<

Christianity Supports Same-Sex Marriage

In four weeks, Washington state voters will be deciding on Referendum 74, a law that, if approved, would allow same-sex marriage. This op-ed of mine, urging support for the referendum, was published in a Seattle-area newspaper last week. It’s a more well-behaved version of my usual argument—enjoy.

A century ago, America was immersed in social change, and Christians were leaders. They wrestled with issues such as women’s suffrage, prison reform, temperance, racial inequality, child labor, and labor unions. Christians were a positive force for social change.

Now, at a time when Christians lament the decline of marriage, gay and lesbian couples want to embrace it. This represents a great opportunity for Christians to lead once again. They can do it by supporting Referendum 74 (R-74), which would approve the bill, signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, to legalize marriage equality in Washington.

Of course, some Christians may claim there are numerous religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Let’s examine these to see why this argument falls flat.

Many loudly proclaim that homosexuality is unnatural, but homosexuality has been observed in 500 animal species, including all the higher primates. That means humans, too. Yet homophobia has been observed in only one species: ours. Perhaps it’s homophobia that’s unnatural.

Biblical marriage is not the institution that conservatives imagine it to be. The Old Testament says that you can only marry someone from your own tribe, and once you are married, it’s fine to have sex with concubines. It offers other marital advice as well: You can marry a woman by first raping her; you can make sex slaves of captured women; a man must sleep with his deceased brother’s wife to produce heirs; and polygamy is permitted.

Let’s not pretend that the definition of marriage has been static. In fact, marriage was most recently redefined in the United States less than 50 years ago when laws against mixed-race marriage were overturned. Perhaps society has matured so that we can expand it again to include all consenting adults.

For arguments against homosexuality, many Christians point to the biblical towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God destroyed with fire and brimstone because of the perceived sin of homosexuality. But the Bible makes clear that the true sin of Sodom was attempted rape. This has nothing to do with the loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships that stand at the center of today’s discussion of same-sex marriage.

The Book of Leviticus is another source of anti-gay ammunition used by opponents of same-sex marriage because it calls gay sex an abomination. This sounds pretty damning, but the word “abomination” is also used to describe eating forbidden food such as shellfish, sacrificing blemished animals, performing divination or wearing men’s clothing if you’re a woman. These are ritual abominations; homosexuality was not forbidden because of any innate harm. With what justification can one select the anti-homosexual verses and ignore the rest?

The underlying objection to homosexuality for many is that gay sex is icky or distasteful. Fair enough, but then the solution is easy: If you don’t like gay sex, don’t have any.

If you’re prudish about gay sex, consider that there may be ickier or more distasteful sex happening between straight partners than gay, simply because there are far more straight couples. The solution is simply to let consenting adults resolve these questions themselves.

Another popular Christian argument against same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. But is that all they get out of marriage vows? “I promise to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, in joy as well as in sorrow”? And what about couples who don’t want children, can’t have them or are beyond child-bearing age? Are these marriages invalid or inferior? Of course, if you were to ask opponents of marriage equality why a straight couple should get married instead of living together, the procreation argument would likely go out the window, replaced with profound thoughts about love and commitment — precisely the reason same-sex couples want to get married.

Open-hearted Christians have a chance to reclaim that revolutionary spirit that guided them a century ago. To today’s religious leaders, I say: With all the disease, poverty, famine, natural disaster and economic troubles in the world, should same-sex marriage be a major worry?

There’s far too little love in the world as it is. It’s reprehensible to stand in the way of what love is here.

The time has come for marriage equality in Washington. The time has come to approve R-74.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red,
and he placed them on separate continents.
And but for the interference with his arrangement
there would be no cause for such marriages.
The fact that he separated the races
shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Initial judgment against Mildred and Richard Loving, 1959

Photo credit: Economist Mom

About Bob Seidensticker
  • joeclark77

    How about Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD”. God endorses the use of reason. Untruth is not reasonable. Calling unmarried sodomites “married” is untruth. Remember, the issue is not about allowing homosexuals to marry — they are allowed to marry. The issue is whether we will CALL homosexuals who DO NOT wish to marry, “married”, which they want because they feel it legitimizes them somehow.

    • Ted Seeber

      Calling divorced people “formerly married” is the equivalent untruth in heterosexuality. No Fault Divorce ruined marriage LONG before Dr George Weinberg accepted bribes to invent “homophobia” and bring homosexuality into mainstream America.

      • smrnda

        I see no reason for 2 people to stay in a marriage if it isn’t working, and the only people whose opinions should matter there are the people who are married. Even the Beatles broke up, and it would have been selfish for the rest of the world to demand that the Beatles stay together. Same way when pressure is put on people to stay married.

        I understand religious people value commitment in and of itself, but I see no reason why those viewpoints should be imposed on others.

    • ah58

      I’m trying to parse this post and all it’s doing is giving me a headache.

      I’m sure it will be a relief to those that have been fighting for the right of gay marriage to hear that they were allowed to marry all along — at least according to joeclark77.

      People who do not wish to be married generally don’t get married unless it’s an arranged one. I’ve yet to hear of an arranged gay marriage. That’s not to say that it may not have happened somewhere on earth.

      • jose

        He means they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s an old, hateful retort anti gay marriage people use.

        • Matt O’Neal

          Jose- thanks for clearing that up. I couldn’t make much sense of his comment. It simply sounded wrong.

    • Envy Burger

      “Remember, the issue is not about allowing homosexuals to marry — they are allowed to marry. The issue is whether we will CALL homosexuals who DO NOT wish to marry, “married”, which they want because they feel it legitimizes them somehow.”

      What???!!!!

      What UNmarried homosexual wants to be called married? What unmarried anything wants to be called married? That makes absolutely no sense.

      Second, where are homosexuals allowed to marry? Most states don’t allow it. Elaborate, please.

    • Sweet Dee

      The lord wants you to use reason? Hey I didn’t know that was in there.

      You’re doing it wrong.

    • Makoto

      Well, the major issue in the USA (my country, YMMV) is not that anyone could go to some agency and get called “married”. The problem is that such a declaration doesn’t mean they’re married in the eyes of our (secular) law. I can call myself a purple platypus, too, but I’m still a human in the “eyes” of the law, after all.

      Homosexual couples are not allowed to enjoy the (entirely secular) benefits of (entirely secular) legal marriage in my country. Churches can still, as always, refuse to perform a religious ceremony if they desire (or perform a not legal one, I suppose), but that has little to do with what most people enjoy when it comes to the title of marriage.

      As with heterosexual couples, I’m sure the homosexual couples who don’t want to marry will simply not get married. What do you call heterosexual couples who don’t want to get married? Are they “married”, whether they want to be called or not, simply because they’re together and heterosexual marriage is allowed?

      • joeclark77

        What on earth is a “homosexual couple” and what does it have to do with a marriage? Any homosexual PERSON in the USA can get married. Marriage means a lifelong union of man and woman, and it is barred to no one.

        Oh, I see what you mean… they want to do something (sodomy) which is entirely unlike marriage, but they want to be called “married” despite not marrying, because… why exactly? Anyway, it’s irrelevant and my point stands. The so called gay marriage debate is all about whether or not the good people of our various states will decide to (a) vote for a lie to make buggerers feel better or something, or (b) vote against lying. At no point is the right of anyone to marry going to be on any ballot.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          JC:

          Marriage means a lifelong union of man and woman, and it is barred to no one.

          Marriage is a moving target. Don’t pretend that it was invented in the Garden of Eden and has been a constant ever since. And the Bible documents a long list of bizarre marriage practices—yet more evidence that marriage is defined by the culture and changes.

          they want to do something (sodomy)

          There are lots more straight folks doing sodomy than gays, just because of there are far more of them. Keep that in mind as you lie awake at night worrying about other people’s happiness.

          want to be called “married” despite not marrying, because… why exactly?

          To have and to hold? In sickness and in health? In good times and in bad? Remember all that? That’s why homosexuals want to get married—for the same reason anyone else might want to.

          Why does the atheist have to teach the Christian about how to be good to one another? Doesn’t that seem bizarre? This isn’t a fixed pie–extending marriage to people who want it doesn’t hurt my marriage or yours one bit.

        • smrnda

          Okay JoeClark, I’m an asexual lesbian and I’ve been living with my partner for about 5 years now. I want us to get hitched because I really don’t see, outside of the sexual element, how my relationship is different from what you would call a ‘marriage.’ I cook for my partner, meet her when she’s done with work, we pay bills together, plan for retirement together, cook for each other, you know, exactly what husbands and wives do except the sex.

          I know in the evangelical pissing contest, the shallow, gender-stereotype based relations touted as ideal by outfits like focus on the family are supposed to be the ‘real deal’ and that all those couples who don’t live that way somehow are viewed as deficient, but please, tell me what I’m missing? Is love, trust, honestly, commitment, devotion and caring for someone just no big deal, it’s all about ‘penis goes into vagina?’ Please enlighten me.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      JC:

      Remember, the issue is not about allowing homosexuals to marry — they are allowed to marry.

      And before Loving v. Virginia, black folks could marry anyone of their race, just like white folks could. No problem then, right? Who could call that discrimination?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      JC: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD”.

      What does this do with faith? Why the need for faith if you’re using reason instead?

  • John

    joeclark did you read the post above at all?

  • Ted Seeber

    What they have in Washington State (and most of America) isn’t marriage to begin with, so what can it matter? Serial monogamy is still a form of adultery.

  • Ted Seeber

    My underlying objection to homosexuality is that all of the researchers who publish papers on it are so biased that their research is worthless. Unlike you, I don’t desire not true things to be true.

    • ah58

      Just like all the scientific research that supports evolution is so biased as to be worthless? Feel free to continue to put your fingers in your ears and loudly say “La, La, La, can’t hear you.”

      I’m in awe of your insightful takedown of all of the researchers in the field of human sexuality and the mountains of evidence you used to back up your claims.

    • Sweet Dee

      THAT is your underlying objection? Really? The people who think it’s icky have a better argument than that.

      Also, you clearly don’t understand research or how to interpret it. If you did, you could read the scientific papers yourself without knowing anything about the researchers themselves. It’s the methods, not the researcher, that make the science credible.

    • jose

      How does it feel to be losing the culture war? You can check up with old segregationists and see if they had the same feelings.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”
        - George Wallace, 1963

        Old George did retract his statement, but history will always remember him for having been on the wrong side of this issue. I suspect that that’ll be the position many of today’s Christians will be in in a couple of decades, once same-sex marriage is as uncontroversial as removing the “Whites Only” signs.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Ted:

      all of the researchers who publish papers on it are so biased that their research is worthless

      What research is required? You can’t figure out for yourself that extending something good to someone else (at no cost to yourself) might be a civil rights issue that Christianity should get behind?

      Unlike you, I don’t desire not true things to be true.

      No idea what you’re referring to.

    • Dorfl

      Isn’t desire by definition desiring for something untrue to be true?

      I mean, I don’t wish I had a cup of tea while writing this, since I do in fact have a nice cup of tea within reach. But I can desire that all wars would stop, that cancer would something cease to be a thing and that religion would cease causing people to do silly things, since those things currently aren’t the case.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        I would say that it’s more desiring a possible future state to be realized. “I wish I had a new job” is untrue in that I don’t have that new job right now, but I could work at the task and make that a reality.

        • Dorfl

          I don’t quite see the difference. You desire for the statement “I have a new job” to be true, which it currently isn’t. If it were true, you wouldn’t be able to desire it – you’d be feeling satisfaction at having gotten a new job instead.

    • smrnda

      Research is supposed to be conducted with proper methodology, which means that proper conclusions can be drawn in spite of researcher bias. What you really ought to look into is methodology, since even indifferent researchers can use bad methodology and therefore draw poor conclusions. If a biased researcher was a reason for dismissing all findings, you might as well say research is pointless since objectivity can never be assumed to be there.

  • Joshua

    I find it humorous that the title refers to Christianity, yet only Old Testament passages are cited, leaving out what is (aside from Leviticus) the strongest Christian case against homosexual marriage/sex: Romans. Oh, and about Leviticus, the word “abomination” is used both times in English, but the Hebrew word is different for homosexual sex than for all the other cases mentioned. Also, note that the other cases say such and such will be an abomination “to you” or “for you,” whereas the passage regarding homosexuality (18:22) simply says it’s an abomination and ends it at that. The most obvious reason is that the kosher laws were meant only for the Hebrews, whereas the prohibition against homosexuality is universal. So Christianity doesn’t even begin to support gay marriage.

    • Sweet Dee

      Isn’t there anything in there about not judging others, or just letting people who aren’t part of your tribe (faith) do as they wish?

      Honestly, I thought Christianity supported goodwill, kindness, and non-judgment until I read that book of yours. Surely some Christians still want to be Christ-like?

      • Joshua

        @Sweet Dee:
        I suppose I should not judge murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.? Saying X is wrong is not “judging” anyone. And Jesus did say not to judge, but he said it thus: “Judge not, lest you be judged, for with the same judgment you judge, so shall you be judged.” I.e., the admonition not to judge is about not being hypocritical.

        • ZenDruid

          I suppose I should not judge murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.?

          Unless you’re a judge by profession, you are absolved from the responsibility. Civil law and civil justice do not need your help. But thanks for offering.

          The subject at hand is human pair-bonding. It’s axiomatic that the pair bond contributes very much to the state of human happiness, and thus to human civilization as we know it. Same-gender bias does not affect the model or equation at all, when viewed in the subjective sense. (Which, of course is the only sense that matters.)

          The concept of marriage doesn’t seem to extend beyond a breeding contract for some people. A feudal breeding contract wherein Penis is the king and Vagina the subject.

        • Joshua

          @ZenDruid:
          Clearly I wasn’t using the term “judge” in that sense, so your comment is irrelevant.

          And I’m aware of no such axiom. I certainly wasn’t born with this inherent knowledge. And to say that only the subjective sense matters is patently absurd; if anything matters, it’s what is objectively good.

        • ZenDruid

          And I’m aware of no such axiom.

          You’re apparently not aware of many things. No surprise there.

          I certainly wasn’t born with this inherent knowledge.

          Nor was I, but if you pay attention to what’s going on around you, you’re bound to get a clue once in a while.

          And to say that only the subjective sense matters is patently absurd; if anything matters, it’s what is objectively good.

          If you have a personal relationship with anyone or anything, nothing could be more subjective. Those people who seek an “objective” moral value or “objective” meaning are merely looking for ways to judge other people.

      • joeclark77

        Christianity does not ask its followers to cease using judgment. That would be ridiculous. The phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” pertains here. We believe in forgiveness and the possibility of salvation for those who have repented of all kinds of sins, but we do not and can not endorse the lie that their sins are no big deal or some sort of moral good. To call evil good and good evil is a grave sin in itself.

        • ZenDruid

          joeclark, your god is the original sinner.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Average Christians are better than their god. Any person who did the bad stuff that God did in the Old Testament should be locked up.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          JC:

          The phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” pertains here.

          What about left-handed people? Should we love them too, or is that going too far?

          Y’know, I keep saying that we should just move “left handedness” from the Bad category into the Good category. It really doesn’t hurt anyone. And with a stroke, we define away a sin, and people aren’t stigmatized for how they were born.

          Ah well—maybe some day. A guy can dream, can’t he?

          Consider this: if you redefined murder as “not a crime,” it would still be a terrible thing. But if you redefined homosexuality as “not a sin,” nothing bad happens. The sky doesn’t fall. If it bugs God, let God worry about it, because it harms no one (any more than unbridled sexuality of any sort can).

        • matt

          So bob, you don’t believe in the God of the Bible but you’ll use the Bible to prove it’s wrong? Wow, you must still be in high school. Pathetic!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Bible? Where did I use that?

          I guess name calling is the best you’ve got? No actual arguments?

        • joeclark77

          No negative consequences to a culture of sodomy? Have you even read Humanae Vitae?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          JC:

          No negative consequences to a culture of sodomy?

          I live in a culture in which sodomy happens. In my culture, it’s done mostly by heterosexual couples. And y’know what? I sleep like a baby. Doesn’t trouble me in the least.

          Where does my remarkable calm come from? Simply the realization that it doesn’t hurt anyone.

          Have you even read Humanae Vitae?

          Nope.

        • Kodie

          So you’ve chosen to believe your god is the arbiter of whom you can judge and for what, but you don’t dare judge god; you excuse god. You think it’s your obligation to demonstrate to this monster you believe exists – if he does exist, he IS a monster – how you have less sin than somebody else and this excuses you to judge them but they can never judge you for butting into their lives. If there is a god, that’s between them and him. That’s one reason I don’t believe in god, most of all there’s no credible evidence, but sanctimonious shitheads like you pretend they don’t do anything wrong as their introduction to join their faith. No matter what anyone says, it rolls off your back like a greasy duck, you get to behave any way you want and only god holds you accountable! But your religion also precludes you from granting any other human being the same courtesy by demanding you judge them, if only there were a god or something, somewhere, to do that so you don’t have to.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          If you want into heaven, you don’t want to rock the boat by looking for skeletons in the closet of your host.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Joshua:

      only Old Testament passages are cited

      Ah, the tyranny of word limits. I’ve written many posts on this question. Perhaps this one will get you started:

      What does the New Testament Say About Homosexuality?

      Oh, and about Leviticus, the word “abomination” is used both times in English, but the Hebrew word is different for homosexual sex than for all the other cases mentioned.

      Clarify. Leviticus doesn’t say “X is an abomination” and “Y is an abomination.” It says “you shall not do X” and “you shall not do Y.” I don’t see the word “abomination” at all.

      Explain to me how you get to pick and choose the bits out of Leviticus that you want to keep.

      • Joshua

        @Bob:
        First, your link to your other article doesn’t work. Second, it doesn’t matter what you wrote elsewhere; I was pointing a flaw in THIS article. You can’t go around assuming everyone has read some other piece by you, especially if this one was posted in a place other than your blog as you say it was.

        Clarify. Leviticus doesn’t say “X is an abomination” and “Y is an abomination.” It says “you shall not do X” and “you shall not do Y.” I don’t see the word “abomination” at all.

        Really? Then why did you say in this very blog post that Leviticus DOES say that things like eating shellfish are “an abomination?” But to be thorough, I’ll reiterate what I already said and add more detail: Leviticus 18:22 says homosexual sex is an abomination, and Leviticus 11 is full of “abomination” phrases of the kosher sort.

        Explain to me how you get to pick and choose the bits out of Leviticus that you want to keep.

        I wasn’t aware I did this. Can you explain? And if you’re referring to the fact that I implicitly argued that the kosher laws don’t apply to Christians, you obviously failed to really pick up my argument, since I made it clear that those rules were ONLY for the Jews. If that’s not what you’re referring to, I’m at a loss to discover what you do mean.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joshua:

          You can’t go around assuming everyone has read some other piece by you

          Obviously. Which is why I gave a link to another piece, with relevant material written more thoughtfully than I would have written it here.

          (Link fixed, BTW.)

          Then why did you say in this very blog post that Leviticus DOES say that things like eating shellfish are “an abomination?”

          Uh … because it does?

          I was simply pointing out that Leviticus doesn’t use the word “abomination” in each sentence prohibiting something.

          I wasn’t aware I did this. Can you explain?

          I’m not seeing the confusion. Seems like you have three options as a Christian: accept 100% of Leviticus as binding on you now, reject all of it, or accept some subset. If you opt for the third path, “Explain to me how you get to pick and choose the bits out of Leviticus that you want to keep.” I’m looking for a simple algorithm that makes clear what stays and what goes.

          Obviously, the pitfall that the Christian must avoid is keeping what he likes and discarding what he doesn’t. I’m sure we’re on the same page here, but then I don’t understand what the simple algorithm is that you use to avoid this pitfall.

        • JohnH

          According to Acts Christians are to follow the seven Noahide laws as well as the teachings of Jesus. A command against sexual immorality is one of the Noahide laws, but I am not really sure of exactly what the Talmud has to say about sexual immorality in regards to the Noahide laws. Of course Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law but fulfill it and most of his commands are reiterations or expansions of what was in the law so I suppose someone could take the don’t look at a women to lust after to be blanket command about everything dealing with sex in the law. Of course then there are Paul’s writings on the subject. (Or one could take the approach of continuing revelation).

        • Joshua

          @Bob:
          Your link doesn’t help you. Apart from referring to Leviticus again (the problems with that argument I’ve already addressed), you try to tear it down by saying that the epistles also say “bad” things like women should be silent in the assembly. That doesn’t prove that Christianity doesn’t oppose homosexuality. It might show that some people who claim to be Christian are hypocrites, but it doesn’t prove anything about whether Christianity supports homosexual marriage. And even in that link you didn’t address Romans 1.

          Uh … because it does?

          I was simply pointing out that Leviticus doesn’t use the word “abomination” in each sentence prohibiting something.

          Oh, really? Then why, in your reply to me, did you say:

          Clarify. Leviticus doesn’t say “X is an abomination” and “Y is an abomination.” It says “you shall not do X” and “you shall not do Y.” I don’t see the word “abomination” at all.

          Emphasis added. If that was a mistake on your part, fine, but that means you have to come up with an actual response to my argument regarding the different Hebrew words and the fact that cases other than homosexuality make things abominations “to you [Hebrews].”

          I’m not seeing the confusion. Seems like you have three options as a Christian: accept 100% of Leviticus as binding on you now, reject all of it, or accept some subset. If you opt for the third path, “Explain to me how you get to pick and choose the bits out of Leviticus that you want to keep.” I’m looking for a simple algorithm that makes clear what stays and what goes.

          Which I already provided, at least in germ:

          I wasn’t aware I did this. Can you explain? And if you’re referring to the fact that I implicitly argued that the kosher laws don’t apply to Christians, you obviously failed to really pick up my argument, since I made it clear that those rules were ONLY for the Jews. If that’s not what you’re referring to, I’m at a loss to discover what you do mean.

          You’ve apparently done very little actual study of the New Testament and how Gentiles became part of the church, because Acts 15 and several of Paul’s epistles make it clear that rules about food etc. don’t apply to Gentile Christians. None of them even hint at the idea that homosexuality is now free game. Indeed, the OT itself never remotely gave the idea that homosexuality was merely a “ritual” sin. You’re just making that up out of whole cloth. Indeed, the entirety of Leviticus 18 is about sexual sins, and many of them are clearly moral absolutes, not mere ritualistic issues. In fact, one example is in verse 8, which forbids having sex with your father’s wife, the very same type of fornication Paul so strongly reprimanded the Corinthians for turning a blind eye to in I Cor. 5.

          In short, none of your arguments stand up to any level of scrutiny.

    • Paul King

      Deuteronomy 14 DOES use the exact same word to describe the kosher rules (Deuteronomy 14:3-21). Therefore by your “reasoning” the kosher laws should apply to everyone.

      • Joshua

        @Paul King:
        Hardly. I also pointed out that the Levitical references to kosher food laws said “to you” as an additional distinction. Deuteronomy uses that same language (see verses 8, 9, and 19 for examples), and Deuteronomy was a restatement of the laws already laid down in Leviticus and Exodus, so contextually all of that language is implied anyway. The New Testament makes it pretty clear that there’s no such thing as food that is inherently bad, but it also makes clear that certain actions (e.g., homosexual sex) are.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          The NT makes these claims, but on what are they based? Presumably Jewish law. Therefore, if we dismiss the relevance of the OT references (because, say, the sacrifice of Jesus made the ceremonial rules irrelevant), then the NT requirements against homosexuality also fall.

        • Joshua

          @Bob:
          Considering that the NT changes the rule for food and reaffirms the rule for homosexuality, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, what makes you think that Jesus’ death made the ceremonial rules irrelevant? I think the NT is fairly clear that it didn’t. The distinction is Jews v. Gentiles. But Romans (the best NT case against homosexuality) is written to Gentiles. You still haven’t addressed this, so you’ve still got no argument.

        • Kodie

          I know you were trying to be specific to kosher laws, I just think it’s weird when it’s right there not to mention it. Why are some foods against the kosher law? Same reason we don’t eat dogs in America, and don’t sell crows next to the chickens in the butcher case. If you get used to something being food that used to be considered disgusting to eat, especially if it’s popular, people aren’t going to be able to resist. But… a lot of people manage not to be tempted by homosexuality. Probably because they’re not gay and can’t understand why anyone is.

          In Genesis, the whole “one flesh” is just dramatic. The story is about why there are men and women and animals and stars and days of the week and why we live in a world with problems now. If you’re going to start a population with two people, you do need a man and a woman, but if you’re saying a family with both a mother and a father is the ideal, that’s the first example of any family ever and they sucked. Sorry. God gave Eve to Adam and it didn’t almost work out for them at all. They made one flesh a few times like they were supposed to, but who do we blame when one of their children murders the other one? That is messed up parenting.

          I guess we are supposed to be arguing whether Bob’s claim holds up biblically, not whether being gay is great and people should get over it like they got over bacon cheeseburgers.

        • Paul King

          That doesn’t change the fact that the same word is used to describe non-kosher foods in Deuteronomy 14.3 – which does not include the the “to you” phrasing. Surely this implies that the word refers to ritual uncleanliness, rather than moral wrongdoing in some other sense.

          Consider also the usage in Genesis 43:22 (Egyptians unable to eat with Hebrews), Exodus 8:26 (Hebrew sacrifices in Egyptian eyes), Deuteronomy 7:25 (gold and silver that covered idols), Deuteronomy 13:14 (worshipping other gods)… In short Bible study is more than noticing a difference in the Hebrew wording – you need to understand the words, rather than assuming that the significance is what you the wording is what you would like it to be.

        • Joshua

          @Paul:
          Deuteronomy 14:3 doesn’t say “to you,” but the verses that follow which give specific examples do say it. I.e., verse 3 is the general statement, but the other verses are more specific, and therefore control. The fact that it’s the same word only matters if the context is also the same; it’s not in this case. In fact, all the examples mentioned by you ARE abominations in the absolute sense, or else are spoken from a particular perspective, which is basically the same dichotomy we’ve got with kosher food laws and homosexuality. Egyptians eating with Hebrews is an abomination TO EGYPTIANS, Hebrew sacrifices are an abomination TO EGYPTIANS, and the others are clear cases of idolatry (absolute abomination). With the kosher food laws, you’ve got abominations TO HEBREWS; with homosexuality, you have an absolute.

          Besides, the true best case against homosexuality is Genesis 1-2. Male and female were created to go together, not male and male or female and female. All gender relational rules in the Bible, including the prohibition against homosexuality, flow from the creation story. Food laws don’t.

          I don’t understand why you guys think Christianity in any way supports homosexuality. Nobody has even really made that argument yet. At most, you and Bob have argued that it doesn’t prohibit it, but even those arguments are weak at best, given the fact that the New Testament clearly reaffirms the rule of the OT in this regard.

        • Kodie

          All gender relational rules in the Bible, including the prohibition against homosexuality, flow from the creation story. Food laws don’t.

          I mean, didn’t god say not to eat something and they ate it anyway and bad things happened?

        • Paul King

          You are right that later verses do use the “to you” phrasing – and that shows that the phrasing i Deuteronomy 14:3 does NOT necessarily mean a universal rule. If it did, there would be an internal contradiction in Deuteronomy 14. The later verses can’t change a universal statement to one that applies only to the Israelites.

          You’re also wrong about the other statements. Either missing the fact that all of them seem to refer to issues of ritual cleanliness (have you any that clearly don’t ?) or wrongly asuming universality. (Idolatry is wrong to the Israelites because of their covenant with God, it’s mot so wrong to other peoples who don’t have a that covenant, in the context of Deuteronomy, for instance).

          And if your “best” argument doesn’t truly address the issue I can’t say you’ve really got a case.

          Now in this thread I haven’t been arguing for Bob’s position, but I have to say that the best support for it is the “Christians” arguing against it. You’re having great difficulty even coming up with religious arguments against a civil matter, which according to standard Christian views of the NT is primarily a matter for the secular government anyway. Nor do I see any real effort to deal with the moral case for gay marriage. Christianity as I was taught it isn’t a religion of dishonest bigots who would impose their prejudices through law. I’d call that something else entirely, especially in the light of the obviously dishonest arguments of Joe Clark opening the responses here.

        • Joshua

          @Kodie:
          And what about the fact that God forbade the eating of the fruit had anything to do with the inherent nature of the created order?

          @Paul:
          Care to explain how idolatry isn’t wrong to non-Jews when it’s condemned outside the context of the Mosaic law? For instance, Romans discusses the fact that men are “without excuse” when it comes to worshipping the correct God. Why would you need an excuse if it wasn’t wrong to do otherwise? Idolatry carried more weight for the Hebrews (to whom much is given, of him much is required), but that doesn’t mean it’s OK for the rest of humanity.

          And if your “best” argument doesn’t truly address the issue I can’t say you’ve really got a case.

          Are you saying it doesn’t? Explain, please.

          You’re having great difficulty even coming up with religious arguments against a civil matter, which according to standard Christian views of the NT is primarily a matter for the secular government anyway.

          Nope. Romans, once again, is pretty clear on this topic. Not to mention that one of the things Acts explicitly says even Gentiles have to obey is the rule against fornication, which includes basically anything outside an actual heterosexual marriage. I.e., homosexual sex is fornication, and thus forbidden.

          Nor do I see any real effort to deal with the moral case for gay marriage. Christianity as I was taught it isn’t a religion of dishonest bigots who would impose their prejudices through law. I’d call that something else entirely, especially in the light of the obviously dishonest arguments of Joe Clark opening the responses here.

          I fail to see why arguments regarding the morality of homosexuality (other than to point out that the Hebrews and NT writers considered it immoral) are relevant here. Bob isn’t arguing that homosexual marriage is moral; he’s arguing that Christianity SUPPORTS it. I have a feeling he doesn’t think Christianity is a very moral religion (then again, reading his new post about C.S. Lewis, I don’t think he necessarily believes in an absolute morality at all). that being the case, what does the moral case for it have to do with anything? Christianity could oppose what is moral or support what is immoral, from his point of view. The fact that something is moral doesn’t mean Christianity supports it. Yet so far I’ve seen precisely 0 arguments that Christianity actually does support homosexual marriage. I’m still waiting.

          And by the way, I’m not trying to impose my views on anyone here. Indeed, how could I? I’m merely pointing out that Bob’s argument is full of holes. But what you seem to be doing is confusing my argument with the argument that homosexuality is absolutely immoral. It might be and it might not be, based on everything I’ve said here; the two questions are not logically linked unless you supply an extra argument that whatever Christianity opposes must be immoral, but I’ve never said that.

        • Paul King

          @Joshua

          Perhaps you can explain how Romans is meant to be binding on Israelites living in the times of Moses or Joshua or Isaiah. Obviously the existence of the covenant to worship only the one God is relevant – otherwise, why make that an important part of the covenant ?

          If you believe that Genesis 1-2 somehow forbids a modern society with a modern concept of civil marriage recognising homosexual partnerships that in almost every way fit within that concept of marriage then it is up to you to make that case. I just don’t see anything of relevance.

          And for a real understanding fail, let me point out that *I* referred to the moral case for homosexual MARRIAGE. Not for homosexuality itself. And I am going to say that even Christian views on the morality of homosexuality are largely a sideshow. The issue is not about whether Christians should engage in homosexual relations, or whether Churches should marry homosexuals – the issue is whether society should allow homosexual couple to marry in a purely civil sense of marriage. Do Christian views on the morality of homosexuality justify codifying that view into discriminatory laws ? A lot of Christians think that it does.

          But really, if you want to argue that Christianity does not support gay marriage, you need to argue that Christianity does not want a more just secular society. That Christianity wants to maintain divisions, to try to keep the marginalised on the margins. Do you think it right that a long-term homosexual partner should be denied visiting rights at a hospital because they don’t count as belonging to the patient’s “family” ? That’s an injustice that recognition of gay marriage – again as a purely secular institution – will end.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joshua:

          I’m merely pointing out that Bob’s argument is full of holes.

          Then don’t bother with the abstract. Read the full argument. I have a series starting here.

        • Kodie

          Josh, you asked me:

          And what about the fact that God forbade the eating of the fruit had anything to do with the inherent nature of the created order?

          My response was to the earlier comment you’d made:

          All gender relational rules in the Bible, including the prohibition against homosexuality, flow from the creation story. Food laws don’t.

          “Don’t eat from that specific tree” sounds a lot like a food law that was broken. What does it have to do with the “inherent order”? You didn’t say that in the first place, you just said food laws don’t come from Genesis; every single law in the bible comes from breaking one food law, and all your squawking would be pretty unnecessary if Jesus hadn’t been dispatched to compensate all of humanity because one person didn’t heed it.

        • Joshua

          @Paul:

          Perhaps you can explain how Romans is meant to be binding on Israelites living in the times of Moses or Joshua or Isaiah.

          Why should I explain something I never said? My only point was that not only is homosexual sex an abomination under the Mosaic law, but it’s also just straight up an abomination period (from the Christian POV), and Romans is evidence for that.

          If you believe that Genesis 1-2 somehow forbids a modern society with a modern concept of civil marriage recognising homosexual partnerships that in almost every way fit within that concept of marriage then it is up to you to make that case. I just don’t see anything of relevance.

          Woman was created to be with man, and they shall be one flesh. Not one man and one man shall become one flesh; not two women shall become one flesh. Nope, just one man plus one woman. Pretty clear if you ask me.

          And for a real understanding fail, let me point out that *I* referred to the moral case for homosexual MARRIAGE. Not for homosexuality itself. And I am going to say that even Christian views on the morality of homosexuality are largely a sideshow. The issue is not about whether Christians should engage in homosexual relations, or whether Churches should marry homosexuals – the issue is whether society should allow homosexual couple to marry in a purely civil sense of marriage. Do Christian views on the morality of homosexuality justify codifying that view into discriminatory laws ? A lot of Christians think that it does.

          I’m not sure what marriage would be without sex, so the distinction your making seems irrelevant to me. Without sex, it’s just roomies with contractual obligations, which has always been legal and no one has considered immoral at any time that I know of. Whether the view of the morality of homosexuality justifies laws on the subject is also irrelevant; Christianity opposing a practice doesn’t imply one way or the other whether they should support laws on the topic.

          But really, if you want to argue that Christianity does not support gay marriage, you need to argue that Christianity does not want a more just secular society. That Christianity wants to maintain divisions, to try to keep the marginalised on the margins. Do you think it right that a long-term homosexual partner should be denied visiting rights at a hospital because they don’t count as belonging to the patient’s “family” ? That’s an injustice that recognition of gay marriage – again as a purely secular institution – will end.

          Again, this all assumes Christianity opposes homosexual marriage at the level of law, and that doesn’t follow from anything I’ve said. Even if it did, though, you’re assuming that Christianity wouldn’t consider the homosexual union itself to be a greater injustice than the ones you mentioned. But also, I’m pretty sure you can get the legal right to visit by contract (say by naming the other person as your health care proxy via a power of attorney). So I don’t think that argument helps you any.

          @Bob:
          Why bother? You’ve tried to defend yourself by pointing me to another article that didn’t help either. I don’t feel inclined to go on wild goose chases when I know, based on what I’ve already said in comments, that you’re dead wrong on this point. Christianity simply does not support homosexual marriage. There is no conceivable argument to support that. The only arguments you’ve made have been to show that Christianity doesn’t reject it, or that to the extent it does it also opposes other things that (in your opinion) shouldn’t be opposed. So again, I’m assuming this is a wild goose chase. If it’s not, you can copy and paste from your other arguments into the comments here.

          @Kodie:

          “Don’t eat from that specific tree” sounds a lot like a food law that was broken. What does it have to do with the “inherent order”? You didn’t say that in the first place, you just said food laws don’t come from Genesis; every single law in the bible comes from breaking one food law, and all your squawking would be pretty unnecessary if Jesus hadn’t been dispatched to compensate all of humanity because one person didn’t heed it.

          Uh, no. In context, I was obviously talking about kosher laws. And the “inherent order” I think was fairly obvious considering the context of my first comment as well; “flows from the creation story” can’t really mean much else.

        • Kodie

          Threading wasn’t lined up – I replied to you in the next one up (I think).

        • Paul King

          Joshua, you did resort to quoting Romans as relevant to the use of “abomination” to describe idols and idolatry. Though how this means that the objection to taking gold or silver that covered an idol is anything other than a religious cleanliness issue I have no idea. (It doesn’t help that you misrepresented the passage, and what it actually says is untrue)

          Your argument from Genesis seems to be a non-sequitur since it doesn’t say anything about how a civil society should deal with people who have a homosexual orientation. By all means take it as the rule for Church marriages, but that is not the issue.

          And finally, why should giving reasons why a Christian should be in favour of homosexual marriage “assume” that Christianity is against it ? You might consider the homosexual union a greater injustice, although how that can be seen as anything but bigotry is hard to fathom (presumably you mean a greater moral wrong, but that isn’t quite the same thing). But even if you did see homosexual relations as wrong, you can’t stop them by denying the legality of homosexual marriage. All that does is further discrimination, as the courts in the US are recognising.

        • Joshua

          @Paul:

          Joshua, you did resort to quoting Romans as relevant to the use of “abomination” to describe idols and idolatry.Because it is relevant. Romans makes it pretty clear that worshiping any deity other than the true God is immoral. Thus, idolatry is an “abomination.”

          Though how this means that the objection to taking gold or silver that covered an idol is anything other than a religious cleanliness issue I have no idea.

          Where did I say anything about gold and silver?

          Your argument from Genesis seems to be a non-sequitur since it doesn’t say anything about how a civil society should deal with people who have a homosexual orientation.

          I think I see what you’re saying; you’re arguing that for Christianity to “oppose” homosexual marriage in the context of Bob’s article, it necessarily opposes it on the level of legal action. Am I right? If that’s the case, I still don’t see how it relates to the argument at hand, because if Christianity is against homosexual church marriage, in what way could it be for homosexual civil marriages?

          And finally, why should giving reasons why a Christian should be in favour of homosexual marriage “assume” that Christianity is against it ?

          I’m not sure what you’re getting at here; I never said such a thing. My best guess is that it’s a reference to my last paragraph in my previous response to you, but that “assumes” language was merely pointing out that you have to assume that to make the argument I was responding to.

          You might consider the homosexual union a greater injustice, although how that can be seen as anything but bigotry is hard to fathom (presumably you mean a greater moral wrong, but that isn’t quite the same thing).

          I’m not sure how something could be a greater moral wrong and yet not a greater injustice. Care to explain? Also, let’s not bring in the bigotry word. I never said I believed it was the greater wrong, first of all, and whether I do is of no consequence to the question at hand. Furthermore, if you want to say that any religion that believes homosexual sex is a grave moral wrong is necessarily bigoted, then we aren’t really debating this question; you’re just arguing in a circle based on your starting premise that homosexuality is just fine and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, end of story, other arguments to the contrary be damned.

          But even if you did see homosexual relations as wrong, you can’t stop them by denying the legality of homosexual marriage. All that does is further discrimination, as the courts in the US are recognising.

          Ah, yes, the magic “D” word that stops all debate. Well, I rather think the world needs more discrimination. You know, against murderers, thieves, etc. And before you go off on a rant about how I’m equating homosexuality with murder, think again; I’m merely pointing out that you’re again making a circular argument if you’re saying anything worth saying at all. Not to mention the point is irrelevant. What Christians can or can’t accomplish through law has nothing whatsoever to do with what they support or oppose as a religious matter.

          @Kodie:
          Given your penchant for dogmatism (e.g. “In Genesis, the whole “one flesh” is just dramatic.”), I don’t see much point in continuing a debate with you.

        • Kodie

          @Joshua: It looks like you’d rather make exceptions for things you’d rather not confront by labeling it dogmatism. Eve broke the first and extremely important food law and it was a very poor example of how a two-parent heterosexual family actually copes in the world, and I’m so very hurt that you can’t read past your prejudices to see that. The whole excuse for all sin is that Eve broke a food law, and because god didn’t and couldn’t undo it, he executed himself to forgive people for having inherited a broken world.

          Christianity does support same sex marriage as a default position – none of you are god or Jesus, and homosexuality is between homosexuals and god. If god exists and communicates by private radio, he’ll tell them what’s ok and what’s not. Christians can go ahead and not like it all they want, and I don’t really think we can expect more from pedantic, rigid people – and you’re accusing me of dogmatism because I’m saying something you don’t like? People thinking they are Jesus because the church tells them to exert the power of Jesus through themselves, because – where’s Jesus? Is this the powerful relationship I”m always hearing about? Taken over bodily to assume the role of an all-powerful being? What, me? Dogmatic?

        • Paul King

          Joshua, the verse in Romans you choose to quote, says that humans are “without excuse” not because idolatry is an “abomination” but because the truth of God is supposedly obvious. You are is representing it to say otherwise.

          If your references to idolatry were not Kent to cover the issue of the gold and silver, the what is your answer to that? Surely that is purely an issue of religious “cleanliness” rather than any inherent immorality – the metal itself could easily be reused and reworked and be no different from any other gold or silver.

          I see no reason why a Christian cannot favour homosexual civil marriages on the grounds of social justice while denying homosexual church marriages on the grounds of the religious prohibition. What problems do you see with that ?

          Justice is, in my understanding, primarily about fairness and equity, not about punishing “sinners” – especially for “sins” that do not seem to merit any secular punishment anyway. So I can’t see any inherent “injustice” in a consensual homosexual relationship at all.

          As for your little rant about discrimination, well that only proves to me that you are a bigot. What secular purpose does discrimination against homosexuals serve ? We don’t “discriminate” against murderers and thieves just because their behavious goes against your religious taboos, we do it because their behaviour is clearly harmful to society, notably their victims. We have yet to se any solid arguments that homosexuality is equally harmful – indeed there are no victims. So why should we enshrine your religious taboos in the secular law?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joshua:

          Woman was created to be with man, and they shall be one flesh. Not one man and one man shall become one flesh; not two women shall become one flesh. Nope, just one man plus one woman. Pretty clear if you ask me.

          God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Sam. 12:8). God has his complaints about David, but polygamy isn’t one of them.

          Marriage is one man and one or more women. This is also pretty clear.

          Christianity opposing a practice doesn’t imply one way or the other whether they should support laws on the topic.

          That’s a refreshingly accepting attitude.

          Christianity simply does not support homosexual marriage. There is no conceivable argument to support that.

          Well, yeah, except for the argument I made, which is that the passages in the Bible have been misinterpreted or twisted to support an anti-homosexual agenda.

          The details take time to do justice to, of course, but perhaps you will give me that the Bible directly says zilch about consensual monogamous same-sex marriage, which is the topic at hand.

        • Joshua

          @Kodie:

          It looks like you’d rather make exceptions for things you’d rather not confront by labeling it dogmatism. Eve broke the first and extremely important food law and it was a very poor example of how a two-parent heterosexual family actually copes in the world, and I’m so very hurt that you can’t read past your prejudices to see that.

          What I was calling dogmatism was your statement that “one flesh” in Genesis 1 is “drama.” How does that remotely relate to Even eating the fruit? Really, the evidence for your inability to have a rational conversation just keeps piling up.

          @Paul:

          Joshua, the verse in Romans you choose to quote, says that humans are “without excuse” not because idolatry is an “abomination” but because the truth of God is supposedly obvious. You are is representing it to say otherwise.

          Ah, selective quoting. Let’s read some of the other verse from the passage, shall we? Then we’ll see who’s misrepresenting it. Romans 1:18–”Thewrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven” against people who fail to acknowledge him. Romans 1:21–Instead of giving thanks and glory to God, “they became fain and their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.” Verse 24-25–”Therefore, god handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. . . .” Does it use the exact word “abomination?” No, but it sure gives the same impression. Romans isn’t saying these people are missing data or stupid, it’s saying they’re EVIL, and that’s my only point.

          If your references to idolatry were not Kent to cover the issue of the gold and silver, the what is your answer to that? Surely that is purely an issue of religious “cleanliness” rather than any inherent immorality – the metal itself could easily be reused and reworked and be no different from any other gold or silver.

          That’s not clear to me. All idolatry is wrong; the fact that it mentions idols made of particular materials doesn’t have anything to do with it. Or are referencing some verse that says you can’t touch gold that was once used as part of an idol? There might be such a verse, but I don’t know of it off-hand and no one else has mentioned it.

          I see no reason why a Christian cannot favour homosexual civil marriages on the grounds of social justice while denying homosexual church marriages on the grounds of the religious prohibition. What problems do you see with that ?

          If you oppose something religiously, how can you favor it civilly? Permit, maybe, but favor? I can’t imagine how you could reconcile the two.

          Justice is, in my understanding, primarily about fairness and equity, not about punishing “sinners” – especially for “sins” that do not seem to merit any secular punishment anyway. So I can’t see any inherent “injustice” in a consensual homosexual relationship at all.

          Perhaps we’re using “justice” in different senses. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition, which is more what I’m working from: “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. Emphasis added.

          We don’t “discriminate” against murderers and thieves just because their behavious goes against your religious taboos, we do it because their behaviour is clearly harmful to society, notably their victims.

          I was making a rhetorical point, in case you couldn’t tell. But to answer your objection, Christianity sees homosexuality as destructive, both to society (because of its influence) and to the participants (because, well, it’s immoral). You’re looking at harm from a purely secular point of view, but if you’re going to argue about Christianity’s POV on a topic, you can’t limit yourself like that. So stop throwing the “bigot” word around. That’s just ad hominem.

          @Bob:

          Marriage is one man and one or more women. This is also pretty clear.

          And this has what bearing on the topic at hand? Oh, right, none, just like your entire blog post. Also, maybe you haven’t read the Gospels or Paul lately, but Jesus and Paul pretty clearly state that one man and one woman is the ideal, to the point of saying that if you divorce your wife for any cause other than adultery, you’re committing adultery yourself, and that only “one-woman men” should be overseers in the church. Is/was polygamy accepted? Yes. Was it the ideal? Never.

          The details take time to do justice to, of course, but perhaps you will give me that the Bible directly says zilch about consensual monogamous same-sex marriage, which is the topic at hand.

          Romans? Good grief, man, I’ve brought up Romans several times and you haven’t even acknowledged it. In case you’ve never read it (as I assume you have studiously avoided doing so at this point), let’s continue where I left off quoting chapter 1 to Paul. Verse 26-28: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males . . . .” There is “zilch” in that passage to imply that it’s talking about non-consensual, non-monogamous activity. And of course I’ve already shown why your argument regarding Leviticus are mere sophistry. Finally, as I’ve pointed out several times, showing that the Bible doesn’t explicitly oppose it doesn’t prove Christianity supports it. Seriously, learn logic.

        • Paul King

          Joshua, just because you can find some other verses that support you doesn’t mean that you weren’t misrepresenting the verses you did quote. And it is still a religious issue – just as the issue of the gold and silver is purely religious. Moreover, as your later quote shows, according to Romans, God punishes these idolators by moving them to engage in homosexual behaviour which is rather odd if homosexuality is an abhorrent sin. If homosexuality is morally wrong, using mind-control to encourage homosexual behaviour is also morally wrong….

          I note that you somehow find it impossible to remember a repeated point or even to look back and see what we were talking about with regard to the gold and silver. The gold and silver were forbidden because they were used to cover an idol (Deuteronomy 7:25).

          Now, let me remind you that in this discussion “supporting gay marriage” only means supporting the right of gays to get married – i.e. it IS about supporting a motion to give permission, not actively encouraging the practice in any way beyond that. And I’ve given reasons why a Christian might take that position. You haven’t offered any reason to be against it other than that you want to discriminate against people who break your religious taboos. That doesn’t seem to be a compelling argument even for people who share those taboos. And there are obvious religious objections that apply to church marriages that don’t apply to civil marriages (e.g. a church marriage offers direct religious sanction for the union, while a civil wedding does not). The questions of supporting gay marriage as a civil right versus marrying gays in church are not simply related in the way you claim and it doesn’t take much consideration to see that.

          On the notion of justice it’s rather clear that even the definition you quote lists fairness and equity before “moral rightness”. As it is written it clearly supports my view, not yours.

          Finally I think that it is rather fair to point out that your “rhetorical point” actually was intended to make a point, whilst my observation of your bigotry is an observation that is amply supported. I don’t think that you have grounds to complain about ad hominem. Let us also note that homosexuals can and do make significant contributions to their societies (Alan Turing, to name one famous example) which makes your claims about homosexuality damaging society seem to be more an example of bigotry rather than a defence against it. If you can’t show actual damage – worse damage than the damage you are causing – you haven’t got a point.

        • Joshua

          @Paul:

          Joshua, just because you can find some other verses that support you doesn’t mean that you weren’t misrepresenting the verses you did quote.

          Those verses are in the same chapter, so they provide context which gives meaning to the verse you claim I’m misrepresenting.

          And it is still a religious issue – just as the issue of the gold and silver is purely religious.

          Never said it wasn’t. What’s your point?

          Moreover, as your later quote shows, according to Romans, God punishes these idolators by moving them to engage in homosexual behaviour which is rather odd if homosexuality is an abhorrent sin.

          Wrong. He “handed them over,” i.e. allowed them to do those things, by not bothering to try and stop them. It’s also a fairly common idiom to say “God made so-and-so do X” when it really means “allowed so-and-so to do X.”

          I note that you somehow find it impossible to remember a repeated point or even to look back and see what we were talking about with regard to the gold and silver. The gold and silver were forbidden because they were used to cover an idol (Deuteronomy 7:25).

          Guess I misread that the first time, because even my immediate reply doesn’t mention the gold and silver. But what I did say is still valid; it’s an absolute abomination (at least arguably) because of the idolatry. Consider that in I Corinthians 8 Paul tells Gentile believers that they shouldn’t be eating meat sacrificed to idols, and he gives the reason why in chapter 10; it’s fellowshipping with demons.

          Now, let me remind you that in this discussion “supporting gay marriage” only means supporting the right of gays to get married – i.e. it IS about supporting a motion to give permission, not actively encouraging the practice in any way beyond that. And I’ve given reasons why a Christian might take that position.

          Nope. The best you’ve come up with is the argument that it’s just not fair that homosexual people don’t get to go to each other’s hospital beds and such, but again, this can be handled through health care proxies and other contractual relationships. And at best it gives a reason why a Christian would not oppose it, not a reason why they would support it. Why the blazes would a Christian who thinks homosexual sex is immoral affirmatively want homosexual couples to have the right to get married? That’s the question you’ve never answered.

          You haven’t offered any reason to be against it other than that you want to discriminate against people who break your religious taboos. That doesn’t seem to be a compelling argument even for people who share those taboos.

          If that’s how you want to characterize my point that Christians think homosexuality is destructive, sure, but it is a good argument.

          And there are obvious religious objections that apply to church marriages that don’t apply to civil marriages (e.g. a church marriage offers direct religious sanction for the union, while a civil wedding does not). The questions of supporting gay marriage as a civil right versus marrying gays in church are not simply related in the way you claim and it doesn’t take much consideration to see that.

          Again, no more than a reason not to oppose it.

          On the notion of justice it’s rather clear that even the definition you quote lists fairness and equity before “moral rightness”. As it is written it clearly supports my view, not yours.

          Yes, because listing one thing later in a string is equivalent to saying it doesn’t actually belong in the string. I forgot that non-existent rule of grammar. Besides, you’re assuming that homosexual marriage is “fair.” Why would you think that?

          Finally I think that it is rather fair to point out that your “rhetorical point” actually was intended to make a point, whilst my observation of your bigotry is an observation that is amply supported. I don’t think that you have grounds to complain about ad hominem. Let us also note that homosexuals can and do make significant contributions to their societies (Alan Turing, to name one famous example) which makes your claims about homosexuality damaging society seem to be more an example of bigotry rather than a defence against it. If you can’t show actual damage – worse damage than the damage you are causing – you haven’t got a point.

          Really? I have nowhere said I support any of the views I have stated. I’m merely arguing that your case is by far the more difficult (nay, impossible) to make, given what the Bible actually says about homosexuality. As for why using the term “bigot” is ad hominem, if you can’t figure that one out you need to pick up a primer on logic. If we can’t have a debate about homosexual marriage without that term being used, then you’ve already decided a priori that everyone else is wrong and aren’t open to changing your mind; the term is a way of avoiding debate by attacking your opponent. I can’t convince a closed-minded dogmatist of anything. But as for what damage homosexual marriage could caused, you clearly ignored what I wrote about only seeing this from a secular point of view, and are still viewing it from that point of view. From a religious point of view (more specifically, the Christian point of view), damage is measured by the effect of something on one’s soul just as much as it is by its effect on society. If homosexual sex is a sin, then it’s damaging to the soul to do it. It also follows that allowing homosexual marriage in the broader society is damaging in that other people become desensitized to being around sinful behavior (at best) or even engage in such behavior (at worst). So from the religious point of view, there very clearly is damage done. But again, if you’re unwilling to see things from that point of view and you’re just going to insist on ad hominem usage of “bigot,” there’s not much more to talk about.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joshua:

          And this has what bearing on the topic at hand?

          You give a Bible quote that argues that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Your conclusion: “pretty clear if you ask me.”

          I quote another passage that argues that marriage = 1 man + lots of women. And the conclusion is also pretty clear.

          You can’t confront my point directly but must try to dismiss it wholesale? Fail.

          maybe you haven’t read the Gospels or Paul lately, but Jesus and Paul pretty clearly state that one man and one woman is the ideal

          And here we go again. Paul said: “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). The Bible is a sock puppet that can be made to say just about anything you want.

          Is/was polygamy accepted? Yes. Was it the ideal? Never.

          This is surprising. Show me where the Bible makes this clear. I’ve not seen this.

          males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males

          Let’s just focus on the males for now.

          Men gave up their natural relations? So we have heterosexual men having sex with each other? That’s pretty unnatural. I get it–doesn’t sound very good. But homosexual men’s natural relations are with other men.

          And I’ll repeat, because you didn’t much care what I was talking about the first time: this says nothing about same-sex marriage, which is the topic at hand.

        • Paul King

          Joshua, the verses you quote DON’T give the relevant context – the preceding verses do. And they say that your interpretation was incorrect. They are all about God being so obvious that there can’t be any valid reason for not worshipping Him.

          Equally forgetting points that you can’t answer is not conducive to good discussion. The point about raising the gold and silver is that it is purely a religious issue. The word translated “abomination” in Leviticus that refers to homosexuality seems to be used for religious prohibitions rather than “ordinary” moral concerns. The gold and silver from the idols being the most obvious case, but it fits with the other examples, too. And how would taking and reworking metal used on idols be “fellowshipping with demons” as you say later? It’s hardly respectful to the idol, or what it supposedly represents. Joining in a sacrificial feast might be seen as joining in with the sacrificial ceremony, but that obviously doesn’t apply to taking precious metal , melting it down and using it for ordinary secular purposes.

          And let me add that if the Bible says that God did something, it obviously means that He did something – not that he just allowed somebody else to do something. Even in your interpretation God took actions which encouraged those people to perform homosexual acts, that they would not have done if God had refrained. (And let me add that your interpretation assumes that everybody is “really” homosexual – and if you really believe that, you probably are, but the rest of us mostly aren’t).

          If in your view fairness, justice and religious freedom aren’t causes a Christian should support then that’s your view. Many christians would disagree with you and consider them valid reasons to support the legalisation of gay marriage at a purely secular level.

          On the meaning of justice, my point is that later items in the list are typically less significant – especially in a dictionary, where brevity is very important. A dictionary gives a very limited view of a word, and just choosing the bits that you like is not going to work well.

          You also don’t understand the proper use of the term “ad hominem” A personal criticism is not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy – it has to be used as an argument. Commentary on your arguments is not itself an argument.

          And I’m still waiting for you to come up with a valid answer to my reasons why Christians shouldn’t support the legalisation of secular gay marriage.

          Your latest argument, that homosexuality is allegedly damaging to the soul isn’t valid, firstly because as a purely religious belief it isn’t a concern that secular society should take into account but more importantly because the law isn’t about homosexual activity and isn’t likely to have much effect on it anyway. And there are plenty of sins – including sexual sins that aren’t even regulated by many churches. For instance, Dinesh D’Souza is very likely to be able to marry his new fiancee in Church, even though he’s almost certainly engaged in adultery with her.

          It also – again – relies on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is generally attractive rather than a proclivity that appears to be natural to a relatively small proportion of the population. Which isn’t true. There isn’t likely to be a big rise in homosexual behaviour if gay marriage is legalised because there aren’t that many homosexuals, and many are already “out” and active anyway.

          So all you can offer is enforcement of a religious taboo, based on assumptions that are either unsupported or false – for a law which doesn’t even directly deal with the taboo behaviour – against obvious concerns of justice and freedom. It’s hardly close-minded to come to the conclusion that the arguments favour the other side. Indeed it would be more just to accuse you of closed-mindedness since you can’t accept the obvious conclusion.

        • Joshua

          @Bob:

          You give a Bible quote that argues that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Your conclusion: “pretty clear if you ask me.”

          I quote another passage that argues that marriage = 1 man + lots of women. And the conclusion is also pretty clear.

          You can’t confront my point directly but must try to dismiss it wholesale? Fail.

          The verses I quoted argue for 1 man+1 woman being the ideal, not the only, form of marriage. I dismiss your argument because it says nothing about homosexuality, and is thus irrelevant. So fail on your part.

          And here we go again. Paul said: “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). The Bible is a sock puppet that can be made to say just about anything you want.

          Not he doesn’t say it’s bad to get married. Further, if you read down to verse 26, where he’s talking about the same topic, he says “So this is what I think best because of the present distress,” and in verse 28, he explicitly says that getting married is NOT a sin. So that doesn’t help your argument one whit.

          This is surprising. Show me where the Bible makes this clear. I’ve not seen this.

          I Timothy 3:2, speaking of “bishops” (literally just overseers) says they should be men who have married only once. Same point is made in Titus. Sounds to me like monogamy is the ideal, though I’m still not sure why this is relevant to the issue of homosexual marriage.

          Let’s just focus on the males for now.

          Men gave up their natural relations? So we have heterosexual men having sex with each other? That’s pretty unnatural. I get it–doesn’t sound very good. But homosexual men’s natural relations are with other men.

          And I’ll repeat, because you didn’t much care what I was talking about the first time: this says nothing about same-sex marriage, which is the topic at hand.

          What about “burning with lust” don’t you get? Sounds to me like the men he was talking about were at least bisexual, if not homosexual. Furthermore, saying homosexual men have “natural” relations with other men is equivocating the use of the term natural. Paul references natural use, not desires. He’s talking about the fact that, by nature, male parts go in female parts; it’s the way nature builds us. And it has everything to do with gay marriage, because if it’s immoral to have gay sex, gay marriage makes no sense. Marriage without sex is just like any old contract. Besides, you have absolutely no right to make that argument as many times as you’ve fallen afoul of it, even within this one comment.

          @Paul:

          Joshua, the verses you quote DON’T give the relevant context – the preceding verses do. And they say that your interpretation was incorrect. They are all about God being so obvious that there can’t be any valid reason for not worshipping Him.

          Explain to me how we can move from “there can’t be any valid reason for not worshipping Him” to my interpretation being incorrect? Clearly, if there’s no valid reason for not worshipping God, failing to worship him is a sin. Seems like you just made my case for me.

          And how would taking and reworking metal used on idols be “fellowshipping with demons” as you say later? It’s hardly respectful to the idol, or what it supposedly represents. Joining in a sacrificial feast might be seen as joining in with the sacrificial ceremony, but that obviously doesn’t apply to taking precious metal , melting it down and using it for ordinary secular purposes.

          Respect for the idol isn’t the point; even if you’re eating the sacrifice and hating the idol at the same time, it’s wrong to eat. The point is that once something is associated with an idol (by extension, a demon), you aren’t supposed to touch it. So no, it’s not merely a religious scruple. And even if it was, that’s one out of a huge list of “abominations,” so you’re nowhere near proving that the term always refers only to religious rules. Moreover, the verse we’re talking about even says it’s an abomination “to the Lord your God.” Pretty strong language.

          And let me add that if the Bible says that God did something, it obviously means that He did something – not that he just allowed somebody else to do something. Even in your interpretation God took actions which encouraged those people to perform homosexual acts, that they would not have done if God had refrained. (And let me add that your interpretation assumes that everybody is “really” homosexual – and if you really believe that, you probably are, but the rest of us mostly aren’t).

          How “handed them over” is “encouraged” passes my understanding. And no, my interpretation assumes no such thing. It merely assumes that from a Christian point of view, people with degraded morals of a certain stripe tend to end up homosexual.

          If in your view fairness, justice and religious freedom aren’t causes a Christian should support then that’s your view. Many christians would disagree with you and consider them valid reasons to support the legalisation of gay marriage at a purely secular level.

          Again, you’re assuming that gay marriage is “fair and just” from a Christian perspective. And we’re not talking about what individual Christians believe; we’re talking about what Christianity says.

          On the meaning of justice, my point is that later items in the list are typically less significant – especially in a dictionary, where brevity is very important. A dictionary gives a very limited view of a word, and just choosing the bits that you like is not going to work well.

          I’m not “choosing the bits I like.” I’m merely pointing out that those words are there and are meaningful. Besides, I would argue that fairness is really just a subset of moral rightness anyway. Thus, anything contrary to morality is necessarily not fair.

          You also don’t understand the proper use of the term “ad hominem” A personal criticism is not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy – it has to be used as an argument. Commentary on your arguments is not itself an argument.

          Well, if you’re saying that my argument is correct but that Christians are bigots on account of it, then sure. But the way you were throwing “bigot” around sounded an awful lot like you were using it as a threat to make me back down, which would put you squarely in ad hominem territory. Plus, if that’s really what you meant, we would be done, because you would have conceded that my argument is correct. We aren’t done (or are we?), so I presume you meant it the second way.

          And I’m still waiting for you to come up with a valid answer to my reasons why Christians shouldn’t support the legalisation of secular gay marriage.

          I’m still waiting for you to come up with reasons why they should. But frankly, if you’re just going to ignore the fact that I already said that homosexual sex is immoral from a Christian point of view and should be opposed on that ground, I have no idea what other possible argument I could use. Nothing could be stronger, certainly.

          Your latest argument, that homosexuality is allegedly damaging to the soul isn’t valid, firstly because as a purely religious belief it isn’t a concern that secular society should take into account but more importantly because the law isn’t about homosexual activity and isn’t likely to have much effect on it anyway. And there are plenty of sins – including sexual sins that aren’t even regulated by many churches. For instance, Dinesh D’Souza is very likely to be able to marry his new fiancee in Church, even though he’s almost certainly engaged in adultery with her.

          First, you’re assuming there should be no overlap between religious belief and legal rules, but that’s patently absurd in the face of an Old Testament law that explicitly combined the two. Second, even if there shouldn’t be overlap, that still doesn’t mean Christianity would support legalizing gay marriage, because at best that means Christians should stay out of politics. Third, as I mentioned in my reply to Bob, “marriage” isn’t marriage if it isn’t about sex; at that point it’s just a contractual relationship. What individual churches/denominations do or don’t enforce isn’t germane to the discussion.

          It also – again – relies on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is generally attractive rather than a proclivity that appears to be natural to a relatively small proportion of the population. Which isn’t true. There isn’t likely to be a big rise in homosexual behaviour if gay marriage is legalised because there aren’t that many homosexuals, and many are already “out” and active anyway.

          Not exactly. A lot of homosexuals (at least men) were once bisexual or heterosexual, and gradually worked their way to being homosexual. This gets back to it being about desensitization. You tell people something is normal long enough, and more people will do it. Porn works in a similar way; once you’re hooked on it, you tend to look for more and more extreme versions as you become desensitized to the old stuff. This is backed up pretty solidly by research.

          So all you can offer is enforcement of a religious taboo, based on assumptions that are either unsupported or false – for a law which doesn’t even directly deal with the taboo behaviour – against obvious concerns of justice and freedom. It’s hardly close-minded to come to the conclusion that the arguments favour the other side. Indeed it would be more just to accuse you of closed-mindedness since you can’t accept the obvious conclusion.

          No, enforcement of a moral prohibition (again, read Romans), and which assumptions? Marriage ain’t marriage with sex. And the “obvious concerns of justice and freedom” are not obvious from a Christian perspective, which, again, is the perspective we’re working from. You keep applying your own moral worldview to a question about what Christians think, and that just isn’t a valid argument, no matter how many ways you say it. So calling me close-minded, and your conclusion obvious, is laughably silly. You aren’t even working from the right premises, and you have the gall to say your conclusion is obvious? Utterly absurd.

        • Paul King

          Joshua, you are confusing being unreasonable with being a serious sin. Unreasonably denying something that has overwhelming evidence is not necessarily a serious moral error (some would argue that it is not in itself a moral error at all). And that is the jump that your interpretation requires.

          If you want to claim that taking and reworking and reusing metal that had covered idols is “fellowshipping with demons” you need to make a case for it. You haven’t even tried. If you don’t understand the normal circumstances of eating the meat of sacrificed animals you can’t claim that it is the same thing as sacking the temple and taking everything of value.

          And let me point out that you haven’t found even one clear example of an “abomination: that ISN’T a religious rule. So not only have I demonstrated that it can refer to purely religious rules, you haven’t even got an equally good case that it refers to anything else.

          IF “God handed them over” means that God actually did ANYTHING then it means that GOd did something that had an effect on their behaviour, resulting in them indulging in homosexual activity. How can it mean anything else ? And it is also clear that at least that it was a result that should have been expected. So answer the question. If homosexual acts are so bad, why would God want people to engage in those acts ? Even as a punishment ? And while you’re at it you can explain why you think that they would have had strong homosexual desires without any active intervention from God in the first place, if it is not normal for the average person.

          I’ve certainly explained reasons why legalising secular gay marriage is fair and just, and you’ve offered no good reasons why a Christian should think otherwise. So if your position is that Christians think that homosexuals should be discriminated against, by law, for no valid reason then I would say that you are saying that Christian should be bigots.

          If you ignore the issues of fairness and equity as a vital part of the meaning of “justice” then you ARE just choosing the bits you want. That is absolutely clear. And you would need a lot more analysis than simply quoting a dictionary to provide any good reason to think that the clear issues of fairness and equity are overruled by any other consideration.

          I certainly wasn’t using the words “discrimination” or “bigot” as a threat, more a a comment that your arguments seemed to be based solely on prejudice. I don’t see how that can be squared with your idea that any other meaning would be conceding the correctness of your arguments

          On the other hand, if you say that you cannot have a stronger argument than one that is obviously weak then I would say that you are conceding my point. You certainly don’t have a valid argument that a law legalising secular gay marriages would significantly increase homosexual activity nor an argument that Christians should not support an otherwise good law even if it might lead to a small increase. If Christians are meant to convert others by setting a loving example isn’t a demonstration of understanding and support the Christian thing to do ? (And that is even before we consider the fact that the Bible doesn’t really give us a good understanding of homosexuality anyway.)

          If you believe in religious freedom, purely religious prohibitions cannot be the basis for secular laws. By definition. And someone who believes in religious freedom should support any basis to make the laws fair and just from a secular viewpoint because that is way it is meant to be. According to the Bible Old Testament Law was founded on a Covenant between God and the Israelites. There is no equivalent in mainstream Christian belief, so no grounds for opposing religious freedom there. And I am certain that you know that the sexual relationship precedes marriage for many heterosexual couples so to say that “marriage involves sex” simply doesn’t make much of a point. If the sex is going to happen whether there is a civil marriage or not, then the sex would seem to be beside the point. And how can it be beside the point that other churches deal differently with similar sins ? If a church is prepared to sanction some serious sexual sins, why should it not support justice and fairness in the secular world even if it gives secular sanction to some “sins” ?

          While sexual orientation is a spectrum it is still clear that the majority are strongly heterosexual and aren’t really likely to be converted to homosexuality at all. It is very hard to stop a homosexual from feeling same-sex attraction – even if they are strongly motivated to reject it. Why should it be so much easier to convert a heterosexual to homosexuality ?

          Legal enforcement of purely religious moral prohibitions goes against religious freedom. Any idea that homosexuality damages the soul is an unsupported assumption. The idea that there would be any significant increase in homosexual activity following the legalisation of secular gay marriage is laughably absurd. You haven’t offered any reason to think that Christians have any different view of freedom or fairness either (or even that it would be anything but bad it they did). What “different premises” should I apply ? The idea that “religious freedom” means a Christian (or – let us be honest pseudo-Christian) religious tyranny ? The idea that fairness means that the secular law should discriminate against people for no valid secular reason ? Indeed, without even a clearly good religious reason ? No THAT is absurd. But that is what you are saying.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joshua:

          The verses I quoted argue for 1 man+1 woman being the ideal, not the only, form of marriage.

          So you’re flexible. Sounds good–me, too. Let’s consider same-sex marriage as another form of marriage.

          And if you want ideal, don’t forget that Paul made clear that marriage at all isn’t it.

          Not he doesn’t say it’s bad to get married.

          Agreed. He’s saying that it’s not the best. So today’s Christian shouldn’t be out there promoting “traditional marriage”; they should be out there promoting celibacy. That’s the best.

          I Timothy 3:2, speaking of “bishops” (literally just overseers) says they should be men who have married only once. Same point is made in Titus. Sounds to me like monogamy is the ideal

          You’d said, “Is/was polygamy accepted? Yes. Was it the ideal? Never.” Your quotes above don’t support this point. God is totally down with polygamy; the OT makes this clear.

          What about “burning with lust” don’t you get?

          The part about them being homosexuals. The men “gave up natural relations,” and it seems like this is God’s doing (“God gave them over to shameful lusts,” remember?). So you’ve got straight arrows like you being made by God to act in a homosexual manner. You and I agree that this is unnatural, but (again) this isn’t relevant to same-sex marriage.

          saying homosexual men have “natural” relations with other men is equivocating the use of the term natural.

          If homosexuality in the animal kingdom is natural (and humans are part of that kingdom), then I think you’re mistaken.

        • Joshua

          @Paul and Bob:
          I’m fairly certain at this point that there’s no way I can convince either of you, and that it’s your fault, not mine. You both ignore key parts of my argument, commit logical fallacies (and obvious ones at that), and in Bob’s case, read things into the text of the Bible that simply aren’t there (namely the idea that “natural relations” in Romans has to do with what a person is “naturally” attracted to). I don’t have time to correct your logical problems all day. Anyone reading this discussion and considering both sides honestly can see that Bob’s thesis is simply unsupported at best, flat contradicted at worst. Thus, I see no reason to waste more of my time. So long.

        • Paul King

          Joshua, I can accept that it’s not your fault that you don’t have much of a case for your position, but I’m afraid that your behaviour here is your fault. If you can’t answer my argument without making the unsupported claim that Christians have some Orwellian definition of fairness – and can’t touch the religious freedom angle at all – I fail to see how any fair-minded person could give you the victory.

          Even your criticism of Bob’s interpretation of Romans is weak. It’s perfectly reasonable for interpretations to use knowledge outside the immediate text (could you even possibly interpret Isaiah 7:14 as referring to Jesus without doing that ?) If Bob believes that homosexual relations are natural for homosexuals his reading is perfectly fine on that level. If you wanted to challenge it you’d have to get into issues of the author’s knowledge and intent – which you don’t even attempt. Obviously you have a problem telling good arguments from bad.

          I suggest that a better use of time would be developing your rational thinking skills.

  • http://www.ephesians4-15.blogspot.ca Randy

    You do a good job of pointing out inconsistencies. The trouble is Catholicism. It is consistent about procreation as the purpose for marriage. It is, also, consistent about biblical interpretation. The problems with protestantism are real. That is why I became Catholic. The truth is they are right to reject gay marriage. They are wrong to tell a sexually involved man and woman to get married and use birth control pills.

    • Sweet Dee

      So you waited to get married, and then had sex only to make babies, right? No fornicating!!

    • Bob Seidensticker

      The Catholic church can imagine whatever they want as the purpose of marriage, but it’s clear that there’s a lot more to it than marriage. Just read the marriage vows (“I promise to be your faithful partner, in sickness and in health …”) to see.

      Marriage wasn’t a big deal in the early church. It was second best (to celibacy) in Paul’s eyes–so Paul would disagree with the procreation argument. And it wasn’t even a sacrament in the church until 1215.

    • Dorfl

      The Catholic church is not any more consistent than any other church, unless it recently prohibited infertile couples from marrying and I hadn’t noticed.

      • ah58

        The most important thing to the Catholic church is making more Catholics.

    • smrnda

      Wow, what a way of degrading the institution of marriage. God can’t see any purpose to love, companionship, or spending a lifetime together, no it’s all about popping out more members of the species.

      And people think religion makes life more meaningful than atheism?

      • JohnH

        Popping out babies does not necessarily rule out the other aspects of marriage.

        • smrnda

          I don’t disagree, but I also don’t think that the lack of babies implies a bad marriage. Plus, some marriages would not adjust well to children, so in the interests of the marriage those people should not have them.

          Of people I know, those who did it’s “God’s way” and got married and welcomed as many kids as they could have were the ones who got divorced, mostly since they underestimated the stress that would be put on the relationship after having 3 or 4 kids.

        • JohnH

          Even Catholics allow for some family planning in the form of abstinence around ovulation. I am not Catholic and my wife is on birth control (the whole lack of job thing mentioned before). I believe that I should be able to provide for a child and my wife should feel she can handle a child before having a child, the provide thing hasn’t always worked out perfectly but we do our best.

        • smrnda

          Sorry, I confused your view for Randy, who seems to take the Catholic approach.

        • JohnH

          Randy does appear Catholic and based on what he said does think I am sinning for being my wife being on birth control, he may or may not think we are sinning for not popping out children constantly, that depends on the Catholic I think. I think I agree with your critique of Randy’s views.

        • Kodie

          So sin depends on a personal belief and not on god. Basically we’re all alone down here and nobody knows but everyone agrees that someone knows. This is why imposing one’s beliefs on the rest of society is – you want to talk about destabilizing? If two Catholics can’t agree what sin is, then why are we leaving anything up to these people? They’re just people. People who don’t know anything and pretend they have been granted authority. Secular government keeps these people out of my business but it also keeps them out of each others. One would think they’d understand that putting “a” Christian in charge doesn’t legitimize god any more than putting anyone else in charge, and even many other Christians (not to mention people of other faiths) will be plenty averse to being ordered around by one pseudo-important blowhard. Let those Christians have their religious liberty by keeping Christianity out of government officially. Even Randy knows what I’m talking about even if he doesn’t understand the big words.

        • JohnH

          Kodie,
          VP debate last night was between two Catholics, assuming you don’t vote third party you will end up voting for a Catholic. Supreme Court is majority Catholic so must important decisions in the land are being decided by Catholics.

        • Kodie

          I think you missed my point. Most people in office are some kind of Christian. None have a majority of agreement on which particular authority is best to inform them to govern. This tells me two things at least: that there is no god, and that religion is a tool to control people.

        • JohnH

          Wait, religions lack of ability to control people makes you think it is a tool to control people?

        • Kodie

          All Christians are Christians, right?

  • Shooter

    I’m sorry, but homosexuality is not natural. There’s hardly any record of lesbianism in animals, eh? If homosexuality was natural, don’t you think the anus would have been built that way? The so-called “species” you mention exhibit DOMINANCE, not sex.

    Really, people, get it through your heads that homosexuality is not normal nor healthy. Animals also eat their young, so should we eat ours, too? Animals also kill albinos, should we kill albinos, too?

    How can Christianity support same-sex marriage when homosexuals are considered abominations? Really, now. Logic isn’t your forte, isn’t it?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Shooter:

      There’s hardly any record of lesbianism in animals, eh?

      Homosexuality has been observed in 500 species of animals, including all great apes. More here:

      Homosexuality in Nature

      Really, now. Logic isn’t your forte, isn’t it?

      Research isn’t your forte, is it?

      • Frank

        I suggest you do more research. Animal “homosexual” behavior is about power and dominance.

        That being said are you saying homosexuals are animals? Is that the best argument you have?

        There is absolutely no scriptural support that God condones homosexual behavior. In fact it’s the opposite.

        • ZenDruid

          You understand that God is a mythical character, right?

        • Frank

          You understand you are a fool right?

        • ZenDruid

          Oh yeah, ad hominem! Such a vibrant and convincing argument for the monster under your bed!

        • jose

          Animal homosexual behavior is not about power and dominance. That’s what scientists used to think back when most of them thought homosexuality was something God was against and therefore couldn’t exist in nature. Now, since most professionals are atheists, such biases have gone away for the most part and these behaviors have been acknowledged as simply what they are, instead of trying to ascribe to them religiously acceptable meanings.

          It’s funny, really. They even tried to see nutritive advantages to the orangutans’ fellatio habits. Anything except sex!!!

      • matt

        Well we’re not animals. We’re not multi-cellular eukaryotic heterotrophs organized at the organ-system level with specialized organs tissues and cells. So your point about 500 homo species is well…pointless.
        You should consider ending your blogging career as you’re continually being proved wrong.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I have no idea what you’re talking about and surprisingly little interest in finding out.

        • Matt

          And I am not surprised you wouldn’t know the definition of animal. Not familiar with that word? See your local dictionary.

          But I am surprised you couldn’t understand that you contradict yourself by using the Bible to prove that the Bible is wrong? Think about it, you’re appealing for Christians to be real Christians by believing they don’t understand the true meaning of the abomination of homosexuality and that to be real Christians they must accept same-sex marriage and you’re trying to prove that FROM THE BIBLE – WHICH YOU DON’T BELIEVE! You really don’t see you’re doing this? Wow!

        • Kodie

          You believe it though. Why do you believe it when it says such stupid things you say from it?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Matt: What a pleasure to have your unbridled enthusiasm here.

          to be real Christians they must accept same-sex marriage and you’re trying to prove that FROM THE BIBLE – WHICH YOU DON’T BELIEVE!

          I’m doing my best to see things from my opponent’s viewpoint and structuring the argument in ways that he would find reasonable. You’ll have to explain the problem to me–I must be too stupid to understand.

        • Deven Kale

          Well we’re not animals. We’re not multi-cellular eukaryotic heterotrophs organized at the organ-system level with specialized organs tissues and cells.

          You sure about that? Because we have multiple cells containing nuclei that must get energy from outside sources. We have an organ system and our tissues and cells have specialized purposes. Sounds like a pretty accurate description to me.

        • Dorfl

          Which one of those do you disagree with? Do you claim humans are not
          -Multicellular?
          -Eukaryotes?
          -Heterotrophs?
          -Organised at the organ-system level?

    • J-Rex

      Obviously you’ve never heard of bonobos. They’re highly sexual and use sex as a form of conflict resolution and a way to keep the group happy and peaceful. And yes, they do have plenty of lesbian sex. You don’t see as much of that in nature, probably because females have less accessible genitals than males, especially among four-legged creatures, but it is much more common in primates. It’s a good idea to make sure things are true before you post them, especially when someone else can look it up and prove you wrong in less than 60 seconds.
      Yes, animals do kill their young and yes, it is natural. However, it is clearly not a good thing because it causes the suffering of others. Please demonstrate how homosexuality causes the suffering of others.

    • Kodie

      So wait. Starting with a hypothetical premise that whatever YOU say about the animal world is true, you first say there is no animal basis for homosexuality, therefore it isn’t right; then you say there is animal basis for other behaviors, therefore we shouldn’t be like animals.

      Which is it? Seriously, your skill in logic is nil. You are ranting and raving and making not one pass at sense. Pull it together if you have something to say, which I highly doubt that you do, since everything you said so far is wrong.

  • JennyE

    Hey, guys, just thought you might want to know that there are Christians out here who support your right to marry the (adult, consenting) partner you choose. As a Protestant, evangelical, creed-supporting Christian, I support and will vote for gay marriage to be legally recognized. I’m sorry so many who share my faith have been hateful about this issue.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      JennyE: Great to hear! You stand in a long line of Christians who tried to do the right thing within society (Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce, and so on).

      • Frank

        There is nothing right or loving to support, condone, accept or remain silent about sinful behavior.

        • ZenDruid

          Sinful behavior like wearing blended fabrics or eating clams or sneaking into the temple with a big zit on your face.

        • Frank

          Your ignorance is showing. So you don’t continue to look foolish I suggest you study up on Levitical Law.

        • ZenDruid

          Leviticus is the handbook for temple servants. Most people aren’t temple servants. You can pretend you are one if you like, just leave everyone else out of it.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          ZD: Nice!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          And this “sin” could simply be moved from the Bad column to the Good column in an instant. Bam–no more sin.

          When something is bad because it’s defined that way, not because it actually is bad, ya gotta wonder if we need to simply enlighten ourselves and do what’s right for our fellow man.

        • smrnda

          Christians believe all other religions are false. So, should a Christian be fighting the construction of other religious buildings? Are they trying to get Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian and Hindu or Buddhist sites removed or prohibited form being constructed?

          I mean, you can feel free to declare other religions false, but you can’t decide that you can prohibit them from practicing them. The same way – you can disagree with homosexuality but you shouldn’t be trying to ban gay marriage just because it’s against your rules.

      • matt

        Sorry Bob, but those two people you cited did not endorse homosexuality. You’re either blatantly lying or you’ve been given bogus info.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Matt:

          those two people you cited did not endorse homosexuality

          Uh, yeah. I never said they did.

          You’re either blatantly lying or you’ve been given bogus info.

          I’ll go with “blatant lying.” That’s always the more fun option.

  • http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html Thomas

    What does the Bible say?

  • Arkenaten

    If all homosexual parties concerned were a) In the case of males – Unable to consumate their union, would the Christians say Hallelujah!
    If all homssexual parties were b) in the case of females – Unable to consumate their union would the Christians say Hallelujah?
    But if they still swore they loved each other and were still wanted to marry would the Chiristians say, “Ah, Eff it,….okaaay, then. But no touching your private parts okay?”

  • matt

    \You’ve clearly never read the Bible in context. Your reasoning is cliche and uninformed. This is because you’ve most likely never read the Bible – if you have I’m positive you’ve taken verses out of context to use them as pretexts to prove your points. Let me help you since you have no desire to do the work.

    The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a Theocracy (A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical, or church authorities). Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

    The priestly or Ceremonial laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

    The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished, because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God’s holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect. Therefore homosexuality is STILL a sin. Eating shell fish doesn’t fall under moral law it fell under ceremonial dietary laws. Get it?

    In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.

    (See Colossians 2) These laws foreshadowed Christ and they don’t apply to Christians.

    The Levitical codes as they exist Societal covenant/constitution of a nation that God is going to plant in Canaan in the ancient world, and he did it.

    What’s important about Leviticus for Christians is that ritual law which points to Christ foreshadowing

    The demand of those commandments was fully and forever satisfied in Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the law for everyone who believes. Christ has done the whole law on our behalf – that’s the gospel.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Matt:

      Let me help you since you have no desire to do the work.

      You’re very thoughtful. We both know that atheists have no interest in seeing things correctly.

      Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

      Why were they there in the first place? That you have version 1, then version 2, and so on, this certainly makes Judaism/Christianity look like an invented religion. You’d think that God, being really smart, would know how to convey his message right the first time.

      the moral laws are based upon the character of God.

      The distinction that I prefer is harmful vs. not harmful. Murder is bad because it’s harmful. Consensual homosexual sex (for example) is not harmful, so why call it bad? Just ’cause God said so?

      Since God’s holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either.

      How does God’s support of slavery fit into this?

      Eating shell fish doesn’t fall under moral law it fell under ceremonial dietary laws. Get it?

      Nope. This distinction is your distinction. The OT doesn’t make this distinction. It’s pretty much “God says to do X.” Not a lot of quibbling about fine distinctions like you make.

      The demand of those commandments was fully and forever satisfied in Christ.

      Give me a simple algorithm for figuring out which OT demands are still in force and which ones were ceremonial and so are dispensed with.

    • Phil

      Matt,

      Is the Sabbath a moral law or a ceremonial law?

      (I’ll cut right to the chase: people cannot agree.)

    • smrnda

      Heard all this before, but what does this have to do with how the government in the US should function?

      • Liberated Liberal

        Exactly.

    • Kodie

      These are artificial laws in an arbitrary context.

  • JohnH

    “But the Bible makes clear that the true sin of Sodom was attempted rape”

    I suppose this might be closer to what it actually says based on Genesis then the Homosexual claim. However this runs counter to Ezekiel 16:49 (48-50) which makes clear that it was pride and not caring for the poor that was the true sin of Sodom.

    Marriage is supposed to be about the bearing and raising of children so that society survives from one generation to the next. That is the main reason why it has state sanction, tax benefits, and other benefits as it is in societies best interest to have stable families which end up saving society a lot more then the cost of the tax benefit. Marriages that can’t have children, and to a lesser extent those that choose not to, do not impact the benefits to society and supporting such marriages contributes to the overall stability of the family structure.

    As others have stated this focus on children and the permanence of marriage has been undermined to the point that very few people consider marriage to be about children at all. Marriage has become a contractual relationship in many ways similar to a limited liability partnership (with added benefits). There are some benefits to society to these partnerships but the lack of permanence and the lack of focus on children significantly lessens the benefits.

    I suppose one response to this situation would be to open up such contractual relations to any number or gender of people that wish to enter into such a contract for whatever particular reason and let the churches do whatever the churches want to do with such contracts. I don’t believe that to be the correct response as it continues to ignore the bearing and raising of children as fundamental to the continuation of society which would continue the trend toward below replacement levels of births (which is already the case in many countries and in many states (except most “red” states (but most of those only have above replacement levels due to teen births (and immigrants), so only a few of them actually have any reason to celebrate))). I am not sure what the best way of resolving the issue of those that wish to enter into such contractual relations, with the promoting of stable family relations for the purpose of raising children, with the reality that many more people are “married” in a common law sense then actually get married.

    • smrnda

      The legal institution of marriage is pretty recent, and the nuclear family about as recent in history.

      As far as the purposes for marriage, it is, primarily, a relationship between two adults who love and support each other who may also incidentally have children. I think that’s the right order. The relationship between the couple has to be sound and healthy before having kids is a good idea. If marriage is all about kids, are you going to force people with ‘good genes’ to marry and have good offspring for the good of society, and are you going to call that keeping people from being ‘selfish’ and marrying for love rather than for procreation?

      How far should someone have to go against what they want for the good of society? One reason people have fewer kids is that they get married later since it’s harder to raise kids when you don’t have money. Plus, if you want more people to have more kids, fight for the type of worker and family friendly legislation that other countries have.

      I’m also thinking that the birthrate isn’t declining that much. Workers don’t just support kids, but they also support the elderly and disabled in the same way. Plus, you’re making an outrageous and obnoxious claim that childless people are doing nothing for the future generation. I volunteer about 20 hours a week with kids that aren’t mine, so for one person like me I’m assisting a mess of people who all have like 3 or 4 kids.

      Also, churches are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to marriage. They can like or dislike anybody’s marriage, they just aren’t the county clerk’s office, where the real deal actually happens.

      • JohnH

        “are you going to force people with ‘good genes’ to marry and have good offspring for the good of society, and are you going to call that keeping people from being ‘selfish’ and marrying for love rather than for procreation?”
        That assumes that there is some way of determining which genes are good and that acting in such a way is good for society. It might be possible to determine if there are “bad” genes in a baby and perhaps it might be possible to fix the “bad” genes but finding truly objectively “good” genes for society is another question completely. Also, acting in such a way has been experimentally proven (repeatedly) to be bad for society.

        Children do best in marriages that are stable and where the couple loves each other. Marrying for love is a many times more recent phenomena then marriage itself and is in my experience and opinion an improvement to the institution. Waiting to have children though is debatable as well as the other subjective measures, such are best left up to the couple.

        “How far should someone have to go against what they want for the good of society? ”
        Not what I was getting to; incentive’s to marriage and stability of marriage does not mean forcing people to do something they don’t want to, though it can mean they want something that they would not have without the incentive.

        ” harder to raise kids when you don’t have money”
        I don’t have money (relative to normal US standards) but I do have kids, it might be harder then otherwise, I will take your word for it I guess.

        “fight for the type of worker and family friendly legislation that other countries have.”
        I would rather have a job then family friendly legislation and will continue on working on that. I have studied economics and know that ‘family friendly legislation’ cuts down on the number of jobs therefore it is in my interest to not fight for such things.

        “I’m also thinking that the birthrate isn’t declining that much. ”
        Objectively false; Europe is well below replacement rates as is Japan. ‘Blue’ states are nearly universally below replacement rates and the nation as a whole is only barely above replacement rates due to immigrants and teen pregnancies (and to a much lesser extent religion).

        “Plus, you’re making an outrageous and obnoxious claim that childless people are doing nothing for the future generation.”
        I didn’t make that claim, you are reading it into what I said.

        “they just aren’t the county clerk’s office, where the real deal actually happens.”
        In many countries this is the case, in the United States this actually is not the case; churches are able to do the final paperwork to marry a couple in the eyes of the law.

        • Kodie

          Clergy are able to officiate the paperwork, but it’s still applied for and filed in the clerk’s office.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Marrying for love is a many times more recent phenomena then marriage itself and is in my experience and opinion an improvement to the institution.

          Good point. Yet another way marriage has changed through the centuries.

        • Liberated Liberal

          “I’m also thinking that the birthrate isn’t declining that much. ”
          Objectively false; Europe is well below replacement rates as is Japan. ‘Blue’ states are nearly universally below replacement rates and the nation as a whole is only barely above replacement rates due to immigrants and teen pregnancies (and to a much lesser extent religion).

          So say this is true. My question is, how can you say with absolute certainty that we HAVE to continue to populate the earth at an exponential rate in order to survive? I will argue, with every fiber of my being, that if we continue on this path, we will destroy ourselves in absolutely no time. Perhaps it IS in the best interest of the human race that we don’t grow so much so quickly. Perhaps if we insist that our current economic system is the only way we survive, then you could say we must continue to squeeze out little consumers so that they can squeeze out even more consumers to keep countries afloat financially (for the immediate moment). But in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t going to matter. Come back to me when we start running out of potable water and tell me how you wish we had 16 more billion people on the planet.

          I am also going to add that many homosexual couples are extremely interested in raising children. So they adopt. Or find a surrogate. Your perceived problem of not filling every single centimeter of the planet with human feces is solved.

        • JohnH

          I am not making the case that we need to continue to grow necessarily, but below replacement rate means that the population will relatively quickly start to fall.

        • Kodie

          I’m sure we’ll realize it in plenty of time and compensate.

        • JohnH

          Strict fertility is actually below replacement in the US now, the population of native born citizens is dropping and has been for a couple of years now. The population of native born citizens born to citizens has been dropping for a few years longer then that. The population of citizens born to citizens that are old enough to vote has been falling for quite some time. So where is the compensating?

        • Kodie

          Longer life spans? I am not seeing the downside to a lot fewer people. You’re being the waiter who comes by every two minutes to top off the water I just took a sip of.

        • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

          “Children do best in marriages that are stable and where the couple loves each other. Marrying for love is a many times more recent phenomena then marriage itself and is in my experience and opinion an improvement to the institution. Waiting to have children though is debatable as well as the other subjective measures, such are best left up to the couple.”

          Apologies for not knowing how to blockquote. I’m going to pull this one point out here to call bullpucky. You’re not interested in stable families of children or you’d be for same-sex marriage. Gay and lesbian couples adopt – ALOT. If you want children to be raised by a loving, stable family, then why not a committed gay or lesbian one? They would have a stable, loving family. They would be able to live with people who wanted them.

          But no. Along with disallowing same-sex marriage, people also want to disallow same-sex couples from adopting (or in some cases IVF.) You speak wonderful platitudes with one side of your mouth while shouting those same ones down with the other side. There is NO secular reason why same-sex marriage (and adoption) should be illegal. The only reason ever offered with any legitimacy is that religious people think it’s icky.

        • JohnH

          Lesbians are more stable, gays are much less stable but that is besides the point, neither have the potential to produce babies within the relationship (yet) and promoting such relationships do not provide social support for those relationships that do have that potential.

          I don’t think I mentioned adoption at all. I haven’t thought or researched the subject extensively but I suppose a same sex couple that adopts might deserve access to the same incentives as a heterosexual couple, assuming that their is no downside to society of having same sex couples adopt. I do think that forcing religious charities that provide adoption services to provide such services to same sex couples when it violates their beliefs is wrong as long as the charities do not hold a monopoly on adoptions.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          John:

          I do think that forcing religious charities that provide adoption services to provide such services to same sex couples when it violates their beliefs is wrong

          Suppose it violated their beliefs to hire non-white people. Do religious beliefs trump civil rights laws?

        • JohnH

          I lean more libertarian then that; if they want to receive government assistance then they should obey the laws governing public assistance, they don’t want to receive government assistance then I don’t see a problem.

        • smrnda

          If family friendly and worker friendly legislation is getting rid of the jobs, then why haven’t jobs been exported from Scandinavia and Germany? What sources are you using on the economics part? I’ve been to enough countries to recognize the ‘any attempt to pass family friendly legislation will just send jobs away’ is propaganda with no basis in fact as it has not universally occurred. It’s something Americans believe because most of them know nothing about what goes on in other nations.

          If anything, more leave would create openings for more jobs since, instead of one person working 50 hours a week you might have hire another one to fill in the gaps.

          My take was that your post seemed to disparage the idea that marriage should be primarily a relationship between adults. Marrying for love is recent, as is working at something you enjoy instead of just plowing the fields all day. This is because we can do better than just survive these days.

        • JohnH

          “not universally occurred.”
          Something doesn’t need to universally occur in noticeable ways for it to have basis in facts.

          “more leave would create openings”
          Not actually true if the leave is paid leave. If it is paid leave then hiring workers becomes more expensive and the companies may hire less workers (or pay the workers less in salary).

          “seemed to disparage the idea that marriage should be primarily a relationship between adults”
          They are not mutually exclusive, though children should be the primary concern in marriage.

        • smrnda

          I don’t dispute population is declining, but I dispute that it’s a cause for alarm. Just because X is decreasing or Y is increasing, doesn’t mean society is going to collapse.

          And please explain to what extent you have studied economics. It sounds like you’re just re-iterating the usual ‘totally free market’ thesis that any intervention will cause harm to workers because it causes an increase in costs to employers. I don’t think there’s adequate empirical data for that, and the case of how things work in other nations seems to provide a pretty good counterexample.

        • JohnH

          My undergraduate degree is in economics and I have taken some masters level courses in economics, though my actual masters is in Math.

      • Kodie

        I think children being mostly inevitable until recently, marriage created the cooperative relationship in which children would be cared for. I don’t think that’s where we’re at now, but it’s still a societal “value”. People judge you if you decide not to have kids and people who want kids feel left out if they can’t have any. They can’t fathom being gay – how does that “work”? Or the tragedy of being single=unwanted. We have enough coverage, I’d say, humanwise, and we can medically choose to abstain from being responsible for children while still enjoying sexual lives. Or not. Or being gay. Or being gay and adopting or surrogating or whatever. I don’t even think a permanent marriage is required for child-rearing. Another parent’s duties can be hired out if someone has means. Is this what’s best for children? They’re human beings and human beings adapt to situations.

        My sister is divorced within a year or so after having a baby she had pretty soon after she married. They both moved back across the country to their hometown – which is pretty convenient that they both come from the same place and both didn’t want to stay where they were. What about the future? My grandmother tells me her concerns that he’s always living here and then he’s living there – no stability. I don’t think he’s too stupid to know the difference, but that is what’s normal for him so it’s not different from some better way until others inform him that he’s being deprived and stigmatize his situation, which is stupid. Why make him unhappy about it?

        Is it ideal to stay married if you hate each other? Having lived as that child, I would say no. People who get married young to escape their home lives or to follow the “normal” order of things often do not match. Don’t tell me that was a wise decision by adults (barely) ready to face a lifetime together. As long as they hung on out of habit, it was always broken and now it’s a fact of record. Some people hang on and ignore it, but once you have the children you were going to have, and maintain responsibility and relationship with those children, the marriage can be dissolved. The more people think they can’t manage with such chaos, the more we innovate solutions so it’s not as chaotic. It can still be emotional, but it’s not necessarily disruptive in the good of the child unless one or both adults make it so.

        But I also think that while children were mostly inevitable, it’s a trap. People want to have sex together so it seems like the natural order for two people to love one another, *then* children. That’s modern. People have to be careful not to be bonded together forever if they are not absolutely sure which is why this archaic rule of having to save yourself for marriage. Children are not inevitable anymore. They can be planned for. This is not disruptive to the good of the child unless one or both adults make it so either. Certainly a somewhat better deal for the good of a child to be wanted and expected and to grow up in a world where that is possible. That means more people exist who are not burdened with resentment. They’re not put to work, they’re not born to help out, their parents have more time to spend with them and more money to spend on them if they don’t come from a litter of bunnies. That doesn’t mean marriage is for children, but I still think marriage was the bargain because children were once nearly inevitable, and women had few other options. It was fashioned after children.

        The liberation of children no longer being nearly inevitable frees women to have other jobs, fewer children, more money, and more independence. Is that what ruined marriage? It is seen as this huge crisis that two parties in a marriage each have personal ambitions instead of just one and a surprise that they can’t always agree because the woman doesn’t always defer. I have said before that I feel the big objection to homosexual unions isn’t the sex but the lack of certain gender roles. Two men can’t divide the labor properly to give children an ideal model if they have the same equipment, nor can two women. I always think this because they have the same issue with feminism and women confusing their children and emasculating their husbands. Religious people are not looking at the bright side. Two people who love each other can get together and stay together or fall apart – that’s between the two people and nobody else. As a society we are handling the outcomes of changing times adequately. I don’t think there is a rational obstruction to gay people enjoying the already-given benefits of marriage, so long as we’ve established the benefits in the state and not in the church (who can stay rigid and low-tech since it works so well). Gay people provide a fine cooperative for the care of children. Or for no children.

        Religious people see some tradition as firmly how it ought to be and anything that defies it supposedly goes against god. So two people can’t make a child. So two people have lots of sex with many other people before finding one another, and don’t stay together forever. It can be one or more than two, whatever. Religious people are the ones who defer to the idea that we’re animals. According to the Christians who have voiced their opinions on this, marriage seems to be a conscious act of commitment to act just like animals, but to assert some control over the natural outcomes and pretend that’s a beautiful sacred thing. Birth control does that now.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        smrnda:

        The real nail in the coffin of the “the purpose of marriage is procreation” is the observation that many couples can’t have kids, don’t want kids, or are no longer able to create kids. I’m in the last category, and I’m sure no Christian would argue that my marriage is substandard or inferior or invalid.

        • smrnda

          You would be surprised how willing smiling, friendly Christians are to tell you that your marriage is a horrible sham because you used birth control once, or didn’t buy a diamond engagement ring, or because you aren’t willing to go on the record that you never even fantasized about sex with anyone but your partner.

          At the core, Christian attitudes about are fueled by insecurity. They have to disparage how other people do marriage so they can feel they have the only way that works.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Shoehorning not-especially-monogamous Homo sapiens into such a Christian stereotype makes for a poor fit. That doesn’t mean that we should become hedonists, but we should be aware that our programming isn’t perfectly suited for the “turn off your libido until your wedding night” Christian concept.

        • JohnH

          Bob,
          You obviously haven’t talked to enough Catholics. Me and my wife did wait until our wedding night but due to us having used contraception I have been called a rapists by some Catholics.

        • Kodie

          And how did that make you feel?

        • ZenDruid

          Yeah. Tell us.

        • JohnH

          I believe you already know the answer to that or you wouldn’t be asking.

        • Kodie

          Shy?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      John:

      Marriage is supposed to be about the bearing and raising of children so that society survives from one generation to the next.

      It’s about more than just that.

      Marriages that can’t have children, and to a lesser extent those that choose not to, do not impact the benefits to society and supporting such marriages contributes to the overall stability of the family structure.

      So homosexual marriages, which also don’t have children, are OK in your book?

      very few people consider marriage to be about children at all

      Is this a problem? It’s not like “the purpose of marriage is making babies” was the definition of marriage from Day 1.

      • JohnH

        “So homosexual marriages, which also don’t have children, are OK in your book?”
        They don’t provide societal support to unions that do produce children.

        “Is this a problem? It’s not like “the purpose of marriage is making babies” was the definition of marriage from Day 1.”

        Yes it is a problem as children are hurt by divorce as study after study has shown.

        If one believes the Bible then the purpose of marriage was making babies from day one. Otherwise it was a contractual union between the husband and the father of the bride with the primary purpose of securing inheritance (thus requiring a child).

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Yes it is a problem as children are hurt by divorce as study after study has shown.

          Then focus your attention on making marriages stable so that divorce is minimized. Same-sex marriage is a diversion.

        • JohnH

          “Same-sex marriage is a diversion.”
          More a symptom then a diversion.

          ” focus your attention on making marriages stable ”
          You are discussing something that in my opinion helps destabilize marriage, even if it is a symptom of the larger problem. Therefore by discussing the issue and presenting what marriage is actually about then I am focusing my attention on making marriages stable.

        • Kodie

          In your opinion, but how do you figure? What larger problem do you, Mr. Opinion, believe homosexuality is a symptom of? In MY opinion, you have your head up your ass to find your great ideas. People love each other and want a commitment and maybe to supply care to a child or several. Like families like to do, and enjoy the secular government benefits of. Establish. Root word: STABLE.

          You’re all like, two dicks don’t belong in the same bed because it reduces the birthrate! Come out of your ass now and look around.

  • RandomFunction2

    To Bob the broken atheist,

    In reply to your new blog entry, some comments are in order. But first I have a request: can you give me the reference of the one who said that “homosexuality makes God want to vomit”? It’s a great example of naive anthropomorphism in the service of a religious morality.

    I’m surprised you did not pay heed to the infamous argument from consensual incest, though we did talk about it sometimes in the past.

    I used to think that homosexuality was natural in the sense that other species engaged in it, but I read a scientist (Pascal Picq) who said that anal sex has NEVER been observed in other species. I don’t want to imply that homosexuality is all about that, of course. You are also correct that homophobia is unique to humans. Actually, humans are the only species with taboos. Other species naturally avoid incest, but it’s hardwired into their genes…

    About Sodom, I would not be as certain as you are that the sin of that people was rape. The text is intrinsically unclear. It may be rape, it may homosexuality, we just don’t know.

    About the purpose of marriage, the Catholic Church doesn’t claim its only purpose is procreation. the elderly can get married. Barren people can get married. Pius XII even said that in some circumstances, it’s ok for fertile people not to have kids. Still, sex must remain “open to the transmission of life”, which means that its “natural” structure must be respected, even when procreation is biologically ruled out.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      RF2:

      can you give me the reference of the one who said that “homosexuality makes God want to vomit”?

      Haggard’s Law

      the infamous argument from consensual incest

      The idea being that same-sex marriage would being a slippery slope, where other forms of marriage would be inevitable?

      anal sex has NEVER been observed in other species

      Here’s one source that says it’s been observed in bonobos:
      http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-489190.html

      But I am certainly no expert in anal sex.

      Other species naturally avoid incest, but it’s hardwired into their genes…

      Ours too, I’d imagine.

      About Sodom, I would not be as certain as you are that the sin of that people was rape.

      I have a post in the queue to come out soon that explores this in more detail. Let’s reconnect on this question then.

      • Deven Kale

        anal sex has NEVER been observed in other species.

        I don’t know for sure about that either, I swear I’ve seen dogs do it before. But even stranger, I do know that African River Dolphins have all kinds of interesting sexual practices

    • smrnda

      Why must the natural structure of sex be respected? If God created you with allergies, is it wrong to take meds to suppress the symptoms?

  • Dorfl

    ps. The most interesting link is broken.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Dang! Why does it do that? OK–I’ve fixed it.

      Here

  • arkenaten

    The lyrics to this song by the Tom Robinson Band just about tells you everything you need to know about Freedom of choice in this context.
    BTW Tom Robinson, a musician from the 70′s was gay.

    Power in the darkness
    Frightening lies from the other side
    Power in the darkness
    Stand up and fight for your rights

    Freedom… we’re talking bout your freedom
    Freedom to choose what you do with your body
    Freedom to believe what you like
    Freedom for brothers to love one another
    Freedom for black and white
    Freedom from harassment, intimidation
    Freedom for the mother and wife
    Freedom from Big Brother’s interrogation
    Freedom to live your own life… I’m talking ’bout

    Power in the darkness
    Frightening lies from the other side
    Power in the darkness
    Stand up and fight for your rights

    (Voice from The Other Side:) “Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack: the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it’s about time we said ‘enough is enough’ and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom.
    What we want is:

    Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
    Prostitutes, pansies and punks
    Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
    Lesbians and left wing scum
    Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions
    Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews
    Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals
    Freedom from the likes of you…”

    Power in the darkness
    Frightening lies from the other side
    Power in the darkness
    Stand up and fight for your rights

    Read more at http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858711724/#2QVYyLf6BkfH9ATB.99

    And if you like to listen…..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPouip93yBE

    • Dorfl

      Thanks for introducing me to Tom Robinson. I hadn’t heard of the guy before, but his music sounds pretty awesome :-)

  • Selah

    Bob ,
    When I came upon your site my intention was to throw out some seeds of truth from God’s Holy
    Word and trying to model what the great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon once said ; ‘” We are not
    called to proclaim philosophy and metaphysics , but the simple gospel ( John 3:16 ). Man’s fall, his
    need of a new birth ( born again ), forgiveness thru atonement, and salvation as a result of faith
    These are our battle axe and weapons of war “.
    I then had a check in my spirit to not continue when I came across scripture from Matt. 7 : 6 which reads : ” do not give what is Holy ( sacred ) to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs, otherwise they will trample them under their feet and tear you to pieces “.
    And then another scripture came to mind from Psalm 119:155 : ” Salvation is far from the wicked
    and they seek not nor hunger for your statutes “.
    I appreciate the back and forth comments from you and my desire , as you know right from the beginning ,has been to share the Good News of the gospel. I hope that you and your readers will someday come to know the truth in the person of Jesus Christ. I cannot save you and your readers,
    as I leave that up to the Holy Spirit. I am just being obedient to God’s Word to share His “Good News” ( His word also contains ” bad news ” for those who do not believe and rebel against Him “.
    The God of the Bible is not only a God of love , mercy and forgiveness , He is a God of wrath , for He hates sin!! . Take care Bob !

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Selah:

      Man’s fall, his need of a new birth ( born again ), forgiveness thru atonement, and salvation as a result of faith These are our battle axe and weapons of war “.

      What good is preaching the gospel? Who in America hasn’t heard the basic Christian message? What I need is evidence that this “God” dude actually exists. That’d be the first thing to get established, right?

      do not give what is Holy ( sacred ) to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs

      Christianity calls potential converts dogs and pigs? “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

      Sign me up to that religion!

      I am just being obedient to God’s Word to share His “Good News”

      Double check that “Great Commission.” I think Jesus was talking to his disciples, not to you.

  • smrnda

    JohnH, I know earlier I accused you of making the claim that childless people do absolutely nothing to benefit future generations, and you told me you said no such thing. However, now you actually did:

    “Lesbians are more stable, gays are much less stable but that is besides the point, neither have the potential to produce babies within the relationship (yet) and promoting such relationships do not provide social support for those relationships that do have that potential.”

    Being in a relationship with another woman provides me a massive amount of emotional support so I can do things like volunteer work, helping families I know and doing other things that directly benefit kids and parents. Single people, if they are emotionally unfulfilled, are likely to be less able to do that. Being in a loving relationship is going to make you a better citizen and a better worker. If I’m a better worker, I’m a better taxpayer, and my tax money goes to support things like schools. People are much more inclined to try to contribute towards the betterment of society when their own needs are taken care of.

    So the other question, if the purpose of marriage is children, why do people who aren’t going to have kids get married and stay married? I look at marriage as an institution whose purposes are largely up to the people getting married, I’m not going to piss and shit on other people’s marriages because they don’t fit my idea of what they should be. Telling people how to ‘do’ marriage is like telling someone how they’re supposed to cook a steak.

    I find it surprising you call yourself a libertarian yet are so caught up in the idea that consensual relationships should be judged not by whether the people in them think they’re okay but by whether or not they have adequate benefit to ‘society.’ Do I have to run my business for the benefit of ‘society?’ I’d assume you’d say no, and that the government shouldn’t be able to put me out of business or force me to do something different if they think it’s better, but why not the same courtesy for marriages?

    • Kodie

      Something else I don’t really understand – gay people disincentivized are still going to be gay. It’s not something that can be financially discouraged. They won’t go “extinct” and leave heteros to fill the gaps. They won’t go find an opposite sex partner to make babies and raise them together joylessly. Well, some of them do but I don’t think it’s loving to children for their parents to suppress themselves, and it doesn’t sound like a stable society. It’s not because they want children so much as they’ve been made to be self-loathing. Does that make the gay-haters jump for joy to hurt people for god?

      It was legally and socially discouraged. It was against the law in some places. It was social and career suicide to come out. In many places it still is. How do these gay people cope? They stay out of sight but they still exist. You understand them less and demonize them more when you can’t see them, but it’s not more destabilizing to society to let them come out and enjoy being a human than it is to make them sub-human criminals. That didn’t disincentivize their behavior then and not being allowed to marry legally in most US states does not disincentivize their behavior now. I think the Masters in Economics was a waste of time and money, JohnL. It’s so stupid that human beings have to get permission from some people’s god’s representative humans before they’re allowed to be considered people. You are trying to “prove” something with economics to avoid saying you don’t like it. You are chasing your preferred conclusion down with pseudo-scientific garbage and total ignorance. You’re pretending it’s classier than mere biblical proclamation.

      That whole bit about libertarianism – I don’t even get that. You want people to be free but you want to regulate strictly, in an arbitrary fashion. You’re trying to direct the train tracks but you’re in a boat on the ocean still clinging to your rail map. Wouldn’t it be the best for all people to live free and devise our solutions as needed or respond to natural pressures, libertarian-wise? You can’t say make these people intercourse people they don’t like for the good of society. You haven’t given a valid argument for what they are harming.

      • smrnda

        Good point. No gay marriage does not mean no same sex couples, it just means that those same-sex couples will be without certain legal benefits. Would giving them benefits do any harm to anyone? Not in the sense of taking away anything, aside from the power to make other people second-class citizens. It would help the people in the relationships.

        What does my civil union take away from a heterosexual couple? The only things it could take away are things that exist only in their heads to begin with.

        • Kodie

          Durr, it would seem like “another way to go”, so people who don’t have anyone might find someone gay to be with instead and stop making babies. If there’s benefit to be had doing it, it will incentivize people who already have those benefits to choose to be gay.

          I figured you out JohnH. Here is your gris-gris.

    • JohnH

      “but why not the same courtesy for marriages?”
      Quoting myself:
      ” Marriage has become a contractual relationship in many ways similar to a limited liability partnership (with added benefits). There are some benefits to society to these partnerships but the lack of permanence and the lack of focus on children significantly lessens the benefits.

      I suppose one response to this situation would be to open up such contractual relations to any number or gender of people that wish to enter into such a contract for whatever particular reason and let the churches do whatever the churches want to do with such contracts. I don’t believe that to be the correct response as it continues to ignore the bearing and raising of children as fundamental to the continuation of society which would continue the trend toward below replacement levels of births”

      I see what you are saying and I see value in such relationships to society and feel that society should recognize such relationships in a substantially similar manner that it does marriage. If society were made up of infinitely long lived adults then there should be no difference at all in the treatment of same sex couples and heterosexual couples. Society is not made up of infinitely long lived adults but requires the constant birthing and raising of children. If the current treatment of marriage were producing desirable results then again there should be no different in treatment of couples, however this is not the case.

      I should have been clearer on social support, I meant they don’t provide the same sort of group pressure to make marriages work.

      • ZenDruid

        Ahhh, contracts which produce results! Otherwise bad economics, right?

        • JohnH

          Once the it moves from describing what is happening to saying whether the result is desirable then it actually isn’t strictly economics anymore. But pretty much.

        • ZenDruid

          Then you’re missing the point.
          I mentioned human pair bonding upthread. That has economic value as well as psychological, no question.

        • JohnH

          I agree it has economic value and psychological but “it continues to ignore the bearing and raising of children as fundamental to the continuation of society”.

        • smrnda

          If you’re trying to create incentives for people to have opposite sex marriages with children, obviously there are already greater legal benefits granted those relationships and these greater legal benefits have not led anyone to get one who didn’t want one. Homosexuals aren’t flocking to opposite sex marriage even though it has more benefits, and people without kids aren’t having them even though they come with some government benefits. We already have, basically, the system where heterosexual marriage with children is privileged over other unions. So you already have what you want.

          When you say whether or not marriages are “working” how do we agree on an objective standard for this? Whether or not a marriage is ‘working’ is a matter of opinion. Same with ‘desirable results.’ Who desires what results? Who decides how to measure this?

          Your points seem to be based around the belief that a decline in people having marriages that center on having children is going to produce bad results, but I don’t think you’ve actually proven that this is going to lead to a disaster.

        • Kodie

          You haven’t made it clear why you persistently believe this to be the case. You made a lot of extraordinary claims but I think you are panicking, and why do people panic? Are you that panicked about global warming?

        • Kodie

          Have you made a plan to feed them all? I’m going to guess you think abortion is wrong too for the same reason that we can’t waste a single potential human being. How are you going to pay for it, with your economics major?

        • JohnH

          My objective standard is replacement levels of fertility. Presumably each of us wishes for the continuation of society, at least to the end of our lives. Presumably each of us wishes to grow old and to either have society or family care for us when we are old (being rich is still having society care for you). Below replacement levels of fertility leads to the collapse of social programs, the stagnation of the economy, and other problems, ergo it would appear to be objectively bad.

          Since it is replacement levels of fertility no plan needs to be put into place to feed “them all” as “them all” would be about the same number of people as “us all” and we appear to be able to feed ourselves to the point of obesity and burning food as fuel for cars. As for paying for it, that would actually be easier if the population were growing as was done with Social Security for decades.

          Why should I panic about global warming? I don’ t know exactly how it will effect us or when any effects will be known and trust that if effects show up people will be able to effectively mitigate those effects for cheaper then trying to prevent whatever may happen. Unless you are claiming global warming is going to make the planet too hot to support life, which would be an extraordinary claim and require extraordinary evidence.

          As for Abortion, I oppose it as being close to murder, except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. As you have noted there are effective forms of birth control all of which are much cheaper then abortion and don’t have the same moral complications as abortion (except for the Catholics), people should learn how to use them rather then have abortions.

        • Deven Kale

          My objective standard is replacement levels of fertility. Below replacement levels of fertility leads to the collapse of social programs, the stagnation of the economy, and other problems, ergo it would appear to be objectively bad.

          That’s not objective at all. That’s still your own subjective standard based on a hypothetical future situation which is very likely avoidable. While I may not personally know how it could be avoided, It’s not something I need to know. Only one person need have an idea on how to fix that in order to get it done.

          You still haven’t shown why non-procreative pair-bonds are directly harmful to society. Even more so, you’ve not shown why a non-procreative homosexual pair-bond is more detrimental than a non-procreative heterosexual one. A hypothetical future situation in which we may not be able to take care of the elderly isn’t a valid enough concern in my book. As I said before, there are numerous ways to avoid the catastrophe you claim this could be, even though I personally do not know them.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          John:

          people should learn how to use [contraception] rather then have abortions.

          So you’re in favor of adequate, best-practices education of children in public schools? What I find maddening is Christians who (1) decry abortion but (2) reject adequate sex education that would minimize abortion. The rates of abortion in the US are 10 times higher than in the Netherlands. Clearly, there’s room for improvement.

      • Kodie

        Why do you arbitrarily prefer straight people? Any straight people, as long as they’re old enough and not too closely related. You don’t care if they want to. You don’t care if they’re sociopaths or alcoholics. You don’t care if they are frightening their children to believe in the devil or praying instead of giving them medicine. You don’t care if they ride without helmets, you don’t care if they bring polio back. That seems a little loosey-goosey to me, as long as we’re trying to formulate what is best for the future of our society before we vanish down the cosmic toilet in a couple few decades.

  • smrnda

    JohnH.

    I agree with you that bearing and raising children is necessary for society. That is why I work with children, and also why I’m paying taxes for things like schools, along with monies that get put into programs like WIC.

    Also, we need fire fighters, cops, and military personnel. They are essential to society but not *everybody* has to be a fire fighter, cop or soldier. Is a person who does not do one of these three jobs “ignoring” them and their relevance? We need food, but what percentage of people are actually engaging in the production of food?

    To me JohnH, you seem to be wanting to turn marriage into some sort of pissing contest where “a marriage with children is just more important.” Seriously, ever look up Alan Turing? If you have a degree in maths should know who he is – I’d argue the guy’s life was pretty relevant. There are more ways to contribute to society than biological offspring. In a sense, I’d argue that some people who produced no children contributed more.

    I just don’t like to turn ‘who’s offering more to society’ into a pissing contest. Take me for example. Does the world need another Mom with kids, or do we need a competent AI programmer?

  • smrnda

    JohnH, global warming is already affecting climate enough that it could negatively impact food production. Sea levels are rising noticeably. (There is a good documentary about the president of the Maldives, who is very concerned about global warming since an increase in sea levels might make his nation vanish.) You may have noted that many droughts this year have had a bad impact on crops in the US.

    Obesity and too much food viewed quantitatively alone is a pretty naive way of looking at nutrition. People eat the food that is most readily accessible, which is usually junk food. Nutritious food might be less available, or requires more time to cook or prepare or is harder to find in some regions. Working long or irregular hours can interfere with one’s ability to get adequate nutrition, and the US is a pretty sparsely populated country. Not having a car in a rural area can seriously diminish what you can eat.

    Plus, if we look at food JohnH, we produce more food than the world needs, but there are still starving people. Why? Because food is produced for profit, not for the purpose of feeding people. Your thesis seems to be that as long as the population is growing, things are fine, but there are more starving people where population growth is greatest and less where population growth is slow.

    In terms of needing more people, what if per person productivity increases greatly? I mean, one farmer using modern methods can produce more food than an army of peasants.

    • smrnda

      Also, your belief that declining population levels will cause collapse is an untested hypothesis. No society has of yet collapsed for this reason, and people have been forecasting doom for lack of people having double-digit kids before.

      • ZenDruid

        You can’t feed an economic powerhouse without fresh meat.

  • JoeC

    I just wanted to throw this website, http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/ , out there because you don’t seem to be addressing any of the actual points the Catholic Church professes in it’s stance on marriage. The FAQ’s in particular give a good start, but You would have to dive into Blessed John Paul II’s Theology of the Body if you wanted to go more in depth. This is just to point out that your post didn’t really give a valid justification as to why Christianity supports same-sex marriage. Based off of what you gave, you might be able to claim at most that non-Catholic Christianity supports same-sex marriage.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Joe: There’s a lot of stuff there, and I won’t be reading it all, but thanks for the link.

      I’ve written much more about this topic elsewhere. This brief summary was intended to be broad but not deep. I suspect that some of your concerns are addressed in those posts. But if you could summarize specific Catholic arguments that I don’t address, I’d appreciate that.

  • JoeC

    The only argument that you present that could possibly contradict the Catholic Church’s stance seems to be the homosexuality is natural vs. unnatural argument.

    The other arguments don’t properly address issues. For example your argument about the Bible condoning different forms of marriage is an invalid appeal to tradition as far as I can tell; the Catholic Church has gone through great lengths to explain there stance wholly separate from any reference to Biblical text for the sake of those who don’t hold the Bible as authoritative.( If you do want a Biblical reference see Matthew 19:1-12)

    Another example is that you claim that Christianity holds that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that. (http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/children-faq/#q2 see this FAQ entry and the one below it.)

    Now for the natural vs. the unnatural. I would consider the “natural” for humans to be different than the “natural” for animals. Not in all aspects, and I know that you will want to know how I can choose when they differ, I think that in this case they differ, because of the commitment made in marriage between two sentient beings is significantly different from even the monogamous relationships of animals, and while I didn’t search the literature I doubt that homosexual relations in the animal kingdom are monogamous. That would be where I would argue that even if you want to insist that “naturalness” is equivalent between animals and humans your argument would fall apart. This isn’t anywhere specifically in Catholic Church teaching that I know I’m just extrapolating right now. Here is how the Church argues “naturalness,”
    http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/sexual-difference-faq/#q5 read as many of the questions you think apply to your argument, but I would suggest 5-8.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      you claim that Christianity holds that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation

      No, I say that this is a popular argument. Not all Christians argue this–yeah, I get it.

      I would consider the “natural” for humans to be different than the “natural” for animals.

      Why? Humans are animals.

      • JoeC

        “Not all Christians argue this–yeah, I get it.”

        Then I say you can’t make the claim that Christianity supports same-sex marriage. ∃x -/-> ∀x I think the percentage of Catholic Christians is large enough to justify distinguishing between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.

        “Humans are animals.”

        Humans are also Eukaryotes, I think there are some differences between the two. I don’t see why because humans are animals that everything that is true for animals in general is true for humans specifically. I mean, for most animals it is natural to walk on all fours. Does that mean it is unnatural for humans to walk on two legs? There are clearly differences between what is natural for most animals and what is natural for humans.

        Just to clarify my argument is that your assertion that “Christianity Supports Same-Sex Marriage” is false on the basis do that you have not shown sufficient justification that Catholicism supports same-sex marriage and that Catholicism makes up a significant portion of Christianity. Now as far as I can tell in order to contest this, you have to take the premises of Catholicism and from those derive your assertion. You have not yet done so.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Then I say you can’t make the claim that Christianity supports same-sex marriage.

          (1) Some Christians argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

          (2) Christianity, seen correctly, supports same-sex marriage.

          I make both claims. I’m not seeing the problem.

          Humans are also Eukaryotes

          Yeah … and?

          I think there are some differences between the two

          Between what two? Between humans and animals? It’s simply the case that humans are animals.

          There are clearly differences between what is natural for most animals and what is natural for humans.

          Each animal species is unique. Yeah, I get it.

          Catholicism supports same-sex marriage

          Catholicism doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Christianity, seen rightly, does. I realize you don’t agree, but that’s the point I’m trying to make.

        • JoeC

          Humans are also Eukaryotes, I think there are some differences between the two.

          I don’t know why you separated the sentence when you quoted it. Generally things that come in the second half of a sentence are generally related to things that came in the first half. (Although I realize a semi-colon would have been more appropriate than a comma.) I was pointing out that not everything that is true of Eukaryotes is true of humans any more than everything that is true of animals is true of humans. Specifically I am accusing you of using this fallacy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Fallacy_of_accident_or_sweeping_generalization
          in your arguments applying traits belonging to animals to humans.

          Catholicism supports same-sex marriage

          Catholicism doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Christianity, seen rightly, does.

          Interesting use of quotation there. I had to look for a while to see where I technically had those words together. But for the rest of it, it seems like you consider Catholicism and Christianity to be two different religions? Catholicism is a form of Christianity, in fact it used to be the only form. Then there were Orthodox and Catholics for a while until the Reformation hit.

          (1) Some Christians argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

          (2) Christianity, seen correctly, supports same-sex marriage.

          I make both claims. I’m not seeing the problem.

          As to (1), I will not argue the validity of that claim, it is existentially quantified and therefore only requires one example to validate it. I’m certain there is at least one Christian who argues that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage.

          However, until you have justification for why the rest of Christians also don’t support same-sex marriage, then you cannot claim that Christianity supports same-sex marriage. That statement is universally quantified and as such requires only one counter-example to invalidate. I present Catholicism as a counter-example.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joe:

          Generally things that come in the second half of a sentence are generally related to things that came in the first half.

          Generally. But in this case, you’re saying that there are differences between humans and eukaryotes (when the former is a subset of the latter) is bizarre. So I (erroneously?) tried a more charitable interpretation.

          Slap my wrist for being charitable, I guess.

          you consider Catholicism and Christianity to be two different religions?

          No.

          you cannot claim that Christianity supports same-sex marriage

          And the qualification to make my sentence sensible is in the very quote you used. Problem solved.

        • JoeC

          But in this case, you’re saying that there are differences between humans and eukaryotes (when the former is a subset of the latter) is bizarre.

          You are right, I was not expressing myself very clearly and left out a few key points that make my arguments make sense. I apologize if my comments seemed too caustic. What my actual argument was is that you are making a hasty generalization in applying traits that are found in some animals to all animals. (I know I switched up the fallacy I’m accusing you of, this one works better and I’m a little rusty with theses specific terms.) Just as plants are eukaryotes and plants have chloroplast does not imply that eukaryotes have chloroplast and thus since humans are eukaryotes, humans have chloroplast. Hopefully that clears things up.

          And the qualification to make my sentence sensible is in the very quote you used. Problem solved.

          Do you refer to the qualifier “seen correctly?” If so does that mean you claim that Catholicism does not “see” Christianity correctly. If so I say that claim requires substantiation.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Joe:

          Hopefully that clears things up.

          Yes. Just because one subset of eukaryotes has property X doesn’t mean that another subset will as well. But now that we’re on the same page, what does this have to do with anything interesting.

          Do you refer to the qualifier “seen correctly?”

          Yup.

          If so I say that claim requires substantiation.

          And that was the purpose of the blog post. If you want more details on my argument (it was deliberately very skimpy here), click on “Homosexuality v. Christianity” at the bottom of the post for more.

      • JoeC

        Also, forgot the predicates I was quantifying.
        *∃xP(x) -/-> ∀xP(x)

    • Dorfl

      I read through the http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/sexual-difference-faq/#q5 link.

      I have difficulty finding anything in there that isn’t a very verbose argument by blatant assertion. They keep repeating that only a man and a woman can form the union that makes a real marriage, without ever giving a concise explanation of why not.

      • Dorfl

        Why two men or two women can’t, that is.

  • smrnda

    Dorfl, it’s probably because what you’re encountering is the ‘argument from obfuscation’ – throw lots of big words out to give the impression that there’s something deeper to the belief than “I think it’s icky.” The lack of clear, concise writing seems to be a staple of religious arguments against homosexuality.

    • Dorfl

      You’re probably right…

      I like to think I get some sort of open-mindedness points for trying to understand what someone is saying, even when my bullshit detectors insist that it doesn’t have any actual content. It’s usually not very rewarding, though.

      • smrnda

        What I usually do is to ask people to rephrase things. If there is any substance, they should be able to gradually rephrase things into simpler, plainer, easier to understand language. Imagine someone explaining how a machine works – they strip away the unusual words and technical terms to fit an audience.

        This doesn’t work with religious arguments, since they aren’t rational but are more ‘magic incantation.’ You say the magic words and they work for the target audience because they are bypassing reason.

        • Dorfl

          That’s probably a good approach.

          Admittedly, when explaining physics to people, I sometimes have to say “you can’t really understand this part without doing the maths”. So I’m aware that there are some things that can’t really be simplified beyond a certain point. But I don’t think religious apologists will seriously claim that there is some mathematical derivation that I have to go through step-by-step to fully understand their point.

        • JoeC

          “Sexual difference is the difference of man to woman and woman to man. It affects a person at every level of his or her existence: genetically, biologically, emotionally, psychologically, and socially.”

          Seems about as concise as you can get. If you want more details than you have to look to sources such as the Theology of the Body. It won’t be concise.

        • Dorfl

          It’s short, but I don’t think it’s concise. I’d say that the point of a concise statement is that is captures the specific, most important points in some larger chain of reasoning. This statement is instead so general that it ends up saying very little – it does not make clear which parts of the sexual differences are actually going to be relevant to their argument. Presumably, marriage does not require that one but not both partners be capable of growing a beard, but that is one of the more noticeable sexual differences between women and men.

          But to avoid getting into a discussion about the correct meaning of the word “concise”, can I go through that paragraph, sentence by sentence, and explain why I didn’t think it said very much?

          “Q: What is sexual difference?

          A: Sexual difference is the difference of man to woman and woman to man. It affects a person at every level of his or her existence: genetically, biologically, emotionally, psychologically, and socially. Sexual difference is an irreducible difference. It is unlike any other difference we experience, because it – and only it – allows for the total personal union between husband and wife that is at the heart of marriage. The difference between men and women is for the sake of their union with each other. It is what makes spousal union possible.”

          They begin by defining sexual difference as the difference between the sexes. Fair enough, I don’t have any problem with that terminology.

          They then state that it is irreducible. It’s not completely clear what that means, but I’ll agree that in general a man cannot turn into a woman at will or vice-versa.

          They then state that sexual difference is what makes marriage possible, because it is what makes “total union” between the partners possible. Technically they say “between wife and husband”, but since that would be a clear case of begging the question, we’ll be charitable and interpret them as saying that two partners can only be totally personally unified through this sexual difference. Even so, it’s not clear what this means. They don’t explain what a “total personal union” means – presumably they don’t mean that the partners actually turn into the borg, but they don’t clarify what they are saying. They don’t explain which parts of their previously defined sexual difference it is that make such a union possible either.

          They state that the sexual difference is for the sake of the union. This is basically restating that the union between two partners requires sexual difference between them.

          They finish by stating, again, that sexual difference is necessary for the union.

          Does this clarify why I think they’re mainly restating their conclusion in different forms, without actually ever showing how it follows from any clearly stated premises?

    • ZenDruid

      “OMG, how do I ‘splain it to the chillun!?”

      Even among adults, they are restrained from exploring the untrammeled joyful lust between loving partners. Instead, they dance with quasi-elegant verbiage around the core issues. And those who are open to speculate on the topic seem to hit the wall with the buttsecks thing.

  • smrnda

    I grant that sexual difference exist and do affect people on almost every level.

    However, what is it that makes marriage special? To me, marriage is about love, commitment, intimacy both physical and emotional, and an doing your best to take care of the needs of the person you are with. Most of us are going to want to be with the person with whom we can experience these things to the highest degree.

    For most people, it’s an opposite sex partner, but because some people are different, they want a same-sex partner because they can’t get what they want from someone of the opposite sex. It’s like any other deal-breaker with relationships. Two people might not be right for each other because they don’t share an interest in rock-climbing and it’s a big deal for one person. Or taste in food, music, or entertainment. Because people are different, priorities are doing to be different. Then you get into more major ones and sexual preference is pretty big there. If people are to enjoy having sex, they have to be attracted to each other, so a person who is homosexual can get something from a same-sex partner that they can’t from an opposite sex one.

    The heterosexual union, which is being held up as the ‘big moment’ is really just something that some people have a strong preference for and other do not.

    I actually don’t even see why sex is being held up as the defining feature in marriage. If you told me two people had sex, they could barely know each other and be rather minimal part of each other’s lives. However, if you tell me two people are a couple what I think isn’t “they must be having sex” but all the other things that go into a relationship.

    So on this end, I don’t even see why sex is central to marriage. You’d have to argue for some created nature to it (both sex and marriage) but just because something was created for one purpose doesn’t mean it can’t even be used for some other purpose, or do even better when applied to some other purpose. If I invent a machine to do X, and someone uses it for Y, even if it’s not what I created it for Y might be a better or just as valid use.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      smrnda:

      I actually don’t even see why sex is being held up as the defining feature in marriage. If you told me two people had sex, they could barely know each other and be rather minimal part of each other’s lives. However, if you tell me two people are a couple what I think isn’t “they must be having sex” but all the other things that go into a relationship.

      Nicely said! The typical Christian standpoint against same-sex marriage does seem to caricature marriage as “it’s all about the sex,” which, in a calmer mood, that Christian would deny.

  • smrnda

    My opinion, overall, is that Christians see marriage as being all about sex. It’s the one and only place where sex is okay, and that’s what makes it special. If you think of the Christian idea of an ‘ideal world,’ where sex would only occur in marriage, then it would be the main distinctive.

    However, in the real world, people do have sex when they are not married. I’d argue in an ideal world people would still do that, because they always have (sex existed before marriage) and I see nothing wrong with it. People get married because of things far more meaningful than just sexual desire. It’s one thing, but I doubt it’s even one of the most important things.

    Now, if you’ve been raised in a sexually repressive subculture, and you get married and now you can finally have sex, that might seem to be the high point. I’d also say sexually repressive subcultures regulate socialization between males and females more and that then, those interactions are much more sexualized. I meet conservative Christians who can’t seem to imagine how a man and woman could sit around together, alone, at night, and sex doesn’t happen, but that’s likely the result of socialization. For someone who grew up with pretty comprehensive knowledge of sex, I see it as being just as likely as someone walking into a store and not walking out with ice cream every time.

    People get married, or in relationships, because of actual feelings of love and a desire to commit in a way that’s fairly long-term. This has to be the case since people who have casual sex and see nothing wrong with it still want to get married or with someone permanently. They take sex when they can have it, but it isn’t all they want, any more than my willingness to eat fast food now means that I don’t want a better meal later.

    Some people argue that this makes sex ‘less special’ but I don’t see any evidence of that. I like to eat certain foods. The avocado is special even though I eat one every day. I don’t get how it would be ‘more special’ if I saved it for special occasions.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      If Christians were less uptight about sex, obsession about sex might well go down. Sex is pretty casual in northern Europe, for example, but their social metrics are a lot better than ours.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Here’s a YouTube video that claims to show a couple that saved kissing for when they were married. (Its short.)

      Conclusion: stuff like this actually gets better when you practice. “Saving it for marriage” might be a dumb idea.

  • Pingback: hefalimp cardijon

  • Pingback: water damage restoration houston

  • Pingback: cialis angleterre

  • Pingback: how to prevent premature ejaculation yahoo

  • Pingback: online slot games

  • Pingback: music download

  • Pingback: delay cream for premature ejaculation

  • Pingback: video

  • Pingback: how long do men usually last in bed

  • Pingback: macarons kopen amsterdam

  • Pingback: premature ejaculation herbal remedies

  • Pingback: cialis modalitГ  d'uso

  • Pingback: cialis commercial

  • Pingback: palestinian goat sex

  • Pingback: cialise

  • Pingback: cialis dopo i pasti

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: buy youtube likes

  • Pingback: lawyer directory

  • Pingback: how to last longer without coming

  • Pingback: bed frames

  • Pingback: Begum Law Group

  • Pingback: Top 100 Songs

  • Pingback: Recommended Site

  • Pingback: Robert Shumake

  • Pingback: thai massage dublin

  • Pingback: massage dublin

  • Pingback: Slendera

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: Bitcoin casino

  • Pingback: Driving School Paignton

  • Pingback: cialis 5 mg controindicazioni

  • Pingback: ροζ γραμμές

  • Pingback: Penis enlargement

  • Pingback: Telecharger les Sims 4

  • Pingback: kitchens

  • Pingback: Kids & Teens

  • Pingback: Kids & Teens

  • Pingback: westwood reviews

  • Pingback: kitchen cupboards

  • Pingback: Flight Tickets

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Belfair

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Port Orchard

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Reid Real Estate

  • Pingback: Photive SOUNDSCAPE 8 Review

  • Pingback: ford raptor bumper

  • Pingback: K3vin Envoy

  • Pingback: raleigh wedding films

  • Pingback: buy likes

  • Pingback: cialis e viagra insieme

  • Pingback: descargar juegos

  • Pingback: recommended

  • Pingback: garage doors san francisco

  • Pingback: cheap ebikes

  • Pingback: edward maldonado

  • Pingback: booter

  • Pingback: dbz episodes

  • Pingback: last longer first time

  • Pingback: dbz online

  • Pingback: 1-800-411-pain

  • Pingback: make money online for free

  • Pingback: bus tours to new york city from pei

  • Pingback: Internet Marketing Tools

  • Pingback: Mortgage company

  • Pingback: Faucet Repair

  • Pingback: Lawyer

  • Pingback: Knockdown Texture

  • Pingback: Illinois Process Servers

  • Pingback: bakersfield cpr

  • Pingback: penis vergrößern

  • Pingback: Albuquerque Appliance Repair

  • Pingback: menoquil

  • Pingback: Mclean dryer vent cleaning Wizard

  • Pingback: purg 2

  • Pingback: Illinois Flat Fee MLS

  • Pingback: tech

  • Pingback: shakeology consumer reviews

  • Pingback: woodland dentist

  • Pingback: traffic attorney los angeles

  • Pingback: E-vitamiini

  • Pingback: see more

  • Pingback: Live Bee Removal Kingwood

  • Pingback: renta de autos en cancun

  • Pingback: mazda mpv

  • Pingback: more info

  • Pingback: Jual Tambah Follower

  • Pingback: health insurance

  • Pingback: cube world multiplayer setup

  • Pingback: advertise property

  • Pingback: Purchase Viagra

  • Pingback: Afford a Home with these tips...

  • Pingback: aaron KOCOUREK

  • Pingback: machines sewing

  • Pingback: Peggie Digiuseppe

  • Pingback: Colette Gerrald

  • Pingback: cialis 20 mg originale

  • Pingback: android apps

  • Pingback: click this site

  • Pingback: pirater un compte facebook

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Chimney Sweep

  • Pingback: Coupons

  • Pingback: Learn How To Make Cash With Instagram

  • Pingback: assfuck

  • Pingback: iphone6

  • Pingback: assfuck

  • Pingback: HERE

  • Pingback: dog training ebook

  • Pingback: Bodyguard Service

  • Pingback: IT Services

  • Pingback: Southfield

  • Pingback: bee wild pest control

  • Pingback: Whatsapp Status

  • Pingback: Manhattan appliance repair

  • Pingback: Downey Gum Graft

  • Pingback: appliance repair in Manhattan

  • Pingback: perfume

  • Pingback: appliance repair in Yonkers NY

  • Pingback: file recovery mac

  • Pingback: Cialis

  • Pingback: data recovery guru for mac

  • Pingback: Mesa appliance repair

  • Pingback: appliance repair Cave Creek

  • Pingback: appliance repair Carefree

  • Pingback: House eviction

  • Pingback: search engine optimization prices

  • Pingback: Baltasar sanchez haz

  • Pingback: health food

  • Pingback: couples communication

  • Pingback: escort izmir

  • Pingback: emotional intelligence training

  • Pingback: click aqu?

  • Pingback: buy hydrocodone

  • Pingback: emotional intelligence training

  • Pingback: used and new cars for sale

  • Pingback: buy ambien online

  • Pingback: Adtual - mejor publicidad online

  • Pingback: mindpower

  • Pingback: Cryptocurrency News Portal

  • Pingback: cash for gold

  • Pingback: perth web

  • Pingback: caramoan tour

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: plum lipstick

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: tarot del amor

  • Pingback: bisuteria online

  • Pingback: International cherry blossom festival

  • Pingback: free sex

  • Pingback: buy adderall xr

  • Pingback: reviews affordablepup.com

  • Pingback: shop design

  • Pingback: mayweather vs maidana 2 live stream

  • Pingback: dead sea mud

  • Pingback: Devvon Terrell Jason Derulo Marry Me Cover Is Breath Taking

  • Pingback: FanDuel Promo Code

  • Pingback: tinder sprueche

  • Pingback: gifts for men

  • Pingback: air conditioning sherman oaks

  • Pingback: badmintonschläger

  • Pingback: compare prices for home insurance

  • Pingback: cheap treadmill reviews

  • Pingback: play free slots

  • Pingback: prix du cialis en andorre

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: cardiff bay property

  • Pingback: cheap home insurance quotes

  • Pingback: Gheata Carbonica

  • Pingback: orange county bail bonds

  • Pingback: enrabar gajas

  • Pingback: arlington sunroom

  • Pingback: yorktown sunroom

  • Pingback: sunroom centreville

  • Pingback: sunroom columbia

  • Pingback: compare car insurance rates Texas

  • Pingback: Womens Lingerie

  • Pingback: nether hack

  • Pingback: Plus size leggings

  • Pingback: sunroom arlington

  • Pingback: buy tramadol

  • Pingback: germantown sunroom

  • Pingback: code promo norauto

  • Pingback: kitchen fitters forum

  • Pingback: buy tramadol

  • Pingback: indiegogo

  • Pingback: celebrity leaked photos

  • Pingback: Sign-up today and get 40 FREE Coins!!!!

  • Pingback: divorce lawyers in md

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: free bible download

  • Pingback: Aspergers

  • Pingback: Cialis

  • Pingback: Toronto Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: penis enlargement

  • Pingback: symptoms of awakening kundalini

  • Pingback: banana blue

  • Pingback: Aspergers

  • Pingback: iphone 5c soft case

  • Pingback: marketing companies perth

  • Pingback: cerrajeros murcia 24 horas

  • Pingback: ath-m50x review

  • Pingback: App Exposure

  • Pingback: loyal 9 marketing

  • Pingback: muskegon photography

  • Pingback: go here for more

  • Pingback: bikram yoga weight loss

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: weight loss food

  • Pingback: arkitekter kobenhavn

  • Pingback: Chicago Appliance Repair

  • Pingback: Gwinnett Web Design

  • Pingback: buy soundcloud plays and followers

  • Pingback: gerald buchoff

  • Pingback: sehack

  • Pingback: Gambling

  • Pingback: zidalo

  • Pingback: cupones de descuento

  • Pingback: hearthstone arena guide

  • Pingback: Appliance repair service center

  • Pingback: quickextenderpro

  • Pingback: Appliance repair service center

  • Pingback: How to hack Wifi 2015

  • Pingback: Appliance repair service center

  • Pingback: noticias de Ivan Bedia

  • Pingback: Appliance Repair Surprise

  • Pingback: start up videos

  • Pingback: Bracelets

  • Pingback: vending machines

  • Pingback: StrategyDB.com custom TradeStation consulting

  • Pingback: camfly review

  • Pingback: kurtyny paskowe

  • Pingback: more helpful hints

  • Pingback: easy 100

  • Pingback: free porn

  • Pingback: free money

  • Pingback: שירלי זילכה

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Street Jumpers

  • Pingback: garage flooring fort collins

  • Pingback: drugs

  • Pingback: here for free

  • Pingback: gay porn

  • Pingback: sex

  • Pingback: cheap web design

  • Pingback: GreenSmoke electronic cigarettes

  • Pingback: ingrown hair products

  • Pingback: free money

  • Pingback: make money

  • Pingback: Trusted Businesses

  • Pingback: Find the Best

  • Pingback: Patriot Rooter

  • Pingback: quality roofing fort worth

  • Pingback: creampie

  • Pingback: LAX Car Service

  • Pingback: Newport Beach CA

  • Pingback: free computer maintenance software

  • Pingback: Newport Beach CA

  • Pingback: Mireille Crill

  • Pingback: newport beach

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: hepsibahis

  • Pingback: indicizzazione google

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: real estate photography

  • Pingback: Real Estate Schook kb

  • Pingback: guttering London

  • Pingback: event atms

  • Pingback: chelsea porn calander,

  • Pingback: mobile atm hire

  • Pingback: bureaux ? louer pas cher st Gabriel Montr?al

  • Pingback: real estate foreclosures

  • Pingback: Aspergers Quiz

  • Pingback: mas informacion

  • Pingback: locksmith

  • Pingback: devis demenagement pas cher

  • Pingback: WP Profit Builder Review & Bonuses

  • Pingback: green laser modules

  • Pingback: identify baby gender

  • Pingback: alaska fishing trips

  • Pingback: you can try these out

  • Pingback: Patriot Rooter

  • Pingback: sub zero service ice message

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: wake up now michigan

  • Pingback: flyinghomes

  • Pingback: smith-kandal

  • Pingback: visakhapatnam

  • Pingback: have a peek at these guys

  • Pingback: kangen water ionizer

  • Pingback: Waterford Twp locksmith

  • Pingback: télécharger des films gratuitement

  • Pingback: Julefrokost

  • Pingback: precoce comment faire

  • Pingback: dr.gerald buchoff

  • Pingback: fuck

  • Pingback: Mogul PR

  • Pingback: ejacculation precosse

  • Pingback: Floors

  • Pingback: egg yolk

  • Pingback: Brooklyn Wedding Venues

  • Pingback: retarder lejaculation

  • Pingback: camera spion

  • Pingback: IT Courses

  • Pingback: noise cancelling headphones

  • Pingback: trail-gear

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd

  • Pingback: Sondage

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd speaker

  • Pingback: Indian Buffet catering menu singapore

  • Pingback: Daily Prothom Alo

  • Pingback: centrum czesci

  • Pingback: consumer store

  • Pingback: best price on geftinat 250mg

  • Pingback: kambalakonda

  • Pingback: Earn Money From Home Online Benefits

  • Pingback: lamber cona e cu

  • Pingback: Clash Of Clans Gemmes Illimite

  • Pingback: product Reviews

  • Pingback: private proxies

  • Pingback: Rimelig flyttevask

  • Pingback: prevent weight loss

  • Pingback: Promotional Codes

  • Pingback: Building a Christ Centered Marriage:

  • Pingback: Artisanal Beverage

  • Pingback: Online shopping

  • Pingback: University T shirts

  • Pingback: best fat burners 2015

  • Pingback: visit this website

  • Pingback: digital signage hardware player

  • Pingback: Beautiful Life (Mandarin)

  • Pingback: computer accessories

  • Pingback: Seattle Web Design

  • Pingback: vimax pills

  • Pingback: vimax porn

  • Pingback: money back shopping

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: best seo tools

  • Pingback: rv dealer cleveland

  • Pingback: atms for events

  • Pingback: Click

  • Pingback: preschool lesson plans

  • Pingback: Clinique Bonus

  • Pingback: ktet september 2014 answer keys category 2

  • Pingback: 8 bets10

  • Pingback: Cord Blood

  • Pingback: but hip hop beats

  • Pingback: Designing Resilient Schools Iversity

  • Pingback: online flashcards

  • Pingback: akron bail bondsman

  • Pingback: lucy full movie online

  • Pingback: ways on how to make money online

  • Pingback: cheap books

  • Pingback: models las vegas

  • Pingback: vimax porn

  • Pingback: bamboo

  • Pingback: ukladanie parkietu warszawa

  • Pingback: minecraft modyfikacje

  • Pingback: doctor who

  • Pingback: Heathrow

  • Pingback: zobacz

  • Pingback: 2014

  • Pingback: work from home

  • Pingback: South Dakota Mortgage

  • Pingback: Wyoming WY Fiat Dealers

  • Pingback: Tiffanie Craddock

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: vine followers

  • Pingback: Celebrity Wisetrail

  • Pingback: seo

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: Tagesdeals

  • Pingback: editorial director

  • Pingback: hemp cbd oil

  • Pingback: Designer Engagement Rings

  • Pingback: molotov mitchell

  • Pingback: iphone 5 unlock

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: binary options trading strategy

  • Pingback: beton towarowy

  • Pingback: yesil kahve

  • Pingback: ติว ielts

  • Pingback: Black Advanced Belts

  • Pingback: Web Design Wakefield Centre

  • Pingback: osbournes

  • Pingback: Christmas Lights

  • Pingback: robotics

  • Pingback: How to sketch

  • Pingback: Sommier à prix discount

  • Pingback: sell my house fast

  • Pingback: angry birds cheat

  • Pingback: sell your house fast

  • Pingback: rhinoplasty

  • Pingback: SEO straipsniu rasymas

  • Pingback: WebForum

  • Pingback: Tekstu rasymo paslaugos

  • Pingback: htc

  • Pingback: asian glow and pepcid ac

  • Pingback: buy codeine online

  • Pingback: los angeles studio

  • Pingback: buy cialis

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: buy hydrocodone

  • Pingback: Positive Pregnancy Tests

  • Pingback: Aprender ingles

  • Pingback: windenergie

  • Pingback: azulvilla.pl

  • Pingback: Easy ibeacon Deployment

  • Pingback: Kosher China

  • Pingback: SEO

  • Pingback: Depression

  • Pingback: strona www

  • Pingback: niche marketing

  • Pingback: corporate email signature

  • Pingback: Polaris RZR Parts

  • Pingback: Casino

  • Pingback: Spam

  • Pingback: home security

  • Pingback: esta web sobre la alcachofa de laon

  • Pingback: great website design

  • Pingback: cars history

  • Pingback: kezia noble

  • Pingback: mastering.blinkweb.com

  • Pingback: Printers to go wireless

  • Pingback: Insured Profits Scam

  • Pingback: app word descargar gratis

  • Pingback: superbahis217

  • Pingback: Download full software

  • Pingback: trifold printing

  • Pingback: Answer Key/Papers Solution

  • Pingback: Zahnarzt Ludwigsburg - Ihr Zahnarzt in Ludwigsburg

  • Pingback: web hosting

  • Pingback: Chalatas

  • Pingback: the best online photography course

  • Pingback: Free Porn

  • Pingback: cialis online pharmacy

  • Pingback: Online Gambling

  • Pingback: Calgary limo

  • Pingback: nri shaadi site

  • Pingback: auto insurance in dallas

  • Pingback: Car Tours

  • Pingback: blogger layouts

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: Babysitter Video

  • Pingback: Seduction

  • Pingback: SMS Nigeria

  • Pingback: sean david morton

  • Pingback: Online Photography Courses

  • Pingback: www.fotosidan.se/stolengear/

  • Pingback: en comprar garcinia cambogia

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: Appliances

  • Pingback: erotique

  • Pingback: New To Netflix

  • Pingback: discount codes

  • Pingback: Myrtle Beach SC Resort

  • Pingback: The Technology behind Hairfor2 Hair Thickener

  • Pingback: Dignitary Protection

  • Pingback: kos dekat stp

  • Pingback: caftan marocain

  • Pingback: pebble tile

  • Pingback: viagra - pirater-fb-gratuit.fr

  • Pingback: Christian Dior

  • Pingback: fontaneros madrid

  • Pingback: poker system

  • Pingback: wizard101 hack

  • Pingback: Garage door repair white plains

  • Pingback: debt

  • Pingback: foreclosed homes

  • Pingback: sexy emails

  • Pingback: water ionizers

  • Pingback: mca motor club

  • Pingback: Royal lepage business cards

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: loyal 9 marketing complaints

  • Pingback: Online Videos

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: factor quema grasa en pdf

  • Pingback: Toronto Product Photography

  • Pingback: Toronto Product Photography

  • Pingback: pfanswers

  • Pingback: custom

  • Pingback: Paint Protection

  • Pingback: kurtki robocze

  • Pingback: sex

  • Pingback: Sejf

  • Pingback: 3 Week Diet - How to Lose Weight Fast

  • Pingback: Kung Fu

  • Pingback: jak wybrac kulki gejszy

  • Pingback: justice

  • Pingback: Learn More Here

  • Pingback: avatrade review

  • Pingback: retener liquidos sintomas

  • Pingback: Best Hobby Videos

  • Pingback: comprar capas brasil

  • Pingback: ivan bedia

  • Pingback: CRKT knives

  • Pingback: hacienda night club

  • Pingback: Darian Braun 2014

  • Pingback: barcode night club

  • Pingback: Washtenaw hospice

  • Pingback: Lemon Software

  • Pingback: free online slots

  • Pingback: play online slots

  • Pingback: seo training

  • Pingback: small business loans for veterans with disabilities

  • Pingback: satellite tv service

  • Pingback: Dedicated Servers Los Angeles

  • Pingback: Bangla

  • Pingback: funny news

  • Pingback: cool cameras

  • Pingback: Fire Phone

  • Pingback: silnik krokowy

  • Pingback: Dopper

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: London Escorts

  • Pingback: Josh Griggs of Michigan

  • Pingback: alex woo jewelry

  • Pingback: blackberry app world

  • Pingback: hidden secret black friday deals this year

  • Pingback: Joshua Griggs of SG Capital Group Mi

  • Pingback: cheap Homecoming Dresses

  • Pingback: how to make video free

  • Pingback: hotmail

  • Pingback: Amauris Bastidas

  • Pingback: raspberry ketone

  • Pingback: escort hamburg

  • Pingback: shared hosting

  • Pingback: London City Airport - Transfers

  • Pingback: sylwester góry

  • Pingback: kangen

  • Pingback: Men's Medical Clinics

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Arvind Pandit

  • Pingback: Joe Jackson

  • Pingback: miami web design

  • Pingback: live sex

  • Pingback: chocolate giveaway

  • Pingback: indian astrologer

  • Pingback: Jabong Coupons for Online Shoppers in India

  • Pingback: halloween joke boobees

  • Pingback: https://www.facebook.com/answerplaza

  • Pingback: Luigi Wewege

  • Pingback: selling on etsy

  • Pingback: how to sell on etsy

  • Pingback: real estate marketing

  • Pingback: job interview tips

  • Pingback: look at here

  • Pingback: glass

  • Pingback: beren saat bio

  • Pingback: Brooklyn Plumber

  • Pingback: Clash of Clans Triche illimit? gemmes 2015

  • Pingback: how to jump higher blog

  • Pingback: Chad Conley Bail Bonds

  • Pingback: taruhan bola

  • Pingback: my friend cayla

  • Pingback: cancun transfers

  • Pingback: bezurocne pozicky

  • Pingback: Clash of clans gemm?s tricher

  • Pingback: weightloss

  • Pingback: tax calculator

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Betsey Hapner

  • Pingback: LIDAR

  • Pingback: or buy beats

  • Pingback: mypaydaynowtoday

  • Pingback: polycystic ovaries

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: Wire Grill Brush

  • Pingback: guaranteed paid signups

  • Pingback: domain

  • Pingback: winnebago county process server

  • Pingback: gel nails Scottsdale

  • Pingback: l?s upp iphone 5s

  • Pingback: fleet tracking

  • Pingback: motorola kod

  • Pingback: sony kod

  • Pingback: l?s upp telia

  • Pingback: Jet Ski Accident Attorney Myrtle Beach

  • Pingback: Wealth Dragons

  • Pingback: http://gmailcorreoiniciarsesion.wordpress.com/

  • Pingback: guess the emoji

  • Pingback: cigar

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: american made clothing

  • Pingback: www.keepitcleanwiring.com

  • Pingback: Web Jobs

  • Pingback: chrysler limo

  • Pingback: Themes & Plugins For $15/month ONLY!

  • Pingback: insomnia

  • Pingback: vender y comprar

  • Pingback: Steve

  • Pingback: sweater shaver fabric

  • Pingback: Skepvet

  • Pingback: money from website

  • Pingback: Personal fitness trainer in Petah Tikva

  • Pingback: Maduras XXX

  • Pingback: Dutch Glow

  • Pingback: network marketing

  • Pingback: nail designs with rhinestones

  • Pingback: teen girl tube movies

  • Pingback: pikavippi

  • Pingback: bamboo fire piston

  • Pingback: buy facebook fans

  • Pingback: best viagra

  • Pingback: pet rescue saga level 44

  • Pingback: serwis komputerów Bydgoszcz

  • Pingback: Receiving and Logistic

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: more info

  • Pingback: cheapest online mba

  • Pingback: dog

  • Pingback: Ted Virtue biography

  • Pingback: bikram yoga hong kong central station

  • Pingback: bus tours to new york from moncton

  • Pingback: Motor Club Of America Scam

  • Pingback: iphone epos

  • Pingback: Home Improvement

  • Pingback: capital one visa platinum

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: expert interview coach

  • Pingback: site

  • Pingback: fowllowme

  • Pingback: gojiactivess.com

  • Pingback: expert interview coach

  • Pingback: Battery Recycling Sacramento

  • Pingback: Illinois Flat Fee MLS

  • Pingback: Bail Bonds

  • Pingback: Appliance repair Roseville

  • Pingback: Find a distributor

  • Pingback: blogshop

  • Pingback: Marin marketing

  • Pingback: reverse phone search

  • Pingback: next directory phone number

  • Pingback: Spyhunter 4

  • Pingback: bad credit auto loan

  • Pingback: quiet cymbals

  • Pingback: Reverse Phone Lookup

  • Pingback: cryptocurrency

  • Pingback: fdpod

  • Pingback: Video porno

  • Pingback: Liberty Tax Service Franchise

  • Pingback: escorts in bangkok

  • Pingback: hp printer repair

  • Pingback: rock music video

  • Pingback: Locksmith Oklahoma City

  • Pingback: wireless internet services

  • Pingback: local locksmith

  • Pingback: Bankruptcy Lawyer Miami Fl.

  • Pingback: life insurance companies

  • Pingback: Luis Souto Director de Proyectos eCommerce

  • Pingback: free url website

  • Pingback: jobs in marketing

  • Pingback: lab tests

  • Pingback: ebola jamaica hospital

  • Pingback: Rc drones with camera

  • Pingback: Naturkosmetik

  • Pingback: Kosmetik Tagesdeals

  • Pingback: Arvind Pandit

  • Pingback: Advent Calendar

  • Pingback: internet services

  • Pingback: Victor Talking Machine Company - Camden, NJ

  • Pingback: compare car insurance

  • Pingback: small business lending

  • Pingback: gametracker

  • Pingback: pr ajansı

  • Pingback: How To Increase Breast Size Naturally Up to 2 Cup Size

  • Pingback: Couples Massage Kelowna

  • Pingback: personal training certifications

  • Pingback: projektowanie ogrodów lublin

  • Pingback: tworzenie stron www poznan

  • Pingback: http://nutrimania.pl

  • Pingback: sell house fast

  • Pingback: debt consolidation agency

  • Pingback: credit card offers

  • Pingback: credit card offers

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: telephone services

  • Pingback: arganolie

  • Pingback: security system

  • Pingback: furniture online singapore

  • Pingback: advanced data recovery review

  • Pingback: Debt Management

  • Pingback: saran wrap weight loss

  • Pingback: Wordpress Theme Search

  • Pingback: (816) 373-9080 birth injury

  • Pingback: taman kenangan lestari

  • Pingback: Buy Ayahuasca

  • Pingback: DEALER FINANCING

  • Pingback: www.tsplus.co.uk

  • Pingback: Pharmacy Perth

  • Pingback: sleep mask

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: IT Services

  • Pingback: seo training

  • Pingback: rave clothing

  • Pingback: funerals perth

  • Pingback: online art

  • Pingback: Dental insurance

  • Pingback: Easy Sketch Pro Demonstration

  • Pingback: government made simple

  • Pingback: buy cheap

  • Pingback: download dragon story hack

  • Pingback: electric scooter for kids

  • Pingback: tesla mod reviews

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: what is a niche

  • Pingback: neuro3x reviews

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Chicago private process server

  • Pingback: instabigphoto

  • Pingback: Pirater compte Skype

  • Pingback: Comment Pirater Skype

  • Pingback: facebook fans kaufen

  • Pingback: content slider wordpress

  • Pingback: las vegas video production

  • Pingback: the crouse law firm

  • Pingback: Take Advantage Of Our 100% Compensation Plan

  • Pingback: jacquie et michel

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: mobile phone

  • Pingback: surprise eggs

  • Pingback: snail white cream

  • Pingback: Start sending BULK SMS's NOW

  • Pingback: SMS API

  • Pingback: survival checklist

  • Pingback: buy new iphone5

  • Pingback: diy solar

  • Pingback: low car insurance

  • Pingback: GM recall lawyer

  • Pingback: astrologer in india

  • Pingback: voyage guadeloupe

  • Pingback: best follow

  • Pingback: startups

  • Pingback: new country music

  • Pingback: toys with apps

  • Pingback: three bureau credit report

  • Pingback: hen party brighton

  • Pingback: hen weekend brighton

  • Pingback: Steve Nudelberg

  • Pingback: quick loans

  • Pingback: Free Apps

  • Pingback: Carlsbad personal injury lawsuit

  • Pingback: seo directory

  • Pingback: XXX

  • Pingback: Legitimate Work from Home Jobs

  • Pingback: Profi-sprecher

  • Pingback: Fake Inflated Ego

  • Pingback: hen weekend brighton

  • Pingback: dental school

  • Pingback: free princess games

  • Pingback: coupon codes

  • Pingback: Best casino bonus

  • Pingback: my credit scores

  • Pingback: CMS

  • Pingback: cash flow estimates

  • Pingback: forums martinique

  • Pingback: meteo martinique

  • Pingback: witryna firmowa

  • Pingback: Affiliate Marketing

  • Pingback: infinity downline marketing

  • Pingback: make money quick

  • Pingback: your shopping Headquarters

  • Pingback: Body to body Massage abu dhabi

  • Pingback: najcudowniejsza sala weselna wesele-w-palacu

  • Pingback: best free online dating site

  • Pingback: Tinnitus Remedy

  • Pingback: tucson dog grooming

  • Pingback: kakprosto.ru

  • Pingback: www.kakprosto.ru

  • Pingback: new orleans vending machines

  • Pingback: couples counseling san francisco

  • Pingback: Celebrity Shoes

  • Pingback: paul chen poster passion never fails

  • Pingback: luis betancourt tshirt professional

  • Pingback: ip valuations

  • Pingback: Make Money Fast

  • Pingback: jason goldberg tshirt sales go up and down service stays forever

  • Pingback: surprise eggs

  • Pingback: naples pet sitting

  • Pingback: Best Poker bonus

  • Pingback: Custodia

  • Pingback: iPhone Repair

  • Pingback: ofermedia

  • Pingback: Flavon Protect

  • Pingback: Green Smoke e-cigs

  • Pingback: strona firmy

  • Pingback: premium submision

  • Pingback: self development activities

  • Pingback: how to win at blackjack

  • Pingback: pet sitter

  • Pingback: autoparts

  • Pingback: cell phone signal booster

  • Pingback: concentration vitamin

  • Pingback: fashion photographers

  • Pingback: Ratchet

  • Pingback: penis enlargment

  • Pingback: bookies with cash out

  • Pingback: betting exchanges

  • Pingback: advanced warfare hacks

  • Pingback: stryker hip recall

  • Pingback: stryker hip lawsuit

  • Pingback: additional reading

  • Pingback: call of duty advanced warfare hacks

  • Pingback: Dallas lawyer

  • Pingback: Blogging Tips

  • Pingback: baterie do laptopów

  • Pingback: wynajem samochodów

  • Pingback: colombian brides

  • Pingback: buy instagram followers cheap

  • Pingback: Høm huse

  • Pingback: palm springs

  • Pingback: Chicago PPC Solution

  • Pingback: The Best Marketing Solution for Social Media Professionals

  • Pingback: Naheed Ali

  • Pingback: radar and laser forum

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów Gliwice

  • Pingback: plastic surgery pittsburgh

  • Pingback: Live

  • Pingback: Music Video

  • Pingback: Guard and Maid Rooms and Ablutions and Kitchen for sale

  • Pingback: culinair

  • Pingback: radarandlaserforum

  • Pingback: sell house fast

  • Pingback: Medical University in Almaty

  • Pingback: xarelto lawsuits

  • Pingback: Fine art resale

  • Pingback: diabetes miracle cure review

  • Pingback: amazon retailer

  • Pingback: bestradardetectors

  • Pingback: chiropractor

  • Pingback: Belt Buckles

  • Pingback: Lotions

  • Pingback: nail fungus

  • Pingback: nail fungus

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: cirurgia plastica bh

  • Pingback: forex trading bot scams

  • Pingback: noveller novell

  • Pingback: My Affiliate Insider reviews

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: fragdenpfleger

  • Pingback: language of desire review

  • Pingback: bulk supplements review

  • Pingback: advice here

  • Pingback: click over here

  • Pingback: Jenna Jameson

  • Pingback: links

  • Pingback: URL-f?rkortare

  • Pingback: polecam link

  • Pingback: Removing Likes

  • Pingback: how to cure yeast infection

  • Pingback: html5

  • Pingback: All Natural Viagra Pills Save $$$

  • Pingback: glamour photography

  • Pingback: mobile mechanic shop on wheels in Atlanta Georgia

  • Pingback: Neverenough Consulting

  • Pingback: Virginia Bath

  • Pingback: witryna firmowa

  • Pingback: wine

  • Pingback: orthodontist Woodhaven NY

  • Pingback: rick ross

  • Pingback: Pueraria

  • Pingback: Pueraria Mirifica

  • Pingback: Green Smoke reviews

  • Pingback: Green Smoke e-cigarettes

  • Pingback: Mca Scam

  • Pingback: Reverse Cell Directory

  • Pingback: Mastering Studio

  • Pingback: who is johnny the healer

  • Pingback: The Hotsawce - bring some flavor to your day

  • Pingback: The Hotsawce - bring some flavor to your day

  • Pingback: what is ibogaine

  • Pingback: web directory

  • Pingback: buy best cheapest wallhacks

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: TV Uzivo

  • Pingback: solid color

  • Pingback: cyber monday

  • Pingback: women style

  • Pingback: jokes and pictures

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: Drug Rehab Los Angeles

  • Pingback: Taimur Khan is a co-founder of Blueberry

  • Pingback: international express courier in hyderabad

  • Pingback: vancouver marketing company

  • Pingback: drivers notebook

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Riding scooters

  • Pingback: visit homepage

  • Pingback: deals on hotel in NYC

  • Pingback: Freecall einrichten

  • Pingback: Paid to click

  • Pingback: poncelet or poncelet brian

  • Pingback: centriohosting

  • Pingback: salon de massage paris 15

  • Pingback: Embroidery

  • Pingback: Tha Mey

  • Pingback: Dating coach

  • Pingback: and vincent

  • Pingback: mcd music promoter

  • Pingback: Diamond Ranch Academy Admissions

  • Pingback: Plombier Enghien les Bains

  • Pingback: analog mastering, professional mastering studio

  • Pingback: treasure beach vacation rentals

  • Pingback: my link here

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Serrurier Maisons Alfort

  • Pingback: go

  • Pingback: Schottland '96 Edinburgh

  • Pingback: free porn

  • Pingback: jovialmum

  • Pingback: Ruby lane vintage home d?cor

  • Pingback: Toronto Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: Pennies for papa foundation

  • Pingback: ways to save money

  • Pingback: Final Cut Pro X Plugins

  • Pingback: Prosthodontics Pearland

  • Pingback: viagra canadian

  • Pingback: free business directory

  • Pingback: www.quickextenderpro.com

  • Pingback: White Label Rank Tracker

  • Pingback: Burgers and Fries

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center address

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center Huffman

  • Pingback: Quantenheilung Berlin

  • Pingback: Afrobeats

  • Pingback: music instruction

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: My Daily Choice Top Earners

  • Pingback: hostgator promo code

  • Pingback: Best Buy Deals

  • Pingback: surgeon

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: business

  • Pingback: Internet Marketing Consultant

  • Pingback: hostgator discount

  • Pingback: youth group fundraisers

  • Pingback: thanksgiving in canada 2014

  • Pingback: Putt Putt Fun Center Team Building

  • Pingback: สอน CU TEP

  • Pingback: writing articles

  • Pingback: unfall

  • Pingback: hanford haircuts

  • Pingback: malayalam movies

  • Pingback: fridge repair

  • Pingback: Rolls Royce Restorations in Bedfordshire

  • Pingback: Rolls Royce restoration

  • Pingback: Interest Rates

  • Pingback: Doctor Hatem Elhagaly

  • Pingback: Read This

  • Pingback: Chave keso

  • Pingback: hindi movies wathc online

  • Pingback: unique fundraising ideas

  • Pingback: Going Here

  • Pingback: Porta de seguran?a

  • Pingback: Taking pets abroad

  • Pingback: free online chatting

  • Pingback: sub zero refrigerator repairs

  • Pingback: web design and mobile application developement

  • Pingback: church

  • Pingback: eroina

  • Pingback: party rentals long island

  • Pingback: timo

  • Pingback: giant balloons for sale

  • Pingback: forex no deposit bonus

  • Pingback: CMS

  • Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  • Pingback: manfaat biji jarak

  • Pingback: comprar

  • Pingback: socially responsible fashion

  • Pingback: code de la route

  • Pingback: play free online slots

  • Pingback: Fixed betting games 2/1 1/2

  • Pingback: Electrical Engineering

  • Pingback: gladiator heels

  • Pingback: Hay House Hypnosis hypnotherapy NLP mp3 downloads

  • Pingback: Dusti Packen

  • Pingback: cleaner

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: hispanic baptist church

  • Pingback: url

  • Pingback: free taco bell gift cards

  • Pingback: generic cialis online

  • Pingback: mma

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: webb county

  • Pingback: how to market anything

  • Pingback: assistenza aziende grosseto


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X