Catholics react to Archdiocese push for constitutional same-sex marriage ban

How come these fifth columnist folks who don’t agree with the Church, yet happily take money from it, don’t see how bigf frauds and hypocrites they are?

It’s time the tax-free status of the church be revoked. The Catholic church is no longer a Christian organization, just a political body with a political agenda. Their long history of illegal and immoral acts proves that they are not to be trusted.

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

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

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

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

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

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

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

Absolutely.

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

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ray: yeah, it would be so much better for if Catholics just went along with everything that the church hierarchy told them to do, right or wrong.

The Catholic Church is not open for ‘discussion’ or ‘vote’ or ‘political pressure’. It speaks for and witnesses the word of God. If you do not like it, get out. If you do not agree, stop trying to validate yourself by forcing others to validate you.

@Steve: Your advice about getting out is excellent, and I think many will be taking it in view of the Church’s absurd stance on many important moral questions. Do remember to shut the door behind you when you find yourself the last one leaving, will you?

@Steve, The Catholic church teaches its followers that the sacrament of communion is necessary for salvation, and that communion is not valid without the consecration and transubstantiation of the host, which can only be performed by a Catholic priest. So, you are essentially saying that anyone who questions anything the Catholic church says or does must leave the church and, as a result, will go to hell, right?

You’re missing the point, it’s not about homosexuality and the bible. It’s about Marriage. The Latin root of the word and the secular meaning of the word is a relationship for procreation.

The Church views this relationship as a sacrament or sacred event. So the Church chooses to defend it.

Most states recognize the procreative focus of the institution which is why you can’t marry your sister or cousin.

A gay marriage can’t exist regardless of what’s legislated. They can’t consummate the relationship and they can’t procreate new life. It’s not a marriage.

It sounds like the pro gay marriage people want to usurp the definition of marriage to gain legitimacy and acceptance to their relationship.

Shadow_man- your interpretation of translation is so far off base.
Just because the word homosexual was phrased after the bible was written means nothing.
It is the meaning behind the translation that matters. Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. Period. Get it right and quit mis leading people.

I have found that when people set limits based on interpretation of a word, they are often hiding behind bigotry – our Catholic church is unfortunately very good at this. Jesus never did it.

Let’s stop talking about the word marriage as if it only applies to certain people and opposite sex couples. There are hundreds of thousands of gay couples in our country, as per US census data. Why can’t they get married? If you tell me it is because of tradition or the definition of marriage, then you are defending a narrow viewpoint. In the same breath, you are limiting the civil rights of some Americans, while allowing it for others. The world view of gay couples (who have always been around, but not seen) is shifting. Let’s embrace every adult’s ability to marry the person he or she loves.

Take care,
Mike

Hey Peter! So a man or woman who is sterile cannot enter into a marriage right?! Right. Try again.

Please bring back the Roman lions for the Catholic Christian leadership.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Officiant, Celebrant, Justice of the Peace,
Non-denominational Minister.

@ Shadow_man

You raise some interesting thoughts, but you seem mistaken in some of your interpretations of the Bible – but then again, this is just my idea, and you have your own. So who is right? You can say you’re right all you want, and I can believe I am right all I want – but will it really change our minds about who is right?

The Catholic church and many other Christian denominations hold the viewpoint that marriage is between a man and a woman – so just like you seem to think that homosexuality is okay, shouldn’t other people be allowed to have a differing opinion? I respect your opinion – but somehow my viewpoint differs and I am slammed for having that opinion. Curious how the liberal side thinks that Christians are intolerant and close-minded, just because we hold different viewpoints (some of us).

As for the Bible let’s check these passages out:

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Okay so you may argue that is Old Testament, but what is that passage saying? Surely if God had anticipated man being with a man he’d have outlined? Or a woman with a woman? The beginning chapters of Genesis outlines God’s creations and is informational..where then is the other relationships? But for your sake, let’s not assume that failure to mention a man united with a man, etc. meaning anything against that relationship existence.

Genesis 19: The classic Sodom & Gomorrah – 2 angels arrive and stay as house guest with Lot. The townsmen, yes men, say

“Where are the men who came ot you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, ” No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.” (5-8).

