“If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Then Don’t Get Gay Married”

Dont like too bad

If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. 

That’s how the slogan goes. 

But … who really believed they meant it?

Not, evidently, the Church of Scotland. The Kirk, as it’s called, is considering a move to discontinue performing marriage services “rather than face a slew of lawsuits from homosexual couples demanding to be wed.” 

Read about it here

  • ZenDruid

    The trend in the UK seems to be toward non-Abrahamic celebrations of marriage in general. Given the doctrinal hostility of religious institutions toward same-gender love, GLBT people have certainly made much more pleasant arrangements to celebrate their unions. In short, this is a non-crisis for the conservative churches, since they will keep their loyal followers through thick and thin.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Another purchaser of bridges for sale. If you lived on planet Earth, you would know that the moves to oblige the Churches to celebrate your pretend marriages have already started.

  • LOLatTEApartyFAILURE

    Cry babies

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Well, we’re not in the habit of purchasing them and calling them our own, like a certain group we might mention.

  • FW Ken

    While I won’t be getting gay married. I will be paying the bills. Marriage is a social act, with social costs and benefits.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      But you do this for heterosexual marriages as well.

      Presumably, you consider the tally of costs and benefits to differ considerably between the two.

      • FW Ken

        Yes, I do, but am open to actual data on the matter.

        • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

          Probably not worth the trouble for either of us. First we’d have to agree on means of assessing degree of “cost” and “benefit” (and hopefully “return” as a directed distance function between them), and I consider that implausibly unlikely. Second, there seem to be a lot of tiny hidden costs and benefits, making an exhaustive enumeration tedious. Third, I’d suggest that since your position is the one which appears to require showing a difference in net return, the burden of proof to present evidence of such distance is similarly yours.

          • FW Ken

            If you want to re-define marriage as it’s been generally understood across cultures for thousands of years, then the burden of proof is on you. But it’s not that complicated, once you articulate the interest the community has in marriage of any kind. Then you can see how – or if – same-sex relationships fit into those interests.

            • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

              I disagree with your passing of the burden, but the math to show this would be even more tedious, and even less worth my trouble.

  • Marc

    This is just noise. The bill is not yet even passed and according to the article pointed in the post we read ““Religious bodies will have to opt in for their celebrants to be able to solemnize same-sex marriages,” a spokesman said. “Should a body choose to opt in, there is no obligation on any individual celebrant of that body to take part.”

    • Dale

      I think the announcement is more than noise, and that it reflects genuine concern. However, I also think that the statement was intended to produce political pressure to make sure that the religious exemptions be solid enough to withstand a legal challenge.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      If you are stupid enough to believe a guarantee from a British politician, I guarantee that you shall be peeled, fleeced and skinned before you even know what is happening to you. You are talking of the most untrustworthy breed in the universe. The Kirk is showing common sense, based on its clear perception that BRITISH POLITICIANS LIE, LIE, LIE.,LIE AND LIE. And then they lie some more.

      • Sus_1

        “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”
        - Stephen King

      • Marc

        I understand you have your own opinions, including a) that I will bee skinned, and b) that you don’t like British politicians. Noted.

        Now, I haven’t heard that religious communities have been forced to perform same-sex marriages in any of the countries where a law allowing for such marriages has been passed. So I have some evidence for an educated guess of what is going to happen in Scotland. I understand Kirk concerns and that they want to push to make sure will not be forced to perform gay marriages but that still the best guess of what is going to happen is that the Church in Scotland will be able to opt out to solemnise same-sex marriages.

        Finally, if that protection happens, then we would have also evidence that that particular politician didn’t lie. So it will be easy to verify a posteriori who is right.

        God bless

  • pagansister

    If the government’s bill will protect churches from having to preform homosexual marriages, then what is the problem? IMO if a church has a problem with uniting same gender couples, then they shouldn’t have to. There are many churches that will marry SS couples and there are those that won’t in this country, so hopefully that would be true in Scotland also. Will have to see what the Kirk does in Scotland. ( An absolutely beautiful country, BTW–gorgeous).

