A Gay Marriage Surge

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: timebomb123 @ 12/07/2008 10:31:05 AM

    In fact, I call for all African-Americans to speak out agains this slogan of "Gay is the new black". It is not! If you're gay, you'd better chnge that slogan quick because I will surely speak out against it all rally other blacks to the cause.

    It makes me sick to thing of how perverted this country has has become. To even consider letting homosexuals raise adopted children is sicker than gay marriage itself. God help us!

    • Posted By: spjon @ 12/16/2008 3:49:30 PM

      And exactly how many adopted children do you have? At least when gay people adopt childrent they give them love and home. I would venture to guess that it's much better than growing up in an orphanage. It's hypocritical people like you that get to me. I don't see where you have any standing to speak about adoption when you don't have any adopted children yourself.

  • Posted By: Thomas.J @ 12/16/2008 2:39:26 PM

    O.K., this entire thing being related to the civil rights movement is completely retarded! black people can't chose what skin color they are the same as a white person can't chose to be asian! it's like some of these comments say "sexual preference" preference! choice! they mean the same thing.

    • Posted By: spjon @ 12/16/2008 3:44:04 PM

      I'm not usually in to name calling but the only retarded thing around here is you. Would you please recount to the people on this message board the day you decided to become straight? I'm not asking you to tell me about when you knew you were not gay, but rather about the day you made the conscious decision to be straight. It's called sexual preference because it makes people feel better. It's kind of like Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's a compromise where both sides had to give something up. I am not gay myself and therefore I feel I cannot make an informed decision on whether it's a choice or not. Obviously, you have had to wrestle with your own homosexuality issues for you to be able to say it is a choice and I commend you for deciding you are not gay even though it would seem you came so very close. If a gay person tells me they are gay because that's them then I have to believe them. How can I not?

  • Posted By: GPaul @ 12/15/2008 6:54:24 PM

    Civil rights issues should never be decided by voters, and that is the basis for the CA Supreme Court challenge. If that was accepted policy, as I stated, we could vote to eliminate rights for any minority group. That would set a dangerous precedent. California's Constitution was amended to guarantee equal rights regarding sexual preference.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/16/2008 12:00:12 AM

      Yes, the rights of the minority are protected by the right to challenge a law, amendment, etc in the state Supreme Court. If there is an argument that said law, amendment, etc violates the constitution, then it is invalided and their rights aren't infringed upon. But if there is no such argument, then its up to the legislature and the voters. You can not just sidestep the voters through the courts just because its a civil rights issue and you think they will disagree with you. That's setting a dangerous precedent.

      You mentioned the California Constitution was amended to provide rights based on sexual preference. Which right precisely? Part of what is being debated is what precise civil rights gays have. Some I talk to are concerned that rights are being plucked from air. I need to be able to honestly tell them that's not the case or I can not convince them of my pro-gay-marriage position.

      I am concerned that some supporting gay marriage are arguing from opinion, rather than reason and evidence, and are trying to push their views onto others. This is how religious extremist behave. I totally support gay marriage, but I can not support such methods. You should reason with people and give them time to adjust to change; they will surprise you.

  • Posted By: GPaul @ 12/15/2008 1:50:11 PM

    The California Constitution was written to promise equal rights under the law to all it's citizens regardless of gender, religion and sexual preference. When the mostly conservative California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a right for all of California's residents, it was simply following the Constitution as written. This change did not, and would have never affected any religions ceremonies as church and state operate independently. Just as interracial marriage was going to destroy the institution of marriage, now gay marriage is going to do the same thing. In 1961, when Barack Obama was born, his parents could not have married in 16 US States. The laws remained that way until 1967. Had that change been tested by popular vote, it would have never stood. Guess what, fear drives a great deal of discrimination, and the Catholics, Mormons, and evangelicals made their case that this would somehow affect children. There is not one gay or lesbian on the planet that became gay from being exposed to gay people. 90% were raised in good Christian or Mormon households. Is the real sin how other people love, or is it a sin to prevent others from having the rights we enjoy?