The angels urge Lot to get out of town with his family because God sent the angels there to destroy the town.

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom & Gomorrah (24)

Now perhaps the incident with the men is not the only wickedness that was performed and causing God to destroy the towns – but I think it played a part. And again I know it’s OT but why put it in the OT if it doesn’t mean anything.

Let’s move to the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 – You argue that the word homosexual didn’t come into existance until sometime in the 1800s and so how could that word show up in the Bible? Well, I’m going to bet that the people translating the Bible into english probably weren’t dumb people. Sorry just a hunch. With that said, once the term homosexual did come around and had a definition, wouldn’t the scholars interpreting the Bible and putting it into english words have taken a word that had the same or 99% close to the greek word in the Bible. For example: if they had a greek word for cat and they translated it, I bet they would understand enough about the greek word than to translate cat to mean dog in english. So you’re right, homosexual is an english term and pretty new according to what you said – but the word(s) for homosexual in the greek are probably almost the same if not exactly.

Romans 1: 21-27

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (yep here is the idols you speak of – but keep going)

THEREFORE, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exhanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God GAVE THEM OVER to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

One could say, well when Paul says woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones – we don’t know if unnatural is with children, animals, etc.

But…Paul goes on to say men abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS with women. He defines natural for men with women, not with other men. He calls acts with other men as “indecent.”

And I don’t know what I think about homosexuals being born with that or choosing it – but in this passage from Paul he writes that God gave them over to shameful lusts. GOD DID. God gave them over in “the sinful desires of their hearts.”

Now that last bit is just an idea that I have and have heard before, so I haven’t explored it too much, and while it doesn’t explain whether the desire for a man and a man is born with someone or chosen, it does seem that it is unatural, shameful lust, sinful desire – whatever terms you want to use for it.

So shadoww_man if you want to disagree with my views on homosexuality, don’t misuse the Bible and interpret it however you see fit. Read the Bible, pray about it, read it again and talk it over with other believers. Yes we are sinful, we don’t always get things right and we are far removed from the authors in the Bible – but I’m not going to discredit the Bible because I believe it’s truth.

I dont give a tinkers damm about your god-dammed religious BS Mythical CRAP……just like I dont care about ZEUS, or ISIS………you can keep what brainwashed feelings you want…thats your business…..but keep your BS OUT of OUR secular gov’t.
NO one is telling any religion to marry anyone……as a matter of fact, anyone can go to the courthouse and get married, YES MARRIED….NO VOODOO necessary….for the 1300+ Federal RIGHTS handed to heteros on a Silver platter……you beleive yuour book of fairytales is the truth..Fine, be my guest…you wanna run your 21st centyury life thru a book written BY MEN, FOR MEN…..to keep the Sheeple/people in Fear, in Line and Coffers Full …$$$ KA-CHING!!!!! Keep your dammed BS out of our laws.

@Lori: Okay, for the sake of argument, I concede everything. Homosexuality is a filthy affront to God, and anyone who engages in homosexual practices will be burned forever in agony. These things are all expressly, clearly explained in the bible. There. That’s settled.

Explain why any of that should be taken into consideration when we write our laws.

@Jeff: For me personally, if I’m going to “claim” to follow the Bible, to live according to what it says, and I try to at least, then I’m going to try to live by it. What that means, is that yeah, I didn’t write the this marriage amendment, and I didn’t put it on the ballot – but now that it’s there, I have a choice. Vote Yes or No – well like I said, if I’m going to live by my beliefs why would I vote no? I’m not saying one way or another that this amendment should have been put on the ballot, but it’s there so now we all have a decision to make come November 2012.

And I will say that aside from my beliefs, I’m not going to let some judge “interpret” the state law and overturn it without giving the public a say in the matter. Sorry but I’d like to vote for issues, just like many of us do.

And just on another matter, I don’t think homosexuality is a greater sin than anything else. I am NO better than anyone else I’ll concede to that – and I have some friends that are gay, and it sucks that they carry such a big cross.

You actually have three choices – yes, no, or you could decline to vote on it at all. Just sayin’.