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      The problem is that the first judge who thinks otherwise may strike down the law as contrary to the European Declaration on human rights, which is law in Britain. (It would not be, but as we have seen in the recent past, the creativity of judges in this field is infinite.) Nobody of any sense, at any rate, believes any guarantee from a British politician: used car dealers are towers of integrity and truth compared with them.

      • pagansister

        Sounds like the British trust their politicians as much as those in the USA do. (no offense, Rebecca).

  • Dale

    Whether the Scottish Parliament passes legislation to allow same-sex marriage, and what kind protections for religious such legislation offers, is an open question. That latter question seems to be the focus of the Kirk’s concern at the moment. A legal committee of the denomination has been tasked to keep an eye on the legislation, and potential ramifications.

    Quoting from the WND article:

    The Church of Scotland also said in a statement there are no plans to stop conducting marriages at the moment, but the findings of Hamilton’s committee will come before the denomination’s General Assembly in 2015.

    “As politicians consider the bill, the Church of Scotland asks for space for itself and for its ministers to decide whether to celebrate same-sex marriages,” Hamilton said. “We are simply urging that any legislation if approved is robust enough to protect those who in conscience will not want to conduct such ceremonies.”

  • Michael Ejercito

    What would be the legal basis for such lawsuits?

    • kenofken

      In many West and Northern European countries, even though they are secular and tolerant of many faiths, they still have an official state church. In essense, the church is an extension of the state, and therefore in some sense public facilities or institutions of a sort. From what I can tell, they can premise these sorts of lawsuits on something roughly akin to 14th Amendment claims here or others seeking equal access to public facilities and services. Not separating state and church has its flip sides.

      • Michael Ejercito

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty#Scotland

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCormick_v._Lord_Advocate

        The only basis for a Scottish court to strike down an act of the Scottish Parliament would be if it violated the Act of Union. Otherwise, a law allowing the Church to officiate only opposite-sex marriages would stand.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Nonsense. Scotland recognizes the European Declaration on Human Rights, which means any judge can take it on himself to strike a law down as contrary to “human rights”, which they have already been doing with gusto and great creativity.

  • David J. White

    That’s about like saying, “If you believe that owning slaves is wrong, then don’t own one.” After all, it was the South that embraced the pro-choice position on slavery.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      Perhaps rather more like saying “If you believe that interracial marriage is wrong, then don’t marry outside your race” — where the South did not embrace the pro-choice position, and where the remaining support for legislative prohibition appears concentrated.

  • Bill S

    “We are simply urging that any legislation if approved is robust enough to protect those who in conscience will not want to conduct such ceremonies.”

    That certainly seems doable. So, what is the problem?

    • hamiltonr

      The problem is that the precedent from all over the world is that this is not doable for the simple reason that the advocates of gay marriage will not stop there. Lawsuits trying to force churches to perform gay marriages have already been filed in this country. The person who is pushing this bill in Scotland said they would only allow a conscience exemption to get it passed, that they oppose it. It will only be a matter of time before they repeal the exemption, if they pass it.

      • Bill S

        Well, someone can be for gay marriage and for conscience exemptions as well. The right thing to do is have both.

        • FW Ken

          Indeed, but the day after the court decisions, gay activists were already calling for punishing those churches that didn’t comply. The courts have now ruled that personal animus is the basis for opposing gay marriage. Therefore…

      • Dale

        Rebecca, could you refresh my memory? What are some of the American instances of lawsuits against churches to force them to perform gay marriages?

        • hamiltonr

          Not today. (Sunday.)
          I’ll get them for you tomorrow.

        • hamiltonr
          • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

            Especially since Scotland is what we started from and Scotland is so far part of the UK.

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            I consider the latter case a poor parallel, due to the official establishment of the Church of England causing a severe break between UK and US law on Church-State interaction. Churches in the British Commonwealth have far more grounds for concern than those in the US.

            As to the former case, the lawsuit was technically not to compel a church to perform a gay marriage, but to permit one to be performed — on a site that they own that does not have a church on it, but which was engaged as a public accommodation.

            Similarly, if (for example) the Catholic Church owns a hotel somewhere in California (unlikely, but conceivably a result of a sufficiently weird bequest), they cannot prevent someone from hiring the ballroom as the site for a gay marriage; however, the government may not coerce any priest nor deacon to perform the ceremony.

          • Dale

            Rebecca, the LifeSite News article concerns the Ocean Grove Camp Association. However, the OGCA is not a church, nor was it being asked to perform gay marriages.

            Because the OGCA was not a church, it had requested a special property tax exemption under a state environmental program. In exchange, the OGCA agreed to make its facilities open to the public “on an equal basis.” Later someone wanted to rent the open air, outdoor pavilion on its ocean boardwalk to hold a gay marriage. At that point, the OGCA refused, which led to the lawsuit.

            The fact that the OGCA was -not- a church, and thus did not have the same protections as a church, was central to the case.

            As for the UK case, of course, it involves a different country with different legal history. It also involves the Church of England, which is a state church and tied to the government in ways which does not transfer to the US.

        • FW Ken

          It won’t be a matter of forcing churches into conducting gay marriages, but of punishing them if they don’t. Dale, if the lawsuits aren’t in full swing a year from now, I owe you a beer.

  • RelapsedCatholic

    Thankfully we have separation of Church and State. Notice it was the ‘Church of Scotland’ that is facing lawsuits. A church that is at the service of the state. Since it has received benefits and derives authority at least in part from the state. This should not happen here. The same separation of church and state that conservatives have been decrying for the last twenty years may be what they embrace later.

    • FW Ken

      RC, think “tax exempt status” and “public accommodation”. The former would, of course, limit Christian’s ability to feed the hungry, run Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and the myriad other social services. I have read one gay activist state openly that he is fine with that: shut Catholic schools, hospitals, social services down.

      • RelapsedCatholic

        Churches are not public accommodations. As far as the charities go that is going to be a tough question. What if they were asked to minister to or employ gay (married) people? Would that erase the good work they do? Would that taint their mission? I found it very disturbing that Catholic adoption services chose to shut down rather than continue operating. It says to me that they consider their ideological purity more important than the work they are doing. Which again seems very wrong, and very in-Christlike. Granted I am a LGBTQ-affirming Catholic.

        And the voice of a few activities do not frighten me, have you heard what some Catholic bloggers and priests have been saying lately?

        • FW Ken

          As noted below, Catholic social services serve people without restrictions. There is no issue of “ideological purity”. The question comes when serving peerless needs becomes a demand to publicly affirm immoral behavior.

          • RelapsedCatholic

            Does service require affirmation? Does the fact I teach each of my students mean I approve of their lifestyle, beliefs and choices? Certainly not. But the morality of my actions is not determined by the choices of and beliefs of those I serve.

            • FW Ken

              The situation is that of forcing others to affirm, at least by implication, behaviors (not persons) that others consider evil. Would you willingly cater a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan?

              • RelapsedCatholic

                I teach racist kids all the time. If they were Klan members I would still teach them science. That’s the job. That’s my calling. And if my business had them as clients I would certainly find less obvious ways to decline their business if I thought it would hurt my own.

                • FW Ken

                  And Catholic social services serve racists, persons of all races, and gay people as well. It’s what were do. We don’t affirm sin, however.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        If constantly Admonishing Sinners is so important as to continue even when doing so will impede their performance of the Corporal Works of Mercy, that would appear to say something about what sort of Church they are choosing to be.

        • FW Ken

          That’s an ignorant and malicious statement.that turns the situation on its head. Catholic charitable activities have traditionally served all persons. That gay activists are willing to see services that won’t bend to their obsession tells the tale: serve gay interests, or children be hanged. It’s not like they can’t get their children from other agencies; every agency must conform or close.

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            While your allegation of malice seems to simplest warrant a nolo contendere response (my alleged malice in presenting a potential for implications does not mean the potential for implications is incorrect — particularly when I do not make such implications explicit), the allegation of ignorance seems clearly defensible. Finding an internal conflict (even merely superficial) tends to require a significant degree of familiarity. How many of the Works can the average adult Catholic name from memory these days?

            If they have “traditionally served all persons”, why is any change required to now “serve gay interests”?

            Sticking with a theme, I’ll also note, such “conform or close” requirements exist on race. Compare:

            That’s an ignorant and malicious statement that turns the situation on its head. First Segregated Baptist charitable activities have traditionally served all persons. That black activists are willing to see services [close] that won’t bend to their obsession tells the tale: serve black interests, or children be hanged. It’s not like they can’t get their children from other agencies; every agency must conform or close.

            • FW Ken

              That was nonsensical. Not even a good try.

              What does Catholics knowing the corporal works have to do with anything? We do them. Unlike atheists. There are entire systems of education, health, and family services built and supported by Catholics.

              • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                The claim that Catholics are better at performing the corporal works than atheists again appears to deserve a response of nolo contendere (with a side note of being attitude bolstering), as irrelevant to the charge directed against me in particular of ignorance.

                (You also don’t appear to have responded to the parallel I pointed out.)

                • FW Ken

                  I did respond to your parallel when II said it was nonsensible. “Stupid” would be more accurate.
                  As to the business about atheists and charitable works that is verifcable. I posted on it recently. The levels of giving by religious people – even mildly religious – is much higher than by atheists. Here is one of many articles that demonstrate that fact.

                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm

                  Perhaps you will learn to not make stupid comments such as

                  How many of the Works can the average adult Catholic name from memory these days?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Don’t be ridiculous. In the past, “separation of church and state” did not stop the US government using the language of cannon to force the Mormons to abandon polygamy. In the future, they can and will do the same to other religious bodies when they disapprove of their sexual morality. Never mind that we disagree with the Mormon view and think the government had a point in putting it down, the precedent more than exists. The day the US government decides that the prohibition of gay marriage is against its laws – and with the horrible sentences just passed by SCOTUS you are three-quarters of the way there already – you WILL see the armed forces taking over churches and cathedrals.

      • RelapsedCatholic

        Bollocks. Polygamy was outlawed because in the vast majority of cases it was an abusive system that involved child brides. I am sure that there are a few non-abusive polygamous marriages, but that doesn’t erase the historical record. Although I disagree with my own church’s stance, the day they are compelled to violate their own rules I will be protesting alongside you. As will many other people. One of the basic principles of democracy is that I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          It’s not about what you say, or haven’t you noticed? The USA suppressed polygamy because it was polygamy. Go read the contemporary materials: there is practically no mention of child brides, but plenty of anger at the outrage at American (adult) womanhood. You evidently are not capable of understanding how other periods thought and acted, and why.

          • RelapsedCatholic

            I apologize, polygamy remains outlawed because of the reasons I listed. It was certainly outlawed then for the reasons you listed. But then again we were also systemically exterminating an entire race of people at the time, we need to learn the lessons of the past so we don’t repeat them.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Dear God in Heaven. I give up, I should have to teach this character the history of his own country, bit by bit, at the same time as somehow overcoming that strange modern attitude that says that never mind how little history you may know, you have the right, indeed the duty, to be indignant about it. Sorry, life’s not long enough.

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            In the USA, such separation does only go so far. Drawing a parallel from interracial dating, the case of Bob Jones U v US suggests that at some point (say, in the next decade or two), a religious-chartered school with policies against same-sex dating by students might be considered sufficiently discriminatory in violation of public policy as to risk losing their tax exemption. Worrying about that happening in the US would thus appear to be an entirely rational concern, given the historical parallels.

            Contrariwise, my understanding is that American churches still can refuse to perform interracial (or even non-white) marriages without legal consequences, as courts are not allowed to make extensive inquiry into any religious doctrine that might be basis for such sacramental proscription. As such, the Wall of Separation should go far enough to prevent in the US suits such as the Kirk reportedly fear in their own country — or at least, prevent them from lasting longer than for a summary motion to dismiss by the defendant and the judge to laugh the plaintiff out of court.

            Polygamy would seem to be a weaker parallel, as that involves civil proscription of an act with (one sect’s) religious prescription act, as opposed to the case of gay or interracial marriage where there is a civil permission of an act with religious proscription.

            Nohow, I’m not a lawyer.

            • FW Ken

              The comparison of same-sex and interracial marriage is false in a number of ways. First and foremost, being gay and being black are not the same. The former is a self-reported subjective claim about an ontological state without foundation in science. Racial identity is an objective, scientifically verifiable fact. Moreover, inter-racial marriage advocates never exhibited anything like the level of obsession at work in the client case.

              I will say this: I wonder if objections to interracial marriage really came from biblical precepts, our whether the bible was used to justify what other social forces were wanting.

              • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                While I agree being black and being gay are different, I’d consider your characterization of the differences being “without foundation in science” an overstatement. Both racial and sexual identity have underlying empirical components and overlying social constructs as to their interpretation; the difference is quantitative degree, not qualitative. Contrariwise, the reason I make the parallel is that of the arguments fielded against gay marriage, almost all (though exceptions exist) can have just a few changes made from “interracial” to “gay”, and look almost identical to those made in the 1950s. (You might look for the ~3min YouTube video of the Reverend Phil Snider talking to a town council meeting. There are a couple copies on YouTube, and it was posted with a transcript back last October over at the Friendly Atheist website.)

                I’ll also note that the question you raise can similarly be converted: “I wonder if objections to homosexual marriage really came from biblical precepts, our whether the bible was used to justify what other social forces were wanting.” However, I’ll admit the answer is not necessarily the same. (Feel free to go searching for the historiography of race with regard to “the Curse of Ham” and “the Mark of Cain”, but my quick whack Google Books turns up nothing prior to 1734; in contrast, the Biblical proscriptions against male homosexuality are pretty straightforward, direct, and yield a record though more elided of condemnation longer in timespan.) Still, the degree of parallel does not shine positively on your position.

                As to the level of obsession exhibited, in that it may merely reflect a subjective perception of the degree of injustice, it would seem the “never exhibited” can cut as an argument in the other direction, too. Taking the premises that bans on interracial marriage was an injustice (which can simply be rejected, if you care to say so), and that exhibition is proportional to degree of injustice perceived by those impacted, your self-reported subjective assessment of a higher level of obsession for gay marriage supporters would indicate that this is an correspondingly larger injustice.

                • FW Ken

                  No, same-sex attractions and racial identity are qualitatively different. Race is a scientific and verifiable fact, “gay” is not. Race is objective, “gay” is subjective.

                  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                    You appear to just be repeating your previous assertion; so, I’ll simply repeat my previous response:

                    Both racial and sexual identity have underlying empirical components and overlying social constructs as to their interpretation; the difference is quantitative degree, not qualitative.

                    • FW Ken

                      The assertion in question is yours, to wit, that “being gay” has some sort of empirical components. I wait for explication or proof. BTW, you clearly lack the intelligence or honesty to back up your claims, so this is my last round with you. Trolls should not be fed.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      Since that was your last round, to try and keep it brief I’ll note that degree of arousal response to different forms of visual stimulus is an empirical measure of sexual orientation, and suggest anyone interested in the topic can look into the technical literature on differences in the neuroanatomy.

                    • FW Ken

                      I wasn’t clear, do well make one more attempt: the issue isn’t what flats your boat, but why. Gay rights advocates claim the attraction is an innate, natural variant of the human condition. If they are religious, they say “God made me gay.” Neither claim had a basis in anthropology, biology, or theology.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      For a foundation from theology, see John 1:3 — not that such necessarily derives a compelling, sufficient, or catechismally orthodox Catholic theological basis, but nonetheless is a basis in theology.

                      Both “innate” and “natural” conceal too many nuances and ambiguities for a comprensive response to be brief. Presuming you’re referring to the nature/nurture dichotomy, my understanding (the curious may try Google Scholar) is twin studies point to on the loose order of 30% genetic contribution versus 70% environmental. (As an incidental aside, rather less than the genetic predisposition to certain forms of prejudice; still, non-zero.) The degree to and means by which environment plays a role are also empirically studied.

                      If you’re trying to assert a natural/supernatural dichotomy (EG: gayness results from demonic possession, à la Jack Chick), response to that would seem to exceed my capacity to remain polite and within Ms. Hamilton’s posting guidelines.

      • Dale

        Fabio, I agree that in 19th century America the idea of separation of church and state, or religious freedom in general, was often overlooked. And there were grave abuses of both.

        However, the Mormons voluntarily gave up polygamy as a requirement for getting Utah admitted to the US as a state. This didn’t go down easily, and there was a great deal of intransigence, but the lure of statehood eventually was sufficient.
        http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehood.html

  • Luke James

    As the Church of Scotland ( including Scott homo’s ) they should have to do same sex weddings if that is legal or they could stop being a state church and join all the other faith’s in the country that do not need state backing .

  • Guest

    [Commment self-deleted, as better posted as a reply... presuming it gets through moderation]

  • Donald Spitz

    Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuals
    commit crimes against God and against the Holy Bible. After reading this story I
    now know why God wrote:
    Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he
    lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
    surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to
    uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
    between themselves:
    :26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
    affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
    against nature:

    :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
    of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
    which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
    which was meet.

    • Sus_1

      UGH – so gross

    • Sus_1

      Rebecca, I’m very surprised you published this comment from Donald Spitz. Have you seen his website? He encourages people to murder doctors who perform abortions. – http://www.armyofgod.com/

      Donald Spitz has been thrown out of Operation Rescue because of his support and friendship with Paul Hill.

      • hamiltonr

        I had no idea. Thank you Sus.

        • FW Ken

          Without commenting on the issue of making same-sex acts illegal, I will point out that the Lawrence case was a set up used for the specific purpose of legalizing gay sex. There are several versions of the event and they are an easy google.

    • hamiltonr

      I would normally not have allowed this comment, but since I did …

      I think you are wrong about a number of things. First, homosexuality is simply a word we use for same-sex attraction. I most definitely should not be criminalized, since in and of itself it is not even an action. It is simply an attraction.

      As for criminalizing homosexual acts, I have never thought that was a good or just thing to do. It is simply outside the legitimate purview of government to peer into its citizens’ bedrooms. I do not have a problem with government criminalizing sexual acts in public, however, as this kind of behavior infringes on the rights of others. I am speaking here of sexual acts in public parks and such. This kind of behavior can destroy the purpose of parks, which is to be places of recreation and relaxation for everyone.

      As for the verses you quote above, they are taken out of the context of the whole scriptures. Jesus plainly and repeatedly went to those who were outside the various commandments and also outside social acceptability to offer them redemption and love. He drew many of His most committed followers from among those people.

      Do not think that by a wholesale condemnation of a entire group of the people God made that you are being righteous. That is a complete mistake. God loves homosexual people just as much as He does you or me or anyone else.

    • FW Ken

      The most fundamentalist of Bible readers agree that the punishments prescribed for various Levitical law violations don’t apply, nor do the ritual or food restrictions necessary to a nomadic desert people.
      I recently asked why the Lev. 20 proscription of same-sex acts should be discarded, but not the others around it (against incest, child sacrifice, beastiality and the like). Why should the positive commandments of the Holiness Code – welcoming the stranger, loving oyur neighbor – be retained, but same-sex acts given a go. To Mr. Spitz I ask the same question in reverse: why should same-sex acts get the death penalty, but not, say, children disobeying their parents?

    • pagansister

      The quotes you pulled from the Bible could cause folks to completely leave any Christian faith. They have nothing to do with today, Dude.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    This wasn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

    The vast majority of homosexuals don’t have relationships steady enough to set in a marriage. The average homosexual man has more than 500 sexual partners–we’re supposed to think he wants to settle down with one and take happy pictures for poignant Youtube clips?

    The purpose of homosexual marriage is as a bludgeon against Christians. It’s the modern-day version of Fumi-e.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X