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/15/2008 6:35:27 PM

      You claim ???The California Constitution was written to promise equal rights??? regardless of gender, religion and sexual preference.??? I looked and frequently found discrimination based on ???race, sex, color, ethnicity, or nation of origin??? being stated as unconstitutional, but never found ???sexual preference.??? Where precisely is this stated?

      The California Supreme Court decisions did change whether or not the voters will decide the gay marriage issue. Don???t assume that a ???conservative??? court ruling ???gay marriage is a right??? is correct. A lot is going on in the court decisions and wouldn???t be bad to read up on some of this. Besides, the ends do not justify the means. If gay marriage should be decided by voters, let it happen.

      I know people who are liberal and very tolerant who are still concerned about children being raised by homosexuals. Their concern is less the children turning gay by proximity and more that the children should have a mother and a father wherever possible.

      I???d encourage you to look beyond your own point of view and to understand the concerns of those opposing gay marriage. If we address their concerns some of them will support gay marriage.

  • Posted By: spjon @ 12/15/2008 1:43:52 PM

    I really can't understand why people think it's activist judges. Marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. While every religious denomination in the US does not necessarily have to recognize it or practice it, US law should. I hate to tell you and every other social conservative that uses it as a bullet point, but it's not the court that is activist. Lawmakers knowingly put forth bills that they know are illegal and then when STRICT constructionist judges say that they are illegal (as such is the case against gay marriage) they are called activist judges and accused of legislating from the bench. The truth of the matter is that republicans (maybe a democrat or two) use gay marriage and their opposition to it as a wedge issue to try and distract voters from thei own shortcomings. However, in a democracy minorities have rights and they should be protected. Are you honestly telling me that if 50 + 1% of the American people decided you should be put to death for absolutely no reason then the courts should not be able to say that is illegal? You would just say, "Well, they voted and I lost. I guess it's time for me to die...". I very much doubt it. You would scream about your rights and your equal protection at the top of your lungs. You would beg for an "activist judge" to save you from your fate. In the end it's not the judiciary that is activist, but rather the legislature.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/15/2008 5:31:44 PM

      You are absolutely correct that marriage is a fundamental right, explicitly stated in the California, Maryland, and other state constitutions. The right to marriage is not being debated, the definition of marriage is. Yes, many on the Right use gay marriage, etc as a wedge issue and they are extremely out of line! The issue of whether or not judges are being activist is technical and depends how you interpret things. A good read would be the dissenting opinions of "In Re Marriage", the gay marriage case in California. There you could learn what some of the issues are and how one might argue that outlawing gay marriage is constitutional. Note that the judges are often very careful not to inject their opinions. However, they still sometimes overstep their bounds. This undermines separation of powers and thereby undermines the rights of all the governed.

  • Posted By: vandalii @ 12/14/2008 10:00:39 AM

    Polls, polls, polls. Get any answer you want, just "aim" it properly. Isn't it odd that every time a ballot initiative is put before a group larger than a city council, municipality or a state's supreme (sic) court, the voters side on the one-man/one-woman version of marriage? And yet, to hear pollsters, the homosexual lobby's work is done, everyone firmly sides with Polk Street in San Fransisco. Amendment 2 in Colorado 15 years ago "surprised" the homosexuals, and ever since then, ballot initiatives have passed even in deep-left places like California. An interesting use of "narrow" and "landslide" can be observed in this election cycle: Prop 8 "narrowly" passed wtih 52% / 48%, yet Obama won by a "landslide" with a 53% majority of the vote. It's all in the spin, folks. As once was said, "There's lies, D*mn lies, then there's statistics". And isn't it funny that, per the polls, less than half those polled realized Congress actually has a Democratic majority -- Republican president had a higher rating than Congress even as low as Pres. Bush's rating has gone, yet everyone seemed to think Republicans are the source of all evil. Perhaps the pollsters and prognosticators are right, average Americans really can be led by the nose. After all the poll says so...
    Sheesh!

    • Posted By: spjon @ 12/15/2008 1:45:22 PM

      It was a landslide! Obama not only won by millions of votes but he absolutely decimated McCain in the Electoral College. McCain didn't even get 200 votes in the EC!

  • Posted By: predicament @ 12/10/2008 1:07:44 AM

    IBoy tells his dad- Jack & Bob go to a different church than we go to, but hey go every sunday. Kids at school say they want to be married I think they are really nice people. What do you think Dad ? Dad- stay away from those 2 - they are different from us. But Dad - it's not like the others they are the saame color and from this country. Dad- they have no business in ourneighborhood- they don't have the right to be married to each other. Oh wow Dad I didn't know that. Wait till I get in class monday - we have been studying the constittution and declaration of independence. I will tell thre class
    that not everybody has the same rights. Hey Dad who tells us what rights each bunch of people have since there are different ways to get the liberty and pursuit of happiness and equal stuff we have been talking about at school. I did not know that different church people that say they believe in Jesus and God did not also believe the same way. Jack & Bob say they believe in Jesus and God and go to their church where some women go that want to be married. Dad - just tell me what to say to my class monday - I bet they would like to have you tell them about Jack & Bob.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/10/2008 1:25:15 AM

      Okay, okay. I think we made our point and have sufficiently told off Technologist and the other religious people who got cared away. We don't need to rub it in their face and insinuate that they are intolerant. We have to show respect for their beliefs if we expect them to respect ours.

      Don't take this the wrong way. I'm sure you have good intentions and are just trying to make a point. It just really important for our side to remain a tolerant side.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 8:31:29 AM

        Tolerance of injustice is no virtue.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/11/2008 5:30:09 AM

          Another, very important thought occurred to me. Some people are probably feel threatened by gay marriage. This feeling is supported by the arguments of those against gay marriage and is verified by the acts of yourself and others who openly regard these people as intolerant and try to shove gay marriage down their throats. Unless we work with these people and show that gay marriage poses no such threat, gay marriage will not be publicly excepted.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 8:52:55 AM

            Who cares about public acceptance, mate? Legal acceptance is the only thing that matters. Look what happened during the course of your civil rights movement. First the law changed, and then attitudes changed.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/11/2008 3:01:14 PM

              In California, they already have the legal recognition save gay unions being called marriage. The primary tactic in opposing Prop 8 was to say that gay people had the rights and to imply gay marriage was a threat to heterosexuals in that your children will learn "a princess can marry a princess", etc. Now maybe the current court cases against Prop 8 will succeed and gay marriage will exist in California. The anti-gay-marriage people will fight back, though with questionable success. You still will have subverted the will of the governed to get your way (hey, that's an injustice). Good luck next time you and half of society vote for something and an activist court overturns it. On the other hand, the court cases may fail and Prop 8 would now be solidly in the Constitution until overturned. You then would need the votes of a few more citizens (percentage-wise) that oppose Prop 8 to overturn it. You would need to convince some citizens that gay marriage really isn't a threat. If you would stop treating these people as intolerant and shoving gay marriage down their throats, you'd have their votes already. Same goes for other anti-gay-marriage policies. If you are serious about fight injustice, I think you should reconsider your tactics.

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 3:36:51 PM

                "In California, they already have the legal recognition save gay unions being called marriage. "

                Which is similar to Black children having "separate but equal" schools.

                Look, you have the perfect right to be pleasant and accomodating to fundies. I choose not to do so, as they are in the end both irrelevant and offensive. Proposition 8 will be struck down, as the preceding one was (the CA supreme court has already agreed to hear the case), and people will be free to live their own lives again, without the interference of the local hate cults. The end.

                • Posted By: spjon @ 12/15/2008 1:31:56 PM

                  I really can't understand why people think it's activist judges. Marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. While every religious denomination in the US does not necessarily have to recognize it or practice it, US law should. I hate to tell you and every other social conservative that uses it as a bullet point, but it's not the court that is activist. Lawmakers knowingly put forth bills that they know are illegal and then when STRICT constructionist judges say that they are illegal (as such is the case against gay marriage) they are called activist judges and accused of legislating from the bench. The truth of the matter is that republicans (maybe a democrat or two) use gay marriage and their opposition to it as a wedge issue to try and distract voters from thei own shortcomings. However, in a democracy minorities have rights and they should be protected. Are you honestly telling me that if 50 + 1% of the American people decided you should be put to death for absolutely no reason then the courts should not be able to say that is illegal? You would just say, "Well, they voted and I lost. I guess it's time for me to die...". I very much doubt it. You would scream about your rights and your equal protection at the top of your lungs. You would beg for an "activist judge" to save you from your fate. In the end it's not the judiciary that is activist, but rather the legislature.