From what it sounds like, you intend to vote yes. It also seems like you intend to vote yes based on your religious teachings… so the conclusion I’m arriving at is that you intend for there to be a law that forbids certain acts, based on your religious teachings.

Maybe that’s not the case? Maybe you have an earthly and secular reason to support the amendment. If you do, you don’t seem to have mentioned it anywhere. It’d probably be a useful thing to have, though… otherwise I’ll just tell you that *my* god thinks homosexuality is hunky-dory, and our religions will cancel each other out.

Well like I did mention, I don’t want a judge making the decision for me. Do you count that as a so called secular reasoning?

And why does it matter whether my reason be based on religion or secular ideals? It wouldn’t matter whether all my reasons FOR the amendment were secular, people are still going to disagree, are they not?

So if I were voting that way and you voting that way, okay so they cancel each other – it won’t deter me.

I say we vote to take away Lori’s Right as a woman..NO VOTING, NO SAY in child rearing, No say on her own body…..after all my God ISIS tells me that people like her are stupid…so as a citizen I should USE my belief in ISIS to Judge her, I should get to Vote away her rights.

(of course that all sarcasm)

@Disgusted American: I’m not criticizing your beliefs so why do you have to mine? Does it offend you that I disagree with what you think? Since when is having a differing opinion a bad thing? If you want to think that, then that is what you think. I disagree with you – but at least I can do so in a mature and respectful manner.

@Jeff: Sorry you are right, there are 3 choices

Part of living in a republic is that we let people decide things for us all the time. It’d be massively inconvenient to hold a truly democratic vote on every issue, budget, law or pet project anybody has. We hire representatives to make these decisions for us… more often than not, the only decision we make is on which person to hire for the job.

As for why it matters whether your reasons are secular or religious… well, to a certain extent it *doesn’t* matter. Your reasons are your own, and since you have the opportunity to vote, go ahead and vote the way you want for the reasons you want… I won’t try to stop you (I might try to change your mind on which way you vote, but I wouldn’t try to stop you from voting, no matter how much we disagree). But injecting religion into the debate is a terrible idea, because religion can’t be properly debated. You and shadow_man could go back and forth for years about what the bible says and what the bible means, but there’d be no way of really confirming it one way or another. There are countless translations and interpretations, and the author, God, is notoriously reclusive. You may as well debate whether the picture is of a vase or two faces in profile.

Many parishes did organize committees in recent years to help unemployed parishoners find work, including my own. And, we were quite successful. Instead of detracting from the marriae amendment issue, focus on the debate at hand.

@Jeff: I agree largely with what you say in regards to interpretation and I hate that it has come to that, though I have never known this world to produce anything but that. But as for the ballot on the election next November – what would be my reasoning to vote no on the amendment? Or are would you suggesting that I don’t vote for either?

I just want to have the same rights you do, really. I’m assuming you’re a lady, since your handle is Lori. As a lady, you have the right to marry the single adult male of your choosing. As a man, I do not have that right.

My preferred way of equalizing things would be to open up marriage for all consenting adults. A less preferred, but still fair method of equalizing would be to ban all marriages entirely.

…and since I didn’t actually answer your questions with my last post:

One reason to vote no would be to ensure fairness and equal treatment under the law for everybody. Or in the case of this specific amendment, vote no (or decline to vote on it one way or the other) to prevent enshrining unequal treatment into the highest law in the state.

[...] Complete Article HERE! [...]

@Jeff: In the most honest sceme of it Jeff, I want my beliefs to be reflected in my decisions. I have religious beliefs, Christian to be clear and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not against gay people, just against some the act of homosexuality. Just like I would be against the act of someone driving drunk, key word…act. I wouldn’t be against the person, but just the decision they were making. I’m not comparing being gay to driving drunk, rather just that the 2 show acts.

I know I would not be a good candidate to run for office because I do have strong beliefs and to some extent I do believe in the seperation of church and state, key words being…some extent. But I’m not running for office here, and I won’t next November. I will just be a citizen like you with a decision to make in the ballot box.

