Homosexuality is detrimental and ultimately destructive

[Sinister Rouge]

Yup, BG has outed Kirk Cameron as Mr. Griffith Park.

http://blindgossip.com/?p=39111

Looks like Mr. Hollywood Morality likes riding in cars with boys. Or riding boys in cars. Probably both ;)

[Guest Anonymous]

I never said you shouldn't have the right to criticize him. I have watched some of his debates with Comfort and thought they were laughable even though I am a born again Christian. I do agree with him on being against gay marriage.

Are you against civil unions, too?

And while I'm asking questions, do you eat shrimp? Do you wear cotton/poly blends? Are you in favor of rape victims being forced to marry their rapists, or stoned to death depending on where the rape occurred and what their betrothal status was at the time of the assault? Is it okay with you to simply deny gay people the right to get married, or should they be stoned to death? (Should bisexuals get stoned only half to death?)

[Someonetocall]

I think she meant that Kirk was the twat, not Piers. I've seen Piers on both the talent show and the talk show, I like what I've seen of him.

Def Piers. I mean, also Kirk, but definitely Piers.

Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes.

In July 2011 it was alleged by political blogger Paul Staines that Morgan published a story while knowing it to have been obtained by phone hacking while editor of the Daily Mirror in 2002.

During the Euro '96 football championship, Morgan came up with the brainwave of splashing "ACHTUNG SURRENDER! FOR YOU FRITZ ZE EURO CHAMPIONSHIP IS OVER" on the front page.

In 2000 Morgan got into rather more serious trouble over the "Mirrorgate" scandal, when he was found to have bought shares in Viglen Technology shortly before the company was tipped by his financial columnists, the City Slickers. The columnists were forced to leave the Mirror, but Morgan survived.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 69902.html

[aggythenostic]

You're against gay marriage? Let me suggest that you don't have one then. How do I say this? IT IS NOT HURTING YOU IF OTHER PEOPLE GET YOUR RIGHTS. You cannot convince every American to become Bible believing Christians, and you cannot suggest that they live this way because YOU do. Plus, every current stance I've read from conservative Christians mirrors EXACTLY the arguments against civil rights in the 1960s. You are all going to be very ashamed of yourself in ten years. Besides, it's coming whether you like it or not. Get real.

[Black Aliss]

I'm pretty sure I've never met a man whom I knew for a fact was straight, who spent any amount of time talking about homosexuality. If they were homophobic and straight they didn't even want to acknowledge that "gay sex" [sic] existed; if they were straight and not homophobic, homosexuality was just not a topic they were interested in talking about other than as a human rights issue. The homophobes I've known who couldn't stop talking about gays have all turned out to be closet cases. Not saying it isn't possible for a straight man to be obsessed with talking about homosex, but in my experience it's a really rare phenomenon.

[CC3]

You're against gay marriage? Let me suggest that you don't have one then. How do I say this? IT IS NOT HURTING YOU IF OTHER PEOPLE GET YOUR RIGHTS. You cannot convince every American to become Bible believing Christians, and you cannot suggest that they live this way because YOU do. Plus, every current stance I've read from conservative Christians mirrors EXACTLY the arguments against civil rights in the 1960s. You are all going to be very ashamed of yourself in ten years. Besides, it's coming whether you like it or not. Get real.

I am against gay marriage because God is against it. Marriage is for a man and a woman. It is not my duty to convince every American to come in faith to the Lord Jesus. I also suggest you back away from using the civil rights era of the '60s as a mirror of gay rights. Civil rights were based on racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has no bearing on whether two men or two women get married. You are well aware of the reasons why evangelical Christians do not perform gay marriages. I won't be ashamed in ten years or one hundred years or a thousand years. If America decides to allow gay marriage in every state, that is not my responsibility but the responsibility of those persons who allowed it.

[CC3]

Are you against civil unions, too?

And while I'm asking questions, do you eat shrimp? Do you wear cotton/poly blends? Are you in favor of rape victims being forced to marry their rapists, or stoned to death depending on where the rape occurred and what their betrothal status was at the time of the assault? Is it okay with you to simply deny gay people the right to get married, or should they be stoned to death? (Should bisexuals get stoned only half to death?)

As for your questions, I see you are taking random laws from the Old Testament. When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the law and the old covenant, and we no longer live under those laws. I know some Christians like to follow dietary laws, but that is going one step at a time back into legalism. Each law has been fulfilled. There is no stoning or forcing raped women to marry their rapists. We now live under the new covenant of Christ.

As for gay marriage, I said I am against it, but why in the world would you assume I am looking for people to be killed? It is ok to disagree with me, but don't try to take God's words and twist them. I am not against you as a person although I suspect you are against me. I am one person who believes the Word of God. That's it.

[doggie]

I am against gay marriage because God is against it. Marriage is for a man and a woman. It is not my duty to convince every American to come in faith to the Lord Jesus. I also suggest you back away from using the civil rights era of the '60s as a mirror of gay rights. Civil rights were based on racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has no bearing on whether two men or two women get married. You are well aware of the reasons why evangelical Christians do not perform gay marriages. I won't be ashamed in ten years or one hundred years or a thousand years. If America decides to allow gay marriage in every state, that is not my responsibility but the responsibility of those persons who allowed it.

Get out your proof god is against it. no where in the bible does it say two men can't be married now does it? Remember in the 60's they were preaching blacks and whites could not get married. How did that one work out?

If god does not like gay marriage he should do something about it or forever hold his peace. God made 1500 species of gay animals including a bi sexual squid so he must not mind gay things all that much. remember everyone twists gods words he really screwed up when he made it so people can't agree on the bible.

[CC3]

Get out your proof god is against it. no where in the bible does it say two men can't be married now does it? Remember in the 60's they were preaching blacks and whites could not get married. How did that one work out?

If god does not like gay marriage he should do something about it or forever hold his peace. God made 1500 species of gay animals including a bi sexual squid so he must not mind gay things all that much. remember everyone twists gods words he really screwed up when he made it so people can't agree on the bible.

Doggie, it is in the Bible about people of the same sex living like married couples. I'll look it up for you tomorrow. Actually, God has plenty to say about gays.

As far as the civil rights movement, it was before my time. I don't know anyone preaching that different races can't get married. Maybe you can give me a history lesson.

I'm sorry you don't agree with God. I'm sure it sounds harsh to you when I say no about gay marriage. Over half the American public agrees with me, last time I checked. But that really doesn't matter. I'm tired and going to bed, but I will look it up tomorrow. Good night.

[Witsec1]

I see I have to post this quote again.

Here's what Jesus Christ had to say about homosexuality:

[JesusFightClub]

Get out your proof god is against it. no where in the bible does it say two men can't be married now does it? Remember in the 60's they were preaching blacks and whites could not get married. How did that one work out?

If god does not like gay marriage he should do something about it or forever hold his peace. God made 1500 species of gay animals including a bi sexual squid so he must not mind gay things all that much. remember everyone twists gods words he really screwed up when he made it so people can't agree on the bible.

Doggie, I like you for many reasons, but this post now ranks highly amongst them.

[doggie]

Doggie, it is in the Bible about people of the same sex living like married couples. I'll look it up for you tomorrow. Actually, God has plenty to say about gays.

As far as the civil rights movement, it was before my time. I don't know anyone preaching that different races can't get married. Maybe you can give me a history lesson.

I'm sorry you don't agree with God. I'm sure it sounds harsh to you when I say no about gay marriage. Over half the American public agrees with me, last time I checked. But that really doesn't matter. I'm tired and going to bed, but I will look it up tomorrow. Good night.

the problem is you are assuming god wrote that messed up mis translated full of contradictions book you call the bible. You can say god wrote it all you want but even the bible does not say he wrote it. I mean a book no one can agree on what it even means and what god really wants does not seem like a book god would write.

First, the institution of marriage is a secular and social institution. In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage (as well as the rules of dissolution, as many remember Henry VIII's desire for a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon). The Christian governance of marriage fractured during the Protestant Reformation. Figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin recognized marriage as a civil matter, a worldly affair, and not under the aegis of the church. Still there are many Catholics and non-Catholics alike who recognize marriage as a Christian affair, and further, believe it is divinely endorsed as a heterosexual institution. In my local paper in Kentucky, a letter was sent in to the editor lambasting the New York vote, claiming that marriage was created by God since the story of Adam and Eve is the proof-text. Advocates of this position should note, that Adam and Eve would still need to purchase a civil marriage license if they sought to get married today.

Second, the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another. Adam and Eve as the divine groom and bride is one Biblical arrow in the quiver of same-sex union opponents. The Yahwist creation story in Genesis (the second creation story) has God forming Eve out of Adam's rib, and Adam exclaiming their unity ("this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"). This is a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise.

Third, the Biblical arguments against same-sex marriage are not proffered from texts that deal with marriage, but from texts that purportedly deal with same-sex orientation. Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed. The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27. Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter. There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds. Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

The Biblical texts that are most often cited in the same-sex debate deserve some explanation in order to reduce their citation for hurtful purposes. For example, the text of Genesis 19 centers upon the story of Lot's visitation in the city of Sodom by two angels. The men of Sodom tell Lot to hand over the male visitors so that they may "know" them, i.e. sexually know them (giving rise to the term "sodomy"). Lot bargains with the visitors, quite horribly to a contemporary reader's eyes, by offering the men his virgin daughters instead. However, any reader of ancient literature (of which the Hebrew Bible is a component) would realize the familiar motif concerning hospitality. For example, the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes would frequently disguise themselves as humans in order to ferret who among their supplicants were truly hospitable. The story is not one denigrating same-sex practice; instead it upholds the incredible (and ludicrous) hospitality of Lot as a virtue.

Similarly, the holiness codes of Leviticus thread down from an all-encompassing mandate to behave distinctly from their foreign (and depraved) neighbors. Leviticus 20:13 that proscribes the death penalty for same-sex relations is quite related to codes that condemn bestiality, invoke dietary restrictions, and order the wearing of certain fibers. The codes make the Israelites unique from their neighbors, and they reflect a particular time and place in Israelite history. Any contemporary critique must note this reality before invoking the codes as ammunition against same-sex practice.

Fourth, any reference to same-sex practice by a Biblical writer or a Greco-Roman writer has no knowledge or understanding of the concept of "same-sex orientation." There is no Hebrew or Greek cognate word in the Biblical text to reflect the modern term "same-sex orientation" or "homosexuality." Moreover, there were no discussions or arguments concerning sexual orientation in the ancient and late ancient world, conversations that would only arrive in the modern era of psychology. Instead, ancient writers believed any wanton sexual behavior of any variety is a mismanagement of one's appetites. The apostle Paul, in the New Testament, follows this pattern.

The Pauline letters that are raised in the same-sex debate are part of Paul's understanding of sexual immorality in the first century CE. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul includes in a laundry list of vices "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (as malakoi and arsenokoitai are translated by the NRSV; 1 Cor 6:9). These terms are injected along with many other vices: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers," and Paul is addressing the issue of a church member sleeping with his stepmother. In other words, Paul is addressing ALL deviant sexual and immoral behavior, not just that of a same-sex variety. In his address to the Romans, Paul describes the root sin of the Gentiles as idolatry, and the consequences of idolatry are vices beginning with women and men "exchanging" natural intercourse for unnatural. While Paul is describing this behavior as the result of wayward passions, the chief sin is idolatry and separation from the one true God. While the Romans text offers the longest discussion of same-sex behavior in the New Testament, it is unclear whether it truly is a condemnation of a specific practice.

The above discussions will likely never satisfy any opponent of gay rights or of same-sex marriage to any degree. When teaching Biblical material to undergraduates I am always anxious when approaching the issue of same-sex orientation and the Bible, especially teaching in the Bible Belt. But many of them question the validity of basing every aspect of their lives entirely on what the Bible "says." They realize that the Biblical material is very diverse, and also very condemnatory. For example, Jesus reflects on the Adam and Eve passage cited above to insist to his listeners that those that divorce and re-marry commit adultery (Mark 10:1-12; Matt 19:4; also Luke 16:18). The Bible "says" a lot of things but perhaps we should treat the Bible less like an authoritative contract with God and understand it more as a human-authored, divinely-inspired, document that arouses a life of faith.

So does the Bible have anything to "say" about gay marriage? The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage. But the state of New York recently had quite a lot to say about gay marriage. Those that would insert the Bible into this debate would do well to reflect upon the text itself. If only we quit focusing on what the Bible didactically "says" and converse with the text in its broader cultural context. Then one can realize the multivalent value of such a book that a narrow reading cannot service.

For further reading:

There are voluminous secondary sources to consider, but one of the concise and best treatments (although dated) can be found in Victor Paul Furnish's The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1979)

[abmm]

I don't have an opinion right now on civil unions. I need to look into it more.

As for your questions, I see you are taking random laws from the Old Testament. When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the law and the old covenant, and we no longer live under those laws. I know some Christians like to follow dietary laws, but that is going one step at a time back into legalism. Each law has been fulfilled. There is no stoning or forcing raped women to marry their rapists. We now live under the new covenant of Christ.

As for gay marriage, I said I am against it, but why in the world would you assume I am looking for people to be killed? It is ok to disagree with me, but don't try to take God's words and twist them. I am not against you as a person although I suspect you are against me. I am one person who believes the Word of God. That's it.

Come on, guys. Stop taking random laws from the Old Testament. That's totally unfair to bring up. Unless, of course, you mention Leviticus 20:13, which is the homophobes' favorite. It's only ok to pick and choose random bible verses if you're going to use them to prove how much God hates gay marriage.

CC3, regarding interracial marriage, this article is only three months old.

And, as of last year, a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

I mostly just lurk here, but it's hard to keep quiet about things like this. I am a woman and I am married to a woman. There is nothing deviant about our marriage. We love each other very much and you'd be surprised how similar we are to "normal" couples. It's just asinine that it's 2012 and there are still many people ignorant enough to think that same-sex marriage is about anything but love and equal rights. I understand people will interpret the bible as they please, but that doesn't mean everyone has to follow your beliefs.

I could write pages and pages on this topic, but I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Aurora]

Doggie, I like you for many reasons, but this post now ranks highly amongst them.

Oh, and not that this is a valid argument or anything, but over half of the Canadian public agrees with US.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/37148/c ... han_us_uk/

[breadprincess]

Did anyone else read the blind gossip item that came out this week, which has been revealed to be about Kirk Cameron? Apparently he used to cruise around parks where gay men would hookup and have sex with random guys. I guess if you reduce your life as a homosexual down to hiding your orientation and driving around public places for sex with strangers then yes, something is detrimental and destructive but it's not homosexuality- it's your own self loathing.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't have an opinion right now on civil unions. I need to look into it more.

If you don't even know if you're against civil unions or not, what in the world makes you so against people getting married? Because the word itself is magic and reserved for people who fuck who you think they should fuck?

As for your questions, I see you are taking random laws from the Old Testament. When Jesus came to earth, he fulfilled the law and the old covenant, and we no longer live under those laws. I know some Christians like to follow dietary laws, but that is going one step at a time back into legalism. Each law has been fulfilled. There is no stoning or forcing raped women to marry their rapists. We now live under the new covenant of Christ.

And I see that you're cherry picking the bits of the Bible that you want to follow and abandoning the rest. That's fine, everyone does it. I do it. But at least admit it - and while you're at it, explain to me why the laws regarding what you eat, wear, plant, and how you deal with rape victims/rapists were fulfilled and should no longer be observed, but the laws dealing with gay people are still in effect? Because it's coming off a whole lot like things that would be a pain in the ass or uncomfortable for you personally are no big deal for some reason, but things that don't affect you or that you find icky are still a very big deal indeed.

As for gay marriage, I said I am against it, but why in the world would you assume I am looking for people to be killed? It is ok to disagree with me, but don't try to take God's words and twist them. I am not against you as a person although I suspect you are against me. I am one person who believes the Word of God. That's it.

Um, because that's what the Bible says you're supposed to do to gay people. And since you're all about following the Bible (not what Jesus said about loving your neighbor as yourself, obviously, but the nasty bits) I don't know why you wouldn't want to kill people since God says you're supposed to. I'm not twisting anything, by the way, I can lift the verses straight from the book. And it's not like we haven't had Christians up in here talking about how they think gay people should be stoned.

Pertinent verses:

Matthew 5:17-18 - "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Okay, so it's fulfilled, but not abolished. But this is still an all or nothing proposition - it's all in effect, or none of it is.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

How am I twisting that, exactly?

You can certainly make an argument in regards to the dietary laws being revoked by citing Peter's vision in Acts 10, but as far as I'm aware there were no rape victims lowered down in the giant sheet, so that's not going to extrapolate.

***ETA:

I am not against you as a person although I suspect you are against me. I am one person who believes the Word of God. That's it.

Why do you think I'm against you as a person? I think you should be able to practice your version of your religion freely. I think you should be able to marry a person if you fall in love with them and want to. I fully support your right to not get gay married if you think it's wrong. I just don't think that you should get to impose your version of your religion on other people. There are lots of Christians (some of us LGBTQ, some of us straight) who do not interpret the Bible the same way that you do. Why do you think your interpretation should be legislated over someone else's? There are lots of people who aren't Christians. Why should they be bound by a religious code that they don't subscribe to? Would you want to live in a place where it was illegal for you to drink alcohol, or eat meat, or where you couldn't get married because of someone else's religious strictures?

[Renting with Raggles]

This is all about power and control for the likes of CC3.

If she's truly living in a biblical marriage, her husband has absolute authority over her person. He can kick her in the teeth daily if his breakfast waffle isn't crisp enough. She can only resort to passive-agressive tactics in retaliation (see that 'Duties of a Wife' page that the Duggars accidently left up a while back). She may have lucked out and be in an OK place with a rather wormy guy who's not going to go to much trouble to exercise his power, but in reality she has no control if things go south.

The solution? Use lesgislation to make others suffer the fear and pain that haunts her. Of course, CC3 can't go after everyone who has actually committed the biblical definition of sodomy - if she were really being true to her biblical principles she would ban marriage from heterosexual couples who enjoy oral/ anal sex from matrimony - but our numbers are legion. It's just too difficult for poor CC3! Of course, sure as Kirk Cameron has never been on his knees in Griffith Park (except in prayer), CC3 has never committed any sexual act that wan't PIV, missionary, lights-off - as Dog intended. But don't despair: there is a section of the population small enough that she feels confident to go up against.

The lesbian down the road has never felt the sharp edge of the door frame in her back when thrown across the room by a man, but CC3 can make her feel the dull, throbbing pain of a broken heart when she and her children are barred from her dying spouse's side. That's power, isn't it ,CC3?

Of course, she'll say it's to prevent the weeping children from growing up like their sinful parents. But that just shows that it's merely a punitive measure. She wants the lesbian couple to grovel and cringe and thank her that she hasn't decreed stoning. And she likes it when the children are denied hospital visits to their parents. Or denied inheritance rights - that must give a double shot of smug, much like the fun of watching the torments of the damned that Augustine promised her.

Of course it's not going to work. Of course the woman's children and their friends are going to double down on their LGBT advocacy. As someone earlier said, it will be the law of the land soon in all civilised nations.

CC3's grandchildren will mumble over her name, as ashamed as people are now of old grandad who opposed the outcome of Loving vs Virginia because he didn't think his descendants to be tainted with the Sin of Ham.

CC3, enjoy the misery you intentionally inflict while you can. I know you'll rationalise it, I know you'll deny it, but I have no doubt you'll enjoy it.

[Patsy]

Jesus, speaking to a likely adulteress:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, 'Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?'

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, 'Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?'

She said, 'No man, Lord.'

And Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.'

Jesus, speaking to a likely homosexual:

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, 'Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.'

And Jesus saith unto him, 'I will come and heal him.'

The centurion answered and said, 'Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.'

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' And Jesus said unto the centurion, 'Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.' And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

See how he didn't bother to mention sin in the second one? Even though he bothered to bring it up in the first?

[debrand]

Adultery is considered a sin in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet, Christians aren't trying to bann people from divorcing their spouse so that they can marry a lover. In the New Testament, women are told to be modest. Christians don't try and change the laws so that women have to wear certain clothes.

Why is same sex marriage any different? If someone believes that it is against their religion for same sex couples to marry, they should not marry a person of their own sex. That seems simple to me. Bisexuality among ancient Roman males was not condemned by society, however, the bible does not command Christians to fight to make bisexuality illegal. Apparently, first century Christians were supposed to apply biblical laws only to themselves and not nonChristians.

Homosexuality is given a degree of dislike among many Chrisitans that is not warranted by the New Testament. I don't see Christians wanting to change laws about gluttony, gossip or law suits.

[formergothardite]

CC3, what are you doing to try and end divorced people from getting divorced and getting remarried? That's against the Bible too.

[CC3]

This is all about power and control for the likes of CC3.

If she's truly living in a biblical marriage, her husband has absolute authority over her person. He can kick her in the teeth daily if his breakfast waffle isn't crisp enough. She can only resort to passive-agressive tactics in retaliation (see that 'Duties of a Wife' page that the Duggars accidently left up a while back). She may have lucked out and be in an OK place with a rather wormy guy who's not going to go to much trouble to exercise his power, but in reality she has no control if things go south.

The solution? Use lesgislation to make others suffer the fear and pain that haunts her. Of course, CC3 can't go after everyone who has actually committed the biblical definition of sodomy - if she were really being true to her biblical principles she would ban marriage from heterosexual couples who enjoy oral/ anal sex from matrimony - but our numbers are legion. It's just too difficult for poor CC3! Of course, sure as Kirk Cameron has never been on his knees in Griffith Park (except in prayer), CC3 has never committed any sexual act that wan't PIV, missionary, lights-off - as Dog intended. But don't despair: there is a section of the population small enough that she feels confident to go up against.

The lesbian down the road has never felt the sharp edge of the door frame in her back when thrown across the room by a man, but CC3 can make her feel the dull, throbbing pain of a broken heart when she and her children are barred from her dying spouse's side. That's power, isn't it ,CC3?

Of course, she'll say it's to prevent the weeping children from growing up like their sinful parents. But that just shows that it's merely a punitive measure. She wants the lesbian couple to grovel and cringe and thank her that she hasn't decreed stoning. And she likes it when the children are denied hospital visits to their parents. Or denied inheritance rights - that must give a double shot of smug, much like the fun of watching the torments of the damned that Augustine promised her.

Of course it's not going to work. Of course the woman's children and their friends are going to double down on their LGBT advocacy. As someone earlier said, it will be the law of the land soon in all civilised nations.

CC3's grandchildren will mumble over her name, as ashamed as people are now of old grandad who opposed the outcome of Loving vs Virginia because he didn't think his descendants to be tainted with the Sin of Ham.

CC3, enjoy the misery you intentionally inflict while you can. I know you'll rationalise it, I know you'll deny it, but I have no doubt you'll enjoy it.

You have no clue what you are talking about and making huge assumptions about me.

[debrand]

CC3, what are you doing to try and end divorced people from getting divorced and getting remarried? That's against the Bible too.

I'd like CC3 to answer this. It isn't that I am trying to single you out, CC3 but I think that stance against gay marriage based on 'biblical' principles is not actually based on the bible. The New Testament tells Christians how to act. It doesn't tell Christians to force nonChristians to accept their view of moral behavior. Remember, bisexuality among Roman men was accepted during that time period. Yet there is no bible verse telling Chrisitan to prevent Roman men from having sex with other men, for instance.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

I'd like CC3 to answer this. It isn't that I am trying to single you out, CC3 but I think that stance against gay marriage based on 'biblical' principles is not actually based on the bible. The New Testament tells Christians how to act. It doesn't tell Christians to force nonChristians to accept their view of moral behavior. Remember, bisexuality among Roman men was accepted during that time period. Yet there is no bible verse telling Chrisitan to prevent Roman men from having sex with other men, for instance.

Debrand hit the nail on the head (bolding mine).

Personally I'd like to see full on, all 50 states, white and frilly gay marriage with EXTRA glitter.

[Conuly]

I am against gay marriage because God is against it.

And the proof of this would be? NOT from Leviticus, please. Unless you're a kosher-keeping Jew, I don't want to hear it.

Marriage is for a man and a woman.

It is not my duty to convince every American to come in faith to the Lord Jesus.

Great, well, since we're not discussing religious marriage I don't see how that's even relevant. We're talking about CIVIL marriage.

I also suggest you back away from using the civil rights era of the '60s as a mirror of gay rights. Civil rights were based on racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has no bearing on whether two men or two women get married.

No, but it had a bearing on whether or not a black person and a white person could get married, and discrimination against same-sex couples DOES have a bearing on whether or not two people of the same sex/gender can marry.

You are well aware of the reasons why evangelical Christians do not perform gay marriages.

Because you think it's icky but would rather blame God?

I won't be ashamed in ten years or one hundred years or a thousand years. If America decides to allow gay marriage in every state, that is not my responsibility but the responsibility of those persons who allowed it.

*squints*

Does this mean you've stopped voting? Well, I can get behind that! Keep up the good work there!

[QAF_Rocks]

As far as the civil rights movement, it was before my time. I don't know anyone preaching that different races can't get married. Maybe you can give me a history lesson.

You didn't know that interracial marriage was illegal in many states until the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967? Well, here's a history lesson for you:

hwakppvhsFM

Just like same-sex marriage, people who were against it trotted out religious justifications. And just like same-sex marriage, believing that a particular god doesn't want people of different races to marry is not a valid reason to deny those couples the benefits and responsibilities of legal marriage.