As a Catholic priest, I am against an executive order on religious liberty

A member of the LGBT community holds a candle during a memorial service for victims of the mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Photo courtesy of Rueters/Abhishek N.Cinnappa

NEW YORK (RNS) Religious conservatives and Republican members of Congress are urging President Trump to issue a sweeping religious liberty executive order, which I believe is unnecessary and most likely would threaten the rights of LGBT persons.

As a Catholic priest and scholar, I know that religious liberty is a bedrock principle of democracy. I also believe that honoring the intrinsic human dignity of gay, lesbian and transgender people is a requirement of religious faith. These values should not and need not be pitted against each other.

RELATED: Republicans in Congress push Trump for religious liberty executive order

Religious liberty is essential for faith-based ministries. But it should never be a pretext or cause for discrimination against any group. Religious exemptions from civil laws should be carefully crafted to both accommodate religious claims of conscience and uphold the civil rights of all Americans.

President Trump prays during the National Prayer Breakfast event in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 2, 2017. Photo courtesy of Retuers/Carlos Barria

This is why leaked drafts of Trump’s executive order raise serious concerns. It fails to properly balance the dual goods of religious freedom and nondiscrimination. Its language will be read by many as a broad assault upon LGBT rights and a license to deny basic services to same-sex couples. When the government sends a message that people can be denied basic human rights and dignities simply because of sexual orientation, neither the gospel nor religious freedom is well served.

Despite the rhetoric of persecution embraced by some, Christians are not under attack in this country. In many places in our world, Christians suffer severe official restrictions on practicing their faith and even, at times, do so at the cost of their lives. That is not the case here. My fellow Catholics and I are free to worship and express our faith in the public square. Catholic hospitals, charities and universities, which serve millions of Americans regardless of faith, contribute to the common good in countless ways.

To use the language of “persecution” to justify far-reaching exemptions from public policies both trivializes the plight of believers who endure genuine threats and compromises our own faith commitment to the equal human dignity of all people.

Some might think it’s unusual for a Catholic priest to “defend LGBT rights.” But this way of phrasing the issue is misleading. “LGBT rights,” in the abstract sense, are not at stake here, but rather the human and civil rights of real people. At issue is not the protection of behaviors — about which there are sincere differences of belief within religious communities — but the welfare of fellow citizens and believers, human beings and families who are loved by God. This is why Pope Francis, while defending traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, has also called for a more inclusive welcome and embrace of LGBT persons. He even states that the church should ask forgiveness from gay people for the times Christians have excluded them or made them feel unwelcome through our practices and rhetoric.

Because of this papal encouragement, I and a growing number of Catholic leaders are trying to chart a better path forward.

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, reacting to the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, called for “mature and serene reflections as we move forward together” and cited the church’s teachings against discrimination. “This respect must be real, not rhetorical, and ever reflective of the Church’s commitment to accompany all people,” the archbishop said. Father James Martin, a prominent Jesuit priest recently appointed as a communications adviser to the Vatican, has a new book coming out later this spring that urges the Catholic Church to do a better job building bridges to the LGBT community. In a sign of shifting dynamics within the church’s senior leadership, the book has been endorsed by an American cardinal who leads a key Vatican office. On Friday (April 28), I will speak at a conference in Chicago, “LGBT Catholics in the Age of Pope Francis,” that will bring together theologians, church leaders and LGBT people to celebrate our common faith and to facilitate greater respect and understanding.

False choices lead to flawed decisions. We can protect both religious liberty and the civil rights of LGBT people. There will be candid debate over how to best balance these two values, but I believe that most Americans know that sensible common ground is possible. I pray that the Trump administration also heeds that lesson.

(The Rev. Bryan N. Massingale is a Catholic priest and a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. He is a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America)

About the author

Bryan Massingale


Click here to post a comment

  • A homosexual who engages in consensual sexual behavior with another consenting adult, is by no stretch of the imagination comparable to a pedophile’s immoral activity. If you don’t want homosexuals to be allowed to marry in your faith denomination, that’s up to you and your fellow believers. But government restrictions should never be placed on an individual or a group that does no harm to others because of the views of a particular faith.

  • I pray that you seek forgiveness for your hardened heart. I pray that you find truth because your belief in equating two consenting adults, in a loving homosexual relationship, is world’s away from the immorality of pedophilia, where abuse is the central point and consent is not part of the relationship at all.

    There needn’t be restrictions with regards to homosexual activity in the same way that there needn’t be restrictions to how my wife and I express our love inside a Catholic, heterosexual marriage.

    Hint: We both enjoy the same type of sex that homosexual couples regularly engage in. To think that somehow those actions are “immoral” is simply prudish when taken in context of the Catholic teaching of sex within marriage.

  • Also, you might be the first woman in greater need of oral sex than anyone I’ve ever met. God bless.

  • Matthew 25:36-40 ‘I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
    Nowhere did Jesus say that “the least of his brothers” did not include LGBT people.
    Go read your Book again, ’cause you clearly have no idea what Jesus meant when he talked about loving one another as he loved us.

  • Well Wat…..homosexuality is an “orientation” right? They are now calling pedophilia an “orientation”.
    Expressing love is one thing, but it is not love to send the recipient of your sex drive to Hell. If you think it is, please, don’t love me.
    Also, Wat, the former chairman of the HRC and another member of the HRC were charged with child offences. Is that saying that homosexuality is that far from pedophilia? Is that what they were trying to say?
    I see homosexuals as precious people who need help, not endorsement (edited)


  • They are both scientifically recognized “orientations” Mike. Christ said that marriage is a man and a woman, it isn’t a case of “don’t want” – it’s “it isn’t allowed”.
    Homosexuals harm each other, they harm others.
    Christ said that He would forgive us and heal us of their sin, should we repent.

  • Good question, Jim…..I don’t think people should be forced to house them in their home. I don’t think people should be forced to endorse their immorality, as has been in the past – particularly if they are going to use “religious” reasons.
    I don’t think that homosexuals should be denied housing, employment, etc. Someone has to support them until they learn how they are harming themselves.
    Marriage, is a farce from the beginning….why lead them into the delusion that their relationship is legitimate?
    These are people being so abused and hurt by the world. “Homosexual” agencies take large donations from companies and people and laugh all the way to the bank on the backs of people they regularly hurt. These precious people are abused by people telling them they love them – no wonder they don’t understand love – and these “agencies” are happily sending them on their way to their death. Christ said that homosexuals will not see the Kingdom of Heaven, and “supporting” their sin hurts them terribly.
    I would prefer they live.

  • Speaking the truth (and yes, in a caring way) is also a form of love. No matter how you finesse it, it is a grave, objective sin to engage in sexual behavior outside of man-woman marriage. This does not give us permission to hate anyone, but it does involve a special effort to love and serve, for instance, SSA persons than simply saying, “It’s all good.”

  • Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

  • where does is say that Christ said homosexuals will not see the Kingdom of heaven….? quote chapter and verse.

  • Before confessing to engaging in “the same type of sex that homosexual couples regularly engage in,” you might wish to consult josephsciambra.com, the site of a now Catholic, chaste man who recounts the disturbing behavior he and other men engaged in during his life as a sexually active gay man and porn star.
    You may retreat a bit from your assertion

  • Revelation 21:8 ESV

    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

    Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    Christ is faithful and just to forgive our sins when we repent of them.

  • name book chapter & verse in any one of the four gospels where Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality …you cannot because He did not.
    and your equalting “sexually immoral” to homosexuality is just that…your defination.

  • I gave that to you already. Christ is not confined to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Jim. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1-5)

  • what did Jesus say about judging others? what did Jesus say about removing the spinter in the eye of another while having a branch in your own eye?

  • Jesus taught that we should judge righteously Jim.
    John 7:24 – English Standard Version
    Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

    The scripture you are thinking about deals with nitpicking.

  • Actually, the Catholic Catechism teaches that oral and anal sex are permissible within the bounds of a loving marriage. So, the real issue of immorality seems to be on what you base the definition of marriage as. Within the Catholic Church, secular marriage is not recognized by heterosexual or homosexual couples. Only the Church can sanctify a marriage, thus, homosexual behavior is sinful only in the light of it being outside the bounds of a Catholic marriage.

    Thus, the actions are not immoral, simply the sexual act outside of marriage is immoral. Shall we ban divorce next since the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce either?

  • Folks here may feel secure in saying that consensual adult sex is not on the same level as pedophilia. For now, maybe.
    We recall that, a number of years ago, the two APAs removed homosexuality from their list of aberrant sexual behaviors.
    Many of the same strident and political interest groups agitating for the change then are now advocating the lowering of the age of consent, thereby making the practice of ephebophilia–and even pedophilia–conceivably legal, even acceptable. Who’s to say, the argument goes, that a 12-year-old cannot make up his/her own mind? Or maybe even a rather precocious child, age 8 or 9?
    Advocates for legal recognition of same-sex marriage and, quickly thereafter, the prosecution of those who resist or even question it, have relied on the same maneuvering as proponents for “intergenerational” sex currently use. (Google these terms for current specifics.)
    If readers here resist a general lowering of the age of consent, by what standard and reasoning do you do so?
    I’m just asking—because the push for adult-child sex is on.

  • That’s a serious non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Americans and should not be a false excuse for “religious liberty” laws.

    I would expect this executive order to be blocked in court not long after it gets signed.

  • Then, according to your post, I guess I’ll get a double bonus in heaven, because I’ve visited incarcerated LGBT folks on more than one occasion. (Gotta love those 2-for-1 deals!! )

    Meanwhile, the liberal Fr. Massengale is part of the new Francis-Cupich-Martin trend, in which acceptance of homosexual behavior and gay marriage is being marketed to American Catholics through the back door.

    Obviously constitutional religious liberty can interfere with such acceptance, so the liberals oppose such.

  • “I’m just asking—because the push for adult-child sex is on.” Really? Certainly not by the majority of our population.

    To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is wrong. A child can not consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, that is why we have laws in place to protect children. To imply that since we now accept homosexuality then we will eventually accept pedophilia is a ridiculous argument.

    I think that if some of these people who are clearly anti-homosexual ever had a child or a loved one who was gay, they may become more understanding and loving as Jesus was.

  • No….I showed how “science” has made it equivalent. I offered the fact that two men from the homosexual organization HRC have been charged with child related offences, and questioned were they trying to say this is the next step for the homosexuals to fight for? After all, when “pride” parades began, Hay marched with NAMBLA. They aren’t that far apart Thrasymachus.
    Harry Hay carried a sign at a “pride” parade saying that he was with NAMBLA.

  • Gay marriage and ripped-off Christian florists, used to be a non-issue too.

    Strictly just a matter of basic employment and housing issues, we were all told. No more than that.

    Turned out to be a lie.

  • The majority of crimes against children are committed by straight men. Please do not stereotype a group of people. Two men, one man, hardly represent all gay people.

  • Once again, the author does not speak for all gay people. There are plenty of gay people in committed, loving relationships and there are plenty of straight people who commit immoral acts.

  • “Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.” frc.org

  • Christ also said, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” I’m most grateful for that statement on forgiveness as I sin every day in so many ways and often neglect or forget to repent. I am grateful for that forgiveness in your life as well, Sandi. I know you, like most of us, do not recognize so much the harm we inflict on others with our words, our actions, and our limited understanding of the mind of God.

  • I provided information on that.
    Children are not safe from anyone these days Thras. The movement to “legitimize” pedophilia is in the works as we speak. Children need to be protected.
    That said, it does not lessen the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in crime statistics against children.
    It does not make one a bigot to want to protect children.

  • Ezekiel 3:18-19English Standard Version (ESV)

    18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for[a] his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.
    James 5:20 – New International Version
    remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

  • Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases

    Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”[17]

    In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

    Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

    The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”[18]

    The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: “152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only).”[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles–or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.

    Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:

    17. Freund, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited. . . . The Freund et al.(1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred . . . the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study . . . was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners”–in cluding those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.

    18. Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.

  • And how would you warn them? By not renting to them? By removing legal protections from them? Christ ‘warned’ Zacchaeus, but he did so by befriending him, by going to his house, by building relationship. He ‘warned’ the woman being stoned for her adultery by stepping in front of her accusers and her self-righteous executioners. As I indicated above, your desire may be without fault, but your delivery is arrogant and arrogance has no place in the Kingdom.

  • Endorsing their immorality does not help them Dan. Like any other immorality, accommodating them, hurts them further.
    I don’t need to be well acquainted with sin to help someone to know they need Christ’s help, but thanks.
    My delivery is what it is. Christ hates arrogance (Prov. 6). I don’t think it is arrogant to deliver the truth to people who sorely need it – especially with scripture. Candy coating the truth just leads to more problems. (edited)

  • ” When the government sends a message that people can be denied basic human rights and dignities simply because of sexual orientation, neither the gospel nor religious freedom is well served.”

    Proverbs 14:34 ESV
    Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

    Isaiah 60:12 English Standard Version
    For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.

  • The thing with the florists was WAY out of line.

    Marriage, sorry that’s not exclusive to Christianity, so you don’t get to make all the rules on it.

  • That’s your opinion, and that’s you judging another without knowing what is in their heart, or relationship with G-d. Might want to rethink your position as your making claims way above your paygrade.

  • Actually that is not my opinion. Christ taught that homosexuals will not see the Kingdom of Heaven, several times.

  • whether I do, or whether I don’t does not change the fact that Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin.

  • No you don’t. Because unlike you, G-d forgives our trespasses in this world. What makes their sin any worse than your sin?

    You’re not without sin, so you should stop throwing stones.

  • Jesus gave 3 commandments. Love God, love your neighbor, and love yourself.

    Seems you like to break the middle one a lot.

  • That still would not change that homosexuality is a sin, that Christ said that He would forgive and free one of.

  • Yes He did Max. Along with that, He taught:

    John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

    1 John 5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands.

  • True, their sin is no worse than mine, Max. The problem is, they don’t repent of their sin, and continue in it trying to pull others into the mess while justifying it and lying about the Lord, that is where they make their error. Christ taught that if we repent of our sin, He is just to forgive us. He is faithful.
    These people are abused enough by this world which is trying to make fools of them, and laughing all the way to the bank. They need our help.

  • Sorry you’re not even close with your comparison and you know it. Gay marriage requires consenting adults. No problem. Not letting religious beliefs discriminate against people – constitutional. Pedophilia is not going to be allowed here. It is a heinous crime at both ends of the political spectrum. Period. The only issues we have are whack-job fundamentalists (Christian and muslim) who think 14 or 16 is a good marrying age.

  • Pedophilia is an issue in the gay and straight population, male and female, across all religious, cultural and socioeconomic sectors.

  • Really? And exactly who are these people, These gay organizations, these “anybodies”. These strident and political special interest groups you are referring to?

    Right now, the vast majority of all pedophilia is heterosexual in nature. Even that which is homosexual in nature is STILL by people who are identified by themselves, their families and their communities as HETEROSEXUAL. DEnnis Hastert and Jerry Sandusky come to mind.

    If pedophilia ever becomes legal, it will because heterosexuals will choose to do that. IT has nothing whatsoever to do with gay people, same sex marriage, or any of the rest of the bugaboos of the religious nazis who still cannot get over that just because their bigotry is disguised as religious belief, that it makes it ny thing other than bigotry.

    Your whole posting is a case in point.

  • Well, thank you very much Miss Nazi.

    Please do not tell us yet again how much you love your gay neighbors. Like your comment on the jevoah’s witnesses a few weeks ago, you, like Floyd and dirty and so many others, want to hide behind your religious beliefs.

    Good luck.

  • And that is an outright defamation by the FRC. YOu have been told this before, but you still pretend innocence.

  • So why are you not Jumping on MissNazi as she equates gay consenting adults with rapists and child molesters?

  • So Joseph Sciambra was a low life? YOu claim to love people, but you take one disturbed individual and claim it is typical of healthy gay people?

    WEll, gee, now that I’ve seen what out andout bigots some so called Christians are, I feel free to just say that all Christians are ignorant bigots.

    Except I wouldn’t, because I’m not a bigot.

  • She knows exactly how much harm she wishes upon people she doesn’t know, knows nothing about, and who have done her no harm.

    She likes it.

  • Ben, there was a time in my life I fought very hard thinking it was “for” homosexuals. I became a Christian and learned how the Lord loves homosexuals and what He expects of them – actually, no different than for anyone else. Now, I fight for homosexuals to protect them from being made fools of by this culture, as this culture gets rich on them while it kills them.

  • nope. verifiable references.
    Your dislike of them does not lessen the truthfulness of them.

  • Really Sanctus? How did you go from respecting the rights and human dignity of LGBT community to pedophilia? Well sorry I guess you did start with respect for others; you started with some notion that gay and pedophilia are someone connected or one leads to another. That blatantly wrong connection is to use a word from your hero, sad.

  • 1 Corinthians 7: 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

  • The references are verifiable. Their lies are not.
    And your love of those lies does not less the fact that they are lies.

  • You are simply delusional– about your love, your faith, and gay people.
    Have a nice life.

  • As a Catholic priest, I say we need a Religious Freedom Bill to stop the heavy hand of the government. The Religion freedom bill will allow devoted Christians the choice to not aid or contribute to same sex marriages and regonize individuals by their biological sex. Yes, God loves all people; but, he does not accept all behaviors. This bill is about allowing christians to be free from the governmet control on these issues while keeping our faith. No Christians should treat people who commit behaviors that are against God’s word in a hateful mannor; but, Christians need the freedom to not aid or contribute to these behaviors..

  • What age can a person consent? Who says a person who is 14 or 16 is that immature that they can not make their own decision when it comes to marriage?

  • Most pedophilles are not heterosexual. Majority of the catholic sexual cases were male on male sexual actions. The reason is most parents do not trust a grown male to be with their daughter. But, a parent will be more inclinded to let little boys be with grown males. Look at the boys scout. They have grown males chaperoning little boys and the grown women with the little girls… Your statement is not correct

  • Show us how the sources are “agenda-driven activists”. Until then, they’re credible.

  • whether I’m prejudiced or not does not change that Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin.

  • I fight against the delusions being thrown at them – homosexuality is innate, immutable – all the lies that the world tries to tie them up in bondage with Ben.

  • Most pedophiles are not heterosexual? true pedophiles are simply that, pedophiles. But you’re ignorant about the rest of it.

    These are the facts. Girls molested about 70-80% of the time, boys about 20-30%. Half the time, the molester is the child’s father, step father or father surrogate. 25% of the time, the child knows the molester, like a catholic priest. 25% of the time, its OTHER. Often true pedophiles.

    You admit that most parents would not trust their girls with adult males, and then try to blame gay men for the priesthood molestation problem. The issue is access, not orientation. Well, one issue among many for this very catholic problem.

    The Boy Scouts? for decades, no gay people allowed. For decades, they preferred MARRIED men as scout leaders. For decades, a molestation problem, which they covered up just like the others.

    Get your “facts” about child molestation from somewhere besides antigay right in websites.

  • I didn’t really post anything (so far) concerning the pedophile situation. (Sandi has already alluded to the FRC’s assessment, which I happen to agree with, but I hadn’t said anything yet.)

    My immediate point is clear. You cannot trust the Gay Goliath on ANY issue anymore, including the pedophilia issue.

    In previous years, Goliath told ALL of us that gay-rights laws were only about employment & housing issues. Gay marriage was “a serious non-issue” (your phrase), nor attacks on Christian florists/bakers etc. But that became a lie. You can’t trust Goliath anymore.

  • Male-Female Gender-Complementary Marriage, predates all world religions including Christianity.

    It is THE proven, planet-wide, inter-generational survival standard that has lasted for millennia, across all cultures & religions.

    Even today, only 2 percent (or less) of the world’s nations, are foolish and suicidal enough to ditch that God-given, planetary standard. Unfortunately, America tops the list.

  • Two men cannot marry and you know it. It’s against the Law of God and Nature. I don’t blame homosexuals for thinking marriage has become meaningless and what difference does it make since heterosexual couples don’t take it seriously but it will always matter to God and truth doesn’t change from age to age.Truth is always true. If people really loved homosexuals they’d never back down but protect them and uphold God’s laws, just as it is wrong for people to cheat on their mates,rob banks, dishonor their parents, lie, etc. The number one commandment is “love the Lord your God with all your heart”. When we seek our own way, we don’t just commit a grave sin, we grieve our Lord, It is always kindness to speak the truth in love. It saddens me to read that the average life span for a homosexual is 48 years of age. I’ve read how truly dark and vicious such a life can be. The Catholic Church still teaches that homosexuality is a disorder, and the psychiatrist that took it off the list of mental disorders deeply regretted it. Muslims, by the way,often marry girls as young as 6, though she should be nine before she’s raped. Pedophilia is practiced by the ‘elite’ all over the world already. Don’t you read the news? There are 20 million people being bought and sold as sex slaves in the world right now.many of the children.

  • Would Massingale be willing to offer sanctuary for immigrants in his his tony Manhattan condo? Advocates like Massingale want to offer immigrants a warm welcome and opportunities. Father Massingale should take the lead and use that healthy salary he earns as a professor to offer avenues of advancement.

  • I would eliminate the word ‘anymore’ because I was quite young when Anita Bryant was viciously attacked by the homosexual mafia years ago. I’ve seen what they can do and without a conscience will stop at nothing (NOTHING) to get their way and achieve their long term goals. You can’t trust the homosexual goliath.

  • That’s MISTER Pervert to you.
    And frankly, as others have noted well before me, if your idea of heaven is populated by people who call other people homosexual perverts, I would prefer to avoid that place like the plague.

  • More than 80% of the priests involved in sex with minors were with post pubescent males. I’m sorry, but you’re delusional if you don’t see that there’s not a line between the two…read about NAMBLA sometime and its place in the alphabet soup group…lgbtwhatever.

  • What nonsense. Science has nothing to do with it. If you use science then you’re relegated to be accurate…there are only two chromosomes, x & y. You’re either male or female. If you’re a male who thinks he’s a female, you have a mental disorder, just as if you claimed you were Napolean. Don’t let stupidity rob you of your common sense.

  • Not being truthful is very unkind. Hell is real. Do we really want people to go to hell because we’re afraid of hurting their feelings? If you think Jesus was lying (he spoke of the consequences of hell at least 20 times) then don’t worry about it. I know what you mean about hurting people. I hope I haven’t hurt any here…but I’m just speaking out of a deep love of God’s beautiful and perfect laws which are sweeter than honey when we obey them, but when we willfully sin and lie and say it isn’t a sin with no repentence…that is grave error and leadeth to destruction.

  • Wow…Bryan Massingale has allowed himself to be deceived. He may be a priest, but he does not understand scripture. It is very insulting to people who love God to say that if they love God they are using their religion to discriminate. Jesus warned many times over to not allow yourself to be deceived. But it sounds like that is what has happened. He may be a priest, but he does not have ownership of the Church, this belongs to Jesus, who already said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

  • For an example of what Evangelicals have in mind with this “religious freedom” order see Mississippi, where Evangelicals wrote a law making it legal for a medical professional to withhold medical care from gay people, even emergency care. Physicians and surgeons in Mississippi can refuse to set a broken bone, refuse to perform surgery, refuse to do a transplant and anything else they want to withhold from gay people. The only thing they can’t do is let them die. But anything short of that, even refusing to intervene and allowing a gay person to fall into a permanent coma, is legal in Mississippi. How monstrously evil can Evangelicals be to write and pass such a law? That’s on the level of Nazi stuff. God will surely judge Evangelicals for such inhumanity!

  • Buy the way, I see the “God Hates F-gs!” people are here in force (Sandi Luckins and floydlee). Their hatred is notorious on this site. If you dare to disagree with either of them or criticize them they will damn you to hell. As long as they continue their campaign of hate against gay people I will be here to oppose them. They are two of the most evil people one will ever encounter online.


  • Here is where the priest who wrote this article misses the point and it is sad. The greatest commandment is to love God with your whole soul, mind, and heart. This is number one. God created male and female to be joined as one. This is what populates the world and it is the first law of Christianity. God created and instituted marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24-25. Therefore, marriage is religious. The SCOTUS does not have authority over marriage, it belongs to God. Do not allow yourself to be deceived.

    To say that if you believe the truth about your faith means you are using your religion to discriminate is a sick and twisted false accusation against Christians. Same sex unions are desolate and nonproductive, and counter creation. To say that same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are equal is false. One can produce the other cannot and instead is dependent on the other for children. There is but one type of marriage and it is that holy place before God where husband and wife join as one. To say that a man can become a woman and vice versa through surgery rejects scriptural truth and is false, do not allow yourself to be deceived. Christianity is all about the truth and a lie will never equal the truth and the truth will never be compromised for a lie.

  • Well, at least this time you are expressing your objections in a responsible (albeit untrue) manner that doesn’t disrespect the discussion forum. Sincere kudos.

    I can’t speak for Sandi, but permit me to do so anyway. All posters are totally welcome to review ANY of my posts or Sandi’s posts in ANY of the threads.

    Such a review will **totally prove** that neither myself nor Sandi subscribes to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church slogan of “God Hates Homosexuals.”

    Umm, you’ve ALSO noticed that neither myself nor Sandi use the “F-word.” Why? Because both of us sincerely respect SSA-afflicted people. We say that Jesus Christ, NOT gay marriage, is the Solution to this issue.

  • Realize when you say “them” that “the are individual human beings deserving of love and dignity. Turning them away; shunning; name-calling; firing or blocking employment; or, in the case of Chechnya, rounding up, torturing and killing–these are the opposite of dignity. And these are the things “protected” in the religious liberty bill.

  • Sandi is very misguided and can’t participate in a considered debate without bailing, to save her life. She’s fairly polite, but that’s about it.

  • Translation: As a very misguided deity worshipper, I [state] we need a religious freedom bill so I and other intolerant people just like me can hypocritically pick and choose who to do business with based on whatever watered down, ambiguous religious doctrine happens to suit my fancy at any given time. Yeah priest, who in your shoes wouldn’t want that??!!

  • “To imply that since we now accept homosexuality then we will eventually accept pedophilia is a ridiculous argument.”

    It is an observation of the shifting of popular opinion. And what, pray, is currently in place to protect or even defend who is now considered a “child”? Laws change, friend. Laws change based on the vote, no?

    Your understanding of what defines a person being a child is subjective. The age of consent used to be far lower.

    This is just a snapshot off Wiki:

    “…The government was forced to propose the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution. In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).”

    So, your supposition of ridiculous is, in fact, ridiculous and unsupported by our own history.

  • What’s pulled out of one’s rear-end is the absurdity that one’s “feelings” can determine right vs wrong. Attitudes change, friend. That’s surely the premise in pushing for the normalization of homosexual sex. But that premise can also be used to redefine who is a “child”.

    Just a cursory trip to Wiki:

    “The government was forced to propose the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution. In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).”

    So, while you seem to want to make this an exchange of heterosexual vs. homosexual, the real issue at hand is what is the basis for law? Feeling? Shifting morality? Or some truth?

  • By whatever reasoning this conclusion was arrived at, it equally seems after 2300 comments by Edward, nothing more need be [stated] by him either, yes? Let’s see if Edward understands what’s good for the goose is good for the gander OR if he fancies hisself above the reproach he offers others by continuing to “say” things in these forums.

  • And what’s to keep that age of consent from slipping ever downward? Laws? Or the commonly held understanding that children are children. Sorry, Jim, but the US used to consider children capable of giving consent.

    Redefining “marriage” has consequences.

  • And yet those who know the Gospel are commanded to preach, not leave their fellows in what you seem to hope is invincible ignorance.

  • This commenters first paragraph is true for those who choose to believe in the existence of and/or worship the same deities he or she does.

  • Ever hear the adage, “That which I see in others is a reflection of what I see in myself?” This commenter illustrates that concept well. Follow his/her posts and see for yourself. Very decieved, very discriminatory.

  • Huh, this commenter’s fairly pointless word salad oddly includes an example of the slippery slope fallacy, ie. “[going]” to the point of legalizing sex with 8 year olds. Additionally, this commenter hides behind, “I’m just asking.” An unremarkable comment at best.

  • See http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html. ” In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders. ”

    “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”

  • Try not to hide behind “one.” Try, “What I find absurd is the notion that ‘my’ feelings can determine right vs. wrong.” For those of you like PG whose judgments and feelings cannot be depended on to guide you on matters of right and wrong, PLEASE DO choose deity worship as a solution. For those of us whose moral compasses work well, continue trusting your feelings and judgements.

  • Me, that’s who. And other’s like me with well functioning moral compasses will keep the age of consent from slipping downward. PS. For better accuracy, try, “Jim, devoutly Christian US politicians and others used to consider children capable of giving consent.”

  • Jesus was able to bring people to Him because he was compassionate and loving. He was humble. Your comments show an arrogant, cold person. How would anyone read your words and turn to you for help? Perhaps you should focus on yourself and ridding yourself of your sins and not focusing such hatred for other people. Practice His virtues of compassion, love and humbleness, then others will see Jesus in you.

  • Indeed, “alluded to.” You got that right. I’ve yet to see Sandi cite valid sources. The best I’ve seen her do is “allude to” various sentiments. Heck even the “source” cited in her last illus- excuse me, allusion isn’t from a respected journal or even msm, rather a three year old, grossly mischaracterized, op-ed rant on a one pony website devoted to the worship of imaginary deities.

  • For those who want a shifting compass that has zero to do with what is moral or immoral, continue to rely upon quixotic feeling and the resulting storm of conflicting judgments.

    The result will be whatever FHRITP feels at the moment only to change when FHRITP is convinced otherwise based on – hmmm – how he/she feels at present.

    That will include reassessing what he/she feels a child is.

    Much like Nathaniel Parker’s character in Bleak House, the protestation of, “I’m just a child,” will soon trump reality as adults seek a pass for behaving like children and attempting to treat children as if they were, in fact, adults.

    For those of us whose moral compasses work well because they are grounded on the rock of truth, continue trusting in the truth while dismissing those who would just embrace history repeating itself by way of legally imposed delusion. Complete with unrestrained child abuse fully supported by the “law”.

  • Likewise, would you please eliminate “they” and write “some of them” instead? Also unless doing so is too frightening for you, please eliminate “you,” instead state “I.”

  • Again, your assertion of “well functioning” is based solely on the worship of yourself as the only deity. That’s highly problematic and absolutely zero assurance that the age of consent will be upheld. P.S. I’ll look elsewhere for tips on accuracy.

  • Can I substitute “woefully contradictory, ambiguous Old and New Testaments” for “rock of truth?”

  • “Highly problematic?” Too bad for you. Please DO look somewhere for tips on accuracy! Not within, though as you fail in your attempts to be accurate far too often. Try a 9th grade book on critical thinking and writing, if not simply the dictionary.

  • In light of your love of subjectivity, I understand your animus against the dictionary where words are defined for the purpose of understanding what precisely others are saying.

    And in the spirit of a 9th grader, you rebel against that “confinement.”

  • Considering you animus toward a simple dictionary, you obviously have authorized yourself to substitute at will.

  • NETHERLANDS LAWS: 1. Has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person’s parents.

    What starts in Europe generally makes it over here to the USA. That is true in theology as well as in social movements.
    (Oh NO, I’ve committed the “slippery slope” fallacy – except if it happens it proves it wasn’t a slippery slope fallacy.)

  • “Legally” a child can’t – but they legally can in the Netherlands. It is coming – as well plural marriages. Eg. I’ve had Muslim students who became wife #2 and nobody said a thing about it even tho they were under 16.

  • Men and women have been designed by God in such a way that it is not possible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons engaging in same-sex sexual acts.
    No one should be condoning the engaging in or affirmation of demeaning sexual acts of any nature, including between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife. The desire to engage in demeaning acts of any nature, does not change the nature of the act.

    Every human person, from the moment they have been created and brought into being at their conception, in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a beloved son or daughter, Willed by God, worthy of Redemption, has the inherent unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public.

    Same -sex sexual acts, as well as any sexual act that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, demean the Dignity of every human person, who is not, in essence, an object of sexual desire/inclination/orientation, but a beloved son or daughter, worthy of being treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. The sexual objectification of the human person has led to physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual suffering. It is time to heal those wounds, and learn how to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love.

    Why not tell those men and women who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction the truth? It is because we Love you, and respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, that we cannot condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans your inherent Dignity as a beloved son or daughter. The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the act. We Love you, and because we Love you, we desire that you will always be treated with, and will always treat others with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. We will not tolerate the engaging in or condoning of sexual behavior that does not reflect the upmost respect for the human person.

  • While my preaching may lack the finer points of homiletics, my gospel ‘sermon’ to Sandi was clear.

  • Sandi, I support your Constitutional right to make outrageous, hate-filled, Biblically offensive statements on these sites, yet I have never endorsed your immorality.

  • Yes, Christ spoke truth. He often did so with a parable that was much easier to digest and then would allow the Holy Spirit to do His job of convicting. Too often we desire the Holy Spirit’s job and want to lay out our perception of Truth in black and white. Parables of Christ are often neither black nor white. In fact many Biblical scholars today debate their meanings. Our lives, need to be the parables that open the door for the Holy Spirit to do His work.

  • All those words to state a pack of beliefs, lies, and wishful thinking.

    I think I am quite capable of determining my own dignity and worth. I don’t need your sham explanations of my dignity and worth, which are merely your intense desires to have dominion over my life.

    As I always like to say to people who claim To love me, but utterly demean me and intend to keep me under their theological thumb:

    Don’t tell me you love me. Let me guess.

  • And yet you are not legally married without a civil marriage license. No god, or any god, is required. Or for that matter, may be participated in by demons, and idols, which you call the gods of other people, and they will still be valid.

    Your particular and peculiar beliefs about marriage are fine for you. They are not factually based, but ideologically based.

    Christianity is no more about the truth than any other faith. If it was, you wouldn’t be flinging theopooo at each other about which of you is a True Christian and which not.

  • About your moral compass: where did it originate? And is it guided by absolute moral values and duties or are those values and duties relative?

  • So at some point, heterosexual society decided that children as young as 12 could give consent. Eventually, people who actually cared about children managed to get that raised to 16.

    Yet it has something to do with homosexuality. OK!!!

  • 40 years ago, the homosexual mafia was running everything.

    Your persecution complex simply knows no bounds.

  • And how do you know that? It’s just a christianist assumption, not a reality. It’s not like me saying that christianists worship the god they have created in their own image. There is far more evidence for that.

  • Not a Christian assumption. Not at all. The evidence on this board seems to support the premise of individual seeking to create the god of what they’re willing to accept.

  • Sorry, and you’re welcome! I must say you are a first rate thinker and writer. I appreciate your insights and your ability to articulate them – with attitude and forcefulness I might add. And I look forward to reading your comments.

  • I would argue that belief in your particular version of god is conjecture. 2/3 of the world agrees.

  • Not at all. I acknowledge the individual desire, however, to pretend that there is no God while subsequently creating a shifting scale that is comfortable and accommodates whatever actions – good or bad – they choose to embrace.

  • Thank you for the encouragement, Dirty Harry. (Love the moniker.)

    As for “thinking” just stick to the truth and never let up. And don’t worry about having thought I was a man. Unlike women are programmed to in our present age – for the purpose of hands-free manipulation – I don’t find that offensive in the least. Provided said man is one of integrity

    Carry on with the job at hand. I look forward to reading your posts as well.

    God bless.

  • Nothing says acceptance like forcing others to abrade their conscience to accommodate yours. But that’s the kind of “logic” you’ll get from those inured to believe what wishing something were true automatically makes it so.

  • Perhaps the good reverend could share whether he believes the Little Sisters of the Poor should be required to carry contraception coverage or whether SF Archdiocese should be forced to employ people who openly advocate for gay marriage or abortion.

  • If a state decides to OK assisted suicide, should a doctor be required to prescribe the death meds even if it goes against his or her religious beliefs?

  • maybe they aren’t to turn to me for help. Maybe they are just to remember the word of the Lord, and think upon that. I don’t know what the Lord has in mind with this, I just know I am doing what He’s asked.

  • Yes they are deserving of love and dignity and that is why I show them the truth about the situation they are in, and care enough that they should go to Heaven, unlike those who “support” them and allow them to go to Hell.

  • She’s actually very polite, and uses Scripture to do most of the talking for her.

    Also, unlike me, she doesn’t do the butcher-knives and the bomb-throwing.

    So be thankful for Sandi’s good posting style. Because some of us prefer incendiary devices instead.

  • Ben, they are teaching children in kindergarten, or grade one in Ontario Canada about consent. It is happening as we speak.

  • sounds like religion to me.

    Let’s talk about Anita Bryant. She attempted to make a career out of what a good Christian she was by attacking gay people. More accurately, lying and slandering and persecuting innocent people with lies and slanders she pulled out of her holy butt. May 9 will be the 47th anniversary of the date that uber-Christian and arch-homohater Anita Bryant filed for divorce from her husband Bob. It was not because of adultery, either his or hers, which was the only reason that divorce was not sinful, according to Jesus. He was god, and he should know.

    It was because, according to Bryant’s statement, which the AP reported she released “from her 25-room Miami Beach home” (Who said, ” It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich woman to enter the kingdom of heaven?” No one important.)……….

    Anahoo, she charged that Good Ol’ Bob cooperated “with certain hired staff members who conspired to control me and to use my name and reputation to build their personal careers instead of my ministry.” Her statement brought to a close their twenty year marriage. She even went so far as to claim that her divorce was “against everything I believe in.”

    Well, almost everything. But convenience is such a harsh mistress. Who
    said “Scribes! Pharisees! Hypocrites!?” No one important.

    so please, don’t presume to lecture me about how “individual desire, however, to pretend that there is no God while subsequently creating a shifting scale that is comfortable and accommodates whatever actions – good or bad – they choose to embrace.”
    That’s bible believing Christians just as much as the people you accuse of having no morals. That’s why Jesus had so much to say about specks and beams, and so little– i.e., nothing– to say about what is so close to the dark hearts of antigay Christians. Or, for that matter, any so-called Christian who uses his bible as a weapon against others.
    Right, Anita?

  • Religions several thousand years older than the Christian story are just doing what’s popular.
    you people are just too much.

  • I think you are trying to read minds and make false assertions to create strife about a bill that probably has nothing to do with what you assert, Tuesday. That is not going to happen in today’s world. Is this from pink news?

  • So you endorse the rounding up and killing of gay people, as they are doing in Chechnya? Do you support parents turning in their gay children to the authorities in Uganda, where they will go to jail for 14 years? Are these things being done to teach them the “truth”? So that they can go to heaven? If your “teaching” does not include arrest, torture, imprisonment and death, then where do you draw the line in your “caring” approach of teaching them the truth?


  • If it would help them to get to Heaven I would. That is my focus. How have you helped them to not go to Hell?

  • So if the gummit changes the law and allows children as young as 12 to consent are you good with that? If not why not?

  • Your certainty and call to injustice scare me. This is the stuff of witch hunts and witch burnings. This is a far cry from any Christian religion.

  • The lie that homosexuals are oppressed ended a long time ago, Ben.. They hurt themselves, they hurt others.

  • The church is not really concerned with reducing the abortion rate when it continually fights against birth control. You know, that thing that prevents unwanted pregnancies and therefor reduces abortion.

  • Considering that the church considers just being born a sin, how do plan to avoid contact with other people?

  • You shouldn’t worry about laws of the present day but the sin that determines your eternity. B1Jetmetch

  • Sandi, you are not available for a reasonable conversation. I wish you well and will pray for you. Pray for me, too, OK?

  • So in essence the catholic priest is saying he doesn’t believe the bible and would rather live by the worlds anti-Christian opinion.

  • The scripture is clear, and for believers what you read and experience in your own life is your guiding force. Simply stated, it is all about the truth. No lies allowed!!!

  • Please quote where this actually happened in Mississippi? The fact is there are always doctors that will service homosexuals so why make up so much foolishness?

  • Where does the Constitution support or give special rights to homosexuals? BTW this article is about a supposedly Christian priest so yes the bible does come into play.

  • Look at your state Constitution to know who determines if you’re married or not?

    California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
    grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

  • The previous poster has it right. MS wrote a discriminatory law under the aegis of “religious liberty”

    “The fact is there are always doctors that will service homosexuals ”

    Separate but equal access to goods, services and government. Where have we heard that before?

  • Nope. Its a blatant attempt at discriminating against gays because certain Christian types want to deliberately harm them.

  • Not special rights, equal rights. The right not to be singled out for discrimination under color of law (see the 14th Amendment and its application towards gays under Romer v. Evans)

  • Can you point out which canon forbids treating people equally? He made it very clear that there is room for disagreement about behaviors. He also made it clear that he was talking about the basic principle of discrimination. On this subject he is perfectly in line with Papal teachings (and not just those of Francis) and counsel documents.

  • In this case, the US Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, trumps (no pun intended) any state constitution.

  • Your beliefs are not a cause to harm others. Discrimination is a recognized harm to the public. You have no more right to discriminate in open commerce, government or providing medical care as you do to commit human sacrifice in the name of your beliefs.

  • Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin. We worry about the Lord and what He taught before things that change with the weather….Mark, if he is teaching homosexuality is ok, he is hurting people.

  • If s/he had stopped at the first sentence, s/he would have been perfectly correct.

  • You want the legal right to deny goods, services, employment, housing or medical care to gays because of your beliefs. Be more honest with your views here.

    To that request, I gladly say, go eff yourself and the horse you rode in on.

    You want a special privilege to harm others in the name of your faith. That kind of garbage is corrosive to any notion of civil liberties in this country. You don’t want religious freedom. You want special privileges over others.

    The fact that you use religion as an excuse for such hateful attitudes makes you spineless in addition to being bigoted.

  • So, it is acceptable for the “state” to show preferential treatment to one set of religious beliefs over another? Not all religions get uptight about same sex behavior. Not all flavors of Christianity get uptight about same sex behavior. it seems to me that the constitution explicitly prohibits the type of behavior that you are talking about.

  • NAMBLA has no place in the lgbti alphabet soup. Never has, never will. If you saying that attraction to prepubescent males is equivalent to consensual sex between two adults, you have some major issues that you should process with your therapist.

  • That isn’t quite what Christ said. Jesus pulled an example from his time to teach us something about the nature of G-D and relationships. He was not “defining” anything. And before anyone get’s their panties in a jumble, recall Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well. Her unlawful sexual relationships did not keep Jesus from revealing Himself to her and engaging with her.

  • Equal rights are not special rights. It’s the holy homohobes who want a special, unconstitutional “right” to discriminate as part of their religion.

  • That’s not quite accurate. If you have XXY chromosomes what are you? If you have only one X or one Y what are you. If you have XY Chromosomes but failed to have a release of MDIS at around the twelve week of gestation you are born with the outher 2/3 of a vagina and not a penis. If you are XX Chromosome and had a surge of testosterone at the wrong time, you are born with a penis and not a vagina. If you are on the dominican republic and born a female, you have a one in four chance of growing testicles and a penis at puberty. If you are one of the unlucky females to have been born with a penis, guess where the menstrual flow exits. Don’t let ignorance blind you to the complexities of life.

  • I cannot find it on Fox, but I did find “the atlantic” – straight, liberal fear mongering in full force. The courts would not allow half of the trash they asserted.

  • You didn’t lack charity. It is rather presumptuous of some people to claim with utmost certainty to know the mind of G-D. I imagine they walk on water and have their heads in the cloud. Wish I was so lucky.

  • Tom, with the government making any law about “religion”….don’t you think, what the law gives, the law can eventually take away?

  • You mean Our freedom not to believe in your almighty god, or the freedom to ignore his self appointed spokesmen?

  • Speaking with absolute certainty for G-D is also being unkind and presumptuous. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, G-D knows what S/He is doing and doesn’t need you to be speaking for Her/Him?

  • It IS hate filled to assume that someone is going to hell because they do not conform to how you were taught to read scripture.

  • They marched with and were upheld by Harry Hay during pride parades. There is some connection.

  • Christ taught: 1 Corinthians 7: 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband

    And, if the woman at the well did not repent of her sin, she would not go to Heaven

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Christ does not wink at sin.

  • It is not hate filled to warn someone the Lord has taught will die in Hell if they don’t repent. You want to re-write the scripture too?

  • You do realize that Jesus never put the emphasis on “going to heaven.” According to Jesus, the dominion of G-D is at hand. It is so near that you can touch it. He said that he had come so that we may have life. He did not say that we had to die to get it. JESUS’ focus, unlike yours, was on the lives of the people around him. How should we treat each other. Recall the sheep and the goats. We are to be judged on how we actually treat people. All people. Even the people you find to be disgusting. He did not say to browbeat them about their sexual orientation before you feed them, before you clothe them, before you visit them in prison. He did not say to show how much you love them by pointing out the error of their ways. He said to love in the same way that he loved. There is absolutely no evidence that he treated homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals. Perhaps you should model yourself after the life of Jesus instead of focusing of words that have been debated for centuries.

  • Where does it give special Rights to heterosexuals, like serving their country, getting married, or adoption?

    My marriage is the legal equal of yours. It is not a special right. We have the same rights. In fact, you could marry a man, if one would have you.

  • Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions. Last I heard, the decision as to who goes to heaven and hell lies with Jesus, not you. History shows us that his heart is a lot more forgiving than you seem to give him credit for. Should I help you in your journey to heaven by pointing out the error of your ways? The errors you proclaim to the world as truth? Maybe you should read the entire gospels, not just the verses that you seem to have set your teeth on.

  • Christ’s entire reason for coming to Earth was to die, taking our sin on Him, so that we could go to Heaven. (edit)

  • You may want to check your sources. Jesus said no such thing. People have interpreted Paul as having said that. The Greek reads a bit differently.

  • Just to clarify–the sexual lives of a heterosexual couple, married civily is just as illicit as that of a heterosexual couple (“married” or not because civil marriage, in the eyes of the Church, is not marriage). It’s a little more complicated than that in practice but you get the ides.

  • “orientation” to prepubescent children does not have a preference to gender. frc doesn’t state where they get their data but it does not conform to those of peer reviewed journals.

  • YOU haven’t done any research. YOU have not demonstrated any knowledge of the principles of research. The scientific community is standing against the claims of frc yet you cite them as your source. The whole world is wrong and they are right. Gotcha.

  • references that have been discredited. I can cite a reference that links vaccines and autism. That particular study was proven to be a fraud but it still exists as a reference. You are citing frauds.

  • cite the replication studies. That’s what verifiable means–other people, using different samples and the same methodology came up with the same results.

    Attempts at replication failed.

  • So, it must have been done by homosexuals because it disproves your point? Unlike the junk you cited, this was carried out by objective researchers. The FRC is known for its sloppy work and incorrect conclusions.

  • the FRC did not come to those conclusions. They reported articles by experts who came to those conclusions.

  • I am sure that the Lord has not asked to act so coldly, unloving and arrogantly toward your fellow man.

  • No….the homosexual community is standing against the claims of the FRC. Big difference.

  • That’s one interpretation of the scriptures in question. It is not the only interpretation and it is not the definitive interpretation. So, Until I hear differently from G-D, I am going to live my life according the the 99.99999999% of the Bible that you seem to be leaving out.

  • Paul spoke for Christ, Mark.

    if you cannot hear Paul you cannot hear Christ, John 13: 20. Rev Robert West

  • That was moses, not Jesus. Jesus’ words are recorded in the four gospels and in a few places in the epistles.

  • Yes , Sandy, many do. That you choose not to call them Christian, is just your opinion. You repeat it constantly, but it really is only your interpretation. Over 30 Christian denominations support us, marry us, and ordain us.

    You judging others as to their being Christian or not, not only contradicts what your own teacher told you, “judge not, lest ye be judged.” But also contradicts the basic human empathy from which that particular Golden Rule came from, long before your christ did/didn’t exist. Historians are still out on that one.

  • Gay marriage is absolutely NOT a constitutional right.

    States were **never** required to change the universal gender-complementary definition of marriage, nor required to accept ANY same-sex-marriage definitions, after the 14th amendment was adopted by the USA.

    If it ain’t a man and a woman, it ain’t a marriage. The two complementary genders, men and women, are not interchangeable. That is a scientific, psychological, and scriptural fact.

  • One of the John’s wrote the book of Revelation, not Jesus. Furthermore, the book of Revelation is one book that can not be taken literally. It was written in code so as to be able to smuggle it off the prison island and deliver to the churches.

    If you are to be honest, you have to admit that we do not know what “sexual immorality” means. The greek word is porneia and that covers a wide range of sexual behaviors that I am absolutely certain that you engage in too. Those behaviors are equated with idolators and liars. You are committing idolatry by committing your trust, attention, love and devotion to words as opposed to The Word. You are a liar because you seem to be under the illusion that you repent from your sin. I have a secret, your repentance means nothing because you continue to return to sin. So by your own standards, you are placing yourself outside the dominion of G-D.

  • No. A Christian organization would not contravene against Christ’s prohibitions against homosexuality.
    They may call themselves Christian, Daulphin, but they are not.
    Christians uphold what Christ taught.

  • And Catholic priests molested little boys and girls. That doesn’t mean that you’re a pederast Sandi, for believing in Jesus. But, let’s use your logic. You share a faith, Christianity, with pederasts. The virgin Mary was 13 years old when she became pregnant. Your Bible proclaims for all to worship that bigamy is moral in those same codes that say homosexuality is evil. You are a pederast and you are a bigamist. Enjoy that God of yours.

  • Christ is the Word of God – John 1:1-5
    Also, if you look into the beginning of Chapter 18
    “18 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes….” Christ taught that to Moses for him to repeat.

  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17English Standard Version (ESV)

    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

  • and yet you focus on words not The Word.
    You may want to consult with some bible scholars before you go asserting as to what Jesus did or did not say.

  • Actually, you re mistaken Wat. Christ does not endorse sex with children, so I share no “faith” with pederasts.
    Mary was 13 now, eh? Last I heard was sixteen. It’s getting lower…..

  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17English Standard Version (ESV)

    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

    Homosexuality is also idolatry mark. It’s twice condemned.

  • no they don’t. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christ taught against homosexuality

  • Would you rent a room in your house to someone who has divorced and remarried? Christ also spoke out against people who divorce and remarry. He referred to it as adultery. Should there also be restrictions on people who divorce and remarry?

  • Right now I am so shocked I really don’t know whether to report you to Disqus, the cops, or let your desire to kill us to meet your religious ideas of Jesus and heaven.

    You just said if it could get us to an imaginary place in your mind you would kill and torture us, Sandi. And yet you claim gay people are evil by loving each other and consummating their marriages.

    Your Christ said the kingdom of god is among you, not somewhere else, somewhen else. Right here, right now. But you’d kill and torture me to get somewhere no one can prove exists.

    You hate Islam, for all the same things you want to do to us.

    You would have been quite happy as part of the Spanish Inquisition, telling on your suspected Jewish neighbors, wouldn’t you.

  • No Sandy, Jesus did not teach that. Your interpretation of how someone else interpretted what was recorded in scripture teaches that. Your interpretation, not Jesus.
    Thank you for conceding that there is no such canon.

  • People, who, unlike the times, do not change their nature, are seeking to do that which makes them comfortable. And what you fail to grasp is that not all “religion” is true, Ben.

    Translated that means that just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. But one can, however, believe that which is true and demonstrably beneficial to the created world.

    I’d give you the compliment of saying you’re “too much” but you’re sadly too predictable.

  • I am not a gay activist, just a flawed human being doing her best to live like Jesus with compassion, love and humbleness.

  • No Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin Mark.

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

    Christ also taught that He will forgive and heal us of our sin, should we repent.

  • No there isn’t. You are taking one example of one person and generalizing that to an entire population. You do understand that is an error?

  • I think that’s moreso wishful thinking on your part. I said if it would help you to get to Heaven… don’t put words in my mouth please.
    John 18:36
    English Standard Version
    Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

    But, if your misunderstanding offended you, my apologies. I could have put that differently.

  • Sorry, friend, but you are lost in seeking a scapegoat for your own picking and choosing. Our Lord admonished Scribes and Pharisees for upholding the letter and not the spirit of the law, friend.

    That is why you seeking to reinvent reality by fomenting an empty letter of law is nothing but hypocrisy.

    The Truth shall set you free, not your inordinate hatred for even the natural order. And any reference to Anita Bryant is a wasted effort. Why? Because we don’t gauge what is true by looking to other’s errors.

  • No sandi, in Corinthians PAUL taught. Dig up a greek text. It reads something different than you assert.
    The woman at the well was presented with the dominion of G-D through the person and life of Jesus. There was no contingency that she die first and there is no evidence that Jesus demanded that she stop living with her current “husband.”

  • Again, you do it. Only Sandi Lucas is the arbitrator of who is and isn’t Christian.

    “Judge not lest ye be judged” does not apply to Sandi Luckins. She is the worlds only true christian.

    All of these churches are Christian and have every right to call themselves such, and you have no right to judge them, or say they are not.

    Hopefully you see the can of worms you are opening by trying to put your religious beliefs in law, as all these churches will fight you on that, and we are back to Christians killing christians over whose version is right, the one thing the writers of our First Amendment wanted to end.

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    The Anthem Network
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    AXIOS – Eastern and Orthodox Gay and Lesbian Christians
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Ecclesia Gnostica
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
    The Evangelical Network
    Friends General Conference
    Friends of Jesus Fellowship
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    The Presbyterian Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    United Church of Canada
    Unity Church

  • But you have NO complaints about the government discriminating against polygamy, and discriminating against consenting-adult, no-kids daddy-daughter marriages.

    If ALL discrimination is “a recognized harm to the public”, why aren’t you complaining about discrimination regarding these two examples?

  • If they are teaching against Christ, they are not Christian. Christian means Christ follower.

  • No sandi. YOU have been discussing paedophilia. The rest of the world has been discussing justice. As a clinician I have to wonder just why you are so preoccupied with same sex behavior and paedophilia. The classic freudian would assert that it was because of some unresolved issues. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, G-D’s love for you is unconditional.

  • Annette says this:

    “So you endorse the rounding up and killing of gay people, as they are doing in Chechnya? Do you support parents turning in their gay children to the authorities in Uganda, where they will go to jail for 14 years? Are these things being done to teach them the “truth”? So that they can go to heaven? If your “teaching” does not include arrest, torture, imprisonment and death, then where do you draw the line in your “caring” approach of teaching them the truth?”

    and you say:

    “If it would help them to get to Heaven I would. That is my focus. How have you helped them to not go to Hell?”

    But I’m wishful thinking about something? What am I wishing for? I wan’t wishing for anything when I posted that, I was appalled you think if torturing and killing people would get them to heaven you would do it.

    That is one sick comment.

  • Do you eat lobster? The exact same word is used for eating lobster as is for “man laying with a man.” same for eating cheeseburgers and wearing clothes of two different materials or having sex after your period without first ritually cleaning yourself. The levitical laws were given for a purpose. But if you insist on following one, Paul insists that you follow them all.

  • Actually, if you are dead, you have no chance to go to Heaven unless one has been born again, Dauphin….so….you are still incorrect. There is no help for the dead who died out of Christ.

  • It still does not change that Christ is against homosexuality Mark. What I do has no affect on what Christ proclaimed.

  • To do so requires you to be in a mindset that acknowledges the remote possibility that you could be wrong. Your mind is made up and G-D herself could appear and tell you that you were wrong and your reaction would be: bullshit, it says in the bible…..
    There are a lot of resources on line that provide a very sound exegesis of what Paul wrote. I invite you to look them up. A starting point would be to look up the Greek words that Paul uses for “homosexual.” You will be very surprised at the range of possible meanings that can be attributed.
    But, you won’t. You won’t listen to me or any one else. You are simply too busy regurgitating that which you have been taught. Show a little bit of evidence that you can actually listen and appreciate what the other is saying even if you don’t agree with it and I may be tempted to educate you in the exegesis of these texts.

  • They are following the teaching of Christ. You however are driving more people away from Christ than you will ever bring.

    I have a friend who is a Christian minister. I quote “I have to battle fundies on the right and Christian phobes on the left. Wearisome..,”

    You are one of the fundies they battle.

  • The Bible is fundamental for living. You want to disagree with it, you are welcome but don’t expect Christ to go against His word.
    He will forgive the sin of homosexuality should they repent – just like any other sin.

  • One, try spelling my name correctly. Two, when “I” am dead, this body, this ego, this form will be nothing but dust, nor will you. Nor do I care.

    The only thing that matters to me is the good I do for others in this life, not someone else’s opinion about something which we can not know. My daily pryer is what good can I do for the others today.

    You can choose to believe anything you want, jus keep your religion out of laws that also affect people who don’t follow your religion, and restrict other religions from practicing their faiths, which for them, include marrying and ordaining LGBT people.

  • I don’t, you seem to. Christ is love. For us all. Not a bunch of rules and regulations you make up to make you right and others wrong.

  • What is it about one next of kin at a time, and consent you polygamy and incest comparers don’t get? Are you really that inept at making a true equivalence?

  • I can find rational and entirely secular reasons against those things. You had none for marriage equality. That is why the antigay bigots lost in court. If polygamists can draft versions of laws concerning marriage rights and privileges which are equitable for all spouses, let them try to change the laws.

    “discriminating against consenting-adult, no-kids daddy-daughter marriages.”

    If biological, then there are issues of consent and havoc with default rights as family members. I believe step relations in that way are legal.

    Feel free to lobby for the other type. I will laugh at you,but not stop your efforts there.

  • True….Christ is not all about rules….but…..

    J. Vernon McGee said:

    “We get a warped view of Him when all we hear is, ‘God is love, God is love.’ It is true that God is love, but don’t lose sight of the fact that God is also holy. He is righteous and He will judge. You are not rushing into heaven on the little love boat today. If you reject His salvation, there will be nothing left but judgment.

  • Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life…..no one comes to the Father except through Him.

  • Obergefell. They are now Floydee. You lost. you had no secular reasons to deny it, and we don’t use religions to write laws in this country or a lot of you christians would be fighting each other over this issue as as many believe god is fine with us marrying as those of you who don’t. your don’t side is simply more vocal.

  • God wouldn’t tell me I was wrong for quoting Him. Your point is moot. Homosexuality is a sin.
    There is no need for you to try to confuse people. You only hurt yourself.

  • Marriage is a constitutional right. Marriage is a default permissive right. Government must justify why a given union can’t be made. Bigots couldn’t justify banning it for gay couples.

    If you guys weren’t so impatient to attack guys under color of law, hey marriage would take another decade to be voted in as law. But being spiteful dbags, you made it a judiciary and 14th amendment issue. It’s your own fault.

  • Even if I am a hypocrite, it does not change that Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin that He will forgive and heal one of, should they repent.

  • If you act out of love of others, leaving your own ego behind, there is no need to fear any “righteous judgement.”

    If your god chooses to send me to hell for eternity for the life I have lived, I would prefer to be in hell than with that god. I have no interest in pleasing psychopaths.

  • According to YOUR interpretation. Last I checked you had no magesterial teaching authority. According to the real teaching authority, there is a distinction between what Jesus taught and what was written about what Jesus taught and other’s writing. Your assertions fall in the last category. Before you can understand Paul, you need to do exactly what he did and immerse yourself in the life of Jesus. Jesus made none of the assertions to which you attribute to him. None. I understand that you believe otherwise and I understand why you believe that. That doesn’t make you correct. You are at odds with what the rest of the world, including the Church teaches about “what Jesus said.”

    If you had an ounce of humility you would acknowledge that maybe you do not have perfect understanding of the mind of G-D. I do not expect you to do so.

  • That first statement demonstrates extreme hubris. Don’t ever pretend that you speak for G-D. The real G-D is so much bigger than any box we create to put him/her in.

  • yawn. Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin and that He will forgive and heal us of our sin, should we repent.

  • Jesus is one spiritual teacher who taught many of the same things as others have, using the language and place of his time.

    There are 7 BILLION people in this world, Sandy. You think god only cares about those who believe in a relatively speaking, small, particular sect of worshipers who believe your one particular interpretation of a book written and re written hundreds of times? Such hubris you have. It’s truly beyond my comprehension.

    I admit I have no idea what it anything comes next. Nor does it matter. I didn’t know what was going to happen here. It’s an adventure. Live it loving others and learning new things, I think you have are sinning by missing the mark of loving all the world god gave you and spending so much time judging others, rather than loving others.

    And your format is cold and hateful and not likely to change anyone’s mind. Drive young kids to suicide, yes, your language is good for that. Adults to your version of Christianity? No.

  • Will never repent being the woman god made me to be. I will not live a lie and an inauthentic life because it forces people like you to be uncomfortable or have to think.

    God made me just as I am, to challenge people like you to love unconditionally and to learn how to not judge others.

  • Except, Christ doesn’t love unconditionally Daulphin.

    John 3:3English Standard Version (ESV)

    3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[a] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

  • Even gay men have provided secular justifications for banning gay marriage. That’s on top of all the other arguments against gay marriage.

    It’s not even possible for gay marriage supporters to rationally sustain any kind of point-by-point case for legalized gay marriage in a serious public debate. It’s impossible for gay marriage supporters to hide behind the Constitution or Science or Scripture anymore.

    (Which is precisely why Christians should be insisting on such public debates.)

  • Yours doesn’t. Others do. And they have as much right to their view and interpretation of Jesus and his words as you do. After 2,000 years, it’s all common domain.

    I’m not Christian, Sandi, and you and people like you are the very reason I am not. I could never believe in your judgmental, needing a human sacrifice to forgive it’s own creation, god for anything. From asking Abraham to kill Issac, I knew at 9 the bible and god had nothing to do with each other. The one I can experience and the experience is total love. The other is nothing but men’s words, passed down, changed, argued about what got put in and what to leave out, and replaced by other translations and interpretations over the centuries. The book itself is horrifying in the things it says god wanted done, genocide, etc. You can keep it.

    All you do is try and scare people with the vision of hell to get them to live as you think they should. Makes you feel all righteous and holy, I suppose, to know you are so much better a person than all we sinners.

    Enjoy your life, Sandy, I’ll certainly continue to enjoy mine, and will take my community and family’s opinion of who I am and where they think I’ll end up over yours, who have never met me and have only one piece of knowledge of me, for which you condemn me to hell.

  • To you. Lots of Hindu’s, Muslim’s, Buddhist’s to name the religions of the majority of world’s population disagree.

  • This is a biblical matter and not a state matter and as I pointed out the bible nor I share your opinion and the state and/or government doesn’t have the authority to redefine marriage.

  • Then you can’t show us where you or the government get the authority to redefine marriage?

  • Actually the 1st amendment protect my inalienable rights to disagree and not share your opinion on the matter. So it is you that is discriminating against me for attempting to violate my inalienable rights.

  • There are two kinds of people in this world – only two kinds. Not black or white, rich or poor, but either those dead in sin or dead to sin. Leonard Ravenhill

  • They say it took over 60 years to defeat the clearly evil Plessy v. Ferguson USSC decision, (which was never actually overturned, by the way.)

    People just had to keep chipping away at that extremely wrong decision year after year, even if they didn’t live long enough to see the end result.

    Likewise, the nationally evil Obergefell decision is the same way. It’s clearly wrong and rationally unsustainable like Plessy was, and it’s time to start chippng away at it.

    Time to remind people over and over, exactly how and why it’s wrong for America.

  • If it wasn’t me, you would be making the same comment to another Christian standing up for Christ. yawn.

  • No, actually I have many Christians in my life who stand up for Christ. They just disagree with you, as do I.

  • Just to bring you up to date Jesus is God and the God mentioned in your Constitution is in fact the Christian God. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the God in any state Constitution isn’t the Christian God

  • That whole assertion is based on erroneous presumptions about the US Constitution, the role of the Federal Courts under the Constitution, especially the US Supreme Court. The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision in the United States Supreme Court did not redefine marriage. The court ruled that marriage between two consenting adults could not be defined to exclude same-sex couples. What was being overturned was the effort to put religion into law to limit the rights of some citizens due to the religious bigotry of others. People of your bent are the ones trying to redefine the role of government and the freedoms of the US Constitution as weapons of your religious bigotry. That is about as un-American as it gets, which is why folks like you have no problem with Putin trying to buy the last election, so long as it appears to serve your narrow purposes.

  • so 7 billion people are condemned to eternity in hell for not believing as you do? convient your right, I guess. Although I am certain many of them are equally certain you will be reborn as a cockroach…

  • And your comment changes exactly what in my previous post? Look up the case of Kim Davis to know just how wrong your assumption truly is?

  • The SCOTUS has no authority to make or create law. So they did not make a law that homosexuals could marry but rather gave their opinion however if that case were brought up in the SCOTUS today there would no longer be a federal opinion that homosexual unions are legal or valid. BTW marriage is a states right not the federal governments right as per the 10th amendment. .

  • Gee, and if you happen to die while waiting for that doctor, well, oh well, you were going to burn in hell anyway.

  • …but “you people” have no problem with Hillary making new deals with Putin that include enriching him with uranium. So long as there’s a red reset button ala Staples and and a woman (one who throws others regularly under the bus) in the driver’s seat for appearance sake, you’re good to go.

  • You have been provided with both long articles and short snippets that gave all those secular reasons you asked for. From both straight and gay sources.

    You had no refutation for them. Nor can you show how gay marriage can be legalized without removing legal and rational roadblocks to polygamy, consenting-adult incest-marriage (not just “steps”, by the way),
    and even group-marriage.

  • “The SCOTUS has no authority to make or create law.”
    Your assertion itself is a carefully constructed lie aimed at undermining the very fabric of our constitution to support your bigotry. SCOTUS has the constitutional obligation to interpret the law, including the power to strike down even Federal laws as contrary to the constitution. The constitution also gives the high court the power to enumerate human rights not already identified at the time of the writing of the constitution. The degree of treason which social conservatives are willing to suborn is more and more apparent with each and every new false assertion they make about the nature and powers bestowed on government to protect our constitutional human rights.

  • Yawn. Christ never taught that. But you will never acknowledge that and I will never concede to your error. So we are at a stalemate. It must be frustrating to be in an environment where so many people are not reinforcing your beliefs.

  • That’s a terrible response. Thanks for letting us know that Clinton is still a boogeyman for you folks to hold up in hopes of making people cower. She’s gone. Trump is the traitor in the White House.

  • No, according to your interpretation of G-D’s word. You are not G-D and you can not presume to speak with certainty for G-D. You refuse to believe it but there are many people of faith who have come to other than yours after reading the same word. So, until you have some claim to infallibility, I’ll respectfully decline your interpretation of the Word.

  • You are standing up for your interpretation of Christ. Daulphin stands up for hers.

  • There is no burden of proof on anybody. You make assertions based on your belief system. Your belief system does not make the correct.

  • God gave us His word so that we can help others Mark. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I suggest you google this.

  • actually no. The first amendment restricts the government from placing limitations on your expression of belief. Just like it can not place limitations on people who’s religious faith imposes no barrier to same sex relationships. Inalienable rights are enumerated as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Expressing an opinion is not explicitly listed. But those same inalienable rights apply to you and they apply to the gay couple down the street, and the apply to everyone else equally.

  • Liberals have these disproven, shallow old standbys that they drag out like rotting corpses to ‘trump’ your carefully reasoned arguments…men cant marry?Christians are full of hate!Think climate change is a huckster’s dream? Look what Christians did to Galileo (a strong Catholic who died faithful to the Church) Think Islam is a cruel political system not a true religion? Look what the Christians did to poor innocent muslims in the Crusades ad infinitum ad nauseum. Libs are just no fun to debate. They just dont get it because they know so little of history. They use science like a slave forcing it to bend to their outcomes.

  • What Christians have done in the past does not change what Christ taught. Men cannot marry.

  • I don’t need to google it Sandi. You are still relying on your own interpretation of what it means to “help” others. I realize that there is nothing that I can say to convince you that your interpretation is not authoritative. I’ll continue to pray for your conversion.

  • Christians could care less what you do in your bedrooms! Its when you force your bedrooms into our churches. You feel we all have to accept your unwholesome sinful practices…that its all about you. How i wish you’d just leave Christians alone and do whatever you do and be quiet about it . Once your liberal fans start seeing your world for what it is, you’re going to face a big melt down

  • Youve got equal rights now. Forcing Christians to accept your perversion doesnt make it any less sinful…it just makes them enablers and abetters

  • and you have no appreciation at all for the fact that you are behaving in an insulting manner. Hold that up to the Gospel and evaluate yourself before casting stones at anyone else.

  • Youre showing just how misinformed and malicious the homosexual is…youre deliberately trying to bring down Christian culture so we can become sodom and Gomorrah. Sly and nefarious

  • Another very mediocre, predictable response! cast aspersions on my character to deflect from the irrational ridiculous premise you’re defending! What a waste of time trying to reason with someone who lost his long ago. Tit for tat

  • Then why are you trying to hurt homosexuals? You are an advocate of sending them to their death – against Christ’s teaching, against moral teaching, against decency. These valuable people are going to die in torment because you chose not to listen to Christ or have respect for His word. Something for you to think about, Mark. Whether you admit it or not, Christ has judged homosexuals unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven if they do not repent. All of your denials will not change that. He will forgive and heal us of our sin, if we repent. God bless you.

  • Seriously, I have no interest in your tits but thanks for the offer.
    Scripture also teaches that if what you are teaching is not accepted that we are to shake the dust from our sandals and move on to the next town. Sticking around and arguing is the opposite of that. You have performed your duty. Others of us have performed our duty. It is time for both of us to shake the dust and move on (assuming that you want to be faithful to scripture). I have complete confidence that G-D is perfectly capable of sorting all this out and doesn’t need either of us to do more than has already been done.
    + blessings +

  • Mine was an honest response. Perhaps not something to which you are accustomed. To your point, the term “traitor” is relative. Clinton is no boogeyman by any means but is also not concerned with defending the United States or its people.

    That’s not something to cower over. That’s something to acknowledge, in truth, and combat. Provided you’re not sold on hating your own… unless, of course, they’re some special interest group that makes a handy wedge.

  • Clinton was never a great candidate, but Trump has shown as President that he was much worse of a candidate. He would not be President without the interventions of Putin in our election. Putin has to be grinning at the relatively low cost in rubles to cause so much chaos in the west due to Trump. Clinton would have most certainly protected America, if only to protect her own interests. I was concerned with the too-close ties that she had with certain oil-rich Arab nations, but her questionable ethics look like squeaky-clean Girl Scout values compared to Trump.

  • I couldn’t give a damn about your Christian beliefs of the garbage you spout in service of it. Religious freedom means I never have to nor can you make me.

    If you think your Christian faith entitles you to tell everyone how to live or gives you license to attack others, go eff yourself.

  • I don’t need the governments permission to marry nor do I need their license for them to recognize it as a marriage.

  • The Scripture is clear and speaks for itself…Genesis 2; Genesis 9:13. In fact, Genesis 2 even provides the model for modern day surgery thousands of years before modern medical practice. All of it has proven true and why might that be? It is because God’s word does not return to Him nonproductive, but accomplishes what He set it out to do. Isaiah 55:5-11. It is impossible for two men to produce a child or two women to produce a child. It is only when male to female are joined that you truly get the power of one connection, just like a power cord, which is what marriage is.

    Just because you are a non-believer does not mean everyone has to be. Your non-beliefs will not be imposed upon believers because they are all lies and cannot hold a candle to the truth.

  • So you think we don’t have the right to discriminate against immoral things such as murder, theft, assault, rape and the such or do you just bring foolish arguments to the table unil you get called out like I just did to you?

  • Bullsh1t!

    It’s all you care about.

    As long as someone is a democrat anyway. All used as an excuse to act like a raging dbag to people and pretend to have social acceptance for it. All about how to be a bigot and pretend you aren’t scum.

  • Your right to free expression ends where you harm others in service of it. Honor killing and human sacrifice are both religious expression and still illegal. Discrimination in commerce, access to services and government is still harm to others. No religious excuses allowed.

  • Really how exactly does one “interpret” what God calls sin in both OT and NT?

    Interpreters fall into two categories: those who seek to interpret the passage objectively with respect for the original meaning of the authors, and those who have an agenda.

    You obviously have an agenda.

  • “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” – Abraham Lincoln

  • “…murder, theft, assault, rape…” are all criminal acts that destroy and/or ruin lives. Only a complete fool would compare the love of two people with violent crimes or see such things as being equivalent.

  • Why do those like you fall back on the fallacy of “interpretation” when you lost your argument?

  • Not really. If they existed, bigots like you would not have lost in court on the issue. You have nothing. You seem to be full of yourself here. As if you have a host of canned arguments that you are dying to get out. Well we all heard them. You are not as special as you think.

    You lost on this issue in a way that can’t be undone. You aren’t going to argue your way into banning marriage equality any more easily than reinstituting racial segregation. Grow up bigot.

    BTW don’t have to care what you think scripture says on the subject. Christians like you can’t quote science honestly either.

  • Actually they equal rights before gay marriage was made law. They could marry anyone of the opposite sex they wanted to – just like you and me and everyone else.

  • If you actually knew what was in the bible you’d have known Christ commands us to judge. You’re welcome to copy these down as to not make the mistake to repeat the fallacy we’re not to judge.

    1 Cor 6:1-11 1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!a 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

    Leviticus 19:15 15 ¶ Ye shall not do unjustly in judgment: Thou shalt not favor the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty, but thou shalt judge thy neighbor justly.

    1 Cor 2:10-16 Judge all things
    10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
    11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
    12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
    16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he might instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    2 Cor 11:1-4 False Preachers
    1. Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

    Eph 5:11 Works of Darkness
    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

    Luke 6:37 ¶ Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
    38 Give, and it shall be given unto you: a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over shall men give into your bosom: for with what measure ye mete, with the same shall men mete to you again.

  • atheism is no excuse for discrimination. If you don’t like that, tough luck. Grow up.

  • You disrespect the men and women of the last 241 years that disagreed with you. Your little rant here says a whole lot about who you are.

  • You owe MissPrune an apology or do you come here just to bully people to feed your ego?

  • Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

  • Again the SCOTUS doesn’t possess the authority to create or fabricate laws to fit the PC mindset. What part of that don’t you comprehend? Again what proof do you have that Putin affected the election? Besides unfounded assumptions.

  • No, Trump has not shown that he was a worse candidate. I do understand now why you brought out the boogie man canard; because that is what you do.

    Let’s be adults here. Putin had no more to do with our elections than he ever has. Except as an attempted sidetrack by flagging Democrats scrambling to prop up a filthy Clinton candidate and an even more scurrilous party platform.

    As for squeaky clean ethics, that’s subjective and you’ve already proven to be without any foundation on that score.

  • Only a fool would willfully degrade the social fabric of our country even further than what it is. For while you speak of “love” the term increasingly is abused to mean whatever anyone feels at the moment.

  • Thanks for the partisan politics pitch. Here we are at almost 100 days with nothing but confused friendly nations and gloating enemy nations to show for Trump’s “accomplishments.”

  • The US Supreme Court does not “fabricate” anything. That is simply anti-American double talk by religious fanatics who would rather play patty-cake with Putin than be loyal to the union.

  • Context MM, context. A word is known by the company it keeps. Remember that.
    Matt. 15:10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

    Q: Does God require us to follow the Old Testament laws about not eating pork and other kinds of meat today?

    My executive summary of the above article is this: “NO”

  • I agree homosexuals have redefined and created many words to justify their unnatural behavior.

  • You have that exactly wrong. The Founders were the liberals of their era, just as Lincoln was a liberal president. Conservatives, regardless of party label, supported King George and wanted to keep slavery or break up the US. And now, conservatives would rather play patty-cake with Putin than honor and sustain the law in America. Different issues, same old traitors to democracy.

  • Please give credence to your Putin remark but the problem is you never seem to back up your erroneous claims but rather double down on more unfounded fallacy’s and foolish claims.

  • I have the right to defend myself from the government and those like you that threaten my Constitutional protections. So feel free to make an attempt to do so.

  • Wikileaks turns out to be Putin sponsored. At least 4 Trump “advisers” took illegal money from the Russians. Trump owes millions to the Russian banks, and Russians are the largest investors in his family fortune. Alt-right groups have had leadership conferences in Russian, paid for by the Russians. The list of wrong-doing by Trump and the Alt-right is staggering.

  • Wow. Threats of violence? You just hunker down in your backyard bunker and munch those cold MREs.

  • BTW I knew you would do anything in your power to not answer my question honestly and then go on a foolish rant.

  • That was not your best-constructed sentence. But as poor as it was, it can be the last word, unless you want to rant some more. Feel free. I can’t respond to what makes no sense whatsoever.

  • So you can’t back up your foolish accusations. I knew it all along and wanted to see you squirm.

  • Yes you did threaten me with your erroneous claim about discrimination and I called you out on it. Are you showing your true colors and punking out?

  • Gee you seem to be turning into a grammar nazi when you see you’re losing your argument? How many time are you going to use this excuse to avoid being honest and answering the comments posed to you?

  • You as a nonbeliever have no right to tell believers what they need and what they don’t.
    This is the substance of the issue: you want more political control over religious people so as to force them to violate their consciences whenever and wherever you want to.
    That’s what the lgbtq movement tells us: “Give us the right to marry…give us the right to smash those who won’t sell us flowers or bake cakes for us or whatever we want from them…we demand you teach your children that homosexuality is normal and natural.”

    You are a bunch of whiny crybabies – and you’re mean.

  • If consent is all that matters then our godless politicians can just change the law or wait for the courts to make law. At the stroke of a pen the courts can say polygamy is ok, or the age of consent is now 14 or 12 like the Netherlands. Just that easy. Course then all of you atheists will come out of the woodwork loudly declaring how you were for it to begin with. LOL

  • “I’m not Christian, Sandy, and you and people like you are the very reason I am not.”
    Thought you said you weren’t a Christian.

    Did someone have an altar call and I wasn’t informed. (I bet it was that Sandi Luckins. Boy howdy, she always beats me to it. ;>)

  • No I don’t. If you are “bullied” by tame but harsh language and frank assessments of your POV, you have no business in an online discussion. What are you? Some kind of snowflake?

  • Good luck with that. You definitely do need their license if you want any of the legal entitlements and obligations that marriage confers. That is why governments issue marriage licenses. It is more troublesome to try “common law marriage” than the actual thing.

  • A psychopath would never die on a cross for your sins. You need to back up and think about that last statement you just made. Incautious at the very least.
    And that is the very place you may spend eternity – of your own choice.
    Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”

  • The pattern of human nature is to push for what it wants until it gets burned, too. It is often the pattern to make assumptions about others. I am no man, gentle or otherwise.

  • My sentence must have been easy enough to understand because your response was a thinly disguised ad hominem. No wow about it.

  • Co-opting language to make that which is automatically repellent or nonsensical is the way to slowly move one’s opponent off the mark.

  • You keep giving me nonsense of some truly goofball reasons against gay marriage that nobody, least of all the courts ever could take seriously. I keep refuting them constantly because they are never rational. I did say rational and secular. Not just secular.

    “Nor can you show how gay marriage can be legalized without removing legal and rational roadblocks to polygamy, consenting-adult incest-marriage (not just “steps”, by the way),”

    I always do this as well. It has to do with concepts of consent and how your fictional hypotheticals fit in existing marriage laws.

    Consenting adult incest-marriage doesn’t exist. The family dynamic make concepts of consent too hazy to bother. If there are enough people to lobby for it, I will care. Until then it is fictional for all.

    As for polygamy, it wreaks havoc on existing marriage rights, obligations and default laws which are all binary and spouse neutral in nature. Until polygamists can successfully rewrite such laws which make it equitable for all spouses involved and their children, it is not worth making legal.

  • Thanks for proving that your only attempt now is to use Trump as your own personal boogie man. Sorry, but you can keep the projecting of your obvious issues to yourself. Maybe try scaring little children. Although if you don’t up your game you’ll fall just as flat.

  • Kim Davis was found guilty of contempt of court and tossed out of office. She was a contemptible person who abused her government position in service of her bigotry. Religious liberty is not the right to attack others in the name of your religion, as she did.

    If you supported her efforts, you are a terrible person also. You want special privileges to harm people in the name of Jesus. There is nothing worthy of respect there. Kim Davis and her supporters are scum. No better than any other bigot who wants to use the law to discriminate against others.

  • I’m aware. Gentlemen is the plural of the term gentleman and yet your comment was sent to me. A woman. My stating, “I am no man,” was an Eowyn reference. Not to say that you are the Witch King of Angmar.

    I’m gladdened to know, however, that you don’t make sweeping assumptions.

  • re: Pederasty:
    Matthew 18:6
    But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


    Since your premise was a failure writ large in dactylic hexameter, you conclusions false:

    Hey Wat – better luck next time.

  • Actually, we are sitting back watching her kick your butt, dude. And enjoying every minute of it.
    It’s like watching Chuck Norris do a roundhouse kick every time you post something.

  • So you see a store that has a sign on the door that states “No shoes, No shirt, No service” as discrimination? Stores that don’t allow dogs & cats (exception Service dogs) are discriminating? The bank in my small town does not allow you to use a cell phone while in the bank. Discrimination? My answer is no to all the afore mentioned. I truly don’t give a rat’s ass what gay people do, but like you who doesn’t religion shoved down your throat, I do not want gay, or any other sexual deviations shoved down my throat. My grandparents had a saying which is still true today “don’t go where you are not wanted”!

  • Classic freudian – “A prominent academic in positive psychology wrote, “Thirty years ago, the cognitive revolution in psychology overthrew both Freud and the behaviorists, at least in academia. … ”

    Cheap shot dude. Questionable Authority fallacy.

  • A psychopath requires someone to die on a cross for someone else’s sins, something truly stupid when you think of it. But you worship it for doing so. A psychopath asks someone to kill their child to prove their love of said psychopath, (the Abraham story.) You are welcome to worship such a monster, I prefer not to, thank you.

    No one has ever died for my sins, I’ve never committed a sin worth a spanking, let alone death or an eternity of fire.

    The idea that a God, a paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power; omnipotent, omniscient, couldn’t think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to split itself apart, and come down to Earth and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive us for behaving in exactly the ways he created us to behave is just plain dumb.

    If you heard about Christianity as an adult, never having been indoctrinated to the idea of an invisible creator, who sees you sleeping and awake just like Santa!) you would laugh at this story as much as you do the old idea that the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle. the only reason you believe it is that is your cultural myth, not someone else’s cultural myth and something about the church you attend agrees with your opinions.

  • Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

    15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

    16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

    Keep preaching, Sandi. God bless.

  • Since you asked–several things are required:
    an understanding of the original languages
    an understanding of the historical circumstances surrounding the writing.
    an understanding of the cultural environment present at the time the texts were written.
    I am probably forgetting several, it has been many years since seminary days.

    Scripture scholars, who exercise what is considered standard methodology in biblical exegesis, come up with different interpretations of the texts in question. People of faith can and do disagree on what texts mean.
    Mature people of faith can and do appreciate the reasoning of others while not necessarily agreeing with it. They understand that we are limited human beings, using a medium (words) that has many limitations to talk about G-D, who has no limits.

    The interpretations that Sandi chooses to adhere to fall within the range of what scholars have concluded. They do not represent mainstream interpretations but they are not totally void of legitimate reasoning.

    The minute we start talking about that which we have been taught, or read, or heard, another layer of interpretation is laid down. Our minds are not tape recorders spewing for verbatim that which we hear or read. We interpret.

    In the case of Jesus, it is clear that he lived and taught and made a significant impact on the world. He didn’t, however, write a book. He didn’t leave a blog or a video recording of what he taught. What we do have is the writings of four evangelists who did their best to document this person, this event, called Jesus. You may notice the four of them telling the same story through different perspectives. Matthew’s audience was Jewish. You see in the Gospel of Matthew a lot of references to jewish culture and tradition. Luke wrote to the gentiles so there was not the need to emphasize Jewish culture. John was a member of a community that had been excommunicated from the Jewish family and were forced to find their own identities. That is the basis for what has been called the “ant-semite” perspective that runs through John’s account of the passion. Mark was the earliest document that has been preserved (it is thought that there was another document that the three synoptic gospel writers had as a source). The way in which the same event is expressed differently in the different gospels represent interpretations–the same basic story is applied differently by different authors for different purposes. That’s one source of interpretation as applied to the Gospels. The same principle holds for OT texts. Why are there two stories of the flood that contain significantly different details? Why are there two versions of the creation story. The conventional belief is that the current texts are an amalgam of two different sources dubbed the Ehohist and the Yawhist (based on how the word for G-D is used in the different texts). The differences between E and Y are not insignificant and represent two interpretations of the underlying theme common to both.
    None of these texts were written in English. The OT texts were based on Hebrew (if you hold a King James Bible) or Hebrew and Greek (if you hold a “catholic” bible). There are words used in the original sources that have no exact English translation so another level of interpretation is introduced. Some of the ancient texts do not agree with each other even in the original language. So, if you were to use one Hebrew source you could come to one translation while if you used another you’d get another translation. Which is the “right” one? We’ll never know but someone had to pick a translation. The better bibles will include footnotes that cite the variations in the original sources. Jesus spoke Aramaic or what is now called Syriac. He may have been conversant in Greek and Latin but we don’t know for sure. His “biographers” wrote in Greek–Koine or common greek all the way to the more formal Greek, multiple expressions of the same language. These various texts, using different words to describe the same underlying concepts are then synthesized into what we call The Bible. Many many interpretations are introduced into this process.
    As to the issue at hand. Paul was writing to churches that were in strong greek and roman communities. The ethos of those communities was different than the ethos of the christian communities. For example, in Greek culture, it was not uncommon for temple worship to include displays of public sex and drinking to the point of innebriation. Paul’s texts give evidence that some of those behaviors were slipping into Christian worship. So one question that needs to be asked regarding Paul’s proscriptions on sexual behavior–was he talking about private behavior that happened in ones home and between two committed individuals or was he talking about the public displays of hedonism that was creeping into Christian worship. There is no definitive interpretation. Two individuals of good faith can legitimately come to different conclusions. For you or me to pick one interpretation is itself an interpretation and the data are filtered through our lived experiences.
    When Paul talks about homosexuals he uses two words. I’m getting tired and the two greek words are not coming to me. In any event, one of those words is unique to Paul. It is used no where else in contemporary Greek literature. That makes a conclusive interpretation very difficult–there is no standard by which to interpret the word. It is, however, a synthesis of two other words that together mean “soft male” (or something to that effect–what brain cells I have left are dying). “Homosexual” can be one interpretation but it is not necessarily the only one. The second word that Paul used had a range of translations or interpretations in that culture. One, of many, is “male temple prostitute.” I can not speak for certainty as to what paul meant but it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was hedonistic behavior that was common to their old lifestyle creeping into the Christian Agape meal.
    Interprettors vary in believing whether the text should be a word for word faithful transliteration or whether the fidelity should be to the original idea. My agenda, if you want to call it that, is to try and unveil the latter. But to assume that any of us can approach the texts and NOT render an interpretation deceives themselves–That is the point I was making to Sandi.

  • That “someone else” was God the Son. And He died for your sins, whether or not you believe it is up to you.
    Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    Tell that to the millions of Chinese who are converting to Christ – as adults. (You know nothing what others think.)

    Spew your ignorant blather: Mortimer Adler (leading 20th Century Jewish philosopher) converted to Christ in his 70’s/80’s.
    Spew more ignorant blather: C. S. Lewis (as adult atheist turned Christian)

    You and your ilk are so smug in what you don’t know.

  • Polygamy has been shown to harm women and children in several court cases, including recent ones in Canada. No secular harm has been shown by anyone in consensual gay marriage.

    If you are so interested in polygamy being legal, go get turned down for your second license and go to court. Get cracking!

    None of you polygamists wanted anything to do with it being legal, which would then be reflected in WIC and welfare payments, until you thought it might be an argument to keep LGBT people from choosing and contracting their own next of kin, who gets to inherit their joint property tax free and all those other 1,138 rights the Federal government extends to married people. now it’s all about “why not us?” go file your own law suits, we’ll see how they play out.

  • Because there is no such thing as “orientation” It is a phrase used to “normalize” sin.

  • Only if we let the government get away with violating our God given inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

  • You really should refresh yourself with Matt 23 before you assume what Jesus said to sinners?

  • Gender and sex mean the same thing according to God because God created us male and female not to be gender/sexually confused. The Christian God is not the God of Confusion.

  • I’m far from a snowflake but I will never lower myself to your standards on bullying women. Perhaps you should educate yourself on respect because as far as I can see by your posts there is none for you. And as much as you demand it, it will always be far from your grasp.

  • What a strange place to find you. Amongst the heathens again I see. Any lucky on Sh in ID?

  • there is no such thing as “fallacy of interpretation.” See my response to Mr. Shoemaker. I think you have been following a different argument.

  • She won her case and still has her job and still doesn’t grant licenses to homosexuals. At least you could be honest about the final outcome. Yep she still has her 1st amendment protection and a legal right to discriminate. Hows that for facts chuckles?

  • The same reasoning applies to all the other Levitical laws (which Paul actually talks about in Romans)

  • some more scripture you should google before declaring yourself an expert
    Genesis 5:2. You aren’t batting a thousand tonight Tras

  • Got a polygamist in your pocket?
    1. Polygamists don’t have to have children. Would it be okay then?
    2. And even if they did the fact they are now legal will mean the families will now have equal rights and won’t be ostracized by society something gays cried about until there perversion was legalized, formalized, institutionalized, and notarized.
    3. And anyway just b/c you can’t love more than one person at a time doesn’t mean others can’t. Please don’t judge the poor polygamist. He is just as normal as you are.
    (these are all of the excuses gays have give for gay marriage)

    And here’s a thought: would you be so against polygamy if the polygamist was gay and all of his wives were dudes. Seeeee! You never thought of that now did you. You gotta think of those things (((Daulphin)))

  • I’m advising you Thras, you may want to read Matthew 23 before declaring yourself an expert on this topic.

  • Ben and Spuddie pull me over from time to time. Yes, will forward it too you. All is basically ok.

  • What bible are you reading? Apparently you missed where JESUS called them serpents, hypocrites, white sepulchers, child of hell and much more. And please point out where Christ forgave them when they never REPENTED? So please stop your ranting about falsehoods.

  • Hey if you don’t like my condescending dismissive contributions don’t read my condescending dismissive contributions. That’s what you gays say.

  • So then you can’t be honest and admit JESUS called them all kinds of malicious names because of their hypocrisy? Now please address what I said about Matt 23 and stop deflecting.

  • Yes.
    Matthew 5:28 – English Standard Version

    But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

  • NAMBLA said, “man/boy love is by definition homosexual”, that “the Western homosexual tradition from Socrates to Wilde to Gide … [and] many non Western homo sexualities from New Guinea and Persia to the Zulu and the Japanese” were formed by pederasty, that “man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture”, and that “homosexuals denying that it is ‘not gay’ to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it’s ‘not heterosexual’ to be attracted to adolescent girls”.[21]

    Just sayin, MM

  • I’ll post it again:
    NAMBLA said, “man/boy love is by definition homosexual”, that “the Western homosexual tradition from Socrates to Wilde to Gide … [and] many non Western homo sexualities from New Guinea and Persia to the Zulu and the Japanese” were formed by pederasty, that “man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture”, and that “homosexuals denying that it is ‘not gay’ to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it’s ‘not heterosexual’ to be attracted to adolescent girls”.[21]

  • You can deceive yourself and those like you all you want but as for me I can tell the difference between a male and female. BTW the two example you gave are ridiculous and don’t come close to the definitions of those words. To be “effeminate” means having “female” traits but it most certainly doesn’t mean a male is now a female because he plays with dolls. Try your foolishness on someone that is as gullible as yourself.

  • You might attempt to be honest because you made an accusation and I proved you wrong, But the fact is Jesus called the homosexual behavior an abomination but I doubt you could be honest about that either.

  • Your use of profanity demonstrates you don’t have the ability, the vocabulary or self discipline to articulate an cogent argument. Go stand in a corner until you can be more civil.

  • I know of gay triads and have since 1977. Not my cup of tea, and they didn’t ask for legal recognition. So, yes, I have thought about it. I can’t conceive of giving the type of time and attention I give my wife and family to more than one other person and set of kids. I can’t conceive of being truly spiritually connected to more than one spouse. I have no desire for anyone but my wife and no willingness to include anyone else in our relationship.
    I am neither particularly for or against polygamy as long as polyandry is allowed as well and everyone is taken care of. I have yet to see, hear or read about any type of polygamy, gay, straight or otherwise where that has been the case.
    You still haven’t even laid out what polygamy is, and you accuse me of not thinking it all through. If A and B and married and A also marries C, is C married to B? What relationship do A and C’s children have to A and B’s? If B divorces A do, they also divorce B? Who gets custody of the B’s kids, A and C? Everyone os getting older, so in marries a younger couple. How long does a marriage last? Is this now a line marriage? How do we manage inheritance laws for 100 people all connected by this line marriage?
    But I haven’t thought about it…

    None of you thought about it until you thought the idea of it could kill gay marriage. You still haven’t actually thought about all the ramifications, you just want a quick talking point, regardless of it’s actual usefulness (none) to your argument about gay people.

  • Spuddie hung out at the Tribune for a year or so when I first showed up. Isn’t posted there regularly for a while. Glad you got the msg.

  • And, if I have lusted, Christ forgives my sin. Not the same with unrepentant homosexuals Thras.

  • The fact that seems to elude you is children aren’t gender/sexually aware so when adults make a judgement does it make them more or less “effeminate” or “masculine” ? Or do you believe the adults opinion can change their sex and/or gender?

  • Uh, yes you did. Shame on you. Ungrateful that’s what you are.
    BTW How’s art class – still painting with a broad brush I see.

  • Boy was your comment a lot of Hooey. What you’re asking is that we accept your way and put off our way. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and not tell Christians what they need to believe to be approved by you?

  • You’re the one quoting 2000 year old stuff as if we actually knew what any of them said. But I’m ignorant.
    Its been fun, but after Sandi’s call that killing and torturing us all is a good idea if it gets us into your heaven, I think I’ll leave you crazy people alone again for awhile. I may come back and play again sometime. Adamant fundamentalists can be quite unintentionally entertaining as none of you ever look at the actual truly horrible things the whatever it is you worship has called for in the book you claim is divine. I think I’ll continue to experience the divine and love my fellow people, including your crazy self, you can keep the rules and regulations and stuff that say I should hate you and make you live like I do, as you want to do to me.
    Keep your church in church and out of our secular laws and do as you please. Place your church beliefs in the public to force those of us who don’t believe them to follow them, and you will find quite a fight, mostly from the old christian ladies in the Aquatic aerobics class I volunteer with. They love my wife and I, think we are the kindest people they’ve ever met, and will happily take you to task for your lack of christian love for us and your need for us to believe what you do.

  • We are all responsible for our temptations Thras. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

  • Thanks Bob. I feel I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole. Time for a cuppa tea and a good book. ?

  • Incorrect. Even liberal priests are pro-life but your comment smacks of anti-Catholic bigotry or just ignorance about Church doctrine or both.

  • She lost. She couldn’t keep her office from issuing marriage licenses. If not for being an elected position she would have been removed from it. She never had a right to discriminate and still doesn’t. You really are factually impaired.

  • Aw poor baby is feeling bullied because he is being called out on hateful behavior and a desire to discriminate under the color of law. You poor thing. Being denied a right to harm others formJesus. How will you ever manage?

    Try not to melt, snowflake.

  • Try to be more honest, bigot. The more appropriate analogy is a sign saying “White customers only” or “we dont serve k1kes”. You are denying a whole class of people goods, services or government access who are entitled to them because of your personal prejudice. If your religion somehow compels you to attack others in such a discriminatory fashion, you luck. You don’t belong in open commerce or government. You lack the civility necessary for it. If you get fined and sued for such actions, good. You deserved it for being so malicious to the public. You don’t want religious freedom. You want privilege to treat others like crap.

  • Christian florist Baronelle Stutzmann served gays AND employed gays for years, (and even supported legalized gay marriage in principle)…

    … and yet we all saw what the Gay Goliath bullies did to her (and her home, and her life savings, etc.)

    And you approved of what they did, too!

  • Oh please. Obergefell clearly redefined marriage, from “One-Man-One-Woman” to “Anything Goes If You Can Get The Right President and USSC.”

  • So you already concede that SOME people may be pushing for Consenting-Adult Daddy-Daughter marriage, just like some people were pushing for Gay Marriage in years past, but you simply ***Won’t Care*** about it until you read in CNN or RNS that the USSC is about to take up an incest-marriage case.

    At which time, you will oh-so-graciously deign to finally “care” about it.
    Sheesh, Spuddie.

  • Since we are talking about a civil contract enforced by the state, The state has every right to define it as it wishes. I don’t acknowledge the authority of your book over me, though you are free to believe whatever you wish. As for marriage being redefined, your definition was redefined the moment the first two atheists got married. In any case, marriage wasnt redefined, but gay people were– as no longer your inferior.

    And that really bugs you no end, don’t it?

  • Which is why HIS prohibition on homosexual behavior and gay marriage, really ought to be taken seriously by pro-gay supporters.

  • Gee, and if you happen to die while waiting for that doctor, well, oh well, you were going to burn in hell anyway.

  • Who’s prohibition. The scriptural texts are far from conclusive. See my extended comments elsewhere in this discussion. They won’t be repeated. The scriptural texts are so inconclusive that the Catholic Church bases her prohibitions on the reasoning of Aquinas, not scripture.

  • 1st amendment protection? Speech? The issue was her behavior not her speech. And her right to free speech has limits–harassment, libel, slander, etc. are not protected. Freedom of religion? I know of no religion that has as its religious practice the issuance of civil marriage licenses. Freedom of religion assures us the right to worship as we wish and not be persecuted because of our beliefs. Being required to do your job isn’t persecution. Having your head chopped off for believing in Jesus is persecution. She had every right to believe what she does about marriage. What she doesn’t have is the right to deny other people their rights based on those beliefs.
    The last I heard, she had lost her job. However, I stopped paying attention ages ago. If you have information to the contrary, please give the links.

  • MissPrune could stand to apologize as well. Nobody is bringing bedrooms into churches. If seeing two people of the same gender stand together in church as a family bothers you….. well, just ignore them like you always have. Nobody is forcing you into a same sex relationship and nobody is forcing you to view their sexual intimacies.
    It’s obvious this subject raises some intense feelings for people. Can we all just pause for a moment and remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. That we are all called to be Christ for each other–gay, straight, red, white, black, male or female. Can we pause to make an effort to actually see Jesus in “the other?” If these people with unwholesome and sinful practices happen to be least on your list of favorites, please remember that what you do to them you do to Jesus. How you treat them is how you treat Jesus; attitudes you have toward them are attitudes you have to Jesus. Those are Jesus’ words not mine. That part of the Bible continues to be relevant no matter who you are and what side of this debate you happen to fall on

  • To buttress your arguments you may want to look up the Supreme Court case rejecting the appeal from the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. I think it was 1873. In any event, they claimed that their religious liberties were being restricted. I can’t remember all the details but it seems to me that SCOTUS said, you are right. Your religious liberties are being restricted–but the constitution was never intended to endorse such a wide range of behavior under the umbrella of “religious liberty.” The concept of competing interests and compelling governmental interest came into play as well IIRC. I need to dig the case out and read it again.

  • Actually, Acts 10 and what Paul had to write about following the law are part and parcel of my defense. Paul makes it clear that if we insist on one part of the law be followed, we are obliged to follow the whole law. The point I was making, in case you missed it, was that the levitical laws are not applicable. Along with Paul, I echo–if you are going to cite one set you are obliged to attend to them all.

  • Reynolds v. US is the case you are thinking of. The court used human sacrifice as an example of why religious belief isn’t the be all or end all for justifying actions.

  • I am sure you find lots of reasons to make discriminatory behavior acceptable and worthy of praise. But I won’t ever be one of them.

    She acted badly and broke the state law. She got what she deserved and her supporters are unworthy of respect. She was a bigot who acted maliciously and got rightly punished for it. Now she is on the wingnut lecture circuit making a living whipping up hate.

  • Stop the hate Sandi Luckins and floydlee! You are destroying people’s lives and this site. Your “God Hates F-gs!” campaign on RNS will not succeed! I will be here to protest your hate for as long as it takes.

  • Nope. It’s fiction. If they happen to exist, I will think about it. Until then it’s like discussing best way to trap unicorns. I am sure you find it fascinating but it’s not worth the effort of taking seriously.

    Again consent issues exist there so you are describing something that only exists in your mind.

  • Nice try at the slander as facts routine. Obergefell clearly found that efforts to discriminate against same-sex marriage by inserting new definitions of marriage was what was illegal and unconstitutional. DOMA had already been struck down at the Supreme Court as unconstitutional two years earlier. DOMA sought to prevent legal same-sex marriages by turning hallelujah hypocrite dogma into Federal law. It’s your group of failed fanatics who tried and failed to narrow the legal definition of marriage to exclude specific people from its benefits.

  • Being grateful to live in America under the US Constitution is actually being ungrateful? That sort of run down the rabbit hole logic is what makes bigots like you “special.”

  • ” …the catechism of his church which forbids what he wants. ”

    Here’s what their catechism says about LGBT’s. Part of Number 2358 —
    “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

  • ” Leviticus 20:13 – …They shall surely be put to death… ”

    That verse is not fit to be even mentioned. Stick with the NT for things that are based on the ‘newness of the Spirit’…….Romans 7:6

  • Have you noticed that nobody (emphasis) even responded to your question, mark morin?

    Sandi Luckins detoured to “homosexuality is a sin”.
    Bob Shoemaker detoured to “interpretation” and “agenda”.
    And DirtyHarry#1 detoured to “Does God require us to follow the Old Testament laws”.

    As to your question — “Can you point out which canon forbids treating people equally?” — I guess God only knows.

  • Re “This is a biblical matter and not a state matter”, the matter in the headline is:
    “As a Catholic priest, I am against an executive order on religious liberty”.
    Unless “executive” refers to the pope, it looks like a “state matter” to me.

    Re “the state and/or government doesn’t have the authority to redefine marriage”, I wonder if you might be conflating civil marriage with holy matrimony.
    The former is the state’s business (hence the state-issued “marriage license”).
    The latter is the Bible’s business (hence the “wedding chapel”).
    In other words, when it comes to the marital matter of people who don’t even go to your church, not only is there no conflict, but the matter is none of your business.

  • The immoral things you list are proscribed by our shared nation’s and states’ laws, which, by the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its incorporated Amendments, afford us “equal protection of the laws”.

  • If this were really an issue about the sex lives of strangers, that would be creepy.
    I’m so glad it’s merely an issue of you trying to control the lives of your equals.
    This isn’t about Natural v. Unnatural. It’s about Hubris v. Humility. Case closed.

  • “Its when you force your bedrooms into our churches.”
    Wow! They actually do that? That’s incredible!
    Or is this what Psych 101 calls “projection”?
    “It’s when you force your churches into their bedrooms.”
    Now that’s credible.

  • “If your god chooses to send me to hell for eternity for the life I have lived, I would prefer to be in hell than with that god. I have no interest in pleasing psychopaths.”

    Amen, (((Daulphin))). If we’re wrong, and the God described by Sandi Luckins, Bob Shoemaker, DirtyHarry#1, and others — a capricious, petty, cruel, irrational, amoral, unfatherly, un-believably ungodly God who toys with our mortal lives and immortal souls as a cat toys with its prey, who hides from his own children for millennia and then condemns them to eternal torture/death just because they don’t believe in him — if that kind of God commands Heaven and Earth, then he and I wouldn’t have much in common, anyway.

  • This is the most I’ve ever seen you post, (((Daulphin))) — I’ve enjoyed reading your well-thought and well-presented comments, and will look forward to next time!

  • You have no inalienable right to abuse your equals.
    “Consciences leash the hounds, not the neighbors.”

  • I stand on my 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech, and the right to exercise my own discretion as when to speak and when to keep silent. The very same right and freedom which extends to you.

  • I rest my case. Ed sweetie, since that right extends to others, knowing whether or not it seems to you that others shouldn’t state anything more on any subject is not only irrelevant but valueless information.

  • Sandy’s beliefs are hypocritical, as is her behavior. Her particular brand of hypocrisy renders her world of deity worship illusory, Not to her, rather objective observers.

  • Commenters, please note and remember for the future: Sandy just flat out stated that her beloved Jesus does not love her unconditionally. Thus he only loves her when she doesn’t upset him. Same with the rest of us. Huh!

  • To change your last sentence from false to true, change “can’t” to “can,” and “what makes no sense whatsoever” to “whatever I want.” Try stating truths only.

  • “Honest??” Hardly. You stated as fact problems others don’t have! It’s essentially impossible for you to know what you claim to know.

  • “Their sin is no worse than mine”

    That should have been the end of your post. The rest just shows your hubris.

  • Scholar? Where did you get that title? The Wizard? Stop hiding behind your collar and admit that you are a political activist and a spokesperson for the LGBT community. It is obvious that being anti Trump, anti conservative and waving the flag for any LGBT issue that exists is where you are most passionate. Go for it!

  • Honest. You can keep hiding out from that which you display for others to see but that doesn’t make your delusion reality.

  • Incorrect that the church is not really concerned with reducing the abortion rate. The church is heavily involved in adoption services, prenatal counseling, etc. A huge % of the protesters outside Planned Parenthood are Catholic.

    So the church does not condone birth control, but it cares vehemently about eliminating the scourge of abortion from this planet.

  • That there is a root cause to all that we experience and see around us is not just wishful thinking, friend. It’s logical. In truth, especially in light of the human disconnect between wishing and what we actually do, the comfort would come in that reality not mattering one bit.

  • Everyone of our Founders and their progeny would have been scandalized by the progressive liberal homocrazy agenda of today. So you’re not grateful to them – you hate them as they represent everything you detest.
    So how’s Wonderland, “Queen of Hearts” with your prog lib “Off with their heads” political agenda.
    Talking to you prog libs is like gagging myself with a spoon. And reading your posts is like reading a screed by someone who has eaten a magic mushroom.
    And bigotry? You give bigotry a bad rap.

  • That there is a root cause is possible, but not proven. that it is the root cause YOU believe in is entirely debatable.

    Not all religion is true? You said it, not me. You just believe YOUR religion is true, and all the rest are false. The same could be said of each and every other faith. When Good Christians (TM) are not busy attacking non-christian faiths, they are often busy attacking other True Christians (TM) for not being the right sort of True Christian (TM).

    These pages are full of those attackss, and the history of the West is writ large in the blood of those disputes.

  • Oh, pLease. As mark twain said, show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I’ll tell you what his opinions are.

    You’re still working that scam. Neither Jesus, nor Freud, nor fraud turns anyone from gay to straight.

  • And yet it hasn’t. And it’s beliefs about birth control continue to make abortion a major industry.

    You really can’t have it both ways, but you’ll try.

  • Which is why we have a secular government to make sure the people’s law trumps any god’s – Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

  • Why did you flag Sandi? Are you against or afraid of free speech? I don’t agree with a single thing she says but let her comment.

  • “So you’re not grateful to them – you hate them as they represent everything you detest.”
    Folks on your side can only “win” the argument by presenting a false representation of what other people think and believe. You do that both because your own argument is so weak and because it is in your nature to want to judge and condemn others so that no one looks too close at your own hypocrisy. And it’s not you that you want to “gag with a spoon,” it’s everyone that you view as “less than” yourself. That’s what makes you the bigot.

    As for the Founders, seeing them as real people with flawed lives like the rest of us but doing their best for everyone then and now just shows real appreciation for the brilliance of their efforts that resulted in the US Constitution. Telling falsified fairy tales about the Founders is what actually disrespects them. That would be what you do when you try to claim them as your own when your political “ancestors” were the British-collaborating Tories, not the Patriots.

  • Miss sandimonious is quite the passive aggressive little girl. It’s basically a waste to spend too much time on her.

  • presenting a false representation of what other people think and believe.

    And then you immediately present a false representation of what I think and believe.
    LOL – hypocrite

    the brilliance of their efforts that resulted in the US Constitution.
    They were brilliant and they did not recognize your pansexual nonsense in the Constitution. Nothing about homosexuality there.
    Go pedal your perverse nonsense somewhere else.

  • There comes a point in a discussion, debate, argument, attempt to proselytize (or whatever this has been) becomes nonproductive. Sometimes the end result is to push people even further away from where you want to draw them. At those times, it’s best to let go. I don’t think that Sandi is evil or bad. I do believe that she is a person of faith who is acting upon what she believes to be the truth. And I can understand how she came to believe as she does while disagreeing with her thought process and conclusions. I firmly believe that the WAY she is going about what she does is completely opposite of how Jesus would or did go about doing things. That stems from my own personal encounter with Jesus through the Word and the Church. I don’t expect her to agree with my way of looking at the world but it would facilitate dialogue if “she” (and what I really mean are the ardent proselytizers who communicate in the way that she did) could at least understand WHY other people think and believe differently.
    I confess though, that I have as much difficulty as anyone else letting go of things. At those times I have to force myself to sit back and see the person of Jesus in them. That has a way of tempering emotions and changing perspective.

  • “Nothing about homosexuality there.”

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (the 9th Amendment). They did not have to list every single right or even envision what those rights might be.

    Obergefell simply acknowledges that the right for same-sex couples to legal marry already exists as natural law and no specific law needs to be written. That’s what SCOTUS does, interpret the Constitution and Federal law.

  • Abortion is a major industry because one unelected judge used the word “penumbra” that has since never been used in a SCOTUS decision. There is no lack of access to birth control in the USA and in the African American community where Catholics don’t exactly dominate, abortion is rampant, per the wishes of the genocidal eugenicist Margaret “gotta get rid of them brown people” Sanger. So you’ll want to sharpen your rhetorical skills before making up something as silly as the Church’s stance on birth control is responsible for the abortion rate.

    The church urges adoption, not abortion, as a solution to unwanted or unintended pregnancies. It also urges no sex before marriage and other “old fashioned” beliefs that you know, correlate with intact families, lower murder/suicide rates, and a whole list of other “social” issues that the embrace of abortion and its accompanying mores have begotten. But keep on the anti-Catholic bandwagon and embrace the fail of “women’s health” today. It’s the suicide-in-motion that you can’t deny.

  • And it took 241 years for us to discover it – and it was there all along.
    [horse hockey! just liberal judges making law from the bench once again]

  • It took us almost 80 years to discover that African Americans were complete people and US Citizens instead of 3/5 of a person that could be sold like cattle. And it was liberals, not conservatives, that got us to that discovery, along with a lot of bloodshed by conservative Dixiecrats.

  • Degrade the social fabric of our country? Who is attacking gay people here? Who insists that their religious beliefs give them dominion over others, and this in a country founded on the freedom of religion and the separation of. Church and state?

    I am an American citizen, a tax payer, a law abiding, productive, contributing member of society, respected and liked in my community as a gay man in a stable marriage. If that degrades the social fabric of our society– -an assertion as fact free, compassion free, logic free, and kindness free as the assertion that my marriage threatens heterosexual marriages and makes the Baby Jesus cry bitter tears– then I say we have no social fabric worth bothering with, or need a lot more of people like me and a lot less of people like you.

  • But that’s exactly the people you want to discriminate against, isn’t it? People who don’t believe your particular version of god?

  • Interesting how many comments on this thread were deleted. I know some of them were mine. And I also know that they violated no terms of service. However, they did upset some delicate little snowflakes on the Christian Reich, err, Right side of the argument.

    Congratulations, you Good Christians. by deleting my comments, you have shown that you know your arguments have no currency.

  • Actually, she wasn’t tossed out of office. She was tossed into jail for contempt of court.

  • Those things will be legal when the majority heterosexual society decides they are. Polygamy,everywhere it is practiced, including among Christians in Africa, and Christians in Mormon Utah, is a heterosexual institution. And obviously, father daughter marriages will also be a heterosexual institution.

    Doesn’t make your holy heterosexuality look all that good, does it?

    And when the sister shaggers and brother bangers decide to organize, petition their government, and do all of the things necessary to make their case, do let me know. I’ll decide then.

  • Again, those “some people are pushing for daddy daughter marriage” are heterosexuals.

    I’ll try to keep my kids away from them.

    Snark off.

  • Max, Paul learned via revelation from Christ for 3 years in Arabia (Galatians 1). He spoke for Christ.

  • John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

  • Some things the Jews continue with.
    Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. He fulfilled the civil and ceremonial laws that the Jews still uphold. The moral laws He brought into the New Testament, that is why Leviticus 18 still stands.

  • The words you want are grafting, fundraising, lies, and propaganda.

    Sloppy work and incorrect conclusions are being kind where no kindness is warranted.

  • I’ve fulfilled the conditions for Him to love me, FH. Do you want the same privilege for yourself?

  • Spell check: pryer
    Really, if you’re going to gig others for spelling errors you shouldn’t make spelling errors yourself.
    And furthermore, conservative UMC members have every right to retain their church according to their book of discipline.

  • Mark Morin, there are no blurred lines when it comes to the good news of the Gospel. God would like all to come to repentance and inherit eternal life, but He knows that is not going to happen. He gave us this Good News of the Gospel so there is no excuse. Once heard, you either accept the truth or reject it. And non-believers have rejected it. We all have free will — It is that simple.

    But if you reject the Gospel, it is not ok to steal its divine laws and twist the meaning. Genesis 2:24-25; Genesis 9:13. It is not ok to target Christian businesses and demand services that you know are a direct affront to their faith and force them out of business. it is not ok to persecute Christians by locking them up, suing them for everything they have even though they have children. It is not ok to haul nuns into court because they are believers in the Gospel. It is not ok to falsely accuse Christians of hate and bigotry because they refuse to allow themselves to be deceived.

    What we are seeing today is the mockery of the Gospel that was prophesied about over 2000 years ago. Namely, Genesis 2:24-25, Genesis 9:13; Matthew 19:4. You should take note of what Adrian Rogers said, that “…many Christians are folding up when they ought to be standing up. Those who are settled in the faith need to teach our children to be settled in the faith so they can stand on the solid rock of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the Beatitudes, Jesus makes an amazing statement:

    Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad…. Matthew 5:10-12

    If you stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ, you’re going to be persecuted. “All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). ALL and SHALL.

    But there’s a way you can escape persecution. Don’t live godly. Just hobnob with the world and fail to take a stand or be distinctive, and you won’t suffer persecution.” You will simply follow in the line of the wicked servant who took his one talent and buried it. And as Bible.Org says about the parable of the talents:
    (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28) ‘,,,The master’s dealings with the third servant is a very different matter. This servant came to his master with only the talent his master had originally entrusted to him. He did not increase his master’s money at all. In fact, if this were to take place today, that money would likely be worth less, due to inflation. This servant offered a feeble excuse for his conduct. He told his master that he was a harsh and cruel man, a man who was demanding, and who expected gain where he had not labored. He contended that this is why he was afraid to take a risk with any kind of investment. And so he simply hid the money, and now he returned it, without any gain. The master rebuked this slave for being evil and lazy. He took his talent from him, gave it to the one who earned ten, and cast this fellow into outer darkness, where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    We should carefully note the outcome of faithful service, and of unfaithful service, in this parable. Faithful service led to increased responsibilities in the kingdom of heaven, and eternal joy in the presence of the Master, Jesus Christ. Unfaithful service led to condemnation, the removal of one’s stewardship, and an eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, away from the presence of our Lord.
    One must surely conclude that this parable is not just an interesting story, but a message of eternal significance. Let us listen carefully then, looking to God’s Spirit to enlighten our hearts and minds, and to empower our service, to the glory of God and our eternal good.’ And not use our talents to blur the lines between good and bad.

  • The simple TRUTH is the bible doesn’t support your opinion or the priests opinion. It’s just that simple

  • I’m not in basic disagreement with you, for the most part. Sandi is quite clear to me as a psychological type. She is not a nice person, however dressed up she may be to look like one,. I don’t respond to her often, or even usually at length. But sometimes, For the sake of others, what she is doing needs to be pointed out.

    I used to have a dear friend like her, a bomb thrower who got off on the destruction. He’s a psychiatrist!! I finally kicked him out of my life a few years ago, something several of our mutual friends had already done. He’s always talking about how every one contributes their 50% to every situation. But he also said “I’m not interested in other people’s problems with me. That’s all about them and not about me.” That’s when I finally had enough, and said goodbye. Sandi is one of that type. You see the Jesus in her, which speaks well of you. I see the sociopath.

    I don’t write to convince the sandis, the floyds, and the dirtys of the world. They have been irretrievably poisoned by toxic religious belief, as well as their faith in an imaginary superiority as Christians, “moral” people, and human beings. and nothing short of a major psychological slap upside the head will ever get through to them, if even then.

  • Depends on what you’re referring to: you like Charles Dickens’ literary works? Then I guess we do have something in common.

  • That one flew past me Harry……..lol
    Chuck Norris threw a grenade and killed 50 people, then it exploded.

  • You’re still expressing your unfounded opinion and as of yet have not produced one fact or given any actual proof anything you claim is remotely valid.

  • Then explain why Kim Davis or for that matter any public servant in Kentucky DON’T have to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals? Oh I just blew you deception and propaganda right out of the water.

  • Let’s make a phone call to Jim Madison and Tom Jefferson.
    “Hi Jim, Harry here, yeah Dirty Harry – ok Jim I’ve heard that one before – I’ve heard all of the Dirty Harry jokes – not funny any more…is Tom there? He is? Great! Put the phone on speaker. Tom, can you hear me?
    “Loud and clear filthy Harry. Lol.”
    “Hmmm. Funny Tom.”
    “Hey, JIm. Tom. I just want to check with you about a little point of disagreement we’re having here in the 21st century. Yeah, it’s about the Constitution you guys wrote – wait, wait, I know you didn’t do it by yourselves, but you were the leaders of it.”
    “Well, here’s my question: did you all intend to normalize and legalize gay marriage in the constitution?”
    “Hey Harry, Tom here. I think all marriages should be happy.”
    “No that’s not what I mean, Tom. I mean should homosexuals be able to be married.”
    “Jim here. Drawing a blank on that one. Not familiar with the term.”
    “Ummm…sorry. Let me try again. Should two men be able to marry each other or two women be able to marry each other?”
    “What the [bleep]!”
    “Tom, watch you language. We’re on speaker phone. Harry, what are you talking about?”
    “Jim, Tom. Does your Constitution allow same sex marriages?”
    “Why on earth would two men or two women want to marry each other? Yuck! So the answer, Harry, is NO. Our constitution was never written to endorse or legalize same sex marriage. Who in your century is saying it does?”
    “It’s a long story guys. I’ll tell you later. Thanks for your time. Bye.”
    “Thanks, Harry, you certainly ruined our weekend. Good bye.”
    “Tom, I told you they screw it up.”
    “Jim, you were right, as usual.”

  • Mr. Believer, I respect your opinion. I am also acutely aware that there are other versions of what constitute “the gospel” than you seem to be proclaiming. Good people of faith have been disagreeing for 2000 years. I don’t expect it to stop now.

  • Well then perhaps you would be willing to share your definition of “fallacy of interpretation.” It is possible that we are talking about different things.

  • Let me remind you of what the priest’s opinion was:

    “At issue is not the protection of behaviors — about which there are
    sincere differences of belief within religious communities — but the
    welfare of fellow citizens and believers, human beings and families who
    are loved by God.”

    He is not talking about behaviors for which he acknowledges that there are sincere differences of opinion. So, same sex behavior is off the table as the topic of this particular article. What he is talking about is the basic dignity and worth of every single human being (as some put it, “from conception to the grave.”) Advocating for the dignity of the human person, for equality and non discrimination is very clearly supported by the Bible and Church teaching. The topic of the article is how we treat each other as human beings. You may have strongly held beliefs about same sex behavior. The Church has very clear teachings on the subject. At the same time, the Church’s teaching is very clear that we are to treat the homosexual person with dignity.

    I find it hard to believe that you are an evil person who would wish harm on any person because of their status in life. A person, for example, may have strong opinions about how the police treat people of color. It takes an evil person to come to the conclusion that harm should come to the police.

    If the Church is capable of concurrently holding to apparently contradictory teaching (the intrinsic evil of homosexual behavior and the duty to respect the dignity and worth of the homosexual person), why can’t we. If you examine the discussions here, most people have been commenting on the merits of same sex behavior. That wasn’t the topic of the article.

  • Thanks for sharing your homophobe fantasy history. Nice window into just how sick you are.

  • Nope. I am expressing what investigative journalism has uncovered, and is forcing Congress to actual investigate as well. You should look for news somewhere besides Breitbart, Fox, Limbaugh, and Alex Jones.