My main regards to posting in this forumn was in response to shadow_man, because my view on Christianity specfically, is that if we’re going to play for the “same team” we should share the same ideals. I realize that it doesn’t work out like that with the numerous Christian denominations seperated by theology, but the understone, or maybe not so undertone of his message was that “anti-gay people are twisting God’s word” to condone hate.

And I found that statement to be harsh and inaccurate. Hence why I wanted to respond to him directly. Anti-gay people (not true), twisting God’s word (his opinion), disagreeing on marriage definition is hateful? (not true)

But Jeff you seem like someone who is intelligent and I am open to what you have to say.

@Jeff: I don’t know if you are a religious person, or more specifically a Christian, so I’m assuming that if you are not you wouldn’t understand how I feel – just like I am sure that me being a heterosexual does not understand how a homosexual feels.

What would you say to civil unions?

@Jeff: If equality is something you believe so strongly in, not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, what would you define marriage to be?

If you have ever heard of the show “Sister Wives,” what say you to the Husband wanting to marry all of his “wives.”

Or people marrying animals, or family members marrying eachother (if not wanting to reproduce)? Would these ever be allowed in your eyes? It may seem odd to you, maybe not, but if equality if what you are driving at, EVERYONE should receive it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html

@Lori: A good reason to vote no is to keep religion out of a secular government. I am of the opinon to each their own and would never wish to have other people’s ideas, feelings, thoughts, morals, beliefs, etc. compromissed because I do not agree with them. Especially when it has no barring on my own life or anyone elses. I would never ask a religious institution to marry anyone against their will, but I expect to get the same respect when it comes to my own choices. I want the freedom to chose my own family and to have my family aloted the same rights, privilages, and responsiblities as everyone else. I believe their needs to be laws that protect people from tangible harm. You cannot have limited government by picking and choosing certain groups of people. That does not bring unity within our society and does not address our real problems we face as United States citizens.

Database of Priests Accused of Sexual Abuse
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

“Father Van B.” – served on the board of “Martijn,” a group that campaigns to end the Dutch ban on adult-child sex.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/21/dutch-catholic-priest-pedophilia-endorsement_n_865124.html

Church sex-abuse victims urge ICC prosecution
Complaint filed against Pope Benedict and three Vatican officials by US-based group, alleging crimes against humanity.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/09/20119148947111778.html

“Maciel was a sexual criminal of epic proportions who gained the trust of John Paul II and created a movement that is as close to a cult as anything we’ve seen in the church,” said author Jason Berry, one of two reporters who broke the Maciel story in 1997 and who directed a 2008 documentary about the priest called “Vows of Silence.”
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/14/secretive-catholic-order-founded-by-accused-pedophile-under-fire/

Vatican Bank ‘allowed clergy to act as front for Mafia’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-bank-allowed-clergy-to-act-as-front-for-mafia-2158692.html

All of the above tacitly begs the question of what moral authority the Catholic Church has, at least its corrupt hierarchy, to be lecturing anyone about sexuality, relationships or a great many other things.

[...] EXCERPTED FROM Kingdom Of God Worship source http://minnesotaindependent.com/89838/catholics-react-to-archdiocese-push-for-constitutional-same-se... [...]

Lori, you aren’t fooling anyone with that syrupy drivel.

The Catholic Hierarchy are foreign agents of the Vatican and should be treated as such by our government. They are grifters of the highest order, priests of the pedophile ring and abettors who should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors under RICO and then deported to the Hague for prosecution under the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity

Why is it that nobody fearing losing their “freedom” to limit others beliefs have no idea that others do want and deserve this freedom too?

Lori
You want to tell us what is the right way to conduct oneself based on a passage that nobody has any obligation under the law to follow. Yet you rationalize it with presenting your own belief.

I have every right to practice my spiritual beliefs. If you can’t allow others that freedom you really then need to look at the Constitution. But one question: would you ever let a religion other than yours dictate to you who you could or could not marry?

You also tell others they are sinners, don’t deserve the same marriage rights, have to follow your church’s interpretation of the bible, and that they are essentially ruining marriage and religion for others. Yet, you get upset that you are “slammed” for stating your opinion and it never occurs to you that these same people have been slammed for their entire lives by your above claims, not to mention the violence that your rhetoric inspires.

Nothing about the catholic stance is anything like Christianity. And it’s certainly no democratic. You’re losing your own flock now, ‘magine that.

I am going to exercise my freedom of speech while I still have it, because our large population of American idiots don’t seem to realize that when it comes to our freedoms in this country, what you don’t use you lose.

I have to admit that I have not read many of the comments on this article. But I have to say, the first thing that came to mind after reading this was, ” Who the hell does the church think they are?”. This is an organization that puts their ” still in the closet” clergymen into the Divine Pedophile Protection program, because the stewards of their churches can’t keep their hands off of their little alter boys’ genitals. Are we really supposed to take them seriously on this matter?

Then, to also try to convince people that the next step after gay marriage, is inter-special relations? Really? Like anyone is that absurdly stupid to believe that. The next issue, is the government has legally separated church and state. Government has no rule in religious debate, so the church should have no say in government agenda.,… Rightfully so, the church’s rioting should fall on deaf ears. After all it’s not the church that makes the marriage legal, it is the piece of paper from the courts that make it so.

The LGBT community has fought long and hard for the rights we have, and those of us that are respectable, honest, hard working people, appreciate everything that we have worked so hard for. All we want is a chance to unify our love and coupling, just like the rest of the world, and if we really are free in this country, then this shouldn’t even be a topic for debate.

If we are talking about the sanctity of marriage, why don’t we go back to arranged marriage, when people didn’t even have a choice of whom they HAD to marry. Now what kind of marriage is that? Marriage was meant to be an officially recognized pairing of UN-conditional love and commitment toward each other, that’s what it was meant for. Not a status symbol, or a way to take legal possession of someone or something.

If my 80 year old, now deceased grandmother felt love was blind, and you can’t help who you love, and you should strive to be with that one single person that makes you truly happy, then this world really does waste way too much time and effort finding things to hate and being prejudice. Not to mention all of the money wasted on it.

I will close this rant with one last opinion, take what you will from it. If the catholic church really wants to start a crusade about marriage equality. Then maybe they should march on Hollywood and try to get the government to ban celebrity marriages, since those are the true abominations to the institute of marriage.

I just can’t see a boy kissing a boy, or a girl kissing a girl, being more atrocious than “Brittany’s been speared”, getting married and knocked up by one of her back-up dancers, then divorcing him a week later because “they had an argument”. That’s the sad reality on this matter, and that’s going to be the downfall of marriage, not same-sex marriage. What is wrong with the world we live in today?

@ash: Yep to each their own perhaps…but that’s why I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion on this. My main response was to someone that said something very disrespectful.

@Lane: You hardly know a thing about me. Grow up.

@Joseph: Please show me where I called other people sinners. And if I had, please also follow it by adding that I called myself a sinner. I don’t expect people who do not follow my faith to believe in what I believe. I am merely saying that there is a decision to made November 12 and every person voting will have a decision to make. As Jeff pointed out there are 3 options. just because my choice differs from yours – what of it? I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m not telling you how to vote. And when I started in on this forum, I wasn’t trying to convince anyone to vote a certain way – I was responding to something someone that had said something rather rude – but nothing to try to convince anyone how to vote.

And for the record, I’m not even Catholic so post whatever you want about Catholics – but be polite and mature with what we are saying as adults – hoping that we are all adults.

Lori: Let us examine each of those lines when you don’t take them out of context. Genesis first off, does not condemn homosexuality, those verses you pulled out refer to heterosexuals. You cannot imply God was against homosexuality by talking about heterosexual relationships.

Now onto the other verses.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lori: The sodom story.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

The Sodom Story – Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: “Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.”
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God’s messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God’s representatives.

All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

Lori: Next up, Romans.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Lori: I saved corinthians for last because it shows how laughable the anti-gay interpretation is.

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

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

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

Now onto the interpretation, i’ve included the original Greek words as well where it’s relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, “malakoi” or “malakos” – it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. “Malakoi” was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant “soft.” The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, “arsenokoitai” or “arsenokoites” – it literally means, “males having sex.” Early commentaries on I Corinthians related “arsenokoitai” to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was “arrenokoites.” Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, “arsenokoitai.” If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Lori: It is obvious you didn’t read these links which also prove that homosexuality is not a sin via biblical scholars and historians.

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

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Lori: You got any other passages i can prove wrong? =)

I appreciate all of the rational comments on this blog posting.
The rest come from low-information voters who seem to get a kick out of all the attention paid to them. It saddens me that a heterosexual woman (no name needed) would choose to vote to take away basic human rights from a group (gay folks). She clearly doesn’t understand that it wasn’t long ago that we women did not have basic rights (to own property, to vote, to use birth control) and now she wants to taunt gay folks via this blog that she will be voting to take away their right to love someone and have legal rights supporting that love?
My advice to a fellow female hetero: Crack open a history book and plllllllease find a little compassion for your fellow brothers and sisters.

@Lori The best reason to vote no on the amendment would if you believe in the principles of religious freedom this country was founded on. Several Christian denominations have decided to either grant same-sex marriages or bless same-sex unions. By voting yes because your sincere religious beliefs tell you same-sex marriage is wrong is forcing your interpretation of the bible on these Christians as well as non-Christians who believe in same-sex marriages. These same principles of religious freedoms would prevent anyone from forcing the church to perform same-sex marriages if they are ever legalized. As a relatable example suppose you lived in a majority Muslim country where whether to implement Sharia law was put to a vote. Many Muslims would have the sincere religious belief that everyone should follow Sharia law, but if you believed in religious freedom they should vote no on forcing everyone from following Sharia law.

@Shadow_man: the sad thing is is that you’re not going to change my mind, and I’m not going to change yours. But if you want to believe what you believe the Bible says – then go for it. I didn’t even point out Leviticus fyi, but thanks for clarifying what you think it says. And also, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in Genesis saying that no mention of a man and a man or a woman and a woman DOESN’T necessarily mean that homosexuality is wrong. Did I not? Oh it seems you only read what you want to read. Man God really didn’t do a good job I guess picking his authors for the Bible if he’s going to leave “natural relations” as you call them out of the creation story. Man, you are totally right about that.

@kate: honestly my true opinion, marriage isn’t a right. I can’t tell you when the government started to be responsible for marriage and requiring licensing, etc. but it is not a right. Maybe you’d say anyone should be allowed to marry, and that’s fine if you think that, but the benefits to being married are not rights – we’re not entitled to them. And you honestly think I want attention? When no one on this blog is getting more crap than I am…and I want attention? Some twisted world if you think that that is my aim. Or better yet, that I’m “taunting” anyone – I feel passionate about something and you guys feel passionate about your views, but I’m not taunting anyone with my views. So they differ, at least I can be mature and respectful and not slamming anyone about their views. I’ll use some sarcasm, but that’s about it. And taking a jab at my history? Great assumption that I know nothing, even though I could be a history major. Just because I don’t share the same views as you, doesn’t mean I am completely incompetent. I could say the reverse for you – but I’m not going to go down to that level.

I don’t agree with some of the things people are writing, but you know what, that’s okay. Because I don’t expect that we’re going to agree. But at least allow the people that hold different viewpoints to share them while getting comments that go the other way, that are respectful. I’m a big girl and I’ve been fine being your punching bag, but I’m done. This blog isn’t worth it. If there were more people like Jeff writing, then fine. But it’s the people that can’t speak respectfully towards someone with different viewpoints. My opinion isn’t stopping anyone from having their own opinion or on this matter, voting a certain way…….goodbye

awe..poor you………you know what…the Time for being Nice to these Right Wing Sickos, trying to Impose thier Sharia Law on everyone else is over…….the time for being Civil is Over….to friggin bad…….all americans ARE Entiotled to the SAME RIGHTS,period. ALL,not some. You can keep your Voodoo,fake religion OUT of OUR secular gov’t. Last I heard, you dont have to be religious to mbe married…..as a matter of fact, you can be ATHIEST….and get married by a judge at the court house ( NO RELIGION REQUIRED, yet equal civil law is handed out Equally) …when a murderer in jail for life CAN MARRY….and 2 complete strangers can meet, get bombed and fly off to vegas to get married in a drive-thru BY ELVIS…..I dont wanna hear anything about the “Sanctity of Marriage” crap………and WHEn people, start outlawing divorce, maybe then – we’ll believe these fruitcakes who say – They are protecting marriage….until then…its just plain animus,and bigotry, and icky feelings these anti-gay weirdos are pushing. ..and FYI..10′s of 1000′s of gay/lesbians ARE MARRIED..and they aint goin away.

If I came across as cranky well so be it. Kind of like @Disgusted American, I am done being overly polite about this topic. I can’t stand back and watch all of my beloved friends not have the same legal rights as me. Churches can impose rules (and Catholics/Christians are free to choose to believe what they want) but as long as the state sanctions marriage and that sanction affords folks legal rights (property, ability to help make healthcare decisions for a spouse,etc.etc) then yes, I will stand up for my gay friends who are entitled to the same legal rights as me.

Yikes, this thing really fell apart, huh? It’s amazing how quickly a discussion can turn into an argument…

@Kate, Thank you for standing up and, frankly, I didn’t find you cranky at all. In fact, it’s challenging to remain polite when certain individuals enjoy a plethora of rights but want to cite their “personal beliefs” to deny those same rights to others…as if it’s no big deal and that kind of discrimination is sanctioned by an all-loving God.

I am fortunate enough to be legally married to my wife in California. We’ve already endured a lot throughout our relationship – simultaneous lay-offs, H1N1 flu, changing career paths entirely, etc. But, since we honor our marriage, we’ve stood by each other through thick and thin. (The hardest part being a homophobic extended family who speaks in the same manner as [no name needed]; they enjoy citing their own “compassion” and “open-mindedness” while all too readily condemning our happiness and denying rights to our friends.) So we had to put some healthy distance between us. And now, we’re blessed enough to focus on improving our careers and starting a family :^) In fact, I’m happy to share that we’ll be celebrating 3 years of marriage this weekend!!!

I love my wife dearly and can’t envision a life without her. She is my soul-mate and, as far as we’re concerned, God was with us in that courtroom when we got married. It perplexes me when an absolute stranger asserts blanket statements like “it sucks that [gays] carry such a big cross”…or saying “homosexual acts” are like the “act of drunk-driving”…or suggesting gays marriage leads to people marrying animals…and then innocently insists she’s not hurting anyone! Those strangers are not Christ-like in their actions or their words because they never bothered to look deeper. By looking deeper, they’d see that there are many gay couples who are working hard to make their relationships/unions/marriages succeed despite the turbulent political, social and economic climates we ALL face. And, below those efforts to honor their relationships and each other, there exists a foundation of LOVE and a drive to live a life of INTEGRITY…both things Jesus spoke about quite frequently.

THANK YOU, Kate, and nearly everyone else here for speaking up. Your words make a difference. There’s only one or two dissenters on this thread who believe casting stones…errr, casting votes that deny others of their God-given humanity…will earn them a place in Heaven. I find that bizarre considering the Man they claim to follow spent His life speaking up for those who had less than others. He served others with grace and love, never insidious condemnation.

Lori: I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m educating you on this subject on the conclusion many biblical scholars and historians have come to. I can tell you didn’t read the links i put nor my other posts because you mention that i wrote those interpretations, when it reality it was done by numerous biblical scholars and historians. Notice how you could not refute a single one of the points I made, other than taking one of my posts once again out of context, just like you tried to take leviticus out of context to deceive people into thinking the wrong die regarding homosexuality. Homosexuality was never a sin. God would not create homosexuals only to shun them afterwards, otherwise that would be a pretty sadistic God. The good news is that numerous churches are starting to see this view, as well as the younger generation. Lol, in your final sentences you mentioned the part about “natural relations” where this is explains. Sorry to break it to you, but both homosexuality and heterosexuality are natural =) That’s according to the Bible (as shown in the interpretations), according to modern science, according to modern psychology, according to the modern medical field, and according to modern logic. The question is, are you going to hop on the progressive knowledge train, or be left back in the dust?

