obey they rest of the rules in those texts to being ‘saved’…..

Saved from what I wonder…. If they are truly Xtians, they certainly won’t be saved from the hell fire of Gehenna.

Just remember you bible thumping whack off’s…. The elevator ride you guys call the “Rapture” can go two different directions.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

By Fudge

December 11, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

December 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Fudge packing is a sin. Like it or not.

But it is ever so fun!

oh, and eating shrimp is a sin too, and a host of other things you people tend to ignore. (you people in this case means idiotic, narrow-minded, bible thumping, bigoted ‘Christians’)

By Aaron Burr V. Morph

December 11, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

We at the multiple personality Morph Disorder consortium known as “Aaron Burr V. Mexico” hereby deny any future statements on Confectionery Abuse.

But I will add this…..

If ever there was a group of unqualified stone casters, tis those who proposed, endorsed and funded Proposition 8. Ne’re were there a more retched and hypocritical convocation of lucre worshiping, God stealing, idol worshiping, lying, liar defending, history rewriting, adulterers.

In short….if Homosexuality is a sin, that’s God’s business, not the business of False Profits.

By Son of GOD

December 11, 2008 8:45 PM | Link to this

If you wish to stick you organ in the hole of choice other than what it is itended for then your sick… I don’t think you stick a screwdriver into a electrical socket and call it ok do you… so back up you claim that sticking you organ up someones butt has a purpose other than pleasing your perverted desires… I don’t see anyone making comments on how gross you are, maybe yeah other than your stupid GAY PRIDE parades PRIDE to take it up the dirt hole give me a break thats sick enough GET REAL YOU NEED A PENIS AND A VIGINA TO MAKE A BABY, AND A FAMILY. YEAH YOU CAN HAVE 2 PENIS’S OR 2 VIGINA’S AND A CHILD BUT YOU CAN’T MAKE ONE… FAMILY. So you should come up with another name. Your whole gay argument would be better servered stop stuffing it down families that do things right and get off it already. And say what you want. MONEY. its all about the money. Look at the BS this whole argument causes. What a waste of time and money already. You are not a FAMILY. and maybe its time someone comes up with a alternative AS GAYS and LESBIANS are not the NORM and there needs to be more and better NORM in this world. Your taking this to the extreme. And all in all it comes down to your pushing your ways on others. Ways that don’t get accepted by others.. What next you want me to teach my kids that you can choose a man or a women. Give me a break already. I have many GAY and LESBIAN freinds that I talk to openly and its always strikes me funny how they try to JUSTIFY to me and themselves how OK it is.. how it was not there CHOICE.. B****** we have choice its all about choice everything we do is about CHOICE and my choice is give you idiots what you want so you shut the hell up already it don’t bother me… My father one day will jugde us all. And soon enough!

By Correcting the Record

December 11, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

The defenders of gay marriage need to pay more attention to the scriptures when using them in an attempt to defend their position.

The transgressions of marriage by Abraham and others are reported in the Bible but not condoned. They were the result of human meddling with God’s instruction regarding marriage and those transgresions resulted in great misery and strife which still affects the world today. David and Solomon’s transgressions of marriage resulted in civil war and a divided Israel. Again a tragic result.

As for the shrimp question. The Jack Black video showed the ignorance of the producers regarding scripture. Old Testament dietary laws did forbid the consumption of shellfish as an act of obedience, however, those dietary laws were removed in the New Testament.

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Trying to misinterpret the Bible to support sin is sad. However, in the case of the arguments being presented recently and the above posts betray laziness and ignorance.

Another historical figure sought to liberate his subjects from marriage prejudices. He sometimes dressed as a bride and consumated a mock marriage with a groom in public. His name was Nero.

By Son of God

December 11, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this

However, if you have a itchy bum it’s o.k. to scratch your hiney, but queers getting married is a no go!

By Fat Lady

December 11, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

Would you like to correct the record on divorce and adultery “Correcting the record?”

Its been days since it was brought up.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

December 12, 2008 12:43 AM | Link to this

Butt Pirates are nasty. The act is unsanitary and sinful.

By michael vick

December 14, 2008 1:17 AM | Link to this

How can putting your dick up another guys a* be justified?

The fact that people who dont agree with gay marriage are to you as evil as pro segregation southerners shows your pathetic narrow mindedness.

By michael vick

December 14, 2008 1:22 AM | Link to this

How can putting your dick up another guys a* be justified?

The fact that people who dont agree with gay marriage are to you as evil as pro segregation southerners shows your pathetic narrow mindedness.

By Mike W.

December 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

If the institution of marriage is a good thing, why is it not a good thing for gay couples too?

Gay couples exist anyway, whether they get a marriage license or not. This has nothing to do with church or religion. God does not hand out marriage licenses, city hall does.

If we are serious about equality in this country then we will hand out marriage licenses to all couples who make a lifelong commitment to each other, not just the ones we like or approve of.

By L Lohan

December 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Butt pirates are nasty. That area is exit only. Hot lesbos are not a problem for me. I am open-minded.