“Preserving the public purpose of marriage sets a higher standard for future generations…”

In the future, NObody will be able to marry!

“Homosexuals need to know they are welcome at their local church, but they also need to know that hundreds of thousands of us have found freedom from the isolation and emptiness we experienced in gay life through the power of Jesus Christ,”

It’s so true! Why, the last few times I was out to a gay bar, there wasn’t another gay man in sight. I was feeling very alone and isolated-plus it was practically impossible to move around, what with the hordes of evangellical Christians that were packing the place. The peer-pressure eventually led to me getting down on my knees… and praying for salvation! Thank gawd they won’t allow me to marry another man, ‘cos that’d just reinforce my bad behavior! And I’ll bet the ladies are just lining up to marry me!

So, can we set up a pool to bet on how long before Alan Chambers is no longer an “EX” gay and returns to just being gay?

So, can we set up a pool to bet on how long before Alan Chambers is no longer an “EX” gay and returns to just being gay?

Don’t know if Chambers is among them, but quite a few of these ex-gay types have been caught hanging around gay bars and other gay hang-outs. They were there to use the restroom they say. They didn’t say for what.

Well, it only took Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, two of the original founders of Exodus, three years between the time they were publicly declaring they’d completely changed, to leaving the group and marying each other.

This is too depressing to write anything glib about.

I don’t want to negate my accurate argument against these douchebags with an ad hominem attack.

oh…..shit, just did.

True compassion isn’t compassionate?

Excuse me, my brain is going to explode.

Basically, if the Church allows gays to be gay, they will be sinners, and they will go to hell to be miserable forever.

So while in the short term accepting homosexuality may be compassionate, in the long term it will do more harm then good.

I don’t quite know why god would punish people forever because they have the wrong kind of sex, but I guess we just have to have faith that etenral torture is the most compassionate thing. It’s also not clear what god will do with the Christian gays. Or the Christian shellfish eaters.

It would be interesting to find out just how many of those “ex gays” are actually bisexual.

And, by the way, if Jesus thought that homosexuality were such a horrible sin, wouldn’t he have mentioned at least…oh…once?

Libs, gays, you have to understand this. Here?s the conservatives today where they talk out against gay marriage and full participation in our cultural institutions, okay, against their will, of adoption and not knowing the effects of providing the stability of a loving and nurturing two-parent household. Do you know gays express affection for one another? Do you know they hug and kiss? Do you know gay couples even have sex as an expression of physical and spiritual fulfillment in the confines of long term and committed relationships? Do you understand how icky that is?

And if you understand the history of conservatives always being right, liberals making the Baby Jesus cry, and gays having non-stop man/dog/box turtle matrimonial orgies, ask yourself this question about gay marriage: WWJD? Yes, 9/11 was your fault, but I?m sure Jerry Falwell will find the time to tell you what to do. Conservative evangelicals, always with the loving the sinner.

MattC: They just wanted to read the sports page posted over the urinals! They swear! And they read slow, which is why they were in there so long.

It depends which gay porn films we’re subjected to. Being forced to watch Horse would indeed drive me batty; however, being forced to watch Cumsuckers wouldn’t be so bad, especially if it was Vol. 3.

A serious, somewhat near topic question. Leviticus 18:22 is usually cited by anti-gay evangelicals as an indication that homosexuality is wrong. My question is this: historically and theologically, what’s the basis of the practice of ignoring a whole bunch of other stuff in Leviticus (like, for example, the whole kosher thing or wearing blended fabrics, etc.)?

Really, I’d like to know. Whenever I’ve asked a Christian, they act like the question is absurd and offensive, and merely indended to stir up strife, rather than to get an explanation of their apparent willingness to cherry pick from the Word of God to justify their own dislike of various sexual activities.

A minimally-snarky response would be appreciated

Bob, in the New Testament Peter specifically releases Christians from the dietary requirements and Paul released gentile followers of Christ from things like circumcision. Christ was seen as fulfilling the Law so following Christ was more important than obeying every jot and tittle of what Moses wrote down. And, if you’ll recall, Jesus placed his emphasis on how you treat your fellow person. That’s why we can eat shrimp (yum! shrimp!).
That said, RW Xtians do clearly pick and choose WHICH laws they cite to suit their agenda. I wish I could treat the tax laws like a RW fundy treats the Mosiac Law! (that rule applies, nope that one doesn’t)

Well ok, you asked for it.

You can find a lot of clues in Paul’s epistles. Paul’s great importance in the early Church was that he brought Gentiles into what was originally a sect of Judaism — and there were fierce battles between Paul’s people and James’s over issues including dietary restrictions, escalating into physical attacks and gang wars.

Fun trivia fact: James was Bishop of Jerusalem while Paul was Bishop of Rome. The lineage to the present-day Pope of course comes from Paul’s camp, while James actually had a far better claim to head the Church, not least because he was Jesus’s brother.

Anyway, once all that tussle died down, certain things became customary in the Church that spoke more to Roman society than to Jewish society or the Hebrew texts. Picking and choosing from Leviticus is a big part of it. The celibacy of the (Catholic) clergy comes from that period as well, and has a lot to do with the Mithras and Isis cults that competed with Christianity at the time, as well as Paul’s being a prudish, probably closeted-gay jerkwad.

James was apparently martyred in the 60s AD, and we lose track of Jesus’s siblings after that, except for various faked writings and interpolations. Some of Paul’s epistles are generally considered fake now as well — it’s good to check out the current scholarly consensus before doing any real research with them.

Anyway, that’s probably more than you wanted to know.

Bob, in the New Testament Peter specifically releases Christians from the dietary requirements

If I can be a total pedant, the Gospels weren’t written until after the Rome/Jerusalem split was settled, and after Corinthians, Galatians, etc. It was something like 70 AD for Mark (I’m pulling the date out of the air, but it was right around then), where the thing about dietary restrictions appears.

Gavin, true, but when asked about the diet laws Christians usually refer to Peter’s Dream in Acts 10, which would place it at about 40 AD.

Acts is supposed to be like 70-90 AD, unless they’ve revised the estimate. It follows Matthew and Luke and precedes John, right?

Written in 70-90, occurred in early 40s. It does follow Matthew and Luke but preceeds John.

…Or, ‘Mark,’ that is. Follows Mark & Luke.

I’m forgetting whether there was a thing with dietary restrictions in the epistles, but that was circumcision, right? – the big issue about letting gentiles into the church….

I think it was mostly the circumcision (Gentile: you want me to cut off my what?), but Paul in Romans 14:14-20 does follow with the idea that there is no such thing as an “unclean” food.

On a side note, the fact that Paul says there is no such thing as unclean meat clearly demonstrates that he never worked as a cook in a fast food resturant.

I’m screwing up all over the place. Peter was the Bishop of Rome while James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and while Paul was gadflying around sabotaging the Jewish-sectarian Christians.

not to mention he invented the fishstick! *grin)

But you were right about the division between Paul and James and the debate over the rule of the Law.

“…homosexuality is not an immutable trait and therefore, marriage is not a civil right to be extended to any group of individuals who demand it.” Fine. So I guess he’d see no problem only being allowed cross religions? Christians have to marry Jews or Hindis. After all, religion isn’t an “immutable trait” and any Christian is free to marry any Jew. It’s not like the Jews are allowed to marry another Jew.

Paul was gadflying around sabotaging the Jewish-sectarian Christians.

…not to mention [inventing] the fishstick! *grin)

No, that was his wife. Mrs. Paul.

Paul was gadflying around sabotaging the Jewish-sectarian Christians.

…not to mention [inventing] the fishstick! *grin)

No, that was his wife. Mrs. Paul.

Aaargh! Double posts!

Now, wasn’t Paul a fisherman? Methinks the fish lobby may have had something to do with the lifting of the dietary restrictions regarding shellfish.

Paul was not a fisherman, he was a tentmaker. Peter was fisherman though.

Heh heh. He was a ‘tentmaker’ all right.

“I’ve got a dietary restriction — IN MY PANTS.”

Wouldn’t it make more sense for PETER to be the tentmaker?

Was there a minor apostle named John Thomas?

If you want to see something really funny, Google for ‘Secret Mark.’ It’s about a page of text.

I’d like to thank everyone for the actually useful, apparently non-snarky response. Not being Christian, I’m unfamiliar with the Bible, so I appreciate the more direct references.

Thanks.