Lori, why would I want to know anything about you given your comments? If you knew anything about me, a regular commenter on this website for the past few years, you would know that I calls it as I sees it, that I am tired of people like you who hide their anti-LGBT animosity behind the Bible, slippery slope arguments and the like. I think it is you and your kind that needs to grow up. Seriously. (And I am being very polite with you …)

@Lori, the point of the matter is, what people are saying, is that neither you, not the Catholic Church, have ANY RIGHT to restrict the personal freedoms and liberties of consenting adults just because you personally ‘don’t approve’. Because it’s not about you or the church, it’s about those two people and what THEY decide. It is not your place to get involved in such a private matter.

Religion has no bearing on the matter, as marriage, in THIS country, is regarded as a secular institution. You can be married in the church, but without a marriage license, you would not be viewed as legally married, which entitles you certain protections and privileges. Without that, a couple has little real recourse should one of them get sick or die.

THAT is what gay couples want.

Lori, you may know gays who you think are friends, but I doubt the feelings are mutual. At best if they really know what your feelings are, they would consider you an acquaintance, but certainly not a friend. The government got involved with marriage when inheritance, property rights, taxes and everything else was tied to marriage. So pretty much from the beginning of Western civilization.
Whether you believe ‘marriage’ is a right or not is irrelevant. The US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision wrote that it is a right in 1967 in Loring v Virginia. By law it is a civil right and religious views (any religion) about marriage are also irrelevant.
As to the slippery slope arguments, who knows. I’m an atheist and I believe the bible is for the most part a badly written book. I know of two pair of hetro couples who live together in what they consider a joint marriage, two husbands and two wives all married to each other in spirit and they seem to be happy with the relationship. As long as everyone is happy and no one is being hurt I don’t see the harm in people exploring alternate relationships.

Government recognition is bestowed, only, on human behavior that’s beneficial to the individual and to society. Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman qualifies for this recognition because (on average) it increases life expectancy, reduces stress, diminishes to zero the potential for STDs, and provides the best environment for raising children. The science supporting this outcome and the references upon which it is based is irrefutable (1).

This same science, though, proves the exact opposite for same-sex behavior, whether it occurs in a committed relationship or not (1). For in comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals, primarily men, aren’t monogamous in committed relationships and both gay men and lesbians are far more likely to divorce, which would only weaken marriage below it’s already diminished state. Further, for this reason and because it involves human physiology that’s not designed for same-sex interaction, same-sex activity is highly prone to bodily damage and serious disease.

This is not only bad for the individual but it’s also bad for society, not only because of the medical consequences but because of the capacity for homosexuality to be triggered in people, whose genetic and biological makeup makes them prone to developing the behavioral urge.

Therefore, for all these reasons, we must all work together to keep marriage between one man and one woman. We can do so by educating the public. To help, please email this post and the link to the essay below to as many people as you can and to your legislators. Additionally, please ask the recipients to do the same, demand that your legislators vote down legislation granting gov’t recognition to same-sex behavior, and vote them out of office, if they don’t. In this way, we can all work together to keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it should be.

(1) – “The Case for Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships,” an essay summarizing the science and the references for opposing same-sex marriage and other forms of government recognition of same-sex behavior:

http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/

@GGGP1856 – I took the opportunity of reading the article – an amazing example of mis-represented facts, omissions and flat-out manipulations of legitimate research. The only redeeming value to this article are in the comments – one poster by the name of ‘OldDave’ does a marvelous job of utterly demolishing the ‘facts’ presented, showing them for the manipulations they are.

That the article’s own author attempts (and fails) to rebut the accusations (and actual evidence from the studies cited) is telling indeed.

“… but because of the capacity for homosexuality to be triggered in people, whose genetic and biological makeup makes them prone to developing the behavioral urge.”

Closeted much, GGGP1856?

GGGP1856: You got any other distorted facts that i can prove wrong? If the anti-gay marriage crowd was really correct, why do you constantly have to lie and distort factual data? Perhaps because you are wrong? =)

Bumped as well:

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

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

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

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

Absolutely.