So You Still Think Homosexuality Is Sinful?

So there’s a fantastic graphic being peddled around Facebook that’s making me laugh. Check it:

I’d first love to correct several blatant misreadings of Scripture, not for the sake of the Wannabe Gay Marriage Debate, but for the sake of Scripture, which deserves better.

1. “Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships.”

True. Nor did he utter a word about rape. Or genocide. Or running a crystal meth lab. Or suicide. Or pedophilia. To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.

2. “The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.”

Well, I guess we can just look at the New Testament for this one:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Now it’s true that Paul wasn’t speaking of the committed homosexual relationships we speak of today, primarily because the idea of a homosexual relationship would have made no sense to the Apostle. That a man is defined as a homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is a modern concept. For the Ancient World, homosexuality was an act performed, not a life lived, and certainly not the summative feature of your being. The idea of two men proclaiming “We are homosexuals, and we are in a committed relationship,” would have been utterly foreign to Paul.

Unfortunately, Paul’s claims cannot be dismissed on that basis, as the Apostle makes abundantly clear that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Not homosexuality, but homosexual acts: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

To explain what he’s talking about, we must understand his premise: Humans are meant to be happy. Good actions will ultimately make human beings happy, bad actions won’t. If an action is seen to be detrimental to the human person — that is, if it ultimately leads to unhappiness — then that action can be defined as contrary to our nature, and thus sinful.

This is what Paul refers to when he speaks of an act being “unnatural.” He does not use the modern sense of the word, which seems to define the “natural” as “that which has been observed to take place in the Jungle.” He uses the word “natural” in the philosophical sense, that which is aligned with human nature — that which makes humans happy.

(And to be clear, this idea takes for granted that many of the acts we spend our lives pretending make us happy do not. We might say that binge eating makes us happy, but ultimately it won’t — it brings pleasure, but it is detrimental to the human person. A man who sleeps around and must satisfy his every urge might say that he is “happy” with his life, but in reality he has made his “happiness” dependent upon having his urges satisfied. He is not happy in and of himself. So to the claim that drugs make us happy. They do not. They bring us pleasure, and they make our happiness dependent on them — again, we are not happy in and of ourselves.)

So when Paul says that men and women committed “unnatural” homosexual acts and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” his claim is quite simple. The punishment for a wrong act is not God all up and smiting you from the sky. The punishment is naturally received within the human person. The homosexual act works against a human being’s natural end of happiness, and thus the human suffers for it. It’d be interesting to know if Paul was aware of what we are aware of today, that those performing homosexual acts are at greater risk for unhappiness, a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred.

If what I say is true, that Paul is claiming that the homosexual act itself is contrary to the natural law, it does not seem reasonable claim to make, that he would have spoken differently were that act contained in a committed relationship.

But our graphic-maker covers his tracks on this one, by saying:

3. “Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.”

I would simply note the difference in quality with which these different words of Paul were made. In the former, which we have just discussed, Paul appears to be pointing out an act that is inherently detrimental to the human person. This is not something subject to change-over-time or an evolution of understanding or modern reinterpretation. In the latter, the author is referencing two different passages. The first is from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

What Paul is saying is clear: Wives submit to your husbands, husbands offer up your life and die for your wives, as Christ did for the Church. I understand that this rings harsh and alien in the secular ear — that authority within a marriage is not a 50/50 split, but the meeting of two distinct, gender-specific, and equally difficult duties — but I cannot apologize for it, other than to say that the secular world is wrong about marriage.

As to women remaining silent:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

This passage is subject to change over time, as it is contained within Paul’s instruction on public worship which similarly – though not in substance — changed over time. This might be a problem to the Literalist Christian, but not to the Catholic, who with Pope Benedict can assert that the Paul’s passage must “be relativized.” Again, this is not the case with Paul’s assertion that homosexual acts are inherently detrimental to the human person.

4. “The Bible defines marriage as One Man Many Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist and His Victim, and a Conquering Solider and a Female Prisoner of War.”

This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to. The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it – those which we are told are endorsed by God.

More importantly, we need to look at the context. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New. From Matthew 19:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

Jesus says that it is for the very reason of maleness and femaleness that “the two will become one flesh.” He then says that the marriage rites established by Moses — which include divorce, polygamy, concubinage, etc. — were not condoned by God, but allowed for a time because of the hardness of their hearts, a time that Christ announces is over. Welcome to now. To ignore this and imply that because all sorts of immoral craziness happens in the Old Testament gay marriage should be considered a-ok, well, it’s a stretch.

Alright, those are the main ones. Now allow me to mention the real problem.

No one is claiming that because homosexuality is sinful, homosexual marriage shouldn’t exist. If marriage was an institution designated for the sinless there wouldn’t be marriages at all, for we have all sinned and fallen short. This graphic exemplifies a terrifying insistence within this “debate” — to argue on the most idiotic level possible. Ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill, we waste our time with Scripture we don’t bother to understand, brushing the world and our intellects with varying shades of stupid.

Selling Our Sins
The Difference Between a Martyr and a Victim
Fury and Catholicity
  • Mary Liz Bartell

    OOH YOU NAILED IT! I love your logic and reason. Rings of the Theology of the Body by Blessed John Paul II. Thanks, I am sharing.

  • jmm1115


  • Guest

    There’s also the answer that your reasoning ISN’T on the list.

  • Candice

    May I ask you to elaborate on this Marc? “So when Paul says that men and women committed “unnatural” homosexual acts and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” his claim is quite simple. The punishment for a wrong act is not God all up and smiting you from the sky. The punishment is naturally received within the human person. The homosexual act works against a human being’s natural end of happiness, and thus the human suffers for it.”

    I want to know how you would say that to someone who defines themselves as a homosexual, and when they say “So you think I”m not happy? BOY ARE YOU WRONG!!!” How do you counter that? Besides the fact that we are all created as children of God with specific purposes, which can be figured out by understanding biology, a smattering of psychology, and delving into Scripture.

    I just find this conversation especially hard to have with my friends who are either exploring homosexuality or who, as you have pointed out in the modern age, define themselves as a homosexual.

    Thanks! =)

    • Beatrice

      Hi Candice. I agree with you this topic is one of the most difficult ones to have with people! It is not easy to convince people that this lifestyle will not lead to happiness, especially because feelings are personal and can’t really be disputed.

      Personally I find it helpful to approach it from a totally secular view and only focus on how biologically it is unhealthy and harmful to the individual. That way you can’t be dismissed as a ‘crazy Catholic bigot’.

      • Rex Libris

        Regardless of whether you stick to theological or secular discussion, you will still come off as a bigot. Despite quite a few studies linking homosexuality to many undesirable outcomes, most gay folks are unwilling to read into it. It’s one of those my way is right and damn you for thinking otherwise type of things.

        • Howard

          No doubt what you say is true, but the question under discussion is about the correct understanding of the Christian Faith, with some spillover into the Natural Law (because that is acknowledged by Christian Tradition). Whether that Faith is really *popular* now, or among whom, or how popular it may have been in the past or may be in the future — all these are different questions unrelated to the main topic here.

        • Gropaga

          “Despite quite a few studies linking homosexuality to many undesirable outcomes, most gay folks are unwilling to read into it.”

          [citation needed]

        • Bob

          By citing the same sources as you, there are also quite a few studies linking black people to many undesirable outcomes. But black people are as unable as gay people to change how they were born.

          • Michael H

            In not all cases is homosexuality innate. Despite so many people saying so. Otherwise my friend Chris would be as straight as his (identical twin) brother Michael.

            In may be in some cases, but certainly not in all. Do not generalize.

      • Duncanmichaelmcpherson

        There is no way that our words or logical arguments will change anyones mind. We have to leave it up to God to change hearts, our only job is to give ample opportunity for God to work. Being the best Christian we can be and praying for the person is the most effective tool we have. We have to trust in God and trust in the power of prayer and realize that we have no influence. Only God will change someone, or He will allow them to continue to suffer but always for the benefit of the person. Im reading “The Human Person” by Fr. Brian Bransfield and he says that becoming “poor in spirit” comes from living in sin and evil.

    • Leticia Velasquez

      First of all, many homosexuals are trying hard to convince themselves they are happy, and they do that by drinking and taking drugs in high amounts and making the rest of us agree with them.
      Second, you can be happy on a shallow level with sin, or it wouldn’t be so popular. But deep within, behind the blindness, there is a God shaped emptiness only He can fill. St Augustine was in no hurry to give up his mistress. “God make me chaste. . .but not yet” is his famous line. Then he said, “our hearts are restless until we rest in Thee.”

      • The1andonlykno

        Your assumption that all homosexuals drink and do drugs is incredibly ignorant. I know many who partake in neither.

        • fact dragger

          Learn to read. letitia wrote “many”, not ‘all’. You are the ignorant one, The1andonlykno.


            Look at all of you attacking each other and trying to make “christian” arguments by calling each other ignorant. Simple solution…people who don’t believe the bible are not going to agree with you. And the country will never be run based on this. You’re not going to turn gay people straight and you’re not going to change anyone. So stop embarrassing yourselves. You really think god wants you running around judging people and cherry picking from the bible.

          • Kidpreacher

            I agree with you about Christians embarrassing themselves by attacking each other. And I agree with the statement about judging people, to a point. Jesus said I am to LOVE them as I love myself, to show compassion to all, to wittness the Love of Christ to everyone I meet. I don’t care if your hetro, homo, or non. I don’t even care if you are pedo, as long as you are not ACTING on the desires. I will still reach out to the PERSON with God’s message of Love, as the Bible says HE loves them. But also know I will stand against people who try to say I have to say the ACTIONS of homosexuality, pedophilia, or even sex outside of marrage is right. God says it is sin, therefore it is sin. Just because I have the urge, it does not mean I should give in to it.
            When you say people who don’t believe in the Bible are not going to agree with me, this is true. And I will never force them to change. But don’t call me Intolerant or a bigot when I don’t change MY belief to endorse nor approve the other sides view. What others do behind closed doors is between them and God, but to say I must allow others to teach MY children that it is acceptible is not something I will tolerate. God gives parents many mandates in scripture, and without “cherry picking”, it clearly states that I must teach what is right and wrong according to the scripture, reguardless of what our culture says is acceptible.

          • Carl

            Well, just as “many” heterosexuals drink and do drugs, so this is a completely ridiculous statement anyway. But then nothing on here is in any way, shape or form anything but ridiculous. I’d laugh at all of you crazy people, if your ignorance wasn’t so bloody sad and depressing.

          • Proteios1

            That’s the ” tolerance” we have come to respect from your group. Tolerate me as I tell you what an as$hole you are. I mean listen to your intolerant and ignorant self. It’s like I’m talking to middle schooler.

          • Carl

            Um, what “group” would that be? I am not gay, in case that’s what you were referring to. I am a straight dude who thinks that everyone should be allowed to love who they want, as long as it is love between two consenting adults. So I guess my “group” would be “intelligent, enlightened human being.” I’m fine with that. And you are entitled to calling me an asshole if that makes you feel better. Of course, it does make your “it’s like I’m talking to a middle schooler” comment rather ironic, doesn’t it?

        • musiciangirl591

          “First of all, many homosexuals are trying hard to convince themselves they are happy, and they do that by drinking and taking drugs in high amounts and making the rest of us agree with them”… like fact dragger said i see no all

          • Guest

            Regardless, that’s an ignorant statement. Leticia may not be ignorant but that statement is ridiculous. It seems to be based entirely on a stereotype of what homosexuals are rather than fact or personal experience.

          • musiciangirl591

            well, freedom of speech baby

        • Louis Gonzales

          “Many” – what evidence is there of this?

          • Michael H

            “Homosexual men and women have been described as at high risk for alcohol and drug abuse, due to psychosocial variables such as stress levels or the cultural importance of bar settings. However, there are few actual data in this regard. This paper presents the findings of a large (n = 3400) survey of a homosexual population regarding population characteristics and patterns of alcohol and drug use. Psychosocial variables that may account for substance use patterns both generally and in this population are discussed in an accompanying paper. Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population. Contrary to other reports, this was not accompanied by higher rates of heavy use, although homosexuals did show higher rates of alcohol problems. In the general population women consume less drugs and alcohol than do men, and substance use substantially declines with age. Neither of these patterns were found for the homosexual sample, thus creating overall higher rates of substance abuse. This may reflect differences between homosexuals and the general population in their adherence to sex-role stereotypes and age-related social role changes, as well as culturally specific stressors and vulnerability to substance use.”

            -Source:, emphasis mine

          • Deven Kale

            I think you emphasized the wrong part, in order to mislead those who read your comment. Allow me to fix it for you:

            This may reflect differences between homosexuals and the general population in their adherence to sex-role stereotypes and age-related social role changes, as well as culturally specific stressors and vulnerability to substance use.

            You’re welcome.

      • enness

        It occurs to me that it’s the same void many people try to fill with things.

      • Simone

        Funny that, I know only homosexuals who do not take drugs and are as happy as you can be, living in stable relationships, raising happy children and being model citizens in a way that many heterosexuals never will be. You should google Neal Patrick Harris and his partner, for instance – yeah, they seem sooooooooooooo miserable, don’t they? But go ahead, stay in your little fantasy world were you are God’s chosen people who know oh-so-much better than the rest of modern, civilised society, and even better than Jesus himself aparently.

      • Amanda

        You are STUPID! That is all.

    • enness

      I can understand that, it’s a tough conundrum. Sin appears attractive. If it did not, we wouldn’t have a problem not doing it. You are familiar with the saying “Crime doesn’t pay”? Well, any drug dealer knows that isn’t true. As long as you can keep getting away with it, it does pay, and can pay handsomely. Christian theology does not only tell us that this life is fleeting and we can’t run from the Law forever; it tells us that we cannot truly be fulfilled without drawing ever closer to the source of fulfillment itself, which is God.

    • Nickcurran

      when yyour friend is bummed out or evaluating their life just ask what is wrong . the HolySpirit will.ggguide you. when anyone of us sins, we feel low. we’re just talking about different temptations. encourage your friend to be celibate for a time and see the difference

    • Bob

      How can you think someone will be happy if they are denied form EVER having a meaningful loving relationship with ANYONE. You seem to think they choose to be gay. God made them gay. They have no say in the matter. You think they have the option to be gay or straight but the options are to be gay or die alone.

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    They also invoked the God Hates Shrimp fallacy directly.

    And, sadly, they didn’t even mention the secular reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage.

    • Rex Libris

      Your link to the secular reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage is highly questionable since the second reason given in the link is a complete and utter fallacy. Marriage throughout history has not been primarily for procreation and raising a family. More often that not marriage, especially among higher classes, has been for the securing of alliances and acquisition of goods.

      • SouthPaw079

        Which is a prime example of an abuse of the Sacrament of Marriage, not evidence that marriage never had a real and concrete purpose.

      • ColdStanding

        You do know what “primarily” means, don’t you? It’s first and foremost, one, the beginning, of first importance. It does not mean “only”. Saying something is primarily about X means that is mostly or firstly. Therefore it is incorrect to suggest that “Marriage…not been primarily for” suggests that you using primarily as if it meant only. If that is what you are suggesting, great, everyone agrees. Marriage is not “only” about procreation and raising kids. But it is indeed primarily (first and foremost) about procreation and raising children. Not procreative acts alone, but both procreation and raising children with the attendant cultural and spiritual components.

      • enness

        But let’s not ignore the fact that it was considered highly important to produce an heir to those alliances and goods. For posterity…because you can’t take it with you.

        • anonymous

          And of course the vast majority of humankind was/is of a class to worry about securing alliances

      • Howard

        Uh huh. And building a house was not for the purpose of keeping the rain and cold wind out, but of securing pastureland, right? Or is it MAYBE JUST POSSIBLE that the reason for building a house AT THIS SPOT is to secure the pastureland, but that what a house *is* is a structure that protects us from weather and wild animals. In the same way, *maybe* the thing that a marriage is has always been about procreation and raising a family, but the decision to have THIS PARTICULAR MAN marry THIS PARTICULAR WOMAN had to do with questions like securing alliances or goods for the families.

      • Karie Mitchell

        No, it is primarily for the promotion and protection of children. Securing alliances and acquiring goods didn’t mean much if you couldn’t give them (wholly or in part) to those related to you. Marriage has always meant more about the child a woman was carrying and less about the relationship between the man and the woman. That is why a man’s relationships outside of marriage meant less and a woman’s relationships outside of marriage more. Because the man who acquired goods and power wanted to assure himself of the fact that he was passing those goods to _his_ heirs. Those descendants who were not of his legal wife only got what the man could spare and separate. But most marriages were not between the “high classes” but those who had very little, and still you see that they are not about “love” or “pleasure”, but about being a part of a family, not just being children but about making the next generation of children.

      • bearing

        You mistake one of the legal side benefits of *a* marriage for a purpose of marriage *in general.* It is almost as if you looked at modern marriage in the US and decided that the purpose of marriage is to secure spousal health insurance.

      • Michael H

        How does one secure alliances and goods and such without progeny to whom those securities are passed on? Procreation is implied by such secular definitions of marriage.

  • badwolf

    You may not be able to apologize for Paul’s poor wording defining marriage in his letter to the Ephesians, however we should. It certainly reflects his own biases from his former Pharisaical upbringing and the biases of his Roman scribes, that’s all I’ll say.

    • James Kohn

      Thank you Forrest Gump for your deep understanding of the Church and its history…

      • badwolf

        It’s Eric. I don’t understand, James. That’s a good name, James.

        • badwolf

          I mean I don’t understand what you’re saying. I understand Church history all too well.

          • James Kohn

            first it was a play on words, when you said “Thats all I’ll say…” its part of the Forrest Gump movie so if you havent seen it I cant much help you on that. Second the author of this article has given you and other commenters a base knowledge of what the church teaches on marriage. Its not about oppressing women, perhaps to someone who comes to scripture reading with 21st century glasses they focus on the word submit. Yet notice that Paul does nolt say submit only on one side. FOr the wife must submit to her husband and the husband must take it a step farther and submit his own life (not just intellectual but life, mortality, etc.). This is what the author was getting at with the post. If you are really interested in the reasons for what the church teaches sites like, and many other sites for accessing information

            So to if what you were getting at is that Paul had been taught this belief, well obviously. We learn by hearing and doing. Validation is not based on contemporary theories or cultural values, rather on truth and truth holds no era but is in effect eternal, (or eternally begotten as a side note)

            Thanks for the compliment on the name, much appreciated! and Kudos on your badwolf title, (I fully admit I am guessing that isnt your name, but good user name)

            Sounds like you have something even more basic you have with the church and her history, fire away and take no prisoners my friend, just dont expect me to sit back,

            Pax Badwolf

    • Nicholas Escalona

      I don’t think I’ve heard better wording on marriage. How is the wording poor?

  • Jeffrey Pinyan

    Note that all the marriages in the Bible are between male and female, not between male and male or female and female. So, corruptions of the marriage covenant aside (e.g. concubinage, children through handmaids, etc.), the concept of marriage as male-and-female was never violated. I wonder why…

    • Leta Bezdecheck

      Note that the Bible was written by unworldly sheep herders etc. There is also no mention of raping little boys in the Bible or flying in air planes.

      • Kidpreacher

        The Bible never says Jesus went to the bathroom, so your by your reading on “no mention” would also mean that Jesus never did…. I so wish people were still required to take Logic in school.
        Also, Moses(writing the first 5 books of the Bible) was a Prince educated in Egypt; Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel were written by Court reporters; Esther was written by court scribes….. In the NT, Luke was a Doctor, Paul was a Trained scribe AND Elder in the Temple, as well as an educated Roman.
        PLEASE, if you wish to make statements like “unworldly sheep herders”, do your exegesis. Prov 13:16

        • Proteios1

          I think that person is trolling. Its what you might expect from the producers of that silly graphic. Which also amuses me in the sense that they still feel the need to live in relation to God, albeit by making an amateur attempt at rationalizing sinful behavior through scripture.

        • John N

          a person who lived thousands of years ago that was educated in Egypt or was a doctor really knew his shit. all the things that an educated Egyptian or a doctor or a court reporter knew were true so long ago still apply today. how about forgetting the scripture for a second and trying to think about it yourself. just you and no one or nothing else can have an impact on your opinion. then why is being gay so bad?

          • Dan Li

            Their understanding of the natural world may have been far less than we do now, but their knowledge in regards to philosophy was not terribly off. We often still use the same methods and principles they did in modern philosophy.

          • anon

            its not its not any better or worse than any other sin all sins are an oddity or perversion of perfection being gay is simply one way that bodies were not meant to be used the mouth was not meant to lie the hands were not meant to kill the eyes are not intended for lust but we use them to sin

          • Carcharodon

            Because that is what is written in the scripture, and the scripture is the word of God. The Bible also says Judge not that ye not be judged. We shouldn’t support homosexual acts, but we shouldn’t hate them for it. That would be like hating everyone who has had sex outside of marriage, or everyone who has committed a robbery. Hate is not the Christian way.

        • Joe

          You do know that the Gospels werent written by the Apostles right?

          • Uli

            You do know that they most certainly weren’t, right? Do some reading darling.

          • Joe

            Thats what I said isnt it?

          • Uli

            Yes, SORRY – I misread “weren’t” for “were”, commented, and then frantically tried to delete comment but couldn’t!

          • Singerrlr

            @ Joe, what’s your evidence for your statement the “Gospels weren’t written by the Apostles.”

          • Joe

            Historians say that they were not. Marks gospel is the only one that was written early enough to have been written by Mark. Do you have some evidence (Not from the Catholic church) to the contrary?

          • Singerrlr

            What historians are you referring to?

          • Joe

            Craig Bloomberg and Bart D. Ehrman are the two that I remember of the many historians who say that the Gospels were written by the disciples.

          • Singerrlr

            I’ve never heard anything like that from Craig Bloomberg. If so, I’d like to know what book you read that in. Bart Ehrman is a different story. I’ve seen him twice in debates. He does hold that view now, however, he used to have the opposite view. His beliefs are definitely not mainstream among Biblical scholars and they don’t pay much attention to him. He stated at the last debate I saw him at that he developed a problem with the problem of evil in the world and that’s what changed his beliefs.

          • Joe

            So then what mainstream Bible scholars do you know of that support this view?

          • Singerrlr

            Daniel B Wallace for one at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written several books. Norman Geisler. I went back and checked and Craig Blomberg is the first Bible scholar Lee Strobel interviews in defense of the gospels in “The Case For Christ.” He interviews Bruce Metzger as well. Metzger was a mentor to Ehrman before he died. After that, Ehrman changed his views. D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and J.P. Moreland. Lee Strobel interviews all these guys in “The Case For Christ.” Have you ever read that book? What about “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist?” by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek?

          • Joe

            I have a question for you. If the Bible was written by the Apostles why do none of them agree how the resurrection of Jesus took place?

          • Singerrlr

            What do you mean by that? I don’t know of any faith destroying contradictions reported by them. I do know they each reported it from their own personal viewpoint. Just like if you were to ask the witnesses of 9/11 what happened on that day. Not everyone’s story would match up exactly. There would be differences. If they all said the same exact thing it would look made up.

          • Simple Guy

            Dear Joe, at what point do you think there is a disagreement of the Resurrection? There are different accounts of the Resurrection TRUE, but they are all in agreement… Christ did RISE!!!

            Just like anything in life there are different accounts that will happen in life and you may have two or three witnesses of the same event, each person may have a different way of expressing what they see be it due to lack of or being fully educated…

            Example, LUKE’s version of the Resurrection is in a different reading due to two major facts: 1. Luke was a doctor and doctors have been known to be more detailed when gathering information. 2. Luke was not there!!! He gathered his information for a series of interviews…

            Please understand Brother Joe I am not trying to pick on you or call you out, I was just simply trying to shed a little light… Thanks

          • Claude

            His beliefs are definitely not mainstream among Biblical scholars and they don’t pay much attention to him.


          • savedbygrace

            Interesting you ask sojeone to think for themselves wit the onky thing supporting your statements is something you’ve read in history books. Think for yourself, forget what the historians say all that you have read and “believe” to be true. Where is your evidence of truth what do you think ?

          • Claude

            Historians use manuscript evidence to arrive at their conclusions. The Gospels were written anonymously and weren’t attributed to the apostles or companions of the apostles until the 2nd century. If you’re skeptical check the introductions in any good study Bible.

        • SearchCz

          The Bible never says Jesus went to the bathroom. “No mention” does NOT lead to the conclusion that he never did so. But it DOES support the conclusion that going to the bathroom wasn’t important enough to mention.

          Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. He did call us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to leave judgement to God. Let’s all try that for a while, ok?

        • newenglandsun

          Well they didn’t have bathrooms so of course not.

      • Jeffrey Pinyan

        I’m not sure what to make of your “no mention of raping little boys” remark. Surely you believe that raping little boys is a terrible sin, no matter who does — Catholic or not, priest or not, male or not, etc. — but you bring up the fact that raping little boys is not mentioned in the Bible.

        So… what conclusion do you intend me to draw from that? What conclusion do you draw from it?

        • Leta Bezdecheck

          My point is the ten commandments wasted most of their laws on stupid things instead of caring about what really matters – why? Because those people had the antique morality of their culture and time period. Leave their book back there where it made sense.

          • Jeffrey Pinyan

            Setting aside the first three commandments about love of God, the other seven are about love of others: honor for your parents; respect for others’ lives, property, and right to the truth; and respect for marriage bonds. Those things seem to matter quite a bit.

            The ten commandments are also not the end-all and be-all of the Mosaic moral code. There’s plenty more about respecting the visitor and protection of the weak.

          • Hanna

            Funny thing is, the Ten Commandments did not mention homosexuality even once, although they repeated two of the commandments to make it the magical number ten. They could have easily put it in there if they thought it was such a terrible sin as you all here seem to think, but nada, nothing. Interesting, isn’t it?

          • Fr. Denis Lemieux

            Thou shalt not kill doesn’t matter? Weird…

      • Red

        Why are you even on this page if you are FOR same-sex marriage?!

        • BrotherRog

          Blogs aren’t private “pages.” They are public forums. Why would you expect to see a blog that doesn’t allow for dissenting voices? Seriously?

    • Joe

      Abraham (along with many others) was a polygamist so you would have to support that practice as well.

      • Jeffrey Pinyan

        Why do I have to support the practice of polygamy because Abraham (and Jacob-Israel, for that matter) had multiple wives? Marc answered this objection in Point #4:

        “The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it – those which we are told are endorsed by God.”

        The marriage laws of the nomadic people (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) before the delivering of the Mosaic Law are not made clear in the Bible, and there is no reason to believe they were received by God. Abraham belonged to just another pagan tribe before God revealed Himself to him.

        And again, the sins of the Patriarchs — or anyone, for that matter — that are recorded in the Bible do not receive God’s approval (and require my support) simply because they are recorded in the Bible.

        • Joe

          Im aware of it and glad you brought this up

          2 Samuel 12:8

          “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

          God is angry at Dave for this new wife but not the others.

          God isnt angry at the polygamy.He even says he would give David more wives

          Try again

          • Jeffrey Pinyan

            This is a good counter-example from Scripture, but I don’t agree with your conclusions.

            You can’t say that God isn’t angry at David for having multiple wives. David has already transgressed God’s law for the kings of Israel not to take many wives, cf. Deut. 17:17. David’s multiple wives are not the reason for God’s anger in this passage from 2 Samuel. As you have said, God is angry with David taking this particular woman as wife, because David has coveted, committed adultery, and murdered a man to get this wife. Just because God treats this particular offense in a particular way does not mean God considers the other offenses to be irrelevant.

            2 Sam. 12:8 does NOT say that God would have given David more wives, only that He would have increased David’s possessions. Furthermore, David didn’t actually marry any of Saul’s wives.

            There may also be a matter of translation to deal with. The Hebrew word translated as “wives” can just as well be translated as “women”, and the presence of a comma after “house” is an interpolation. The verse could read “I gave thee thy master’s house and thy master’s wives/women into thy bosom,” which again points to possession rather than sexual relation.

            Nathan is saying that God gave David everything that was Saul’s, and that David still wasn’t satisfied. Perhaps he was speaking with irony; maybe God was.

          • Joe

            God was not outraged until David took the other mans wife. He said nothing of his outrage for these other women though.

            Now that you know about this line in scripture do you still support point 4 of the article?

          • Dan Li

            … I know that this comment is half a year old, but the sheer selective perception is shocking. Have you not paid attention to what Mark and Jeffrey have been writing? Where was it implied that God was angry at David *only* because he had taken another man’s wife? Where was it implied that he *wasn’t* displeased with David’s sinful behavior previous to this and that this moment was simply the time when that anger was made known? Did you even read the texts cited by Jeffrey?

      • Michael Strauss

        Do you guys actually come in here and just jump straight down to the comments to troll, without even glancing at the article?

        • Joe

          Im aware of it and glad you brought this up

          2 Samuel 12:8

          “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

          God is angry at Dave for this new wife but not the others.

          God isnt angry at the polygamy.He even says he would give David more wives

    • Bob

      The Bible also doesn’t say they’re weren’t any. It k=just doesn’t happen to mention them. It, in fact, doesn’t mention most of what happened in society at the time.

  • MObrayV

    There is already a mistake in the first line of that facebook flow chart. 1) Homosexuality is not a sin. To be attracted to another of the same gender is not a sin. The sin is to pretend that that person is the opposite gender, when they’re not. That is unnatural. 2) Law should be based on natural law. Just like laws against murder are based in natural law. Honor killings, though religious, are not tolerated by our law. 3) This isn’t a question about whether marriage is a right or not. It’s about the meaning of marriage. If it’s just a committed relationship that’s publicly honored and privately sexual, we’re all missing the point.

    • Rex Libris

      What is your definition of natural law?

      • KateDAlexandria

        One could define it as ” A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; the law by which man follows such that he acts in accordance with his nature ” or “man’s participation in the eternal law in accordance with his nature”

        St. Thomas Aquinas has a great explanation of natural law as does.

        Here is a good discussion of Natural Law by Russell Hittinger :

        • Rex Libris

          Thank you.

  • Rex Libris

    Ok, I’m not really touching on what you’ve spoken of in this post. If gays were allowed all of the rights of marriage but it wasn’t called marriage, would you be kosher with it? Is it the fact that they want to redefine marriage that is the problem or is it that they want all the legal benefits or is it that you don’t think religious institutions should be force to take part? What is it that is so off about the whole issue?

    • Jack

      It is the redefinition of marriage that is the problem. We really can’t take away the rights they are asking for. They should be able to have those. It’s just not marriage. Marriage was a religious institution long before it was a civil institution. We are not trying to define anyone else’s traditions. Stop trying to redefine ours.

      • Rex Libris

        Then I have no argument with you. Any religious institution should not be asked by any lobbying group to change their tradition. I, as a gay person, think that this insistence on the redefinition is bullshit. I don’t care what it would be called, the same legal rights would be nice, but calling it or insisting it is marriage shouldn’t be part of the bargain.

        • Jared Clark

          Agreed. The legal perks have nothing, theologically, to do with marriage. You’re going to find some folk on both sides who won’t be happy, but that would be the best way to solve the issue.

          • Joe

            I agree as well! I dont think any gay groups want to force Church’s to marry them. Episcopal Churches may do the new blessing sacrament do dad for gays so I mean they can get a kinda marriage in a religious fashion in a Church now (only if it is approved in that area by the Episcopal in charge of course)

          • Joe

            The Catholic church does not support gay relationship of any kind. They definitely think there is a theological grounds to protest

      • dmw

        On the contrary, they should NOT be able to have those rights. Here are some reasons why, per the CDF’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons: III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
        RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS 6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration. From the order of right reason The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good. It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage. From the biological and anthropological order 7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
        Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life. As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
        From the social order 8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties. The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase. From the legal order 9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good. Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

        • Jared Clark

          Holy wall of text, Batman!

        • Joe

          So we should also not allow those who are barren to marry right? You literally just stole that from the Vatican website which is very scary as it implies you are unable to think for yourself does it not?

      • Alex

        The problem with this argument is that marriage *is* a civil institution now. Either marriage as a civil institution needs to end or it needs to be offered equally to everyone. When we talk about gay marriage we’re not talking about forcing Catholic churches to marry gay people, or to recognize their unions as marriages. That would be wrong. What we are talking about is not letting you force your sectarian bullshit on them, and the majority of Americans who favor same-sex marriage.

        The idea of civil unions is ridiculous. There may be no discrimination in terms of what rights they have, (Although it seems there usually is) but you are discriminating by declaring, as a matter of public policy, that what they have is not the special thing straight people have. What you’re complaining about is not being able to use the state a means to declare and exercise your bigotry.

        • Ceit

          But what about single people who can’t find partners? Aren’t you discriminating by denying them the right to be considered married and be treated as such?

          Either marriage as a civil institution needs to end or it needs to be offered equally to everyone.” Don’t you see what nonsense this is? Marriage has never been a ‘right’, and it has never been something ‘offered’ or available to everyone. People already married are not eligible to marry an additional spouse, minors are not eligible to marry, in some places the insane are not eligible to marry, and no one can marry who doesn’t have a mate willing to marry them. There are all kinds of priveliges available by law only to select groups of people, and arguing that they need to be available to all to be just is kind of silly.

          I’m ok with the idea of the state getting out of the marriage business though, since the state’s interest in marriage begins and ends with promoting the welfare and stability of society by privileging stable unions that provide the optimum conditions for the next generation. No fault divorce kind of screwed that pooch, and civil marriage has been subsequently devalued and purposeless ever since. If ‘marriage’ no longer serves the state, there is no reason why the state should ‘serve’ marriage.

    • Howard

      My analogy would be to the “degrees” granted by a diploma mill. I mean that in the clearest sense of the term: those online places that will print out a paper saying you have a bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D. degree “based only on your life experience” plus a fee. Society has a real reason to distinguish real degrees from fake ones, even if the fake ones somehow give their bearers an enhanced feeling of personal worth. So if the government said you could not discriminate between a master’s degree in physics from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree in physics from Starfleet Online Academy (note: I have actually met a person who claimed to have a master’s degree from Starfleet Academy in warp technology), that decree would meet a lot of opposition. If the government said that Starfleet Online Academy would have to change the names attached to their degrees (for example, bachelor’s = Gorn, master’s Andorian, and Ph.D. = Vulcan), but that the degrees would still have to be treated equivalently for the purposes of hiring, promotion, and pay, it would NOT satisfy the opposition.

      • heylilbabies

        in short, the government’s declaration of gay marriage as equivalent to church-sanctioned marriage will force religious employers etc. to grant certain financial privileges to married gay people. This is a valid argument, but as a Gorn, I object to your blatant racism.

        • Howard

          Every Vulcan starts out as a Gorn.

          Actually, my point is not that religious employers, etc., will be forced to grant financial privileges. The religious freedom argument is real, but it is not one that I was making.

          Instead, it is that just as it is dishonest to call a diploma mill degree (or even an honorary degree) equivalent to an earned degree, it is dishonest to use the same terminology for the relationship in a “gay marriage” with that in a traditional marriage. Secondly, there is a real interest for society in promoting traditional marriage that is not served in promoting “gay marriage”.

    • Ceit

      Yep. Essentially, homosexual who desire additional legal privileges are being sold out by the activist’s insistence on redefining marriage. Repeated polling shows that civil unions are palatable to the majority (if only a slim majority) of US citizens, whereas the majority oppose the redefinition of marriage despite the full frontal campaigns waged in the press and media. Insisting on redefining marriage has both absorbed resources and created push-back that, I think, has already set back the path to civil unions.

      (Though…I also think civil unions should be open to multiple people, and to non-sexually active people, in recognition that sex is not the sole locus of financial and domestic co-dependence. Two elderly women living together should not have to profess to be homosexual in order to be each other’s guarantors and legal next-of-kin. We shouldn’t privilege the erotic and romantic over the practical.)

      • Annette

        Excellent post. My husband and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Civil unions should be open to any group of people who want to inherit property, share benefits, or participate in medicolegal decision making.

      • Joe

        The Catholic church does not support civil unions of homosexuals though. What do you think of this?

        • Ceit

          Well, the US bishops don’t anyway, though I don’t think that’s a matter of binding eternal moral teaching. Matters of state are usually the realm of prudential judgment – like the bishops pleas for more open immigration, or various other political policies that, in the judgment of the bishops, would benefit the secular world as well as fulfill Church teaching.

          While I understand the concern that civil unions would seem to legitimize homosexuality and cause moral confusion, I think the moral confusion is here already and this is an area where it would be best to draw a distinction between state/civil and religious/moral for the sake of having better grounds for protecting the Church in the future. Better to get the government out of the marriage business entirely than to have it redefine marriage and possibly wind up forcing that redefinition on the Churches. Though, like I said, I’d prefer a form of civil contract available to any cohabitating, dependent people, and I suspect it would be the political types who would object to that.

  • Caitlin

    Why can you choose two different segments from Paul’s writings and say one is still valid while the other no longer is? That logic doesn’t make sense to a secular person- it is inconsistent. Also, what translation are you using for the “submit yourselves” passage? I have never seen it worded so…modernly (and geared to support your argument).

    • KateDAlexandria

      The passage “submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ” is on commented on by the Father of the Church. John Chrysostom has a whole homily on this passage. It is not something that the author translated for his own purposes.

      • Joe

        Notice how the translation is done by a Catholic. In other words someone who is biased to support Catholic beliefs.

        • Smythec4

          Notice how John Chrysostom lived in the 4th century AD before the denominational differences between Christians existed as they do today. Please examine an argument and its author carefully before dismissing it as biased.

          • Joe

            Different denominational differences? Are you really telling me you dont know about the Council of Nicea which occured before him? The council which decided if Jesus was the Son of God? Which ended with those who didnt support the belief in Jesus being the son of God aka the Arians being killed?

            Despite that comment about denominational differences I dont see how it has an affect on my argument anyway so…

        • Dgpregent

          For the record, anyone basing any argument off of the Bible is arguing based on something translated by a Catholic. His name is Jerome and any Bible in any modern language goes back to his translation.

          • Joe


    • enness

      That is so often the case (secular folks not understanding it). ;) I’m glad you phrased it the way you did, as a question from a curious person not understanding, which in my mind puts you head and shoulders above the common self-appointed armchair theology expert. I can see how it would appear inconsistent at first. But Kate’s response is spot on: we have the context of the whole body of writing of the Church fathers to draw upon. Context is key.

      • Pooter Bilbo

        This still does not make sense. It is illogical to take parts of the bible literally and disregard other parts. Church father writings don’t make it any less illogical.

        • QDefenestration

          If I open up my old norton anthology of english literature, I am going to read the preface differently than I’m going to read the keats poems, and I’m going to read them differently than how I’m going to read the samuel becket excerpts. It makes perfect sense to read different parts of a compilation by different authors in different ways.

          Further, it makes perfect sense to approach any one particular piece of literature from multiple angles at once.

          • Caitlin

            I totally agree and understand, but when we are looking at the two passages in question, they are not altogether so different as to demand different interpretation. They are written by the same author, to similar audiences, inside the same historical context with the exact same purpose (to guide the early Church). It is not as if we are grabbing some verses from Deuteronomy and a Revelation here… these passages are both Paul’s letters. Why can Sacred Tradition of the Church change certain opinions about society (women wearing veils) and not others? I would argue that in light of recent news issues, the Church would rather women remained silent more often:

          • QDefenestration

            Ok, two points:

            Firstly, off the top of my head I can’t tell you if Ephesus and Corinth really were similar audiences, but I can tell you that scholars are divided on whether or not they were written by the same author. It’s pretty widely agreed that a number of the Pauline letters were written after him, it’s just not agreed which ones.

            Secondly, all of that said I can see how similar the two passages read, so I can see how it might seem like BS that they are being treated differently. But it’s really a matter of theology vs practices. It doesn’t seem too out there to say something like “when Paul talks about the nature of God, that’s something pretty solid. When Paul says something about sunday services, that doesn’t seem as important.”

        • Catherine S

          The Bible is made of of many different “books” in many different styles. Some books, and some passages, are literal, some are metaphors, some are historic, some are parables, etc. The writers and the church fathers – the brightest theological minds down through the centuries – often spent their lifetimes discerning what passages meant. Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone – we look also to tradition, passed down to us through the original apostles, and to the writing of the early church fathers, to help us understand what God has been telling us. For instance, some Christians believe that God literally created the world in 7 24 hour days. Catholics tend to understand the creation story as an an allegory. It’s not important how long it actually took Him, the important details are that He created the world, and everything in it, and was pleased when He was done (“..he found it very good”) When I read the Bible and do not understand something, I can draw on the wisdom of those theologians to get a better grasp. Also, the Catechism is annotated throughout with the references to Scripture from which the passages are drawn. They didn’t just make it up!

  • Filiusdextris

    The body proves that homosexuality is unnatural. We have the revealed word of God to speak the Divine Law on the subject. Logic says that it is not self-sustaining. Your statistical evidence reflects further evils. I’ve seen economic reports that sustaining the lifestyle is quite expensive for society (health care, etc.). It has never been a fundamental right in any society that I’m aware of in a historical context. A state has plenty of reasons not to support it, even if it can unwisely choose to do so under our constitution. A state that chooses not to recognize it is working under a rational basis.

    We can hate the sin of homosexuality, but love the human who feels a same-sex attraction against God’s call. Unfortunately, the rabid liberalism has us spending all our time in fighting the sin, we don’t have as much time and energy to focus on the person.

    • Joe

      1)You do not cite these “economic reports”. Ive seen quite a few from those “pro marriage” groups which tend to be wrong so how can we know you are right or even credible about this?
      2) Did not state even one of these “plenty of reasons not to support [gay marriage]”
      3) When you say “It has never been a fundamental right in any society” you are also implying that we have no reason to allow marriage for straights if marriage is not a fundamental right why would that be necessary.
      4) You dont say how “the body proves homosexuality is unnatural.” At all. You just say so in a matter of fact way. Unless of course when you say it is not self sustaining which would be of course wrong, at least I think so because you dont really say what you mean by self sustaining.

      • Filiusdextris

        There are two – the first was what I most had in mind. As far as the body goes – look at the male and female bodies and see how they work together so naturally. Also, gay sex depends a priori on heterosexual sex, thus pointing to what is natural. Heterosexual marriage is a well-documented fundamental right – the state has plenty of reasons not to give the same preferences to homosexual unions.

        Some will argue, perhaps correctly, that the state should actively prosecute homosexual acts of consenting adults even in the bedroom. The U.S. Supreme Court says we can’t, and perhaps that’s good advice (St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that not every sin needs secular punishment). But we should certainly reconsider to the extent able if homosexual sex puts too great a strain on our society.

        • Joe

          The first one states “A report by the Traditional Values” shows its by a biased source. Another thing it says greater risk of suicide in one of them. Lets think for a second. If you were prosecuted and told the person you loved would make you unhappy would you feel depressed? Yes. Same with the mental health problems. Also the shortened life span of gays was disproven a while ago

          Your second source seems to be unable to cite any source outside of the 1900′s which also happened to be during the time when we thought homosexuality and pedophilia was connected. Im sorry but so many of these facts in this one are just plain stupid. Lesbians are murdered more than regular women? OF COURSE THEY ARE!! PEOPLE PERSECUTE THEM!!

          Im sorry but you are greatly misinformed.

          • Joe

            Also many of your links are dead and no longer there such as which seems to be have typed incorrectly…..No credibility is in that article

          • John N

            thanks for being a sane person. i just stumbled on this and reading the comments just makes me laugh

          • Joe

            You might want to read some of the other articles on here. I dont usually comment or even look at the comments section but Mark (Bad Catholic) can actually be really funny or at least interesting and does a good job trolling liberals (which I happen to be) with his meme style articles. Also when this person started mentioning “well documented fundamental rights” I became suspicious of their sources as that usually is something over-zealous right wing nuts tend to say pardon the offensive language

          • Joe

            “In the United States, figures from the Centers for Disease Control show that the rate of HIV deaths per 100,000 people peaked at 36.3 deaths in 1995 and fell to 2.7 in 2010, the latest year data is available.” <———-More proof that the shortened life expectancy belief is incorrect

          • Filiusdextris

            Sustained by expensive drugs typically (I imagine) which put a huge burden on our health care system.

          • TJ

            I suppose black people, who are alao disproportionately affected by HIV AND AIDS, are also a strain on society? Our arguments are beginning to reveal just how deep our prejudices run.

          • Joe

            And your proof of this is where? And I guess we should let everyone who has cancer just die then right? Because money is more important than a persons life? This is some scary logic you are coming up with here

          • Filiusdextris

            I find the sources fairly persuasive. Even if the numbers were nowhere near what was cited, it would still be pretty persuasive. I’m not sure about Traditional Values bias but if it convinces a cultural majority, it works. Politics is not science. I think you are overly dismissive of the real risk of suicide and depression; account way too much (without stats) for anecdotes of intolerance.

            Anyways here’s a summary in lay speak of a recent UTexas study. It goes through a host of socioeconomic problems engendered by the gay lifestyle. Your general comments ring hollow, I’m afraid.

          • Joe

            You seem to have ignored my points.

            Gays commit suicide because people tell them they will burn in hell and are evil and child molesting freaks.

            How would you feel if at least 40% of the population says you are a freak?

            The reason kids of homosexuals being depressed lets think about it again. The only people who loved them enough to keep them where gays. Not even their own parents did. Now you tell those kids that their parents are monsters and evil and going to hell.

            Also, the fact that they have less money goes back to the whole they arent getting marriage benefits.

            Your studies support the argument for gay marriage not hurt it.

        • Uli

          The male G-spot is located in the anus – thus, a man gets the most pleasure out of penetration of his anus. Women get zero pleasure out of penetration itself, but mostly react to stimulus of their clitoris, something that a hand – male OR female – can do just fine.

          Don’t argue with the suitability of our bodies to one way of making love or the other, since you won’t get very far with your “argument.”

      • Ray

        In reference to your point 4
        Man + man = no baby
        woman + woman = no baby
        man+ woman = baby
        Thus, only heterosexual relationships are self-sustaining. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

        • Joe

          Man + Infertile woman is what again?

          • CBeast

            Really? Comparing sexual orientation with a woman’s biological deficiency? The two are completely unrelated with regards to this article and I’d like to think that you know that. You are obviously just pulling arguments out of your ass now.

          • TJ

            Don’t dismiss it, I think it confirms we marry for love, not for “self-sustaining” purposes. If it came from his ass, his buttocks is very thoughtful!

          • lakingscrzy

            “I think it confirms we marry for love, not for “self-sustaining” purposes.”

            Wow. Somebody has been reading too much Twilight.

          • Joe

            Apparently a story about a girl falling in love with a vampire is more morally advanced than the Bible then

          • lakingscrzy

            It would explain a lot about our culture.

          • David Philip Norris

            Not at all, CBeast. By NOM’s own definition, the purpose of “biblical” marriage is for the creation of children. Therefore, by their own definition, infertile and elderly couples should be denied the right to marry as they cannot conceive naturally.

          • Uli

            Indeed, and back in the good old days a man could indeed throw his wife out if she didn’t conceive or was “barren”, due to the legal definition of marriage as meant for procreation. Apparently that’s the sort of legal system the people on here are trying to get back to – how lovely and progressive of them!

          • David Philip Norris

            And if a woman was suspected of having been impregnated by a man who wasn’t her husband, she could be forced to have an abortion (Numbers 5:12-28).

          • Uli

            Ha, guess that’s a Bible verse that isn’t that often quoted on here, huh? God sanctioning abortion, quel horreur! But then maybe it’s fine as long as it’s not the woman who decides to abort? It’s all about men making the decisions after all, right?

          • David Philip Norris

            Exactly: as long as a man is making the decision for the woman (who can’t be relied upon to do anything rational… look at Eve in the Garden of Eden!) on behalf of God, it’s okay.

          • Nick Bell

            No, marriage is for union and procreation. Basically, Sex. (Yes, other expressions of intimacy and childbearing, but sex is kinda the “source and summit” here.)
            However, not every act of sex is meant to be procreative. This is natural to the woman’s body, which is sometimes fertile and sometimes infertile. However, you are correct that if a couple was physically incapable of having sex, THEN they shouldn’t be married. Also, you have to remember that we believe in the God of Abraham, and there was some question about the fertility of Sarah and the conception of Isaac. All things are possible.

          • David Philip Norris

            By your own definition, marriage is for procreation. Therefore, if the couple cannot or choose not to conceive then they should not be permitted to marry. If marriage is for the spawning of children then only heterosexual breeding pairs should be given the right. You can’t keep moving the goalposts and expect to maintain a modicum of credibility.

          • Joe

            So couldn’t gays becoming pregnant be possible? Or is God unable to do that?

          • Joe

            Notice how you didnt say what makes them unrelated

        • Beverly

          My husband and I have not had babies. We choose not to. What is so important about procreation? The earth is terribly over populated with many living in starvation. Why the insistence on adding to that?

          • David Philip Norris

            Too bad. You and your husband should have your right to marriage revoked as you refuse to breed like the other heterosexuals.

            Because, apparently, breeding is the most important thing about marriage. Apparently.

        • Uli

          All it explains is that homosexual couples can’t have babies. What exactly does that prove? Seeing as only a small percentage of the overall (over)population of the planet is homosexual, I don’t really think we need to be worried about babies not being born anymore. Few people today enter a marriage SOLELY for the purpose of having babies. We usually do it to show the world and each other our level of commitment, plus be recognized by the state as a union. If you needed to be “self-sustained” to enter a marriage, then Jo has a point – infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either.

    • Ignatz

      [The body proves that homosexuality is unnatural.]

      Then the body also “proves” that cutting your fingernails is unnatural.

      • Dan Li

        While I agree that Filiusdextris’ use of natural is somewhat flawed, I must agree that sexual relations between members of the same sex are. Please recall the use of the term ‘unnatural’ in the main post. Cutting one’s fingernails may not be natural in the conventional sense, but it is in the philosophical one.

        • Joe

          Cutting finger nails is natural in a philosophical sense?

    • Beverly

      You are fundamentally incorrect. You do not “hate the sin and love the sinner,” you hate both! The reason for this is that homosexuals did not choose to be gay, they were created gay by God. They have no choice but to love a person of the same sex. How can you even conceive that it would be a choice? Who would choose a live of persecution and hatred? That would be like choosing to be Jewish during the Holocaust. No one converted TO Judaism they simply were who they were created to be and were punished for it, just like the gays are now.

      • David Philip Norris

        Exactly. I was raised by fundamentalist Christian parents. Why on earth would I have chosen to be gay when that meant potentially losing my family and community, and as a teen either being thrown out of the house or being forced into “therapy”?

      • Nick Bell

        If you love someone, you would choose that. People chose to die in the Holocaust to help other people. Effectively “becoming Jewish” in that they shared in the Jew’s fate to help the jews. “Becoming all things for all people that I may save at least some.”

        But people have a choice over their actions. We are not dominated by instincts. We are not animals, we are persons. And it only says that the act is sinful. Since controlling their own actions is a faculty of their humanity, to deny that they have a choice over their homosexuality is to essentially call them an animal.

      • steve

        @abef7f2dac50a20faacf9e8235c7bbe0:disqus I have an uncle who is an alcoholic, he was actually born with a disposition to alcoholism, a fact that can be proven by science. I cannot in good conscience ever encourage him to drink, but he is a loving person, and a kind husband, and he also beats his wife when he is drunk. How could I but encourage him to avoid alcohol and work to keep himself sober. In the same way, homosexual acts are detrimental to the body, and there is no proof…sorry..NO PROOF, of any genetic traits that lead to Gayness. Rather, Gays tend to have rampant amounts of STDs and a whole slew of problems (specifically with Gay Men) that involve terrible sickness like anal cancer, and a whole slew of others, one of the early comments listed quite a few.

        I am not saying that people choose to be Gay, but it is definitely nurture over nature, and why would I encourage anyone to live with a debilitating struggle as if they were normal, when in fact the lifestyle they are living is truly destructive. look at the science, and ask yourself why would you not support a genetic trait like alcoholism, but you would support a lifestyle like homosexuality?

        • Joe

          And your proof of this is where?

          Tell me if I say you are unnatural would that be a loving thing to do

          Would a mother say their child is unnatural?

          Also alcoholism is something that can kill you. Its nonconsensual. Its inanimate.

          Homosexuality is not a LIFESTYLE. Its one of many of a persons qualities. Its not some package. Straight people dont agree or do all of the same things and neither do gay people.

          • fqke

            Not that I want to agree with a lot of what the previous person said, but you (Joe) seem to be confusing identity with actions. Being gay is not consensual, is not a choice, and is also not a sin. Having gay sex should be consensual, is a choice, and is also a sin. Being an alcoholic is not consensual, is not a choice, and is also not a sin. Drinking yourself into violent behaviour and death is consensual, is a choice, and is also a sin. Both choices can be mitigated by the unchosen tendencies of the actor, but both are still choices made.

            We are not just animals driven, uncontrollably, by instinct. We can overcome our impulses, although it isn’t always easy and we need help to do so. And we expect to sometimes fail, which is why Catholicism has the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

          • Joe

            Do you not know what consensual means?
            Relating to or involving consent, esp. mutual consent?

            One is two people the other is one. Whiskey doesnt ever tell me not to drink it. Does your whiskey talk to you?

            Gay acts are between ACTORS not an ACTOR. Its two peoples consent. No one else is hurt in their decision to do this unlike alcohol. Oh and before you start saying things like “gays die earlier” Please look at my other comments on this article and know Ive refuted that claim in its entirety.

            I disagree that we are not animals driven by instincts but I will not get in to that.

        • Uli

          You know why – because one does destroy a person’s life, the other doesn’t. Alcoholism and addiction harms an individual and can lead to death – it is an illness. Homosexuality merely means you are attracted to and fall in love with someone from your own sex. If you cannot see the difference than you are blind!

      • Fqke

        Oh for goodness sake! What is so hard to believe about it being possible to hate a sin and love the sinner, even if the sinner has an unavoidable tendency to sin? I feel sad for all the people who cannot comprehend this, as it sounds like they don’t have much experience of loving others no matter what they do.

        This is a Catholic blog. The sin in question is gay sexual acts and lust, not love. It is not a sin in Catholicism to love someone of the same sex. It is not a sin to be gay. It is a sin to lust, and to have any sex that is not married sex open to life.

        We all have an unavoidable tendency to sin. None of us chose to be born this way. That doesn’t mean we hate everyone, even though we hate sin. Someone who has a high sex drive might have a greater tendency to promiscuity: it isn’t hating them to say that promiscuity is a sin. Some people seem to naturally have less emphathy and charity than others: it is not hating them to say that uncharitable behaviour is a sin. Some people have a tendency to alcoholism that they certainly did not choose: it is not hating them to say that living your life violently drunk until you die young from alcohol poisoning is sinful.

        But what do I know? I think the way young offenders are demonised in my country is wicked, and I feel unbearably sad about the killers of Jamie Bulger and their lives. Clearly, either I don’t hate murder, or I hate those children: I cannot love the sinner and hate the sin.

        Everyone needs help and support not to sin, but pretending that something isn’t a sin doesn’t do that. Making it clear by your words and actions that sinners are perfectly welcome (“we are all sinners”) does help.

  • Christina

    Thank you for addressing this. I’ve seen it a couple of times already, and it’s taken all of my willpower not to chastise the willful ignorance of the people posting in their desire to be right. Thank you for using sense and reason to show that this, like every other ridiculous anti-Christian meme is not only woefully underinformed, but completely incorrect.

    • Leta Bezdecheck

      Please elaborate.

    • Pooter Bilbo

      You want to talk about willful ignorance? Alright, here we go.

      Every civilization since the dawn of time (which you probably think was about 8000 years ago, but that’s beside the point) has thought of religion. There were thousands of religions that came along before Christianity, and there have been tons invented since. How in the world can you make the claim that Christianity and all its doctrine is right and all the other thousands of religions that have ever existed are wrong? That seems pretty willfully ignorant to me.

      Instead of religion, I believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn’t detrimentally affect others. Homosexuality doesn’t negatively affect me, and it doesn’t negatively affect you either. (Aside from you all getting extremely butthurt on the internet) Your religion doesn’t negatively affect me at all, so I’m perfectly fine with it. Your religion does, however, negatively affect gay people and that is not okay. So why don’t you religious people just keep doing your religion, except don’t do the part where you’re really judgmental about an issue that doesn’t affect you in any way.

      • refutemoralrelativism

        Why are so judgmental? It seems that you are judging others for judging others. Is it only okay for you to judge, but not okay for anyone else to judge? What makes you so darn special? Is it because you think tolerance is a virtue? Tolerance is only a virtue to people with no convictions.

        • that one guy

          I’m judging you for judging him for judging her for judging gay people. :P

          This guy is saying it’s fine to judge but it’s not OK to make someone’s life terrible as a result. There’s a difference between thinking homosexuality is sinful, and acting on that belief… One is acceptable, the other is not.

          The same goes for any belief where acting on it would curtail others’ freedoms; for example, let’s say I don’t think people should be allowed to drive cars. It’s not a problem for me to think that unless I start acting on that belief– by, say, slashing the tires of people’s cars, or something.

          • Guest

            You may be unaware that there are different ways in which to act upon a belief. For example, if I believed driving was wrong and slashed someone’s tires in accordance with that belief, then that would be an illegal, anarchistic action. On the other hand, if I voted for a politician who promised to favor anti-driving legislation, or ran for office and won the election and subsequently did the same, then that would be a perfectly civil and legal thing to do.

            But that, too, could possibly lead to the curtailment of the freedom of drivers to drive. Do you think that even legitimate political action would be wrong if it diminished anyone’s freedom to do anything?

          • Zach

            Any law that specifically targets one group is a form of suppression and fundamentally wrong. We’ve seen it in civil rights and women’s voting rights. It always feels good to be the majority, but don’t complain when the tables turn.

        • Frostie

          Yeah, it’s awesome to be intolerant. As long as YOU’RE not the one being persecuted for your beliefs.

        • Uli

          Oh, really? Well, I am CONVINCED that intolerance leads to war, suppression of minorities and hatred amongst people. Thus, my belief in tolerance as a virtue IS my conviction.

      • Nick Corrado

        “There were thousands of religions that came along before Christianity, and there have been tons invented since. How in the world can you make the claim that Christianity and all its doctrine is right and all the other thousands of religions that have ever existed are wrong? That seems pretty willfully ignorant to me.”
        >believing that one thing is right and another is wrong makes me willfully ignorant

        • Joe

          Your argument is basically a “I know you are but what am I” scenario do you realize this?

          You also do not defend why your religion is right so….Why is it?

          • Nick Corrado

            My “argument”? I don’t have an “argument” and I shouldn’t even need an “argument”. I took an excerpt from his hilariously absurd post, stated more concisely what it’s saying, then laughed, because it’s stupid and self-defeating. But here, if you want an argument:

            PooterBilbo’s claim is self-defeating. He says, in short, that to say one thing is right and one thing is wrong is to be willfully ignorant. He evidently thinks this is right. And yet, he’s ignorant of the thousands of other approaches and views created in this topic (validation of religion) and that have created since he posted… and still thinks those are all wrong. By his logic he’s as willfully ignorant as he says we are. Follow his logic, and the only way not to be “willfully ignorant” is not to believe, defend, or even reject anything. Yet still he makes grandiose claims….
            I don’t need to defend religion because I don’t need to be religious to find what he said silly. That’s not to say I’m not religious, because I am, but it’s not what matters here. What matters is he is taking a ridiculous approach to truth that can’t possibly work. What I’m defending at its most basic level is that it is fine to believe one thing right and another thing wrong. I also believe that truth is discernable, so I believe that the implication here is that I’m believing what is right and rejecting what is wrong, but even that is not essential to why I think PooterBilbo is being stupid.

          • Barry Atwell

            Like your post. You sound like a Frank Turek fan.

          • Nick Corrado

            Thanks. I’m afraid I don’t know much of Frank Turek, though I’ve heard of his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

          • Frostie

            No, he’s saying that to believe one thing over thousands of other things without any proof and force it on other people is willfully ignorant. Frankly, your argument is just ridiculously self supporting. You are not right because you say you are.

          • Nick Corrado

            Who said anything about proof? Depending on one’s belief in empiricism, asking for evidence might well be a reasonable thing to do, but he didn’t mention proof at all. What he actually did was claim that to uphold Christianity over other belief systems was being willfully ignorant. Perhaps if he did look for “proof”….
            Also, I lol’ed at the self-supporting accusation. I know I’m not right because I say I am. I’m right because I’m defending that it’s okay for some people to say they’re right because the alternative (“I’m right because no one should say they’re right in the face of thousands of other beliefs”) is silly and contradictory.

          • Joe

            It is in fact willfully ignorant. You say everyone else is wrong and you are right. Thats the point.

            Hes not wrong but I dont see why you should have a problem with that.

            If you have lived life this long not being another religion why should you care if someone says you are close minded unless you have doubts?

          • Joe

            I want you to reflect on what you said.

            You think he is being stupid because he believes what he believes.

            He thinks you are stupid for believing what you believe

            Why are you right and he is wrong?

            You did not validate your religion at all in that.

            You just stated why he is wrong which apparently you think proves that you are right

            It would seem both of you are making grandiose claims here

          • Nick Corrado

            Do you understand the concept of a logical negation? Please, sign up for the Coursera class on logic, it starts this September, we can even be classmates:

            Polemics aside, I am arguing that he is wrong on the grounds that his position is unsustainable, while mine, the negation of it, is not. This is a a proof by contradiction. Let’s examine his logic:
            First syllogism:
            1. We uphold any belief A.
            2. There are other beliefs B, C, D… in contradiction with belief A.
            Therefore, we reject beliefs B, C, D….

            Second syllogism:
            1. To reject beliefs B, C, D… is to be willfully ignorant.
            2. Willful ignorance is bad.
            Therefore, we are willfully ignorant and we are bad.

            Now, ideally, who does his logic extend to? Silly religious people like me who believe there is truth. And sure, it does, even though his acceptance of premise 1 in S2 is actually entirely wrongheaded (and the basis for my first rejection, though not for this proof).

            But the problem is that his logic applies just as much to him. He’s making a claim. He’s asserting something (this logic), which implies he believes it has truth value (else, why the hell would he tout it as some victory against religious people?). But there are other beliefs; he rejects those beliefs; ergo to accept his logic is willfully ignorant.

            This is unsustainable, absurd. It’s like a person who walks around claiming “This sentence is false, therefore religious people are wrong.” You’re not going to get /anywhere/ with that kind of logic.

            Now enter my negation of his logic:
            Syllogism 1:
            1. We uphold any belief A.
            2. There are other beliefs B, C, D… which are in contradiction with A.
            Therefore, we reject beliefs B, C, D….

            Syllogism 2:
            1. To reject beliefs B, C, D… is… to reject beliefs B, C, D.
            2. Willful ignorance is bad.
            Therefore, we reject beliefs B, C, D….

            See how much nicer that is? No unsustainable logic, no grandiose claims in the second set of premises, just straight-up toleration of truth. Which, ideally, is what logic should be used for, not some silly self-defeating proof.

          • Joe

            You take a course in logic you say? Prove to me Catholicism is right with logic.

          • Nick Corrado

            Okay, at this point you have -got- to just be pretending to read me.
            Firstly, I said it starts in September and that we could be classmates. Do you know what this means? That I’m not in the class yet. I am pretty sure most schools in America teach the months of the year in first grade at the latest.

            Secondly, I do not need to prove Catholicism is right with logic. Please reread what I have been saying:
            “I don’t need to defend religion because I don’t need to be religious to find what he said silly.”
            “I’m defending that it’s okay for some people to say they’re right”
            “I am arguing that he is wrong on the grounds that his position is unsustainable, while mine, the negation of it, is not.”

            Let me say it one more time, with the hope, likely in vain, that you will actually read what I say instead of spouting silly nonsense: what I am arguing for has nothing to do with Catholicism. >>I am arguing that it is okay for someone to believe in one thing and reject another.<< That. Is. All.

          • Joe

            Ahh I misunderstood you then. Sorry.I probably should have worded things differently. It seems you are a very sensible and smart person so could you please explain to me why you are Catholi or whatever religion you are though? Im not looking to troll but peoples reason for their faith has always escaped me.

          • g

            The internet is really not the best place for explaining religion lol
            What you need is a book from a well-known and reputable Catholic author if you want to understand why people choose Catholicism. Try out Scott Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home” or “Reasons to Believe”.



          • Nick Corrado

            That’s all right, Joe. I probably wasn’t clear from the start anyway. Regarding why I choose to be Catholic, g is right, an Internet combox is a pretty bad place for me to explain….

        • Michelle Fletcher

          It wouldn’t be much of a doctrine if it was admittedly one among many truths. What sort of followers such a wishy washy group have?

      • Mendezjb

        His theory in a nutshell. There are tons of ideas out there. Therefore no one can know which ideas are right. Therefore, don’t believe any of them (except his of course!)

        • Joe

          I think what you should see from his point is that you should realize that if you believe in something you should be able to prove its right because you are up against alot of different ideas and religions that disagree with yours.

          Also your “There are tons of ideas out there. Therefore no one can know which ideas are right.” and” Therefore, don’t believe any of them (except his of course!)” are 2 separate unrelated things. He didnt even say dont believe any of them.

          • Michael Strauss

            He absolutely did imply both of those things. He said it was wilfully ignorant to believe one religion, simply because many exist. He therefore implies we should believe no religion (except that we should accept his view, which is quite safely assumed to be atheism).

          • Joe

            Making assumptions is a dangerous thing. Drawing the conclusion that he is close minded because he says you are close minded is a pretty big leap. So is saying he is an atheist. The very idea that you believe only one religion among many is in fact close minded but you dont have to see that as an insult.

      • Jimmy Cohn


        I like your cant we just all get along approach. Yet it seems to be missing the very basic understanding that some things are Bad regardless of culture and some things are eternally good. You see marraige was never up for grabs, it had always been between one man and one women, its a simple fact of nature that the union of the two is entirely different then any other union.

        Perhaps a book recommendation is called for. I dont expect you to jump on this, perhaps buy it and put it far away on the shelf. But a book with the title Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton should give you a basic understanding, good or bad why truth must always be defended regardless of the cultures stream. A dead body floats down stream but a living one, my friend, that body can take the Beaches of Normandy


        • FrozenFire

          Marriage has always been for political gain or money, sex has always been for procreation, transport has always been by horse, carriage or boat, blacks have always been inferior to whites and women have always been inferior to men. That’s never been up for grabs, right?

      • CatholicMom

        Moral relativism is a dangerous flame to play with. Allowing people to do whatever they want simply because they can justify it in their own minds, and then expecting no judgment from the society that is aching from it, is destroying our culture.

        Trying to claim that homosexuality is a natural human state affects us all in its fight for not only tolerance, and not even only acceptance, but its celebration in society by placing the obsession with sex and lust at the forefront. It forces people to define themselves by their sexuality and forces us all to view our society through a sexual lens. No one does this more than the homosexuals, who define themselves as an entire group based on who they desire to have sex with.

        The very idea of “marriage” being applied to homosexual relationships is offensive and cheapens the very concept of marriage. In this respect, it does affect how every marriage in America is viewed, as nothing more than a tax break.

        We are not “willfully ignorant” of other religions, nor are we intolerant of other belief systems by believing ours to be the correct one. Every other religion also thinks they are right, otherwise they wouldn’t exist. “Willful ignorance” is thinking that we, as imperfect beings, know what is best for us and that doing “whatever we want” is what is best for society.

        • TJ

          Just one of the many things… They define themselves based on who they love…. Just like any other couple.

          • lakingscrzy

            Is not who they love directly defined and limited to who they are “sexually” attracted to? Are you suggesting a man who defines himself as “homosexual” could just as easily “love”, and therefore marry, and procreate with, a woman?

          • Joe

            Love doesnt equal procreation otherwise people who have never had kids and have been married til death wouldnt exist today. Also I highly doubt homosexuals dont expereince love because they are fighting pretty damn hard for their right to marry the person they love regardless of procreation so…

          • lakingscrzy

            What does love mean to you?

          • Joe

            Love is not something you can define its a feeling.

            Lets see you try to define feelings

            Love can be alot of things. Love is not something that can be limited by words

          • lakingscrzy

            So we should legislate feelings?

          • Joe

            Nope. Thats why its wrong to make laws saying gays cant marry. Glad you see things my way!

          • lakingscrzy

            So it’s only an acceptable feeling when it’s what *you* believe?

          • Joe

            You seem to have left the topic at hand. You said its not love if they cant procreate. You asked me to define love. I didnt. Neither did you. You also dont explain what “it” is. Love? Marriage? Feelings? Which is it?

          • lakingscrzy

            >They define themselves based on
            who they love

            Ok. Are love and sexuality inextricably

            >Love doesnt equal procreation

            Maybe not, but it is the crescendo of love.

            >people who have never had kids and have
            been married til death wouldnt exist today.

            does somebody’s existence hinge upon their own marriage? It was their parents
            that gave them life…not their husbands/wives.

            >Also I highly doubt homosexuals dont expereince love

            Who said homosexuals don’t experience love?
            That’s not the issue at hand. The point of contention is that if people are “in
            love” that means they should be married, as if happy feelings toward somebody
            is all that is necessary for a couple to be “married”.

            >because they are fighting pretty damn hard for their right to
            marry the person they love

            We see this, and we recognize this. If it
            is marriage they seek, it comes as a religious/spiritual/communal ceremony of
            the bonding of two people for life; if it is civil unions they seek, then it is
            recognition of two people in a civil contract for the rearing of children. In
            both of these cases neither is precipiced upon “love”.

            >Love can
            be alot of things. Love is not something that can be limited by words

            So then, to be
            fully coherent, how far does your requirement for marriage (love), reach?
            Polyamarous marriages? Polygamous? Any combination of any kind?

            >So we should legislate feelings?

            >Nope. Thats why its wrong to make laws
            saying gays cant marry.

            >Love is not something you can define
            its a feeling.

            You seem to be confused here.

            >You said its not love if they cant

            No I didn’t.

            >Are you suggesting a man who defines
            himself as “homosexual” could just as easily “love”, and
            therefore marry, and procreate with, a woman?

            You said all it takes is love. You
            blatantly left out sexual attraction. So, I made the point that one who is
            inclined towards homosexuality could just as easily “love”, and therefore,
            procreate with the opposite sex. Here’s another point, in today’s society,
            *why* is it so important for homosexuals to be married? In what way do they
            benefit from a title? Is there any real and tangible change in their
            relationship from “not married” and “married”? This whole culture war seems
            less of asking for “rights”(which marriage is not, for anybody) and more asking
            of recognition and acceptance.

          • Joe

            Why is procreation the “crescendo of love”?

            Couldnt I argue that gays deciding to be together despite not being able to experience this crescendo of love shows they love each other even more since they cannot have their own kids?

            Did you really think you made the point that gay people could be sexually attracted to women and therefore love?

            You took me way too literally when I said “exist”. I said that people who cant procreate wouldnt be marrying each other not that they literally DONT EXIST. Their MARRIAGE wouldnt exist. Not the people.


          • lakingscrzy

            You keep using that word, right, but it does not mean what you think it means.

          • Joe

            You say they want the title. The title is not what they want. Its what comes with that title. Civil Unions arent nationally recognized and until that happens marriage is the only way they can get those rights. Also, How do I not know what rights are? Gays pay taxes like the rest of us. Some desire children like some of us. Some want a relationship like some of us. Please explain.

          • lakingscrzy
          • Joe

            Interesting that you choose the Prop 8 issue. You should know this article is not very accurate. Heres the reason it was overturned by the swing vote


            “Chemerinsky noted that the decision appeals to swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, by citing his decision in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado law that prevented communities from treating gay people as a protected class.”

            Youre article is by a misinformed incredibly baised conservative. They say that marriage has been undefined? Marriage was defined in America as two white people. And then it became anyones right to marry.

            Even if liberals were changing the definiton of the word marriage WHO CARES?!?! Its a word vs peoples happiness.

            These arguments are ridiculous.

          • lakingscrzy

            Your opinion of perceived bias in this article is not addressing any argument presented, merely waving it off. The article provided STARTS with talking about prop 8, and expands upon exactly what you just said (why it was overturned). This shows you either didn’t read the article or are too emotionally invested with the arguments at hand. Your appeal to “feelings” is a logical fallacy that has no place in the context of objective law and morality, which this discussion is lynch-pinned upon. We are discussing the states compelling interest in recognizing a union between two people, exactly what that us defined as is the point of this discussion. What should compel the state to recognize a union between two people; is it for the rearing of children, or romance?

          • Joe

            I already went over this before. They pay taxes they deserve rights. If they dont get that right. They should get a tax break. Give them a reason to not want gay marriage. I dont believe thats right either but until then I dont see why gays should not be allowed to have that. Im not emotionally invested I just think the fact that keeping gays from having the right to marry is ridiculous. Gays have been able to marry in Canada and guess what? They are worth more than us now. Canadians beat us. The fact that we have to debate such issues is sad.

          • lakingscrzy

            So you since you saying it is simply the right to enter into a legal contract between persons for the purpose of life benefits, anybody who is a tax-payer should be allowed to enter this with any consenting adult of their choosing, correct? If we add in a streamlined process of divorce(California), what would stop me from declaring my roommate as my marriage partner, for the period of time we are conviently living together, regardless of our actual relationship, for the purposes of benefits. May I also enter into this contract with my brother or sister? How about a group of people who live together who wish to share benefits? If you don’t define what something *is* it has no definition, literally making it meaningless.

          • Joe

            ……..Do you even know how marriage works? There are actually agencies put in place to prevent people from marrying soley for the benefits. Marrying your brother and sister causes problems with the children created.

          • Joe

            Those things happen with straight people all the time by the way. Many couples refuse to divorce simply because they prefer the benefits they have together. You really are misinformed about things

          • lakingscrzy

            But you said it isn’t about the children.

          • Joe

            When the children become deformed it is. These word games tire me. Give me an argument with substance

          • lakingscrzy

            So you agree that marriage is about the children, and not about the “feelings” of the adults? Word games? I’m sorry if this thinking hurts your brain, but welcome to discourse.

          • Joe

            ……………….Gays dont hurt children. Gays dont have children. Brothers and sisters can have kids. Incest causes deformities. Incest hurts children. Its not hard to see. Youve lost the debate.

          • Joe

            Marriage is about the children when it hurts people. Incest hurts children. Gays dont. <—- Im trying to make this simple for you

          • lakingscrzy

            Declaring yourself the winner? Bax taste. What of my other provided scenarios, such as roommates or any pairing of persons? My point is, you must provide a definition, definitions are by nature exclusionary, who do you and do you not exclude?

        • Carl

          Please, please explain to me how two homosexuals in a loving, committed relationship based on mutual love and respect threaten the foundations of society, as you seem to claim. Also, how does two men or two women loving each other and living together cheapen your marriage? What do these people have to do with your relationship? You make no sense whatsoever, except that you are showing what a hateful person you are.
          Homosexuality does not hurt anyone – intolerance, bigotry, ignorance…now THOSE are truly a danger to society!

      • Ypoulaki

        Homosexually publically proclaimed is a direct threat to the health and safety of my children. It is logically, based on reason, bankrupt and harmful. It should be abstained from and repented from, and for the sake of our children taken out of the public forum as a promotion and taught to be avoided, just like other disorders such as others- and should taken out of the public forum as something to promote and should be taught as something to avoid, like every other disordered obscenity.

        • Frostie

          You want to provide a reason? At all?

        • David Philip Norris

          The amount of hatred for homosexuals being spewed here is beyond the pale. You probably would’ve been on the lawn at Little Rock Central High School with a picket sign and screaming epithets, protesting as African-American children were finally allowed to go to public school.

        • lute6563

          I think smoking a fag rather than marrying a fag is more harmful.

        • Carl

          Please, do explain to me how homosexuals actively hurt your children or threaten their “health and safety”? What an utterly absurd statement!

        • FrozenFire

          I think everyone is missing his sarcasm.

      • Ashley

        I’m going to address the later part of your post.

        “Homosexuality doesn’t negatively affect me, and it doesn’t negatively affect you either.”

        I want you to consider for a moment the social ramifications of sanctioned homosexual marriage. I’m not talking about any bias from religion, simply social ramifications.

        State-sanctioned “marriage” with tax-breaks and other social benefits – began as a way to promote the rearing of the next generation. Children in stable homes with married parents are more likely to be productive members of society. While not all marriages lead to children, that is a very natural and frequent progression.

        Those tax-breaks and benefits come at a cost to all. They are not “freebies” that magically appear. Someone is paying more for them to happen.

        By its nature, monogamous heterosexual relationships, as in marriage, are without STDS.

        Contrast homosexual relationships. They are not, by nature, life-giving. Something artificial must be done for a homosexual couple to have a child. So those couples just wanting a state-sanctioned marriage (and the associated tax-breaks and perks) becomes a financial drain on others who pay a higher tax bill to fund those perks. The couples who want to have a child – I’m sure they’ll expect insurance to fund expensive artificial reproductive services.

        And guess how insurance works? Again, that increased bill will affect me and everyone else.

        Same thing with those increased medical bills due to increased STDs.

        All of this just shows a natural law in violation. It does affect the common good. This article, written by a man raised, in part, by a lesbian co-habitating couple, cites many of those reasons for the children of these couples.

        So here are some ways that homosexual acts affect me:

        1. Sanctioning homosexuality, quite frankly, comes with a bill I end up having to pay
        2. People suffering and dying from STDs affect our society. That affects me. Both in a very practical way and a very personal one – I care about people and I don’t want to see them hurt.
        3. I have a daughter, who I love very much. I want to raise her to follow natural law. The prevalence of homosexual acts in our culture makes that very difficult.
        4. History shows that when homosexuality is prevalent, a society is dying. I’m part of this society, and I’d rather not see it collapse. Yes, that would affect me.
        5. (And this is the only place where I will touch on religion) There is not even a just “let us be” movement in homosexual circles. It’s a “give us what you have” movement. Saying that my priest must marry two men affects my entire religion. That affects me. An article on this part of the discussion:

        I could go on, but those are just a few thoughts.

        • catholic and proud

          Very very good hit the nail on the head

        • Beverly Hermit

          STDs come from unprotected sex either homosexual or heterosexual. That is an entirely different matter. And d you realize that your “unnatural acts” include adoption. An orphaned child can be rescued from the foster system and placed in a loving stable home with two committed parents. But you would rather have that child suffer through the system? Clearly, there is a problem with reproduction in this country when people are having unprotected sex resulting in single parent households with more children than they can afford to support. But that’s ok because it is “natural.”

          No one said your priest has to do anything. They simply want to be granted the freedom to marry the person they love. Who are we to deny them that?

          • Barry Atwell

            I think you may have missed this guy’s point about what an unnatural act is. Those babies you refer to being born into single parent homes are usually the result of unnatural acts as he defines the term. Adoption is not an unnatural by the working definition. Ideally, we would have single people not having sex so that we would not have all these babies being born to single parents. It would once again be the exception rather than the norm.

            As to your final point, the fact is, in some countries they are trying to make it illegal for a minister to refuse to preform a marriage based on it being same sex. In this country, we had a photographer sues in New Mexico for refusing service for a same sex marriage. The photographer lost in court. So the government asking the priest or minister to preform the service is not so far fetched.

          • StopjudgIng

            Joe and whoever started the thread about children in Foster Care and Adoption as being un-natural and agrees with him that is absorb and just immoral. Blessed are the children!! Here’s the actual scipture: Jesus, however, said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these.” Your statements calling them abominations and un-normal, that totally offends me as a Christian and a parent that adopted 3 special needs children from Foster Care. That statement un-nomal, what is normal “white, perfectly healthy children born to a man and woman that are married in the Christian faith” is that your definition? Well, what about kids with Cancer, deformities, etc., they wouldn’t meet your standards of normal. i know many Christians that have children with Autism, Cancer, and so-called abnormalities. i chose to love them with all my heart and reach out to them and make them feel included, who are we to say what is normal? There are so many thoughts going through my head, but i am doing my best to hold back, because you sound like someone in the past during WW2.

            1. Here’s some facts. My children are just as natural as any of yours, they have more love and forgiveness in their hearts than most other children!! They have shown love, forgiveness, and have overcome tremendous adversity. They pray for others and do not judge, they include others that are left out. We could all learn from them. i have.
            They do not only have special needs, but were molested by their biological parents, were physically abused and
            neglected. What was said about these {CHiLDREN iN THE SYSTEM ADOPTiON/FOSTER CARE}
            children is a blatant hypocritical stereotype that needs to stop. i have been nice not to judge, but on this topic, all i can say is Shame for whoever started it! Please don’t pose as a Christian and call these children un-natural and abominations . They didn’t ask to be abused by their parents. They didn’t ask to be raped by the ones that should have been the ones protecting them. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!! Now, i will pray for forgiveness for judging you because you were definitely taught ignorance, and i too am not perfect and my buttons can be pushed especially when it comes to my children being called abominations!

            2. Not all kids in Foster Care or up for Adoption are because of single parenthood that is a myth. Most kids are there because they have been abused, neglected, sexually abused by their parents. Yes, white, so called Christian parents too! Also, did you know child molestation is generational and it affects all walks of life, the rich, the poor, white, black, etc. iT iS Also underreported among white and the rich. Also, think about all the cover-ups in churches nationwide, Sandusky, etc. Molestation is an epidemic and it hasn’t even touched the surface because people are too ashamed to talk about it. The bible even talks about incest. There were some famous families such as Lot being drunk and having sex with his daughters, then Absalom and Thamar, Absalom raped his sister and was later killed by his brother. GET Your facts.. instead of calling these kids un-natural, get involved, help them, learn about the issues.
            Others are there because their parents died, and had no other options!!!

          • Dan Li

            Caring for children is not a philosophically unnatural act as defined by the main post. Two people having sex outside the context of a marriage does *not* fall under the context of natural. There is a difference between ‘natural’ as used to describe what we see in the world around us, and ‘natural’ as used in this post and in philosophy.

          • Damiasedddy

            The spread of STD’s is drastically slowed when one does not sleep with multiple partners over the course of one’s life. Furthermore, the preventive measures of “safe sex” are not fail-proof. The point is not that they cannot be transmitted in a heterosexual-only society; they cannot be transmitted easily in a MONOGAMOUS and heterosexual society.

            Adoption should not be necessary (yes, I know it is unnavoidable in some cases). Willfully creating a situation in which it is the only way to have children, is unnatural, per se. A heterosexual relationship involving a partner who, through no fault of his or her own, was never fertile is not willful. Therefore, it is perfectly natural, that this couple care for the unfortunate child without parents.

            You make a good point about a problem with sex resulting in children of single parents who cannot care for them. Finding them stable homes is necessary, but it is treating a symptom rather than a cause. Correct the sex problem, and you will correct the subsequent un-cared-for-child problem. When one only has sex with a spouse, one only has children with a spouse. Make this the norm for the entire society, and this particular problem will NEARLY correct itself.

          • Linda

            “The point is not that they cannot be transmitted in a heterosexual-only society; they cannot be transmitted easily in a MONOGAMOUS and heterosexual society.”
            Guess what, homosexuals who are in a committed relationship are ALSO monogamous. Where on Earth do you get your crazy equation of homosexual = polygamous from?! That’s why these couples want to get married – they want to commit to each other.
            So the correct sentence would be:” STDs cannot be transmitted easily in a monogamous society.” Fullstop.
            Of course, that is a total illusion anyway. That society will never exist, whether you are gay or straight, people cheat, and will always do so.

          • g

            @Linda, STDs can be CREATED in a completely monogamous committed relationship between two gay men. It is not just that polygamy spreads disease, but that same-sex activities cause it. A penis is not meant to come in contact with fecal matter. The anus is full of bacteria. It is not a natural or healthy activity.

          • Linda

            What you are describe does not constitute as an STD, a sexually transmitted disease. Also, ever heard of a condom and soap? Both help tremendously to prevent the spread of bacteria. Using a condom during the sexual act and cleaning yourself thoroughly makes it pretty much impossible for fecal matter to cause any problems with crown jewels.

          • Alexandra

            Are you aware of the fact that heterosexuals have anal sex too?

          • avalpert

            And christians think they don’t need sex ed classes…

          • Chris

            Actually, the specific things that gay “marriage” proponents claim to want are what? The ability to visit one another in the hospital and make medical decisions for one another. The ability to jointly own property & leave one another inheritances. The right to contract.

            Not only are those things already completely possible, but no one is objecting to them. Adoption of children is a contested issue, but then, that’s another issue. Regardless, it brings others in to the equation, and regardless of which side you sit on the issue, it is widely recognized that the rights and care of children can overrule the preferences of adults.

            Regardless, the desire to be “free to marry” is simply a desire to be free from reality.

            It’s not about rights, or feelings, or fairness. Human physiology simply means that homosexual “marriage” does not and cannot exist.

            Saying that marriage is a union “between 1 man & 1 woman”, is like saying that water should only be a union of “2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.”

            Marriage, being a complete union, is only possible between a man & a woman. You can have 2 men & 2 women claim to be married, but that’s no different than calling 2 oxygen atoms “water” rather than oxygen, or calling 3 hydrogen atoms “water” rather than triatomic hydrogen.

          • Joe

            They said the same thing about white people and black people being married

          • John C. Wright

            Actually, no. The arguments against miscegenation never even once made the claim that blacks and whites could not form a marital pair because they lacked a sexual dyad because the sexual organs of the couple were physically incapable of performing the sex act. Not once.

            The argument in favor of homosexual marriage is entirely an argument by analogy. The arguments equates homosexual behavior with membership in some race that suffers discrimination. The argument equates laws that forbid a possible act (such as marriage between black and white) with laws that fail to provide for an impossible act (such as laws making no mention of a mating ritual between two organisms who cannot mate) .

            The analogy is strained at best, and the distinctions between and act and a person, or between an act and an impossibility, are easy to make.

            Is there any argument, and I mean a logical argument, not mere rhetoric, to give to a man of honest goodwill who does not believe the analogy is apt?

          • Joe

            Well no one has refuted my claim about infertile couples getting married yet. Maybe you can.

          • Kim

            Joe, unless you have had a hysterectomy or some other serious procedure that has rendered you physically unable to bear children, you have no idea whether or not you are ‘infertile’ when you marry. Only over years of not being able to conceive do you realize this. After that point, you are already married. And, as many people can attest to you (as I certainly can), there have been many couples told by doctors that they are infertile and they go on to have children. We ultimately don’t know, short of no uterus, no ovaries, no testes, etc., that conception will not happen at some point. In heterosexual couples all of the ‘ingredients’ for conception are present. Not so with homosexual couples.

          • Tylan Riedjents

            When you used water as an example, you left out one very important point: While a woman (H2) and a man (O) come together to form your marriage (water in this case). However, two males can come together to create a family as well. (O2). While I realize that oxygen and water are NOT the same thing, both are necessary to sustain life, and therefore should not be treated with intolerance or unfairness.

            All this is simply rambling, though. People aren’t atoms.

          • Derpina

            No one said your priest has to do anything. ” By using the definition of “marriage,” it implies that they want this civil union with the Church’s grace as well. What the government should do is stop messing around with the terminology.
            The government should leave act of marriage to religion, and create it’s own category of civil unions that function as the current government marriage does, but extend it to people of all sexual orientations. So long as they stop messing around with the definition of “marriage” itself, everything should resolve itself. As of now and looking into the future, it doesn’t look the like pope is just gonna up and change his stance on gay marriage. Instead, the people need to stop asking the Church to change and ask for a better definition of their union to keep Church and State separate, because that’s what’s created this mess. People began to incorporate the affairs of the Church into that of the State. While we do need the morals that religion provides, it is not commanded by the United States law that everyone absolutely must follow the rules of Christianity.
            So I agree, these people deserve the freedom to be joined in a union with each other, but just not in the Church’s marriage. That word should be reserved for religion, and state should go and pick out a new name for all the unions it recognizes.
            [[well, that turned out to be more of a ramble rant than I would've liked]]

          • Alexandra

            No one is, or ever was, asking the Church to change it’s stance on sacramental marriage. We’re talking about civil marriage. They might be the same words, but they’re different things. And they’ve been different things for a very long time. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on the word.

          • stequi

            Actually, that is exactly what they are asking for. They are insisting that ministers “marry” them in churches, that Christian chaplains “marry” them in chapels on military bases, that photographers take photos of their “wedding” ceremonies, that bakers bake them “wedding” cakes, etc. They are suing ministers and business owners who won’t do it. That sure sounds like they’re asking the church to change it’s stance to me. Actually, they’re not “asking,” they are “forcing.”

          • Alexandra

            No, they are not insisting that ministers marry them. Freedom of religious allows them to discriminate and not allow homosexuals to receive the sacrament.

            The rest of those things, yes. You can’t open a business and refuse to serve people because they’re homosexual.

          • DavidNorris

            And why on earth would any gay person ever want anything to do with the Church, the institution that has been our chief oppressor since the 4th century? I haven’t set foot in a church in nearly two years and don’t plan to ever again. Keep your institution. I personally only want the federal and state recognition as I have no intention of ever having a church ceremony.

          • V

            There are plenty of homosexuals who want “something to do with the church”. Just because you’re one that doesn’t, doesn’t mean others don’t.
            And chief oppressor since the 4th century? Seriously?
            I’m sorry, but the church doesn’t “oppress” homosexuals, any more than it does women, children, blacks, Jews, and anybody else for that matter.
            My parish priest doesn’t have a guard at the door that asks you your sexual orientation, or any personal information for that matter, before you enter. “come as you are to worship”. the Church doesn’t care if you’re homosexual, that’s a total twist from society.
            “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual
            tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual
            condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with
            respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
            discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are
            called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians,
            to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may
            encounter from their condition. ” from the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
            does that honestly sound like oppression?

          • David Philip Norris

            Yes, that sounds like one of most hideous oppressions devised against human beings. Instead of shackling people from without by chains and bars they teach them to chain themselves. And I’m sorry, but the Church does care if you’re a homosexual. They wouldn’t be oppressing us if they didn’t. This notion of an individual “fulfilling God’s will” for their lives by treating sexual orientation like a disease or a “test” is an abominable doctrine. If we didn’t choose who we are then why demand that we deny ourselves the intimacy of a human relationship. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory and deeply prejudiced and evil. To claim that we’re not deserving of the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals is to sanction apartheidism in the name of religion.

          • tedseeber

            You mean “STDs come from non-monogamous sex”, not “unprotected sex”. There is no form of protection yet invented that is 100%

        • Sydney

          Ashley, how much more do you have to pay based on the current amount of homosexual marriages? How do you foresee this sum increasing in your lifetime or that of your daughter’s? This is interesting because I believe I recently read that about 4,000 couples are married every day. I wonder how homosexual marriages would really detriment your bottom line.

          • dntmkmecomoverther

            Go look at the stats for HIV, STDs and frequency of diagnosed mental disorders among the gay. Then you will see what Ashely is referring to. Did you forget where the HIV revelation came from? Think back to 1985…if you’re old enough.

          • Joe

            Source? Didnt we think gay people were pedophiles and using LSD made people think they were glasses of orange juice for the rest of their lives?

          • Joe
          • Joe

   heres the study being revisited by the way

          • Joe

            By your logic we should just kill all the gay people right?

          • David Philip Norris

            Not kill. Just mark them all with little pink triangles so that they’re easy to round up once Christian fascism gets hold in America.

          • David Philip Norris

            Those studies come from virulently conservative, anti-gay institutes that deliberately spin or fabricate data in order to demonize the GLBT community. The rates of STD infection and diagnosed mental disorders are not higher than that of the general population. If anything, the highest number of HIV infections are among women in third world countries (where the Church has discouraged condom use) who contract the disease from their husbands.

          • disqus_edCtdvkS5i

            Im really sorry that you have been put down by the church. I dont really blame you for viewing christianity negatively. A lot of christians out there or religious people have been putting down gay people which is actually not very Jesus like and as christian we must follow the ways of Jesus. A lot of hypocrisy has been going on in the church. But the good thing is that thats not the case for all churches. He said that he will shake everything until the unshakable remains. SO theres still hope. Always. So please please please dont completely turn your back. Please open your heart to him. God wants you to live and live abundantly. He wants YOU. EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE. HE LOVES YOU JUST THE WAY THAT YOU ARE and He loves you so much that he’s going to make you NEW!! More alive than you’ve ever felt in your life!! He’s got a big plan in your life. It is so big that you cant even imagine what it is. You wont even comprehend it. You are not of less worth because you have those feelings. THAT IS A LIE. Our identity is not in our sexuality but in Christ!! Reject whatever excuses that comes to your mind to not come to Him because He wants you to come to Him just the way that you ARE. Please have read at this. He met Jesus in the middle of the dance floor in a gay bar. WHAT? I know. Haha


            Thank you. ^.^

          • David Philip Norris

            First, thank you for your care and concern. I appreciate that you don’t want me to be turned off from the Church because of the negative actions of a few of God’s followers. However, I don’t believe in God anymore because I see no evidence for his existence. Those “excuses” were my rational mind putting up red flags. God gave us the gifts of logic and reason, but we’re supposed to ignore them?

            “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

            Second, my identity isn’t wrapped around my sexuality. It’s a part of my identity, just as it is for a heterosexual person. I probably have one of the most boring gay lives you can imagine. I don’t go out to the clubs. It has never appealed to me. I don’t do any drugs, aside from Ibuprofen and my very important Zyrtec. I have a boyfriend, and we’re monogamous. As I tried to explain to my father once, my sexuality defines me insomuch as it means that there will be a man in my life who is as important to me as my mom is to him. That’s what being gay means to me: that I love *a* man, not just men. But my identity is so much more than that, and I’m finally discovering what all that is now as an atheist. And believe me, it’s thrilling! I feel more alive now than ever before.

          • fff

            read the bible. you will see it speaks AGAINST sin. and homosexuality is sin…..its not a money issue at the end of the day, its a bout people.

        • David Philip Norris

          Ashley, you mean to tell us that infertile heterosexual couples don’t expect their insurance companies to foot the bill for IVF? Oh, wait, you mean that they have a *right* by virtue of their status as a heterosexual couple to have children and therefore should have ready access in order to take up their place as a breeding pair?

          Second, you imply that homosexual couples aren’t monogamous and are riddled with diseases from their supposed promiscuous lives of debauchery. Does that mean that heterosexuals don’t contract STDs? Either you really are that willfully ignorant or don’t know any committed same-sex couples. I know many that have been faithful to each other and didn’t sleep around before marrying their partners. Of course, because the status of marriage is currently denied us in most places, homosexuals are automatically guilty of promiscuity and fornication, even in a committed same-sex relationship, because we’re having sex “outside of marriage.”

          On a side note, did you know that the largest group in the world currently suffering from AIDS is not gays? (I know, right?) It’s women in largely third-world countries who contracted it from their husbands who contracted it from prostitutes and extra-marital partners because Christians have preached against condom use. I guess God didn’t see that one coming…

          Third, no one is trying to indoctrinate your children or recruit them with a spooky “gay agenda,” any more than the Illuminati are trying to gain world dominance or that the moon landing in 1969 was faked. No one is going into schools with a gay sex manual or giving tips on how to pick up men in bars. If anything, we want to make it so that your daughter doesn’t fear people who are different from her and accepts before she condemns.

          We also want to make it so that kids feel safe and free to be themselves, without the fear of being bullied or beaten up for being different. I was raised in an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian household. Our exposure to media was limited so I had no opportunities to be “recruited,” yet as a teen I figured out that in spite of my parents raising me as a heterosexual that I was attracted to other men. Your daughter, should she make the same discovery in her teens that she’s a bisexual or lesbian, ought to have the freedom to live her own life and follow her heart, not live the life you want for her. I’ve lost my relationship with my parents over that because they can’t accept me for who I truly am.

          Fourth, the claim that homosexuality is the cause of the downfall of civilizations shows how much the claimant knows of history.

          Fifth, the “religious persecution” argument is bunk. In fact, gay activists have bent over backwards in helping to craft legislation by putting provisions into bills such as California’s Senate Bill 1140 ( that protects priests and religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, and from being sued if they refuse.

          So… what other straw men do you have that I can tear down?

          • Suzanne

            I’m not going to respond to each point but my insurance does not, in fact, cover IVF and actually excludes fertility treatments. Catholicism’s position on IVF is pretty clear too; it is viewed as an un-natural intrusion in a marriage.

            The religious persecution argument is perfectly valid; certainly the mayors of Boston and Chicago think it’s okay to have a litmus test for companies that wish to do business in those cities. Some people who supported Proposition 8 in CA lost their jobs over it, and companies have been sued for failing to support gay marriage. Churches in Kansas and Hawaii will forced be forced to host wedding ceremonies for gay couples. Religious freedom conflicts with the push for gay acceptance and because of that has become a huge target. How often are people who support traditional marriage slandered with the terms “haters” or “bigots”?

            Bottom line is that being against redefining marriage has nothing to do with harboring ill will towards anyone. For the gov’t to call two same sex partners a marriage is essentially saying that fathers (or mothers as the case may be, but mostly fathers) are not necessary. That has not worked well so far for our society, and yes we are all impacted by it. The best place for kids is almost always with both of their biological parents. That’s not a straw man. It’s just a fact.

          • David Philip Norris

            I’m sorry, maybe I’m just missing something really obvious, but in what way does a separate-but-equal doctrine not make someone a second-class citizen? And it may not be hate, per se, but neither is it love to force someone sit in the back of the proverbial bus for the crime of being born same-sex attracted. The Roman Catholic Church is free to enforce whatever backwards ideas it wants to within its own walls, but your religious liberty ends where it tramples on my civil liberty. And right now the Church wants to steamroll right over me with no regard for the personal dignity of anyone. Bottom line is that if two opposite-sex partners can be married and are either unable to reproduce or merely choose not to, then there is no reason why two same-sex partners cannot also be married.

            And calling out bigotry where bigotry clearly exists is not hateful or intolerant. It’s calling a spade a spade. If it seems sudden and abrupt it’s because for too long we in the GLBT community remained silent when we should have spoken up.

          • John C. Wright

            “I’m sorry, maybe I’m just missing something really obvious, but in what way does a separate-but-equal doctrine not make someone a second-class citizen? And it may not be hate, per se, but neither is it love to force someone sit in the back of the proverbial bus for the crime of being born same-sex attracted.”

            The argument here is entirely an argument by analogy. A law forcing a black man into segregated public places, or requiring him on the basis of his skin color to sit in the back of the bus is a positive law ostracizing him for his race, a thing from which he cannot abstain.

            The law making no provision for marriage (a mating ritual) between two persons who cannot form a sexual dyad and hence cannot mate is not a positive law. It forbids nothing. It merely fails to grant to two persons who cannot mate the social and legal honors of marriage. You demand we change the law to grant the honor, but the honor is meaningless without the underlying biological reality.

            The point of segregation was to segregate. Democrats in the South did not want to work with and play with or see or touch any blacks. The point of family law, including marriage, is to preserve and sanctify the institution of the family. Your opponents here have not once said gays should not vote, not work, not buy or sell, not join us in worship or entertainment or any other public or private activity. Where is the hate? Where is the bigotry? You can get married under the same restrictions and circumstances as can I: to one member of the opposite sex, for life, not within the proscribed circle of consanguinity.

            Tell me honestly. Is Oedipus a second class citizen because he cannot marry Jocasta? Is that the same as making blacks in the Democrat South sit in the back of the bus? Really?

          • David Philip Norris

            Denying homosexuals the right to legally marry is about creating a separate class of individual under the law (a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment) by singling out a group of people based on prejudicial and subjective grounds, denying them access to the protections and advantages provided by marriage and suggesting that their committed relationships are less legitimate or less important than the relationships entered into by those in the majority. This isn’t about marrying your mother, your dog, or marrying five other people. This is about discrimination foisting itself off under the pious guise of religious protectionism.

          • Michelle Marie

            Socially, yes, they are “less legitimate and less important” because you cannot bring biological children in the world. This is not a bad thing – you can be you and love who you want, by all means. But bringing children up is a huge, demanding responsibility that is best left to natural parents. For sure, there will always be families that don’t resemble this template (adoptive families, childless families) but on the whole, we want our laws, in general, to reflect and enforce what is actually best for young, vulnerable members of our society: children. We need to follow where the data leads, regardless of whose feelings are hurt. And the data is piling up in favour of children growing up in whole families, with their biological parents raising them. This is not meant to insult you: it’s simply fact, which is not an indictment, but just is.

            I know it may seem insulting to you to say that you and your partner cannot adequately bring up a child. Or to say that your relationship is less important. I know how you feel to a certain extent (not completely, since I am heterosexual): I’m a single female in the midst of married peers, with families and children of their own. They are regularly made more of, more light is shone on them, than me and my relationships: with platonic friends, or with boyfriends. You know what? I’m okay with that. Because more is expected of them as well. They have a harder time of it because of the enormous responsibilities and pressures that come with marriage and parenthood. They’re clearly blessed, but in a different way than you or I am. My role is to contribute to society in a different way than my married peers, and I can precisely because I don’t have the huge responsibility of children and marriage. I can do things they can’t because they’re busy with kids and making sure their husband or wife is happy. I know it’s an imperfect comparison, since living with same-sex attraction is different than living as a single heterosexual girl. I’m just trying to show that not everyone is called to do and be the exact same thing. If you’re homosexual, have you ever considered it’s because you’re called to contribute to society in a different way? That maybe you’re not meant to follow that common path?

            Anyway, we’re looking at what’s best for society on a macro level, and it is NOT good for IVF procedures and families with non-biological links to become normalized (or, rather, more than they already are). I don’t think any families should use IVF, not heterosexual either. But if homosexual marriages become common, then the demand for the destructive and selfish practice of IVF will shoot up simply because the amount of “marriages” demanding it will increase. How else are two men or two women supposed to make a baby??? There are many studies that are bringing to light worrying medical problems with IVF – simply google it. All the information is there if you want to obtain it. It’ll save me some copy and pasting.

            The outcome is better for everyone when we have healthy, stable people in this world. For example, when a girl is raised in a household with her biological father, it is proven that she matures sexually later in her teens. And her regular, frequent exposure to a non-biologically male may result in early sexual maturation. It’s better for everyone is girls sexually mature later: few chances of teenage pregnancies, fewer chances to contract std’s, etc, etc. This is just one argument, there are many more.

          • Alexandra

            I threw up a little reading this. You are one nasty little narrow-minded know-it-all.

          • David Philip Norris

            Michelle—first of all, how can I not be insulted by your
            saying that I should be satisfied with “less legitimate and less important”?
            Think about that. Really think about that. I realize that you likely come from
            a heteronormative, anti-feminist, patriarchal worldview in which everything has
            its divinely-ordained place in the world, where males are dominant and females
            submissive—but the rest of humanity has moved on. Think about it: if
            African-Americans had been satisfied with being “less legitimate and less
            important” in their status as slaves, they never would have achieved civil
            rights for themselves.

            Second, it may be presumptive of me but your comments suggest
            that you’re religious, and that you likely believe that there is some
            benevolent, omniscient God of the Judeo-Christian variety looking out for you,
            and that your whole life has been planned out for you with your ultimate good
            in mind. I’m an atheist of the militant variety, and an ex-fundamentalist Christian
            to boot (which makes for the worst and most dangerous kind of atheist) so I
            know all of the theology and doctrine that likely forms the foundation of your
            worldview. I place God in the same category as other outdated and outmoded
            beliefs—a flat earth, miasma, and a geocentric conception of the solar system.
            All were first attempts at understanding reality, and all of them were proved wrong.

            So I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe in a Garden of
            Eden or an Adam and Eve (those come to us from Babylonian creation myths), and
            that God designed marriage or any of that nonsense. Marriage has evolved so
            many times over the hundreds of thousands of years of human history that I have
            to ask “Which one?” when someone’s talking about the “definition of marriage.”
            Polygamy is one of the most historically prevalent forms of mating systems,
            with one male taking several females into his harem. As it evolved, marriage
            took on the forms of a business transaction, with a virginal female as the chattel
            or the goods. Arranged marriages were also quite common, with parents making
            plans for their children long before they even reached puberty. Today when we
            talk about marriage we refer to a bond formed out of love and commitment. Many
            couples choose not to even reproduce.

            If you’re interested, the CDC recently put out a long-term
            study that can be found here (,
            the findings of which were that there was no difference in the children raised
            by opposite-sex parents and those raised by same-sex parents. The major
            influencing factor was whether there were two parents in the home. The sex of
            the parents had nothing whatsoever to do with the children’s well-being.

            If we’re
            talking about what’s “best” for society, who’s to say—you, me, or the guy in
            the corner? We have to decide together what’s best for everyone, and I’m sick
            and tired of the religious establishment thinking that it has the corner on
            morality and societal good, especially when four out of five divorced
            evangelical couples still believe that marriage is sacred; when children are
            raped by priests who are protected by canon law; and when Christians
            cherry-pick which verses of the Bible they’re going to be a bit wobbly on and
            which ones they’re going to rigidly apply to a class of people that makes them

            This whole “separate but equal” nonsense has to end.
            Either we all have the same rights, or no one has rights at all.

          • Singerrlr

            I’m curious as to what made you lose your faith and where did you read about the Babylonian creation myths?

          • DavidNorris

            For one, I read the Bible cover to cover. Also, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and community for most of my life, and once I figured out I was gay it became more and more difficult to justify living with all of the bigotry around me. Granted, I didn’t come out until I was 25, and even then wasn’t out right away to my family and friends. But I gradually began to see how much of the religion just seemed made up, and was built to sustain the status quo and bolster the patriarchal structure of the church.

            It’s a fairly well-established historical fact that much of the biblical creation story is derived from the the Babylonian myth Enuma Elis, composed between the 18th and 16th centuries BCE (possible as late as 1100 BCE), and the Atra-Hasis epic, which was composed in the 18th century BCE; whereas the Pentateuch (along with Genesis) was composed between the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. The whole Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve legend also has its origins in Sumerian and other Babylonian myths. In addition, modern genetics has recently shown that the whole of humanity with its vast diversity could not have come from any less than a group of 10,000 people. It would be genetically impossible for two people to have started the whole human race.

            So that, the abhorrent atonement theology that pervades the Bible, and the manner in which the Bible has been reinterpreted throughout the centuries to both support atrocities and social mores and to suppress minorities and any dissent convinced me that religion was a complete sham. This business of cherry picking that conservatives are so fond of is a perfect example. Someone on Twitter tonight actually wrote, “That was in the Old Testament, and those were barbaric times. God expects more from us now.” Which is bullshit. If the Bible was true then, it should be true now. So the fact that you wear clothes woven from different cloths, do work on the Sabbath, have sex during a woman’s period, have tattoos, read horoscopes, etc., proves how subjective and artificial the whole thing is. Why single out homosexuality as the one thing that God still cares about when all the rest seemed just as important to him?

            If there is a God out there, and I don’t believe there is, it likely doesn’t care about us. And if it is aware of our presence, it probably cares more that we’re out enjoying the world and discovering things rather than sitting in dark churches flagellating ourselves for our “sins.”

            That, in short, is what made me lose my faith.

          • Singerrlr
          • DavidNorris

            Conrad Hyers and John Kutsko are two writers who have examined the Bible through a critical lens by treating it as literature rather than inspired divine revelation (which it’s not). But it doesn’t take a historian to draw the parallels. The first link you cited even admits to the striking similarities between the Bible and contemporary myths. If Wellman weren’t so sincere in his defense of his beloved creation myth, his assertion that Genesis is “non-mythological” and that the “fiats” of God are non-magical would be laughable from an academic standpoint. True, Yahweh doesn’t utter any spells, but “let there be” is clearly an incantation. Call it “divine power” if you like, but from a literary perspective it’s still a magical trope in the ancient narrative tradition.

            Yes, the Enuma Elish comes from polytheistic tradition because the Babylonians were a polytheistic culture. The Jewish creation myth too is technically polytheistic. “Let us create humans in our own likeness”? Even with the whole convoluted “three-in-one” business that the Biblical authors employ, Yahweh is a fiercely xenophobic, jealous, unpleasant deity. If there are no other gods involved in the creation of the universe, it’s because he’s destroyed them all in a fit of temper. There can be only one god in the divine sandbox.

            And frame it however you like, but if we look at God-human roles in the Bible, people are clearly the slaves of Yahweh. They have no inherent rights and live in constant fear of divine wrath. Medieval overlords must’ve taken a page or two from the Bible in how they dealt with their vassals.

            Basically, if the Bible is our source for all morality, humanity is in a lot of trouble.

          • Singerrlr

            Have you ever read “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist?”

          • Singerrlr

            How many Ancient Myth manuscripts are in existence today?

          • David Philip Norris

            How many original biblical manuscripts are in existence today? Where’s the earliest first copy of the Pentateuch?

          • Singerrlr

            We don’t have any originals but thousands(up to at least 15,000) of copies if you include full manuscripts and parts of manuscripts. By comparing all these copies with each other you can see what the original author wrote. They do a good job of discussing this in “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.” When you say scholars are you referring to Conrad Hyers and John Kutsko?

          • David Philip Norris

            Those manuscripts have been altered so much through the ages, what with scribes making errors, correcting errors, or inserting their own interpretation into the texts, that it’s virtually impossible to know what the original authors wrote. I’ve seen some of the “original” texts in the British Library… a 4th century fragment of the Gospel of Thomas, a 4th century copy of the Codex Sinaiticus, a 5th century Syriac Bible. That’s all there is to work with, copies of copies. With other historical documents it might not matter as much. We expect that there are errors, though in the case of histories written during the Roman Empire we can be reasonably certain the authors they were trying to be as factually accurate as possible. Even so, no one is claiming that those are the infallible “Word of God.”

            I don’t need faith to be an atheist. I base my worldview on evidence, not on the hearsay of some illiterate shepherds or fishermen.

          • Singerrlr

            When you have thousands upon thousands of copies to compare to each other you can very easily tell which scribes made an error and which ones got it right. The scribes took their work very seriously and were very careful. Even with the 200-300,000 variants that are known(none of which affect a single doctrine of Christian faith) Bible scholars say the New Testament is 98-99% pure. I’m curious as to what evidence your basing your beliefs on? If you think the Bible is full of errors then you obviously haven’t done your research. How can you honestly deny all of the recorded history in the Bible that has been proven true after all those years? Just read the book and then tell me the Bible is all a bunch of fiction!

          • David Philip Norris

            If you’ll scroll up, you’ll recall I have a degree in biblical and theological studies from a conservative Christian liberal arts college, so I have read the Bible. Several times, cover-to-cover, and studied each part of it extensively. (Don’t remember if I included where I got the degree, but that’s the rest of the story.)

            But note the distinction you made: “Bible scholars.” Now, of course, not all Bible scholars believe in the literalness of the Bible, or even believe in God. But generally speaking, these are people who start with the premise that God authored the Bible and work outward from there. They arrive at a much different conclusion from someone who treats the Bible as literature and tests it against the historical record and critical standards. I’ll come back to the history in a moment, but as a piece of literature the Bible is an absolute mess! And there are so many different ways of explaining away the inconsistencies in the Bible that, well — at some point don’t you have to wonder what God was doing that his special sacred book is so loose with the details?

            For example:
            1) In Genesis 4, after Cain has killed Abel and gets cast out by God, he worries about other people killing him (4:14). If he’s the third person ever to have existed on Earth (4:1)–where did these other people come from who are going to kill him? And where on Earth did his wife come from (4:17)?
            2) In 1 Samuel 31 it says that Saul killed himself by falling on his own sword. At the opening of 2 Samuel, however, it says he ordered an Amalekite servant to kill him. Later in chapter 21 it says he was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
            3) In 2 Samuel 6:23, it says that Michal is childless. Later, in 21:8, she has five sons.
            4) In 1 Kings 16, Baasha dies in the 26th year of King Asa’s reign. In 2 Chronicles 16:1, he builds a city in the 36th year of King Asa’s reign. (Quoi?)
            5) Galatians 3:17 claims that the law came 430 years after Abraham received the promises from God. But Exodus 12:40-41 says that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years.
            6) In Matthew 1, Jesus’ lineage is traced through David’s son, Solomon. In Luke, it’s traced through David’s son, Nathan.
            7) In the account of the centurion asking Jesus to heal his manservant (who, incidentally, was the centurion’s lover, his pais, which was understood in that time to mean a homosexual partner), Matthew 8 has the centurion approaching Jesus directly, while Luke has others going on behalf of the centurion.

            I could go on, but if you have some time, there is a list of over 700 inconsistencies in the Bible:

            Composition of the books is thought to have started around 1000 BCE, was largely local and isolated in terms of authorship, and we have none of the original manuscripts.

            But all that aside, I have to ask you… have you READ a history book? Historically speaking, the Bible is completely unreliable, because if it were a true history then it would would see it lining up with contemporary records from other nations. When judging a historical account we look at how harmonious the different records are, the and the Biblical one is kinda stinky.

            Take, for example, the story of the Exodus. The Bible refers to hundreds of thousands of Hebrews being enslaved for hundreds of years, yet meticulous Egyptian records make no mention a slave labor force of that size. And they recorded everything. (Believe me, I’ve studied Egyptian hieroglyphics, and much of that is the study of history. They were OCD down to how many casks of beer were handed out to workers.)

            Biblical scholars also place the date of the Exodus around 1491 BCE (the date Paul Hansen of Answers in Genesis uses), around the reign of Hatsheput and a time of significant Egyptian growth and expansion. If there had been a series of catastrophes of the nature the Bible describes, we would see a period of weakness and national chaos. But we do not.

            Also, there are two cities mentioned in the Bible that didn’t even exist in the same chronological period — Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11) — that it claims the Hebrews built. Pithom wasn’t even expanded until between 664 and 535 BCE, around the fall of the Assyrian Empire. Raamses was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom (c.1069 BCE). So given the timeline, it’s impossible for the Hebrews to have even been in Egypt for either event, as they were being enslaved by the Assyrians between 740 – 722 BCE (and the Assyrians do record carrying off 27,290 Samarian captives).

            I could go on, but I hope I’ve made my point. This is why I could no longer trust the Bible, when the historical record so clearly contradicts it and presents a more cogent picture. Same for science.

          • Guest123456

            You claim to be a bible scholar yet you cannot read and comprehend what you are reading in the Bible. I only looked up one of your examples (#2) and found it to be false.
            In 1 Sam 31 verse#2 it says the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons. and the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchi-shua the SONS of Saul. In verse 4 he asked his servant to kill him but his Armor Bearer would not.So saul took his own sword and fell on it.
            In 2 Sam chapter 1 the man who said he killed Saul was probably lying because he said he came upon the king and Saul was leaning on his spear. He thought he was going to get rewarded and instead David killed him

          • David Philip Norris

            Guest123456, eh? Not brave enough to show your face in this discussion? Let’s look at the actual verses:

            1 Samuel 31:4
            Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.

            2 Samuel 1:10
            And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him.

            2 Samuel 21:12
            The Philistines had slain Saul.

            Three completely different stories: Saul kills himself; an Amalekite kills Saul; the Philistines kill Saul. Please: explain.

          • Singerrlr

            I don’t see where you mentioned your education in any of your earlier posts. Who was your conversation with when you mentioned it? I”m curious as to what school you went to? I’ve read about many of the Bible contradictions and have seen reasonable answers to them.

            So if it’s so cut and dried with the Bible, all the inconsistencies and what not, how do so many go through seminary and keep their faith? Do they and all the rest of us believers just have the wool pulled over our eyes that much? Are we just that stupid? From what I know, the ones that lose their faith expect an answer for every little detail. If just doesn’t occur to them that if God is grandiose enough to create the universe and all that’s in it, there’s probably gonna be some things that we as humans can’t understand. After talking with atheists, it is very evident they find any and every little thing so they don’t have to believe, just like the website you linked. That way they can make up their own rules, live how they want to live, and be the God of their own lives(just like how the serpent deceived Eve["you too can be like God"]). It makes it very convenient when you don’t have to answer to anyone but yourself.

          • David Philip Norris

            You know what, yes, you are all that stupid. Is that what you want to hear so that you can justify your religious persecution complex? I’ve had a shit day, and I’m sick to fucking death of you Christians and your bullshit reasoning trying to poke holes in my nonbelief when you don’t have a goddamned leg to stand on. I’m dealing with a bout of severe depression, and I’m done with all of you.

          • Singerrlr

            Sorry to hear you’re battling depression. I’ve battled it in the past as well. It’s definitely no fun. Hope you’ve got someone to talk to whether a friend or a professional.

          • Claude

            Preach it, David!

          • TheLark

            Can you cite the evidence that girls mature later when they are raised with their biological fathers? And also, can you please explain how a child who is raised by her alcoholic, sexually abusive father and mother who beats her is better off in that situation than with her non-biological family that provides a loving and wholesome home for her?

          • Sheree

            No it ain’t. I used to support gays but now I take the Bible more seriously. You spout B/S! I guess we should allow incestual marriages (some actually want to fall in love- it’s like Angel Sanctuary (manga)). You WANT TO ALLOW SIN. REALIZE THIS!

          • Linda

            Actually, Oedipus DID marry Jocasta. Just sayin’…
            Also, it IS the same as making a black man sit in the back of the bus when he clearly wants to sit in the front of the bus. Denying two people who want to enter a marriage the right to do so based solely on their sexual orientation equals not being allowed to sit where you want in the bus.

          • David Philip Norris

            It’s not so much that I want to sit at the front of the bus. Hell, maybe I like sitting in the back of the bus, just as I liked sitting in the back of the classroom in school. It’s that THERE’S NO GOOD REASON to say that I can’t sit at the front of the bus, just as there was no good reason to tell Parks and any black or otherwise non-white person that they couldn’t sit there.

            Religious people have the right to think that I’m an abomination to Nuggan or any other deity for wanting to spend my life with a partner of the same sex. That’s their constitutional right to free speech and free thought. However, last time I checked we don’t live in a theocracy. The founders of this country created a place where all people are free to believe however they liked. In order to sustain that, they created a secular government, a neutral zone, ruled by principles of Enlightenment-era reason in order to keep those potentially competing viewpoints in check so that no one party had a monopoly on power, and so that everyone has a voice.

          • Suzanne

            Separate but equal? Where did that come from? More importantly, is bigotry the only possible reason for someone to oppose re-defining marriage?

          • Alexandra

            Pretty much. Opposing equal rights is bigoted.

          • StopjudgIng

            There is a reason we have separation of church and state. As Christians we do not want anyone to force us worship differently. We do not want to be forced to become Muslim, Buddhist, etc. However, we need to remember and give the same respect to others of different beliefs and religions. That’s why our founding fathers worked diligently so people would never be forced to worship against their will or be persecuted for their beliefs. Remember the Crusades, etc., in history. When America was founded protestants and catholics were at odds fighting each other so many people came to America so they could avoid religious persecution. However, Americans have tended to forget History and our American heritage. During the early years of American civilization, we went through a time such as the Salem Witch Trials, and now MA, the safest place in America for atheist, wiccans, etc., Not that I believe in their faith I am Christian, but Salem remembers their history because it is in their face so to speak. We as Christians need to promote love, tolerance and remember first we are sinners. We also do not need to forget history, or hit can come back and bite us.

          • David Philip Norris

            Separate but equal is a doctrine used to justify systems of segregation in the United States from 1892 until the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. It was overturned on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that:
            “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
            The Proposition 8 trial hinged on the proponents of the measure being able to prove that homosexuality was a choice and therefore the GLBT community is not a protected class. They utterly failed to make that case, which prompted Judge Walker to rule that the measure was indeed unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote that “Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of ‘marriage’ to opposite-sex couples.” Proponents were unable to prove that neither homosexuality or same-sex marriage would proves detriment to society, to children, to individuals, or to the institution of marriage itself and existing heterosexual marriages.
            Bottom line is that there is no reason other than bigotry and prejudice to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. If procreation is indeed the defining characteristic of a “married couple,” then by definition infertile and elderly couples and those who choose not to conceive should also be barred from the institution.
            In 1967, in the Supreme Court’s ruling decision on Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” He called marriage one of the “basic civil rights of man.” To deny anyone the right to marry is a violation of both the Due Process Clause (“nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) and of the Fourteenth Amendment.

          • Joe

            You didnt cite your source of people losing their jobs or companies being sued so how do we know its not just people being bigots?

            Oh yeah have you heard about Jainism? The belief that all life is sacred? By your logic eating meat and plants goes against their religious freedom

          • dntmkmecomoverther

            Joe, you didn’t cite any either…I guess that make you ‘equal’. Happy?

          • Joe

            What source? Jainism?
   here you go then

          • TRSkyLeaf

            I don’t remember him talking about religion there. I read law.

          • StopjudgIng

            David, I am so sorry your family is not there for you. I as a Christian love you and pray that your parents hearts are softened. I have many gay friends, yet my frIends stIll love me even though I am heterosexual :-) If one of my children turns out to be gay, I will support them and not turn my back on them, because being gay is hard enough without having the support of your family. Not all Christians are homophobic and hateful like you see hear and other places, but most are afraid to speak up. TypIcally the ones that speak up are eIther homophobIc, do not no anyone that Is gay, or have been spoon fed the bIble wIthout really delvIng Into It.

            Personally with me being a social worker, I have learned to be an advocate and fight for the rights of those that are oppressed. God is a loving God and don’t forget that. May you find happiness and peace you desIre.

          • David Philip Norris

            Thanks for the kind words, SJ. Even though I don’t believe in God, it’s always nice to hear from Christians who don’t think that I’m a horrible person for being same-sex attracted. I always say it, but I wish there were more people like you out there in churches instead of the Michele Bachmanns and the Rick Santorums.

          • StopjudgIng

            David, there are a lot less Michele Bachmanns and Rick Santorums that represent Christianity, they are just the ones that are heard the loudest. May you find peace and happiness in your life.

          • StopjudgIng

            Also, Mitt Romney is Morman and not a Christian. Just stating a fact, not judging. Pure fact.

          • Alexandra

            Can you explain why you believe Mormons aren’t Christians? I think that’s more of an opinion than a fact.

          • Deven Kale

            I was raised as a Mormon, and so I know this firsthand. Christians worship Jesus Christ as not just a part of Yahweh, but literally Yahweh himself born into flesh in order to have a life here on earth and fulfill the gospel. Mormons, on the other hand, worship Jesus Christ as the literal son of Elohim: Born first in Heaven from one of Elohim’s many spirit-wives, then again here on earth through Mary, but able to speak for Elohim through a divine connection.

            Mormons worship neither the same God (Yahweh vs. Elohim) nor the same Jesus (a god incarnate vs. son of a god). That by definition makes them not Christians.

          • David Philip Norris

            What concerns me is that the Bachmanns and the Santorums are the loudest voices, and they seem to be the bellwethers leading the whole flock. Then you have people like John Piper who claim to speak for God telling congregations what to think (Piper’s church is where I used to go prior to becoming an atheist, and where my entire family still goes), and on October 7th this year (Pulpit Freedom Sunday) pastors will be telling them HOW to vote…

          • Singerrlr

            Give me one example of where Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum said something mean about a homosexual and not about the sin itself.

          • DavidNorris

            You want just ONE? Oh, where to begin…

            - “It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is ‘gay’.” (Here she’s calling the GLBT community Satanic.)
            - “What a bizarre time we’re in, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.” (Not exactly mean, but an outright lie about what will happen when same-sex marriage is legalized, making GLBT individuals out to be child predators.)
            - “This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.” (Again, outright lie. No children will be forced to ‘try’ anything. If anything, they’ll be free to be themselves, and to learn about themselves and each other. What Bachmann and others want to do is to force everyone to pretend that homosexuality doesn’t exist, and that maybe if we don’t talk about it that the GLBT community will just go away. But we won’t go away. Our hope is that the environment will be changed so that gay teens will feel safe to come out without fear of being ridiculed, abused, beaten up, or dehumanized. No human being should endure that.)
            - “I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” (This is precisely how conservatives dehumanize GLBT indiviuals, by attempting to treat homosexuality as something we do rather than who we are. Bachmann is well aware that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV in 1972, and no reputable mental health professional today views it as a disorder. The APA even advises professionals to help individuals deal with the root of their internalized homophobia and to come to accept themselves.)

            - “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. [Marriage is] not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” (Not only factually inaccurate, but the subtext is that homosexuality is an unnatural act, and that GLBT persons are perverts. Not very nice.)
            - “There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary, and there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.” (Also not true. The president of Exodus International said a few months ago that he’s never met anyone who has successfully changed his or her sexual orientation. Furthermore, it’s insulting to suggest that we should change just to make conservative more comfortable.)
            - “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” (This is a slippery slope argument. We do have the right to consensual sex within our homes. The Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). No legal expert will agree with this statment, that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to cultural upheaval.)
            - “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.” (Again, he’s treating homosexuality as a behavior and not an orientation. My relationship with my boyfriend is based on more than sex. It’s a deep emotional bond and connection, the same as in heterosexual relationships. What conservatives do by arguing this way is to dehumanize and deligitimize homosexual relationships.)

          • tedseeber

            “Ashley, you mean to tell us that infertile heterosexual couples don’t expect their insurance companies to foot the bill for IVF? ”

            No, but I’ll be glad to tell you that Catholics are as against IVF as they are against homosexuality. An infertile Catholic couple uses adoption instead.

          • David Philip Norris

            So… why can’t gay couples adopt as well? Aren’t there plenty of children in need of loving and safe homes? Or are Catholics that filled with spite and hatred for anyone who’s different from them that they’d sacrifice innocent children on the altar of their religious dogma to satisfy their own prejudice?

          • Amy E

            “No one is going into schools with a gay sex manual…”

            The governments of British Columbia and several States have imposed laws that prohibit schools–among them, Catholic ones that do not receive government funding–from teaching the “traditional” view of marriage, because that is considered a hate crime. This isn’t a gay manual, but it is a big stepping stone in the direction of replacing separation of church and state with “removing church and enforcing the state only.” That is not acceptable. While the American government cannot impose religion on its people, we have the freedom to FULLY practice our religion, and that includes educating our children in the ways we believe the world to work. Disagreeing with the notion that same-sex marriage is valid does not equate hate; and sharing that view in a Catholic setting without judgment most certainly is not hate speech.

            I have some friends who have experienced harsh judgment at the hands of Christians for their same-sex attraction. That struggle is by no means foreign to me. But I honestly cannot claim that I have seen any of them needing to walk away (or, be pushed away) from their parents because of their judgments. I can’t imagine what that must be like, and for their hurtful response, all I can say is, I’m sorry. You deserve more respect than that, a lot more. As much as their approach to Christian life has hurt you, I can honestly say that the Catholic Church does not teach rejection and hatred to homosexuals. The document that outlines the tenets of our faith, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, says, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Many Catholics believe, practice, and spread this message. We may disagree with homosexual actions, but it’s not a judgment so much as a statement of, “We believe you deserve and were made for more.” We also don’t believe that being homosexual makes you worse than other sinners. We’re all on the same playing field in Christ’s eyes.

            While Christianity claims that acting on homosexual urges is a sin, that is not the most important thing that you need to know about our faith. The most important thing to know is that the story of God dying on a cross wasn’t just a story, and that act was done with YOU in mind. The things that have hurt you, the sins other people have committed against you, the things you have done that caused harm to yourself and others….they’ve already been dealt with. All that’s left is for you recognize the amount of love that is contained in that act of crucifixion, and the anticipation with which Jesus awaits your pursuit of him. And legitimately, that pursuit could start with yelling at him, asking him why he taught things that spurred on hate, etc. He just wants to hear from you, and from there, give you life to the full.

            Most importantly of all, denying who you are is not a qualification for being Christian, and I’m quite angry that that is the message people have sent you. There is NOTHING wrong with you, and there is nothing about you that removes you from being able to have a relationship with God.

            I sincerely hope that if you ever desire to learn more about Christianity that you will have the good fortune to talk to people who respect you and know the truth about their faith and their call to love you as they would love anyone else. And if you’d like to talk one on one with me, ask me some questions, vent some frustrations at me, I’d be happy to listen/discuss.

          • David Philip Norris


            First, I appreciate your reaching out in this way. And I hear the concern in your comments, both for me and for society.

            Second, there is nothing more for me to learn about Christianity. I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, in the rigorous intellectual tradition of the likes of Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin. I even attended a Christian liberal arts college where I studied theology and music for four years, and was heavily involved in Christian education and Bible studies all throughout my teenage and young adult years.

            It’s when I started to study the Bible for myself, away from what pastors and other people I looked to as authority figures were telling me about the Bible, that I started to listen to all the red flags my mind had been throwing up. Things like why, if there was no Adam and Eve or a Garden of Eden, Christ *had* to die if there were no sins to die for (atonement theology). The more I started to read about science, the less necessary God seemed for us to have evolved, or for the universe to exist.

            And love in the act of a horrific, barbaric crucifixion when it wasn’t necessary in the first place? Why not just forgive sins? How on earth is crucifying yourself to yourself as a sacrifice to yourself because of a mistake you made LOVE? That’s narcissism and sadomasochism, not to mention psychopathic.

            So it’s really not as if I missed something or don’t know about God. Believe me, I know all about God.

            But I think we agree that schools shouldn’t be teaching about sexuality or marriage. Personally, I think it’s a travesty that they don’t teach Latin or rhetoric as required courses anymore.

            What Christians don’t seem to understand about the separation of church and state is that it’s not about *removing* religion from public view. It’s about making sure that the lines between government and religion don’t cross. That’s why we make a big deal about removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses. John Adams wrote in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The doctrine of the separation of church and state was first suggested by Roger Williams in 1644, when he was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for being too Puritan. Jefferson took up the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned about the grief they were getting from the Congregationalists. The separation of church and state was established to protect Christians from other Christians!

            The First Amendment is designed to protect religion from government interference. However, government has to remain neutral in all matters concerning religion. It can’t take sides in religious debates over theology.

            What the First Amendment doesn’t give Christians, however, is license to discriminate against or mistreat gays. As I’m fond of saying, religious liberty ends where it tramples on civil liberty. Christians are free to believe whatever they like. What they can’t do is entreat the government to endorse their beliefs by putting laws on the books to unfairly discriminate against us or our families.

            Churches are free to regulate marriage however they like in accordance with their beliefs. And people are free to live by those beliefs if they choose to do so; but it’s wrong to expect society to have to live by those same rules. It’s even more wrong to turn a blind eye to the suffering and injustices endured by millions of gay teens in schools where there are no policies to protect them from the cruelty of their peers, or even of administrators. Christians are free to disagree with same-sex marriage or homosexuality if they like, but going the extra step to use that belief to hurt other human beings is simply wrong. That’s a far cry from going into schools with sex manuals. (That’s actually a hoax fabricated by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbara, who doctored a children’s book to make it look like they were teaching children all about gay sex acts.)

            What we need is real conversation instead of talking points. We need to figure out how to live together in a society with competing viewpoints and beliefs. And not all Christians believe that gays are an abomination or disordered either! Instead of arguing about who is right or wrong, we need to talk about how to hold our beliefs while always upholding respect and value for human rights and dignity. After all, didn’t Rabbi Hillel say: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.”?

          • Amy E

            I just want to hug you.

            There is SO MUCH that I agree with in what you posted. Where to start?

            You have had AN experience with one particular branch of Christianity. Although it may not seem like a big deal, there are many differences between all the branches, and some pretty big, huge ones at that. I understand you were turned off by much of what you learned. But I can tell you from my own experiences that all of the untruthful or hurtful things that can happen in certain denominations do not negate the Truth and Beauty of what God has done. Rather than be vague in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, I’m giving you pure bluntness: If you want to UNDERSTAND the Christian faith, rather than be expected to swallow everything difficult and call it “faith,” look into Catholicism. There are always struggles and doubts when exploring different faiths, and Catholicism is not exempt. I can tell you, though, that it is very different from what you may believe is the only face of Christianity. I present to you another invitation to take a look at things from a different perspective.

            “What the First Amendment doesn’t give Christians, however, is license to discriminate against or mistreat gays. As I’m fond of saying, religious liberty ends where it tramples on civil liberty. Christians are free to believe whatever they like. What they can’t do is entreat the government to endorse their beliefs by putting laws on the books to unfairly discriminate against us or our families…. It’s even more wrong to turn a blind eye to the suffering and injustices endured by millions of gay teens in schools where there are no policies to protect them from the cruelty of their peers, or even of administrators.” Enter the moment where I want to hug you. If this is all you have experienced of Christians, I am SO SORRY. That is such a lame phrase, one that shouldn’t be posted in the comments of a blog, but one that should be screamed by any decent human being who knows what has happened to homosexuals in this world. Nowhere in the Christian faith is there justification for shunning or displaying prejudice against people who have same-sex attraction. In fact, in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), it says that “They (homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Please, please, know that there is a huge community of Christians who want to love you in just this way: in a way that makes you no different from anyone else we love. You are human, ergo you are worthy of respect and recognition of your innate dignity. As a personal note, I am studying to become a high school teacher, and one of my biggest goals is to be a source of comfort and respect for all of my future students, especially those who suffer from unjust prejudices. I certainly do not see homosexuals as an abomination, or at least not as being more so than anyone else. I struggle with lust in a certain capacity, as well as pride, anger, greed, an unhealthy desire to be important, and a whole host of other sins that STILL do not remove my dignity given by God. These things are not better or worse than acting on homosexual desires, and therefore I have absolutely no grounds for treating gay people as being evil or worse than myself. I hope that means something.

            There does some to be one area of incongruity. That is the idea that opposing homosexual marriage is an act of pure judgment/hate/bigotry/ignorance. While that is definitely true of some people who oppose gay marriage, let me explain the one I subscribe to–it’s counter-cultural, so please read on and give me a chance to explain. I believe that opposing homosexual marriage is an act of devotion and care for the person in a greater sense than allowing them to marry. For various reasons that I won’t dive into here (but would be glad to discuss if you so desire), I do believe that marriage–MARRIAGE, not civil unions or anything else resembling marriage–is designed for one man and one woman. I also believe that ACTING ON homosexual feelings in a physical manner–not merely having these feelings–is a sin. Since I also believe that our souls and bodies are not meant for life on this earth and its finite existence alone, I desire to help all of my fellow humans (if it is appropriate and they are open to my input) to that great expanse of endless ecstasy and union with God. I want to see as many of the people who have walked this earth as possible in Heaven, and hopefully God graces me with the chance to walk with them along the way. If all of the things that I have just laid out are true–which they are–then I do not want my fellow brothers and sisters (cue the cheese-factor….but seriously, we’re all related) to be continually influenced by, nor do I want them to keep convincing themselves, of things that will lead them away from that never-ending bliss. To put this on a more personal level, I want to meet you in heaven some day. I want to be in communion with you and God and all of the souls and bodies that have been created throughout the course of history. I want to know you and know that you are forever and totally fulfilled. I truly believe ultimate fulfillment comes from a relationship with God, and is aided by relationships on earth–not equated with them. So, I want you to know that there is, in what my Church teaches, a greater and more fulfilling path for your life than to enter into homosexual romantic relationships. I am not asking you to give up who you are or settle for less and suffer the rest of your life. I am asking you to consider that while we may not be able understand everything with our human brains, God understands EVERYTHING, created everything, and that maybe, just maybe, He knows more, and wrote a message into our bodies and minds that shows we are compatible in some ways and not as compatible in others. He has a plan for you that is greater than you can understand, and the same is true for everyone on this earth, regardless of beliefs, Christian or not, gay or not, sinful or [mistakenly perceived as] perfect. I am constantly making mistakes by thinking I know more than God. At the end of the day, my greatest moments are the ones in which I have allowed Him to have His way and abandoned my own plans, ones that once seemed full of truth and hope.

            As for this quote: “And love in the act of a horrific, barbaric crucifixion when it wasn’t necessary in the first place? Why not just forgive sins? How on earth is crucifying yourself to yourself as a sacrifice to yourself because of a mistake you made LOVE? That’s narcissism and sadomasochism, not to mention psychopathic.” Well, I have a response. I don’t honestly think I could articulate it well enough by writing it, so I offer a suggestion. If you grab a copy of Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners, he explains a bunch of ways that Christ dying on the cross is important. He mentions how Christ’s role in salvation history was decided before all time, and would have happened regardless of what Adam and Eve did or didn’t do. Also, think about this: Adam and Eve could have chosen not to sin, but since they did, God’s plan wasn’t thwarted. Rather it went from taking Path A for the salvation of mankind to taking Path B. Again, it’s hard for me to discuss these topics at the length which they deserve. I understand your reasoning, though, and while it is a common and acceptable objection, I respectfully disagree. I believe that the God that has been presented to you is God in a box: He is a God who is too small, if you ask me. And God is not small.

            “The First Amendment is designed to protect religion from government interference. However, government has to remain neutral in all matters concerning religion. It can’t take sides in religious debates over theology.” Another area where we agree! All of the things I am writing about are meant to explain where voters come from: we vote based on our worldview. So, since I don’t think it’s your best interest (see above) to have gay marriage legalized, I’m not going to vote for it. I don’t want to force other people to believe what I believe, but since we’re talking about the most fundamental building block of society here (the family), I would say it’s pretty important to be ABSOLUTELY sure that we know what we’re doing as far as legalizing gay marriage. There simply have not been enough studies to show what the effects are on society, children, and the partners themselves. That’s a huge risk to take considering this is a new scenario that hasn’t been lived out in a widespread manner over a long period of time. Does that give you a less “religionized” view?

            Lastly, I have another suggestion: Listen to the homily Called to Love by Fr Mike Schmitz of the UMD Newman Center. He gives an entire homily on gay marriage, and only refers to the Bible in the first minute and the last three minutes or so. The rest of it is a justification for why the Catholic Church does not support gay marriage based on factors outside of religion. If you’re interested, here ya go:

        • Alexandra

          The cruelty and hate in this post really actually hurt me personally. I’m probably just really emotional this morning, but the fact that there are people who believe this hateful shit and think they’re loving good people made me tear up a little.

          • Bethany Owens

            She’s not being hateful, she’s just stating facts. She hasn’t insulted homosexuals and she isn’t doing this out of cruelty. Because I am a Catholic and I believe homosexuality is wrong, I am going to use an example here that will hopefully make sense.

            I know a lot of people who smoke. Some are heavy smokers, others smoke occasionally. I am personally against smoking, I do not support it, thus I believe smoking is wrong and harmful to the body. But does this mean I am a hate people who smoke just because they smoke? Would I be insulting them and calling them cruel names? Should I treat them any differently from other people? Should I throw bombs at every single cigarette booth in this world and laugh as they blow up? NO!!!! All of which are unrealistic and are not ways that any believer should react.

            The incredible amount of judgement and hatred we Catholics have received this past year regarding the gay rights issue has been shocking. People have jumped to conclusions about us being “Homophobes”, etc. The media also paints several Christians and Catholics in a bad way, and it’s easy to believe that we believers really are judgmental and hateful towards the gays because of this. Yes, I know, it’s true there HAVE been supposed Christians who HAVE been hateful towards homosexuals, but let’s not forget that several, and I mean several, non-believers have been hateful too. Those “Christians” were not the only ones, you cannot stretch it all on them, that would be both unfair and false.

            Just because I don’t support gay marriage does not mean that I hate gays. Heck, I had a few friends back in high school who were lesbians. They were fun and I enjoyed seeing them. I did not make fun of them or call them awful names or label them. I tried to show the love of Christ to them as best I could by being a friend. I accepted them as people, I didn’t have to accept their sin.

            The one fact that no one can deny is that “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Even people who are perfectly straight, have grown up in a catholic family and have never missed mass in their life have sinned. The homosexuals have sinned. The doctors and nurses have sinned. Your best friends have sinned. Nuns have sinned. The nicest guy on planet earth has sinned. EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE, have sinned.

            I think Marc nailed it on the last paragraph. Good job, Marc! For everyone reading this, here is a tried-and-true quote that couldn’t be more appropriate for this sort of sensitive debate:

            “Our culture has accepted two huge lies:

            The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them.

            The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.

            Both are nonsense.

            You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
            -Rick Warren

            Oh and, Marc? I love you so much that sometimes I just wanna marry you. x3 Yeah, I’m a fan…. girl….

          • avalpert

            Please, that’s like noting that all I am doing is stating facts when I say Catholics are simply idolatrous sadists who get off to the notion that they are eating a humans flesh and drinking his blood while defaming God by thinking he would be lowered to taking human form.

        • Joe

          1. what bill? You dont say how or even cite where you get this
          2. Gay people dont all suffer from STDs. Its stupid to think so.
          3. Your daughter is not gay and you dont say how gay acts make it hard to raise her with natural law
          4 Wrong. You dont even show where that comes from. (And citing Sodom and Gomorroh does not count so cite something real)
          5 So was the Civil Rights movement.



          • SLOAN

            It does affect our children..We, as parents, are no longer free to teach our children natural law. Unnatural relationships are pushed on them in almost every aspect of their childhood. On our T.V.s, in our schools and in public places. It is put out there that if you don’t agree with the gay lifestyle you are closed minded and hate. I find this to be a big problem that I can’t believe what I feel is right and teach my children the same without it being construed as hate. If I am not condemning or protesting gays. I should be able to raise my kids as I want without being told It’s closed minded or hateful. Because it is so freely put out there to be gay it has many of our girls questioning themselves and their friendship. Creating confusion in minds that are already are having trouble finding themselves. It is wrong that girls can’t have wholesome relationships with other girls without it being turned into something unnatural. This causes mental havoc on our youth that is directly a result of gay rights being shoved on our society,and us who disagree are deemed as intolerant, closed minded and hateful for our belief. Gays are real tolerant, BUT ONLY IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM.

          • Joe

            Your arguments are very similar to those who opposed the civil rights movement in America you realize this yes? Replace the word “gay” with “black people”. Call it what you want.

            I have a test for you. Take it.


            Its to see how you view gays vs straight.

            Its not a regular test. Words will come on the screen and you quickly associate them with either gay or straight. Please tell us your results.

          • SLOAN

            Maybe you need to re-read my post!!! You can’t replace as you want to say “black people” with the word gay. Gay is a lifestyle not a race. Also people can see and mentally process a color. A race of people are just that people not a lifestyle! So quit using the backs of “black people” to push an agenda that is not even close to the same. So back to you, you realize this, yes? As to your assumption that there is some type of correlation between a race and a lifestyle I would say no! As for your test I don’t need a test to tell me what I see going on with our children and in our school systems. Open your eyes step out of your narrow minded thinking and see how this is affecting many of our youth. They are no longer able to have a pure friendship with the same sex, without it being made into something it is not. They are still kids learning about themselves and to have this part of their childhood stripped from them because we are to conform to a changing society is wrong. Why do gays find it so important that everyone agrees with their choice, when many (not all) of them discriminate against anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

          • Joe

            If it was a lifestyle all gays would uniformally believe the same thing other gays do. GUESS WHAT?!?! THEY DONT. GAYS HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THEY DO DIFFERENT THINGS AND OCCASIONALLY THEY DO SIMILAR THINGS AND THOSE “THINGS” MAY SOMETIMES BE GAY!!!!

            Gays find it important for people to agree with their choice??? OF COURSE THEY DO. PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE FREAKS. MONSTERS. CHILD MOLESTERS. They do nothing that affects another person and yet you claim it affects people. IT DOESNT.

          • Joe

            Why was my comment deleted? No matter.

            Ill summarize it for you

            Gay is not a lifestyle otherwise all gay people would do the same thing. Being gay is not a package just like being straight is not a package. Its a quality.

            Maybe Im looking at this wrong. You people seem to also expect that straight people have to procreate and marry or be a priest. Maybe you think being straight is a package and a lifestyle. Care to respond?

          • Tylan Riedjents

            People can see and mentally process a lifestyle as well. It sounds pretty much the same to me. It’s not so much a correlation as history repeating itself against a different group of people. Why don’t you open YOUR eyes? No one said that you HAVE to like gay people. Some people just can’t help disliking some people. For example, super religious people tick me off, and I’m a christian myself. Just don’t treat them badly because of who they are. If you don’t like black people because they’re black, you’re racist. If you don’t like gay people, you’re prejudiced. No one is saying that’s a bad thing in and of itself. It’s not good, but it can’t be helped; just don’t treat others poorly because you don’t agree. and again, don’t refer to “Gays” as if they all think the same. they don’t. No longer able to have a friendship with the same sex? that’s like saying that just because a guy and girl are both straight and both friends, it’s impure. Believe it or not, in supporting gay rights and whatnot, we’re saying “It’s okay to be this way,” not “Straights can go to hell.” You’re right, kids are still learning about themselves, and most kids change their personality to fit in with others, so they’re not “different,” or secluded. Tell me again what was being stripped from children? I missed it.

          • Tylan Riedjents

            Don’t talk about gay people as if they’re all the same. I personally don’t care whether people agree with me or not; it’s my life, I’ll spend it with whomever I so choose.

          • fff

            i agree.

          • Joe

            Notice how 5 people disagreed with me yet none of those 5 people addressed my points. I thought I put ever so much effort into them. Why wont you respond to me :(

        • StopjudgIng

          1. I am a Christian and disagree with your answer on so many parts. First of all, Most people with STD’s are heterosexual. I was married and was faithful to my husband who was a Sunday School Teacher, Deacon, then later a Youth Minister, and we even went to Africa for mission work. SOME PEOPLE ARE STLL IGNORANT AND BEL IEVE YOU CAN CATCH An IDS BY TOUCH ING SOMEONE, ARE YOU ONE OF THEM? I FOUND THAT OUT WHEN I WENT TO AFRICA, EVEN IN 2012 – HMM. Christians are sinners, correct. He cheated, and gave me a STD {HPV} they type that causes cancer and infertility. I was never told until later by my doctor’s what caused my cancer, so I went through my treatments and very painful procedures in the hopes for having children, and 2. {by the way most insurance companies do not cover fertility treatments.} They failed. I did end up having three miscarriages before the cancer, but with the Cancer I ended up having to have a complete hysterectomy. Again, I want to stress to you, my husband {and now ex-husband} was unfaithful and yes a sinner and gave me HPV, an STD that caused my Cancer. I stayed with him and ended up adopting three special needs children. Only for him to cheat and leave me for my best friend after our 20 year marriage. I remained faithful, and my children and I have paid the ultimate price. Well, guess what, his new, young bride can’t have children. My doctors think my cancer may have come back and spread, but now to my lymph nodes.

          So, when you talk about STD’s get the fact. Google it. STD’s are more prominent among heterosexual couples — yes even married couples because they trust their spouses and do not use protection. Also, it the fastest growing population who is getting STD’s are heterosexual senior citizens. Yes, I am also a social worker and am educated. You may think about getting educated before you speak next time.

          3. And, when you talk about the cost of insurance and how much it cost you, well it costs us more when people are under-insured, not insured, or cannot be insured because of medical conditions. You ought to google those facts too and take an Economics class. Sounds like you’ve been spoon-fed rhetoric, but haven’t done the research.

          As for homosexuals costing us money for children and taxes. Do you know how many children are waiting for adoption just in the US, because people are unwilling to adopt them? Did you know many of the states are now allowing homosexuals to adopt children because of this need. Maybe, if their were enough Christians who really cared, that wouldn’t be a problem either. But, since many of the kids are black, hispanic, or not babies OR may have a sibling, or have special needs they are overlooked. AgaIn as I poInted out, most Insurance companIes do not cover fertIlIty treatments.

          I’m glad you love your daughter, and you were able to have her naturally, count your blessings. But also, don’t think that something horrible can’t happen to your family. I am fortunate that I have a wonderful husband now, that loves me and stands by me no matter what. But also, it is not our jobs to judge or cast stones. If you are perfect and not a sinner by all means, quit judging and casting stones, but until then. Here’s some wonderful verses to live by:

          Matthew 7:4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

          Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

          Lastly, If a judge marrIes two people that are gay, that doesn’t affect your relIgIon. No one Is forcIng the churches to perform the ceremonIes. They are just wantIng rIghts so they can be able to legally take care of each other untIl theIr dyIng days. Legally. Research It. It also allows them to have death benefIts that anyone else has, thIs has nothIng to do wIth relIgIon. Just about 75 years ago, our country dIdn’t allow blacks to marry, and women to vote. It’s a constItutIonal Issue. Let’s quIt beIng so judgmental.

          • Uli

            This was beautiful, thank you for sharing! To me, you are the true definition of a Christian – tolerant, loving, forgiving, accepting!

          • Alexandra

            Awesome! I loved reading this.

          • mr.livinginlove

            i think you are missing some key issues here. its not ABOUT judgement. if you are indeed a heterosexual christian woman, you respect the sanctity of marriage. allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the definition of marriage. not to mention it is putting a legal seal on a sinful relationship. we as christians can not be in supprt of this. clearly you can respect that. we as christians seek to be CHRIST LIKE! would christ marry a homosexual couple? i think not. it has nothing to do with church or religion per se….its about a sacred institution which we AS christians want to honor and preserve for ourselves as well as future generations. god bless.

        • Sean Wills

          All righty, let’s take a stab at this.

          1. You’re going to deny people civil rights on monetary grounds? That’s a pretty shaky justification. As for your reasoning regarding IVF and the like, same-sex couples also adopt. You want to factor that in to your cost-benefit analysis?

          2. Marriage encourages monogamy, thus reducing the incidence of STDs. Even if it didn’t, this is beside the point, because gay people are going to have sex regardless of whether they can marry.

          3. This is also irrelevant. Your daughter will be faced with the horrors of gay people living their lives openly whether or not we can marry. Unless you’re really suggesting that we should all…what, exactly? Disappear?

          4. You’re going to need to cite your sources here, because I don’t remember coming across that particular idea when I was doing my history degree.

          5. Despite the scare-mongering, religious leaders are not being forced to marry same-sex couples.

      • Michael Strauss

        “This graphic exemplifies a terrifying insistence within this “debate” — to argue on the most idiotic level possible. Ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill, we waste our time with Scripture we don’t bother to understand, brushing the world and our intellects with varying shades of stupid.”

        Congratulations on being a shining example of this, even after reading the article.

      • Ignatz

        [Instead of religion, I believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn't detrimentally affect others. ]

        For me, that’s religion.

      • Catholic and proud

        It is interesting to me when people throw the “if it doesn’t hurt me its ok” arguement out. First off just because you fail to see the hurt doesn’t mean its not there. Secondly this country which allows you to LIVE anyway you want was founded on the values of the very christans you wish would “just leave you alone”. Don’t forget that it is morals that make this country great. If you don’t want to acept christianity fine but don’t for a minute think that we are the problem.

      • Barry Atwell

        Interesting that you are judging Christians about being judgmental.

        • Michelle Fletcher

          Seems that happens a lot these days but somehow that’s a non-issue that proves to be okay by the pro-gay marriage group.

        • Carl

          My, my, and now I guess I am judging you for judging me for judging you for being judgmental. Where will it END? I guess it will end with me pointing out that I am not the one to tell you that you are a sinner and disgusting, I am merely telling you to leave gay people alone to live happily. Thus, I am not judging YOU, I am judging your anti-gay stance. See the difference there?

      • Sydney

        The old adage goes “Knowledge is power”. I think the true point from this article is that if one is going to use scripture as a basis for a debate, he/she had better understand it inside and out. Many people become offended when they stand corrected despite the reason being they are so against something they do not want to bother to truly understand it. For the sake of perspective, do you know who knows the Bible better than any Christian? The Devil.

        Understanding scripture does not mean you support it, knowledge is used to determine how to judge it, is it GOOD or EVIL? This applies to anything, really. The original intent of the article is to look more closely and evaluate the context of the aforementioned passages referenced in the diagram in order to judge whether or not is holds merit.

        As usual many people have turned this into a “Christianity is right, other religions are wrong” debate. Is this because we are quick to assume people are coming from a bad place? That we see an intellectual challenge as an attack? It’s not so scary to carefully consider the other side! We do it all the time in academia.

        Also, as every one else puts in their two-cents, I enjoy being challenged and attempting to understand the varying views on many issue in society. Regardless of my support of committed homosexual relationships, I find it tiresome how many people have no problem with heterosexual marriage– indeed with all the topping of Christian tradition– even if they do not follow God; However, now that there is this idea that Christianity is against homosexual marriage, there is yet another war against the Bible and many are quick to forget how they accept many other aspects of our western society that are influenced by religion. I find it tiresome that the common idea is to immediately bash scripture and those who have faith in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost; yet no one has pushes so feverentely against other religions and the beliefs of those who follow them. I don’t know if Christianity is the “true” religion, I just know a good word or two when I hear them. I know “to love thy neighbour” is good. I also know many other religions intend well for social order.

      • Michelle Fletcher

        But it’s okay for you too be “really judgemental” about “you religious people?”

        Why does everyone have to be forced to approve of what someone else is doing? So some people call it a sin, how does that actually hurt homosexuals? Christian Catholics admit to being sinners themselves, on a daily basis. That pretty much evens out the playing field to include everyone, not just homosexuals.

      • Free

        You are right. Christianity is a virus more destructive than AIDS.

      • Greta Wagner

        It affected me. My mother died of AIDS because a homosexual man doing as he pleased donated blood containing the virus. He had no knowledge of this at the time and I’m sure just wanted some money for college. But it DID affect me since I lost her when I was 28. We may think what we do doesn’t hurt anyone else but often it does.

        • Hanna

          And that is the fault of the entire homosexual community on this Earth how exactly? If one man kills another, does that mean all men are killers?

        • Joe

          The actions of the few are not to be used to judge the many. No offense but your is an inherint dislike against homosexuals. Alot more straight people have killed than gay people so maybe we shouldnt let straight people marry either eh?

        • Joe

          Also are you aware that the gay man is probably dead as well? If you know the horrors of what AIDS causes how can you judge that man for donating blood as “just wanting some money for college”. He could have been trying to help someone.

        • avalpert

          Do you actually know who donated the blood or do you just assume it was a homosexual because it had HIV?

      • Johnnychemonic

        Why we believe Christianity is right is off topic. What is a more interesting question relevant to the topic at hand is what those “thousands of other religions” thought of homosexuality.

      • Hugo Pius

        Religion aside-Doing whatever makes one happy is lack of order and lawlessness. There must be a SOCIALLY accepted standard of evil and good – unless there is only you in your society.

      • Bob

        I’m Roman Catholic and I fully 100% agree with your statement. I make this one right now to show you that not all of us are bigots. Religon though is a beautiful thing that has created art, literature, and culture. Sadly it has also led to genocide, prejudice, and a string of other bad things.

      • julio

        You really are the most ignorant person I ever seeing. You said that before Christianity, there was other religions? Ignorant, pls do your research right and get your facts straight. Because all I know is that the bible is the oldes matter of fact an ancient book. So for you to say such stupidity you have to be a mediocre

    • Frostie

      To be fair, I don’t think this is directed against Christians so much as against anti-gay activists- who tend to use Christianity as a reason for their personal dislike of the concept.

    • Common-sense-man

      The truth is that one does not need religious arguments at all to show that homosexuality is harmful and dangerous. The very mechanics of homosexual sex are intrinsically harmful: “…the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis… Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies… Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals…” (quoted from… , see the PDF file for many more examples of health risks attached to common homosexual practices.)
      The supporters of homosexual “marriage” accuse us of being ignorant but it is in fact they who represent an unscientific and non-pragmatic position. Unscientific because they tacitly assume – for example, through the comparison of homosexuality and race – that homosexuality is genetic while there is no scientific proof of that. Non-pragmatic because homosexual “marriage” cannot provide the basic constituents of the “real” (and only) marriage – the complementarity of the sexes, the possibility of procreation and the proper upbringing of biological children. Instead, its only foundation is “love”, an undefinable and vague concept, and its substitutes for the missing elements of true marriage are highly contrived and deeply insufficient. In short, I find it very difficult to believe that any person of even average intelligence can give support to such a ridiculous concept.

      • Weezy

        Hmmm… All of this wonderful scientific information! I wasn’t aware that all homosexuals had anal sex. Even the lesbians?!? I didn’t know that having sex was a requirement to get married.. let alone having only anal sex!! Straight people NEVER have anal sex!?! Cool! Wow, I must be out of the loop. Thanks for the great information to back your case! You must be slightly above average intelligence! Congrats!

        • Uli

          Obviously, she must be one fine scholar, quoting the very scientific “Catholic education” website as her source! But you know why she only talks about anal sex? Because see, LESBIANISM is totally fine, since the Bible does not mention it! Hurra for the lesbians (as long as they don’t practise anal sex, of course…)!

          • FrozenFire

            Plus, lesbians have lower AIDS rates than straight people. AIDS is god’s punishment (for gays). Ergo, god loves lesbians.

          • Uli

            All hail to the lesbians, God’s chosen people! :-) Thanks for the laugh FrozenFire, it’s good to be able to still smile in the face of all this awful bigotry and anti-gay hatred!

  • Ishmael

    The validity of the decision tree is lost as soon as you say yes and reach the “why?” box. There should be infinite paths from the “why?” box to accommodate infinite reason by infinite respondents. For me the next path should have been ” Because God thinks it is an Abomination”

  • whatalune

    Really. Important. Point. The Bible does not condone rape. In the key passage that people often quote to illustrate that it does, the translation of the ancient Hebrew is completely inaccurate. That’s it. Just a translation error, which is not made in many other translations.

    “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated (anah) her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

    Here, the ancient Hebrew meant not rape but implied a consensual act.

    Check it out:

    • enness

      Interesting, I always thought that was a primitive kind of social responsibility, akin to how we court-mandate child support today (not implying that child support is primitive).

  • Leticia Velasquez

    Thank God I am a Catholic and my Church was founded by Christ who gave her Sacred Tradition to accompany and help interpret Scripture. I can trust what the Holy Father teaches on moral issues. He is infallible on issues of faith and morals.

    • Rex Libris

      And how is that a comment on the post?

      • Jared Clark

        The picture is a misreading of scripture. As Catholics, we have an authoritative teaching authority (the Magisterium), so stuff like that doesn’t really get in the way.

        • Patrick

          Really? We have the Magisterium, so we don’t need to question things and learn morality for ourselves? That sounds like an awfully good way of raising a generation of blind followers. The fact is not that the Magisterium teaches things, making them true. The Magisterium’s duty is simply to teach what IS true. So as Catholics we absolutely do need to be able to respond to things like this. If we are to oppose something as morally wrong (be it gay marriage, abortion, contraception or something else), we by God better be able to back that belief up with real solid theological reasons! Simply deferring to the rightness of the Magisterium is not good enough.

          • Alan R

            I do think that the Magisterium saying it is good enough. A simple faith lived authentically is powerful. Not all are called to be teachers. And those that are called to be teachers would do well to remember to humbly cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the gift of conversion to Christ and His Church.

          • Emily H.

            I get what Patrick says about this; non-Catholics or “bad” Catholics won’t just accept something b/c a Catholic says simply that the Magisterium teaches it as the Truth of God’s Word. But remember, Patrick, that there were many saints who could eloquently explain or preach who still witnessed to the Truth. Their example is still powerful. I think there is a balance between the lives lived as examples in which no explanation can be given by that exemplary person and those who are gifted in logical explanations of the Faith.
            Glad you both pointed those out.

          • Gropaga

            “If we are to oppose something as morally wrong (be it gay marriage, abortion, contraception or something else), we by God better be able to back that belief up with real solid theological reasons!

            Theological reasons have no place in public policy debates.

          • Aaron

            Theological reasons don’t? But moral reasons sure seem to, or else social welfare programs would not exist. Morality cannot be demonstrated empirically and is always “made up” to some extent. I don’t see why “God says murder is wrong” (for instance) is any more/less substantial than an atheist saying “murder is wrong”. Neither can be proven, and both are based on a person’s beliefs. Sure, the atheist could provide statistical evidence that a murder=crime policy carries a utilitarian benefit, but even the utilitarian benefit is a subjective thing. This government is run by the people, and the people are free to decide what is important to them.

          • Jared Clark

            Might want to check out the context before commenting. “Sola-scriptura proof reading is not a strong argument to a Catholic” is not “NEVER THINK EVER!”

          • Jimmy Cohn

            wrong box

          • JoAnna
      • musiciangirl591

        because it is…

      • enness

        Perhaps because…well, I’m trying to imagine how this meme would be answered if we were either strict sola-scriptura types or secular armchair theologians.

        • Morphball

          Uhh. I’m a “sola-scriptura” type and i agree 100% with what was being said here. One thing that i appreciate about my “sola-scriptura” church is that we’re given the context in which a passage is written. Sorry, but i feel like Protestants in general have gotten a bad reputation, because of people who make or share graphics like this…. as if it has facts to prove their right.

        • Michael H

          The Sola Scripturist believes that Paul, Peter, John, Mark, Luke, Matthew, James and Jude were all teaching authorities of the early Church, whose writings were inspired by God to contain Truth. Thus he holds all the Church teaches up against Scripture for scrutiny. It is the sole authority of faith. But no Sola Scripturist believes Scripture should be taken out of context.

          There are biblical inerrantists, and then there are biblical literalists and fundamentalists. One need not be the other.

    • Joe

      So was Pope Urban VI aka the pope who had cardinals tortured and executed a moral man?

      • Jared Clark

        Papal Infallibility is not dependent upon the morality of individual popes.

        • Joe

          Do words speak louder than actions now?

          • Joe

            Do as the popes say but not as they do?

          • Aaron

            Yes. Matthew 23: then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. [there follows a list of hypocrisy]

            If Jesus thought the authoritative words of the scribes and Pharisees were binding despite hypocrisy, then surely you can see how Catholics can follow the men on the chair of Peter despite isolated time periods of hypocrisy.

          • Joe

            So then the Pope aka the man who speaks for God is a hypocrite like the Pharisees? Not only that hes a hypocrite who we should follow? Im certain we would never have picked those Pharisees who were hypocrites as pope by the way. The Pope should have higher standards than the very people who helped crucify Jesus dont you think?

          • Jimmy Cohn

            Mr. Joe

            Did St. Paul ever commit a sin? How about St. James? For that matter how about St. John the evangelist. If they did then how could God ever use such a bunch of sinners to write scripture? Its infallibility not impeccability. But proceed in your ignorance.

            Pax my separated friend

          • Joe

            They never committed moral sin. How am I ignorant to see that distinction?

          • Dave-Oh

            Actually Paul put the earliest Christians to death. If you go look in the Ten Commandments the 5th kind of obviously states “You shall not kill” ….thus one of the greatest evangelists ever committed mortal sin before his conversion. Also, all of your comments are condemnations in context…if you’re not going to think with an open mind you can’t expect others to do the same.

          • Joe

            To Dave-OH If you look not all are condemnations (at least I hope they dont seem like it) and the ones that I call out are those who arguments are either copied not explained or im just playing devil advocate. If a person cannot defend their faith than that is something to be worried about. Im not a guy who seeks to deprive people of the thing that gives them hope in life (religion) but we should be able to defend our different faiths with logical discussion. Besides Ive agreed with many of Marks other articles (including the majority of his other one about homosexuality) and I just so happen to not particularly like the way this one is written. Then again thats more my problem with Bible teachings and modern “interpretations” of them.

            You definitely got me on the Saint Paul thing for which I apologize. I really get annoyed when I forget a history fact and I completely overlooked that.

            Id also like to apologize again as this is probably hard to read.

          • Dave-Oh

            Totally understandable. I looked at some of your other comments and you were right as well (they aren’t all condemnations, or aren’t truly meant as them) I’d also like to point out that I don’t really like the way this article was written either.

          • Carl

            Wow, you were there when all these great saints lived and saw every single thing they did? I’m impressed! Indeed, if they did sin, how come God still used them? Maybe, just maybe this tells you not to take the Bible as an infallible object of ultimate Truth, but to take a step back and accept that it is merely a document written by fallible men who didn’t exactly know what God truly wants.

        • Joe

          What this basically says its ok to follow a hypocrite. Im well aware of the concept of papal infallibility but seriously its hard not to realize the pope is as flawed as the rest of us. Why would he be able to speak for God then?

          • Jimmy Cohn

            I trust that your a Bible believing Protestant with great zeal, yet I have a funny feeling that you come to the party unable to see the relevant parts of scripture. Read through Matthew 16 and 18 and also go through the last couple chapter of John. Perhaps you have never heard of loosing and binding. This was given to men (the apostles) this is an office in the kingdom. Also when your brother offends the who are we to take it to?

            Again I admire your zeal but you need to really learn about the Church by asking Catholics what we mean and not learn via other sources that share the same ignorance. The catechism is the best place to start. Just about every line is chalked with scripture.

            Also works

            I do wish you all the best in your studies and zealous pursuits to convert all us crazy pagan Catholics, Yet I think your own KJV might yield a different tale.


          • Joe

            Nope. Im a Deist. Catholicism is my my favored Christian denomination though because they are relatively good at loving the sinner and hating the sin plus I love John Paul II and in my opinion hes probably the single greatest pope of all time. Im well aware of Catholics I talk to more than you think and I know WAYYY more about Catholic History in general than I do about Protestant history. I do have a problem though with the whole “believing one man is the word of God” thing.

            I have something for you to study though if you would like its the intervention of Constantine on the Council of Nicea which is something that is typically ignored in major discussions while it is relatively true.

            In regards to your bible verses I’d like to point out the current bible today was created by the Catholics who believe Jesus was the Son of God and entrusted them with his teachings.

            Sorry if I sound over-zealous but some of these comments on this page have irritated me greatly mainly those that say gays are pedophiles or cite theories from the 60′s

            I support alot of the things the Catholic Church does but I see that it has its flaws which is why Im not Catholic. If you want examples of flaws Id say the Crusades and inability to speak out against all forms of slavery until the 2nd Vatican Council of Gaudium Et Spes in 1965.

            Slavery is something that definately shows the Church has not always been consitent in its beliefs which makes one question why you are Catholic? You dont have to answer that if you dont want to. Then again you dont really HAVE to answer any of these haha

          • Mark

            Congrats on the deism, Joe. You are one step closer to atheism. The question is why you are lagging behind the 18th century deists who have already evolved into 20th and 21st atheists. You’re behind the times, man! Remember this, though, ultimately it comes down to atheism or Catholicism. You have the choice of coming home to Catholicism or moving “forward” with your deism. Choose carefully.

          • Joe

            Id never be an atheist Mark. It makes no sense to me to believe there is no God. The so called “atheists” of today admit they have no proof against the belief in God and are in actuality agnostic. Im deist because I personally cant comprehend not believing that something intelligent created this world. Believe me Ive tried and it just doesnt make sense to me. I really do believe that God created this world. Im not sure why God did and I believe that we may never know why. The way I see it is if God is perfect and good as he is why would he make a world that would require intervention on God’s part? Im not Catholic because I do not believe that any human can know or will understand God. Even if Jesus was God (which I am skeptical of in case you were wondering) understanding God is something far beyond us. People have done terrible things in the name of Jesus or God and claimed that it is God’s will and the Catholic Church has been included in that list of people.

            A minor history fact for you. Thomas Jefferson was a deist and because of his belief many called him an atheist or an agnostic which he abhorred greatly. Your assertion that I am a wanna be atheist was an insult that many people used in the 17th and 18th century against deism. Do not be so sure that deists are just atheists in training for we are not at all.

          • Michael H

            I’m Lutheran, not at all a fan of papal infallibility as a theological position, but I think you are expressing Christian beliefs without realizing it: yes, God is eternal and above our individual comprehension. This is straight out of Ecclesiastes. Romans tells us that what CAN be known about God, specifically “his eternal power and divine nature,” is revealed in nature (His creation), but what about what CANNOT be known about God?

          • Joe

            I dont want to sound mean when I say this but Im not sure if you are aware of what deism exactly is. Im expressing the belief that we do not know God. The Bible according to me (a deist) is just one of many books written by man unable to understand God.

          • Michael H

            I don’t want to sound mean or anything, but you have a strange habit of completely missing the point.

            As a deist, you ascribe certain qualities to this abstract creative intelligence (“god”) that by virtue of your proclaimed deism you cannot possibly know. God is a creator, intelligent and unknowable, yet despite this last quality, we know enough about its nature – its intelligence, creativity and ineffability to name a few.

            You are describing the Judeo-Christian deity, but saying Christians cannot know God. We are deeper agreement than you think.

            As for whether I know what deism is, I have a certificate in theology with a focus in philosophy of religion. I understand just fine the philosophical position of a deist by any workable definition: there is a transcendent creative intelligence behind the universe, and the various religious revelations of the world cannot give us firm footing on which to describe something which is inherently beyond comprehension, being infinite while we are finite. Pascal had some thoughts on this position.

            I am sympathetic to deism because it is certainly epistemologically modest, if not outright humble. But to make claims about the nature of the universe, and in turn the metanature of its proposed creator, while simultaneously claiming that metanature is unknowable seems to me self-refuting.

          • Joe

            Oh well then….Good!! And I agree that it does seem self refuting but for me its the fact that I cant believe a deity didnt create this world but there is very little proof that supports one religion over another.

          • Joe

            that makes me a deist

          • Michael H

            Ah, and see, this is where we differ. The Christian narrative relies on natural revelation – indeed, it claims that this transcendent thing stepped into human history, that there was this Jesus guy in the Roman province of Judea in the first century of the common era, that he was crucified, that he did die, that he did rise again.

            It is not an esoteric position. It is an intellectual position that has attendant esoteric beliefs surrounding it.

            If you cannot put an intellectual faith (or what the medieval church called “historical faith”) in the Gospel narrative, then it seems incumbent upon you to not claim Christianity because as a matter of conscience and reason you are not convinced, and there is that whole issue of the primacy of conscience…

          • Mark

            I know about Jefferson. His deism was the preferred religion of the intellectuals of his day. Today, the preferred belief among the self-professed intellectuals is atheism. You’re a deist. That’s fine. But there is valid proof that deism is one step along the way that starts with a rejection of authority (Protestantism), moving step-wise to atheism. Along the path come rationalism, individualism, naturalism, deism, scientism, relativism, and secularism. How many of those replacement philosophies also appeal to you? You may stay a deist all your life, but deism won’t stay put. It ends somewhere you may not wish it to end. That’s why it truly comes down to two things: Atheism or the Catholic Creed.

          • Hanna

            Wow, you are ridiculously self-righteous to proclaim that a deist is “one step closer to atheism.” You probably also believe that Lutherans shouldn’t marry Catholics and that everyone except you will end up in heaven, sitting right next to Jesus himself.

          • Jared Clark

            It is nothing more than a guarantee that the Faith will survive. We have heretics and sinners, schisms and persecution. Nothing we or our enemies do will ever bring the Church to an end. That’s it.

            Bishops are, like all of us, sinners, so it shouldn’t shock anyone that Popes are not perfect.

    • Uli

      Yes, thank God you don’t have to think for yourself and can instead trust a bunch of old men who don’t have sex and know absolutely nothing about women. Ugh, people like you are the reason my church will not reform, even though it is in desperate need of it, seeing as no man in his right mind wants to become a Catholic priest anymore.

  • Fisherman

    This is brilliant Marc, thank you. But more importantly, do you watch Breaking Bad?

    • Marc

      I do!

      • Fisherman

        Awesome. Now there’s a show that dances a flirty tango with moral relativism.

  • Olivier

    Well said, Marc. Perhaps your answer should have simply been “yes” ;)

  • Chelsea Wallace

    Very well done! I particularly appreciated your distinction between the sinfulness of homosexuality and the sinfulness of homosexual acts, which is sort of what I draw on in my discussions with others. All in all, I agree with what you’ve written here. I’m no religious history buff, so I probably couldn’t tell you much more than what I’ve learned throughout my years as a Catholic school girl, but I do know that we aren’t meant to be judges of others in their actions (unless, of course, those actions negatively affect others, like murder, rape, and other crimes). I know that we are meant to help others live holier lives, but that responsibility has certain limitations that we can’t and shouldn’t try to overcome. To me, I know to act on homosexuality is sinful, but I also don’t believe I have the right to deny those relationships or marriages just based on that. That’s for God to sort out when the time comes.

    • Hyuugahenge

      I totally agree with you Chelsea. Perhaps one way to solve this is to simply change the name from “marriage” to “contract” for those who wish a secular union between each other. To us, the word marriage defines something sacramental.

  • la catholic state

    Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality as it was already prohibited by Jewish moral law….and Christ came to fulfill the law not overthrow it.

    Also….the prohibition on eating shellfish, like eating pork, is a cultural law….not a moral law. As such it was abolished. Only the moral law endures. Cultural law was used to distinguish the Jews from pagans. After the coming of Christ it was redundant.

  • musiciangirl591

    thank you so much! a couple of my friends posted this but i didn’t want to say anything because i don’t like starting fights over facebook

  • tz1

    The church isn’t demanding the state ban no-fault or other easy divorce nor contraception. Attrmpting to defend that this sham, facade, fake ‘marriage’ – temporary, sterile, and for pleasure from gays is almost impossible.

    If the US were invaded we should defend the borders- of Nebraska?

    • Ceit

      If the US had been invaded, successfully, and you had fallen back several times because of the way the battle had been going, and Nebraska looked like defensible ground….heck yeah, you would and should defend Nebraska.

      The Church has been speaking out against no-fault divorce since it’s inception in US law, and Christian organizations have lobbied against it that whole time. The Pill was once illegal, and the Church warned when it was legalized that it would lead to….wait for it…increases in infidelity, divorce, children born outside marriage and without stability, men and women using each other as objects for sexual gratification, and the devaluation of marriage.

      Even so, those attacks on marriage only weakened it, they did not aim to fundamentally redefine it.

  • Robert Courtemanche

    They missed the most important part. The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) states that the purpose of any sexual relationship is only valid when it is for the purpose of procreation between married partners. That can only happen with a married man and woman. The Church says ALL other sexuality is immoral – period. (A number of other Christian Churches teach virtually the same thing). The church isn’t trying to discriminate against people attracted to their own gender, it just states that all sexual behavior outside of that procreative/marriage state is only for personal pleasure and is a sin. I think the problem is that the church doesn’t make this clear enough these days.

    • Joe

      I’d disagree considering the Church conveniently put the phrase “UNJUST discrimination” in it. They believe there is JUST discrimination and if you dont believe in just discrimination of gays than you arent in agreement with the Catholic church.

      • Joe Clark

        The word “discrimination” refers to the use of the human brain. One uses the faculty of reason to tell this from that, good from bad, right from wrong. There is nothing wrong with discriminating between male and female and (say) expecting the one to marry women and the other to marry men. “Unjust discrimination” is the proper term for acting unjustly based on a category distinction beyond someone’s control, such as skin color or SSA. The Church uses the term correctly.

        Much of what’s wrong with liberalism these days is the fear of “discrimination” without the qualifier. As if the intellect itself was sinful because it might make you “discriminate” between truth and error.

        • Joe

          In case anyone else reading this doesnt know I forgot to put that the “unjust discrimination” is in the section about homosexuality. It had nothing to do with race. Back to the person responding,

          You make a good point though about the “beyond someone’s control” part but from what Ive been told by Catholic Priests and Catholics is that the unjust discrimination part is meant to imply both discriminating against gays cause they are gay is bad but for gays who act on those urges discrimnation in the form of loving condemnation (disagreement? I dont mean to use such a strong word as condemn cause I know Catholics do I good job of loving the sinner hate the sin).

          Could you elaborate on the “whats wrong with liberalism” part? Some examples would be nice. Im a liberal who supports gay marriage by the way but I really like Marks articles. His other one about homosexuality that pointed out people using gays as political tools or demanding them to come out was something Ive always felt should be addressed. (which I felt he did a great job of doing)

          • fqke

            The NHS offers pap smears to women, but not to men. This is discrimination based on gender. It is not unjust discrimination.

            The Criminal Records Bureau looks through past convictions of people applying for jobs with children and other vulnerable people in an Enhanced Disclosure, but for people applying for other jobs. This is discrimination based on job, but it is not unjust discrimination. If I had past convictions, or even other warnings signs of abuse, I would have to jump through many more hoops to get a job with children. This is discrimination. It is not unjust discrimination.

            If I wanted to marry someone, and I was already married, I would not be allowed to do so. This is discrimination based on marital status. It is not unjust discrimination.

            When I take children away on residential holidays, the showers and toilets have to be divided by gender and age (adults and children cannot share, nor can boys and girls) as part of Safeguarding. This is discrimination based on age and gender. It is not unjust discrimination.

            When a man wishes to marry another man, he cannot do so because his proposed spouse is a man. This is discrimination based on gender, and is no more inherently unjust than not implanting embryos in a man who wishes to become pregnant (if you assume that marriage is an actual thing, rather than simply a contract which has been inexplicably limited to romantic relationships between exactly two people).

            If somebody fires or refuses to hire a gay person for a job, based purely on their being gay, that is unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Church condemns such discrimination. If a school excludes a child for being gay, or refuses to give them opportunities to succeed and develop (like joining a club or team, or being put in appropriate classes), or allows bullying, that is unjust discrimination, and the Church condemns it. If people shun someone for being gay, and avoid talking to them and doing business with them (in general), that is unjust discrimination, and the Church condemns it.

            But discrimination in general is not a bad thing, and we should always clarify (as the Church does) when we mean unjust discrimination.

          • Joe

            I would like to agree that the Catholic church is against gay bullying but their responses are quite different Im afraid.


            I support Catholic teaching but sadly after the loss of John Paul II Catholics seem to have lost their way.

      • Michael H

        There is such thing as just discrimination. Discrimination is “a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things.
        The state of being discriminated, distinguished from, or set apart.”

        Setting something apart is not inherently a bad thing. The argument is that setting marriage apart is a bad thing, which is a fine argument to make. But don’t think discrimination is somehow bad. Because the common response to the slippery slope argument is that even homosexuals discriminate against polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia or [insert pet perversion here]. Discrimination is a real, necessary part of moral and legal theory.

        We discriminate because we believe there is right and wrong.

        • Joe

          According to actual Catholic Priests there is just discrimination. This is not something I made up. Its a point Catholics use to defend discriminating against homosexuals. They definition of the word means to make a difference of or single out for a reason. It is discrimination.

          • Michael H

            You have repeated and yet failed to understand my point. Yes, Catholic priests discriminate, but the discrimination is an act of recognizing or discerning a difference in relationships and the purpose of institutions with regards to those relationships, so setting marriage apart.

            You are dealing with two questions:
            1) Can discrimination be just? The answer to this seems obvious. When we point out (rightly) the difference between a mutual, monogamous, consensual homosexual relationship and a bestial or pedophilic relationship, we are discerning and drawing distinctions. We may want to institutionalize same-sex marriage, but we do not want to legitimize inter-species marriage. This is discrimination, and most people tend to agree it is a just position. Therefore, discrimination can be just.
            2) Is setting marriage apart as a heterosexual institution just discrimination?

            This second question is the one that seems to be a topic of debate in such a situation. I’m not saying one way or the other what I personally think about secular, civil contract law and the persons enjoining such a contract. I am merely saying that you have to make a case that this discrimination is not just rather than calling it discrimination and thus saying it is unjust by its very nature. The point isn’t in the nonexistence of discrimination, just or otherwise, but to say one should not use discrimination as a judgment term.

            Explain to me and others here what makes restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual unions unjust while restricting marriage licenses to other unions is just. “Discrimination” is not the answer.

          • Joe

            Well thats the point of those flow charts but Ill start with why its unjust

            Marriage should be between two consenting people who love each other.

            The argument people have against that is gays ruin the fabric of society. Their proof is nonexistent other than Sodom and gomorroah (which hasnt been proven)

            If procreation is a problem than people who are married and cant or dont have kids shouldnt be getting the benefits others do. (The Catholic church actually supports the divorce of infertile women and men)

            Thats really it.

          • sullymom

            The Catholic church does not “support the divorce of infertile women and men” It does allow an annulment to be granted provided that the “infertile” spouse knew about their inability to have children and LIED to the other spouse prior to wedding them. The church would not grant an annulment to two Catholic members who were married by the church if one of the spouses became or discovered infertility after their vows.
            You seem to be a fact person, so I just wanted to clarify your facts.

          • Joe

            You do have me there.

  • Joseph

    That link you provided as evidence as to why homosexuals are unhappy made it hard for me to take the rest of your argument seriously. Do you honestly believe that homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, suicide, and mental problems solely because they are homosexuals? It’s because they live in a world where they are constantly told what they naturally feel and who they naturally are is wrong, disgusting and an abomination. You really think those statistics would be the same if their lifestyle was more accepted? What sickens me about religion is that it gives people like you the right to say, “Nope you’re not actually happy. You may THINK you are but you’re not. I know you better than you do. Here, attend these therapy sessions that will help repress every aspect of your sexuality and then we will construct new feelings for you! The RIGHT kinds of feelings!” Stop telling people their not happy, I assure they could care less about the arrogant “concern” you have for them.

  • Matt LaMar

    I’m beginning to feel like a watchdog for crazies on the internet for you. Man, I don’t know what I’d do without this blog!

  • Mara

    Oh. Oh. OH! That last paragraph. Hot damn, Marc. Hot. Damn.

  • Jane

    Always good to cite a text written by fallible human beings as an authority on what God wants or decrees…oh wait… Never mind. Enjoy your little world of narrow-mindedness and homophobia while the rest of the world moves on.

  • Liam

    “The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it – those which we are told are endorsed by God.” Just curious, told by whom exactly? Other human beings? Don’t think you think it’s kind of dangerous to give a small group of fallible and flawed HUMAN beings such great power over millions of their peers? The power to say: this is true, this isn’t true, this is how you should live your life, this isn’t how you should live your life, because I said so. Why should you listen to me? Well, i’m wearing a robe, so that must give me some authority…

    • Nicholas Escalona

      “Don’t think you think it’s kind of dangerous to give a small group of fallible and flawed HUMAN beings such great power over millions of their peers?”

      Well, it would be if the Holy Spirit did not preserve the Church from fatal error. Without the Holy Spirit, the Church would not have lasted one year. The Church’s authority is not given to it by Christians – it is given to it by God.

      • Joe

        You seem to have forgotten what ocured during the Crusades. Just in case you would like to defend the actions of the Church during the Crusades though I would like to point the actions of Pope Urban VI. He was the man who tortured and killed popes he suspected of siding with the Antipope. Or how about Alexander VI. Lets not forget that Benedict IX SOLD THE PAPACY. There are many more like this.

        • Joe

          Cardinals* not popes. He killed and tortured 6 as far as I am aware.

        • Nicholas Escalona

          Yes – Popes (and all Church leadership) have at times been very sinful. That’s why the Holy Spirit is so essential, to preserve the Church from destruction and from teaching any error.

          Sinful priests and popes? But this is no news – everyone has fallen into sin at one point or another, some even great sin. Everyone has the problem. But the Catholic Church is the only one which, in addition to the problem, also has the answer – Jesus Christ.

  • Joseph Gates

    Thank the Lord in Heaven you addressed this! People actually believe that rubbish in the diagram.

  • Paul Rimmer

    It seems that God does endorse rape-marriage in some cases:

    “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” (Moses, speaking for God. Numbers 31:17-18)

    The Bible does not paint a simple picture about the ethics of homosexuality. It may be better to stick to natural law with this one.

  • bearing

    The other thing that is weird about this idea that the purpose of marriage is “acquisition of goods” — if that was the case, then why was sex ever part of it at all? I mean, I could secure an alliance all sorts of ways. Why on earth would it be necessary to secure an alliance in this way, by binding together a potentially fertile mating pair of humans? Could it be because there is something inherently alliance-forming about potentially fertile mating pairs?

  • Selbi Severus Greaser Steeves

    To whoever wrote this, I salute you.

  • Toratoratora7

    1. it is a sin to assume to know what God thinks
    2. homosexuality does not lead to unhapiness…rather, quite the opposite to those who live that kind of lifestyle.
    3. “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. This passage is subject to change over time…[but] this is not the case with Paul’s assertion that homosexual acts are inherently detrimental to the human person.” — does this make any sense at all? in about 20 years the Church’s stance on homosexuality WILL be subject to change. just like its stance on women.
    4. “Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it – those which we are told are endorsed by God.” — the people who wrote these passages of the Bible obviously are telling readers that God condones these practices; otherwise they wouldn’t have added it.

    Marc, please just read this over and listen to what you’ve written. Your explanations are rank with hypocrisy.

    • Lewis

      1. On what grounds are you making this claim? It is not a sin to use our ability to reason. Why is abortion an evil even though God never said so. Well, because we can use our reason and intellect to come to that conclusion. If A is true, than B must be true, so then C is also true, therefore D must be true, and so on and so fourth. God gave us the Ten Commandments… so I try to follow the ten commandments… I guess I’m I a sinner to assume that I’m doing what God thinks? haha

      2. Come on. I think I know what you are trying to say, but your phrasing is obviously not true. Look at the suicide and substance abuse rates in that group. Its blatantly obvious there is unhappiness in the homosexual world. The question is, WHY are a majority of practicing homosexuals unhappy? Its not black and white, but there is an obvious problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, this whole debate is lost to subjective emotion, and giving reason and rational thought a big middle finger. (I can say the same things for the heterosexual world as well, because they are just as unhappy.)

      3. The reason why women not being allowed to speak in churches is different than homosexual acts being wrong, is that the former deals with the culture, and the later deals with the human person. The former is subject to change, the later is not. Human nature will never change, nor will our biology. Sure, we’ve gotten bigger, stronger, and more advanced, but our nature has not changed. Speaking in churches does not directly impact our nature, which is above culture, politics, and religion. Homosexual acts do directly impact the person’s nature, because it impacts the person (biologically, psychologically, and physiologically). The Church’s stance on homosexuality will never change, sorry to burst your little bubble, but a truth is a truth, and the Church only stands on Truth. Saying that gay marriage is good for a person or the world is an idea blinded by a series of lies. And the devil is the father of all lies.

      4. Please learn how the read the Bible.

      I apologize that I chose your comment to respond to.

      • Uli

        You wonder why homosexuals are unhappy or often driven to suicide? Weeeeeeeell, that’s a tough one, really… Um, how would you feel if people around you call you a sinner and a sodomist, don’t grant you the same basic rights that others with a different sexual identity have, and tell you to either force yourself to love someone you don’t, therapy your love for someone out of you or live alone for the rest of your life.
        Those teenage boys who commit suicide in High School or start drinking and doing drugs do it because they are being bullied and being made to believe what they inherently are is “wrong.”
        Good Lord Almighty in Heaven, you people truly disgust me with your hatred and narrow-mindedness!

        • Guest

          Uli. I’m simply recognizing the design and order of nature. The Truth hurts sometimes, I know (I was called a ‘terrible Christian’ by an ex-girlfriend a long time ago, and I was like ‘pft, nuh uh!, but it was totally true, and it changed my life, haha), and I completely agree that a lot of pain in the gay community is generated from other’s hatred. My personal experience with two very close friends who ended up coming out was only friendship and sympathy, because I saw the pain that they were in and they confided in me (which was really special). It did not come from bullying, we all experience some sort of bullying in our lives, but it seemed to stem from the fact that they could never have what I have. And they hated that. My mere existence offended them, not because I did anything to them, but simply because I had something that they couldn’t have. What was I suppose to do, though? Tell them to keep trying to find happiness in other dudes with the same struggle?? No, that’s a lie and it would be wrong of me to support that because I would be leading them into a life of lies. It honestly pained me to see their struggle. This problem and pain in the gay community will never go away if Truth exists. So called ‘gay marriage’ will not solve the problem any more than anti-bullying laws.

          • Joe

            You started off good then lost their point. Do you think they think they will never have what you have because society and you tells that to them?

            How did your existence offend them? What did they do to show this to you? Was it the fact that you were telling them dont act gay? Explain

  • Lulubell78

    Thank you Marc! Not only do I like the read your blog posts, but I also like to read the comments because most times, people have some very interesting things to say…

    There was a comment though that caught my eye.. it was something to the effect of warning against blindly following the teachings of the Magisterium. As a church musician I’ve heard this many a time in discussions on music in the liturgy.

    As faithful Catholics we are called to follow the teachings of the Church, but I find it pretty offensive to call that “blind obedience” as if anyone who follows the teachings of the Church is too stupid to discern wolf from shepherd. Since we are all fallen humans, it is true that we (and sometimes leaders too) can go astray.. but I know that the power of the Holy Spirit which inspired Scripture, can also inspire the leaders of the Holy Catholic Church. It IS our job to keep delving into our faith to better understand it – because it is very rich and very deep! But having trust and faith in goodness is certainly no evil. So thanks fellow readers for bringing that up!

    As for the discussions on natural law, I would just like to recommend an excellent book by one of my favorite authors – Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis! I haven’t quite finished it yet, but it is very clearly and beautifully written!! Check it out!

  • Joan

    I have seen this a couple times too and did not address because I wanted to avoid a pointless argument with family/friends who already know where I stand. Thank-you for doing a much better job then I could have done. God bless!

  • Dan

    Did you seriously just compare homosexuality to pedophilia and genocide? Those things are inherently bad and we can all agree that, even though Jesus did explicitly speak against them, He was against them. The same cannot be said for homosexuality – it’s not even on the same scale as the other things you mentioned.

  • Metro

    Thanks for taking on a Facebook meme – please more of these types of vettings. Facebook postings like the one you reference are the level that on which much of the cultural and moral debates occur for a percentage of the population – and it’s often so frustrating to see one’s friends posting things like that when one hasn’t the time for a proper response…

  • Trackster495

    The whole marriage issue is more simple than everyone realizes. Marriage was created through the church and by the church so if one wants to marry, you must abide by it’s rules. It is not a right so you can’t demand the church to marry you. Bottom line is you can legally get married to anyone, but not spiritually.

    • Lewis

      Two people of the same sex cannot physically marry one another. Its a simple biological fact. That’s way the phrase ‘gay marriage’ is a contradiction. Two of the same cannot ‘marry.’ Its simply impossible. So you are right, the debate is quite simple; it simply makes no sense. Also, marriage was not created by the Church, it was created by the Creator. If it was created by the Church, than it wouldn’t exist outside of the Church, and by exist I mean that the desire to get married would not even cross someone’s mind outside of the Church. From that observation, you can infer that marriage is above the Church, which would make it above the state, which would make it above the people, which would put it at the natural level.

  • Jacob Suggs

    Now I’m tempted to make a counter flow chart. Except it will probably end up being fairly simple:

    “So you decided that the common moral consensus since the dawn of civilization is wrong, and that homosexual acts are ok? Why?”->”Because people really want to do them.” ->”Irrelevant”

    I suppose in fairness there may be one or two more directions it could go, but I think that one handles a lot of the arguments I’ve heard.

    • Reluctant Liberal

      What moral consensus? There isn’t a moral consensus even through Western civilization, much less the rest of the world.

      • OpenBreeze

        Untrue. There are many common consensuses throughout civilizations that have been demonstrated through oral or written tradition. Moral imperatives or laws such as “don’t take something that you do not own”, and “don’t kill a neighbor without justifiable cause” have been well-documented. (I.e., Code of Hammurabai, Draco’s Law, Laws of Eshnunna, etc.) I would venture to say that they are foundational for social function. Therefore, Jacob’s argument relying upon the moral consensus regarding an action’s place in society is justified and puts the burden of proof upon proponents of gay marriage.

  • Lahuizenga

    Hey Marc. My little piece on “Does Jesus Care about Sex and Marriage”:

  • Jim

    Just a couple of points – your chart is incorrect. God did say homosexuality is a sin, and if you had sex, you would be put to death for your abominable deed, and that you forfeited your lives. Jesus agreed with his Father. Also it does not say eating shell fish is a sin.

    • Joe

      The Bible does say eating shell fish is a sin. Leviticus 11:12 calls it an abomination. I dont think its a good argument for other liberals to point out but you should acknowledge it being in the bible.

      • Jim

        Thanks Joe. I think the context of that the descriptions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is used to warn people about eating unclean food. About 40 years ago, it was discovered that some shellfish contain parasites that could cause sickness or even death. God was warning people not to eat the food because it would make them ill.

        • Joe

          Hmm never thought of it that way. Good point!

  • Lahuizenga

    …and this link to my Thursday piece at First Things, “Opposition to Gay Marriage is Rational, Not Religious”:

  • ThereAndBackAgain

    Thank you!!!

  • Neena

    Hey Marc, you referenced two studies on levels of unhappiness amongst homosexual populations. Were you able to find any numbers for the second one (the Netherlands one)?

    • Neena

      Wait, never mind I see them. I really should just go to sleep now…

    • Joe

      Its important to note that unhappiness among homosexuals has alot to do with the fact that they are persecuted Neena. Its not something that should be used to say homosexuality is wrong. Quite the opposite in fact.

  • QuantumLeap

    I disagree with both viewpoints.

    The assumption that anyone deserves marriage is wrong. There has to be a basis for it that goes beyond “I like it” or whatever, clearly.

    After millenia, we now understand gayness enough to believe that there is a sound basis for it, a worthy basis. This is an important contrast that liberal fail to make, and it just gives them all kinds of problems. (One could argue that this is why conservatives are needed, because they are more likely to help with this distinctions, so that a just society emerges).

    On the conservative side, one can agree that marriage should be understood to include procreation, but show mercy for gays. It’s done for other couples, who cannot procreate or who do not intend to, because the individual purposes of marriage are served by it, as well as the broader “marriage culture”, which is a beneficial touchstone, not to be lost.

    After that, the scripture falls into place.

    Paul’s admonitions? Yes, nongay people shouldn’t engage in gay acts. It would be unnatural for them, even if they liked it. Those who intend to live their lives as gay people and feel strongly about it and want to get married and do good works and more, they deserve respect, dignity, and mercy before the law, which was made to serve mankind.

    Should gay people be celibate? One cannot support this scripturally. A fig tree should bring forth its fruits. Do you have to “understand” it? No. God’s world is bigger than our mere understanding of it, as Job found out. Should gay people use their ‘alternate sexuality’ to scandalize marriage and whatnot? No. The Church should call them to responsibility, not just freedom, just like their nongay peers.

    When Jesus “redefined marriage” in his teaching about adultery, a response to a crisis in his time, that is a model for understanding and discernment on the gay issue, too.

    Can you be skeptical even if you agree with all I said? Yes. But the civil law has to make way, at a minimum. Our politics cannot be held ransom to this kind of rancor, in which discord and strife build a home and do disservice to God.

  • David K

    Fortunately, I’d like to point out that not all ‘Anti-Christian’ charts like this are under-informed, but it becomes extremely subjective when it becomes about what is and what is not correct depending on who is discussing this subject.

    As for me, I’m not looking to fight with anyone. In fact, I’m looking to have a nice little discussion with someone. I will admit that I do not worship anyone/anything, but I am also not Atheist. If I had to describe it, I am ‘exploring religion’. To dispel certain notions and biases and I thought I would start with the World’s most popular and most worshiped religion.

    Now that I have made my motives clear, I would like to ask one thing: Is there someone here willing to talk to me? Perhaps over a different medium? Because I want to have a civil discussion. You don’t yell at me, I don’t yell at you(metaphorically speaking). As I have questions and I would like to dispel any possible ignorance I may have picked up. I’m perfectly willing to listen to your side if you’re willing to listen to mine.

  • Reluctant Liberal

    Did anybody else notice that men could commit shameless acts with women, or again be possessed with degrading passions over women? Heck, aren’t 90% of beer commercials a celebration of degrading (heterosexual) passions?

    • Joe

      Hello fellow Liberal!

      I have done a a fair amount of criticizing others comments so I think its important that I point out you have not mentioned what “shameless acts with women” are. You will have to elaborate.

      • Reluctant Liberal

        I can’t say I gave it much thought, though taking advantage of impoverished prostitutes seems like it might prove a good start. (Or soliciting impoverished women who just happen to be there)

        Shameless is a fairly open ended term, my point was merely to point out that Paul writing that men committed shameless acts with men doesn’t in the least imply that the acts were shameless because they were with men.

  • Maggie Macklin

    Totally off topic, but todays ad on your page threw me for a loop.

    • Philip Cathell

      Marc doesn’t control what ads show up.

      • Maggie Macklin

        Clearly. My comment didn’t imply that he did.

  • Maggie Macklin

    Totally off topic, but todays ad on your page threw me for a loop.

  • Chad Denton

    For what it’s worth, as someone who actually studies sexuality in history for a living, let me throw in my two cents:

    1) It always strikes me as a little ironic when social conservatives cite indirectly Foucault’s theories about the historic development of sexuality. In fact, the field of history of sexuality has moved on a little bit since then, at least in some circles. Now Paul’s contemporaries may not have recognized what we call a “homosexual identity,” but references in astrology guides, histories, literature, etc. do show that there were notions of exclusive same-sex desire. Also many references to “marriages” between men or women in ancient texts do show, even if they weren’t referring to actual marriages, a widespread understanding that same-sex desire could be expressed within a relationship. All this to say that it’s far from an undisputed fact to suggest that an identity based on same-sex desire is strictly a feature of modernity.

    2) Various respected theologians and historians have made strong arguments, using comparative analysis and interpretations of the original Greek, that Romans 1 was referring to something more specific than same-sex acts altogether. Now there’s plenty of room to dispute those arguments, but you do them a huge disservice – not to mention yourself – by indirectly labeling them under “destupidification.” It would have been enough to just point out that the issue is much more complex and disputable than the original Internet meme indicates.

    3) Speaking of Paul, much of the language of same-sex desire being “unnatural” and “disordered” comes from Plato’s “Laws,” the writings of the Jewish-Platonist philosopher Philo, and the Stoics. You probably would respond that it proves the “eternal truth” in Paul’s writings, but it’s worth pointing out that historically neither Judaism or Islam really shared Christianity’s antipathy toward same-sex desire, at least not until recent centuries. My point is just that if you’re going to claim that Paul’s statements on same-sex desire hint toward some ahistorical, universal truth and are free of outside influences, you’ve got to also address the arguments that Paul and in fact the early fathers’ writings on same-sex desire were apparently heavily influenced by Philo and the Stoics.

    4) Finally, a quick and more contemporary point: if you’re going to talk about a minority that still faces social and cultural marginalization and in some cases outright persecution, it doesn’t really help make your case when you point to some statistics and say, “See! For some strange reason they experience depression and other personal struggles! The only explanation can be that they’re inherently flawed in some way!” It’s the rhetorical equivalent of Nelson Muntz sitting on Milhouse’s chest, hitting him in his face with his own hands, and saying, “Why do you keep hitting yourself? Why do you keep hitting yourself?”

    • Hanna

      Brilliant post! Restored my faith in humanity!

  • Louis Gonzales

    Those individuals who are homosexual are not inherently sinful. It’s wrong to consider them sinful just for having same sex attraction. That attraction is apart of them through genetics, but the homosexual act does not meet either the unitize or procreative aspects of sexual intercourse. The sexual acts between two men or two women would be sinful in the same way that masturbation or any other sexual act that doesn’t have the potential for children would be sinful.

    • Joe

      What do you have to say about men married to women who cannot procreate?

  • Fr. Chris

    Good look at scripture,

    I think you should take on the whole image. But unfortunately what is lacking here and part of the snare is any actual scientific data that justifies the Church’s position, and vice-versa, that the APA has never really put forward an argument as to why such an orientation is “not” a disorder.

    Its pretty simple: our eyes were made for seeing, our ears for hearing and our reproductive organs for reproducing. IF we look at the design of the Body, we realize that there is an order to it, so to somehow order a sperm to an egg is justifiable biologically, but to move outside of that is pure nonsense. Furthermore, from the biological comes the social differences that compliment one another.

    The real issue is that the Homosexual-Agenda has become about ridiculing Straw-men arguments about the Church, and not actually building their own. Anyone with an open mind can see that, but anyone who only makes decisions according to the popular trend to avoid being labeled as hateful is too weak to think for themselves. Atheism and Secularism itself has a social brain-washing tendency today with its militant advocates, and meanwhile they would say the exact opposite to the Church…

    My suggestion is to look for freedom in God’s own love for you, and maybe ontop of all that beautiful rest in God’s unconditional love, read some St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle – not so much their biology, but their common-sense principles.

  • Ame

    Thank you, thank you for doing this! I think we need to continue to expose the campaign to condemn all Christians as stupid and/or bigots.

  • 54monty

    Part of the Hardness of their hearts is part of the Rabbinic Code which also to avoid certain foods etc. This was to prove that the law is not salvation but Christ

  • salvagesalvage

    Still don’t understand if you god hates homosexuals so much why does it keep making them?

    • clare

      Same reason He keeps making people who are bad tempered, or envious, or basically sinners in general. We all have to fight some inclination or other.

      • salvagesalvage

        So being gay is as bad as being bad tempered, envious or other “sins”?

        But people can’t decided to be gay, or become gay for a short time while they are in a bad mood anymore than anyone can be straight for those reasons.

        Being gay also doesn’t have intrinsic negative consequences like being in a bad temper or envious or other sins.

        If two men kiss or have sex how does that affect anything other then themselves?

  • clare

    “Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships.”

    Wlell, just because Scripture doesn’t record it, doesn’t mean He never spoke about it. The end of St John’s gospel admits that there’s more that isn’t recorded.

    • Joe

      Wouldnt that mean that the Bible is not infallible in regards to history?

      • fqke

        What do you think the word “infallible” means, for your rhetorical question to follow on from Clare’s post?

  • Ignatz

    [Jesus says that is for the very reason of maleness and femaleness that “the two will become one flesh.”]

    He’s condemning divorce. Unequivocally. So why aren’t the same folks trying to make remarriage after divorce illegal?

  • Carl M

    All will take notice that the Old Testament while listing sin against God also lists the punishments for such sins. A simple reading illustrates that not all sins are equally culpable. For example for a seminal discharge (which could be a so called “wet dream” or even masturbation) the penance is washing and being unclean until evening and an offering made at the altar. However, for crimes such as “lying with a man as a woman” the Lord calls this an abomination and deserving of death. Now the death talked about here is the eternal death of Hell. So the axiom “post hoc ego proper hoc” applies. Homosexuality is an abomination just as is adultery, murder and have sex with an animal. Also read St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, where he states that, “Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.” 1 Cor 6:9.

    • QuantumLeap

      Please to also read 1 Cor 4:1-7.

      It will tell you some more about how to hand the matter, if you can come to the realization that homosexuality is for homosexuals, not for everyone.

  • Alex

    the last paragraph made me confused!

  • PrayLaughLoveLive

    I must thank you for your insightful and researched defence of Scripture. You’re simply awesome and blessed.

  • David Philip Norris

    This is such utter and complete nonsense, I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, the Romans 1 passage is clearly referring to individuals who have abandoned their natural, in-born heterosexual orientations to engage in homosexual relations, and are “living a lie.” The Greek word for “gave up” (‘aphente’) means to forsake or divorce, and for someone to do that would imply that they were heterosexuals to begin with. As a gay man myself, I can readily confirm that I have never once been attracted to women (and I had plenty of time to consider that question as a teen and young adult), so for me to pretend to (as many sad gay Christians do) would be for me to live a lie. (Wait—doesn’t your God hate lying?) Paul is likely talking about orgies here, which were common in both ancient Rome and in ancient Mesopotamia, which is what Leviticus 19 is probably referring to (i.e., ritual sex acts such as incest and bestiality performed as part of the worship of Baal or Asherah).

    Second, homosexuality is nothing like over-eating or drug use. Or alcoholism. It just isn’t, and to imply that the two are congruous shows that a person knows nothing about the nature or origin of addition, and absolutely nothing about human sexuality.

    Third, in one paragraph Marc claims that Scripture is subject to change over time (i.e., women speaking in church), yet in the next insists that homosexuality is always wrong. So everything else can change over time—except same-sex relationships? We don’t observe kosher laws anymore, and many Christians today readily read horoscopes, get tattoos, work on the Sabbath and a myriad of things that would have got them cast out of fellowship or straight-up killed. This is an perfect example of “moving the goalposts,” and that more than anything undermines your arguments and all but proves that this whole thing is about fear and prejudice, and about upholding the patriarchal status quo that keeps women and minorities (including homosexuals) trapped as second-class citizens.

    I just wish Christians would mind their own damned business and stop meddling with other people’s private lives.

  • Lord_Boofhead

    Two points

    ‎”To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.”

    That’s not the point the chart is making. The point it makes is that Jesus didn’t mention it so therefore he patently didn’t give a fuck one way or another.
    Now there is the argument that he didn’t mention it because he agreed with the Old Testament’s stance. BUT he also didn’t say anything about Bacon and Shellfish, so unless the Christian Homophobes out there plan on taking up the Kosher Food Laws its time to stop using that argument…

    “This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to”

    But this isn’t targeted at sane rational thinking Catholics, Anglican, Unitarian and Orthodox types its aimed at the batsiht insane raving mad literalist Baptist and Pentecostal nutbags who take the Bible at face value.

    • QuantumLeap

      I didn’t find it “targeted”…it’s just a loud-ass lament.

      • Lord_Boofhead

        But the Chart is a group of responses to common Christian arguments against Gay Marriage, many of these particular arguments are made not by reasonable and rational Christians Catholic or other wise but by the stark mad raving end of Christianity, the sort that does take the Bible word for word and on face value.

  • Cheryl Hill Kazee

    Facts are not subjective or open to interpretation. This article and the chart it references are two example of how the Bible and any other document written in an archaic language are open to interpretation and cannot be considered factual.

  • RckyMtnMike

    The so-called LGBT community does not want tolerance, they want the dominion of their own Godless agenda. See their own terrible hate in this short video:
    A priest is trying to pary the rosary. They are demonic in their response, not surprisingly. When will they comes to terms with their own hate and intolerance?

    • Joe

      As a Catholic you should learn that the actions of the few should not judge the many.

      • RckyMtnMike

        Nice try, Joe. The events shown in the video pretty much typify every encounter of this kind. A parish is SF has said “no more drag queens” at Most Holy Redeemer, as befits Catholic teaching, and the self-identifying “queers” are up in arms and planning protests at Mass even. “Queer” hate and intolerance is truly more widespread that it is among Christians these days. I’ve seen it over and over again. Sadly, certain LGBT elements don’t get it and, if they don’t start trying to be respectful toward people of faith, there will be an enormous pushback. Christians are becoming so sick of this, the terrorism being unleashed upon us – the hatemongering, intolerant LGBT community who now embodies and embraces what it once condemned.

        • Joe

          Did you really just say that Christians are the ones being terrorized by the gays? What more “pushback” besides calling them freaks, sending them to ex-gay clinics, preventing their right to marry, kidnapping gay kids, and disowning gays from their own family could there be?

          Also, putting QUEER in quotations does not make it better. We get it. You dont like gay people.

          You seem to share their belief that unless they support you and your beliefs that gays are freaks they are terrorizing you.

          Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

          • RckyMtnMike

            Joe, really? You must not be reading the news these days. Step out of your ghetto. Traditional religious views/values are under attack across the country, often led by atheist groups and LGBT groups. It is coordinated and widespread. By putting “queer” in quotes, I was making a comment about the word many activists use as a self-identifier. Why self-identify with a word meaning “abnormal” unless it is an attempt to own the criticism and try to make one feel better about oneself? That’s sad in my opinion. You are wrong when you say I don’t like gay people. You don’t know me, we’ve never spoken. You simply can not respect my beliefs, my right to freely practice my religion, because of the clash with your agenda or ideology. You resort to name-calling and hit pieces. Plain and simple.

          • Joe

            You have the right to practice your religion. They have rights too. So do the KKK and Westboro Baptists. Americans have rights.

            Name calling? Where? I used the phrase the pot calling the kettle black. Is that offensive to anyone?

            You seemed to call gays who want gay marriage terrorists? You like terrorists?

            Traditional values as an anti-gay argument is STUPID. The Greeks (the very people we based our government off of) did all kinds of gay things!! Mary was 14 when she was pregnant with Jesus should we bring back that “tradition”. Traditional marriage may very well be straight marriage in America but by that merit interracial marriage isnt traditional either.

          • RckyMtnMike

            Gay activist arrested in attempted massacre at FRC:
            I am sure you just can’t believe this, but I can.

          • Joe

            Actually I can. People do bad things. Sometimes those people are gay. Stay on topic and address my points.

          • RckyMtnMike

            “. . . . preventing their right to marry” Joe, there is no right to marry in the Bill of Rights. “. . . . people do bad things” I’m glad you said that because lots of that has happened on BOTH sides of this issue and I hoped you would acknowledge this. “Family disowning their gay children” – do you think you can legislate against that? Bad behavior is all around us. At the end of the day, I must say that traditional Christians will never accept the morality of homosexuality but they will (and do) accept that we are all flawed and imperfect beings who deserve to be treated respectfully. We believe that the human family is at the core of our society and has at its origin a mother and a father. Anything else, we believe, is unnatural or disordered. People don’t have a right to do anything they want to do and the laws in most societies reflect that reality. One can find all kinds of examples of deviation from the norm in human history, the debauchery of the pagan Roman Empire, the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, the tolerance of homosexual practices among the elites of ancient Greece, but the long course of human history shows a traditional family unit as the basis of all human societies. One might say that “there is an exception to every rule” but that does not invalidate the rule.
            Sadly the Left, and I would include homosexual activists in that category, no longer seem to want to accept the will of the people or the concept that the majority does rule, an important foundation of our republican democracy. Instead, they want to punish those who disagree with them through boycotts, character assasination, charges of “hate speech” and using activist judges to get their way – they know that their ideas put to a public vote will go down in failure.
            Today, I see yet another example of their “hate speech” cry in France, where the Church is simply teaching what traditional Christianity has always taught:
            So, at the end of the day what gay activists really, truly want is THEIR way and the “tolerance” they preach is a sham.

          • Joe

            The majority rules eh? So you are admitting then that the right hates minorities. I mean we all knew this but glad you can agree. Really the similarities between the civil rights movement and gay rights movement are quite surprising. Oh and by the way you are the minority now. So I guess that means you are wrong and we are right correct because as you say “majority rules”

          • RckyMtnMike

            Joe, now you are not answering my questions. Its always been convenient to “lie with statistics” but most polling shows that the American people are not in favor of so-called gay marriage. I’m sure you can find one poll which indicates otherwise. Civil rights for ethnic and racial minorities are not in the same class as “gay rights” no matter how much you rattle on about it. Its another one of the distortions coming from gay activists.

  • Stephanie

    Getting rid of religion would only cause more problems. Look at the 20th century, what happened in communist countries when the state enforced atheism. Thousands and thousands of people murdered, and then those who were left were forced to practice religion underground. I don’t see Christian people sanctioning the murder of thousands and thousands of gay couples. People should be free to choose a religion or no religion at all. Only 13% of all wars in the last 2000 years had to do with religion, so getting rid of religion would not create world peace. Most wars would still have happened; it is human nature to disagree, and sometimes disagreement leads to war. Are you seriously THAT ignorant of history? In fact, it would do the opposite of world peace, as people would be persecuted for having a religion, or as you see in some Middle Eastern countries, persecution against those who have a different religion than what the government of the day thinks they should be.

    How about embracing differences in such a diverse world, rather than acting like a spoiled brat and trying to get rid of all beliefs other than your own? Religious people only want to be able to practice their faith in peace. If they beat up a gay person, of course that is illegal. IT IS ALSO A SIN TO BEAT UP A GAY PERSON. The Catechism teaches that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. A sinner is still a child of God, even if he/she continues to willfully engage in sinful behavior. But you should not force people who believe the homosexual lifestyle is sinful to make you a gay wedding cake, marry you in their church, plan your gay wedding, etc. Those are all examples of religious persecution in the west. Many people have lost their jobs or been forced to close their business because of their beliefs.

    Another mistake: “I have no choice but to be in a relationship with another man” is bull crap. You do NOT have to act on your urges. Many adults with same-sex attractions are living as faithful Christians. Everyone faces temptation, but it is a sin to act upon it. Our society as a whole needs to learn some self-control.

    People who are comparing what they like to call “homophobia” to the discrimination against African Americans are making a category mistake and a huge error in logic. African Americans have a darker skin color; it is their appearance, something they were born with and cannot control. Christians disagree with homosexual BEHAVIOR: it is not a sin to be attracted to a person of the same gender, but it is a sin to ACT upon it. They are actually not persecuting gay people, they just don’t believe two men or two women should be allowed to marry. It is not “persecuting” someone to say you don’t think they should get married. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for other behaviors, such as incestuous couples or polygamists, who, like same-sex couples, are consenting adults and say they are in love. Sometimes it’s good to discriminate. People with same-sex attraction are allowed to join Christian churches, and like everyone else, the church will not endorse sinful behavior.

    Myth: gay people were born that way. The human genome project is complete, and no gay gene has been found. However, there are several things especially in early childhood (when gender identity is formed) that can cause a child to end up being homosexual. I suggest people listen to the Catholic Answers Live episode from earlier this year, where they interview someone who works with people with unwanted same-sex attraction. By working with them and seeing what they have in common, he can deduce that, while there are some things that may predispose a person to same-sex attraction, they are not born that way.

    Myth: most gay couples are in monogamous relationships. Actually, research shows that the “20 years together” poster couples are the exception, not the rule. Most gay couples do not last more than 5 years without breaking up or bringing someone else in the bedroom, and very, very few pass the 10-year mark. And many of the first gay couples who were allowed to legally marry (and probably stayed together much longer than they should have out of stubbornness, trying to prove something to the naysayers) are now filing for divorce just a few years later.

    Regarding the comment about all the different religions, guess what: people CHOOSE Christianity above all others (more ignorance from anti-Christians)! It’s not just people who were born into it, thousands of people are converting every year. The reasons for the choice are different for everyone, but I suggest you do some research on Christianity to see why it’s different from the others. One example I can think of is the number of witnesses. With Jesus, there were always lots of people around to see and witness what was going on. In other religions, God supposedly spoke to a single individual, and people follow that individual. Another example is people willing to die for what they believe in, when they are in a position to know whether or not it was true. It is one thing to die for something someone else told you is true that turns out to not be true. But if you know something is a lie, you are not going to give your life for it.

    • Joe


  • Deven Kale

    There are a couple problems with this:

    1)Did you even read the text of your “a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred” study? Taken directly from the text you linked to:

    Among homosexual men, perceived discrimination was associated with suicidality.

    That doesn’t seem to support your claim that it’s not correlated. This is not taken out of context, or spun in any way at all. The studies authors state quite plainly that discrimination is a factor in male homosexual suicidality. Even more interestingly, there is no increase in female suicidality when all extraneous factors are controlled for. This is all in direct contrast to what you’re saying the studies results are, that homosexuality alone causes unhappiness. You still have no foundation for that claim.

    2) You still haven’t defined what a “Thing” is, so calling marriage a “definite Thing with a raison d’etre” really is no different than saying it’s a “blank for us to fill.” Words without definitions have no meaning either, you’re just using “Thing” as a blank for yourself to fill: Trying to make it mean whatever you want it to mean at the time you use it, while not actually saying anything at all.

  • Bruce Sidebotham

    The possibility that homosexuality is a natural human disorder is missing from this chart. In that case, it would not be sinful but gays and lesbians should still not be allowed to marry.

  • Jacob Suggs

    Being somewhat bored and very sleep deprived, I made my own flow chart which isn’t nearly as pretty.

    Being still sleep deprived, I’ve decided it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to put a link here. Be advised: it is very much unedited, for either grammar or any possible logic mistakes, and may remain that way (depending on how long it is until I’m bored and sleep deprived at the same time again, and happen to think about it).

  • Anonymous


    As a fellow Catholic, I believe you’ve made a bit of an unnerving point that isn’t necessarily in line with what I’ve been taught. You tend to base part of your “natural/unnatural” reason on the fact that “humans are meant to be happy.” While I don’t necessarily disagree, I believe the Church teaches with a much greater passion that humans are meant to be ONE. One with God, one with self, and one with each other. Abide in me as I abide in you, love one another as I have loved you, and love your neighbor as yourself are all simple foundations of the Church that come to mind. (Hell, oneness is the whole point of transubstantiation, communion, baptism, marriage, confession, etc… all the Sacraments).

    This is not to say that being in perfect unity (oneness) with God, self, and others won’t make us happy, it most certainly will, but it will do so on a much deeper level, a level that isn’t always called happiness. In fact, I believe most of the time this level is instead called suffering, abandonment, forgiveness, redemption, hope, and relationship… all vital parts of love and life. The key is your participation of this deeper level, in letting ourselves live the entire gospel; crucifix, death, and resurrection, throughout each moment of each day. It is in this sanctified acceptance, the acceptance of all things with love, that we find the divine. Happiness is only a small part of the equation, and not the end game. I would say dieing to self so that Christ may be born within you (something pretty distant from “happiness” and pretty close to Paul) is much closer to to the end game.

    To effectively say “If it makes you happy it’s right, but some of the things you think make you happy, like homosexual acts, don’t actually make you happy,” is a bit close to spreading a health and wealth gospel and, at the same time, telling people you know them better than they know themselves. With all do respect, it comes off as slightly arrogant and lacking compassion. I don’t feel like Christ was either arrogant or lacked compassion.

    I appreciate your desire to bring people in line with what we believe to be the institution that brings the most love/Christ to friends and neighbors alike, but I felt a need to respond. Leading people down the “happiness is the end game for Catholics/Christians” road only leads to people chasing something they’ll never fully obtain. I know, for me, this lead to feelings of guilt for not obtaining something I felt like should. I hope we can both agree that the last thing the Church needs to do (or the last thing Jesus did for that matter) is make people feel guilty for their shortcomings. He sat with them, loved them, became one with them, and simply told them to do the same.

    Thanks for your time and listening heart.

  • Anonymous

    “To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.”

    Can you see how this sentence appears to be to address a claim that is not made in the flowchart?

    The author merely points out that if you think homosexuality is a sin because Jesus said it was, then you are mistaken. The other points illustrate that modern society does not obtain morals and ethics from ancient texts.

    As you correctly point out, marriage does not come from God, but has been created by man. I think the point of the flowchart is that injecting religion into the debate is not necessary nor is it even relevant. It is as you say, “we waste our time with Scripture.”

  • JAGreene86

    Since people who are in favor of homosexual marriage seem to like to beat “Christians” at their own game, I will attempt to beat homosexuals at their own game.

    1. Why does marriage matter?

    Let me ask the question: Why get married? Well, one of the more obvious answers would be to show a level of commitment that cannot be found in “just a relationship”. This is true, however, what good is that commitment if we have over a 50% divorce rate? This is what confuses me…is that homosexuals are pushing to allow themselves more heartache and more money trouble (because what usually happens when people get divorced? One of the divorcees loses money, if not both of them). So, again, I ask the question…why are homosexuals working so hard to get married? From what I hear from this generation, they don’t even want to get married. If we are talking about “evolving”, then I would suggest that homosexuals should “evolve” just like this upcoming generation and not get married and just live with each other until you get sick of each other…because that’s what “civilized society” is doing nowadays.

    2. What can a man offer a man (or what can a women offer a women)?

    As far as I know, men have the same body parts as other men, and women have the same body parts as other women (with a very minor exception to both). So, being a heterosexual, I have a hard time understanding what attracts a man to a man…because, in essence, doesn’t that mean that the homosexual man is also sexually attracted to himself if he is also attracted to other men? Or, pardon me for being naive, but maybe I didn’t know that homosexuals know not to be sexually attracted to themselves…(silly me). This has always been a question of mine, which brings up another question: does a homosexual really need another man to fulfill their homosexual desires? If the answer is yes (because obviously it’s no, right?), then I would venture to say that a homosexual man is not necessarily sexually attracted to another man, but attracted to the “manly” qualities of the man. To elaborate, I’m going to make a comparison (but in no way am I comparing two people, I’m comparing two desires):

    We are often boggled by the idea of a man or a women to be sexually attracted to a child, but allow me to shed some light on the subject (not that I’m condoning it in any stretch of the imagination).

    I think our society does not know how to separate “personal” attraction with sexual attraction. For the longest time in my life, I couldn’t be attracted to a girl without desiring to be sexual with her in some way. Now, I am still attracted to many girls, but I am not sexually attracted to any of them. Nothing has changed (if anything, women are more beautiful in my eyes now), other than the fact that I know it is wrong for me to be sexually attracted to anyone who is not my wife (what a concept!). However, I am attracted at the “feminine” personality (which includes their body), but I know that having sex or being intimate with her is wrong. This is like saying “the Mona Lisa is beautiful…I want to leave it as it is” instead of “the Mona Lisa is beautiful…I want to draw on it” because if I draw in the Mona Lisa, I’m going to ruin it. This is why I referred earlier to a person being sexually attractive to a child, because I honestly think there is something they see in children that they find attractive…but attraction to another human being doesn’t always have to translate into a sexual attraction. I’m attracted to people who like to talk philosophy and who are humble and who know what they’re talking about…does that mean I have to be sexually attracted to them? No. So, with a homosexual…if they are attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean they have to be sexually attracted to the same sex. A homosexual male obviously sees something in other men that I don’t necessarily see, and that’s not such a bad thing. However, if that same homosexual male was like “I want to have sex with him” is just as bad as me saying “I want to have sex with that girl” or a pedophile saying “I want to have sex with that child”. Same thing…because we are seeing the Mona Lisa and wanting to draw in it just because we feel like we can.

    What I honestly think is that, in the root of it all, sexual desires is a desire for power. If we walk into a store with a million dollars in our pockets, we can buy whatever the hell we want…but if we walk into a store with only $1 to our name, our ability to buy whatever we want is greatly hampered. This is the same thing: if we have it in our head that we are, figuratively speaking, a million dollars, then we can have whoever and however many we want. This is why Hugh Hefner always has 30 women or more in his penthouse, because he literally is a millionaire. The way we convince the other to have sex with us is to say “you should know it’s an honor and pleasure to have sex with me” and the lesser mind says “wow, I’ve never gotten an offer like that…” or even a slightly higher mind will say “let’s test it to see if what you say is true”. Either way, person A got person B to have sex with them because they have the “power” to have sex with whomever they want (and that’s why, to some, the ‘playing hard to get card’ motivates them even more, because they want a challenge and their egotistical mind gets worse when they do end up having sex with someone who says ‘no’ to them, because, in essence, person A doesn’t care what the answer is right away…he wants the final answer to be a ‘yes’, even if person B didn’t mean to say it. That’s using power to manipulate and take-advantage of another, not out of pure sexual desire).

    Ok, here’s the point I’m getting to: Sex outside of marriage doesn’t make any sense, and the marriage of two males or two females doesn’t make any sense either. Same-sex sex is not just about the sexual desire, its about the desire to power. The sex is being used as a tool to manipulate the other person to satisfy their power. This is also true with heterosexuals as well. This is not to say “never have sex”, but people need to understand that sex outside of marriage is a manipulation tool, no matter homosexual or heterosexual and a male cannot offer another male anything different and a female cannot offer another female anything different, and being “attracted” to the same sex doesn’t have to translate into being “sexually” attracted to the same sex.

    (To those who noticed, I didn’t make any Biblical or religious references…proving that there is another way to debate the argument outside of religion)

  • Michelle Fletcher

    Taking closer look and there are many misrepresentations in this graphic. It’s so easy and convenient to dismiss the opposition as lacking compassion and being judgmental when the creators of this chart are ever more guilty of gross misrepresentation, severe judgement and unabashed abusiveness and degradation of those with an opposing view.

  • Joe

    Id like to point out that point 4 means God actually does in fact support polygamy

    Look at this passage of God speaking to David

    “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

    2 Samuel 12:8.

    God says he would give David more wives had he asked for it.

  • Joe

    Something Ive realized from the comments section is that alot of people seem to not understand or even know their own doctrine.

    The Catholic Church does not support Gay relationships gay marriage or gay ANYTHING

    They dont support visitation rights or healthcare as that means the gays would be in a relationship.

    If you do not support that assertion then you are not in line with Catholic Teaching.

    • fqke

      Would you care to provide an official Church document which supports your claim that Catholic Teaching opposes visitation rights, for example?

      • Joe

        Im basing it off of the Catholic Bishops support of the marriage Amendment in Arizona back in 2006 which would prevent homosexual couples from having any rights.

        • fqke

          A link? I’m not American, so I tend to base my view on what the Church teaches on what the bishops in my country, and the Vatican, officially promulgate. I’m not that familiar with what your local bishops have said.

  • Free

    No one should have the right to tell other people what they can do with their sex lives and personal relationships. If someone is gay, likes being gay, and is not hurting anyone then who can say that what they are doing is wrong? Christianity is responsible for so much hatred and death. Maybe homosexuals should start preaching to you about love because Jesus sure isn’t helping you people to be accepting of others.

    • Joe

      In defense of Catholics alot of things are responsible for death. That doesnt mean they are wrong. It does however show that humans come short of understanding the God that they worship

  • Elusiveoptimist

    So I’m Mormon, and I live in the heart of Provo, UT. My grandfather sends me email forwards of ‘merica and Jesus and “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!” and my friends liberally post Jesus memes on their Facebook walls. My point is, I’m born and raised about as conservative as they come. I got married to my husband at nineteen, “saved myself” for marriage, etc etc. I’ve never had a sip of alcohol or coffee (not allowed in Mormonism), said a curse word, or any of that. In sum, I’ve really tried hard to abide by the moral code of my personal religion, which as you surely know, has a pretty firm anti-homosexual-act stance.

    Here’s a question that I have that maybe someone else here can answer for me: why does it matter?

    If Christ died for all our sins, doesn’t that kind of include…well…all of them? So let’s suppose you believe homosexuality is a sin. That’s your belief. You’re entitled to it. I can hardly assume that I know better than you what you should believe in because 1) I’m not you, and 2) oh, no, 1 is pretty much good enough. But if you believe that Christ’s sacrifice is great enough to cover every teeny tiny little thing you’ve ever done wrong in your life, why wouldn’t it be enough to cover someone else’s sin?

    Furthermore, the author of this article noted that homosexuals are less happy. Well, shoot, there are a NUMBER of plausible reasons for that to be the case, but even if they’re all literally God’s punishment on earth for their sinful ways, doesn’t that mean that God has kind of set the price, and they’ve paid it, and that’s the end of it? Why do we mortals have to get involved? Are we God’s goonies, here to rough up the bad guys? I’m pretty sure He’s got it covered.

    Obviously, I know that I’m looking at this from a unique perspective (my own). I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that those of you who are saying, “Hey! It’s really not okay!” have actual valid reasons for feeling that way that are not driven by rabid foaming hatred or complete ignorant intolerance, because DUH. I’ve read a few comments from others who cited studies about how homosexual relationships are bad for this reason or that, but I guess at the end of the day my question is (not loaded or baiting or any of that) honestly, why does it matter to YOU? Personally?

    I feel like I’ve arrived at my current view after spending years meeting up with friends for coffee or drinks and not drinking or thinking they were bad people for doing it; I did things the way I thought was right, they did things the way they thought was right, and in the end I really doubted God was going to fault any one of us for honestly trying to be a good person. My best male friend (aside from my husband) swears like a sailor; my best female friend is bisexual. I also have many, many close friends who are deeply religious and find great happiness in their faith, and many, many others (okay, probably just one “many”…keep in mind, I do live in Provo) who are atheists and agnostics and liberals and feminists and players. At the end of the day, nobody’s perfect. Do I think it’s morally wrong to have sex with someone of your same sex? I mean, probably I’d have to go with yes. I also think it’s bad when my husband is supposed to be watching the kids but instead turns on an episode of Phineas and Ferb and plays on the computer for a while. Or when I tell my mother-in-law that she can’t swing by on Saturday because we already have plans, but really I just don’t want to get the house immaculately cleaned because it’s been a long week and PLEASE let there be new episodes of something interesting on hulu!

    I guess that for me, sin is sin. Am I willing to overlook the fact that my husband shirked in his parenting duties? Of course! I love him, and it’s understandable, and he and the kids had fun. Similarly, I imagine God saying, “Hmmm, I mean, you’re not SUPPOSED to do that, but you love him and it’s understandable and you both had fun. Also, I love you, so I’m not going to cast you into Hell. Another also, if that WERE a Hell-able offense, it’s okay, because Jesus died for your sins! So we’re good.”

    • Joe

      I agree with you. Also I think someone referenced this point about homosexual marriage and Jesus dying for our sins somewhere on this website. I dont have the link but in case you were interested I thought you should know its there.

    • RichieConway

      First, to address your belief that because Christ died for it, it doesn’t matter what we do- that’s not true Biblically. Think of Romans 6:1-11. It says shall we sin so that grace may abound? No, but we should count ourselves dead to sin. That means we shouldn’t sin just because Christ died for it, nor can we, because that would be Him dying in vain. He died so that we may be not merely justified in the eyes of God, but also sanctified and made whole. Christ himself addressed that many times, especially in John when he said in John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” and then after that he says that if we do that he will send the counselor (holy spirit) to us.

      Secondly, it seems like you are considering your husband not doing exactly what you want as a sin (i.e. fineas and ferb). However, that’s not sin. Sin is what God doesn’t want us to do, not you, or our spouses. It’s that which is against what is best for us in God’s eyes.

      You have a good heart, you care for others in an empathetic way, which is beautiful. However, empathy can cloud our eyes. Sin is still sin. I love you sister and those struggling in that.

      • Joe

        Why is empathy only cloudy when it is not in line with God’s moral law?

    • agkcrbs

      You seem to have carved a careful path of exceptions to allow you to stand on safe, inoffensive moral ground amongst your chosen company. That’s your privilege, as a rational person. But ask yourself first why you are so afraid of holding or expressing a view that somebody might disagree with. Is it actually that you’ve surrendered your own sovereignty of conscience to escape the emotional perils of social recrimination — in other words, moral cowardice with unpopular opinions? Or is it simply that you’re sincerely trying hard not to hurt people, and you think saying a word against a behaviour done by a listener is an inexcusable breach of tact? If so, does “tact” or “charity” or “empathy” or whatever you consider it silence you on every moral question, or just the ones where silence benefits you socially? Do you ever speak against lying, or murder? You’ll easily recognise that your admonitions and suggestions here may be disagreeable and offensive to some, but you’ve nevertheless chosen to voice them. Your own question may be repeated: if people oppose the government sanction of homosexual activity as moral, “why does it matter to YOU”, personally, enough that you would have written your comment to try to show what you think is a better, happier way? Whatever your reason for posting, it demonstrates that you do know what it means to want to externalise an internal viewpoint of intelligent living. There’s no need for confusion about why others do what you also do.

      Your first question had a slightly different lean: why it matters if somebody sins, if Christ died for sins. I don’t want to doubt your biographical details, but there’s a disconnection between your stated credentials of devoutness and your seeming obliviousness toward some basic, central concepts of your church. Jesus died for sins (yes, including homosexual and heterosexual lusts, and every other form of sin) so that men, forsaking them, may be washed from them. Forgiveness of sin comes to the receptive penitent, not the rebellious who reject the heavenly gift, for whose souls it’s as if Christ never died. Every cherished sin weakens the ability to choose, and compounds personal and interpersonal misery in whatever small or large degree, retarding the human destiny of freedom and happiness here as well as hereafter. Christ gives men a restoration: peace and saving grace are returned upon living faith (meaning obedience), and mercy for mercy; but the brunt of the broken law is returned to those who forsake the path of grace — those who agnostically live to the law of their own fleshly mind, delivering themselves to the unforgiving justice they preferred. Our heaven or hell is not a function of whether God “loves us” or “wants to forgive us”, but simply what we choose and live for — God’s love is shown in his provision of perfect freedom. Jesus is our judge, whose law we forsake in serving Sin as our master; and our choices throughout life, accrued into our very being, serve as our juries, clearly showing whether we took Christ’s nature on us, or rather worshipped ourselves. Those on earth cleansed in discipleship to the Mercy-giver retain their cleanness, but no unsanctified soul is magically restored from sin to righteousness. (If you indeed are LDS, please review Alma 41 on this point, and spare me from belabouring it further.) Thus God has periodically raised up prophets to warn of the consequences of serving our own hearts and bodies. Even those presently beyond the prophetic voice, “innocent” by virtue of ignorance of God’s law, and having followed the portion of the law they knew, cannot be saved until they too hear the gospel and choose to conform to Christ (and, if dead, consent to obedience by proxy).

      With such ennobling assurances that man is and may become more like God than like an animal, what good would it be, either for prophets or any variety of believer, to close up their hearts in negligent callousness to their fellow beings and shut their mouths to questions of right and wrong? How have we found a more enlightened way, if all we do is sink back into the morass of secular morality that pulls only toward the grave, offering no further aim, and so thoroughly confuses our spiritual priorities that we start to think it’s hurtful to speak a true word, helpful to speak a false one, courageous to crusade for sin, and appropriate to say nothing at all against it, as modern man progresses ever further from faith, onto unstable foundations? If you are LDS, you should well know that your opinion is free from institutional constraint by default, and that you stand or fall to your chosen master — but at the very minimum, consider believing what your church’s scripture teaches: that Christ does not save us in our sins, but from our sins; and that our duty is to preach the gospel, not contradict the gospel, that some few might receive it and be saved while the saving is at hand.

  • chemrocks

    This is off the main topic, but I need to mention it. To rank suicide up there with rape, genocide, pedophilia: it’s something I’ve had a problem with in the church for a long time. Suicidal people are not evil, and to put the act of suicide up there with genocide shows a horrible misunderstanding of what suicide is, and what it isn’t. Have you ever felt suicidal? It is, indeed a choice we humans have, to take our own lives, and it is not the right choice, but rather than harshly judging the act, maybe we should start taking away the stigma and instead show people how loved they are. People who are suicidal are often incredibly lonely and in worlds of pain.
    Also, St Paul (incorrectly) assumes that people love themselves and their own bodies. Maybe society was healthier back then, who knows. But the picture he is painting is really pretty unrealistic.
    One last note: if humans were meant to be happy, then there is a major design flaw. We make mistakes that get in the way of our happiness every single day.

    • Joe


    • fqke

      Where did you get the idea that condemning suicide involved calling suicidal people evil? Have you read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says about suicide?

      As to your last note, Catholicism calls that flaw “concupiscence”: the tendency to sin.

  • growUp

    I guess what it comes down to is that you are Christian. You believe there is a higher being, God, who rules over us, offers us a chance to be ‘saved’. The words of the Holy Book are firm and final, and need to be carried out.

    However I don’t believe it. I believe that we love people because it is morally right. I believe that my actions are mine to make, and mine to be accountable for, just as everybody else’s are. However, if your actions don’t affect me, or commit an offense fundamentally wrong, I am no better a person to tell you you can’t do that.

    I don’t know whether it is fear, or a superiority complex, or just your bullheadedness, but who are you to tell another person – one who came into the world the same way as you, may have went through the same hardships as you, experienced the same history as you – that they can’t live out there life in a way that they feel happy? Who cares if it is ‘happiness because of satisfying an urge’.

    We have 80 years, a few more if we are lucky, on this planet, in this life. Do things that will make you happy, but let others have the same right. Live and let live.

  • Youfuckingguy

    I find it funny that Catholics, who follow a form of the Christian crap, are notoriously accused and proven GUILTY of RAPING small BOYS in the ASS, as MALE PRIESTS, are not being brought up here. If it is so wrong..(homosexuality), then why are these priests doing it and clearly carrying it on and on down the lines???


      I don’t know wether you have some mental disability which disallows you to think properly.

      Let me put this as simple as I can, so you can understand it:

      IF someone from a group does X thing IT DOESN’T MEAN the whole group will do X thing.

      IF someone says that doing X is bad and sinful THEN IT MEANS that everybody who does X is doing something bad and sinful.

      Can you understand that?

  • Rachel

    Here here!

  • Rolf Worth

    Well said

  • Frank

    How terribly sad that any Christian would look at that graphic and not see the ignorance about scripture, and God contained within it. Yet another failed attempt at trying to normalize and justify sinful behavior. So sad.

    Meanwhile those that actually read and study thè bible see through this nonsense.

  • Joe

    To those who pretend to love gay people just as much as they would straight people I ask you to take this test. It is no trick. You dont have to say the results but it is a good reflection tool. The test is not standard or traditional and no its not some viral link. It will show you if you associate gays being gay (not gay acts) with evil. Chances are you will. There are many other tests to take but this one seems appropriate for the discussion at hand

    • fqke

      Lol “pretend”. When I take that test, I get “Slight automatic preference for Straight People compared to Gay People”, which only surprises me because when I take it for other things I have always come out neutral (apart from the time it thought I slightly favoured Jews, which was odd).

      But you propose an interpretation of the results which the lab has never supported. Leaving aside that the symbols you call “gays being gay (not gay acts)” include images specifically of gay marriage (and a toilet door symbol that I thought was weird), the lab has never proposed that having preferences for one or other group means associating the other group with evil. That simply is not supported by the methodology.

      I’m often surprised that it registers me as having no subconscious preference for white people, and no subconscious link between men and maths, only because I know that these preferences are engrained in our culture. When you ask little children in the UK to pick which picture of a child they’d like to be friends with, all of them (whatever ethnicity) favour the whiter kids: that’s not because they hate the darker kids, it’s because they have absorbed a bias. It tells me I have no such preference, and I doubt it because I don’t see how I couldn’t, even though I love all people equally and treat all with love.

  • joe

    great!…. that is all

  • Patterrssonn

    Being gay is equivalent to running a crystal meth lab, amazing the staggering disconnect of this post, the malice, the level of the hate and the stale desperation, its such a fetid stew I don’t think words even come close

  • Hugo Pius

    Thank you.

  • Cliff E. Francis Whitty

    I’ll be using this one to support the Church’s teaching in public. Thanks!

  • tech_pilgrim

    I think the graphic, and this article, shows the need to defer to the Authority of the Church when interpreting scripture. The author of the graphic and many of our protestant brothers and sisters suffer from the same problem….they are fallible. We are, after all, only human. We need the Church, who not by the merits of her members, but by the Merits of her Head, Christ, is guaranteed to be authoritative in the instructions of the Faith.

    Who says which OT laws are to be followed today and which are fufilled in Christ, which are moral, which are ceremonial, which practical? The Church! The author of the graphic is taking scripture out of context and straw-manning the Christian side of the debate. Only the Church is gauranteed, by Christ, to never fall into error on issues of Faith and Morals.

  • flash

    Thank you Cliff Calvin! You’ve been really simplified it all so well for me!Tell me, and which college of theology, did you attend?

  • Mouse

    Thank you so much for this post. I edited the image that you are talking about and posted it on fb. I was only trying to take down the straw men that the are in the image and show people what I really believe. I copped some hate for it. Now I see that I should have done things in a similar manner to what you have done here. Editing the image did not give me enough space to explain myself fully.
    Ironically a friend of mine who quite liked the original re-posted my copy on reddit and it has been viewed an awful lot of times because of it.

  • Memory Lane

    Aren’t there obvious unmentioned facts not being particulary revealed and yet implied? When Paul refers to a wife submitting to her husband and a husband to be faithful to his wife, isn’t he making an implicit illustration of the family? Meaning, does not the family mean children? One espousal bond in one flesh means, if you will, a marriage between a husband and wife; a mother and father. More so, he refers to the spontaneous act of marriage in which a man leaves his mother and father to be one with his wife. Thus, one chlidren under one man and one woman.
    The state of marriage is a lot like a house, too; one roof and one household in which each man and woman – under the same roof – are espoused to one another and their children. That is, each house has laws, standards, and rules on how it it stabely holds up, is built, and the enforcement (and re-enforcement) of such laws are for the protection, welfare, and well-being of those who reside in it. Even more so, a roof is built for shelter and protection from the outside elements. Thus similarily, a marriage is a necessary requirement of both law and the Church to ensure faithfulness for the protection, welfare, and well-being of the family in the their relationship (meaning, there are children.) So, you must hold up a law which endorses, encourages, holds or even restores the family to asn act and regard of justice through the proper and appropriate act of marriage.

  • jcoop200

    Marriage by its nature is a religious institution. For the state to decide to call any relationship it wants to a “marriage” is to assume that the state has moral authority over religion and is thus a threat to religious liberty.

  • TheLark

    As a mental health professional, I am frightened that the statements above claiming that homosexuals are at risk of greater unhappiness will be taken out of context by those who want to decry committed homosexual relationships as unnatural. The original article cited states clearly that “there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is
    itself a disorder that is thereby subject to a higher co-morbidity than is
    found in heterosexuals. It is likely
    that the social hostility, stigma and discrimination that most LGB people
    experience is at least part of the reason for the higher rates of psychological
    morbidity observed.” I know I should save my breath (or key-strokes), because experience has taught me that those who choose to believe the arguments above put no stock in science, and will likely choose to continue to base their opinions on fantasy.

  • SunnyIowa

    Awesome. I especially love point #3. What a shining example of how small minded people can pick and choose what to take from the Bible. “That stuff about women? Obviously needs updating. But GAY PEOPLE – that was for serious.” I appreciate that you don’t even try to be clever or subtle about your selectivity.

  • RckyMtnMike

    This is exactly how gay activism works:
    You better understand it because traditional Christians and other conservatives have a real fight ahead of us.

    • cajaquarius

      True enough. Thanks to Russia we gay folks now realize we are in a fight for our lives against your toxic pedagogy. Not a fight we started but one we will have to end if we want to be safe.

  • DBlendy

    Errors in the flow chart. 1.No evidence that when the New Testament speaks of homosexuality it refers to prostitution or molestation. 2. God said He would make a “helper” (same word used to describe the Holy Spirit), so He made woman. Her primary role was not to reproduce, but because “there was no one for him.” 3. Jesus, defined marriage as one man and one woman. The Bible records history, which includes polygamy, concubines, adultery, and all the other sins you and daily commit. This doesn’t mean it OK’s them.

    That being said, I am a believer and I know that God loves gays as much as He loves anyone else. I don’t feel that a gay person is more of a sinner than I am. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to change the definition of marriage.

  • Jeremiah Diehl

    Wonderful blog! Very well thought our and put together. Your argument is strong and I’m glad to see people standing up for the word of God.

  • Traditonal Marriage :P

    The author clearly states that homosexuality is not a sin. However, it is homosexual ACTS that are sinful. I won’t say anything about religion, but I do know that the majority of society frowns upon homosexual acts. I am abhorred at the argument this topic brings. If the acts are sinful, why should there be a need for marriage to a same sex partner.

  • Ashley

    I believe that the “unhealthy” lifestyle “associated” with homosexuality is not a result of homosexuality, but rather a result of the negative environment society inflicts upon this group of people. The homosexual acts (to be defined as an intimate act between two individuals of the same sex, and not to be confused with promiscuous acts or unsafe sexual practices) they engage in cause no harm to themselves or others. However, the actions of certain members in society that marginalize these members by preventing them the same rights as a heterosexual couple (in which it is possible the heterosexual couple are unable or unwilling to procreate) have in regards to marriage, along with other actions such as any form of hate or discrimination does cause harm to others. We should strive for a society that does not inflict harm. We fail to see that even the “fear” of harm that many homosexuals face due to the stigma that still permeates society is enough to cause “actual” harm. This harm manifests as the “unhealthy” lifestyle so many people like to attribute to homosexuality. Statistics show these people are at higher risk of psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, etc) and suicide. Being in this state can lead to self destructive behaviours such as drug/alcohol abuse, which can than lead to promiscuity, unsafe sex, and many other high risk activities. The loving intimate acts they share with their partner are highly unlikely to result in such destructive illnesses or behaviours, but society’s attempts to deny that love very well can lead to such an end. Sometimes we get caught up in the intricacies of right and wrong. Let’s keep in simple, inflicting harm is wrong.

  • jp

    “that those performing homosexual acts are at greater risk for unhappiness, a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred.”

    this point is proven wrong even in your links to support your claim. The first link includes:
    “LGB people are subject to institutionalised prejudice, social stress, social exclusion (even within families) and anti-homosexual hatred and violence and often internalise a sense of shame about their sexuality ”

    And the second:
    “Among homosexual men, perceived discrimination was associated with suicidality. This study suggests that even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality, homosexual men were at much higher risk for suicidality than heterosexual men. This relationship could not only be attributed to their higher psychiatric morbidity. In women, there was no such clear relationship.”

    The second does say that gay men may be more likely to be suicidal, but I wonder how much of that hinges on the fact that even in our “comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality” there is still the pervasive underlying notion that lesbian sex is hot and gay sex is a disgusting deformation of masculinity. (see the many examples of gay athletes in pro sports or in “masculine” music genres like rap and heavy metal *sarcasm*,the use of feminine descriptors like pussy and ladies to belittle men who do not stand up to the macho male standard, and the flagrant use of the term “gay” as a synonym for bad especially among the younger generations.

    It is prejudice and hate that cause unhappiness, not loving acts.

  • ray.harwood

    This is all so full of something it is not true. For one thing, Jesus did mention sex between same sex couples a sin. He said that evil thoughts come from within, such as fornication. Jesus actually talked about porneias (plural) instead of the word fornication. This word includes sex between those of the same sex, bestiality, incest, etc.
    I know it is all a waste of time though. Homosexuals and those with homosexual loved ones are in the most biased postion possible, and will twist everything to say what they want it to.

    • Deven Kale

      I’m straight, and have no homosexual loved ones (that I know of), and I’m pro-homosexual. Why? Because they’re people just like me, who just happen to only be able to really care for someone of their same sex in the ways that I care for those of the opposite sex. I personally couldn’t imagine having an intimate relationship of any sort with a man, and I imagine that it’s similar for them with women. Why would I force someone who doesn’t look at women in the same way that I do to spend time with, have sex with, or love a woman? That just doesn’t seem right to me.

      How happy would you be if you were forced to have a relationship with a man (assuming you’re a man based on your name) or be ostracized if you didn’t? I don’t think you’d be very happy. Homosexuals feel the same way, just the other way around.

      • Tyler Lorge

        YE ARE GAY :(

  • MutBenjamin Garner-Prouty

    Sorry for posting a comment on an old post, but when you say Paul had no idea that gays in the future would form committed relationships, doesn’t that render his point, which was based on the assumption that Gay people in the first century didn’t form committed relationships for some reason, moot?

  • Pamela Jean Summers

    In I Corinthians 6:9 The Word effeminate ( look it up)

  • Ben

    If Bible said homosexuality is right, then you bigots would’ve supported it for ages huh?

  • die soon

    Haha brilliant – anyone who thinks being gay is wrong/sinful/should be repented, bla bla bla et cetera et cetera is an IDIOT. If you’re one of those fuckers who are like “I’m a Christian! Being gay is a sin! You will go to hell!” then you’ll actually end up going to hell (even though it doesn’t exist). So yeah, I hate you, if you’re one of them. And no, I don’t give a shit what you say: I’m still gonna have sex with girls (and hey, I’m a girl! We’re hot) and piss people off. And you know why? Because I’m GAY AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! Get your head out of the dark ages when everyone had to fear this “god” you speak of because the leaders round then needed something to make people obey their rules. It’s the 21st century.

  • eryk

    the question was about homosexuality ,wasn’t it ?

    forgive me ,if I miss understood,but if I understand it the right way,, them everything will be very simple to understand,just one answer will suffice all,

    what was the first commandment given to men?

    by who? and when. as my GPS say ,you have arrive.

    the answer is in every book written about faith or religion,

    you name your religion,and is in their book.

  • wakeupdamit

    Why don’t you trying to justify perversion? None of your freaking points in this article is valid.IT IS A DAMN SIN! I was bisexual and i liked women more than men but since i became christian , what are the odds!, i became straight. I was able to see my perversion and that i was a moron.Go look at other people’s testimonies ,many WERE gay but since becoming christians , none of them are no longer.Take my word for it, i was in love with a girl so badly.Damn was stupid!And perverted!
    So no matter how any phony tries to justify SINS, it is still a sin.Don’t listen to this fraud. And wake up all ready!

    • cajaquarius

      I’m sorry you are such a selfish person you didn’t and still don’t know the difference between love an perversion. Because you lack a conscience you turn to authoritarian frauds and ancient traditions to tell you right from wrong.

  • wakeupdamit

    why are you frauds erasing my comments!

  • KJ

    OK, so if homosexual acts are indeed sinful and I shouldn’t commit them, and heterosexual acts are repulsive to me and I can’t commit them, then I am basically disbarred from marriage. The Church’s concept of marriage involves consummation and I can’t consummate a marriage with a women. If I can’t marry a man, I can never marry.

    If I can’t marry, then I’m condemned to live my life as a perpetual virgin. And yet I’ve always been a relational person. I love and long to be loved in return. Friendship is not enough. Christ is not enough. I think God realizes this when he says that it is not good for man to be alone, and in the very next breath recommends marriage as a remedy for that loneliness.

    So why am I among all men denied this remedy? Why must I be condemned to a life alone, never to know an intimate touch, never to feel the physical demonstration of someone’s love for me? Never even to have a partner to face the vicissitudes of life with. Why am I singled out for such treatment?

    The Church tells me to unite my suffering to the cross, but I have no idea what that means. Why must I do this when most everyone else gets to marry? Why are they allowed to experience love and sex when I am denied these these things? Unmarried heterosexuals can always live in hope that one day they’ll marry, but there’s no hope for me. I’m living a life sentence of complete hopelessness. Why is that? Why has God singled me out for this terrible punishment? Why does he hate me so much?

    I often wonder what I could have done as a pre-pubescent child that would make God visit this terrible thing on me. What offense did I commit? Was it me, or is this some terrible sin of my father being visited upon me? I don’t mean to blame my father for my predicament, but quite honestly, what crime could a young child commit that could possibly justify such a devastating life-sentence with no parole and no possibility of remission? Is God really that cruel? Whatever happened to divine mercy?

    Honestly, people are always telling me that God loves me but I don’t believe it. I have no joy in my life, only endless, soul-destroying loneliness and isolation. I try to distract myself by getting involved in my parish and serving others, but at the end of every day I go home to an empty house and an empty bed. Sometimes I just walk the streets so I don’t have to face the emptiness that otherwise surrounds me. I’ve tried alcohol and I’ve tried drugs. Neither take away the dull ache of being alone. Even calling on friends when it just gets too much to bear doesn’t help. They always come and they always make the right noises, but they can’t give me what I need. They distract me from my hopelessness with idle banter for an hour or two, but once they’ve gone I’m just as alone as I ever was. Just as alone as I will always be. Always. Until I die.

    And that’s the thing: my only escape from this is death. It can’t come too soon. I’m not allowed to cut short my suffering by taking my own life, but if I could, I would. Which is, of course, just as vain a hope for me as the dream of love and marriage. Death will come some day, but I’m not allowed to hasten it. So I drag on through life putting one foot in front of the other and praying for an earthquake, or a malfunctioning furnace and carbon monoxide poisoning, or a terminal illness of some description. A train or a bus might do the trick, but only if it’s a real accident. Or perhaps a meteorite might fall from the sky or someone might inadvertently put arsenic in my coffee. Or I might live until a ripe old age, although if I do, God knows what sort of a state I’ll be in. I doubt very much I’ll still be a Christian. It’s hard enough keeping the faith now. Hopelessness is faith’s worst enemy.

    So, bad Catholic, what should I do? Continue on my present path and hope the end comes as swiftly as possible? I love God but I don’t understand why he hates me so much. I don’t think I’m any worse than anyone else, so I don’t understand why I’ve been given this cross to bear. What’s the purpose? What’s the point? What’s the use?

  • Guest

    I know this is old, but I had to chime in. I am a bisexual woman. I have been my entire life, but I spent a good portion of that afraid, upset, and confused by my feelings and attractions because I had no word for them. My adolescent brain had a lot of trouble with that whole “being homosexual is fine, but homosexual acts aren’t!”. So what about my thoughts? What if they turned into actions?
    How freeing when I learned that not only was this “normal”, but there are very many people who identify this way! I am confused about your definition of what is “natural”. So those things that are natural are the things that make us happy. Excellent. Then who are you to define my happiness? I am the happiest that I have ever been now that I am out, and that I can walk out of a movie and mention how attractive both the leading man and lady were without fear.
    The moments when I am unhappy are when I feel judged, or told that I am somehow deviant or “unnatural”. I sat in a Catholic parish just this summer when the priest said that homosexuality was an abomination. Not “homosexual acts”, “homosexuality”. I see this time and again from so many conservative denominations. Plus, what is a homosexual act? Holding hands? Just sex? Cuddling? Or are you completely unaware that there are such a thing as monogamous and chaste homosexual relationships? Do you not believe in love for the same gender?
    And quite frankly, if you think two people of the same gender shouldn’t get married, fine. Whatever. But I fail to see how you can suggest that rights should not be extended to all committed couples. Maybe we need to separate the two ideas: legal civil unions, and then marriage. Marriage will be up to churches, but any two consenting adults can get a civil union. Would this be objectionable?

  • Joe Monte

    You never addressed the ‘prisoners of war’ issue. Allow me:

    Numbers 31:18 & 19

    “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

    As apologists go you have a lot of work to do. But the point you totally missed is this: if any book that condones killing women and boys and forcefully betrothing the virgin girls have any moral authority on any subject?

    • Jordan Lavender

      Numbers 31:15,16 indicates that this was Moses’ command in reaction to the Israelites transgression against the Lord. This is a good example of what the author states above:

      “This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to. The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it – those which we are told are endorsed by God.”

  • Rafael Pioli

    Why do anti-cristianism people quote the Bible to support their beliefs? How intelligent. It is a catholic book made for catholics.. I dont even know why they want christians to support what they think is correct.

  • Lize

    “True. Nor did he utter a word about rape. Or genocide. Or running a crystal meth lab. Or suicide. Or pedophilia. To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.”

    Rape HURTS people, genocide KILLS people, running a crystal meth lab is the making of things that HURT people,pedophilia HURTS people/children, suicide? Oh I forgot being so severely depressed or hurt by someone/thing that would want to take your own life is a sin. Last I checked, homosexuality doesn’t hurt or kill anyone. Can’t you let a couple be happy without breaking them down, pushing them to the edge of SUICIDE, in fact, that’s not even suicide anymore, that’s murder. If you don’t like them then we’ll respect your opinion but don’t spread around your hate.

    • Pooua

      56% of existing HIV cases in the US, and 61% of new HIV cases in the US, are due to men having sex with men (MSM). 1 out of 5 MSM in the 12 largest US cities is infected with HIV. The rising spike in drug-resistant gonorrhea, syphilis and TB is due mostly to infected homosexuals. Much of the reason for this is because most homosexuals are not committed to a single sex partner, even if they marry one of them. The image of a homosexual couple being just a same-sex version of a heterosexual couple is a lying illusion.

      However, leaving all that aside, the fact remains that Jesus insisted that the Law of the Old Testament is good and holy. Jesus came to fulfill that law; His life is a testament to the perfection of that Law. It is because He fulfilled it that Christians are free from its requirements, as Apostle Paul explains. So, without explicitly saying anything about it, Jesus condemned homosexuality.

  • Kevin Breyer

    Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” That is really the best straight out, “Don’t do it!” In this statement, though, being gay is not the bad thing, it’s acting on it. But as all other sins that we do, and most other sins stated in the Bible, we are not the ones to judge. I am not really for same sex marriage, just because I know that a mother and father in someone’s life can make a big difference on a child. I grew up most of my days without my dad because he was only home once a few months, because of that, I missed out on learning some great life skills like you learn at camping, replacing spark plugs, and ultimately changed what path I would take in life. I just think that all of the options should be available to kids, if that’s what a gay couple ultimately wants. But hey, if it happens, it happens. To each their own. To judge is not your responsibility, but to carry out your duty as a Christian and any other person does with good morals. Love your neighbor as yourself, people. That’s the way to go.

  • SearchCz

    Marc writes about: “… ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill …”

    Who is ignoring the question? Some people simply disagree with the answer you’ve come up with. Whatever you might believe is the “raison d’etre” for marriage, others believe differently.

    Marc writes: “No one is claiming that because homosexuality is sinful, homosexual marriage shouldn’t exist.”

    Perhaps Marc means that HE is not making this claim but plenty of other marriage *defenders* do. At the extreme you have the Westboro Baptist church. Add to that NOM, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH, the Family Research Council, and anyone else whose opposition to same-sex marriage is fueled by their religion-based moral objections. And for good measure, consider this article titled “Oppose Homosexual Marriage Because It Is A Sin”:

    If Marc means to say that we shouldn’t oppose same-sex marriage because we believe it to be sinful, I’ll take that as a step in the right direction.

  • Maria Ortiz

    omg, the person who dreamed this crap up is insane. These are our God’s laws, just because you don’t like these laws does not mean you can change them. They will always be God’s laws.

  • tommy

    God is a fantasy.. and all of this analyzing of The Bible is pointless. Obviously it was written by bigoted, ancient, deluded morons who had not one notion of science or equality. Christianity is comforting, I’ll admit, and has been western society’s cornerstone for so many years.. but it’s outdated and illogical.

    • Dan

      have you read it, in greek or hebrew? do you know what the authors are
      writing about? can you supstansiate your claim about the illogical? Please point to the bible’s claim to scientific knowledge? how the bible conflicts with equallity?

      Tell you what, your argument is a fantasy.

  • Anon

    I’m sorry, but this article is garbage and the epitome of the sort of cherry-picking religious groups are often guilty of. You claim it’s utterly unimportant that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality because “he didn’t mention lots of other bad stuff that he clearly would have opposed also,” yet when it comes to the many ugly ideas espoused by the Bible, you chock it up to secularists taking the Bible “too literally” and claim that the only practices we can assume are endorsed by God are those which we are told were endorsed by God. That’s a double-standard–you could easily say the New Testament approves of homosexuality because Jesus doesn’t denounce it and, thus, does not explicitly mandate a certain practice or prohibition of practice. If you fail to see this double-standard because of a literalist idea that Jesus had to explicitly condone homosexuality for it to be okay, well, there are also loads of things he never mentioned that the Catholic church is clearly not too interested in opposing–such as joining a rock band, or taking prescription medications.

    But this is entirely beside the point–who cares what the Bible says about homosexuality if it clearly isn’t a real problem anymore? What we have here is an instance of an ancient text *arguably* disavowing homosexuality and Christians using this as an excuse to label it bad until proven good, which gives them license to use inconclusive studies as proof of its harmful properties. The studies cited in this article do not even remotely prove that homosexuality is harmful to people REGARDLESS of institutional homophobia. How can you possibly remove that variable from the equation? If you think it’s possible, you clearly don’t understand institutional prejudice–it literally consumes your entire thought process and cognitive structure. You cannot look at these higher-suicide-risk stats without referring to institutional prejudice anymore than you can do the same thing with the terrifying stats surrounding African American social performance–when a group of people is oppressed/subjugated/tortured/marginalized for hundreds of years, you cannot look at their disproportionate hardships within society as a coincidence.

  • John

    The thing is, your religion should not be allowed to determine the right to marriage for gay people. The US is not in any sense a Christian nation, so to try and base laws that discriminate against others because of your religion is, quite honestly, $@&!ing ridiculous.

    • Dan

      The argument has nothing to do with religion. Its about about the objective truth, starting with the question “What is marriage?” if you give an answer you need to give objective reasons why. Simple! Catholics have a robust understanding which is both religious and non-religious. What might your objective reasoning on the matter?

    • Fletch

      You’re kidding right? The USA was *founded* as a Christian nation by people who were Christian. You cannot go back and look at the words of the Founding Fathers and dispute that. They weren’t Hindu or Muslim or Buddist, and they certainly weren’t atheist.Yes, the US has drifted toward Humanism and Socialism because of people like Obama and Clinton but there are many who still identify as Christian.

      Don’t like religion at all? Well, good luck finding somewhere totally free of religion on this earth. According to the World Fact Book on the CIA website, most people in the World are religious.

      (Click on the [+] People and Society link)

      According to the site, 88.54% (6.2 billion) are religious in some way – Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%,
      Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha’i 0.11%, other religions

      Only 9.42% are non-religious and 2.04% are atheist.

      So, if you’re atheist, that makes YOU a minority.

  • Jeffrey Lebreton

    What is this trying to prove

  • Dennis Richardson

    Yes, I do and the Judge of all the earth will confirm that fact right before HE sends those of you to HELL that practice it without repentance or those of you who give hardy approval to it without repentance. That includes you Michael Lowell Jones.

  • Mary Healey

    Since Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles how did his works come to be chosen as Holy Scripture?