This fall Mainers will vote whether to allow same-sex couples to become legally married. Because I am a Unitarian Universalist pastor, and a straight, married man who believes in the importance and value of marriage, I support giving gays and lesbians the right to marry.
I support the freedom to marry because I support marriage. Marriage is a good thing; it promotes commitment, fidelity and family stability. If these conservative family values are good for straight couples, they’re also good for gay and lesbian couples.
I’m a straight man who has been married for 33 years. Our marriage will not be threatened if other couples are given the same freedom we already have. Marriage is strengthened, not threatened, by people who want to get married.
Some people say we should keep marriage for straight people and let gays have a lesser institution called civil unions. No, we tried that in the days of racial segregation. We said that colored people should have separate bathrooms, separate drinking fountains and could sit in the back of the bus. We called it “separate but equal,” but it was never equal. It’s wrong to have one institution for first-class citizens and another for second-class citizens.
Freedom of religion will be preserved. No church or synagogue will have to change any of its policies, nor perform any wedding ceremony it disapproves of.
Some Christian conservatives claim that the Bible prohibits same-sex marriage. I respectfully disagree. The story of Sodom isn’t about same-sex love. It’s about an attempted same-sex rape. Rape isn’t an act of love; it’s about power and violence. Rape is always wrong, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. So the story of Sodom does not address the question of same-sex love or marriage.
After that, out of 31,103 verses in the Bible, only six appear to have anything to do with the issue, and then only when lifted out of context and read in the worst possible light. So, based on the number of verses dedicated to the subject, this must be one of the very smallest issues in the Bible.
In Leviticus, sexual relations between men is forbidden – and so is eating pork or shellfish, cutting your beard, planting a field with two kinds of seed, getting a tattoo or wearing a shirt made out of two different kinds of material.
Exodus 35:2 tells us to kill all people who work on the Sabbath. Christians reject the laws of this ancient holiness code. The Apostle Paul says they have been replaced by the law of love. And so conservative Christians are being inconsistent when they reject all of this holiness code except for its condemnation of gays.
In a few verses the Apostle Paul appears to criticize same-sex relationships. But many scholars say that Paul’s original Greek actually condemns temple prostitution, male prostitution and the sexual exploitation of children.
Time and time again the Bible teaches us not to practice prejudice but to welcome the stranger and love our neighbor. Jesus welcomed everyone to his banquet table, especially those who were considered outsiders by proper society. He told us to judge not lest we be judged and to take the log out of our own eye before trying to take the speck out of our neighbor’s eye.
The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, tells us to seek justice for the oppressed person. “Whenever you failed to help the least of these, you failed to do it for me,” he proclaimed in Matthew 25:45.
And so, as a follower of Jesus, I am called to support compassion, fairness and justice. “Yes on 1” is about fairness for our gay and lesbian neighbors, friends, church members and relatives. It’s about Mainers who support marriage enough to want to get married. It’s about my friends Kay and Diana, Wayne and C.J., Margaret and Christi. It’s about love and commitment.
So this November I will be standing on the side of love and will vote Yes on 1.
The Rev. Mark Worth is minister of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Castine. He lives in Penobscot.
A very liberal “pastor” who obviously does not read the same Bible that I do! God’s Word does not condone homosexuality.
Whether or not “God’s Word” condones homosexuality is irrelevant. The United States is not a theocracy. It’s is the Constitution that forms the basis for our laws. And unless you think the 14th Amendment applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), there is no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
There is no inherent right to engage in homosexual sodomy under the constitution. See Berger’s opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick. It was only rampant judicial activism and flagrant disregard for the constitution that overturned this ruling.
“Judicial activism” – The conservative buzz word for “I don’t like the ruling”.
They never think Bush v. Gore is judicial activism, even though SCOTUS is clear that the decision should not be viewed as a precedent setter, so as to allow wiggle room for reversing the position depending on how the players are aligned.
As Rev. Worth’s column points out “sodomy” — what took place in Sodom — was an attempted same-sex rape. Rape is not about love or relationship, it’s about power, violence, and control. Rape is always wrong, whether same-sex or opposite-sex.
But love and commitment between two adults is not what is condemned in the story of Sodom. And so your use of the word “sodomy” is biblicaly incorrect. The story of Sodom has nothing to do with two women or two men who love, respect, and care for each other.
In the KJV, “4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:”
Note “all the people” …. clearly there were women surrounding the house also, unless women are not “people”. It was the mob of “people” who wanted to “know” the men that Lot took into his home. Now I know that many truly believe that this was a crowd of lusting homosexual men wanting to spread some “love” (sarcasm) but what the heck were the women doing there? How were they going to have homosexual sex acts with these “men”? And where did the women and young men come from if the city was full of only gay men?
In many “modern” translations/versions “all the people” has been eradicated from this verse … no wonder so many of today’s bible believers are confused. :)
Another confusing part of this is “even the men of Sodom” ….. is this story actually set in the city of Gomorrah, is that where the women came from? Nope it clearly states that the angels went to Sodom. Were they twin cities like
Actually, when the Bible refers to all the people, it ofen only means men.
For instance, look at the Ten Commandments, especially Exodus 20:17. The commandment to not covet says you should not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his (notice “his”) wife, nor his slaves, nor his oxen, nor his donkey, nor anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
His wife is mentioned after his house, but before his slaves and other property. In other words, she is property. In the original Hebrew, it never says to not covet your neighbor’s husband (although some English translations, such as the Contemporary English Version, erroneously add “or husband” after “wife”).
Why doesn’t the commandment say to not covet your neighbor’s husband? Because the commandments weren’t given to the women — they weren’t people, they were the property of their fathers until they were married, and of their husbands after they were married.
So when Genesis 19 says “all the people” gathered outside of Lot’s house, it means all of the people who counted, that is, the men.
So, decisions you agree with are Constitutional, while decisions you disagree with are not? Was Bush v. Gore a case of judicial activism?
There is no inherent right to engage in heterosexual coitus or heterosexual sodomy under the Constitution either. What exactly is your point? Heterosexuals are given specific privileges based on their sexual orientation and behavior by the civil government though …. these privileges are not based on love and commitment …. are they?
Actually, “Lawrence” means that no private, adult, consensual relations or acts may be regulated between mixed-sex couples either. While, of course, such laws were no longer being used to harass mixed-sex couples, some states still had laws that didn’t mention same gender couples but criminalized any couple enjoying those activities.
That’s HILARIOUS, that bad decision was REVERSED in 2003’s “Lawrence vs. Texas.”
I’m sure you knew that, you just thought you’d repeat an anti-gay LIE, huh?
Anti-gays always LIE.
Double post
Your name is 4 life and freedom. Yet you want to use your book to stifle the freedom of others. Your the worst kind of hypocrite that is destroying this great nation.
When you say for life and freedom you mean freedom to force others to act or read the bible the way you see fit.
Stating the obvious on liberal and not reading the Bible the same way. No, the Bible does not condone homosexuality (which is the sexual status of a person that they were born with, not any homosexual sex acts) but it does not forbid it either. As pointed out, homosexuality per se is not considered at all in the Bible.
The conservative cherry picking of Biblical passages does not bolster your opinions, it weakens them considerably.
Your Bible does condone Slavery, BOOM ROASTED!
Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850. Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now. About 400-years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the king kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1Corinthians 6:9! The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague. Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe homosexuals. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.
You are correct on the 1Corinthians passage…. “abusers of themselves with mankind” is very vague. It could very easily mean non-consensual sex (rape). 1Timothy uses “those that defile themselves with mankind”, again this could easily mean non-consensual sex (rape). Both could also be referring to having sex with a minor (rape and/or statutory rape). They could also mean having sex in general. Revelation 14:4, “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.”, specifically relates to men who have not “defiled themselves” with women or have not had sexual relations with a woman. Mankind most often refers to the human race, male and female in the Bible, there are very few instances of differentiating ie specifically using womankind rather than mankind.
Interestingly, King James I, who authorized the biblical translation known as the King James Version, was probably gay (although he married for political reasons, he was constalty hanging out with, and showing favors to, handsome young men). Esme Stewart (later Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr (later Earl of Somerset) and George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) are thought by many historians to have been his lovers. A restoration of Applethorpe Hall undertanken 2004-08 revealed that there was a secret passageway leading from the king’s bedroom to the bedroom of Villiers.
Exactly! They FAKED the Bible to give themselves an excuse to attack the King. Charming…
“Faked”? No, the KJV was, in its day, a very good translation.
Better ancient manuscripts are available to us today, and the English language has changed a great deal since the day of King James I of England. So there are better translations available today (I recommend the New Revised Standard Version. The New International Version is also pretty good). But the archaic KJV English is beautiful, very poetic.
“Faked” is a strong word. Those who have inserted the word “homosexuality’ into English translations are making (probably well-intentioned and pious) errors. There is no ancient equaivalent of the word “homosexual” in either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek, and so any English translation that contains that word has been mistranslated.
You and I agree on much. However, you are overstating your case.
Yes, there have been many mistranslations, some books of the Bible are misattributed, a few are even ancient forgeries (written by one person under another person’s name, such as the Epistles attributed to Peter), and a few verses have been inserted here and there in some Bibles. But to imply that the entire Bible was “faked” is a gross exaggeration. You have taken a grain of truth and exaggerated it all out of proportion.
Not the entire Bible, just those passages. I agree there are many, many good things in the Bible. “Love your neighbor as yourself,” for example, something which anti-gays are obviously violating.
Okay — I thought you meant that most of the Bible was “faked.” If you merely mean that the word “homosexual” is an improper translation, then I agree with you.
So, Do you think we should go back to punishing people that work on Saturday / Sunday depending on your definition of the Sabbath with death?
Should we put the lobster industry out of business by outlawing eating / selling shell fish?
Should we outlaw wearing / selling blended cloth cloths?
You all pick and choose what you want to take away from the Bible. Gay people just make you uncomfortable so you “pick” the part of the bible that justifies your feelings.
You like shell fish, or your poly blend shirt so you ignore that part. It is simple obvious hypocrisy and there is no more reason to outlaw gay marriage than to outlaw eating shellfish.
We live in a secular nation get over it Gay people gaining the legal right to marriage will happen in our lifetime. It doesn’t matter how much you pound your book.
Thank you for showing that the anti-gays don’t have a monopoly on religion.
Selectivity is selectivity. Since you brought up the Commandments, which commandment condemns homosexuality?
Even more to the point, we’re not discussing comparative religion here, we’re discussing the legality of marriage.
For those who wish to read more about what I wrote above and to see the peer-reviewed references on which the essay is based, please do a web search for “The Case for Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships.”
Your reference says that behavior is not what rights are granted around.
What you and your kind miss is the fact that your religion is a choice, a behavior, yet it is granted special rights under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.
As such, it nullifies any “behavior” or “choice” argument.
Such hypocrisy is the reason you will lose.
That clown “semyon” posts the same tripe all over the United States. I think he’s really trying to raise advertizing revenue.
Complete rubbish!! The Unitarian Universalist Church has been described as a church for people who don’t believe in God, but still like the idea of getting together on Sunday mornings. Although I respect this man’s right to voice his opinion, his opinions in no way should be considered a “Christian” viewpoint, as this church is not considered to be part of Orthodox, Bible-based Christianity.
Sure, lots of people say Roman Catholics aren’t real Christians — and some Roman Catholics say non-Catholics aren’t real Christians. And plenty of Evangelicals say Mormons aren’t Christians. So what? Someone out there thinks you’re a heretic, too. Everyone is a heretic in the eyes of someone. All you do is attack his church, but you don’t answer the points he made. No logic from you — just a personal, irrelevant attack. Is that the best you can come up with?
No, just a statement pointing out what used to be obvious, prior to revisionist history becoming the norm.
All different kinds of prejudices used to be “obvious.” I still think it’s sad you’re criticizing them for dumping your favorite prejudice that you seem to want to blame Jesus and “orthodox Christianity” for.
Sorry, but it’s not my prejudice. Find me 1 pro-homosexual passage in the Bible? Just read Romans 1:24-32, which discusses the consequences of divine abandonment in the face of man’s willful choice to dishonor and disobey God’s commands. You can close your eyes to the truth if you choose to, but you should consider the actual teaching of the Bible before you lay responsibility for my viewpoint on me personally. You can try and twist biblical teaching to support your view if you like, but it is clearly not supported by the plain teaching of the Bible, which historic and orthodox Christianity is based upon.
You take two verses out of context and misinterpret them. Read the whole passage, (say for instance Romans 1:16-2:16) and not just the two verses you quote out of context.
What is Paul’s point? Is his main focus sex? No.
He is saying that all people (that includes you and me) are imperfect, in fact sinners. Everyone (straight or gay) has fallen short of God’s perfection. All people stand on the same footing with God, and no one is without sin. His real concern here is the fallen nature of humankind.
And still, he does not use the word “sin” in the two verses you lift out of context. He doesn’t say “sin” until Romans 2:12, and then it is in the context of the sinfulness of all people.
In the two verses you lift out of context (the context is the fact that we are ALL fallen, finite, imperfect, sinful) Paul mentions men and women who “exchanged normal intercourse for one not normal.” Here he appears to be talking about heterosexual men and women who engage in acts that are not natural for them. He is not necessarily talking about homosexual people who are engaging in acts that are natural for them. He is condemning the corrupt ways and promiscuous practices of the pagan world, people who give up their true nature for a false nature.
Does this mean that the passage condemns people who are homosexual by their nature? It says you should not engage in sexual behavior that is not normal for you. In another context Paul writes, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).
So, out of a very large Bible — as Rev. Worth pointed out — you can only take a very small number of verses out of context in an attempt to support your prejudice.
But you ignore the core teachings of Scripture that tell us to welcome the stranger, to seek justice for the person whose rights are denied, to love your neighbor as yourself, to invite outsiders to the banquet table, to judge not so that you will not be judged, to take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye, to help “the least of these.”
There are no words spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. None. But he did say, “He who is without sin should cast the first stone” (John 8:7). In the Four Gospels Jesus mentions love 49 times and forgiveness 27 times, but he never once criticized gays or lesbians. So it seems to me that Rev. Worth does a better job of following Jesus than you do.
Romans 1:24-27 “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For the women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Yes, we are all sinners. And even Christians will continue to sin after their conversion, but will ultimately feel remorse and continuously repent and seek forgiveness. But if you claim to be a follower of Christ, but insist upon denying that sin is wrong, you are not truly following Christ. These words may have come from the Apostle Paul and not Jesus, as you seem to want to imply, but remember that Paul was chosen to be a witness by Jesus to the non-Jewish world, which includes most of us. I think it’s quite a stretch to try and claim that this passage is talking about homosexual acts being natural for those who engage in it. The reference point is to “nature,” and even evolutionary theory will support the idea that heterosexual sex is the “natural” form of sex. There is no scientific support for a gay gene, or any other physical trait that identifies one as a homosexual. It is purely a result of one’s choices, in spite of tremendous efforts in recent years to prove otherwise. Just so you know, I do love homosexuals in a Christian way, enough to share my Saturday morning discussing this issue on this forum.
Saying you “love” people you are showing prejudice and disrespect to is an old ploy, a way in which you deceive yourself and try to deceive others.
As I said, you are taking a couple of verses out of context. Please re-read the entire passage. We are all sinners, and have all fallen short.
It is natural to be left-handed, even though it is not average. And it is natural to be gay, even though it is not average. God loves variety, and created some of us red-headed, some of Asian, some of us musically talented, some of us gay, and some of us left-handed.
You have only the smallest number of out-of-context verses that you use to support your prejudice, while you argue against the great bulk of Scripture that tells us to love our neighbor, seek justice for the person whose rights are denied, welcome the stranger, and judge not lest we be judged. You miss, I believe, the entire point of Jesus’ message.
John 8:11. Peace. Out.
There is no biblical definition of “Christian,” a word that appears in the Bible only three times, I believe (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16). The closest the Bible comes to a definition of “Christian” is to say that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Here “disciples” is used to refer to all of the followers of Jesus, not just the Twelve Disciples. In other words, a Christian is someone who is a follower of Jesus.
Lots of “Christians” say that their way is the only correct (orthodox) way, and that other Christians are not real Christians. People say that Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian because he is a Mormon, that Paul Ryan isn’t a Christian because he’s Catholic, and that Barak Obama and Joe Biden aren’t Christian because they’re Democrats.
Someone out there thinks that you, too, are a heretic. You throw stones at Rev. Worth by criticizing his religious affiliation, but you don’t know what is in his heart, and you didn’t answer the points he raised.
Your attack is merely personal, not at all logical “PureLogic101.” Time for you to take that 101 course again, because you obviously flunked.
Sounds like you’re getting pretty personal with me as well, no?? I’ve always been amazed at how liberals often revert to name calling and personal attacks when debating someone who relies upon logic and reason over emotion. I’m not throwing stones at Mr. Worth–I’m merely pointing out how his denomination does not fall within the scope of historic, orthodox Christianity. The gay rights movement can try and co-opt Christianity to suit its temporal needs, but in the end analysis, the Bible clearly stands opposed to homosexuality, even if you get a few liberal ministers to say otherwise.
No, I didn’t get personal. I merely mentioned that everyone is a heretic in the eyes of someone — so that applies to you, to me, to Rev. Worth, to the Pope, to Billy Graham, to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, to Pat Robertson, and to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
And it’s not personal to observe that a person who boldly and presumptiously calls himself “PureLogic 101” ought to answer with logic rather than to make irrelevant personal attacks.
I never have been able to figure out why my chosen pen name for this site is such a problem for some people? I went through about 20 other choices which were all taken when I set this name up, and happened to find one which would characterize the way in which I try to honestly view the world, and everyone seems to think it suggests something else?? It’s just a name–I personally could care less about what anyone’s name is.
Really, Most Christians I know are republicans who have a complete disstain for the poor. Pretty Sure Jesus would have a MAJOR problem with that.
Jesus would have cared for the poor in a personal way–not require Caesar to do it!
Jesus didn’t require our government to help its citizens, we Americans required it. America has progressed far beyond government in Jesus’s time.
But think of the churches that are deeply involved in getting “no” votes–it seems they are not rendering to Caesar either when they interfere in politics and try to hurt LGBT Mainers who are not members of their congregations.
So go our and care. To the level needed. Get back to us on that.
Already am. Hopefully you are too, and not just relying upon government to do so??
It’s always SO VERY SAD to read anti-gays demand that any church that doesn’t line up with THEIR “beliefs” should be DENIED Freedom Of Religion.
Oh, well, anti-gays SPIT on the United States Constitution and its guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law.
Who denied their freedom of religion? I just pointed out that they are not an orthodox Christian church.
You mean they aren’t an ANTI-GAY church, like the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas? If that’s what you mean by an “orthodox Christian church,” I guess that’s a compliment.
You apparently don’t know what an orthodox Christian church is, since the Westboro cult is not even close.
Show me where the Bible defines orthodox Christianity.
It doesn’t, at least in the terms that you are setting up your challenge in. But if you take the full counsel of Scripture in context, you will find that “orthodox” Christianity includes the following:
1) Recognition that God is sovereign and right.
2) Recognition that Humankind is fallen, and in need of redemption.
3) Jesus Christ was offered as the only sacrifice capable of redeeming fallen Man.
4) Repentance and faith in Christ is the only path to redemption, as stated by Jesus Himself (John 14:6).
5) With Christ as Savior, true Christians will also recognize Him as Lord of their lives. This means that we acknowledge the full counsel of Scripture as our guidebook to how we live our lives.
And what is “orthodox”? Is a church orthodox because they proclaim themselves to be orthodox? Catholics say non-Catholics aren’t orthodox, aren’t in fact real churches. Protestants say Catholics (and other Protestants) aren’t orthodox. Most churches say Mormons aren’t orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Churches say that Catholics and Protestants aren’t orthodox. And someone out there thinks you aren’t orthodox.
You attacked his church, a way of making a personal attack. Your attack has no substance and no merit.
Sorry it offended you. I stated my belief, while your side still allows me to do so. Hopefully this minister will read all of these comments and come to realize that he has come to an opinion which is not supported by the Bible he claims to teach from.
Yet you ignore the bulk of the Bible in order to lift a very small handful of verses out of context. Hopefully you will re-read the Bible, and pay better attention this time.
Again we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that I’ve shared my thoughts on this subject, in spite of the harsh and contemptuous environment that it tends to be at times.
Do you hold similar nasty opinions about the other major Christian and Jewish denominations that are marrying same gender American couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia?
Yes, I hold the same opinion, which is by no means nasty, about any so-called Christian church which supports marriage between same-sex couples, given the clear prohibition against homosexuality that is found in the Bible.
As Rev. Worth pointed out, and as I have also pointed out, there is no “clear” prohibition against homosexuality in the Bible. There are only a very small handful of verses in a very large Bible that even come close to addressing the issue, and they are all ambiguous (or in the case of the Levitical holiness laws, otherwise rejected by Christians). The word “homosexual” does not appear in any properly translated Bible, since ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek had no equivalent word.
But the Bible does approve of love between two men such as David and Jonathan or two women such as Ruth and Naomi (I make no claim about a sexual relationship here, simply a loving relationship). Marriage is much more about love and affection and caring than it is about sex, by the way.
And the Bible does clearly state that we should welcome the stranger, love our neighbor, seek justice for the oppressed person, and not judge unless we wish to be judged.
You may claim that “dishonorable passions” refers not to homosexuality, but rather to an odd proclivity toward fashion, or some other such thing, but that seems to be the clear reference to me. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
There is no requirement for procreation in marriage.
Fail.
Your religion is not civil law.
But boy, I sure am glad that’s all you have.
Fascinating argument you have just made for the redistribution of wealth.
Are you a socialist?
“They just made that up.”
LOL, sounds like you made up everything in your post.
Loving v. Virginia, 1967 “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival” Courts have already ruled that marriage is in fact a right. So, until you overturn Loving v. Virginia, stop saying that marriage is not a right. You are factually incorrect.
In the paragraph prior to the one you quote: ” The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.”
Clearly there is no reference to race or reproduction in this statement, which are the two main arguments used to “prove” it is a false argument or disingenuous argument for same-sex couples. IMO, it is a much stronger statement regarding marriage as a right ….. interestingly incarcerated men (whom I do not believe fall under the category of “free” men are allowed the right to marry).
Several US State High Courts, including Massachusetts, have cited “Loving” as precedent when ruling in favor of marriage equality for same gender American couples. These justices’ opinions COUNT. The opinion anti-gays express that it doesn’t apply are irrelevant.
I’m a straight guy. If you took away my right to get married, I’d certainly consider it a “right” that I lost. Of course the right to marry is a right. What planet are you on? California, apparently.
“Paster?” What’s a paster?
Haha funny, most of the commandments that says you can’t do, are actually very much legal. You can’t steal or kill. Anything else you are more then free to do!
Why did the Catholic church molest children, then try and cover it all up? why did the KKK hang black people and preach hate?
Friend, you go too far. The “Catholic Church” did not molest children, a very small percentage of priests did (I know the numbers are large, but the percentage is small, because the Roman Catholic Church is huge). And yes, in many cases the Catholic hierarchy covered up the crimes. But let’s not tar all Catholics with the same brush. There are lots of good Catholics, and lots of good priests.
I’m not Catholic, by the way. I just think we should be fair.
The Bible Condones marriage between one man and Mulitple Women. Says that a women should marry her rapist and condones Slavery. Why are you not fighting for these?
As for the holiness laws in Leviticus and the other Old Testament laws, see Romans 10:4 “for Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified” and 13:8-10 “”he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” ; also Galatians 3:23-26 “now that faith has come we are no longer under a custodian” and 5:14 “for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” You reject the idea that we should execute all those who work on the Sabbath (working on the Sabbath is a behavior), because all of those laws have been replaced by the law “love your neighbor.” The only one of those laws you think is still in effect is the law against same-sex relationship. You are being inconsistent.
Then you lift Romans 1:24-26 out of context. If you read the entire passage, and not just the two verses you quote out of context, Paul’s main focus in the passages is not sex at all. It is clear that Paul is stating that all people (all people, that includes you and me) stand on the same footing with God, and that all have fallen short of God’s perfection.
More fully, in this passage in Romans 1:16-2:29 (and not just the two verses you selectively misquote) Paul’s real concern is the fallen nature of all humans.
Even in the two verses you select, Paul does not use the word “sin”, not until Romans 2:12 (and then he’s not specifically talking about sex, but the fallen nature of all humans).
In the two verses you select, Paul was criticizing people who engage in acts that are not natural or normal for them — otherwise straight people who engaged in acts that are uncharacteristic for them. He is condemning the corrupt ways and sexual practices of the pagan world, people who give up their true nature for a false nature, and acts such as temple prostitution.
Does this mean that he is condemning people who are homosexual by their nature? It says that you should not engage in sexual behavior that is not normal for you. In a different context Paul says, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).
So you have a couple of verses — just six or so, out of a very large Bible, that you quote by lifting them out of their context and misinterpreting them. And you miss Jesus’ admonition that only the person who is without sin should cast the first stone. You mist his command that we judge not, lest we be judged. You miss his welcome of all kinds of people, especially outsiders, to the banquet table. You miss the many, many passages in the Bible where we are told to welcome the stranger and seek justice for the person whose rights are denied. You miss the bulk of what the Bible really says about our duties toward our neighbor, the Samaritan, who is despised because he or she is a bit different.
Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye, please.
Your comments are sick, sick, sick. I’m sick of your prejudice and bigotry.
“And gays cannot claim that their relationships are equal because they cannot conceive children together.”
Says the guy who believes that Adam and Eve had only two sons, Cain and Abel. Either they conceived together or they conceived with their mom.
Well that’s not true. Cain killed Abel, so obviously they didn’t conceive together. You are also missing another option. Cain could have had a previously unmentioned sister than he conceived with. Not that I’m trying to make is sound better, just that is was not brother-brother or brother mother but instead brother-mother or brother-sister.
As the play and movie “Inherit the Wind” (about the Scopes evolution trial) suggested, Genesis 4:16-17 says Cain was banished to Nod, which means “the Land of Wandering,” and which is said to be “east of Eden.”
There Cain took a wife. Where did she come from? “Was there another Creation over in the next county?” asked Spencer Tracy in the film version.
Wow. A conservative who actually mentions the incest necessary for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
“In Leviticus, it clearly states that men are not to lie with other men as they do with a
woman. ”
I stopped reading here.Leviticus also clearly states that eating shellfish, touching a pig’s skin or being in the same room with a menstruating woman are equivalent abominations to homosexual acts. I’m willing to wager that you have eaten lobster or clams and used a football at some point in your life. I’m certain that you have been in the same room with a menstruating woman. In other words, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.
And haircuts/shaving. So, unless the original poster has a wicked awesome beard right now, BOOM straight to hell.
No, America is great and getting greater!!!
It’s a shame that you hate this wonderful nation… it really is.
As for HIV, CDC statistics, along with those from the Williams Institute demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of gay citizens have no disease whatsoever. If you live a responsible life, why are you so afraid?
1/3 practice sadomasochism? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!!! Why do your type always resort to blatant lies? Oh… that’s funny!
Why do you point out one person as an example of an entire group? By your logic, all christians are like Fred Phelps or let their kids die in the name of god… after all, Phelps is a real christian, as are the ones who kill their kids. By your logic, they must all be that way!
Please show me anything from a gay pride parade in Maine that is as you describe… and why do you attend them anyway unless it excites you?
You and petty fear mongers like you are the very reason you’re losing at the federal level with each passing year. Your outrageous claims force people to look at the truth and find against you because you lie.
You are a powerful ally.
Religion is not civil law.
Keep bringing it up though, as it insures your eventual loss.
It’s always important to remember it isn’t just a matter of those denominations who tell that LIE that they’d be forced to perform same gender marriages. The major Christian, Jewish and other denominations that are marrying same gender couples now are being denied their right to practice their religion freely in 44 US States. These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Metropolitan Community Church
Reform Judaism
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
These and many other denominations reject the hate speech inserted in the bible to hurt LGBT people. Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1870.
You’re right that the languages the Bible was written in, ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, had no word that was equivalent to the words “homosexual” or “homosexuality,” and no properly translated Bible today contains those words. Some translations into English do (erroneously) contain those words, although many do not. It depends on the translation you use.
I believe you can add Conservative Judaism to your list, and the Presbyterian Church USA.
Although many clergy in the United Methodist Church do support full inclusion of gays and lesbians in their churches, and the United Methodist Church “implores families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends,” the national United Methodist organization does not yet support full inclusion of gays and lesbians.
Thanks, I do know some Conservative Jewish congregations marry same gender couples. The Presbyterian Church USA does ordain LGBT ministers and expects to ratify marriage equality next year. Some Baptist churches are marrying same gender couples too. I’m trying to be careful so as not to annoy members of the denominations that are progressing but not quite there. My aunt was a lifelong United Methodist, and I was always welcome in her church. I believe it was her church that taught her to be more understanding of me, for which I am deeply grateful.
The United States Supreme Court established in its 1967 “Loving vs. Virginia” decision that we ALL have a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our choice.
I’m sorry to learn you are also choosing to SPIT on our Constitution, Mr. McMillan.
Hey, if you were really from California, you might have known it only took FOUR months for that many LGBT Californians to choose legal marriage to protect each other. You would know that California students are not taught that. You’ve posted so many anti-gay LIES here, shame on you.
Anti-gays show the only way they can fool others into voting to HURT gay and lesbian Americans is by LYING.
” Legalizing gay marriage would result in a huge shift of money away from families raising children to be used for gays to spend on themselves.”
Oh STOP!! Good grief STOP it already!!!
What you’re saying is IDENTICAL to this:
“Continuing to allow childless couples to marry would result in a huge shift of money away from families raising children to be used for gays to spend on themselves.”
See how that works? You can’t have something for your friends and exclude others because you don’t understand simple logic.
You’ve GOT to be kidding me!!!
“Here in California, while most of us have been working hard to raise our families, the gays have been gaining influence.”
I was not aware that there was a city or town in Maine called California. The folks at mapquest apparently haven’t heard of it either.
Mr. McMillan, you have not changed your arguments since 2008 when you were commenting on Prop 8 …… at least you are consistent in your lies and distortions.
It is so wonderful hearing this from a religious man. Sometimes it feels so lonely when my family and friends and church attack me, shun me, and condemn me. I know that God loves me and created me this way for a reason, but so many others refuse to see it. Thank you for spreading hope and love instead of anger and hate. Bless you.
Science has proven we are indeed created this way. Sexual orientation, whether gay or non-gay, has been shown by science to be inborn and unchangeable, and psychologists have shown being gay or lesbian is just as healthy and “normal” as being non-gay. Here are several respected websites (and a citation from Fox News for the doubters) that document this:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/bbc_birthorder.htm
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers=gay.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Rev – You will one day have to answer for misusing God’s Word. Homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle in the eyes of God. But, as you know, 1 Corinthians 6:11 gives a way out. Maybe you should preach a sermon or two on that verse.