        • Posted By: thedon @ 12/10/2008 5:05:21 PM

          How about tolerance of sin? Mmmm, now that's virtuous!

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 9:10:31 AM

            Maybe a sin in your religion. Not mine.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/10/2008 8:44:13 PM

          Belittling people and calling them intolerant just because they disagree with you is no virtue either. Intolerance of any form is a vice. Saying you are against "injustice" doesn't validate what you and Predicament are doing. Besides, not everyone against gay marriage is intolerant of gays. We need to work with these people, engaging them to honest, thoughtful conversation, to reverse Prop 8 and institute gay marriage. Some after some talk and thought may change their mind and support gay marriage (that is their decision to make, not mine, of course).

  • Posted By: jimbone_sdca @ 12/14/2008 11:21:53 PM

    They need to keep gov't secular by revoking the non-profit status of churches and religious organizations who start delving into politics. Prepare for the Rapture, and worry about your own damn souls and the souls of your congregations and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or not doing in their respective bedrooms and/or living rooms.

    Seems to me the same chapters of the bible they always quote (Leviticus and Exodus) also say that you can sell your daughter into slavery, kill your mother for wearing garments made from 2 different threads, can be put to death for planting two different crops side by side and for working on the Sabbath. For Football fans--touching the skin of a pig makes one unclean-is it okay if you wear gloves? You can also be put to death for marrying a woman outside your tribe, of non child-bearing age, who is divorced etc.

    If the ignorant tight-assed club is going to sight these chapters then let's enforce the rest of the rules from them as well.

    Funny how these "christians" are the LEAST CHRIST-LIKE of any group I've ever met or maybe I missed some attributes like pre-judging and uncharitable, being unkind and not loving your neighbor -- in other words: Republican

    Straying from the subject--nothing makes a PRO-LIFE republican pro choice faster than "Your daughter's pregnant and the father's black!"

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/15/2008 12:57:32 PM

      Not all Republicans are like that. The Religious Right are only a group within the Republican party. The Republican party (used to) stand for individual liberty and responsibility, fiscal restraint, limited government, etc. Some Republicans identify with the party on fiscal issues and not on the social ones and some of these (including myself) are fleeing the party like rats. Others agree with the Republican on the social issues but in a much more tolerant and thoughtful way, including many opposing gay marriage. It's a shame you and others view these people as The Republicans and (justifiably) use Republican as an insult. The reason I???ve been so tolerant of the anti-gay-marriage crowd is because not all of them are religious fanatics and think those people should be respected and be engaged in thoughtful conversation. And I don???t want to be a fanatic myself.

      Your post is otherwise dead on; the Religious Right is hypocritical. They pick and choose from the Bible. They want the government small and out of their lives but they want the government in everyone else's bedrooms. These people are un-Christian and un-Republican. They undermine the teachings of Christ and the values of liberty that define Republicans and the USA and that???s not right.

  • Posted By: SteveDenver @ 12/15/2008 9:11:10 AM

    Religious objectors obviously have a more colorful idea of what I do in my bedroom. I haven't had sex with a man in years, and if thinking about it is a "sin," zealots should cast out everyone in their congregation with dirty thoughts. If they fail to reprove their own flock because of Jesus' sacrifice, lots of gays and lesbians have accepted Christ as their savior and should be accepted as equally sanctified.

    Most non-Catholics reject the idea of hierarchy of "sins," but homosexuality seems to be the exception: worse than lying, worse than adultery, worse than murder. The majority of people who object to a social group usually think they don't know anyone from that group, so they buy into stereotypes.

  • Posted By: MonkeyObama @ 12/14/2008 9:43:57 AM

    The next time you speak with a gay man, ask him if he'll give you a hummer.

  • Posted By: Archetuthus @ 12/13/2008 5:46:50 PM

    I share many demographics and opinions with those who have flooded you with anti-gay-marriage mail: I'm straight and married, 65, vote mostly Republican, want a thrifty and less intrusive government, and push self-education instead of the dole.

    But I tell the rest of my demographic, "Let gays do as they please. Trying to stop them from marrying is just another futile, yet more covert, effort to legislate homesexuality away. Let them alone. They, too, are part of God's plan--even if you can't yet fathom why. But know for certain their role in God's eyes is NOT just to give you a target to attack.

    "If you want to get worked up about something, volunteer in a ghetto literacy program, give drug-prevention lectures in schools, or volunteer in a prison teaching criminals why they should work for a day's pay. My church does.

    I think you attack gays because these other missions are too hard, too gritty, too frustrating, and require your compassion. It's far easier to attack and stop things than it is to love, repair and build.

    "Get to work on something that matters."

  • Posted By: kira dehn @ 12/13/2008 12:59:12 PM

    bkrummel - Excellent post. However, I would like to add a concern of my own:
    It is regarding same-sex marriage and the application of a hate crime. In Canada there is a case with a Catholic Priest being charged with a hate crime because he is professing his beliefs. http://catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/
    If same-sex marriage is passed, a same-sex couple decides to get married in a church and the church disallows it because of their doctrine, can the church/pastor/congregation be charged with a hate crime?
    If it did constitute a hate crime then the 1st admendment would be compromised.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



  • Posted By: shanec24 @ 12/12/2008 8:02:55 PM

    all i have to say is im proud that a national publication like Newsweek finally sheds light on such a serious topic. I am not a homosexual but know many. I believe these individuals are normal hard working citizens that pay taxes, attend movies, keep our economy going, why should they not have the same equal rights as others? The phrase "Gay is the New Black" is just that, its correct! Gays are being prosecuted the same way african americans were previously. I applaud Newsweek and hope for equal rights for all Americans, including those from the GLBT Community.

    Shane
    Chicago IL

  • Posted By: Gryff @ 12/12/2008 6:33:15 PM

    From a religious perspective; when homosexuality is condemned in scripture, its at a time when ALL sex not for pro-creation was a sin. In the Old Testament, the Children of Israel had just escaped captivity in Egypt and were trying to re-populate. In the New Testament, Christians were being killed by the Roman Empire. These passages also say to "put away" a wife who is barren and replace her with a fertile one. Any man who was aroused could have sex with any woman he saw as long as she wasn't his next of kin. Strange how the religious right seems to totally ignore context.

    Additionally when Jesus' followers were troubled by the sins of the people they saw around them, He said, "Fret not the evil doer for his reward is on earth." If gay people are evil, why can't the religious right leave them in peace to reap their earthly reward. Jesus also said true religion was helping the sick and elderly, perhaps christians should get back to their assigned tasks and stay out of politics.

    However, the even larger issue is simply seperation of church and state. There is NO basis for keeping gay marriage illegal that isn't based in religion. Religion is NOT supposed to have ANY bearing on the laws of this country. We are the United States of America. Founded on an INDIVIDUALS right to choose whatever religion they want, or none at all. Thomas Jefferson wrote that seperation of church and state was to protect the state from the church, not the other way around. This country was founded on the rights of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Denying a segment of the population the right to marry is an afront to what this country was founded on. It is a violation of the constitution. Gay people marrying, establishing stable households only stregthens We The People. This country was founded on inclusion and welcoming people of all walks of life.

    But more importantly, we have an economy to fix, we have a war to resolve, we have a colossal job ahead of us to make this country truly functional again. It is time for people to get over their bigotry and prejudice and start acting like Americans. We have more important things to deal with and it is going to take every citizen. All of us working together to rebuild this country. We no longer have the time or luxury to spend bickering about our differences. It is so easy to spend a whole life condemning and tearing down, but far more noble to spend it building something worthwhile.

  • Posted By: Gryff @ 12/12/2008 6:24:36 PM

    From a religious perspective; when homosexuality is condemned in scripture, its at a time when ALL sex not for pro-creation was a sin. In the Old Testament, the Children of Israel had just escaped captivity in Egypt and were trying to re-populate. In the New Testament, Christians were being killed by the Roman Empire. These passages also say to "put away" a wife who is barren and replace her with a fertile one. Any man who was aroused could have sex with any woman he saw as long as she wasn't his next of kin. Strange how the religious right seems to totally ignore context.

    Additionally when Jesus' followers were troubled by the sins of the people they saw around them, He said, "Fret not the evil doer for his reward is on earth." If gay people are evil, why can't the religious right leave them in peace to reap their earthly reward. Jesus also said true religion was helping the sick and elderly, perhaps christians should get back to their assigned tasks and stay out of politics.

    However, the even larger issue is simply seperation of church and state. There is NO basis for keeping gay marriage illegal that isn't based in religion. Religion is NOT supposed to have ANY bearing on the laws of this country. We are the United States of America. Founded on an INDIVIDUALS right to choose whatever religion they want, or none at all. Thomas Jefferson wrote that seperation of church and state was to protect the state from the church, not the other way around. This country was founded on the rights of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Denying a segment of the population the right to marry is an afront to what this country was founded on. It is a violation of the constitution. Gay people marrying, establishing stable households only stregthens We The People. This country was founded on inclusion and welcoming people of all walks of life.

    But more importantly, we have an economy to fix, we have a war to resolve, we have a colossal job ahead of us to make this country truly functional again. It is time for people to get over their bigotry and prejudice and start acting like Americans. We have more important things to deal with and it is going to take every citizen. All of us working together to rebuild this country. We no longer have the time or luxury to spend bickering about our differences. It is so easy to spend a whole life condemning and tearing down, but far more noble to spend it building something worthwhile.

  • Posted By: zhidon @ 12/12/2008 5:34:46 PM

    According to the same passages that all the Bible thumpers quote, all those divorcees who remarry, and of course adulterers, wil be joining us in hell also. See you there. I have always found it funny (as in a hipocritical sense) that even though divorce and remarrying is more popular than being gay, no one wants to start a proposition against that sin. No one wants to picket a couple remarrying; signs saying they are going to hell. No, it just seems whatever people are ignotant and bigoted about gets condemed.

  • Posted By: margelp9 @ 12/12/2008 4:44:50 PM

    When this GOD you seem to have such a personal relationship with calls, Plain_Truth, you let me know. The point is, noone has ever seen, touched, smelled, talked to or otherwise sensed any sort of paranormal phenomena that you seem to imbue with human qualities. How can GOD say something? Show me where your GOD thingy lives and I will go look at it. Oh. Wait. Its a belief you have. Like the belief my grandmother has that breaking a mirror is bad luck or that playing birthdays for lottery numbers is somehow better. Your belief is just that, a superstition. Keep your superstitious feelings out of my life and my marriage. The bible is an old school myth, just like the greek and roman myths that our children study in school. If you want to teach your children the new mythology of the current age which is the bible, go ahead. But dont try to force your myths on me.

  • Posted By: Plain_Truth @ 12/12/2008 11:56:29 AM

    NewsWEAK is as usual trying to distort & pervert the truth along with the many supporters it has. No matter how many times people claim the bible "GOD's Word" does not say what it clearly states, it will not change anything. GOD is a loving God and a just God. That simply means that people will be held accountable for thier sins that they refuse to admit are sins and therefore reject God's free forgiveness. These people will go to hell for eternity. People cannot change GOD's mind by putting it in print or speaking it to others. Homosexuality and lesbianism is a sin and an abomination in GOD's eyes. It will allways be, no matter what people say. GOD's Word, the bible, clearly defines it as a detestible sin. The Isralites were to put a man to death who slept with another man. GOD only defines marriage between one man and one woman. Anything else is against GOD's Word. For all those people who say otherwise, try actually reading the bible without thinking you have the right to sit in judgement of GOD. Homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, bestiality, child pornography, insest, rape, etc. are all just extensions of the same perversion. In GOD's eyes, all sins are the same and need to be repented of. Anyone who rejects GOD's free forgivenes by refusing to acknowledging their sin is held accountable for it and will go to hell.

    • Posted By: jfranksocal @ 12/12/2008 3:53:14 PM

      Judging others is a sin too.

  • Posted By: rkhteach @ 12/11/2008 8:23:10 AM

    "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." This is true. Jesus is an all-inclusive person. He loves each one of us just they way we are. He died for us while we were still denying him and he continues to chase after each one of us in a way that will get our attention. He died for the sinner--no matter what kind of sin it was or is--and loves us despite of our faults. That is the Jesus I know. But, to say that he loves us so much as to look away from our wrongdoings is naive and untrue. Would a spouse look away from the infidelity of their significant other? Should a parent ignore a child who is about to hurt themselves or a child who blatantly refuses to obey? Our God, our Jesus, loves us yes, just the way we are, but he loves us TOO MUCH to allow us to stay how we are. He knows we are ALL sinners and wants us ALL to turn from that sin and turn to him. He has given us free will and wants us to choose him, not our sin, because it is impossible to have both. Homosexuality is a sin, just like murder is a sin, lying is a sin, gossip is a sin, drunkeness is a sin--the Bible is CLEAR on sin and how it separates us from the love of God. No sin is worse than any other sin in the eyes of God. It ALL separates us from him. Therefore, we should hate all sin, but not the sinner. We are taught to turn away from our sin, confess our sin to the Lord and he will save us (from ourselves and our sin). It's not for us to judge one person's sin over another, but we should not openly condone it either. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the United States of America was completely based on the Christian principles and values that we find in the Bible. Jefferson wrote his own, plain-English version of the Bible for his children; Madison stated that without morality which comes from Christian education, the American Republic would never last; every single one of our Founding Fathers prayed and kept journals about how this Consitution was only going to work with the grace of the Almighty. If we are to stay true to the principles of America, we have to stay true to our Christian heritage. We are not perfect, not one of us. But the Bible principles are and we ought to follow them. According to Revelation, in the last days of man, the good will be seen as evil and the evil will be seen as good. Newsweek, unfortunately has continued the recent barrage on all that is GOOD in our world and has seen fit to call the evil "good". That is unfortunate, yet exciting because I know we are now truly in the "last days."

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 12/11/2008 1:44:40 PM

      Yes, the United States should be a good moral country. If you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, that's your opinion and you probably should oppose gay marriage, etc. But something you should consider: not everyone in the United States share your religious views. You say that the United States is a Christian nation and then quote the founding fathers. But the founding fathers understood the danger of church-state unions and wished to avoid the tyranny of a theocracy. And regardless, we are currently a nation of (good) people with many religious beliefs, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Atheist, etc., and we need to build a society that respects all these religious views. We are a country of "Separation of Church and State" under which policies do not cater to one religion or another. So you can't make political policy decisions just on your religious beliefs. Other's beliefs and the best interest of society also need to be consider. You should not try to save the entire country from sin. Otherwise you'll have policies like Prohibition of alcohol; boy did that make the United States more moral! To be honest, this notion of the United States being a Christian nation is just an excuse for you to force your religious views on the rest of us. Some of us are sinners; deal with it and stay out of our lives. Now you are welcome to your religious and moral views and can pursue polices that are morally right. But don't expect us to oppose all "sin" just because of some nonsense idea that "the United States of America was completely based on Christian principles".

  • Posted By: Not a Reader @ 12/09/2008 4:44:04 PM

    You just remindem me of why I abhor your magazine. Why don't you stick with the "new"....Newsweek and leave the Bible to Godly men and women who know how to interpet it correctly!

    • Posted By: Fanny_Craddock @ 12/09/2008 9:53:45 PM

      How do you propose interpreting who's Holy and who's not? Me and my boyfriend have been going to church for ten years, am I holy enough to interpret the scriptures?

      • Posted By: thedon @ 12/10/2008 5:17:38 PM

        Actually, the word they used was Godly - which means like God. Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, so the question would be how Christ-like you are. That would mean following His ways and His word. And you can't play the "Jesus is love" card. Jesus was also for justice and upholding the law of God. Read it in any gospel book for yourself.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:00:44 AM

          Which of you is like Christ?

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 9:28:09 AM

        Only if you hate enough, apparently, and demand that you have the only "correct" interpretation of the bible.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/09/2008 4:53:40 PM

      If you're going to use it as a reason to deny people civil liberties, then you're going to have to put up with people taking a look at it themselves.

      You can't have it both ways.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse