The Power Of Prayer

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: brutalhonesty @ 12/20/2008 11:00:34 PM

    You gays are a trip. Every single time you cannot get your way, we're trampling on your "rights". If you people want play booty-bandit and twat-licker, who cares. But I am stronglly against you calling it marriage. Create a new word or term to describe your union, but leave marriage alone. It is between a man and a woman,...period. I ask you; if you could get all the benefits and privledges marriage offers you by calling it something else, would you?

    Consider this carefully, there is a entire culture of Americans who would be willing to support your civil unions with full rights and benefits if you are willing to give in a little and not call it marriage. Trying to force us to accept your re-interpetation of marriage will keep you fighting for years to come. Not to mention the disgust and gay bashing that would probably increase as a result. I personally agree that if you persist in trying to force it on us, you will lose my support and that of many others who don't want to have the traditional meaning of marriage phucked-up just to accomodate your lifestyle. I will support all gays who want full marriage benefits by civil union, but I will turn into your enemy if you force us to accept YOUR re definition of marriage.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:22:35 AM

      "But I am stronglly against you calling it marriage."

      Who cares what a bigot thinks?

  • Posted By: curve_ball @ 12/20/2008 11:23:19 PM

    Reading these posts is absolutely dismaying. If these posts are an accurate measure of the attitudes prevalent in our American culture, we are in deep trouble.

    The religious posturing here is positively painful. Have those of you quoting chapter and verse ever considered what a truly secular nation would look like. I encourage you to read a little book by Phil Zuckerman called Society Without God. Denmark and Sweden are arguably the most secular nations in the west, and they are arguably also the most successful nations on the planet in terms of how well their citizens live. They have high standards of living, high rates of charitable giving, high literacy, extremely low rates of poverty. They take care of their sick, their elderly, their disabled, and their poor much better than we do in this country. By most measures, their citizens are among the happiest on the planet, gays and straights alike. But the vast majority of them do not believe in god--and they seem to get along just fine.

    We could learn something from understanding how their societies work. This religious divisiveness is just getting in the way of real progress. We need to abandon it. We don't need it. In my view, we don't need religion anymore.

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 12/21/2008 2:53:52 AM

      The two nations put together,do not even match the sole state of New York. Nor do they have a gangster ridden Mexico at their borders. Thus you offer a simplistic viewpoint,more hopeful,than realistic.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:21:15 AM

        "The two nations put together,do not even match the sole state of New York."

        And yet they are more civilised than you. Imagine that.

      • Posted By: curve_ball @ 12/21/2008 10:33:54 AM

        First, I didn't say we could be Sweden or Denmark. I said we could learn something from them. Second, yes we are a much larger country, but do you think that that fact means that Sweden or Denmark doesn't have similar problems. If you had done even a little looking into this, you would have found that those countries have immigration issues as well--not with Mexicans, but Muslims. Third, because they are small, they don't have the many of the resources of a country like the US. So in some ways they are at a disadvantage.

        What is your point exactly? Are you saying that because we are a large country, religion is necessary to our success? Please! This is truly "simplistic" thinking.

        My point in bringing up Sweden and Denmark is that a country need not be steeped in religion to be successful. Religion is not a necessary attribute of good government. If you think we cannot learn something from these countries, you are simply being arrogant or deliberately obtuse. Our country is a mess, in part because of the influence of the religious right and the divisiveness that a religious orientation engenders when taken to extremes, which it all too often is.

  • Posted By: imagination7 @ 12/21/2008 12:11:01 AM

    I got nothing bad to say about gay or lesbian, i don't agree with their lifestyle, but I respect and treat them like a good human being, because whether they know or not that what they do is wrong or not, that is for God to judge, the Bible states plenty about it being a sin, and if a person chooses to live in sin that is their choice and they will answer to God, and explain all they like to Him, again it'a choice, a lot of people make choices in their lives bad and good. Now if they want the marraige defenition to change they can do it, it can be a law on paper on stone, in court or wherever else that they would like it to be changed, but to me in heart i know what marriage means to me, and if i will have children, i will teach them the same way my parents taught me, that marriage is something more then just a partnership to produce children, but the only perfect balance that God created for human beings to live in harmony, and to compliment each other, exists the best between a man and a woman. Now if a law would be created that marriage defenition will be changed, If I will respect the gay and lesbian wishes, then my wishes as a Christian should be respected to. What I mean by that is if two men or women want to get married, then they should build their own "churches" somewhere where they will not have Christians telling them what is wrong and what is right, they should their own priests, write their own Bible, the kind that suits them, and not expect to go to a Christian church who will bless them, because a real God fearing abiding pastor will never agree to get that kind of couple married, that is a fact. I don't care what you do, but in the end when it comes to a judgment day, you will remember a lot of "i told you so's" except the arguments that you use to excuse your behavior of why you became gay or lesbian or "i was born with it" is not gonna fly with God.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:20:02 AM

      Wow. Someone gets it.

      Let God make his own judgements. That is his job, last I checked.

  • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/21/2008 1:33:43 PM

    HEY ! FOLKS.

    WHY DOES SEABISCUIT TAKE EVERYTHING SAID HERE PERSONALLY ?

    WHY IS THIS GAY MAN SO UNHAPPY ?

    GUILT ?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:16:56 AM

      If someone was telling me who I could marry, I'd take it personally too.

  • Posted By: bochris322 @ 12/21/2008 1:34:58 PM

    Reverend Rick Warren is the perfect person to be giving the invocation. He knows and honors God and God's truths. Our nation needs someone who loves God to call upon God's blessings as we are so incredibly self-absorbed and self-driven that we are incurring His wrath. God honors the prayers of the righteous believers, He does not honor those who do not love Him as Lord as well as Savior. Fact is not one of us deserves God's love and heterosexuals are no different than homosexuals related to that. However, as Rick Warren understands, God holds a holy standard for all of us, which is attainable only through Christ's sacrifice for our sakes. Not one of us could meet the standard without.

    Also, our nation was founded upon God's truths; all but two of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were evangelical Christians, and obedience to God is written into the document. Separation of church and state was something that the government coined much later.

    May God have mercy upon our entire country ~ we need it.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:16:19 AM

      "all but two of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were evangelical Christians, "

      Link, please.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/21/2008 5:15:20 PM

      "Also, our nation was founded upon God's truths;"
      Not at all.

      "All but two of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were evangelical Christians"
      That is garbage. Andit is the US Constitution that matters as far as the law is concerned.

      " and obedience to God is written into the document."
      No it is not. Nowhere is obedience of god mentioned in either Declaration of Independence or in the US Constitution, which is the most sacred documetn to the US Government.

      " Separation of church and state was something that the government coined much later. "
      Not at all. Thomas Jefferson set forth that idea at the same time the Constitution was written.

    • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/21/2008 1:55:39 PM

      Sadly, all those evangelical Christians didn't write the Cionstitution to protect the rights of the Indkans over their lands nor to stop the buying of kidnapped blacks to do slave labor nor to offer freedom to the slaves in the southern states.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 11:14:01 AM

    Judging from the responses below, it seems that there is an element in the Christian community that feels that they don't have religious freedom if they can't dictate the lives of others. Sounds like the Taliban to me.

    Fact is, allowing Gays to marry does not "force" anything on anybody. The only ones trying to "oppress" or "force lifestyles down someone's throat" are the Christian fundies.

  • Posted By: olgee @ 12/20/2008 11:04:47 PM

    This movement is not about gay rights, it's about forcing everyone to approve of their lifestyle. I don't hear the gays saying too much about muslim beliefs. They don't attack the anti-homosexual, doctrine od the Muslim faith, because they are afraid of the consequences. I am Christian and I don't judge anyone, but the intention of the gay rights movement is just an attempt force an end to the right of people to worship freely. I'll never be force fed your brand of oppression

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:54:17 AM

      "I'll never be force fed your brand of oppression"

      Wait. Is it "oppression" if you can't *** all over them, or are you seriously suggesting that if Gay marriage is allowed, that you will be forced into a Gay marriage?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:52:46 AM

      "but the intention of the gay rights movement is just an attempt force an end to the right of people to worship freely."

      So your religion isn't free so long as you can't force the beliefs of your hate cult down the throats of others?

    • Posted By: nonatonne @ 12/21/2008 2:59:05 AM

      How does two women marrying in Sacramento affect your ability to worship freely?

    • Posted By: sharkman @ 12/21/2008 2:15:25 AM

      olgee you have made more sense than anyone in this blog.Thank you for your inteligence and staight talk.

    • Posted By: ocodan @ 12/20/2008 11:24:45 PM

      What is non-approval and exclusion but judging?

    • Posted By: ocodan @ 12/20/2008 11:24:02 PM

      What is non-approval but judging?

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 12/21/2008 2:39:44 AM

    Then too,gays play both sides of the street. One,that there is no God worth mentioning that will get in the way of their sexual behaviors.[or ''love''which is allowed those as low as dogs], The other,[stupidly and arrogantly advanced by NEWSWEAKS Miller], that Even If There Is A Gawd,He Is OK With Gay Marriage.

    Make up your damned minds. As Jesus advances in Matthew and Mark, he is not the ''author of confusion''.[or ,Gr/Lt. 'that which makes ''problem''].

    The Levitican Laws do not apply to Christians . Miller should have known this fact. Both Gays and Evangelicals err in applying these strictures to Gentiles.[i.e. ''shellfish'',''menstrating women'', ''man laying as with woman'',and the like]. Jesus never advanced the application of Jewish Law to the Gentiile outside of the original Ten Commandments ,Nor,[as made plain in all of the Jesusian gospels in no fewer than three books of the New Testament],did he advance marriage as between anyone other than a man and a woman. Jesus is thus allright in loving the gay as a person [as ''your neighbor,as yourself''].,but NOT ,embracing ''gay marriage'',which is a thing Jesus refused,openly acknowlaging ''male and female'' as in the OT Genesis 2, which Miller also ignored. Warren Is right on the money here. So is Obama,for this matter.


    Gays argue that the Bible is a thing of man. Very well.


    But it is to Man that it be interpreted,and it will be not always in the favour that they seek.Gays are trapped between an equisite thing of making.

    One:

    Are those evangelicals in opposition to gay marriage to be sanctioned or silenced in conflict with the secular guarantees of the US Constitutions Ist Amendment? [thus denying rights].Or,do they allow, under the very same protectiions,a Rev.Gene Robinson arrangement where a Vicar of ''Christ''is in an open unmarried relationship with a gay lover? [Again,make up your damned minds].

    Two:

    How do gays offer non-secular allowance when every single chapter of the Jewish-Christian Bible remonstrances against gay marriage? [ and where it is allowed,it becomes an interpretation of those who have made such only since the 1980s,let alone the 2000 years before the birth of The Chirst. In other words,a thing made in modern times to not only accomodate modern mores,but revise all that has gone before].

    Do not deign to hand me the ''intolerance ''of the ''fundie''. I,in the last several months,have seen too damned much of it from gays already. [never mind the fact that both Gays and NEWSWEAK are too cowardly to address ''homophobia''in the Muslim,Latino,and Black evangelical communities,whille gay hatred and intolerance is directed, especially at the Mormons, including acts of arson,death threats,assault,terrorism,and hate crimes ,which make all gays who seek ''equality'', and ''tolerance''... hypocrites.Jesus,speaking from a plainly Biblical standpoint,had something to say about this as well.

    ''Ye have made the commnandment of God of none effec

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:50:08 AM

      "The Levitican Laws do not apply to Christians . "

      So you get to cherry pick the bible. That's a pretty nice deal.

      But didn't Jesus say, "I come not to destroy the law"?

  • Posted By: tjhall @ 12/21/2008 2:44:43 AM

    Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:49:03 AM

      That's nice. When God wants the Gays to stop, I'm sure he'll tell them.

  • Posted By: Barak O'Clinton @ 12/21/2008 1:07:23 PM

    Who cares. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about gays and their issues. They are a miniscule percentage of the population yet they dominate the news-cycle--enough already. Why don't you devote more time to the issues people actually care about.

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/21/2008 1:18:47 PM

      FACT IS THAT GAYS EXIST AND SOME GAYS ( RADICALS ) WANT TO ACT AS IDIOTS TO CAUSE TROUBLE.

      FACT IS GAY LIFE STYLES ARE HARMFULL IN SOME SITUATIONS ( AIDS ).

      FACT IS THAT SOME GAYS ARE PROBABLY VERY RESPONSIBLE.

      I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG.

      MAN KISSING ANOTHER MAN ON THE LIPS -------- REVOLTING TO SAY THE LEAST.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:47:16 AM

        Some religious nutcase telling other people how to run their lives?

        Revolting at the least.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 8:39:46 AM

        "FACT IS THAT GAYS EXIST AND SOME GAYS ( RADICALS ) WANT TO ACT AS IDIOTS TO CAUSE TROUBLE."

        You won't listen to the responsible ones, so you get the radicals. Sorry about that.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/22/2008 7:58:08 AM

        "FACT IS THAT GAYS EXIST AND SOME GAYS ( RADICALS ) WANT TO ACT AS IDIOTS TO CAUSE TROUBLE."
        That exact same thing was said about women's rights and civil rights activists. Every group needs it radicals because the majority calm activists are often too easily ignored.

        FACT IS GAY LIFE STYLES ARE HARMFULL IN SOME SITUATIONS ( AIDS ).
        The real fact is heterosexual lifestyles are harmful in some situtaitons (AIDS)

        "FACT IS THAT SOME GAYS ARE PROBABLY VERY RESPONSIBLE."
        Nice of you to admit that.

        "I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG."
        You have the right to that belief, but you do not have the rigth to deny equal rights in civil marriages.


        "MAN KISSING ANOTHER MAN ON THE LIPS -------- REVOLTING TO SAY THE LEAST."
        In you opinion. In my opinion it does nto matter. Now Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian getting all the publicicty they do for being completely talentless and unimportant, THAT is truly revolting.

  • Posted By: jury12 @ 12/21/2008 2:03:31 PM

    baileyt2 calls us wingnuts? thats a laugh a minute from a demographic that clearly, through statistics, raise confused adopted children often stunted by either a lack of mother or father figure and suffer later in life because of it.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:46:26 AM

      So now you want to outlaw single mothers?

    • Posted By: baileyt2 @ 12/21/2008 3:18:23 PM

      Yes, you are amusing, you sactimonious nutball. How many adoptees of gay parents do you know? What is the source of your "statistics"? You'll have to be a bit more authoritative than simply proclaiming the "truth". Otherwise, you reveal the fruitcake that you are.

  • Posted By: MrsB. @ 12/21/2008 2:22:53 PM

    The comparing of the civil rights movement to that of Prop 8 is not a valid comparison. Blacks were bought into this country and sold into slavery for hundreds of years. They have suffered and endured much abuse in past with lynchings and merciless killings, and in present also (James Byrd). African-Americans have just began within the last century to be recognized as second class citizens in this country. One of the fundemental virtues that has gotten blacks through this journey is our faith in God. For the gay community not to recognize that just goes to show that the other side didn't know as much about the other as it thought. And futhermore, where have all of the gay activists been in our time of need? It's okay to get the loud mouth colored folks involved when you need a strong voice but how many from the homosexual side have spoken out against so many of the problems that have plagued the black community for years?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/22/2008 10:45:27 AM

      Because there are no Black homosexuals.

      Right?

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/21/2008 5:08:56 PM

      I do not know about the gay commuity as a whole but I know at least 50 white gay/lesbian people who were actively involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960's and 5 who were old enough to be involved in the late 1950's as well as about 6 black gay/lebian people who were involved. I also know many of them who were acitvely involved in fighting for equal rights for the black community in the last 25 years. Now were they open about being gay or lesbian? No. Because they were subject to the discrimination if they had been out of the closet (several of them were US Government employees and being out of the closet was a guaranteed immediate firing). Also several of the old-timers said that they were told by the NAACP to not mention thier sexual orientaiton (and two were asked by Dr King himself nto to make an issue of their being lesbians.)

      Now that is jsut a small group but it is what I as one person know about. I would imagine that many many others were involved as well.

  • Posted By: miamijer @ 12/21/2008 12:17:24 AM

    "Most Americans???including most African Americans???agree with Warren about gay marriage and do not view our struggle as analogous to the black civil rights movement."

    True, the gay agenda is NOT comparable to the Black civil rights movement, despite what the gay boosters publicly state. Unfortunately for liberals who support gay marriage, most black people do not equate their struggles for civil rights with gay special interests trying to shove their unnatural lifestyle down the average American's throat.

    "But you would also have to agree that the country is much, much farther along on black civil rights than on gay civil rights." That is a misnomer; "gay civil rights". There is no such thing since most ethnic minorities do not agree with you that you were born gay, while they were in fact born people of color. You can hide your behavior, they can't their color!

    Chris stated in part "opponents as bigots outside the mainstream". Typical label used to demonize anyone who does not agree with the gay agenda. Tolerance only applies to people who agree with PC ideology, not opposing opinions.

    "All with the confidence that the public will see we have the stronger position." Stronger position in what sense? Better organized at the grass roots level than conservative opposition and better funded by celebrity deep pockets (Hollywood)?

    "LGBT individuals are people who choose to engage in sinful, sexually disordered behavior." That's right; It is what it is!
    Then there was the "narrow-minded" label applied to Warren and other Christians who oppose the gay lifestyle. I'm surprised that I didn't see the "hateful" and "intolerant" labels applied, but all of the other favorite anti-conservative adjectives were used nonetheless. I know plenty of hateful, narrow-minded, and biggoted people who are homosexual.

    Whether you like it or not, polygamy is just as valid an institution as gay marriage. If you support gay marriage but not polygamy, you are just as narrow-minded, hateful, intolerant, and bigoted as your political foes. You are polygaphobic!
    If the gay lifestyle and gay marriage are "civil rights", then so is polygamy and many other alternative lifestyles. Capice?!

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:42:15 AM

      "trying to shove their unnatural lifestyle down the average American's throat."

      What, you think Gays are going to try to force you into a Gay marriage? LOL.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:41:37 AM

      "True, the gay agenda is NOT comparable to the Black civil rights movement"

      It's identical. In both cases, a subset of the population was made into second class citizens.

    • Posted By: nonatonne @ 12/21/2008 2:35:10 AM

      It must take a very queer sort of heterosexual to seek out a Newsweek article written by two gay figures on a gay issue, then litter its comment board with citations, digressions, and self-referential tangents--the sort of person, I imagine, who will find himself very isolated in the queer world in which he finds himself in a decade or so, when gay marriage has spread across another half-dozen states, and he has nothing but the comment boards to vent his frustrations upon.

    • Posted By: nonatonne @ 12/21/2008 2:32:48 AM

      It must take a very queer sort of heterosexual to seek out a Newsweek article written by two gay figures on a gay issue, then litter its comment board with citations, digressions, and self-referential tangents--the sort of person, I imagine, who will find himself very isolated in the queer world in which he finds himself in a decade or so, when gay marriage has spread across another half-dozen states, and he has nothing but the comment boards to vent his frustrations upon.

  • Posted By: bd51sg @ 12/21/2008 1:33:19 AM

    Is there a God... Is the Bible true...It's the ultimate gamble. Place your bet.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:38:47 AM

      Yeah, that's nice. In the meantime, keep YOUR religion out of MY government.

      Thanks.

  • Posted By: peterz008 @ 12/21/2008 2:19:33 AM

    This country is founded by christians, but yet gives the freedom of religion. Those who are borned in this country or migrated to this country are all looking forward to a better society. Is a gay country make the society better? By my human nature, I don't agree that. There is no need to talk about religion, but talk about human conscience.

    • Posted By: SD_Dave @ 12/21/2008 2:24:05 AM

      Sorry, the founding fathers were NOT Christians, they were Deists. Learn your history, better yet, READ UP ON THOMAS JEFFERSON!

      • Posted By: AcceptEveryone @ 12/21/2008 1:02:37 PM

        ya, Thomas Jefferson, the guy who owned slaves and had slaves in the Whitehouse... But, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, they were all diests. If your gay, and you have a problem with diverse views, then you have as many issues as this PAstor Guy has. It's called ignorance. I enjoy ALL views, especially the ones that differ from mine...oh ya, so did Abe Lincoln (oh no, he was an athiest!)
        ???When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that???s my religion.??? Abe Lincoln

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:38:01 AM

          "If your gay, and you have a problem with diverse views, then you have as many issues as this PAstor Guy has. "

          The difference is, of course, that crapping on Gays doesn't hurt Warren at all, but Warren hurts gays.

          Allowing yourself to be made a second class citizen isn't "respecting diversity".

      • Posted By: bochris322 @ 12/21/2008 1:46:16 PM

        Learn YOUR history better, not just what suits your argument. TJ was argued as a Deist, but if you research if further you will recognize his Christianity. He and only one other of those who signed the Declaration were considered Deists. All others were evangelical Christians. And, in four places in the Declaration, God's supremacy and Lordship is acknowledged as Head of our Country. Why do you think we have really done so well - all on our own merits? Really ~

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:36:49 AM

          "All others were evangelical Christians. "

          Utter crap. The only one that was even close to being an evangelical Christian was Patrick Henry, and even HE insisted on keeping religion out of government.

          You're one of those "liars for Jesus", aren't you?

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:35:05 AM

          Why do you lie?

        • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/21/2008 2:01:19 PM

          This country's governing document is the Cionstitution and amendments to it, not what some white guys signed to go on record affirming the 13 colonies should be independent from England and that all white men were created equal and had inalienable rights, including the exercise of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as each sees fit.

  • Posted By: ajani1000 @ 12/22/2008 8:45:17 AM

    I have many gay friends and we all agree that the choosing of Rick Warren is okay. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Barack Obama, Bravo! We support your idea.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 10:30:51 AM

      I believe you.

      No, really.

  • Posted By: Miss Pitty Pat @ 12/20/2008 6:48:53 PM

    Somehow people think they will be the selected group to own the Presidents ear....hehehhhehehehehhahhahrhahahahahahha wrong....

    He will choose who he wants and the hell with you who dont like it......He is smart enough to know he cant please everyone...and he wont even try....... so get over yourself. Stop trying to make evey issue about you. What is sickening about gays is you live for your a** s, and we don' t. We are so sick of hearing about your sex life . You chose to be freaks ...so live it baby it is all yours. ...and leave us alone. You want impact then organize and all go out and buy a Chevrolete and maybe we will hear you. Gay marriage ...***.....go try something new. Why should you ever want something normal like marriage ...you are not normal... start .Gayhappidom...or Queerwonderland....or butch and butchess.....but not husband and wife....you are neither...so get a title and enjoy it. Start your own.You dont want to be us....so leave us alone and truth is we will sure leave you alone. I promise none of us will try and be you. We like what we are . This is Obamas innauguration....not yours....have your own prom.Make your own world and go live in it....

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 8:48:51 AM

      "We are so sick of hearing about your sex life ."

      The only one talking about their sex life is you.

  • Posted By: Miss Pitty Pat @ 12/20/2008 7:02:36 PM

    No one would even notice you or try to obstruct your freedom if you didnt push so hard to live in our straight world and be like us. Go be gay. Your menu is your choice. Not enough of you have fought and died . Listen why dont you form a gay army, and go to Iraq....or some war torn country and do us afavor. ...and none come back. We actually dont care what you do in bed or with whom you do it....we wouldnt even know if you didnt tell us....constantly. Thank God you cant breed!. Proof there is a God!!!!!! Did you happen to notice he is not on your side?

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 8:47:02 AM

      He's not on your side either, you jabbering bigot.

    • Posted By: doglover26 @ 12/20/2008 7:13:51 PM

      lol...I get it--only straights have served in the military and somehow that makes that particular sexuality worth having equality. Brilliant. Well, not even close to the same zip code as brilliant, but at least you tried.

    • Posted By: quietplease @ 12/20/2008 7:11:25 PM

      Your hatred is astonishing!

    • Posted By: seabiscuit @ 12/20/2008 7:09:55 PM

      You obviously do, you're here shootin your worthless mouth off. All I can say is "Oh why don't you!".
      And to all the gay idiots on here saying we should just be patient, keep our place at the back of the bus, Thank God I have the freedom of speech left to quote an old protest song sung so defiantly by Judy Collins "It isn't nice, it isn't nice, you told us once, you told us twice, well thank you buddy for your advice but if that's Freedom's price we don't mind!"

  • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 7:59:51 PM

    unorthodox asked, "Isn't this country about the freedom to do right or wrong, as long as is doesn't hurt anyone else against his/her will?"

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 8:45:10 AM

      John Adams also supported the Alien and Sedition Acts.

      Did you have a point?

    • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/20/2008 8:13:21 PM

      But John Adams didn't set up our Constitution by himself. So that's just his opinion. Non-religious people can choose not to hurt others against their will.

      • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 8:30:16 PM

        Do you believe that our Constitution is capable of governing an immoral people?

        Adams wasn't the only one of the Founding Fathers who believed that. This country's constitution is an experiment still in flux, as it was designed to govern a people who saw and see themselves as accountable to God.

        I believe the Constitution, as it is written, supports gay marriage, by the way. I just don't believe the Founding Fathers would believe that our country would survive if we abandoned the morals that God's moral law proscribes. I wonder if they'd have written the Constitution differently if they knew that gay marriage and abortion would be on the table later? I guess we'll never know. But time will tell if Adams was right. :)

        • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/20/2008 8:49:11 PM

          It provides a good basis to govern people who all sin. But sin that only affects oneself, or a mutually consenting partner, is not a threat to everyone else. Such immorality is not a threat to others. Now if too many people are hurting others against their will, then it becomes hard for the police to enforce laws against non-consenting harm.

          • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 9:01:27 PM

            Agreed, as far as the Constitution is concerned. I don't believe that homosexuals acting on their desires -- between mutually consenting adults, of course (same for heterosexuals) -- is outside of the Constitution as it is written.

            The problem that opponents of gay marriage have is that they believe homosexual relationships are immoral -- whether for religious reasons or not -- and that unchecked immorality tears at the very fabric of a civilized society. Not just for those who are patted on the back as they engage in immorality, but for those who are impressionable and vulnerable -- children, for example.

            • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/20/2008 9:15:15 PM

              But do the opponents of gay marriage also want US law to forbid marriage between Christians and non-Christians, adultery, fornication between consenting legal age individuals, and remarriage of people divorced for reasons other than being victims of sexual immoraliity by an unfatihful spouse or desertion, drunkenness in privacy and/or tobacco sales as injurious to health? If they agree with the pope, should US law forbid conception control pills, diaphragms and spermicides, as well as anal (an exit, not an entrance) sex between legal age consenting individuals?

              • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 9:42:19 PM

                You make excellent points, seabiscuit. As I said to "Annie":

                @ "AnnieAngel " -- I don't believe being gay is a choice. I believe acting on it is. BEING attracted to my neighbor's husband isn't a choice -- acting on it is. WANTING to divorce my husband isn't a choice -- acting on it is. DESIRING to have sex with my boyfriend isn't a choice -- acting on it is. WANTING to abort the baby that is conceived isn't a choice -- acting on it is.

                It seems that the moral slide that America has been on for years is born out of people wanting the freedom to act upon their desires, however immoral they might be, and then spreading those mores to the rest of society at large so they feel better about the choices they themselves have made.

                Seabiscuit, who decides what is moral and immoral, if there is no standard? We need a standard, or anything goes. Do you believe that pornography being available to children is neutral, for example? Without the moral standard of God's moral law (as proscribed in the Bible), who would decide that issue?

                That is why the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution whose foundation was based on God's moral law. Even though they got it wrong with slavery, they made sure that the power of amending the Constitution was in place.

                That is why opponents of gay marriage will take their fight as far as an amendment.

                • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/20/2008 10:08:46 PM

                  Michelle M(not Malkin), you ask the wrong question: who decides what is moral and immoral? Only the true God can, because otherwise morality is just human opinions. However, what should decide what is legal in a country? If non-consenting (or under-some age or defined as retarded) individuals are harmed by what others do to them. The New Testament does not teach Christians to try to get the law to always forbid what is immoral. Murder (that should be punishable by execution according to Rom. 13) and unarmed theft and fraud in business transactions (should result in fines and/or community service, not imprisonment) and perjury in court and lying to get people to back a war do involve one person hurting another without their consent, and thus should be illegal. On the other hand, the Old Testament did involve no separation of one religion from the government. But we're not under that old covenant/testament anymore *(fortunately for non-Christians and some Christians who also sin in some ways)

                  • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 10:25:02 PM

                    Agreed, "unorthodox."

                    Actually, whenever I think of this debate, I remember that the Old Testament Israelites were instructed by God to live in such a way that they were markedly different FROM the pagans who surrounded them -- that they would be a community devoted to God. God didn't instruct them to change the pagans, or to change their laws -- but to live by HIS laws (moral, ceremonial, civil) AMONGST the pagans.

                    In the same way, Jesus never instructed His followers to change the laws of the Romans, but again, called them to be "salt and light" in the world, to be a "city on a hill," to be "light in the darkness." The first Christians are said to have garnered the "favor of all men" by the remarkable way they lived, caring for one another, glorifying God in their lives while under persecution.

                    I suspect that the Founding Fathers hoped that America would be that to the rest of the world, but that has proved to be impossible, as our hearts are deceitful and we are so easily led astray by our own desires. The last 8 years has certainly shown us that much!

                    • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/20/2008 11:07:50 PM

                      Amen. But, at least during these last 8 years you've resisted your desire for drunkenness. Congrats. Best wishes to your daughter in dealing with her situation as biblically as she understands it.
                      Re the lesbian sex issue, I've heard a few conservative interpreters of Rom. 1:26 to try to allow for it by suggesting that the passage is critical only of having sex against one's own nature. However, that is not how the discovered copies of the passage read; they read "changed the natural use to the against nature," not "changed their natural use to the against their nature." On the other hand, not all of our discovered copies are perfect in every verse. I wish there were more passages to compare, in the Old and New Testament regarding this female question In support of chastity, Jesus said some have become eunuchs for the kingdom's sake--not meaning by physical self-castration.

                      • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/21/2008 1:05:15 AM

                        Also, contrary to those few conservative interpreters I have heard of, Rom. 1:27 and the passage in ! Cor and I Tim about catamites and pederasts doesn't distinguiish between those males going against their own nature vs exercising their own desires. Neithed do the few Old Testament passages involving male homosexual sex. (Again, for anyone else reading this, just talking regarding propensity to infection, anus is an exit, not an entrance).

                  • Posted By: seabiscuit @ 12/20/2008 11:52:32 PM

                    If your so worried about homosexuality ask yourself this: why are you not equally worried about those touch the skin of a pig? In the same place where it says men shall not sleep together for it is an abomination in the eyes of God it says the same thing about touching the skin of a pig. Shouldn't you pray for Football playing athletes just as fervently as you do against homosexuality?!!!! How 'bout straight men who love to watch two women getting it on? At yet you're on here, hating on gays....mmm....what does that really say about you? Why are you not just as biblically offended by straight man's homosexuality for 2 women? Is it because it's accepted as part of the heterofacist paradigm? Yeah, we're really hateful about 2 men loving each other, such a threat to you women who really should be just as concerned about other parts of the bible that are just damning of other acts. You know in Dueteronomy a woman who grabs her husband's rival by his genitiles is subject by biblical law to have her hand cut off at the wrist for it is an abomination in the eyes of God, so don't be grabbin stuff don't belong to yeah. Don't believe me? read your bible - all these people on here quoting the bible and have never even turned a page, I can bet on it. You people are disgusting bigots. Just deplorable haters and discriminators and we're sick of your dictating to everyone else what you don't even follow yourself - so go masterbate and shut the hell up and leave us alone Rick Warren you liar! Don't you see that your bigotry is your disease, the worse disease of all is your hypocrisy toward your daughter? YOu should be more repentant of your own condemnation and judgemental attitude towards your daughter that stems from ingrained bigotry in a homophobic society that refuses to understand that your sexual thing is not my thing and vice versa. I'm just as repulsed by hetero sex but I have had to watch it on tv and in the media and hear about it all my life. I think it's disgusting but I've learned to get over my tired self about it. I'm just grateful God made me gay and not one of you sickening hyprocrites.

                • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 9:49:06 PM

                  Oops, sorry, "unorthodox." This reply was addressed to you, not "seabiscuit"!

                  • Posted By: Michelle M @ 12/20/2008 11:44:52 PM

                    Thank-you for your encouragement, "unorthodox." :) It's definitely a struggle, but when I think of the consequences of succumbing to temptation, especially where my love for God is concerned, I'm able to stand strong another day, another week, another month, another year.

                    Thank-you also for the good wishes for my daughter. She's just 18, and recently "came out" to me, sobbing and filled with self-hatred and a fear that she wasn't saved because she has been praying for deliverance for YEARS! It has been good for our family, actually, as it's driven us to be even more grateful for God's grace. I had no idea how legalistic I was until this happened and I had to examine my own belief in light of God's grace upon ME (seeing the beam in my own eye).

                    I, too, have found the interpretation you share here re: Romans, but it doesn't line up with the rest of scripture as I've studied it. I'm more inclined to err on the side of chastity, as Jesus and Paul both preach and model.

                    She does identify as bisexual, but has no "sexual" attraction for either men or women, and never has. It is indeed as though she is a eunuch spiritually already. Her desire is to live in a celibate, loving, committed relationship. But every time someone gets close to her, she runs the other way.

                    She is, as you can imagine, a strong proponent of gay marriage, "despite" her strong faith in Christ. I say "despite" because I know there are many in the gay community who share our faith and are sincere! She and I have agreed to disagree, and to show grace to one another. We know where each other stands.

                    Thank-you again for your kindness, and your gentle and challenging dialogue with me. :)

                    • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/21/2008 12:55:34 AM

                      I appreciate your spirit of commitment to Christ, knowledge of His saving us from the penalty of Hell by grace through faith in whatever God has revealed to each person, and unconditional love for your daughter. May ourknowledge of Christ's love for, and gift of eternal life to, us motivate us to strive to do what is right. I find a lot of conservative Christians think they lose God's love when they sin, but I don't see that in most verses that talk about being saved from Hell and the gift of eternal life.

  • Posted By: brutalhonesty @ 12/20/2008 10:37:06 PM

    You can dress it up and call it what you want but, most of us heterosexuals are not against gays being together or even want to deny them the right of a civil union, the problem is in the title. I would be willing to let you gays have all the rights and privledges of marriage, but it should be called civil or domestic union ...NOT marriage. If the gay poulation really wants all the benefits of marriage, then you have to give a little too. Don't call it "marriage" and get everything you've been fighting for or you can try to force us into acceptiong you and create a more tense and less tolorant society against you. Yea, over time you may get what you want, but not now. I know I personally feel like you gays are a little ridiculous every time you don't get your way. I'm not trying to be politically correct, I'm telling you, there is an entire culture of people who will hurt you and fight you for trying to force us into accepting YOUR re-interpetation of marriage. Find a new termonology or create a new word, but don't call it marraige.

    • Posted By: seabiscuit @ 12/20/2008 10:46:20 PM

      I have as much right to call it marriage as you do because I'm your equal under the law and that is what my marriage is. I'm married to my spouse just like you are in every way. You have no ownership of the English language you ignorant slut.

      • Posted By: Bradbo @ 12/20/2008 10:57:13 PM

        No, what you have is called sexual immorality. Get a life and stop with the name calling.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/22/2008 8:43:12 AM

          And what you have, sir, is a big pile of bigotry.

        • Posted By: seabiscuit @ 12/20/2008 11:07:12 PM

          you're entitled to your moronic opinion but that's where your bigotry ends. You will not dictate what I call my holy union. Now go f-k yourself.

          • Posted By: Bradbo @ 12/21/2008 1:23:38 AM

            The things of God are nonsense to a lost and dying world.

      • Posted By: unorthodox @ 12/21/2008 4:52:29 PM

        Brutal honesty didn't factor in that the English language has had some words change meaning, or gain new meanings over time. If the US law recognizes states laws that allow for 2 of the same gender to be, for tax purposes, "married," and thus, a spouse for group health insurance eligibility, if they are married by those given authority to marry individuals with licenses for such, then that will add a new meaning to "married." A rose used to "reek" in Old English, and suffer used to mean permit.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse