News

Evangelical chaplain’s suspension intensifies denomination’s gay marriage debate

The Rev. Judy Peterson. Photo courtesy of North Park University

(RNS) — The suspension of a popular evangelical university chaplain has highlighted tensions over same-sex marriage in a growing Protestant denomination that forbids it but also takes pride in its willingness to allow congregants to hold opinions contrary to church doctrine.

The Rev. Judy Peterson, ordained in the Evangelical Covenant Church and pastor at its flagship North Park University in Chicago, presided at the wedding of two men in April. That act resulted in her suspension and then a petition drive calling on ECC leaders to place a moratorium on their guidelines forbidding clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings. The petition had more than 4,270 signatures as of Thursday (Jan. 11).

Members of the ECC — which has more than 850 churches in North America, with about 225,000 weekly attenders — have grappled with the issue much as have other Protestant denominations. Other ECC pastors also face disciplinary action for taking part in the nuptials of gay couples or affirming them in other ways.

But some congregants hope the church’s tradition of tolerance for those who take issue with its official stances could lead toward a more amicable resolution in the ECC on an issue that has split other churches.

Peterson, in a statement released by Mission Friends for Inclusion, an LGBTQ-affirming network of ECC members, wrote that in officiating at the same-sex wedding, she did not relish challenging church authority.

“This was not a flippant decision done with disregard for religious rules, but rather a discerned decision to stand with my brothers in the same way Jesus has stood with me,” she wrote in the statement, which the network said it published without Peterson’s permission.

The Rev. Judy Peterson preaches at a youth conference in Michigan in 2008. Photo by Mike Nyman via Genesisevent.org

Peterson wrote that she immediately agreed when asked by a former student to officiate at his wedding. She also said she met and prayed with a church executive before the ceremony, who told her there could be consequences for her role.

Peterson’s suspension from her school position has prompted a flurry of reaction — including an email sent to church members by ECC officials, two statements from the school, and the petition that seeks the reversal or halting of “punitive actions” against LGBTQ-affirming clergy.

“We urge you to create opportunities for our entire denomination to engage in vital, respectful, and thoughtful conversations around human sexuality that includes LGBTQ individuals and their allies without fear of reprisal so we may become the healthy church Christ longs for us to be,” reads the petition.

Some consider this a significant juncture for the small denomination known for its “freedom in Christ” affirmation that permits differing opinions on some matters of doctrine, such as ordaining women since the 1970s and allowing both infant and believer baptisms since its early days in the 1800s.

The Rev. Paul Corner. Photo by Janine Wilson

“When it comes to queer inclusion, LGBTQ inclusion, we’ve just failed to do that,” said the Rev. Paul Corner, an ECC pastor in Seattle and a founder and former president of Mission Friends for Inclusion, which is known as MF4i.

Five months after officiating at the April 2017 ceremony, Peterson said, she was called to a series of meetings with officials of her denomination and her ECC credentials were suspended on Nov. 7, her statement says. Peterson said she declined requests by the school and the church for her to resign. Days before Christmas, she said, she was placed on a “terminal sabbatical” and was told she could not resume campus pastoral duties unless her ordination status was reinstated. She said she now awaits a Jan. 19 hearing before an ECC board that supervises ministers.

The university issued a statement on Dec. 28 on the “extraordinarily difficult situation for all” and directed questions to the denomination.

Ed Gilbreath, the ECC’s spokesman, declined to comment when asked for a response about Peterson’s situation, saying, “For reasons of privacy, we do not comment on specific circumstances.”

Officials reiterated the denomination’s stance — “Faithfulness in heterosexual marriage, celibacy in singleness” — in a Dec. 29 email message circulated among ECC members. But they also acknowledged “these are complex days and feelings run strong.”

The university issued a second statement on Jan. 4, saying it “is sorry for the hurt and confusion experienced by students, faculty, staff, and friends of the school in the days since the news of the actions taken by the Evangelical Covenant Church leading to the North Park University campus pastor’s sabbatical and suspension of her credential.”

The second statement also expressed affirmation for Peterson’s “remarkable and transformative work” and a commitment to forming a university task force with its student government and Queers and Allies student organization to ensure the support and protection of LGBTQ students.

The Rev. Adam Phillips speaks at TEDxMtHood 2017 in Portland, Ore. Photo courtesy of TEDxMtHood

Beyond Peterson, at least a few others are also scheduled to meet with the Board of the Ordered Ministry next week.

“Their careers and credentials are on the line,” said Corner.

The petition calls for a halting of adherence to 2015 guidelines that state that clergy should not officiate at ceremonies uniting same-sex couples and congregations should not host them. It says those rules were not vetted, as required, by a gathering of ECC clergy.

Gilbreath also declined to comment on specific circumstances related to the board but said, “I believe its members are aware of the petition and will be discussing it.”

Andrew Freeman is director of operations at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Chicago and a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church. Photo by Charlie Simokaitis

Andrew Freeman, a gay member of the church who discussed his coming out in 2011 in the blog “Coming Out Covenant,” said the guidelines have hurt more than helped his church.

“All they’ve done is sort of create chaos and confusion and fear and so I think the petition is saying we need to have a healthy dialogue,” said Freeman, a layman who now directs operations at an Episcopal church but remains a member of the ECC.

An ECC pastor who asked that his name not be used for fear of losing his job, said he, like Peterson, has an upcoming meeting with the denominational board dealing with ordained ministers. This pastor agreed to say a prayer at the wedding of a lesbian couple but did not officiate at the ceremony. He said in an interview that he struggled with how to abide by church guidelines that forbid marrying such a couple while other principles say not to withhold pastoral care on the basis of sexual orientation.

“I felt like I was in a really tough spot where I couldn’t uphold both vows,” he told RNS.

The Rev. Dan Collison at First Covenant Church in April 2016. Photo by Will Keeler Photography

The Rev. Dan Collison, pastor of a Minneapolis ECC church since 2009, said he has been called to a meeting with the same board for a “clarifying conversation” after he preached an hourlong sermon in March that affirmed LGBTQ people and included a brief interview with a married lesbian couple. He said he joined others in being disappointed about the suspension of Peterson’s credentials.

“It’s disheartening on many levels, number one because our denomination in its historic practice and polity has not been the denomination who kicks people out,” he said. “While suspending a pastor is not technically kicking a person out, it’s showing them the door.”

The Rev. Adam Phillips, pastor of a Portland, Ore., church that lost the support of the ECC in 2015 for its affirmation of LGBTQ people, is among those who think the university may take a more inclusive stance than the denomination. He said the school’s second statement “signals that the university is waking up to the need for leadership on this while the Covenant denomination continues to punish pastors for doing ministry work.”

Christian ethicist David Gushee, director of Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life, said the controversy reflects a struggle that’s happening across evangelicalism between denominational leaders who view LGBT inclusion as “a nonnegotiable” and dissenters like himself who seek dialogue about who has authority to determine what is permissible. But he said the Christian academic setting of this dispute centers on both religious and academic freedom.

“One possible outcome here would be that the university would position itself in defense of its staff person and over against denominational authorities that would attempt to put pressure on her,” said Gushee, a former RNS columnist, who was invited to address the MF4i group in 2015 after authoring “Changing Our Mind” about his personal move toward LGBTQ inclusion.

The future seems uncertain for not just Peterson, but others in her church as its officials prepare to meet in private with clergy members who have spoken publicly about what appears to be the most divisive topic in their denomination.

“It has pulled the curtain back, it’s removed the surface wound and now we’re getting into the deeper issues and here we go,” said Collison. “I don’t know where it’s headed.”

About the author

Adelle M. Banks

Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

493 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “The suspension of a popular evangelical university chaplain has highlighted tensions over same-sex marriage in a growing Protestant denomination that forbids it but also takes pride in its willingness to allow congregants to hold opinions contrary to church doctrine.”

    Sorry, You can’t do both.

    “is sorry for the hurt and confusion experienced by students, faculty, staff, and friends of the school in the days since the news of the actions taken by the Evangelical Covenant Church leading to the North Park University campus pastor’s sabbatical and suspension of her credential.”…”The second statement also expressed affirmation for Peterson’s “remarkable and transformative work” and a commitment to forming a university task force with its student government and Queers and Allies student organization to ensure the support and protection of LGBTQ students.”

    Sorry, you can’t do both.

    “This pastor agreed to say a prayer at the wedding of a lesbian couple but did not officiate at the ceremony. He said in an interview that he struggled with how to abide by church guidelines that forbid marrying such a couple while other principles say not to withhold pastoral care on the basis of sexual orientation. I felt like I was in a really tough spot where I couldn’t uphold both vows,”

    Sorry, you can’t do both.

  • “…a growing Protestant denomination that forbids it [ same-sex marriage] but also takes pride in its willingness to allow congregants to hold opinions contrary to church doctrine.”

    Here is hoping they do not let this issue become one that drives congregants or whole congregations out of the ECC.

    Attitudes are changing and more people of deeply held Christian faith are recognizing LGBTQI people as also friends, neighbors, family members, co-workers, fellow club members and fellow Christians. It is happening among all kinds of folks of different Christian persuasions – Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical.

  • I agree with Ben and floyd: if you are going to claim the designation Christian, you either choose the way of Jesus and the gospel or some other way.

    The way of Jesus and the gospel is clearly about redemptive love — the kind of love demonstrated by Judy Peterson. It’s not about Jesus’s totally non-existent condemnation of homosexuality, a subject about what he never says a single word.

    That was your point, right, floyd?

  • If we can’t do both, in relation to this topic or any other topic where brilliant theological minds have always disagreed, then you are committing those who don’t agree 100% to never being able to love each other, as they are. Are you sure that is what you mean and want to say? Has it not worked in the area of infant dedication -vs- baptism, for us to allow differing opinions while loving and listening to each other, allowing for possible change in opinion as the years pass?

  • Jesus displayed his redemptive love in admonishing the woman caught in sexual sin to “Go, and sin no more”. Redemptive love seeks to help all those struggling with sexual sins (including homosexuality) to overcome them and lead lives of chastity and purity.

  • I understand what your saying, and I don’t disagree. But that’s not what I am talking about.

    One side says, lets agree to disagree and work this out (as you, Amy, suggest).

    The other side says, no way we’re going to agree to disagree and work this out. As they told Rev. Peterson, its our way or the highway, even though our way is officially lets agree to disagree and work this out.

    Female clergy? Hey! Let’s agree to disagree and work it out, DESPITE THE CLEAR WORDS OF PAUL ON THIS SUBJECT. Divorce for any reason except adultery? Let’s agree to disagree and work it out, DESPITE JESUS’S VERY CLEAR WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT. It’s only when it comes to gay people and our full acceptance as real human beings does this kind of crap ever come out into the open, and produce such reactions.

    I maintain, and will continue to maintain, because there is simply so much evidence to this point, that this is not, and never has been, about what the bible may or may not say about homosexuality, or what some people claim that the bible may or may not say about a subject that might possibly homosexuality, at least as it might have been understood 2000 years ago by a people a universe away from us in thought, language, morals and culture.

    It is about what it has ALWAYS been about: a very ancient, vicious, and deeply engrained prejudice in our society, a prejudice so deeply engrained that fathers are afraid to kiss their sons less someone think there is something wrong, and vast amounts of time, energy and money that could go to actually helping people are instead spent on making sure that we gay people KNOW OUR PLACE.

    And that place is not in the pulpit or at the altar, but alone, isolated, and afraid.

    In short, it is about what it is always about: how much the very thought of homosexuality obsesses, tantalizes, enrages, titillates, frightens, and horrifies a whole bunch of heterosexuals and, I am increasingly convinced, a large number of people who wish desperately that they were heterosexual, but aren’t.

  • No where does Jesus condemn child molestation or human sacrifice. Should we conclude from the absence of such condemnations that he approved of such? If Jesus supported homosexual unions why didn’t he say so? Certainly Jesus wasn’t afraid to take on the religious leaders and power brokers of the day. Why not just one statement like “Blessed are those who engage in same-sex love, to them belongs the kingdom of God.”? I am a former pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church. I saw the church heading liberal years ago.

  • Jesus told his listeners on that occasion that anyone who had no sin was welcome to pick up stones and throw them at her. They then walked away.

    He never says a word in this text about “chastity,” “purity,” or “sexual sin.” Those are your overlay on a text that is about her adultery — and about compassion, refusal, and condemnation of those who twist divine law to judge others.

    Nothing in this text has the slightest thing to do with the topic of homosexuality — about which Jesus said absolutely nothing. To turn it into a diatribe about “chastity” and “purity” and “sexual sin” is spectacularly to miss the main message of this passage: Let those without sin pick up the first stone and throw it.

    This is consistent with what Jesus actually did say over and over as he spoke about our overweening obligation to love — not to use tiny, mean measures to judge others that will end up being used to measure our own behavior.

  • Of course you can do both.

    The Evangelical Covenant Church is very liberal on personal beliefs of both its members and its clergy.

    On the other hand, its Swedish Lutheran origins are reflected in its requirement that those in its ministry adhere to its disciplines.

    One of those disciplines is that its ministers not perform same-gender marriages, but it does allow ministers to exercise pastoral discretion by attending a same-gender marriage ceremony.

    Judy Peterson, knowing what she vowed, and knowing her church’s position, chose to do what she wanted to.

    The discipline she faces is for disobedience and violation of her vow, not for her theological position.

  • I guess you missed the part where Jesus called her to a higher way of life when He told her to “go and sin no more”.

    No where did He approve of her adultery (which is, yes – gasp- a “sexual sin”); He even referred to it as a sin. What Jesus did was to compassionately give her an opportunity to repent, ”and sin no more”.

    I have no doubt that He would show the same compassion -and give the same advice- to a homosexual today.

  • If Jesus supported homosexual unions why didn’t he say so?

    Surely the same question might be asked about your statement that he nowhere condemns child molestation (though he clearly said that those who harm little ones would be better off if a millstone were put around their necks and they were thrown into the sea) or human sacrifice.

    We can argue just about anything from silence, can we not? He :intended to say this. Her silence means that she considers this so important she didn’t think it even needed to be said.

    These are extremely weak arguments when we want to claim that a religious teacher who 1) never said a word about homosexuality was 2) so intensely preoccupied with that subject that 3) all his followers today should make it their chief preoccupation, 4) ignoring what he did say constantly: Love. And keep loving. By love you will be known as my followers.

  • And I have no doubt that you are overlaying a biblical text that’s quite clear with language, theological concepts, and prejudices — your own prejudices — that are simply not there in the text.

    This does an injustice to Jesus. It does an injustice to the gospel text.

    What preoccupies you as the very center of Jesus’s message is not there in his message. But you are ignoring what is there — obviously, because it totally obliterates what you are seeking to make of this text and of Jesus and his message.

  • We agree about Rev. Peterson. But there is no change without challenge.
    Please read my two main paragraphs not about Rev. Peterson.

  • If Jesus supported homosexual unions why didn’t he say so?
    truthbetoldd……..you are not allowed to use Logic and Reason. Shame on you. 😉

  • So there is no condemnation of sexual sin (in this specific case, adultery) in this passage?

    So Jesus did not tell her to “go and SIN no more”?

    So, to “go and sin no more” is not the very epitome of repentance?

    And you accuse ME of “ignoring what is there”?!

  • Or, in the case of gay people, and gay people only, not able to live out their lives authentically as they are made, but isolated, alone, afraid, and ostracized.
    Heterosexuals can get married, or divorced and remarried, as often and as badly as they wish.
    this isn’t an attack, father schick, but simply pointing out that there is one standard and solution applied to straight people, and a different one applied to gay people.

  • What I can’t understand is why certain people have this obsession to change something (and other people); when they should just start something on their own.
    Ex: homosexual marriage. If you are a Methodist…as an example…..and you believe in same sex unions, then go start your own church and stop forcing other people or an institution to adopt your beliefs. Why force the Methodist church to bend it’s knee when you can just go start your own church. Call it anything you want. Church of Inclusion…..or something like that.
    This is a mind virus that has to stop!
    Drives me insane!!!

  • No, heterosexuals cannot get “divorced, and remarried, as often and as badly as they wish” (at least not in the Eastern Church, which is my frame of reference.) I have told a number of couples (heterosexual) they could not get married. For them, the very same path is prescribed as for homosexuals (celibacy).

    Not attacking you here, Ben, just clarifying what seems an exaggeration in your second sentence.

  • All semantics…one could equally say, why don’t anti-gay marriage Methodists go away and form their own new anti-gay church.

    Most non-evangelical denomination’s membership do support gay marriage now. The knuckle draggers are the ones who have to step aside.

  • Jesus never said one word about homosexuality.

    Over 1500 species of animals have homosexual members that form pair bonds. That means homosexuality is natural and normal. Why would humans be any different?

  • For 2000 years…..generally speaking…..Christianity was anti-homosexuality…..generally speaking. But well established churches, denominations etc., etc., should somehow compromise for the sake of a small percentage.
    Again — MIND VIRUS.

  • The question is does the church shun those that are on wife #2? #3? or is their “sin” ignored because it is heterosexual sin? It seems that a blind eye is turned in the church for every heterosexual and never for a homosexual….Just an observation.

    The bible condemns heterosexual acts 386 times….while he only condemns homosexual acts 6 times….clearly heterosexuals need much more supervision.

  • They are working it out democratically, as they should, because they don’t have a pope to tell them democracy isn’t necessary.
    The ones who lost the democratic debate within the church rules are the ones who are splitting the denominations. It will happen with the Methodists as well.

  • Sorry for the nonsense that got posted. I’ve corrected it, Discus often does this weird thing.

  • The Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) was founded by Swedish immigrants in 1885
    The ECC has been around for over 100 years. You don’t like it……leave and start your own church!!!

  • If Jesus supported Darwinian evolution, why didn’t he say so?

    This is an eminently silly argument, the attempt to claim that anything I happen to believe as a prejudice is somehow hidden in Jesus’s silence about that topic.

    Logic and reason my eye.

  • I’m curious about why you’re intent on reducing adultery to “sexual sin,” when it’s about violating a marital covenant and a relationship.

    Where does Jesus ever use the word “sex” or display the kind of preoccupation that people fixated on pelvic morality — well, on the pelvic morality of others, but not themselves, in the case of the clerical club, we’ve learned via the abuse crisis — that some of his followers display today?

    While they spectacularly miss what actually is there in the gospels and what actually did concern him?

  • My point was quite clear — even Ben clearly explained it at first.

    If you’re going to follow “the way of Jesus” as William insists on, then follow the way of Jesus on Matt. 19:4-5.

    Since Peterson explicitly no longer wants to follow the way or the words of Jesus, she should not be forced to hang onto her clergy credentials.

  • I happen to be the William to whom you’re directing your comment quoting William.

    If the gist of the gospel is, as you want to claim, to reinforce biological gender roles and to call that the very center of God’s plan for the world, why does Paul sum the gospel up by saying that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, Gentile nor Jew, male nor female?

    We know, of course, that the church can for millennia spectacularly miss the point of that formulation of the gospel when it blesses slavery. The church eventually realized that blessing slavery betrays the gospel.

    Just as it is slowly realizing that making heterosexual males the little lords of the universe and pretending that God is made in their image is a spectacular betrayal of the gospels, too, and that the church has been very wrong to behave this way for centuries on end . . . .

  • Oh, you’re going to invoke Pauline verses now? Good. We need only skim 1 Cor and 1 Tim a little bit….

  • Yes, adultery is a sexual sin which violates the marital covenant.

    Sexual morality, chastity, purity, virginity, are healthy values that are pervasive throughout the Bible and the history of Christianity. Never have adultery, promiscuity, fornication, homosexuality, been considered acceptable.

    As for your sneer about some sort of “clerical club”, be aware that clergy are typically held to a stricter standard than laity.
    Priests may only marry once. Should a Priest contract a second marriage, he would be defrocked. An unmarried Priest who later got married would also be defrocked. Adultery, etc., are also grounds for being defrocked. I have known a number of Priests over the years who have suffered those penalties, and justly so.

    But perhaps you were thinking of the scandals in Catholic Church?

    And what is it that you claim I am “spectacularly” missing?

  • Your first sentence would be merely an argument from silence, EXCEPT that Jesus specifically claimed something (and He specifically attributed the claim to God Himself), that directly rules out Jesus’ approval on ANY and ALL homosexual marriages. This claim appears in Matt. 19:4-5 (see link at end of post).

    So Judy Peterson’s officiating actions can’t even be defended from the usual “Jesus never said…” shpiel from silence.

    You then try to invoke Bruce Bagemihl’s “Zoo Crew Revue” gig, but scientists knocked it out long time ago.

    “But witnessing same-sex activity and understanding it are two different things, and some experts believe observers like Bagemihl are misreading the evidence. In species that lack sophisticated language–which is to say all species but ours–sex serves many nonsexual purposes, including establishing alliances and appeasing enemies, all things animals must do with members of both sexes. “Sexuality helps animals maneuver around each other before making real contact,” says Martin Daly, an evolutionary psychologist at McMaster University in Ontario. “Putting all that into a homosexual category seems simplistic.”

    Even if some animals do engage in homosexual activity purely for pleasure, their behavior still serves as an incomplete model–and an incomplete explanation–for human behavior. “In our society homosexuality means a principal or exclusive orientation,” says psychology professor Frans de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. “Among animals it’s just non-reproductive sexual behavior.” — Time Magazine, “The Gay Side of Nature,” (1999)

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-5&version=NIV

  • The Church does not turn a blind eye on heterosexual sins. Just ask those who have been excommunicated and put under penance for them.

    I am glad that you admit that the Scriptures do indeed condemn homosexual acts. There are some around here who would deny that.

  • And for 2000 years…in general, Christians blamed Jews for killing Christ — Mathew 27:25 “…blood be upon us and our children” …Wreaking havoc, pogroms death and torture on Jews.

    …Thankfully that has changed (for most) Christians and they don’t blame Jews now, ignoring Mathew 27:25 — Christian churches could easily do the same for LGBT…yes, some others can separate to create or join churches like Westboro Baptist.

  • It condemns homosexuality in the same way it condemns eating shell fish, touching the skin of a dead pig, and wearing mix fiber clothing….but you don’t see people excommunicated for eating at Red Lobster, playing football, or shopping at Old Navy.

  • Oh, not those old canards! I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard them!

    Eating shellfish, like wearing mixed fibers, is not forbidden for Christians (Acts Chapters 10 and 15). Sexual immorality, however, is still to be avoided.

  • Well — you are missing this, God himself is a sexual abuser and sinner …

    Jeremiah 13: 25-27
    “…This is your lot, the portion measured to you From Me,” declares the LORD, “Because you have forgotten Me And trusted in falsehood. So I Myself (Yahweh) have also stripped your skirts off over your face, That your shame may be seen. As for your adulteries and your lustful neighings…”

    Yes, God sexually assaulted women…So spare us his laws about sexual morality, until he apologizes for stripping skirts off women and shaming them…Of course the women could obey their abuser to avoid being assaulted.

  • Except you read that statement as an exclusion and we read it as exclusive. God’s first companion to man was another man. At no point in that verse does it say anything about homosexuality. It is wholly a description of procreation. It is an omission because it was understood that procreation was not involved with homosexual relations. But in no way defines it as the only relationships. Over 1500 species of animals have members that form pair bonds that makes it natural and normal. Why would humans be any different?

  • 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 English Standard Version (ESV)

    6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

    8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

  • Wow. Just wow.

    The passage speaks figuratively of Israel’s worshiping other gods as whoring and adultery (a common Old Testament trope), which He will make evident to the surrounding nations.

    And you understand the figurative language as “God assaulted women…”.

    Wow.

  • Sorry, not buying it…inerrant word of God, nothing less !!

    Oh, But lets all agree to make the anti-gay stuff in the bible “figurative language” too.!! Gay marriage becomes OK…and we all will just give this rapist God a pass…maybe statute of limitations 🙂

  • So you actually think that God flew down from heaven and sexually assaulted people? That’s what you get out of the passage? Lol. Even the fundiest fundamentalist isn’t that dumb.

    But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Nobody could be that dumb. You know it’s standard prophetic imagery, and you’re just pretending you don’t because you’re a troll.

    Back under the bridge now, troll!

  • One problem with Martin Daly’s comments is they ignore homosexual pair bonding, which has also been observed in many species. It’s not just about sex for animals any more than it is with people. “And Tango Makes Three” was offensive to evangenital Christians because it contradicted their narrative, not because it wasn’t true.

    The other problem is, of course, that he contradicts himself in the very quotations you make. First, “Witnessing it and understanding it” cuts BOTH ways. It doesn’t mean he understands it any better than bagemihl, just that he asserts that he does. Bagemihl addressed that issue in his book’s preface, wherein he noted just how many “naturalists” couldn’t seem to see what was staring them in the face. The assumption that everything and everyone is heterosexual simply isn’t true. It never has been true, and never will be true. Your bible will not make it true.

    Daly’s assertion begins to be more problematic especially when the same behavior is observed in some 500 to 1500 different species, depending on whom you are citing, including ours. At some point, but Daly doesn’t specify where that is, you might have to start concluding that you are actually observing a “thing.”

    What Daly also fails to note is that Sex for humans also serves many non-sexual purposes, whether it is ritualized temple prostitution or a Slovenian softcore pornstar marrying comfort and security or prison rape or heterosexual rape or Harvey Weinstein demonstrating whatever it is he was demonstrating.

  • I believe “God flew down from heaven and sexually assaulted people” as much as I believer that this Jesus character rose from the dead !!

    You have been trapped — you can’t have it both ways…a “figurative language” in some places — yet reality in others like the ridiculous resurrection nonsense.

    So which is it…a nonsensical rapist God? or a nonsensical son of God resurrection? Can’t pick and choose !!

    Back to your child molesting Church… “Father”.

  • Let me translate: Eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, and touching skin of a dead pig could be done by heterosexuals there for those passages are “old canards” but because heterosexuals are not homosexuals they are forgiven for those abominations….even though those are equally “sinful”

  • He doesn’t know what he thinks — he’s likely never read that passage at all but copied and pasted it from some other basement-dwelling scoffer.

    The effect is quite funny, actually.

  • Many dreary years at St Rose of Lima…had to read it all, many times, its all total nonsense.

  • They are not sinful at all for Christians. Where did you get such a foolish idea? Maybe you’ve never heard of the NEW Testament?

    Even homosexuals can eat shellfish with out sin, by the way.

  • Well, Father schick, I would agree that the Bible condemns something, but precisely what that might be is open to question.

    The word homosexual did not appear in a bible until 1948, some sixty years after it first appeared anywhere. The sodom story has something to do with homosexuality only if you approach it that way to begin with. (I’m not going to go into all of that nonsense here). Conservative Jewish scholars declared that Leviticus refers only to anal sex. Other Jewish scholars note that Leviticus was instructions to the priesthood, not everyone else. The assertion that “Leviticus condemns homosexuality” is patently false in that it mentions lesbians not at all.

    The context of Romans is idolatry, not some stand alone sin. Paul’s prohibitions regarding Malakoi and arsenokoitai have been translated out of recognition about anything Paul may have been referring to; it does no good to refer to the Septuagint (problematic in itself) when Paul himself, being a Jew, would not have referred to it, but to the original scripture, in Hebrew. As a rabbinical friend once told me, “the Torah cannot condemn what it knows nothing about”.

    So what actually is condemned? Who knows? Williams point is that that you can read the Bible legalistically, but of course, ignoring anything inconvenient, like divorce for any reason except adultery. Or it can be read compassionately in the jEsus sense.

    It all depends on which way you want to go. How you— a generic you, not you personally— go depends very much on who you are, and not what the Bible may or not say, as our discussion about divorce a few weeks ago so clearly demonstrated.

  • Get your money back, Damien. It doesn’t seem like they taught you anything about the Bible beyond Kindergarten level.

  • Didn’t say you were…Google search Orthodox child sex abuse.

    No answer on the “figurative” resurrection…didn’t think so !!

  • Yes, you make some points worth considering.

    Regarding Paul, however, he did on occasion refer to the Septuagint, for example in Romans 3: 12-18.

    And yes, I agree with you about Biblical interpretation. Although many Protestants would like to believe otherwise, it never stands alone, even for them. It is always received and read within a specific interpretive tradition. The question then becomes, which interpretive tradition? As you know, I follow the Eastern Christian/Patristic interpretive consensus, which has remained fairly consistent for the past 2000 years.

  • Not absent in any group, religious or secular. But not as epidemic as in the West so as to merit the sobriquet “child molesting Church”.

    I suspect the fact that most Orthodox Priests are married men with children cuts down on the overall frequency of such cases. Mandatory celibacy would seem to be an unwise idea.

  • And the New. And the whole Patristic tradition, century after century, starting with the Apostolic Fathers right after the New Testament.

  • You’re missing most of what was going on in the incident of the woman accused of adultery. But most people do.

  • To make your false statement true, change “can’t” to “choose not to.” Just as you “can” understand a calculus equation if you put your mind to it, so to can you do so here. Why do you seemingly insist on playing that victim card?

  • If Jesus supported homosexual unions why didn’t he say so? …
    Maybe he did by performing a rare and personal miracle for the centurion. He certainly had the opportunity to avoid performing the miracle

  • For some 2,000 years Christianity believed that gay people are sub-human scum. They helped write laws treating gay people as legal and social outcast and justified cruel and inhumane treatment toward them.

    Now comes some Christians who are saying “Wait a minute – gays are human beings and they do deserve to be treated fairly and decently”. It’s generated considerable outrage among Christians, who are shouting “Blasphemy! Gays are scum! We will never treat them as human beings!”.

    The fight goes on and on between the Christians who see gay people as full and equal human beings and those that don’t. It’s not clear yet which side will win out. One hopes that the “gays are human beings” side wins but it’s mighty tough to overcome 2,000 years of history.

    Christianity doesn’t have a good record of treating people on the outside very well. They’ve even gone after each other for not being sufficiently Christian, and done some unspeakably inhumane stuff to each other.

  • The centurion thing is a non-argument. There is zero evidence to indicate homosexuality had anything to do with it.

    Jesus’ miracles were not rare, moreover, and were not an indication of any personal guiltlessness (which doesn’t exist). At least one man He healed was specifically indicated to have been disabled in the first place because of sin.

  • Read it again. Paul is quoting the Septuagint of Psalm 14.

    Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Gentiles did not read Hebrew. The Septuagint was their Old Testament.

  • “So, to “go and sin no more” is not the very epitome of repentance?”

    Not to mention, that this is what all the synoptic gospels identify as the theme of Jesus’ ministry. (Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, 24:47). Also the theme of the apostles’ ministry (Acts 2:38, 3:19, 20:21).

  • William….you and I have been over this too many times now. But since you butted in, I will have to respond.

    Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
    Jesus, His Disciples and the citizens of Judea knew darn well what the Law of Moses stated about homosexuals. I do not believe Heaven and Earth have passed away. Logic and Reason!

  • Not “just,” son. “Just” here means “only.” You weren’t “only” making an observation. In fact, you weren’t even making an observation. Why such trouble being truthful, son? One thing you were doing was labeling yourself a victim. Why do you choose to label yourself the victim?

  • My words didn’t bring you anywhere. You did. Christ you’re nothing if not an expert victim card player. You do it so mindlessly you even have yourself fooled. You absolutely do reason like a teenager, though. I grant you that. An early teen! In your heirarchy of values, please place “stating the truth” closer to the top.

  • Ben your swill is spot on sometimes, but what’s with all the guilt soaked, beta male styled, apologies you often include in your comments?

  • Not for me son, we feel emotions for ourselves. You are as dishonest a person as I’ve encountered in a long time. I know you are sometimes brave. If you muster the courage to actually examine the words you use for their truth value, you’ll likely be blown away at the illusory world of dishonest rhetoric you live in. Seriously. Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson?

  • I’m Not sure if you’re being ironic or just mean. I try not to treat people badly, though I am quite happy to call a bigot a bigot, or an idiot and idiot, or a hypocrite a hypocrite. I also try to use what people say to show them exactly what they are saying.

    When I was in law enforcement years ago, I was one of the few officers who categorically declared that even the heinous felons we often dealt with deserved to be treated courteously—until they didn’t.

    In this case, I recognize that some Christians are struggling to undo what they have been doing to gay people for the past 2000 years, while others have enough consciousness to at least recognize that the question might have some merit, whiles others— the floydlees and sandimonious’s of the world— frankly think that the mistreatment of others is actually a good idea, and well justified in their cold, hard, dark iggerunt, shriveled souls.

    The people in the first two categories are the ones, as far as I can tell, involved in this ECC debate.

  • Ben in Oakland is right. The opponents of same-sex marriage are not relying on the Bible to shape their views but are relying on it to support their views. Their views are shaped by revulsion at homosexual conduct and even, for many, revulsion at homosexual desires.
    Ah, you may say, the Bible is perfectly clear about homosexual conduct. I know all the texts and interpretations you have in mind. You have misinterpreted those texts. If you ask, I will prove, using standard methods of scriptural interpretation, that God wills the Church marry homosexuals just as it marries heterosexuals. Mature and learned Christians, including seminary professors, have read my essay and critiqued it, but no one has refuted even one of its arguments. Ask me at [email protected]meritech.net for my proof and I will send it to you.
    By the way, maybe you will bless me in return. I am somewhat alienated from my fellow conservative evangelicals by my advocacy for same-sex marriage. If you read my essay and refute anything, I would be very grateful.

  • They also supported slavery, rape, dictatorship, genocide and attacks on advances in science and medicine. Compromise for the small percentage who don’t want such things is a step up in the world.

  • “and justified cruel and inhumane treatment toward them…”
    By denying a marriage license? What am I missing here.

  • Studies show that any church that supports homosexual “marriage” will see a deep decline in membership. Its poison.

  • Christians do not shout “gays are scum”. They do shout “homosexuals are sinners in need of a Saviour”. Admittedly, at times we forget “in need of a Saviour”, but that doesn’t change that the idea of telling someone they are a sinner indicates that we care enough about them to want them in the Kingdom.
    Now Westboro wlll probably come into the conversation, but they are not typical Christians.
    Homosexuals need to know that they are hurting themselves, the ones they love and it leads only to death the route they have chosen to go.
    Christians try to lead them to life, and life more abundantly.

  • As a split should occur. Light has no relationship with darkness Ben
    2 Corinthians 6:4 -ESV Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

  • No. We cannot do the same for homosexuals Damien. Christ condemns the act, and what He condemns, we cannot affirm, and remain followers of Him.
    Revelation 2:20 International Standard Version (ISV)
    20 But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and who teaches and leads my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

  • They can be friends, neighbours, family members etc…..they just are not Christian and Christ condemns what they do.
    One cannot partake of communion with active, rebelling sinners. Communion is a symbol of what Christ has done for us, dying for our sin so we don’t have to, and to practice communion with people who choose to remain in sin is a disregard for what Christ did for us.
    1 John 2: 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” 
    1 John 1:6 – If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
    1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

    1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

  • Well said, but I would like to add just one thing Bob. If she isn’t supporting Christ, why is she in that position to begin with? Secondly, Christ should take precedence over and rule book and He declared that homosexuality is a sin. He died for people committing that sin so they could be free. Why would this assembly want anyone in power who doesn’t want the freedom of it’s congregants?

  • Actually Richard, you are incorrect. I was once an avid supporter of LGBT until I read the Bible.
    Also, please reinterpret:

    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.

  • 1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

  • If I may add….Christ elevated us above animals in Genesis. Hence, we do not need to act like them.

  • thats the thing they dont get. Churches are made of PEOPLE, that dont live in a vacuum, separated from societal influences. Churches that supported slavery and segregation eventually succumbed to cultural pressure of joining progress and changed their views or died off.
    Who is going to to attend those churches in 50 years, when virtually 100% of middle school kids today are gay rights affirming?

  • their first error was allowing a female pastor. What do you expect but error when you go against God’s wishes? She is giving this church what they asked for – rebellion against Christ.

  • Bullshit.
    Tell me who is going to attend those evil minded anti gay churches in a few decades from now when finding an openly vocal person opposing marriage equality will be just as hard as finding a openly vocal supporter of segregation and” whites only” restrooms now? Check the polls of what majority of today’s kids believe on the subject
    Anti LGBT scum is dying off, thank you Jesus.

  • Christendom Does Not Represent Messiah Yeshua! I am grateful for RNS, as they present a never-ending stream of (reporting) empirical evidence, supporting this fact: The sin of religion itself, is far more sinister than any human behavior. But until the Indwelling Holy Spirit brings Love into your mortal shell, such battle is all you will know (James 2 & 3). The topic of this particular battle is moot; you can stack this report atop a million others just like it. The signs are clear: No human being ever, who has been radically transformed by the Indwelling Holy Spirit, as a result of unconditional surrender unto the supreme, eternal, and actual Lordship of Messiah Yeshua, wakes up the next day (or forever forward), and would even allow themselves to be called Reverend; that’s classic Pharisaic, and the Holy Spirit takes us in the opposite direction. And that’s just point #1. A 10-point list would not cover this one article alone. But I am thankful that these issues are exposed, so that the non-christianized (and non-churched) readers can be exposed to it all. To summarize: No Saved person even participates in any religion-business; Messiah died because of exposing them. The Elect of YHVH (the Heaven-bound) are not sin-detectives, and once you are Spiritually transformed, from that moment forward, every time you look into a mirror, you know that you are looking at the greatest sinner you will ever know, or even come close to, during your earth-life, and you will keep your fingers in their holster. All the drama in this expose, has nothing whatsoever (even remotely) to do with Messiah Yeshua, Saviour of humanity. ~ A disciple of Messiah Yeshua (click avatar for links). I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and Love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance; that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen! (1Ti 1:12-17)

  • In the last 15 years, I have had scores of conversations with Christian opponents of same-sex marriage. The general drift of those conversations confirms what you say.

  • The biggest opponent being Christ:

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

  • More than once, I have called your attention to the general agreement of theologians (a) that these passages in Leviticus are statements of purity law, not moral law; (b) that the moral law — i.e., the Ten Commandments and their implications — alone is timeless and universal; and (c) that, as Jesus and Paul and Peter and the Jerusalem Council confirmed, purity law is obsolete.
    Notwithstanding your failure to grasp and join the general agreement about those passages in Leviticus, it seems your mind is not completely closed, because the Bible had some effect on it. You understood that the Bible does not warrant avid support of LGBT. But your reading the Bible perversely caused an overreaction by your mind; actually, the Bible does not support opposition to same-sex marriage.

  • Christ is not saying this in opposition to same-sex marriage. Christ is saying that marriage is an accommodation to sexual desires that cannot be controlled and that would otherwise drive people to the sin of fornication, in violation of the Seventh Commandment. It is better to marry than to burn.
    The implication is that we should marry homosexual Christians just as we marry heterosexual Christians, lest we condemn the homosexual Christians to burning.

  • If you think you find Christ’s word in the Bible, alas, you have just confirmed what I said — your reading of the Bible had a perverse effect on your mind. Sin is behavior contrary to the will of Christ. Therefore, homosexuality is no more sin than heterosexuality is sin.

  • I like Pope Francis’ attitude toward Communion: It is food for the journey. You are taking communion with sinners all the time. It is sheer hubris you display by assuming you are somehow more worthy than another, with all the judgmentalism you display day after day on these boards. You do not show Christian love for your fellow man but a lot of narrow self-focused congratulatory pride – you get a lot of pleasure in calling others out on their sins Maybe you do not commit the same sin as some others do – you commit other sins – but you think you are more worthy. Oh, the pride you have in yourself! And, most importantly, you do not love.

    I believe that no one is worthy and no one can make himself worthy. There is no man-made series of steps that one can follow and then claim “I am good enough” for God. That is hubris. But, we can rely on His mercy if we love our neighbor, treat our neighbors with caring kindness, respect, love. You show your Christianity by extending love to your neighbor, not judgement. You know that thing Jesus said about “throwing stones.” You might want to think about it – and pray about it.

  • Christians are becoming more and more gay affirming. Majority of christian youths are gay marriage supporters. Thus my questions stands. WHO?

  • change “homosexual marriage” in your post to” “desegregation”, or “abolition of slavery”, and you will understand.
    Actually opposition to abolitionists and de-segregationists was way stronger , but for the sake of the discussion, it will suffice.

  • 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.

    1 Corinthians 6:18

    New International Version

    Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

    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.

    1 Corinthians 10:8English Standard Version (ESV)

    8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

    ed

    Romans 7:7 – English Standard Version

    What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

    1 Timothy 1: 9-11 “ …. understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

    Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Jude 1:7 – In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

    1 Corinthians 11:9 -neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

    1 Thessalonians 4:3-8New International Version (NIV)

    3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

    Galatians 5:19-21

    New International Version (NIV)

    19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Ephesians 5:31

    New Living Translation (NLT)

    31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.”

    Colossians 3:5

    New Living Translation (NLT)

    5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires.

    2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);

    Ephesians 5:24-25 New International Version (NIV)

    24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

    Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

    Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.20 These are what defile you.

    Revelation 2:20 International Standard Version (ISV)

    20 But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and who teaches and leads my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

    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.

    My favourite: 1 Corinthians 11:11New King James Version (NKJV) 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.

    BIBLICAL SUMMARY OF HOMOSEXUALITY

    • A wicked act (Gen 19:7; Judges 19:23)

    • An abomination (Lev 18:22; Lev. 18:26; Lev. 18:27; Lev. 18:29; Lev. 18:30; Lev. 20:13)

    • Folly (Judges 19:23)

    • A vile act (Judges 19:24)

    • A vile affection (Rom 1:26)

    • An act against nature (Rom 1:26)

    • An abusive act (1 Cor 6:9)

    • A sin against one’s own body (1 Cor 6:18)

    • An act that defiles (Lev. 18:24; Lev. 18:25; Lev. 18:27; Lev. 18:28; Lev. 18:30; 1 Tim 1:9)

    • Those that practice it shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-10; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:13; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 21:27)

    (many thanks to Adam in Christ for this excellent summary

  • Should churches have split over – slavery? Or did they need to inform and reform the thinking of the members and, particularly, the leaders? Should the Catholic Church divide over contraceptives, communion for divorced people, women priests? Should different denominations split, again, over gay marriage. Come to think of it – why didn’t Protestant churches fight harder for no divorce; why did they give up so easily over something that is clear in the Bible. And, do you think that the issue of women in positions of power and authority within Protestant Churches is all settled now?

    We live, learn, and grow. And don’t think that this is the last issue that the modern world is going to throw at Christian churches who think the Bible is a literal testament to all that must be for all time.

  • Deuteronomy 29: 22 And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the Lord has made it sick— 23 the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger and wrath— 24 all the nations will say, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?’ 25 Then people will say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,

    Ephesians 5:5 – For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

    Ephesians 5:5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not become partners with them; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

    Matthew 5:17New King James Version (NKJV)

    17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    Genesis 2:18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit fore him.” 19Now out of the ground the LORD God had formedf every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adamg there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he madeh into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,

    “This at last is bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;

    she shall be called Woman,

    because she was taken out of Man.”i

    24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

    Genesis 2:24 – Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. –

    Deuteronomy 25:5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (It is always male and female)

    Isaiah 3:9 – The look on their countenance witnesses against them,

    And they declare their sin as Sodom;

    They do not hide it.

    Woe to their soul!

    For they have brought evil upon themselves.

    Jeremiah 23:14English Standard Version (ESV)

    14

    But in the prophets of Jerusalem

    I have seen a horrible thing:

    they commit adultery and walk in lies;

    they strengthen the hands of evildoers,

    so that no one turns from his evil;

    all of them have become like Sodom to me,

    and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.”

    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.

    Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    Acts 15:19-20New International Version (NIV)

    19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

    1 Kings 14:24 New International Version (NIV)

    24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – what do male prostitutes do? Abominations.

  • We do take communion with sinners ATF. We should not take communion with unrepentant sinners who want to stomp all over the death that Christ died for us – and them, should they accept His offer of salvation.

  • There are certain variants between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text. This part of Psalms is one of them. What Paul is saying in the Romans thread corresponds to the LXX rather than to the MT. So we know he was quoting the LXX. The Greek is actually the same: e.g. “pantes exeklinan, hama echreothesan” — all have turned away, together they have become *useless.* You can find that Greek phrase in both LXX Psalms and Romans. The MT, however, uses the word “ne’ehlachu,” meaning they have *spoiled* or become *dirty.*

  • You should read about the Metropolitan Community Church which”sees its mission being social as well as spiritual by standing up for the rights of minorities, particularly those of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. MCC has been a leading force in the development of queer theology. (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church).

    It started in 1968 quickly outgrew its original space by 1969 and now is 222 different congregations in 38 countries. This is counter to the claim of such “studies.”

  • “Has it not worked in the area of infant dedication -vs- baptism,”

    No, it hasn’t really. Those who do “infant dedication” usually can’t wait to baptize as adult’s or “children of accountability” those who have been baptized as infants. Some will even assault them as “not really baptized.” The two scarcely abide in the same denomination, let alone the same churches. Only infant baptizers usually tolerate the baby “dedicators.”

  • “Then a voice said to him, ‘Elijah! Why are you here?’ He answered, ‘Lord God All-Powerful, I have always served you as well as I could. But the people of Israel have broken their agreement with you, destroyed your altars, and killed your prophets with swords. I am the only prophet left, and now they are trying to kill me, too.” And the Lord said to him…’I have seven thousand people left in Israel who have never bowed down before Baal and whose mouths have never kissed his idol.'” I Kings 19:14-18.

    Seven thousand. Not a lot, but enough. According to Jesus, even two or three are enough.

  • Yes, it would not be apparent to one using a Bible in which the Old Testament was based on the Masoretic Hebrew text.

    Psalm 14:3, Masoretic text:

    They are all gone aside, thy are altogether become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

    Psalm 14:3, Septuagint text:

    They are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.

    Paul, Romans 3: 12-18:

    They are all gone out of the way; they are altogether become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

    Does it look like Paul was using the Masoretic text, or the Septuagint?

    If Paul had been using the Masoretic Hebrew, he would then have had to patch together Psalm 14: 1-3, Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59: 7-9, and Psalm 36:1. And not only that, he would have had to have just happened to cobble them together in the exact same order in which in which they appear in the Septuagint. Or he could have just been quoting the single passage as it appears in the Septuagint.

    The most likely explanation is that he was simply using the Septuagint here, which, as a Greek speaking diaspora Jew, he would have been familiar with. (Of course he also knew Hebrew, as well as Aramaic.) That being the case, the influence of Septuagint ideas and word meanings on Paul’s thought cannot be discounted.

    Sorry it took so long to reply; I spent the whole morning sitting in the doctor’s office!

  • You already received your Civil Unions. You don’t have to have a church service to be “married”. If a “church” won’t perform the service….or allow communion…….go start your own church. Simple.

  • Apples and Oranges. As I stated to ATF45; you won your right to Civil Unions. You don’t need a church to be married. If your church won’t endorse your Civil Union; go start your own church and make your own rules.

  • If we say that sin is “behavior contrary to the will of Christ”, then we can go straight to Matt. 19:4-5 (Christ’s own words about God’s express & explicit design and intention for human marriage). ALL “gay marriage” is therefore sin. (The quotation marks are intentional, because of what Christ said.)

    But let’s be honest. At this point, Judy Peterson doesn’t care. “Bewitched”, like Paul said. Somebody or something got to her when nobody was looking.

    So at this point, the ECC must decide just how badly it wants its clergy and members to follow Christ. They must decide whether they’re gonna have a Bible, or merely a watered-down Book of Suggestions.

  • Denying someone a license they are entitled to under the law is discrimination and an attack upon them.

  • “Homosexuals need to know that they are hurting themselves, the ones they
    love and it leads only to death the route they have chosen to go.”

    No they don’t. Not from you, not from anyone. You are simply a bigot who wants to pretend God says its OK to be malicious to certain people. If God truly hates such things, people can deal with it in the afterlife. Not your concern ever.

    “Christians try to lead them to life, and life more abundantly.”

    By attacking them, discrimination against them, imprisoning them, assaulting them and murdering them. The type of Christian love that nobody needs.

  • Churches can set whatever rules they want within the confines of the law. There are enough of them out there that one never has to bother to demand that one change its policy to a certain way. One can simply find another.

    It would be nice if churches changed their polices to something less hateful, but this is the sort of hill they are choosing to die on. Defining themselves by who they hate and who they want to treat as less than human.

    But ultimately a church is something a person can leave or find another one of.

  • Light has no relationship to darkness? Says the “lady” who constantly sees through a glass darkly.

  • I am a straight woman and married, but if i wasnt…. why start my own church? My church has many young people and young families, most are vocal supporters of gay marriage rights. We just changed the message to ALL ARE WELCOME and added rainbow flag to the hall decor in the summer of 2015 about the time when the marriage got legalized.
    If someone dislikes that i am sure they left, happy trails 😉 go find a bigoted church.

  • see, thats why all you say never finds any support… You are unable to make a coherent argument.

    Majority of young christians are pro gay rights. You are saying they are not christians. in your opinion. That will take you far…

  • Why? Attitudes are changing too fast, majority is already gay supporting, and the younger generations even more and more so. Bigots like you should leave and start their own churches. Progress will take over the established ones.

  • Oh, my! None of this implies Christ’s condemnation of homosex per se. None of this implies Christ’s prohibition of same-sex marriage. Send me email (to [email protected]) and I will send you detailed proof that you have misinterpreted all this. Or, rest on your misinterpretation until Judgment Day.

  • An “hour-long sermon”???!!! I affirm his position on full inclusion of LGBTQ people including performing and blessing Xn marriages of LGBTQ people, but could still agree with his being defrocked for the hour-long sermon!

  • The Pharisees had asked Christ about permissibility of divorce. At Matthew 19:4, Christ called the Pharisees’ attention to a particular story in Genesis. At Matthew 19:5, Christ reminded the Pharisees of the description of marriage in this particular story: marriage makes a couple one flesh. Christ was making a point directly related to the Pharisees’ question. Being made one flesh — metaphor for a spiritually and psychologically and socially perfect union — is something only God can do. So, Jesus helped the Pharisees understand why divorce is impermissible: marriage is made by God, so man’s unmaking a marriage would be rebellious.
    Jesus showed something about the nature of marriage in order to explain the prohibition of divorce. Jesus implied nothing about the qualifications for marriage. Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ question does not disqualify a same-sex couple from Christian marriage.

  • Hey, Sandi, I’ve been saved! My saving is literal and can be documented, as opposed to some religious delusion that is nothing but a fantasy. My saviour is my wonderful husband who I’ve been with since 1981. That year was near the beginning of the time period when HIV/AIDS was becoming a deadly epidemic, and up until the day I met my saviour I had been fairly promiscuous. If it had not been for my saviour, the overwhelming odds are that I would have died during the 1980s.

  • “Jesus showed something about the nature of marriage…”

    Yes indeed, Jesus showed something about the very nature of marriage itself.

    Something absolute, something inherent, something non-negotiable, something God Himself said.

    But I can’t find it in your post. Do you want me to discuss it?

  • Well Richard….that person cannot put you into a right relationship with Jesus and I doubt that he died for you so that you can meet God. Think you’re on the wrong track here.

  • Let me help you find it in my post. I said this is the nature of marriage, which Jesus showed the Pharisees: “marriage is made by God”.
    I repeat: “Jesus implied nothing about the qualifications for marriage.” If you think Jesus implied that a same-sex couple is disqualified for marriage, you are reading much more into Matthew 19:3-12 than standard principles of interpretation allow. Prayerfully ask yourself why you are reading all that into Matthew 19:3-12. (I strongly suspect you are using scripture to support your opinions rather than using scripture to form your opinions.)

  • That is the OTHER major response to the “Zoo Crew Revue” argument. Thanks for putting it on the table.

  • I was once young and pro-homosexual rights too – until I read a Bible. Satan doesn’t have that firm a hold on children.

  • There is no dealing with it in the afterlife, Spud. It’s this life or never. They need to make their choice for Jesus here.
    Christ didn’t discriminate against them. He declared what they do as sin, as He did alcoholics, murderers etc.

  • Hmm. Avoiding the specific gender words of Matt. 19:4-5 no matter what, are we? Not a good sign, nope.

  • I would suggest you are reading your own modern zeitgeist into the text.

    Many err in interpreting the Scriptures today by doing so as if they are capable of correctly interpreting it all by themselves. But that is the pathway of spiritual pride, self delusion (in Russian: prelest). A Christian must humbly seek the guidance of others, seek the wisdom and insights of the past. Only then can we overcome the blinders our modern age imposes on us.

    Scripture can only be properly understood in context, in the context of the unbroken tradition of interpretation which has been passed on from the God-inspired ancient Fathers down to the present day. The “consensus patrum” is remarkably consistent on the issue of homosexuality. Not once has it ever been considered acceptable behavior for a Christian.

  • Jesus answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female . . . ?” Jesus’ referring to the story of God’s making them male and female, Genesis 2:20-23, was the proper way to direct the Pharisees’ attention, because the text Jesus actually offered as authority was the verse immediately following, viz Genesis 2:24. Jesus did not use Genesis 2:20-23 as authority for anything. Therefore, the gender words of Matthew 19:4-5 are irrelevant to the issue of qualifications for Christian marriage. As irrelevant, I did not mention them. I was not avoiding them. There was no motive for my avoiding them at any cost, much less all costs.
    So, your sneering about signs is a sign that you cannot defend your understanding of Matthew 19:4-5 in accordance with accepted principles of interpretation. That confirms my suspicion that you are using scripture not to form your opinions but rather to support your opinions.

  • “Bigots like you….”

    Bigotry — intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

    Intolerance — unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

    “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” Jesus — the intolerant bigot

  • No. The tradition of interpretation is our context. Scripture can only be properly understood in its context; we should interpret scripture by scripture.
    The consensus partum should be treated with great respect, but it is idolatry to treat it as a better witness than scripture.

  • That made absolutely no sense, Richard. The predicate for Matt.19 is Genesis 2:24, and the predicate for Genesis 2:24 (“for THIS reason”) is 2:2-23.

  • Well, I can make absolutely no sense of the word “predicate” here, so I have not an inkling of your point.

  • Do you know that a predicate is the part of a sentence or proposition that affirms or denies something about the subject? If you know that, you know that Matthew 19 cannot be the subject of Genesis 2:24 and you know that Genesis 2:24 cannot be the subject of Genesis 2:2-23.
    So, if you know what a predicate is, not only I but you too can make absolutely no sense of your statement about scripture passages as predicates.

  • That is one definition of predicate — thanks for the beer run to dictionary dot com. It is not the only one. The term also has a legal meaning.

    In any case, you have completely missed the boat on Matt.19.

  • I am a lawyer, formerly a full-time law professor. Let me test you. What is the legal meaning of the term “predicate” and how does that legal meaning make, e.g., Genesis 2:24 the predicate of Matthew 19? (Hint: for lawyers, the term “predicate facts” may mean the same as “basic facts”.)
    “In any case, you have completely missed the boat on Matt.19.” Completely? I said the point (boat) of Matthew 19 is that divorce is prohibited. If you think that is not in any way the point of Matthew 19, you should say what you think is the point. I said Matthew 19 contains an explanation of the point: divorce is man’s destruction of something not made by him but by God. If you think that is not in any way the explanation of the point, you should say what you think is Jesus’ explanation for the prohibition of divorce.

  • Well then, your job is even easier. You don’t do anything and leave people alone to live their lives without your unwanted input.

    Nobody needs your kind of help.

    You are not Christ. You are no good at being like him and the job is already taken.

  • I wonder…..do you troll Islam sites; Jewish sites; Mormon sites; Buddhist sites; as fervently you do Christian subject matter? Or do you simply just hate Christianity.

  • Insults???!!! Is that not the Pot calling the Kettle Black! No…seriously…………..my question was a serious one. Do you spend equal time patronizing men and women of other Religions?

  • Too often, I have seen your kind of behavior: stamping the foot and saying, “‘Tis so! ‘Tis so!”

  • I just surveyed a couple articles in the ‘martini judaism’ section. You did not make one single comment. Hmmmm……..

  • Is that not the height of hypocrisy! He ridicules and patronizes Christians, and then has the audacity to suggest I made a insult.

  • lol……Christ wishes that none should perish, so I am assuring that they know why they are perishing and that they have a choice – follow you, or follow Christ.

  • If he is affirming homosexuality Craig, he is wilfully teaching against Christ and what He taught. He’s lucky he still has a job.

  • There is nothing hateful about wanting people to have a positive relationship with Jesus and an eternity in their future with Him.

  • Actually, I am doing what He asked of us – to make known all that He commanded. Matthew 28. Perhaps you may want to verify what I said?

  • No, you are trying to do his job. Nobody asked you to do what you do. Nobody wants your version of help. Nobody needs it.

    Christ can get his own disqus account. He doesn’t need to borrow yours. He’s a big boy and from a well connected family (with two dads!).

    In fact it’s probably a far better idea to focus on your own issues before you start worrying about others. Get yourself right with Christ and worry about your own massive numbers of sins. Everyone else will do the same. This way we are a happy.

  • It is difficult to make an argument that Judy Peterson breaking her vows and her church’s legislation is “redemptive love”.

    For that she would have first renounced her vows, resigned her ministry, and THEN engaged in the behavior which led to her discipline.

  • I am unaware of any actual Christian belief that “gay people are sub-human scum”.

    The arrival of Christian morality into a pagan world was nothing less than an asteroid hit into a sea of debauchery and depravity. A clear unvarnished description of what a Roman considered “normal” is beyond the fringes of today’s pornography.

    No doubt this or that Christian hid behind his beliefs as an excuse for cruelty, but as 10 minutes at JoeMyGod would illustrate it goes both ways.

  • So, if we pass a constitutional amendment overriding Justice Anthony Kennedy’s take on same sex marriage and the Constitution, thus eliminating the entitlement, the cruel and inhumane treatment goes with it?

  • Galatians 3:28 means we all are the children of God. Of course in this world there are still slaves and free, Gentiles and Jews, male and female. It does not support the ordination of women, the LBGT agenda, or any other odd interpretations for use in supporting an agenda.

    There is “slavery” and there is slavery. The Church has from the beginning opposed exploitation, treatment of people as objects or property. It has opposed that whether it is in the context of something called “slavery” or employment.

    Slavery has at various times and places meant different things. In apostolic times in Rome slavery was clearly defined in law into classes with different rights and duties, the highest being more or less indentured servants, the lowest being chattel.

    Treating human beings as chattel has always been immoral.

    History is rife with individuals who allege that the church “spectacularly miss(es) the point of …. the gospel”, the “church has been very wrong …. for centuries”, and so on.

    Most of them drift into oblivion, like Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger.

  • So goes the hyper Christian narrative, but not really. That narrative demands credit for the three steps forward in human progress it claims it represented, but wants to blame everyone else for the three steps backwards it equally represented and just as often.

    I could give you a long, long, long list of the horrors perpetrated on humanity by Christianity and by people who claimed they were Christian, and an equally long list of the blessings. The one doesn’t cancel out the other. But in any case, you’re simply not interested. It’s not YOUR narrative.

    “Caedite Eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” May have been apocryphal, but that doesn’t it doesn’t represent a long, long list of historical facts.

  • So goes the LBGT narrative, but not really.

    I can give a long, long, long list of the horrors perpetrated on humanity by anti-Christians, atheists, and individuals who were LBGT.

    What is not true is that it is an actual Christian teaching that “gay people are sub-human scum”.

    “Caedite Eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” is attributed to Arnaud Amalric personally.

  • Nope, still there, and a perfect example of it. Same as if you overrode the sodomy law decision, and for the same reasons.

    “yeah, let’s destroy that family, destroy their marriage, deny them and their children the benefits of marriage that we claim for ourselves, because we really, really disapprove. We’ll just get a constitutional amendment so that it is all tied up in a pretty, legal bow.”

    You people are simply unbelievable. It doesn’t harm you, it doesn’t affect you, your church, your family. It simply offends you.

  • It’s not still there as he described the offense, which is to deny someone that to which he is entitled.

    You people are simply unbelievable. It’s “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    We’re not trying to build a Libertarian paradise, despite what Justice Kennedy thinks.

    That idea would have been offensive to the founders.

    We are trying to build a society.

  • We have a society. But one that accepts gay people as full and equal members of it is not the one you want.

  • No one wants to get married in your church. There are plenty of churches that will marry those of us who want to get married in a church.

    We were married by a Christian minister. We treasure his involvement. We’re atheists.

  • No, we had a society. In that society it was up to the states to approve or disapprove of same sex marriage. As with abortion, the reason for that is that the Constitution is silent on it, and therefore it belongs to the states.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, much like Harry Andrew Blackmun with abortion, decided as the smartest man in the room he didn’t need the states or the Constitution, he knew what should be and knew how to declare it.

    As with abortion, this settled nothing, voided the political process, and has led to more rather than less conflict.

    As it turns out with both, constitutional amendments voiding these decisions specifically and returning the matters to the states would not be subject to any higher appeal, unlike the track record with the California Supreme Court and the will of that state’s people.

    That means folks could live in states which represent whatever sort of society they wish to live in.

  • Good luck with that.

    If Bible thumping bigots had that kind of clout, they would have overturned Roe v. Wade decades ago. 🙂

  • Sorry, too late to cover a foolish response with a claim to expertise.

    Divorce is wrong because it breaks something made one by God. Matt.19:6.

    God makes two into one because He created them male and female. Matt. 19:4-5 (Gen.2:24).

    God created male and female out of His own single perfect image (Gen.2:23) because He desired godly offspring from their union (Mal.2:15). No offspring of any kind can be created from any union of flesh except male/female.

    I explained all of this to you before. Your argument will gain nothing from repetition.

  • And going to Hell. No Spud. I’ll continue to help people to have a relationship with Jesus, you keep diverting them to Hell.

  • If they had skipped trying to reason with idiots and gone for an amendment, the battle would already be over.

  • It’s the peculiar assumption of privilege and religious dominion again. The constitution is silent on a number of things, but one of them is not equality before the law. Another is that Supreme Court majority makes the rules about what constitutes the law, not one justice. You want to pretend that’s whole thing was illegal. No it wasn’t. It’s how our system works.

    But now you want a constitutional amendment to undo that decision. Please don’t try to hide behind states rights, because that is simply irrelevant. My marriage exists in California, but if I made the mistake of going to Texas, I’m suddenly NOT MARRIED? You certainly wouldn’t tolerate that crap applied to you.

    I can see your respect for my rights stops at your church door.

  • No, it’s that government of the people, by the people, for the people thing again,

    Oddly Justice Kennedy’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges doesn’t rest on equality before the law per se.

    Yes, you are correct. In order for Kennedy and Blackmun to do violence to the Constitution each needed four other justices who believe their job is to make law, not interpret it.

    And yes, lousy jurisprudence is completely legal. So are constitutional amendments.

    The Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with a marriage in California being null and void in Texas.

  • A watered down gospel may get people into the pews, but it won’t get anyone to the cross. (unknown author)

  • Not embarrassed in the least, but thanks for the concern. Now, back up and try explaining again how you get around the male-female duality being the clearly-stated reason for marriage…

  • Your complete disregard for my rights as an American citizen and the well being of my family are duly noted. As I said, if it were YOUR marriage that was suddenly dissolved because you were in the wrong state, you would be howling bloody murder. But you know that isn’t going to happen. Fortunately for me, your evangelical wish list probably isn’t going to, either.

    Thanks for telling me.

  • Even if scripture does not clearly state that the creation of two sexes is God’s reason for marriage, I would affirm it. But we are a long way from the creation.
    God created sexually different humans on purpose. Genesis 1 and 2 present and celebrate a complementarity of man and woman that is related to marriage. We learn from Scripture how woman complements man in furtherance of God’s purpose. God clearly implied his relevant purpose by commanding the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply; God’s purpose was that the earth be fully populated. God’s means for populating the earth was sexual reproduction. That required a man and a woman in the first instance and then, after their expulsion from Eden, a division of labor between the man and the woman was necessary to help offspring reach maturity. Marriage of man and woman specifically served God’s purpose in obvious ways. But Genesis 1 and 2, in presenting and even celebrating heterosexual marriage, do not imply that God forbids homosexual marriage by the Church.
    Against the conservative’s inferences from the Bible’s portrait of marriage, there stand the teachings of Jesus and Paul, who made plain that God’s command to procreate is no longer normative. Christian tradition has understood this. The Church does not take procreation to be an essential purpose of marriage and so it has not made procreative ability a condition of marriage. The Church marries people who do not even have all necessary reproductive organs, and it marries them without scruple. The Church’s practice and conscience are right in this respect. An important purpose of marriage in the Bible was at first procreation, because God intended that sexual intercourse and protections afforded by the family cause eventually the earth to be populated with human beings, but Jesus and Paul taught that procreation is no longer an important purpose of marriage as God’s intention has been realized. Jesus and Paul taught that God now prefers his people be celibate, so that they give all to him instead of giving some of themselves to a spouse. Indeed, celibacy is a better anticipation of our future lives in heaven, all of us unmarried. God provides marriage to accommodate those of us who cannot now be as he prefers. God has purposes, other than procreation, that are served by marriage, but these other purposes do not confer any extra value on a marriage of sexually different partners with different jobs. Even if God’s purposes did confer extra value on a marriage of sexually different partners, that would not imply marriage of homosexuals is forbidden by God.

  • He’s been off MY island for a while. The comment thread reads more quickly and cleanly without clumps of irrelevant look-at-me spew.

  • What?? You are making no sense to me.
    When so called Christians were covering their bigotry and hate with the whole ” curse of Ham” talk and claiming that interracial marriage is sin they were right??? Are you a racist now ,too?

  • LOL, you think bible thumping bigots can get a supermajority for an amendment?They aren’t even a majority in their own faith. Reason never enters the picture with that crowd.

  • You have a ridiculous view of what civili liberties are and the role of te judiciary. Civil liberties are there to protect fundamental rights from majority rule . To keep people from using it as a way to attack others. As you had desired.

    Judge made law is ingrained in our system gong back to when we were a British colony.

    Your entire argument rests on your ignorance of the system. You never read Obergfell. You have no idea what was referred to in Texas. It’s nothing but yammering “might makes right” and “I can’t make a valid legal argument so I attack the entire judiciary”.

  • Shorter Bob Arnzen;

    1.I don’t understand how the Supreme Court works
    2. Civil liberties do not exist, might makes right

  • Why don’t you provide sources/information which would point to the claim that “Jesus” did not exist; or perhaps you could provide sources for the Unreliability of the Scriptures…………….etc., etc. Patronization only works on 13 year olds. It doesn’t work well with adults. I’m a 51 year old man. I have seen much in my life. Do you honestly believe your patronization of my beliefs will somehow magically influence 25 years of careful thought and study? Seriously…………………your attitude makes me believe you are in your early 20’s. I really feel for you. Would like to buy you a coffee and sit down and have a really nice talk.

  • Your sad -and boringly repetitive – comment indicates you probably know little about real Christian teachings other than the debased (and indeed “barbaric”) errors of the Protestants and Roman Catholics. Your comments about “sticks” and “sacrifice” seem to derive from the “substitutionary vicarious atonement” mistakes of those groups,

    Real Christianity teaches the deification of man by virtue of the union of the divine nature with our human nature in Jesus Christ. Just how else could man be deified and lifted up to becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) unless God united Himself with us? “God became man so that man might become God” (Athanasios of Alexandria).

    “2,000 years without a peep”? Methinks you haven’t been paying attention.

    The idea that God would communicate with you on the internet is really laughable, considering you have rejected all His prior communications with us. Can you say ‘hubris”?

  • Gotta admire this wave of LGBTQism. For another one bites the dust. Dust of Gold, i.e. Or the Dust of False Gold.

    This is good, as per 1 Corinthians 5:12 – “Are you not to judge those who are within [krinete tous eso] the church?”

    Let ECC go at these multiple mutual judgment rounds, I say. Bite the dusts & shake them off. Then splinter off into the Son-set!

  • I did, but it didn’t. But it isn’t just us that are challenging these churches. Their own heterosexual, liberal, even libertarian congregants are. We don’t have the numbers.

  • That reads as an ommission….not as an exemption. Not talking about something doesn’t mean it is a sin.

  • “But we are a long way from the creation.” No, we are not.
    Well, the fallen world, yes. But the creation design is what Jesus came to restore, and it exists now in the Kingdom of God among His people. This is why over time the church rejected divorce, polygamy, slavery, and all the other corruptions of God’s perfect plan.

    “Jesus and Paul taught that procreation is no longer an important purpose of marriage as God’s intention has been realized.” Neither of them taught any such thing. The purpose of marriage remains the same as it always was. Marriage itself is no more a requirement for any one individual now than it was then — certainly Elijah, Elisha, Daniel and others fulfilled their OT destinies without it as did John, Paul, Timothy and the other heroes of the NT — but that does not change the fundamental nature and purpose of the union itself. Paul advised singleness purely in consideration of the times in which he lived (doubtless it was easier to face the ongoing Roman persecutions without dependents) but in no way disparaged married couples. In fact, he explicitly advised young widows to remarry and have children rather than make short-sighted vows of celibacy that they might wish to break later. (1Tim.5:14).

  • He is precisely correct about Obergefell. It was not an equal protection case, nor did it concern the full faith and credit clause.

    He is also correct that it is not the judiciary’s role to “make” anything but only to respond to the action of the legislature. That much is evident from the Federalist Papers, and is the exact reason why Hamilton therein described the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches of government.

    The fact that the judiciary has, as the founders feared, tended to override its boundaries with relative impunity owning to the ignorance and/or negligence of the people in holding them accountable in no way lends legitimacy to that state of affairs. It is, in fact, one of the main reasons why you were denied your “Madame President” in 2016. Many, many people voted Republican in the last election SOLELY to save the Supreme Court from the certain deluge of activist judicial appointees who would have dismantled what is left of our constitutional republic and balance of powers.

    Mr. Trump has much for which to thank you, Lare. He is the creation of people like YOU.

  • Your disregard for civil liberties and the judiciary is already well known.

    We know you never read the decision. It was very much an equal protection case. As were the appellate cases leading up to it where SCOTUS punted on the issue prior to it. It was decided largely based on the lack of legally cognizable arguments supporting a gay marriage ban.

    You are also 200+ years too late for the argument concerning the judiciary’s role. It is very much as a check to the power of the elected branches. In most cases that you whine about, to uphold rights in spite of majority rule. We adopted the British legal system with its concept of judge made law and interpretation.

    “many, many people voted Republican in the last election SOLELY to save the Supreme Court from the certain deluge of activist judicial appointees who would have dismantled what is left of our constitutional republic and balance of powers.”

    So now we have appointees who are so unqualified for the positions they can’t even answer questions 1L’s can. Conservatives are trying to turn the federal judiciary into a corrupt mess of incompetents and toadies.
    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263

    What you call a “judicial activist” is better known as a qualified judge who understands the law.

  • No If you know scripture, homosexuality is not endorsed anywhere so it will not contradict itself when it comes to marriage.
    “2 But since sexual immorality is occurring…” There is your homosexuality right there, along with adultery, etc.

  • Statistics call you more represented in child molestation cases. I just warn people and I don’t believe I have used that phrase. (edited)

  • God’s purpose at creation was sexual reproduction by a man and a woman in marriage. Is it still God’s purpose? Well, see, e.g., Matthew 19:12. Jesus commended people who, for the sake of God’s kingdom, made themselves “eunuchs” – a metaphor for the childless. Was not Jesus implying that procreation is no longer God’s will for his people? As for Paul’s agreement with Jesus, it is simply preposterous to claim that Paul really believed procreation is still God’s will but advised people to disobey God in order to make their lives easier under the Romans. I have not said that Jesus or Paul forbade procreation or disparaged married couples, only that Jesus and Paul clearly implied that procreation is no longer God’s will.
    Against the clear implications of Jesus and Paul you assert that “the creation design is what Jesus came to restore, and it exists now in the Kingdom of God among His people.” What exists now among God’s people is a well-considered practice of marrying infertile couples, which would imply general agreement that procreation is not, or is no longer, an essential purpose of marriage. Do you think this shows that the Church is mistaken or is otherwise imperfectly realizing God’s kingdom? Why would you think so? You assert that “the creation design is what Jesus came to restore,” but it is obvious that Jesus did not come to restore the original regime of procreation. Jesus came to give us eternal life in heaven, not in prelapsarian Eden. Jesus said that the resurrected population of heaven, which will realize God’s perfect plan for us, does not even marry, much less procreate. Matt. 22:30.
    As Paul understood it, the ideal union of persons in marriage is an apt metaphor for the union of Christ and his Church. Eph. 5:28-33. The union of Christ and his Church is not coitus – does not even include coitus. The union of Christ and his Church shows what is essential to the marital union. Obviously, coitus is not essential to the marital union, so neither is procreation. Therefore, Paul did not take the Genesis story to imply God’s universal and timeless will that the partners in marriage procreate. (Indeed, Paul did not take creation story to imply that the marital union be a union only of man and woman, as the only ones who are capable of coitus.) Paul remarked the implications of the creation story for spousal duties of nurture and care in general.
    The essential purpose of Christian marriage is not procreation (though it was once God’s purpose). Nor is it legitimizing the satisfaction of uncontainable sexual desire (though Paul said this is a purpose of marriage). Nor is it companionship (though God gave Adam his Eve so he would not be alone). Rather, it is as Paul stated: the core purpose of marriage is to serve as a context for expressing mutual submission and love of another as Christ loved his Bride. Is this purpose served by marriage of homosexuals as it is served by marriage of heterosexuals? Yes. It has not been proved that homosexuals as such suffer any special disability in mutual submission or Christ-like love. Homosexuals, as readily as heterosexuals, can approach the ideals of Christian marriage.

  • folks could live in states which represent whatever sort of society they wish to live in.

    I totally concur. That would be the best example of ‘freedom’.
    When people are forced to do something by bayonet or with the items in your wallet…………………that is not true freedom.

  • 18 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And
    Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to
    David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

    How many covenants profess love and then strip? Marriage is the only one I can think of.

    Upon Jonathan’s death…
    I am distressed for thee, Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou
    been to me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

    It’s quite obvious what has been happening. They were a couple.

  • No, It is not “quite obvious”. Jonathan was rebelling against his dad who wanted to kill David. Would you not feel the same way with someone who was protecting your life. No reason whatsoever to make it immoral. Jonathan and David were related through marriage.

  • Jonathan and David enter into a covenant and then got naked….that’s a marriage. They wept and held each other. Then upon death publicly admits to the great love….passing that of women. They were a couple. Ignoring us and pretend we don’t exist doesn’t make us go away.

  • lol…..They were friends and their covenant had nothing to do with sex. Jeepers, are you guys that desperate?
    He loved him as a person would who had just saved his life and risked his own to save his.
    They were not a couple, they were related by marriage.
    Only David took some clothes off to put Jonathan’s armour on.
    Are you that unsure of your opinion that you need to concoct lies? Silly me! The homosexual platform is built on lies.

  • I don’t see it that way. Baby dedication or baptism is God’s goodness being celebrated and a commitment being made by the parents (in response, and on behalf of the child). Confirmation and post-confirmation baptism is a celebration of God’s goodness and truth, an act of obedience and commitment by the child, him or her-self. Both are celebration worthy, honorable, and beautiful choices. Choices to be lovingly joined and celebrated, never judged.

  • Lare, I love the way you assume that everyone else is as allergic to reading as you are. You need to get out more and find more literate friends. Yes, I read Obergefell thoroughly. No equal protection analysis = no equal protection case = no equal protection precedential value whatsoever. Whatever was argued in the lower courts, there are reasons why the court did not go down that particular road.

    “We adopted the British legal system with its concept of judge made law and interpretation.” What an absurd remark. The issue is not judicial interpretation. Whatever legitimate power the judiciary possesses to interpret and “make law” exists solely within the framework of FEDERALISM and the limited areas of power delegated to the federal government by the people. They KNOW what those limits are, and they know that they’re transgressing them, hence the hemming and hawing and flip-flopping that has been going on for the last generation in 1st and 14th Amendment jurisprudence. And no, we’re not too late to correct its more egregious abuses. But keep on insisting that it is — maybe you’ll manage to give the Pubs another win in 2020.

    “Conservatives are trying to turn the federal judiciary into a corrupt mess of incompetents and toadies.” You mean like the collection of screwballs on the Ninth Circuit that deliver with fries and a shake whatever your ilk demands, wasting endless time and taxpayer money, only to get repeatedly trounced by the SCOTUS? We couldn’t do much worse than that — although your Madame President undoubtedly would have. Which is why, of course, she could not be Madame President.

    “What you call a “judicial activist” is better known as a qualified judge who understands the law.” That is a species you could never hope to recognize, Lare. Sorry. Wish you could.

  • And as I have told you many times, it is not required NOW that anyone NOW find it. The people who “found it” THEN did so with consulting you. They said so. Just as they “found” that the Sodom story was all about homosexuality, which even you admit it has nothing to do with the subject. Even an uninformed reading of the text can yield that. Yet people still quote it as “proof” of what god thinks on the subject.
    But in point of fact, a two minute google search indicates all of those justifications. Talmudic, Book of Mormon, Dead Sea scrolls– you know, all of those citations you are happy to cite to indicate that you know exactly what everyone else is supposed to know, if they only they sought your authority. Stuff developed and believed over centuries, quoted over centuries, justified over centuries, until that point when we finally advanced a bit as a society and kicked it ot the curb.
    But it’s also a part of the modern evangelical narrative: Christianity is responsible for all of the good in the world, and none of the bad. You are just continuing in a fine tradition.
    And tradition, except where inconvenient, is what counts.

  • Can you find the curse of Ham or not, Ben?

    I am having no more luck with this question than with the request to produce the biblical case for ssm.

    Hey, maybe that’s because…neither one are there!

    Hence my original post.

  • I can’t, but then, I don’t look to the Bible for justification or answers

    And again, just the change the subject. I am unable to find anywhere when you have been asked this question where you haven’t changed the subject.

  • You are in error. It is not the deification of man, it is the deity (Holy Spirit) residing in us. You were delving into mormonism.
    We will never be gods but
    Galatians 2:20 – English Standard Version
    I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

    Romans 8:10 – But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[b] his Spirit who lives in you.

    Isaiah 42:8 – ESV I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

    This does not deify us. This does make is “born again”.

  • Jim, what scripture do they use to show Christ contradicting Himself on the sin of homosexuality?

  • Actually it does a lot of harm Ben.
    It teaches children a disregard for authority.
    Children are twelve times more likely to choose homosexuality if brought up in a homosexual environment.
    Children will be taught that Christ is not to be respected.
    It “normalizes” immorality for children.
    It teaches children a lack of respect for themselves and who Christ made them.
    It lies to children – innate and immutable being only two of the homosexual lies
    It discourages children who are afraid they may be homosexual and leads to their suicides when Christ offers hope and a new life
    It draws away from the authority of Christ and makes Him questionable, lessening His credibility
    It teaches rebellion against an authority as good and children may be misled that there are no repercussions, but we know there are
    Only a few of the things that homosexuals corrupt our culture with.

    Christ died so that people do not need to be a slave to their sin, nor die for their sin should they turn to Christ, repent, and follow Him.

  • 2 Peter 2:18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves[h] of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

  • Christ, the One who created us to have fellowship with Him taught what marriage is:

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
    No exceptions. You are asking for recognition of something Christ does not endorse.

  • What your assembly has welcomed is being taken out of the category of “Christian church”, but that shouldn’t matter right? After all, you are inclusive. Your “god” has become homosexuality.

  • No, I am not preaching mormonisn. I am simply recounting the traditional Orthodox Christian faith as it has been believed, taught, and proclaimed for the past 2000 years.

    It was St. Athanasius of Alexandria (286 – 373 AD) who proclaimed “God became man so that man might become god”.Check him out. St. Gregory of Nazianzen is also worth a look. They, and many others, clearly taught the Orthodox Christian faith which lies behind the Nicene Creed.

    By the divine embrace of the Incarnation, God takes upon Himself all that we have, even death, and in return fills us with the fullness of His own divine life, in so far as that is possible for created beings.

    “His divine power has granted to us all that pertains to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1: 3-4)

    In Christ, we become, by grace, what God is by nature; we “become partakers of the divine nature”. This is the ancient Christian faith as it was believed in the first eight centuries, and is still proclaimed by the Orthodox Church today. Study the writing of those first centuries and you will see that this is so. It is a bedrock teaching that has sadly been forgotten by Western Christians, both Protestants and Catholics.

  • Its the same old script from conservatives.

    People who apparently are incapable of a cognizable legal argument concerning civil liberties in general. Since you can’t come up with a rational and sane legal argument on the merits, you make a collateral attack on the judiciary in general. Chalk it up to “judicial activists” rather than own up to the barrenness and intellectual dishonesty of your own position.

    To complain about “judge made law” is to be a whinybaby about how the Supreme Court has operated practically from inception. It is not an argument anyone has to take seriously. Conservatives definitely don’t when decisions go their way. Its nonsense you tell yourself to feel better when you lose in the courts.

    You clearly are not representing the Obergfell decision at all. Equal protection analysis was quite vigorous and well established in prior appellate decisions on the subject. Fact of the matter was, there no was argument for gay marriage bans which could have even been considered rational and secular. The ones you and others give now are pretty insane or just dishonest bigoted tripe.

    BTW Trump’s picks for the judiciary are the worst seen by the senate since the 19th Century. People so lacking in experience or even basic legal knowledge that they can’t possibly be considered good faith choices. It is an attack on those who wish to preserve the integrity of that branch of government.

  • You didn’t ask me a question. You just barged in to tell me what I meant — again. I asked YOU a question.

    “I can’t, but then, I don’t look to the Bible for justification or answers” Precisely. THANK you. Which is why the threads would be less cluttered if you’d simply step aside when the subject is scripture since you have nothing to contribute to that.

  • Yeah…much of the negativity in this world would evaporate if each person decided to first work on their own struggles and issues (removing themselves from being the self-appointed evaluator of any one else).

  • I dont care what Athanasius said. We are servants of Christ – slaves of Christ. We are and will never be gods. God will not share His glory with anyone.
    Christ is the ONLY begotton Son of God. He is equal to God. We never will be.
    We are His servants. Nothing more.
    1 Timothy 2:5 ESV

    For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

  • You may be interested in Father Herman Schick’s comments where he thinks we will one day be gods.

  • “Equal protection analysis was quite vigorous and well established in prior appellate decisions on the subject.” Lower court equal protection claims are not incorporated by implication into Supreme Court decisions. If the court didn’t analyze it and rule on it, it ain’t there. Stick to “insurance in some capacity” (probably making coffee) and quit trying to play wikipedia-lawyer.

    “Fact of the matter was, there no was argument for gay marriage bans which could have even been considered rational and secular” Fact of the matter is, it is not the legitimate business of any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to be passing upon any state law on any subject matter which was not enumerated to the federal government by the constitution. That is what FEDERALISM is all about, a concept which you’ve yet to grasp. Why do you hate our federal republic? Why don’t you figure out what a federal republic IS before hating on it?

  • David was not “naked” and neither was Jonathan. Jonathan gave his royal robe and his armor to David. Do you really not understand the political significance of this act?

  • “Was not Jesus implying that procreation is no longer God’s will for his people? “ No, He was not. People called to celibacy existed in OT times as well as NT, but nevertheless the prophets stated that God makes men and women one in marriage because He desires godly offspring. That everyone is not suited to marriage, whether by nature or by calling, does not mean that the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage has changed.

    “What exists now among God’s people is a well-considered practice of marrying infertile couples“ The exceptions do not negate the general rule. Is the church, or the state, to investigate the fertility of every couple it marries? To do so would be prohibitively expensive as well as an invasion of privacy. Moreover, it would seldom be reliable. God has produced many a child from couples presumed too old or too infertile to conceive. My own parents, after 8 years of childlessness, were told by doctors that they were infertile — yet went on to conceive twice nevertheless.

    “Jesus came to give us eternal life in heaven, not in prelapsarian Eden.” Eternal life was part of the original creation design. Man threw it away through disobedience. Jesus bought it back for us.

    “Indeed, Paul did not take creation story to imply that the marital union be a union only of man and woman”. He DID say, however, that the way to avoid fornication was for every man to have his own wife and every woman her own husband. Everything else is off-limits; if there were other options I’m sure they would have been mentioned

    “The union of Christ and his Church is not coitus – does not even include coitus.” That is because, as noted, the similarity is metaphorical. Christ and His Church do indeed experience intimate spiritual and indeed organic union, analogous to coitus, which is intended to bear fruit as a marriage bears offspring (John 15:8).

    If the gist of your argument is that the purpose of marriage has changed, as it appeared to be the last time I spoke with you, then we might as well end here because this position is insupportable from scripture. Thank you.

  • “I don’t care what Athanasius said.”

    Nor do I care what the modern polyester preachers say.

    “We are servants of Christ – slaves of Christ”.

    True.

    “God will not share His glory with anyone”.

    Not true. “…He who called us TO HIS OWN GLORY…” (2 Peter 2:1)

    “Christ is the ONLY begotten Son of God. He is equal to God. We will never be.”

    All true. I never denied it. As we confess in the Nicene Creed: “,,,the Son of God, the only Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages…” The very same Creed St. Athanasius fought for and suffered for. Theosis and the Son’s being begotten of the Father before all ages are in no way mutually exclusive.

    “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.”

    True. It is only by virtue of His unique mediation between God and man, His union of divinity and humanity in Himself, and our being clothed with Him in Holy Baptism (Galatians 3:27: “As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” – sung at every baptism in the Church), that we can become, as the Apostle Peter said, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 2:4).

    This is no new teaching. It has been part of the proclamation of the Gospel since the beginning.

  • 1Co 4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
    1Co 4:2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.
    1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.
    1Co 4:4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
    1Co 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

  • Sandi, It’s not surprising that you cling to your bible as your sole source of authority . . . because you appear to be the reincarnation of one of the ancient people whose profoundly ignorant, delusional, and/or fraudulent assertions were included in the bible.

    I hesitate to call you a liar, but that’s only because the indoctrination you’ve received from the bible (and most likely also from other like-minded people) has stripped you of all self-awareness. You’ve obviously been well-trained to worship ignorance pretending to reveal “facts,” and to reject legitimate reason, evidence, and logic as satanic.

  • Civil liberties are delineated in the Constitution.

    The judiciary theoretically interprets the law and applies it to a set of facts, not decides the law is insufficient and writes something in the way of legislation to correct it.

  • As an American citizen you have the rights provided for in the Constitution, a written document of remarkable clarity and brevity, or decisions of five justices of the Supreme Court, whether anyone agrees with the decision or not or they make any sense or not.

    I respect both of them, even Supreme Court decisions that are pure dreck, because law is the foundation of our system. So, the accusation of “complete disregard for (your) rights as an American citizen” is falderal.

    One of the rights American citizens enjoy is the right to amend the Constitution – “We the People of the United States ….”. If the majority concludes that same sex marriage is contrary to the common good, they have a right to change that.

    I believe you’re suggesting a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario. If you are able to win in a democratic fashion, you win. If you lose, you go to a court with one more judges whose eyes roll in their head, and you win. If your fellow citizens seek to alter their society to negate that court, you apparently think you have a right to negate that and win.

    I attribute your evangelical reference to your distaste for Abrahamic religions, all of which oppose same sex relations.

    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” the “marriage that was suddenly dissolved because you were in the wrong state” appears to be a mirage.

    The clause’s plain language, and its application to same sex couple’s adoptions, out-of-state protection orders, child support orders, and so on indicated to most legal experts that attempts such as the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state statutes would not bear judicial scrutiny.

    But Justice Anthony “Sweet Mystery of Life” Kennedy rendered that moot.

    There are two Supreme Court decisions which took aim at the fundamental purpose of the Constitution, which is to fashion a society, and with malice aforethought sought to still the democratic process: Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. The solution in both cases is constitutional amendments returning both matters to the states which is where the Constitution left them.

    That, of course, does not show any or complete disregard for your rights. It is democracy in action.

  • Civil liberties are a check upon the power of majority vote. To limit just what you can and cannot legislate. The supreme court is the last word on the subject to curb excesses from the legislature. All discriminatory laws are passed by a majority vote. Legislators cannot be trusted with the job of changing those lasts until stricken down by the judiciary.

    People who complain about judicial activism and judge made law are generally people who support discriminatory laws and can’t cough up any possible legally cognizance justification for them. So they whine in collateral attacks on the judiciary in general. Its whining that you can’t form a decent legal argument for your view. The equivalent of saying a game is silly because you are terrible at it.

  • If it is not in the Constitution, it is not a civil liberty.

    The ability to amend the Constitution is a check upon judicial tyranny.

    I don’t complain about judicial activism, I recognize the remedy for it.

  • Your take on it, like many things is entirely fictitious. Hence your resorting to cheap insults. It’s telling that you can’t defend the gay marriage bans on legally cognizable merits. So you avoid any discussion of them. Pretending an equal protection argument never happened because you have no sane response to it. That’s just pathetic.

    Federalism guides equal protection arguments. Curbing state attacks on fundamental rights of power. You are whining about the supreme court because it didn’t rule the way you wanted. Sour grapes grousing from bigots upset they can’t justify their malice under color of law. How childish.

  • Article III of the constitution gives the judiciary their power. There is no limit in there as you described. You are simply making crap up. You can’t just handwave judge made law system we inherited from Britain and judicial review powers over 200 years old as if they never existed.

    You are simply a whinybaby bigot who is annoyed malicious discriminatory laws were stricken down. You can’t defend them on the merits, so you avoid discussing them.

  • exactly, its not there! Racist so called ” christians” invented it to oppress and deny rights to blacks, just like anti equality scum invents ideas to oppress and deny gays their rights!

  • Pro-slavery Christians were asking the same thing of progressives and abolitionists – show us where Chist contradicted himself and said that slavery is not a good, God ordained, decent institution!

  • To begin with, my responses came from scripture.
    Christ taught that He will not share His glory with anyone. If you choose to disbelieve Him , that’s between you and He, but I promise, He’ll come out correct.
    I gave you the scripture.
    That is not true. Christ did not promise us divinity. He promised us salvation.
    The divine nature is within us, but we are not gods.

  • If that is saying I sound like a believer, thank you for the complement.
    Homosexuality also hurts the homosexual and the person they share the sin with. The reward for sin is death.

  • God deals with his creatures in history and he has plans for them. In furtherance of God’s plans, God gives his creatures commands. If God’s creatures obey God’s commands, God’s plans will be realized. That is just how smart God is.
    “Be fruitful and multiply” is one of God’s commands in service of God’s plan that the earth be fully populated. Behold, this plan of God was realized, in history, where God deals with his creatures!
    Jesus and Paul made plain that marriage continues to be a blessing but married couples are no longer subject to God’s command that they procreate. The purpose of marriage has changed, in that one early purpose of marriage has been realized and the purpose is obsolete. This is not only supportable from scripture but it is proven by scripture.
    What is unsupportable from scripture is the proposition that “Be fruitful and multiply” is an eternal law of marriage. It is not an eternal law, no more than “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof” is an eternal law of architecture.

  • I am always amused to see theocratically minded and ultra conservative Christians jump to the alleged “defense” of constitutional and democratic principles, especially when the entire focus of their efforts ever since Brown v. Board of Education was to accomplish exactly the opposite. The marriage battles were the perfect example: not content to demean and exclude gay people from participation in society and protecting our lives, children and assets from your malice, you also wanted to ride roughshod over the religious freedom of every liberal and liberal denomination that disagreed with you, all in the name of authoritarian ideology and religious dominionism. I underand you don’t like the label, but as I always say, if the white hood fits, wear it.

    You overstepped, and anyone with half a brain could see that it was about bigotry, not states rights, not god, not marriage, and on a related tack, not the welfare of children, not military preparedness, not god’s word, and not morality— certainly not THAT.

    It’s equally amusing to see that your current defense of the indefensible happens to coincide exactly with the two biggest of your current moneymakers and pathways to religious dominion, both of which have as their focus the evangenital obsessions over sex in general, homosexuality in particular, and whether women and families have the right to determine their own lives without asking the permission of you, your church, or your god. I can see that it is especially galling to you that those uppity figs, the people you have been taught to despise (or fear) above (or below) all others, have been declared your legal, cultural, moral, social, sexual, marital, and human equals.

    And we don’t have to ask your permission any more to live our lives. Oooooh, I bet that one really stings!

    It was bad enough when black people were declared your equals— brown and loving. It was bad when the Civil Rights Act no longer made it possible to be blatantly anti-Semitic, not without repercussions, though F. Bailey Smith was in their trying. It was worse when you lost legal and religious dominion over peoples private lives— loving and griswold. Then Roe along and put not quite the final nail into that rotting corpse’s coffin. but at least you could make money milking that particular cash cow, and you’ve been doing it for 45 years.

    And now them uppity figs are here, and as I say, it galls you no end that pillow biters an c-suckers are your equals, though lesbians are pretty HAWT, as long as they look like Melania and not Rosie. So now it’s all about black robed activist judges overstepping the bounds you have set for them. Funny, I’ve never heard any of these arguments coming from the right wing about constitutional duties when it came to handing over the presidency to Shrub, eminent domain in kelo, corporations are people, and money is speech, things that would have horrified the founders.

    You may win the battle for a constitutional amendment, though you didn’t get that with Roe, probably because you don’t really want it as it’s such a money maker. I don’t know. In a country that can elect a insane moron like Jabba the Trump, anything is possible. But you had better do it soon, because you are losing even young evangelicals on this issue. You might even win the cakemaking battle, though it will gut the Civil Rights Act if you do, not that you care. As far as I can tell, no one cares about it as much as you do. And your motivations are obvious.

    The ironic part is that in your attempts to write your religious beliefs into civil law, you are simply driving more people away from your version of god. You may will see that as a good thing, as several posters herein do. The great pruning, or whatever you call it, because it makes you appear to yourselves to be closest to Jesus, the elect of god, whatever your fanatasies require. Handmaids tale, here we come.

    Or not.

  • It would be nice if Christians of a certain type would step seaside when it comes to the civil rights of other people, the religious beliefs of other people, and so forth. You have nothing to contribute to that dialogue e crept your repetitions of “god said it. I believe it. That settles it. ”

    But you’re not going to. When you do, I will. Until then…

    Hi Shawnie.

  • sandinwindsor:

    “Christ taught that he will not share His glory with anyone.”

    Jesus Christ:

    “The glory which Thou hast given me I have given them,,” (John 17:22)

    Apostle Paul:

    “Through Him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of sharing the glory of God.” (Romans 5:2)

    “To this He called you through our Gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

    “…Those whom He called He also justified; those whom He justified He also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)

    “…to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:19)

    I’m sorry but the Scriptures say that we are called to share the glory of God. This has been an essential Christian doctrine from earliest times until today.

  • and God taught that He will not share His glory with anyone.
    the glory He shared was Himself in our hearts, my friend.
    Acts 6:5
    The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, A Man Full Of Faith And Of The Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.” But still a man, not a god.

  • Certainly. To transfer the effects of a prince, royal robe and armor, was to acknowledge David as the true and lawful king of Israel as God had already declared him to be. Why do you not know this?

  • I am as much a citizen of this country as you are, and my voice and vote thereupon weigh as much as yours in effect.

    You by your own admission are not part of the household of faith nor a student of scripture, and your voice and vote thereupon weigh exactly nothing at all.

  • “Be fruitful and multiply” was not a command given to every person ever born but a command given to the first married couple. Again, marriage is not and never was a necessity. But for those who marry, the purpose remains the same. If the creation order were “outdated” I seriously doubt that Jesus would have referred us back to it as the proper measure of God’s will for moral human relations.

    Do you have anything to add besides more reiteration of this assertion?

  • “Pretending an equal protection argument never happened because you have no sane response to it. That’s just pathetic.“ It matters not whether an equal protection argument ever happened. If the Court did not incorporate it into its analysis — “pathetic” though that may be—it is not preserved and might as well have never happened. There is nothing of EP in Obergefell that anyone can ever refer to as precedent in the future.

    “It’s telling that you can’t defend the gay marriage bans on legally cognizable merits. So you avoid any discussion of them.” Irrelevant. The entire point of federalism is that only subject matter expressly doled out to the federal government by the Constitution is legitimately subject to the scrutiny of the federal judiciary. As the Chief Justice recognized, this was not one of them.

    I’d as why you don’t know all this, but it’s pretty obvious why you don’t.

  • I don’t understand this logic of churches who cherry pick the bible on women preachers but still insist on strict literalism for LGBTQ Christians. But this goes to show religion is all about hatred and fear and control.

  • In your mind there is no case for SSM. Multitudes of Christians , including myself, disagree with you. Have a nice day. God bless. Bye.

  • Feel free to produce it. Nobody has managed to do so yet.

    On the other hand, here is what you CAN find in scripture about ssm: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.” Lev. 20:13

  • It’s funny how you don’t even pretend there was a meritorious legal argument in favor of the gay marriage bans which were stricken down. Your whole spiel is just one infantile act of avoidance.

    You went to there is no equal protection argument to, it doesn’t matter even if it was there. LOL Flailing about because you are trying to defend something indefensible.

  • Sorry, I will stick with the clear teachings of the Bible proclaimed by God’s Holy Church since the days of the Apostles.

    And I don’t see how the institution of the diaconate in the Church is in any way relevant. Grasping at straws?

    But since you brought it up, does your sect even maintain the Biblical orders of Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops? Or did they abandon them just like they abandoned the Biblical teaching of Theosis?

  • A man cannot be a wife and a woman cannot be a husband that would be a lie before nature so a marriage license is not needed the two lifestyles are not equal so there is no case there peace. You can live your own lies as you wish I will even defend your right to do so however you cannot force others to live your lie I pray that you continue to seek wisdom on your life’s journey and not be trapped by superficial constructs

  • No one cares what you do in your bedroom. I’m sure there’s more to you then what you do with your sex life every time people have to talk to you it’s always about your sex life we don’t want to talk about sex or how you have sex but you living in the state of Madness and now truth is your enemy.Sad for you.you can do better. You hate the lifestyle you are in now. We love you enough to endure your hatred.Jesus gave his life for people that hated him.

  • I think it rather shows the hypocrisy of those sects which rejected the traditional Christian teaching about women ministers, due to social pressures, but maintained it when it comes to LGBT. But when the social pressures about LGBT issues becomes too strong, they will probably cave on that too. They should rather have maintained both teachings.

    It’s more about giving in to social norms than it is about “hatred”, etc. They will eventually change their tune rather than risk being unpopular.

  • You sure to like to make up stuff about people you don’t know. But sure. If it makes you feel better and superior, have at it.

  • I am a citizen of this country as much as you are. So if I feel like talking, I will. That’s how being a citizen of this country works.

    Since you and your ilk are constantly telling other people of faith that they are not actually people of faith and know nothing about scripture, I think i m as free to ignore you as they are. Your voice and your vote on their faith and beliefs weigh exactly nothing at all.

    See how it works?

    As I have said to you repeatedly, as long as you feel free to thrust your religious beliefs into the lives of people who don’t share them, don’t be surprised if they feel equally free to thrust their religious beliefs into yours.

  • Article III, Section 2, states:

    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; – to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies between two or more States; – between a State and Citizens of another State; – between Citizens of different States; – between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

    “Law” and “Laws” are critical – there is nothing there about legislating, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws.

    Although our system has some similarities with the British, a critical difference is the Constitution, which is written. If it isn’t in it, it does not exist.

    But the Constitution does provide for its amendment, and if it becomes clear to the populace that the Supreme Court has rendered a decision which does not enhance the people’s pursuit of the society in which they choose to live, or is patently contrary to the Constitution, amendment is the solution.

    And if that is done, it applies even to whinybabies who would like to place their fascist jackboots on the neck of the populace by ramming nonsense down their throats by judicial fiat and are afraid of democracy.

  • Learn to read, Lare. To reiterate, “Obergefell is not an equal protection case,” and it is not one because it contained no equal protection anaylsis whatsoever and therefore has no EP precedential value. Whatever was not preserved and incorporated from any lower court arguments count for zip.

    One more time, more slowly: No ….”meritorious legal argument” ….is legitimately necessary…. on any subject ….which does NOT belong to the federal government’s…. specifically enumerated powers.

    Why do you hate our federal republic so much? Shouldn’t you figure out what a federal republic IS first?

  • I am rather concerned that what you keep calling “thrust(ing) your religious beliefs into the lives of people who don’t share them” is actually “passing laws which build the society in which the majority wants to live”.

    While it may be a fun rhetorical tactic in your particular situation, taken at its face it would strike down laws against incest, polygamy, polyandry, stealing, perjury, and a host of other prohibitions.

    And that’s the damage Justice Anthony “Sweet Mystery of Life” Kennedy has done to this point to the Constitution, adding to the damage which his predecessor Blackmun did with Roe v. Wade.

    What was envisioned by the founders as a Commonweal more or less modeled after the Roman Republic, in which religion was considered a common good, is now a free-for-all of individuals doing their own thing without regard to the long-term consequences on the society itself.

  • Several posts in and you are still playing denial games and trying desperately to avoid any semblance of even attempting to address the main issue of that case. Which was that gay marriage bans lacked any kind of government interest which was legally cognizable or worth defending.

    One last time, you are trying to pretend SCOTUS lacks power it has and used for over 200+ years. You are trying to pretend our legal system is just a rubber stamp for “might makes right” arguments.

    “Why do you hate our federal republic so much?”

    I am not the one arguing against an often used and key check and balance on the legislature. Trying to ignore the entire purpose of civil liberties. That is all you.

    This whole spiel is because you didn’t like a court decision but lacked the wherewithal to deal with its actual merits. So you just attack the entire system. A childish POV at best.

  • I doubt you are concerned about that at all, as long as it is YOUR authority, YOUR religion, and YOUR rights that are maintained. The rest of us, clearly not so much.

    None of those issues require religion to maintain them. Nor does our republic. If it did, it might be mentioned more than twice in the constitution in anything except a negative context— no establishment, no religious test.

    The only long term consequence to society by ending anti gay prejudice is that anti gay prejudice is ended. Well,that and it will continue to offend you that those uppity figs are your equals.

    Tough.

  • “So if I feel like talking, I will” Don’t stamp those little feetsies so hard — you might hurt yourself. Of course everyone is free to talk, whether or not they have any clue what they’re talking about, or even any real interest, but it makes them look quite foolish when they do so. If you don’t mind that being demonstrated, then continue to stick your (theologically speaking) neck out.

    “Since you and your ilk are constantly telling other people of faith that they are not actually people of faith and know nothing about scripture” Um, I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone, regardless of their claims, that they were “not actually people of faith,” (although some of your buddies certainly have — but that’s ok by you of course because they possess the requisite views on homosexuality). What I DO ask for is scriptural arguments for various positions, and demonstrate when and how they fail. It’s called scriptural accountability. What you can not understand is that this is what happens, and has always happened from the very beginning, within a community which calls itself by Christ’s name and profess to be guided by His word. A community in which you just admitted to having no part and therefore are not to be taken seriously.

    ” I think i m as free to ignore you as they are.” Moth, please ignore flame. Thank you.

  • Reading JoeMyGod where you can be a bit blunter I understand what goes with “Tough”. If the opportunity arises religious beliefs, and people with religious beliefs, will wind up with a jackboot on their necks.

    I heard much the same from the Obama camp for eight years as it attempted to remake our society into its own image.

    And then got a big surprise in the next election. People will only take so much.

    To which we all responded “Tough”.

    Explain, for example, why we do not require religion to maintain a prohibition against polyandry. The plain words of Obergefell v Hodges seems to cut the grounds out from under prohibiting it.

    But continue to refuse to be a magnanimous victor. Make it plain to people you don’t give a fig for their aspirations. Pile on cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and beat the tar out of “religionists”.

    Just don’t complain about the eventual backlash when it comes.

  • Yes you can cut and paste. But you do not understand.

    What you call “judge made law” or “legislating from the bench” is how they interpret laws. Since 1801, that power to interpret has also become the power to strike down laws which are unconstitutional. Its a bit late to be whining about that now.

    Your entire argument amounts to “might makes right”. Ignoring that every discriminatory law was passed by majority vote. That the legislature does not generally overturn them by force of law until the judiciary does so first.

    “nonsense down their throats by judicial fiat”

    Poor whiny bigot is annoyed he doesn’t have the right to attack others under color of law. Its telling you can’t even bother to come up with sane legal arguments to support your views, so you attack the entire system. How childish.

    “But the Constitution does provide for its amendment”

    You are just looking for ways to be grifted into supporting go-nowhere propositions. You guys can’t even get a majority in your faith, let alone nationally. A supermajority needed for an amendment is out of the question. But you will contribute to whatever politician makes those
    empty promises. An easy mark for voting against your economic interests.

  • You are sorely mistaken my friend. We are not going to be gods, and I worry about you because of that.
    My denomination has deacons.
    I fear for you with this silliness “since the beginning”. Only mormons believe we will be “gods”. We will just be servants of Christ in the afterlife
    I will pray for you though. God bless.

  • “One last time, you are trying to pretend SCOTUS lacks power it has and used for over 200+ years.” Learn to read, Lare. We are not talking about judicial review. The SCOTUS has NOT transgressed the bounds of federalism for 200 years. This has only been happening since about the 1910s, and it was big business that started the invidious trend by asking the court to strike down perfectly legal state social and regulatory legislation as violations of rights to property. None of this was legitimate subject matter for federal scrutiny — and neither is marriage. THAT is where the problem lies.

    “I am not the one arguing against an often used and key check and balance on the legislature.” Learn to read. Neither am I. You still don’t understand what federalism is.

    “This whole spiel is because you didn’t like a court decision but lacked the wherewithal to deal with its actual merits. So you just attack the entire system.” Kindly refrain from judging others’ motivations by your own superficial self. Nobody is attacking the entire system (actually you are the one doing that by your contempt for federalism), just the abuse of it.

    As the Chief Justice so aptly put it, “The Constitution had nothing to do with it.”

  • By understand you apparently mean agree with you. True.

    If they are “interpreting the law”, it should be a piece of cake to point out the law they are interpreting.

    Here’s the Obergefell v Hodges opinion:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

    Quote one sentence in which Justice Kennedy interprets anything.

    But, I can see that the thought of real democracy gives you the willies.

    Thus it will always be with tyrants.

  • you cannot even answer that question either? You cannot provide scripture. You’ve shown no evidence for anything;

  • I should have said…

    Nonsense, and paranoid, fact free nonsense at that. You keep attacking people, and then act all surprised and hurt when they object.

    “If the opportunity arises religious beliefs, and people with religious beliefs, will wind up with a jackboot on their necks.” Yup, all of those liberal Christians and Jews, as well as the many conservative religious people that are absolutely appalled at the tactics of the fundelibangelsists, are going to be putting a jackboot to the necks of religious people. It makes perfect sense.
    As I have said many many times, if you people– and I love saying THAT to YOU– would stop these constant attacks on any- and everybody with your faith based authoritarianism, your desire to force your purely theological concerns on to people who simply don’t want them in their lives, you would be surprised at how little interest would be shown in you.
    but then, you wouldn’t be able to claim being persecuted, which means you wouldn’t be able to over-identify with Jesus and god and everything., which means you wouldn’t feel so goddam special.

  • And will reap the same rewards as the Israelites who tried to be hip and popular in their day by embracing idol-worship.

  • Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Greroy of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus were mormons? The Nicene Creed is mormon? The Seven Ecumenical Councils (from 325 to 787 AD) were mormon? They all accepted the Christian doctrine of the deification of man in Christ. The Orthodox Church has always accepted it, and still does. It is traditional Christian teaching.

    I am afraid it is you who are being rather silly to assert otherwise. Read a good history of Christian theology. Mormons had nothing to do with it. Their heresy didn’t even exist until the 19th Century.

    Thank you for praying for me. I am always in need of prayers. I shall pray for you as well.

    And please familiarize yourself with the history of Christian doctrine.

  • I have been reading you in context long enough to know better.

    Just to show you’re not blowing smoke, and don’t just believe that since you got yours everyone and everything else can take a hike, citing the opinion in Obergefell v Hodges explain the legal basis for opposing polyandry.

    There is none.

    So much for your propaganda that these sorts of opinions harm no one.

  • Nope. I find your whining tiresome. You have a very narrow and rather farcical view as to how the judiciary operates and has for several centuries.

    If you read it, you would see he is interpreting a bunch of things. Most notably the 14th Amendment as it applies to marriage rights. Start from page 4, 2nd paragraph and take it from there. The entire Equal protection argument that another poster claims does not exist. The great thing about the decision is the first 5 pages are literally the entire argument. The other 100 are an elaboration of the interpretations made.

    But you didn’t read it. You are making an argument concerning the judiciary out of ignorance and spite. You didn’t like their ruling, you didn’t want to address its points. So you attack the system and look for end runs around it. Making you an easy mark for voting for complete incompetents and miscreants as long as they make empty promises to appeal to your bigotry and desire to attack others.

  • Revisionist history Gish Galloping is always good for a chuckle.

    https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F14pdf%2F14-556_3204.pdf%3Aawvv20zr4YPmJSQtTtZfFRN7Grc&cuid=4022104

    For your equal protection arguments you claimed either didn’t exist or didn’t matter, see pg 4, 2nd paragraph and work your way down from there.

    BTW you have been using Federalism incorrectly the entire time. Federalism means the power of the federal government over the states. It has nothing to do with the separation of powers you are ranting about. Judicial review started in 1801 as an extension of SCOTUS’s powers to interpret the constitution and has been its primary check on legislative power since then.

    I can’t help it if bigots can’t cough up arguments to support gay marriage bans besides, “might makes right”. Oh well.

  • If a man can marry a woman, why can’t he marry three?

    What does the answer to that have to do with two people of the same sex getting married?

    Nothing.

    Try again.

  • I thought “whining tiresome” were your middle names. Or were they “ignorance” and “spite”?

    In any case, you pick it up AFTER Kennedy has redefined marriage, commencing at the bottom of page 1. Wise move.

    And where in the world did that come from?

    On page 3 Kennedy speaks of a “concept of individual autonomy”. And that comes from a previous opinion of Justice Kennedy, which apparently came out of his ….

    It certainly did not come out of the Constitution.

    In any case, the remedy to that, and to you, and to Ben is the amendment process.

    If you believe that is not a real probability, than you’re blowing the wind.

  • There are federally illegitimate cases that go back even farther: United States vs. Darby in 1941, where the SCOTUS said: “The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states.” In one statement they unilaterally nullified both the Interstate Commerce Clause as written and the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the states everything not explicitly enumerated to the federal government.

  • According to Obergefell v Hodges, the possibilities are limitless.

    It is all part of the “concept of autonomy”, a concept Justice Kennedy made up.

    How that advances a coherent society in which anyone would actually live except fringe types is a bit more elusive.

  • Please connect the dots between the discussion and that bit of legal legerdemain.

    For those trying to follow this, the reference is to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

    “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ….”.

    The case referenced is “United States v. Darby Lumber Co.”, 312 U.S. 100 (1941), in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions.

    The Court held that the purpose of the Act was to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their own economic advantage by interstate commerce.

  • Your misinterpretation is sad, my friend. We are not going to be “gods”. As I said, I will pray for you

  • i can not provide the words of Christ REFUTING GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. He didn’t mention it at all.

  • That Kennedy mentioned Equal Protection in passing in conjunction with Due Process, which was his focus, does not turn Obergefell into an Equal Protection case. Equal protection requires a very specific kind of analysis which is nowhere to be found in the opinion. Why do you think so many liberal legal analysts were so disappointed by Obergefell even though they applauded the actual result? It did not give them the EP pathway to federal “protected class” status that they were breathlessly hoping for.

    “Federalism means the power of the federal government over the states. It has nothing to do with the separation of powers you are ranting about.” Lare, you have outdone yourself today in the demonstration of your ignorance. You have no earthly clue what “federal” or “federalism” or “separation of powers” mean. This is what comes of watching movies and fooling around on the internet instead of reading books. James Madison would weep at the depths to which his dreamed-of republic of virtuous and educated citizens has degenerated.

    “I can’t help it if bigots can’t cough up arguments to support gay marriage bans” You can’t help much of anything, can you Lare?

    Larry’s future epitaph:

    “Here lies Larry-Spud.
    He couldn’t help it.
    His ignorance is duly noted.
    Go eff yourself.”

    Nice legacy.

  • Glad you asked, but this still does not diminish my request for scripture from you.

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

    No exceptions. It is to avoid sexual immorality as stated.

  • Except that it provided the basis for federal regulation of purely intrastate commerce. An area disallowed to the federal government by the 10th Amendment.

  • Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

    “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the severalStates, and with the Indian Tribes ….”.

    provided the basis for federal regulation of purportedly “purely intrastate commerce”.

    Of course with open borders and no customs gates at the borders of states, very little is “purely intrastate commerce”.

  • “Blacks are not equal to whites/curse of Ham” is on the same page in the Bible where “Gays are not equal/SSM marriage is wrong”

  • Sorry for slightly diverting the discussion, but do you think the amendment process to make gay marriage legal would not been possible or ended up in a different result ?
    I tend to believe that any changes in legislation are mainly reflective of the will of the people, changing tides as they say.
    Supreme Court decision on Obergefell would have been different lets say, 30 years ago.
    Society was ready and eager for the change, it would have come one way or the other amendment or not.

    Look at booze issues. Prohibition ! Then oops.nope, lets make an amendment to cancel the amendment

    Of course, things should be done lawfully and constitutionally.

  • I can’t help it if your argument is not only a well worn script, but not a very intelligent one to begin with.

    Social Conservatives always whine about the judiciary because they never have sane legal arguments to support their incessant need to attack others under color of law.

    All it does is get people like you to contribute campaign money and votes to go-nowhere promises of politicians who look to attack your economic interests. Your hate of civil liberties is so great you guys are willing to back a whole panopoly of morally and ethically repugnant people.

    Its funny how you miss the point of the decision entirely. An argument about “redefining marriage” only has merit if you can justify why it had to be defined in the original way. Same as an argument from tradition. You still have to defend why a definition and tradition must stay. You guys couldn’t.

    “It certainly did not come out of the Constitution.”

    Of course it does. It was part of the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your ignorance is duly noted.

    “In any case, the remedy to that, and to you, and to Ben is the amendment process.”

    More honest version: I am not good at this game, I am going to try to take the ball away. Whaaaah.

  • Even straight men can have homosexual sex without sinning. But my guess is they don’t want to….so they judge instead. Over 1500 species of animals have homosexual members that form pair bonds. Why would humans be any different?

  • There is no curse of Ham in the Bible, but the prohibition of homosexual behavior is.

    The ssm-affirmers are on the same wave-length as the curse-of-Ham’ers. Both tried (and are still trying) unsuccessfully to shoehorn a purely cultural agenda into holy scripture.

  • If that had been the framers’ intention, given their grave concerns about future federal overreach, they simply would have granted to Congress a power over all commerce. It would not have been limited to commerce “among the several states,” with the balance remaining among the powers reserved to the states.

  • we are reading and interpreting the bible differently . In other words, the water is wet, of course,… because its been going on forever, division in opinions among Christians will be in existence long after we both turn into dust, Shawnie. We just have to agree to disagree.

  • At no point does a royal wear a signifying robe and battle armor at the same time. It would put a target on them. The robe was just his clothing and since they didn’t wear “underwear” he get naked. He loved him as his own soul. The souls were knit together. They wept and held each other. They made a convenant. The love is greater than the love of women.
    What part of gay don’t you understand?

  • heee. Well stated , our good ol Spudz.
    if giving gays rights to marriage is “redefining marriage” then giving women/blacks the right to vote is “redefining voting”,
    and freeing slaves is “redefining personal property”

  • Obergfell was hardly the surprise people make it out to be. It is the culmination of about 20 years of decisions incrementally stripping away the legal acceptability of discrimination against gays.

    1996-Romer v. Evans, laws which specifically target gays for discrimination are stricken down. Sexual orientation is recognized as a class for Equal Protection arguments

    2003-Lawrence v. Texas, Homosexuality can no longer be criminalized.

    2013-Hollingsworth v. Perry, a gay marriage ban (after such things have been legal for some time) is overturned in CA, SCOTUS punts rather than discuss the case.
    2013- Windsor v. US, Tax laws refusing to acknowledge legal gay marriage in a state are declared discriminatory. DOMA is dead

    Throughout this time from 2003 to 2013 various federal district/appellate courts were striking down gay marriage bans left and right on equal protection grounds.

    Then we get to Obergfell, and only because the reactionary 6th Circuit was the only Appellate Court to uphold a gay marriage ban by relying on reference to laws made obsolete by the prior rulings mentioned previously. Finally opening up the issue to a national ruling by SCOTUS. If not for the 6th Circuit’s error in judgment, the issue would still be a state by state fight and a patchwork of conflicting laws.

  • Doing things lawfully and constitutionally also means through the courts. Especially for laws which specifically harm classes of people.

  • And the case dealt with commerce among the several states.

    What do you think the phrase meant – New York selling corn to Pennsylvania?

  • The well worn script, of course, is democracy, something you and your friends absolutely hate.

    The interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment FOLLOWS Justice Kennedy’s redefinition of marriage, which arises from nowhere except his previous musings.

    Doe law mean anything at to you?

    Of course not.

  • Prior to Obergefell, the people of California had passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Its courts, in their usual disregard of the will of the people declared the constitutional amendment unconstitutional!

    Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state had legislated either civil unions or same sex marriage – the difference is nil.

    In other words, the usual states on the East and West coasts – many of the same ones that had legalized abortion prior to 1973 – were doing their own thing.

    In every other state where same sex marriage was permitted it was by order of a state or district court – the judiciary in its 21st century legislative mode.

    That doesn’t sound like “(s)ociety was ready and eager for the change”. If society was, the legislatures at the state level and the amendment process at the Federal level was readily available.

    Like Roe v. Wade, this was a judicially-fashioned coup d’état rather a social movement.

    Ben in Oakland brings up the red herring of a marriage in state A not being recognized in state B. It was becoming clear that the “full faith and credit” clause was trumping attempts at both the state and federal levels to not recognize other states’ marriages.

  • Yes, agreed. Actually I think its even better this way, court decisions are the result of a long, hard political process. no civil right ever given thru such a fight have ever been revoked.
    My question to the opponent is why so hellbent on the Amendments as the preferred method of change? Its not the first time I hear the plea to “do it thu the amendment! ” and cant understand the argument. So they really think it would have changed the outcome?

  • LOL! You are arguing that civil liberties don’t really exist and that any of them can be taken away by majority vote. Something far and away from our concepts of Democracy.

    We have the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as a way to specifically limit the power of our legislature to attack its citizens. We have our judiciary and its power to strike down unconstitutional laws to redress how such attacks harm fellow citizens.

    Your whole argument has been whining and making silly threats to our system because your bigotry isn’t recognized under color of law.

    “FOLLOWS Justice Kennedy’s redefinition of marriage”

    Still no argument why the old definition had to stay. I guess when your POV is nothing more than excuses for discrimination, its tough to cough one up that sounded plausible.

    Your argument is from a truly brain dead script. “Redefinition” is not an argument. You have to justify why the old definition could not be changed.

  • I imagine Jesus and you together, on Judgment Day. Jesus smiles gently and says,
    “My dear, what Matthew recorded was a real conversation between me and the Pharisees. Real conversations have topics, purposes, points. The topic of that conversation was divorce. The Pharisees had asked me whether divorce is permissible – whether a spouse is permitted to break up his marriage. My principal purpose in that conversation was to answer their question, to state that divorce is impermissible.
    “I had two other purposes in that conversation. My second purpose was closely related to my principal purpose. It was to show the Pharisees why divorce is impermissible. My third purpose was unrelated to the first two; it was to chide the Pharisees for their failure to have found the answer to their question in scripture. Scripture showed why divorce is impermissible. The reason was given right there in Genesis 2:24, but the Pharisees (for all their boasting of learning and authority) had not seen it. So, I chided them by calling their attention to the relevant scripture. I called their attention to Genesis 1 and 2 generally: ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” and said, . . .?’ Then I quoted what God said; I quoted Genesis 2:24.
    “God said that marriage is a perfect union of two creatures – a union so perfect morally or spiritually or emotionally or socially that it may be likened to a physical merger. The implication, which the Pharisees missed, is that marriage is not made by the creatures but by God himself, and that the creatures’ destruction of a marriage is therefore impermissible rebellion. Genesis 2:24 told the Pharisees why divorce is not permitted, but I chided them again by drawing its implication. I said, ‘So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let no one separate.’
    “My dear, I pointed the Pharisees’ attention to something about the essential nature of marriage by quoting Genesis 2:24. My reference to Genesis 1 and 2 generally, which Matthew recorded at chapter 19, verse 4, was only calling the Pharisees’ attention to Genesis 2:24, and was not intended also to teach something about the essential nature of marriage. More specifically, it was not intended to teach something about the qualifications for marriage.
    “Alas, not just you but many of my followers have failed to read Matthew’s account as a record of a real conversation with specific topic and purposes. They have mistaken my words in Matthew’s account, which served only to direct the Pharisee’s attention to scripture. They have mistaken them as teaching that only a man and a woman are qualified for marriage. I am happy to correct that mistake on this Day when all is made clear.”

  • Because its the only way around a SCOTUS decision on civil liberties. But really its just a grift by conservative politicians to get Bible thumpers to support causes which are entirely lost.

  • In short, you don’t have an answer to the question, but would prefer to make some bugaboo out of obergefell. Right wing intellectual poverty at its finest.

    Everywhere and everywhen polygamy has been practiced, it has been a heterosexual institution, sanctified by conservative religion. Without exception. And that includes Christian Africa, virulently anti gay and anti same sex marriage to the core.

    Nowhere that same sex marriage is a reality has polygamy become a thing. Nowhere.

    If polygamy every becomes a “thing”. It will be because heterosexual society wanted it. But it won’t in the West, because it doesn’t work that way.

  • Because the primary drafter of the Constitution, in explaining to the people the reasons why it should be ratified, assured them in Federalist 78:

    “…in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions…Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution.”

    Prescient the founders were, indeed.

  • You misunderstand…the court’s pronouncement that the Interstate Commerce clause does not confine the federal government’s power to interstate commerce opened the door for the quickly ensuing state of affairs where every commercial activity, even purely intrastate commerce, was swallowed up by this clause — resulting in United States vs. Wrightwood Dairy and ultimately Wickard vs. Filburn, both decided the following year.

  • Placing your already-stated and refuted argument into the mouth of Jesus does not enhance it in any fashion. I asked if you have anything OTHER than a reiteration.

  • Who told you that royals didn’t wear royal robes into battle? “So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up against Ramoth-gilead. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will disguise myself and go into the battle, but you put on your robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into the battle.” 1Kings 22:29-30

    Who told you that they didn’t wear undergarments? “He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban.” Lev.16:4

    “The souls were knit together.” The exact same words are used to describe Jacob’s love for his son Benjamin — which is far more analogous to this situation, as Jonathan was thirty years older than his brother-in-law, and a married father.

    “They wept and held each other.” So did Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Benjamin, Orpah and Naomi, etc.

    “They made a convenant.” Which David later fulfilled by bringing Jonathan’s only surviving son to the palace to live as a member of the royal family after the death of both Saul and Jonathan. There are many kinds of covenants to be found in scripture.

    “The love is greater than the love of women.” Perhaps you’re not aware that in the ancient world, where marriages were mostly arranged and spouses were not expected to be friends/companions, sexual love was deemed of a lower grade than love between friends and brothers. “Eros” in koine Greek is lower than “philia” and philia is lower than “agape.” My husband, who is an avid military history buff, informed me a long time ago that the bonds between brothers in arms (which David and Jonathan were) are stronger than many familial bonds — particularly in David’s case, who had too many women to be particularly close to any of them, probably.

    Where are you getting all this nonsense? I suspect you’re drawing upon some specific gay apologist site, as I had a similar exchange with another fellow some time back who made all the same foolish points as you.

  • Almost all gay people are born of heterosexual parents. You learn morality by example, and it is not moral to shame people who have absolutely zero desire for the opposite sex.

  • My wife is not a husband, nor am I her husband, we are each other’s wives.

    No lie before nature, much of nature has same sex pair bonding. New research show it happens in nearly all species according to new studies. You can find them at Live Science dot com for more information.

    No one who isn’t gay, needs to get a gay marriage.

    Everyone needs to treat each other with love and kindness, which does not mean turning them away from you place of business, when you don’t even know them, because you assume they sin. You don’t even know if that gay couple has sex or not, just like straight couples may or may not. They may even have separate bedrooms.

    Being lesbian is a part of my life, it is not a lifestyle. Gay people have as many different lifestyles as heterosexual people do. Newspapers have entire Lifestyle sections, because we all have different interests and ways to live. Do you like to camp? Or do you like the night life? Those are lifestyle choices. Joining a church, not joining a church, are lifestyle choices. Being left handed is not a lifestyle choice, nor is being gay.

    How do any of you really think that treating us with open discrimination will make anyone get a divorce, walk away from the love of their lives, and join your church? Would you join a group of people who berate you?

  • So do we, sand, so do we.

    “”Reflect on the statutes of the Lord,
    and meditate at all times on His commandments.
    It is He who will give insight to your mind,
    and your desire for wisdom will be granted”.

    Sirach 7:37

    May God bless you too.

  • the truth is outlined to help them to know they need not remain in that bondage to the filth they follow.
    Christ died so we can be free from our sin peep. Why would anyone want to remain in something that is killing them when Christ said He would cleanse us of our sin?

  • If you are going to be honest, you do not know what Jesus said. The Gospels were not written in Jesus time, nor in his town, nor in his language. And Jesus would have spoken to [his people] in a semitic language, which is not the language of the Gospels. So you really do not know what the biblical Jesus said. If you cannot be honest about that, then there is no point in having this conversation.

  • Any sex outside of marriage is a sin, so you have billions of people to target for this crime without specifically targeting homosexuals. Is masturbation a homosexual act? What did Jesus say? None of this is referenced in the Ten Commandments. Are they your moral commandments?

  • Be ashamed! We should be governed by Christian morality in this forum and so we should not pretend to be obtuse. (I doubt that you are actually obtuse.) Above, you stated, “If the creation order were ‘outdated’ I seriously doubt that Jesus would have referred us back to it as the proper measure of God’s will for moral human relations.” Now, as you know, I have not asserted that the creation order is outdated. Regarding marriage, I have asserted that one original purpose of marriage is obsolete, but all God’s other purposes of marriage abide. And this is not the ugliest aspect of your remark.
    You point to Jesus’ referring us back to the creation order as revealing God’s will for human relations. But you understand Jesus’ reference as including not only Genesis 2:24. You understand it as making normative also God’s command to procreate. You understand it as making normative the marriage of a male and a female. But you go even further. You understand Jesus’ reference to the creation order as implying God’s prohibition of infertile or childless marriage and God’s prohibition of same-sex marriage. You have packed Jesus’ reference to Genesis 2:24 with an untenable load of implications. No normal person listening in on Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew 19 would ever make the inferences about God’s will that you have made. The question of procreation was not on the table. The question of qualification for marriage was not on the table. These questions and others were irrelevant to the permissibility of divorce.
    I thought it might help bring you to your senses if we imagined Jesus’ explaining himself to you. Was I wrong? Are you really hopelessly ignorant of or unable to apply the ordinary conventions of human conversation?

  • Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin that leads to death peep – as all sins do.
    Homosexuality is being upheld by our culture and many, many homosexuals are going to perish thinking nothing is wrong.
    If we dont help them and teach them there is a better way, precious people are going to end up in perdition. Jesus died for them that they need not. He will forgive them upon repentance.

  • thegospels were written by His followers peep. We know some of what Jesus said. We also know that He will forgive them upon repentance. Let’s help them instead of hurting them like this culture is.

  • “Be ashamed! “ No, I don’t think I will. Sorry you’re so disturbed by being challenged and refuted but that is the nature of discussions here and one must get used to it if one wishes to remain.

    “Regarding marriage, I have asserted that one original purpose of marriage is obsolete, but all God’s other purposes of marriage abide.“. Very convenient, that. And supported by nothing in scripture.

    “No normal person listening in on Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew 19 would ever make the inferences about God’s will that you have made”. Very ironic. I’ll tell you what “no normal person “ listening to Christ would have done, and that is to torture a loophole for sexual immorality (which “every normal person” listening to Jesus understood perfectly well to include homosexual behavior) out of His teachings. He had to define the true nature and purpose of marriage in order to demonstrate why it was wrong to break it. And to ignore His teaching of the centrality ofmale-female duality to this scheme is to make His entire point ridiculous.

    “I thought it might help bring you to your senses if we imagined Jesus’ explaining himself to you. Was I wrong?“. It’s only a rhetorical device, one which I remember seeing on HuffPo some years ago from a poster who also could not make her case from God’s word so she had to craft a little mini drama out of her own words, starring Jesus.

    “Are you really hopelessly ignorant of or unable to apply the ordinary conventions of human conversation?” If I were, your argument might make sense to me. The main reason why the ssm affirmers have fooled so many in the Church is because too many Christians do not know scripture and are helpless at weighing and evaluating the claims people make about it.

  • I’m not sure what you would consider hatred if you think people deserve to burn in hell for all eternity just for loving the same gender and women should be banned from being leaders isn’t hatred.

  • If Jesus is the same yesterday,today, and forever, why do Christians have no problems voting for a president that grabs women by their privates and calls foreign countries racist insults?

  • ‘Til Tuesday writes —
    ” The fight goes on and on….. It’s not clear yet which side will win out. ”

    But ‘it is clear’ which side will win out. I’m surprised you’re not easily aware of that. Look around you. Look at the many good things that are slowly happening towards the LGBT community and all over the world too.

    Consider these things. Paul, who authored most of the NT and most of the negativity about homosexuality, describes here the nature of his own knowledge and understanding —
    1. …our (my) knowledge is partial and incomplete…
    2. …we (I) see things imperfectly…
    3. All that I know now is partial and incomplete…
    (1 Corinthians 13:9,12)

    Therefore, anything he wrote about homosexuality ‘can or should be’ described as partial and incomplete and with imperfection. That opens up all kinds of new and better attitudes to be considered towards LGBT’s. That’s amazing and beautiful news.

    But what kinds of ‘new and better attitudes’ can we expect? Here’s a few samples, as I’ve written them many times before —

    1. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way…..Romans 14:13
    2. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God…..Romans 15:7
    3. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love….Ephesians 4:2
    4. …all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble….1 Peter 3:8
    5. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…..Philippians 2:3
    6. Be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone…..Titus 3:2
    7. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…..Luke 6:37
    8. ABOVE ALL, LOVE EACH OTHER DEEPLY, because love covers over a multitude of sins..….1 Peter 4:8
    9. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men…..Philippians 4:5
    10. Don’t seek your own good, but the good of others…….. 1 Corinthians 10:24
    11. Follow after the things that make for peace……Romans 14:19
    Here’s a big one —
    12. In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets………Matthew 7:12

    There is such a thing as ‘contemporary’ or ‘modern’ or ‘new’ inspiration and they can be illustrated this way —
    1. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and ‘reaching forward’ to the things that are ahead………Philippians 3:13
    2. …words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words to spiritual people……..1Cor 2:13

    What we’ll eventually know then will always be ‘less partial’, ‘less incomplete’ and we’ll ‘see things more perfectly’.

    That is the nature of the inspirational work of the Holy Spirit in the world today.

  • Marriage is a “lie before nature”, as it does not occur in nature.

    You don’t have to be a part of my life. Given your sanctimony, I would prefer it if you stay as far from my life as you can.

    But if you want a superficial construct, please feel free to have one in your own life, and keep yours out of mine.

  • It is quite obvious you have not read the decision in its entirety.

    Roberts’ dissent is as good an explanation of why the definition of marriage was law.

    And by what authority did Justice Kennedy write a new definition – change the law, the act of a legislator?

    But it matters not.

    When the amendments come, and they will, your arguments will count for naught except to make it clear why amendments were necessary.

  • I provided the answer: Obergefell cut the ground out from any prohibitions. Test cases have already arisen in state courts in Montana, Utah, and Colorado. It is only a matter of time since Obergefell undercut the legal objections completely.

    scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=jcl_online

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420614/polygamy-right-side-history-charles-c-w-cooke

    And I know that’s been pointed to you in the past. But you got yours, and that’s all that matters.

    You live in a society where, unless a constitutional amendment intervenes, polygamy is likely to become a thing. Expect the ACLU to be at the forefront.

    Everywhere same sex marriage has been practiced, it has been part of a pagan culture.

    Polygamy has never been part of the Christian patrimony, and it was only tolerated in Judaism, which frowned on it.

    Same sex marriage did not become a thing because heterosexual society wanted it, nor will polygamy.

    But it is no matter to you – you got yours, and that is ALL that matters. Society be damned.

    Here’s a bit of commonsense:

    “One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system. Many argue that a just society grants a right to engage in homosexual conduct. If that view is accepted, the ‘Bowers’ decision in effect says the State of Georgia has the right to make a wrong decision – wrong in the sense that it violates some people’s views of rights in a just society. We can extend that slightly to say that Georgia’s right to be wrong in matters not specifically controlled by the Constitution is a necessary component of its own political processes. Its citizens have the political liberty to direct the governmental process to make decisions that might be wrong in the ideal sense, subject to correction in the ordinary political process.”

    The author of that bit of commonsense was none other than Anthony Kennedy in an article written a year or so before he became a Supreme Court justice, power corrupted, and his eyes began to roll around in his head.

  • Is it about giving in to social norms, or popularity as someone so dismissively puts it, or is it about recognizing that we must progress as a species?

  • not surprised at your response. light always makes darkness disappear.
    well if i were you i would stop presenting such foolishness to the world. some things indeed should be kept to yourself.no one cares about your sex life.
    How ever all human life is produced from egg and sperm. including yours. nothing is produced from same sex interaction. So the question of equality is not valid. thats science not sanctimony.
    Folk like you are attempting to present a human activity and an unproductive form at that, as a lifestyle.
    When you identify yourself as an activity, you are broadcasting your privacy in a manner in a way that hetero folk never think about.
    Thats COMMON SENSE not sanctimony. A biology refresher course will do wonders for you as well as a math primer. check it out. PEACE

  • Actually its more obvious you either didn’t or don’t understand it.

    Your entire argument is borne of either ignorance or willful dishonest refusal to look at facts here.

    The dissents in that case were a joke. Appeals to tradition without the necessary explanation why it must be maintained and Scalia making threats of grave occurrences from the decision.

    Dissents are not law or even necessary elements of a decision.

    For the last time, you ignorant troll. An argument about definition or tradition only counts if you can provide reasons to maintain them. None existed here. None exist now.

    Which is why your primary argument was a collateral attack on the judiciary in general. You are trying tomake a lame end run around having to defend a gay marriage ban in a manner respected by our laws.

    Your entire spiel is simply a spineless way to defend bigotry and discrimination by dancing around it. Your hate no longer had color of law, boo hoo. Grow up, move on and stop being such an easy mark.

  • I have some bad news for you.

    I didn’t bring up my sex life. I don’t discuss it in public forums. YOU brought it up. YOU are the one thinking about it.

    But that’s what you sex and homosex obsessed so called Christians do. Constantly think about the sex lives of others, and then tell us that our lives are all about sex.

    Projection is what you thrive on. Well, that and sanctimony.

  • Still, no answer. But a lot of lies. Everywhere same sex marriage has been practiced, it is part of a pagan culture? And that is why there are so many individuals, churches, synagogues, ministers, rabbis, and entire denominations that welcome same sex couples into their institutions and liturgy, because they are all pagans!

    I got mine, so Society be damned? Amazing, only in fundelibangelists christian
    LAnd is society harmed by more people participating in the fundamental building block of society, marriage, and family.

    As I said earlier, the issue really is that it galls you no end that the people you despise so much are now your equals, society be damned. But thanks for admitting that it is really all about authority for you, and your particular religion Uber Alles.

    Always good to know,

  • There ya go with that.. did they reproduce themselves nope.. what you are describing is a human activity not a definition of a human species. All humans have the ability to homosex just as all men have the ability to lie steal and murder.
    you are in the process of convincing your self that you are happy but you arent really.you remind me of of two male electric plugs laying side by side with no juice.
    How about we deal with science and COMMON SENSE.. you were brought here by heteros.
    if a an apple comes from an orange tree, guess what? the apple is defective not the tree.
    see if you can connect the dots.
    biology and math primers for you.

    PEACE

  • “I can give a long, long, long list of the horrors perpetrated on humanity by anti-Christians, atheists, and individuals who were LBGT.”

    Actually, I’d like to see that list, or at least the top 10 on it. (Not being sarcastic; genuinely interested).

  • you think marriage equality would not have won over minds of populace in due time? When country after country after country kept legalizing gay marriage you think USA would’ve stayed in dark ages forever?

    Then our disagreements run too deep too expect any benefit from further debate.

  • if they were so smart why didn’t they written it in a way that your viewpoint is supported beyond question?
    The fact remains,the judicial way is legal and approved by law. Done deal.
    More clarity is expected from corporate lawyers, ( you want it to be interpreted in one concrete way – write the law in a way that eliminates the other possibilities)

  • ok, I’ll bite.
    Explain, if you please, why do you consider legislators’ actions to be so bad? Why is doing it thru amendments so infinitely better? Many civil rights were achieved thru judicial means, i see nothing wrong with it.

    If “Founding Fathers intended it this way “is your answer, I disagree right away, Those guys couldn’t agree among themselves, were vague and left too much open to interpretation.

    If any law can be interpreted in different ways, that renders any
    claim “my view is more legal and better than yours” moot

  • Since I did not characterize legislators’ actions to be bad, I really can’t explain why I “consider legislators’ actions to be so bad”.

    I don’t believe marriage being between a man and a woman was left “open to interpretation”, and suggest you read both the dissents and the briefs filed in Obergefell to know why.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, also did not feel it was left “open to interpretation” – he freely admits he’s changing the definition.

    The question is not whether any law can be interpreted different ways, the question is whether courts should interpret different then they were meant, revise them, edit them, and if they happen not to care for them, amend them.

  • Everywhere that same sex marriage has been practiced has been part of a pagan culture.

    That in Western Europe and North America, both sinking into post Judeo-Christian neo-paganism so many confused individuals, post-Christian churches, ultra-liberal synagogues, so-called ministers, nominal rabbis, and entire denominations such as the Unitarians, what’s left of the Episcopal Church, and the like accept same sex marriage proves the point.

    Social scientists of various stripes have raised alarms over the impact of legalizing same sex marriage, concerned that it will compound the damage caused by no-default divorce, and the other social engineering that benighted the 20th century, causing all manner of social evils we are just now beginning to comprehend.

    Yes, the building block of society is a mother, a father, and children. The founders believed that, and cited the Roman Republic as their model. They would be shocked at the inanities being palmed off as enlightened thinking.

    What galls you to no end is that there is no evidence at all that your cause improves society, or has popular support, and it had to be imposed by a borderline megalomaniac and his lower court henchpersons by judicial fiat after getting defeated in the democratic process.

    But, you got yours.

  • I have not participated in this thread, which appears to be ending, for a few days.

    For atheists see the 20th century communist dictatorships, particularly Stalin and Pol Pot.

    For anti-Christians, review the history of Islam as it destroyed a Middle Eastern Christian civilization.

    For specifically LBGT, look at Ernst Röhm and the Brown shirts.

  • More nonsense than I have the inclination to deal with.

    Neo pagan? All you mean is at those Christians aren’t your sort of christian.

    Social scientists? Like Regnerus? Who was paid $700K to produce a hit piece that was laughed out of court. Only hyper conservative social scientists. No one else.

    No evidence that we have social support? Not among hyper conservative authoritarians, of course. But Ireland and Australia disagree with you, as do the last four state elections on the subject. Washington, Minn, Maryland, and Maine all voted you down.

    But whatever you need to believe, because no amount of fAct will ever convince you otherwise,

  • More nonsense than I have the inclination to deal with.

    Christians? You mean those Christians who belong to sects where a belief in a God is not a requirement, like the Unitarians and the Episcopal Church.

    Social scientists? You mean like the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association which listed homosexuality in DSM I under “paraphilia”, in DSM II under “sexual orientation disturbance”, in DSM III “ego-dystonic homosexuality”, and then revised it in DSM-III-R and subsequent editions out of existence?

    Do you mean the American Psychological Association, which issued a statement that there were no problems with homosexuals as parents, and then faced a firestorm from researchers who had found evidence otherwise, and pointed to multiple errors in the APA’s references.

    No evidence that you have social support? Not among Americans, of course. You have to go to Ireland and Australia and the Peoples Republics of Washington, Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine. The majority of states that voted, including your own, voted otherwise.

    But you got yours, and that is ALL that counts.

  • I believe that progress in inevitable, and those clinging to the old norms are doomed to eventually age out of constituency ;), in other words, polls show that absolute majority of young people are pro-gay marriage, thus the future belongs to that view being the norm.
    Which question it begs, do tell. I am not sure.( I am not a native english speaker, so bear with me)

  • Why not? Isn’t it what the progress is, redefining the old ideas. Property in the old days of founding fathers included slaves, human beings. Claiming a human as one’s property(slave) and attempting to sell/buy him is a criminal offense today.

    Also whats wrong with interpreted the law differently and amending them?

  • As I said, no amount of actual facts are going to disturb you. That you have to go back to DSM ONE— 45 years— to prove your point says everything.

    But that is what I have learned about antigay bigots who have been irretrievably poisoned by their beliefs. They’ve been poisoned.

    Those people are not reAl Christians like you. Those elections don’t count, because those people are marxists and socialists and probably Kenyans.

  • How much more clearly did they have to write it than Article VI? “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY [emphasis mine], anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    The judges are bound by it; it is not theirs to monkey with. The job of changing it belongs to the people, and the process is specified within the instrument itself.

    But people naturally gravitate toward tyranny; envy and greed combined with ignorance drive them to push against the safeguards of responsible liberty. It is why Washington and Franklin were very pessimistic about the people being able to hold on to the sophisticated and finely-tuned masterpiece of a government framework which they had been gifted. They have been proven correct.

    “The fact remains,the judicial way is legal and approved by law. Done deal.” No, judicial legislation and unilateral amendment is NOT legal or approved by law, even if it HAS been allowed to go on for much too long. Part of the reason Madame President could not be Madame President is that enough people still care about our social compact to refuse to allow a flood of new leftist stooges who hate the Constitution and rule of law to take over the SCOTUS and shred what is left of our federal republic.

  • In case you skipped American history in high school…we fought a revolution to be able to make our own laws through our representatives and not have unelected and unaccountable old men change them at will.

    Slavery, btw, was abolished by constitutional amendment. By the people.

    “Also whats wrong with interpreted the law differently and amending them?” If you contract with me to create a white wedding dress for you for X amount of dollars, what is wrong with my delivering a black cocktail dress instead? I “interpret” it to be a better choice — now give me my money.

    That is what’s wrong with it. We call the Constitution the “social compact” for a reason.

  • Of course. I’m chuckling to myself because I now realize that I misread your post. I initially read it as “by anti-Christian atheists who were LGBT”. I imagined that would be a pretty short list, which is why I was curious to see yours!

  • Anonymous guy on the Internet tell me I’m not really happy? I didn’t know you were a mind reader. Any idea how incredibly insulting that is? Its enough for me to ignore you as you have nothing but insults to offer.
    Marriage is not about procreation. You don’t have to be able to procreate to marry. No state requires that, nor ever has. It is about pair bonding, which the science I told you you could find shows that all species have homosexual poor bonds. In humans, people who bond or marry, live longer than those who don’t, but I guess it’s ok with you if we all die younger than we need.
    You seem to be saying that its ok for you to have a soul mate, a life partner, some one to hold you when you hurt, to comfort and be comforted in times of sorrow, to share joy and bliss when things are going well, someone to walk your spiritual path with, someone to say “do you remember when we…? Someone to snuggle with, get a cold glass of water on hot day, or who has a hot bath waiting for you after you’ve been shoveling snow. Some one to read out loud to, some one to roll over and se drooling on the pillow after 25 years and your heart still stops, full of love at the sight, but it’s not ok for Ben or I to have any of that. Because we weren’t made to be straight.
    You, sir, need the science education, that shows we are born gay. If god didn’t want me this way, he shouldn’t have created me this way. But I have far to much personal integrity to live a lie by marrying a man, and making him miserable as well. That would be unkind and the real sin in my mind. Take it up with your god, but mine loves my wife and I, and what we give to our family and our community.

  • I skipped American High school altogether – I was here on H1 visa, now a resident.
    Anyway, I disagree with you. Civil rights act, Brown vs board of education… I believe that achieving things thru courts is neither bad, no, clearly , illegal.
    Color black can not be interpreted to mean white. Marriage can be defined in many ways.
    Appreciate the conversation but no, I am not convinced

  • Wow, another church body about to give up on the authentic Christian Faith, rooted in Holy Scripture.

    It’s also a question (unwelcome to some for sure) to ask how a denomination bearing the name Evangelical can be ordaining women in clear contradiction to the Word of God (do I really have to cite verses of Scripture?).

    So many divisions opening up between those wishing to be identified as Christians.

  • “Judges shall by bound thereby” can interpreted to mean “judges may change” just as easily as black may be interpreted to mean white.

    You can find black somewhere in the “penumbra” of white — and vice versa too. :-D.

    Anyway, your reply explains a lot. Thanks for the honest clarification.

  • “Black can mean white” idea clearly didn’t get any traction, thus remaining just a theory :).

    I have 2 degrees -in Math and in my chosen field, IT. If two highly regarded IT professionals disagree on an certain idea usually both have enough practical and theoretical backing to support their versions. In such case the industrial application of each plan reveals which one is right and/or better.

    There clearly are at least 2 schools of thought on the subject of judicial activism, each with enough backing from respected constitutional attorneys. There clearly are not enough legal means provided by law to stop it, it clearly works, often to great ends( desegregation, etc.)

    How can you expect me to believe that the interpretation of the Amendment that allows judicial activism is not a valid one? Why should I,not being a law professional, not at least take those opinions as worthy of consideration?

    I expect my professional opinions to be respected, how can I not return the favor to pros in other areas?

  • “There clearly are not enough legal means provided by law to stop it…” Well, there is, and it is in progress right now. And there is more, such as the outright refusal of the executive to enforce the pronouncements of the judiciary, but although it has been resorted to before it is hoped that it need not come to that again.

    “it clearly works,” It does? Forty-four years after Roe people are still divided over abortion, and the left is still screaming continually about “reproductive freedom being in peril.” That is because it was an issue that did not belong to the feds as per the constitution and was improperly usurped by them; the stink of illegitimacy lingers around it and will not go away.

    “often to great ends( desegregation, etc.)” Desegregation was accomplished in direct furtherance of the 14th Amendment which was enacted for the purpose of eliminating racial discrimination in state law. Desegregation came about because the previous solution, “separate but equal” did not in fact prove to deliver equality (it may be argued that desegregation did not either, but that is a discussion for another thread). What you are advocating is “benevolent” judicial activism independent of any constitutional authority, and it was exactly what Washington warned of in his farewell address: “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

    “How can you expect me to believe that the interpretation of the Amendment that allows judicial activism is not a valid one? Why should I,not being a law professional, not at least take those opinions as worthy of consideration?” Well of course that was what the British monarchy, from whom we fought a revolution to free ourselves, thought as well — why shouldn’t you ignorant provincials simply defer to our superior wisdom and experience? Our Constitution represents the outright repudiation of that notion. Only the voice of the American people is lawfully supreme here, not “experts” nor oligarchs nor megalomaniacs. And particularly not lawyers (which most judges are) for lawyers contrary to popular myth are not trained to seek blind justice — they are trained to sell whatever argument will get the most goodies for their clients, for a price.

  • Of course you believe that progress is inevitable, and that your views are progress.

    EVERYONE assumes she or he is correct.

    Fortunately young people mature into adults.

  • No, progress is not redefining old ideas.

    Progress may involve returning to old ideas, discarding new or old ideas, having new ideas … all change is not progress by definition.

    The job of amending laws in the American system does not belong to judges.

  • If folks aren’t poisoned, a few days over at JoeMyGod ought to do the job.

    You wouldn’t know if “no amount of actual facts are going to disturb you” since you don’t have a really big stash of facts to try disturbing anyone with.

    Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges taken together are probably the Dredd Scott decision to get folks to stop looking at the legislators to stop the judiciary.

    Since your position won less than 15% of the states by elections, I am sure no one but you knows what you’re talking about.

  • Unconvincing for multitude of reasons, mainly the lack of logic and ability to listen to your opponent.
    You are the perfect argument why I should continue the fight against conservativism, and help progressive and liberal movements.
    Have a good day.

  • they will mature into adults and become gay hating bigots and will reverse the marriage equality ? ha ha ha

    Have a good day.

  • because i listen to JESUS .. JESUS Always Agrees with HIS FATHER. you can be assured that JESUS dont lie.

  • you said you were gay..”wife and wife”= homosex . i would rather understand you via your humanity rather than your bedroom activity.. when you define yourself by a fetish you already put your business out..

  • Nope. Didn’t mention sex. You did. But sure, project it on to me. You wouldn’t be an evangenital if you couldn’t insist that your thoughts are mine.

  • you did that.. you are the one offended by the Principles of life not me.. pretty funny “evangenital”.

    i must have hit on something there..

  • Do you have any idea what hell is? Even many Christians don’t.

    Points to consider:

    1. “God is Love.” (I John 4:8)

    2. “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (I John 1:5)

    3. “”Love your enemies that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes His light to shine on the evil and on the good.” (Matthew 5:4-5)

    4. “God will be all in all.” (I Corinthians 5:28)

    5. The New Jerusalem (Kingdom of God): “its gates will never be shut…but nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood…” (Revelation 21:25,27)

    After the end of this world, in the new age, God will be all in all. The gates of the Kingdom will be wide open to all. His light and His love will be an inescapable reality, illumining and loving all things endlessly. For those who in this world have opened themselves and conformed themselves to His light, His holiness, His love, it will be a great joy.

    For those who have not, His love will be a foreign and alien thing, something they have long rejected but now cannot avoid, something they long to escape but from which there is nowhere to go, something they hate above all things.

    But God is love. He cannot change His nature; He will continue loving them and showering them with blessings, and they will continue to reject it and denounce it as the greatest of evils. Their rejection of love will cause them great pain, just like a diseased eye rejects the wholesome light and is pained by it, but the fault is not with the light, but with the eye.

  • That depends on whether or not one considers it to be “progress”. The second alternative of your question presupposes that it is, but that is not an assumption I (and many others) necessarily share.

  • That all depends on whether you’re on the giving end or receiving of 2000 years of invidious discrimination and Oppression, including prisons, murders, beatings, vilification, being blamed for every social ill that you couldn’t possibly have a thing to do with, broken families, broken careers, suicides, substance abuse, and a host of other ills…

    All visited on people who have done nothing to deserve it…

    By people who hide behind god’s word as their reasoning. Shawnie says all sin is just sin, no one worse than the others. Divorced people,people who break the sabbath, people who get drunk, people who don’t believe jesus died for their sins, people who judge others, people who commit adultery…

    None of em get what gay people have gotten for 2000 years.

  • Nothing that hasn’t been going on since the first old man raised a querulousfinger at another old man and hissed “heretic!”

  • Why would your last paragraph be the case? Why would someone, seeing god eye to eye, so to speak, reject god? What kind of sense does that make?

    I understand that that is a Christian meme. I first encountered it in my brief Brush with Christianity nearly 50 years ago. But it defies any nature of any human being I’ve ever met.

  • Well, I guess I don’t always agree with Shawnie. All sin is harmful, but I certainly think some are more harmful than others.

    As for people who experience same-sex attraction, I believe it is wrong to target them for violence, job or housing discrimination, etc., etc. I believe they should be treated with the same compassion and pastoral care as those who engage in other sexual sins, e.g., adultery, fornication, masturbation, and so on. They should not be treated as some sort of special pariah class of sinners, nor have I myself ever done so.

  • Sorry our history, values and Constitution are not to your taste. Perhaps another country would be more suitable. Good luck.

  • Ha! Sorry that american history, values and Constitution that have been perfectly ideal for me , millions of Americans and judicial activists for years are not to your taste. Perhaps another country would bre more suitable for you, . Shawnie. Good luck.

  • What I prefer is rule of law by the people and not oligarchy. And so still do “millions of Americans” who refused to vote an avid fan of judicial activism into office and made sure that the SCOTUS would for the foreseeable future remain in the hands of those who are relatively (if not perfectly) faithful to the Constitution as written and enacted by the people.

    I hope you don’t mind my sharing your contemptuous words about the Constitution with people who need reminding about what “progressive and liberal movements” intend to do with it. Most “progressives and liberals” are less than frank about that because they don’t want to look too much like the Constitution-haters that they actually are.

  • Opposing same sex marriage does not constitute being “gay hating bigots”. ha ha ha

    The notion that everyone who disagrees with you is a (fill in your epithet here) is contrary to American values.

  • Sounds like an advertisement for avoiding doing it in public.

    Or the reasoning behind finding a judge with some loose bolts to authorize it over the objections of the electorate.

  • you are not honest enough to simply state that anyone who opposes same sex marriage, in your very very humble opinion, is a “gay hating bigot” ? ha ha ha

  • We have 2000 years of God working among us. Healings, clairvoyant vision, and many other miraculous occurrences since the times of the Apostles. One has to be willfully obtuse, or living under a rock, not to be aware of them.

    Plenty of healings after prayers to God and His saints, of medically diagnosed diseases, which doctors can verify as happening but cannot explain medically. One I know of first hand.

    Many examples of spiritual elders (startsi) who answer the questions of people they have never met, before the person has even opened their mouth.

    So many things that can be verified. Google St. Nectarios, St. Paisios of Mount Athos, and especially St. John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco. Acts of God’s power through His saints, not in the distant past, but in our own times.

    The evidence is all around us.

  • I suppose some would say that but then,they aren’t interested in helping these people to have a relationship with Jesus either.
    Christ requires nothing more of homosexuals than He does anyone else – repent and be baptised.

  • A little girl was sitting at the dinner table with her family. She demanded to have ice cream, the dessert, first. Her parents said “No, you can have it at the end, like everyone else”. She sat there with an angry scowl through the whole meal, getting madder and madder. Finally, at the end of the meal, her parents served the ice cream. She refused to even touch it. “Don’t you want any?” her parents asked. “NO!”, she replied, gazing at the ice cream through her tears. “I wanted it BEFORE! I don’t want it NOW!”

    Another story:

    A man was traveling on a long voyage by ship. He had with him a trunk full of valued possessions, which he kept chained to him at all times. When the ship suddenly struck a rock and was going down, people jumped overboard to try to swim to a nearby island. Others warned him to abandon the trunk, but he refused. When he jumped into the sea, he found the trunk indeed prevented him from reaching the island. But by then it was too late.

    There are many reasons why one might refuse to enter the open gates of the New Jerusalem. Some, like the little girl, will be angry at God. Angry that He didn’t give them what they wanted. Or angry about life being unfair. Or angry that He didn’t affirm they identity or approve their way of life. Or any number of things.

    Or, like the man on the ship, some will find themselves unable to let go of their valued attachments. How dare God say they have to give them up!

    Being face to face with God will not change them. It will simply reinforce and underline their previous life-long rejection of Him.

  • Pathetic how you think God will do whatever you want just because you snap your fingers for Him to do. Even your friends (assuming you have any, and from your foul-mouthed and nasty attitude that’s a big assumption) wouldn’t do that.

    Sorry you reject clear and reliable evidence because it doesn’t fit in with your own prejudices. But as they say: “There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.”

    And look into some anger management. It is written: “Do not associate with a man given to anger.” (Proverbs 22:24) And so I must bid you adieu.

  • Thanks. I didn’t mean to be flippant, but I am also preparing for a trip tomorrow, and don’t have much time to write.
    I do believe this. If what YOU believe is a reality, then I have little doubt in my mind that most people would have no problem acknowledging that if they come face to face with it. We’re not sheep, but people. we’re not children, but adults. Maybe there are people who are so spiritually benighted, so humane-ly debased, that if confronted with the glory of god, they would simply shut their eyes, put their fingers in their spiritual ears, and scream la-la-lala-la. But I would say that for the vast majority of people, no, that isn’t what would happen, because it would make the afterlife a place of imbecility. That makes no sense to me. Not believing in god, not believing the Christian story, is not the same thing as hating god or hating Christianity.

  • I sincerely hope you are right. Based on my own observations of human nature – I’ve heard a lot of confessions – I fear there may be a lot of the fingers-in-the-ears type people out there.

    In any case, a Byzantine /theology/history scholar I studied under once said in class that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 AD) condemned Origen’s universalism not so much because it was absolutely erroneous, but because it violated human free will to say all would without exception be saved. Since man does indeed have free will, we must keep the question open. We may indeed piously hope that all might somehow be saved. But we cannot depend on it.

    May you have a safe trip!

  • Thanks for the good wishes. I am taking a friend who is afflicted with dementia to a place he has always wanted to go. (I’m not so hot on it myself, but he is one of my oldest and best friends). He is still quite functional, but we simply don’t know how long that will last.

  • No, Herman. Your latest ad hominem response is evidence of your own anger, not mine. As already explained to you above, you have yet to present any valid evidence.

  • Sometimes Richard is, but in reality, no one is. The only “lost cause” there is, are those who refuse to repent of their sin. Then they, and only they have made the choice.

  • You can’t repent for something you haven’t done. We’re here to speak truth, what I meant by lost cause that they were blinded, they weren’t even open to try to understand, as long as the heart is hard the blinding will be blind.

ADVERTISEMENTs