Letters to the Editor

Divorce ban?

February 3, 2012


To the editor:

Kudos to Steve Craven for his letter of Jan. 29, dealing with homophobic religious fundamentalists who quote obscure passages from the Old and New Testament to put the fear of God in us.   

I’d like to add one more example of the hypocrisy exhibited by these biblical “scholars.” Have you noticed that the words of Jesus according to the Gospels make no mention of homosexuality? One would suppose that if it’s such a horrendous sin, Jesus would have condemned it. One thing that Jesus does condemn in at least two Gospels is the topic of divorce (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11,12). Why isn’t there a law in Kansas forbidding divorce?

Our political and religious leaders are missing a sure bet. Quote those verses and refuse to grant divorces in Kansas and we will make history. Next time someone starts quoting from the book of Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, surprise them by mentioning the divorce passages. My experience has been that they either change the topic or they walk away.


doubterthomas 6 years, 3 months ago

Anna Slemmer..... to say that Jesus never talked about the sin of homosexuality is stretching things a bit. True, he does not speak of it in the printed scriptures. Then again, all of the words of Jesus are not recorded either. He had the old covenant scriptures at his disposal. If a new law regarding the approval of homosexual practices was to be introduced, I'm fairly sure he would have let some folks know. Regarding divorce, Jesus condemned divorce in the way the cultural at that time was handling it, i.e., for any reason at all. I mean, a man could divorce his wife simply because he was tired of her. Jesus wanted a stop to that. He made it clear that you don't just divorce your husband or wife for any reason. If there is unfaithfulness, yes, there are grounds for divorce. If a person is in an abusive relationship or dissertion takes place, there are grounds for divorce. The bible is far from obscure when dealing with sin. The passages are right in your face.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 3 months ago

That could be because it was not practiced during that time to the extent it is now. People knew then that love and sex was practiced between husband and wife of opposite gender. We have forgotten that and now participate in things that are unnatural.

repaste 6 years, 3 months ago

Think it has been around as long as men have.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

WS: Perhaps, but I'd suggest a study of history. Start with the Greeks, for whom some of these practices are named, then move on to the Romans. Abuse of children, male and female is an ancient tradition. It continues with our 'friends' in Afghanistan in horrific fashion. Check it out. In one sense, homosexuality was more open in ancient times. One had the wife, the catamite and the concubine available, sometimes all in the same day. St. Augustine himself had a concubine, which was considered acceptable in the day.

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, Phoenixman, I do have proof that Wounded_Soldier is wrong about ancient sexual practices and Made_in_China is right. Read Eva Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus, and Kevin Dover, Greek Homosexuality.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

I love how you and doubterthomas just make shiitake mushrooms up! Excellent chuckles, thank you!

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Of course, my comment is for wounded.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh boy..... You really are ignorant about history, aren't you? Statements like the one you made proof positive that our schools are failing us. Really, google the subject, then come back here for an educated discussion.

BTW, the Bible is cool with lesbians.

aryastark1984 6 years, 3 months ago

Larry. Have you actually read the story since Sunday school. It is actually the most disturbing story in the Bible. After the rabble shows up at Lot's door, seeking to rape the Angel of the Lord (who is disguised as a traveler) who is staying with Lot, Lot tells them "hey don't rape this stranger, instead RAPE MY VIRGINAL DAUGHTERS (see quoted passage below: King James version of the Bible).

I find it hard to take a biblical passage seriously when the message seems to be "homosexual rape, bad. Rape of women, well that is ok."

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago


It's a very weird story for folks to use as some sort of moral compass, and conclude what they do from it.

Jimo 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank you "doubterthomas" for demonstrating that anyone with enough contempt for facts can argue their way out of any inconvenient truth.

The only one "stretching things a bit" is you.

"Then again, all of the words of Jesus are not recorded either."

As Ole Herb Cain was a sayin just a few moons ago, "I don't have any evidence for this but ...." I'm going to say something incredibly stupid anyway.

"If a new law regarding the approval of homosexual practices was to be introduced, I'm fairly sure he would have let some folks know."

How does even a cursory review of the Gospels allow anyone to miss its message so completely? I'd keep my eyes peeled for a 2x4 wanting to hit you.

esteshawk 6 years, 3 months ago

'he does not speak of it in the printed scripture" Even though the printed scriptures are not Jesus' words (they are Pauls and Johns and Marks and Matthews), are you implying that Jesus said something that was not written down, but YOU KNOW what He said?

asixbury 6 years, 3 months ago

By the way, the words of the New Testament were not written by Mark or Matthew either. Bible history will teach you, that those books were not penned until many years after the disciples were dead. The only books that historians know by whom they were written, without a doubt, were Paul's epistles and maybe John's. The "committee" (I use this term because I cannot remember the actual name) that decided which gospels to include in the bible, attributed the chosen ones to the disciples to give them credence. Historians have no record of who actually started the stories; back then, they were passed down in the oral tradition.

I like your point, though. Who are we to say what "God" or "Jesus" thought?

aryastark1984 6 years, 3 months ago

It was called the Council of Nicea (not sure of the spelling).

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

Non-Biblical ancient texts actually hint that Jesus had a homosexual relationship.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

I actually prefer to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. He was a Jew and called "rabbi". One had to be married at that time to obtain that status under rabbinical law. (Part of the reason that Paul never gained it. He was too much of a misogynist to ever get married.) It was part of the game rules. At least that edition of the Hebrew Games Workshop rules.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank you! I love seeing that there are a few others that have a clue about ancient history and the Bible. Yes, Jesus would have been married.

parrothead8 6 years, 3 months ago

The Bible should have nothing to do with the law. Christianity is a way to live your own life, not a way to force others to live as you want them to. Even Jesus would agree with that.

mr_right_wing 6 years, 3 months ago

Little too late for that...sure you can take public displays of the 10 commandments down; but that is the basis of our laws. I really have no problem with laws against stealing and killing of the innocent.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

So we should have laws against adultery, lying, coveting, etc. if that's the case.

But we don't.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

The military operates differently than our civilian society.

Sex with beasts? Where on earth does that come from?

The point stands - our laws are not based on the 10 commandments - if they were, those would all be illegal, and they're not.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Of the 10 commandments, only 2-3 are illegal in our society.

Most are not.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Buzzz! Wrong answer, Mr. Wing. Our legal and judicial system are based on English Common Law.

littlexav 6 years, 3 months ago

Which, to be fair, has deep connections to English Ecclesiastical courts. But you're right - our laws are based on Common Law, not "God's Law." Although Rick Santorum would love to change that.

Kookamooka 6 years, 3 months ago

The bible was the main reason I gave up. Its the most confusing book on the shelf and everyone has their own "take" on what God meant. If God is all powerful, why couldn't he just spell it out? Where are the divine men from the 21st century who God could use to write another, clearer, more user-friendly, extension of the Bible-with footnotes?

Abdu Omar 6 years, 3 months ago

Maybe He did send a clearer message, you just haven't read it.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

+1. Take Genesis, for example. There were two competing groups of priests who manufactured this book. That's why god is in the sky at times, and in other sections, he strolls through the garden just to chat and visit. I believe they were called the Yahwist, and the Elohists. The two versions were written about 100 years apart and blended together, somewhat clumsily, later on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEDP

P Allen Macfarlane 6 years, 3 months ago

I couldn't agree more. At last we agree on something.

esteshawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Science is not settled once and for all. That's why it's "theory of evolution" and "theory of gravity" and "theory of relativity." Science works with the best available information, and changes all the time; it is not dogmatic like religion. Did you take junior high science???

thebigspoon 6 years, 3 months ago

A very good thought, pm, but I think you might take note that science is not infallible, but is the only method by which postulates can be "proven". There are many, many instances of "scientific" maxims being proven absolutely false after experimentation and observation in a scientific way. The flat earth theory springs immediately to mind. The religious theories of the ages have also undergone countless changes and iterations, but mostly not because of scientific investigation. Rather, religion seems to me to have evolved in tune with the needs and desires of those who "believe" and changes as the needs of the population change.

I don't know wha the ultimate being is, if there is one, but I do know that nearly every civilization has had a means of reaching out to an unknown and generally unseeable entity or group of entities that give that civilization a reason for their actions and ethos. That si the reason for religion, and those who expect religion to answer the physical questions of existence are missing the boat, just as are those who believe science is unchangeable.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 3 months ago

The reason the Bible is so confusing is that it was compiled by a commettee commissioned by King James of England in 1611. It was the solumnm duty of the members of that commsiion to organize scriptures that were acceptable to the king in the form of a bible. Many such scriptures were not used. All were written by mortal men, which gives you some idea of the nature of the finished product. And the finished product better damned well agree with the king's take on things or you could lose your head.

We have no way of knowing whether these "scriptures" are authentic, or even relate to things that actually happened. Belief in the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.

So I would not anguish too much over things you read in the Bible. As one character in the George Gershwin opera "Porgy and Bess", "The things that your liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so".

asixbury 6 years, 3 months ago

Constantine organized the first committee to narrow-down the hundreds of gospels into a few "acceptable" ones. King James narrowed it down even more. His committee changed Mary Magdalene's description to mean "witch," when it was not that way before. This, interestingly enough, coincides with the inquisition. Good points!

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

While the King James translation of the Bible interpreted passages variously, the text of the Bible itself, in the original Hebrew and Greek, had been established centuries earlier, by the 5th century. Of course, those early committees selected which texts would be included and which texts would not be. Some texts that many people believed to be authentic were omitted.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

WRONG! Go online to National Geographic and read the article from the Dec issue on the Bible. They have a nice timeline you need to check out.

asixbury 6 years, 3 months ago

Which part are you saying is wrong? What I wrote was completely accurate.

pavlovs_dog 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh! You mean Gov. Brownback and Gov. Perry?

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 3 months ago

If God is all powerful, why didn't He write it himself?Then there would be no doubt about what he wanted.

Ragingbear 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, there are text that are repressed by the Catholic church that indicate that Jesus and several apostles engaged in homosexual activity. Heck, when Jesus was arrested, the soldiers found him with a young man wearing only a sheet. But when they tried to arrest him, he slipped away and left the sheet behind. Why would there be a naked man there when the churches today claim it was an angel?

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

RB: Stop that. They made political decisions long ago to decide what was 'officially from god' and what was not. Editing is important.

rtwngr 6 years, 3 months ago

This has to be one of the most bigoted, anti Catholic entries I have ever read or heard. Nothing you have said is based in any fact. Everything you have written is a fanciful discrediting of an institution that you disagree with probably because it requires being accountable to something other than yourself.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

I hold no grudge against what used to be called "The Church." It is well established that there were political battles in the early church and it took quite some time to get the bible settled out and approved. Heck, there was blood on the floor after the great ESSENE teacher's death for decades, perhaps centuries, as they settled policy matters amongst themselves. One of the first debates was about the man/god thingie. Was he 1 drop god and the rest human? Was he 1 drop human and the rest god? Was he 50/50 god-man? This dispute kept them at each other's throats for quite some time. When what are now called the Catholics stand for social justice and the poor, I have their back. When they engage in oppression, I am not as impressed.

Ragingbear 6 years, 3 months ago

I would suggest you read up on your apocryphal scriptures. Especially the Gnostic texts. They are actually aknowledged by the Catholic Church as legitimate, just not included in their bible.

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

BS. I'm liberal and cringe when I hear ANY politician refer to anything religious. Keep it all separate.

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

FalseHopeNoChange, You've confused Ba'al and Jesus. Jesus is the one who a) told the rich that they couldn't get to heaven unless they gave up their wealth; and b) told people to pay their taxes, even if they didn't think it was legitimate.

Stuart Evans 6 years, 3 months ago

being accountable to an imaginary friend is like taking no personal responsibility at all.

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

rtwngr, See Mark 14:51-52: "Among those who had followed Jesus was a young man with nothing on but a linen cloth. They [the soldiers] tried to seize him; but he slipped out of the linen cloth and ran away naked." Since the passage is in the Catholic Bible, I guess that it's not "anti-Catholic" to point it out and speculate as to its meaning.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

hahahahaha --- they stopped comments on Tom Shewmon's letter. That is hilarious!

voevoda 6 years, 3 months ago

So, its_just_math, you're in favor of much greater government intervention in the private lives of its citizens? You sound more like the "communists" you claim to despise.

phoggyjay 6 years, 3 months ago

That is such a funny, original comment... did you just make that up? I almost can't finish what I want to write... because I'm... laughing... so... hard...

Anyway, I talked to Adam and Steve and they told me to tell you its your turn to bring the whips, handcuffs and beef jerky for afterwards, because they are sick and tired of spending all their hard earned cash on a submissive "Born again" who only repays with his/her services. Not even a good job at that (according to Adam and Steve), but don't let them know that I told you what they told me in confidence, mkay?

By the way, your avatar makes no sense. When was the last time anything was "Made in the USA?"

Ragingbear 6 years, 3 months ago

If god didn't make homosexuals, then who did? Satan? I didn't know he had the power to create anything. Of course Satan is evil, and God made him. He was an angel, so unlike men he did not have free will either.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 3 months ago

Someone told me that homosexuals were created by heterosexual acts. Of course, that's just a rumor.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Man made God ... and Adam and Eve and Steve.

lawslady 6 years, 3 months ago

Anyone can find Biblical suport for any position they want to take. Any posistion. Because human being tend to see (or want to see) what they are looking to find.

Jesus is reported to have said that all the law (all of it) could be summed up in two commandments; Love God. Love your neighbor. If you claim to follow him, please try to keep that rule foremost in your mind, as you postulate and argue and mince words and judge others.....

gatekeeper 6 years, 3 months ago

THANK YOU!!!! I was always taught that the only lesson to be learned from the Bible was to BE GOOD and do no harm to others.

StirrrThePot 6 years, 3 months ago

LOL @ the notion that homosexuality "wasn't practiced in history like it is today"

That's rich.

"Adam and Steve"

1990 called, it wants its lame homophobic comment back. It also said to go back to Biology class and actually pay attention this time.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

There's nothing clear or logical about his post.

One doesn't need "absolutes" to be faithful to our founding principles.

And, nobody other than he has commented on family in that manner.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

I haven't seen that sort of rhetoric about immorality - do you have some examples?

The issue is fundamental rights granted to all citizens under the constitution.

Those aren't "absolutes", they're simply the principles that we were founded on - other societies may be founded on different ones.

But, if we're going to be founded on them I think it's only reasonable to be faithful to them.

aryastark1984 6 years, 3 months ago

If you don't like gay sex. Have sex with women. If you don't like gay marriage, marry a woman. The only "agenda" that is being forced down your throat is that you treat others with civility and that they be accorded civil rights.

I have friends gay friends who are legally married and as far as I can tell, it has not infringed on my rights to be heterosexual. No one is taking anything away from you. You don't have to like it or condone it for it to be legal.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 3 months ago

If you believe in a Divine Power, whatever you call "Him" or "It" or whatever, that Power created all of us. If you do not have any beliefs, just how do you justify bashing homosexuals???

So just who are you or Phred Phelps to pass judgement on the Divine Creation?

And what business is it of anyone's as to who prefers what sex? I think only those who live in Pomona have any dedicated interest in this topic.

doc1 6 years, 3 months ago

Too bad most of the bible is made up hoopla and a huge part of it has been scientifically proven wrong.

thebigspoon 6 years, 3 months ago

Which parts are those, doc? Not arguing, but I'd be interested in knowing.

esteshawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Start with the age of the earth, then move on to the creation of humans. Geology and biology have shown Genesis wrong. Think that's not true? Geological theory is proved every time you buy gas, and biology every time you see a pharm ad.

littlexav 6 years, 3 months ago

Creation of the world? Even the Bible tries telling it two ways, so which one is right? Neither one, according to standard models of physics.

Parting the Red Sea? No way. Immaculate conception? Literally not possible. Water into wine? In your dreams.

Jeff Zamrzla 6 years, 3 months ago

More of God's Laws with a few questions. Maybe some of you Christians can reply.

  1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

  2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

  3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

  4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

  5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

  6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

  7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

  8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

  9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

  10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have Christians have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

An American Atheist

Jean Robart 6 years, 3 months ago

ummmwe are living in the new covenant times, not the OT. With the coming of Christ came the new covenant, and God's instructions were updated

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Then Christians shouldn't use the OT to condemn homosexuality.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 3 months ago

I stand vindicated before God and Man!!!!!!!!!!!!

mr_right_wing 6 years, 3 months ago

Matthew 7:6

it would be a waste of time, you have no intention of listening to any explanation...your baiting folks for the sole reason of ridicule.

Why does this even matter? Your an atheist..??

Jeff Zamrzla 6 years, 3 months ago

What matters is how each perceives their own role in society. I prefer to remain humble while most Christia I know seem to proselytize at the drop of a pin. Most should shun such activities, if they want friends.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 6 years, 3 months ago

This is hilarious. It's like watching people argue about the color of air. One thing I do know, the Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged," and it seems the religious folk often forget that lil' gem when it comes to homosexuality. Of course, they also like to pick and choose which of God's rules he actually meant (sorry, gays), and which ones were just kind of... guidelines to be discarded as one sees fit (sweet, I can get a divorce and declare other people's sins to be worse than my own!!).

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 3 months ago

Air is blue. Just look at the sky in the daytime for proof of that.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Um, where exactly did he declare this?

What? He didn't? Oh, I see, you just made it up.

How pathetic when you have so little to stand on that you have to make stuff up about what people said.

Might as well get used to the knowledge that Romney likely isn't going to be elected and Obama will serve a second term. You really don't want to give up another four years of your life being this angry, do you?

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Then why not try quoting the WHOLE paragraph that's taken from and stop editing it to mean something entirely different?

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago


And he didn't say, at least in the quote provided, that it was the worlds "most historic moment" as rc77 said, or that he "walked on water".

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Soooo being skewered and accused of having a God complex by a right wing politician = Obama actually believing it. Yeah. Right. I getcha.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Or, that life is too complex to be created without intelligent design, but then insist that it must fit into a simple plug/socket gendered dichotomy without variation.

ivalueamerica 6 years, 3 months ago

In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder

ivalueamerica 6 years, 3 months ago

And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 5:19-22

This is the part that fooled me. I get the idea that if the woman has been unfaithful, then the magic bitter water will do something awful to her. But I wasn't sure just what. What does it mean to have your belly swell and your thigh rot? But then I saw the footnote in the NIV that said it meant this: "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb."

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Just a few chuckles for anyone interested.

Scientologists would have the best chance of meeting Jesus were he to make a visit. Religious piety to teh point of claiming divine inspiration or prophetic ability tends to get one put into a mental institution. Scientologists, with their claims of psychology being a hoax, would, by default, be more capable of accepting a returned Jesus than any sect of Christianity.

Those that keep shouting that Freddy Phelps is NOT a represenative of God should really stop agreeing with him. He's flat stated that homosexuality is a sin with automatic damnation to Hell. Either it's a sin and you agree with Freddy P. in principle, or it's not a sin and Freddy doesn't speak for God. You really can't have both.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Really, Born? You don't agree with "his rush to judgment", but yet less than 50 words previously, you stated that the Bible is the full and complete source on this topic AND said it is not your place to judge, with the implied lack of judgment that the Bible might be wrong.

Dancing around a topic accomplishes nothing other than not answering a question.

Oh, and by the by, I was raised Roman Catholic.

Reverse the situation. Assume you are the homosexual and the homosexual is the one, proverbially, deciding if you should enjoy the same legal rights they have.

Is it correct, as an American, to deny one group of American the same legal rights as another group of American citizens? I could care less about your faith, or even mine in this instance. This is not a theocracy, so God's Law is a red herring with the simple exception of guiding the individual's moral choices.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the topic of marriage was controvertial. Read up on it. The arguments used then echo loudly in harmony with the arguments of today against homosexuals.

At least homosexual are allowed at the lunch counter, so to speak.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Have you actually read the story in the Bible?

Do you believe that Lot was a noble and righteous man for offering his virgin daughters to be raped?

What about all of the other various parts of the OT that condemn a variety of things - do you condemn all of them as well?

If not, why not?

What is this narrow, almost obsessive focus on homosexuality?

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Nice non-answer there.

The Bible, if one is using the OT, lists a large number of various things that one shouldn't do, that are "unclean", etc.

If one believes in the Bible as gospel truth, including the OT, then it would logically follow that one would follow Kosher dietary prescriptions, etc.

Also, one would condemn a large number of habits as "unclean".

And, yet, we don't see that from most Christians. They don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus, they ignore the passages about many habits, and yet they focus on and condemn homosexuality.

It seems odd, and not logically consistent, to me.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Last I knew, the punishment for sin was eternity in Hell. Unless I missed a memo or two, I don't think that has changed much, either.

You say you cannot condemn this person or that, but if you condemn them with a sin, you condemn them to Hell. That is the proverbial poster child for judgment, assuming they haven't changed the definition on that particular word.

My point is not whether you should march in Gay Pride parades or wear rainbow bracelets.

My point is you, as a singular American, are entitled, by LAW, to certain provisions, protections and luxuries. Not allowing homosexuals to have that exact same access is no different than white's only drinking fountains and lunch counters.

To use good 'ol Freddy as an example in a different context, I am all for his civil right to free speech. I despise his methods and wording, but I am all for his RIGHT.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, does God's Law trump civil law in a country NOT run according to God's Laws?

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

So you believe discrimination based on sexual preference is not only acceptable, it's correct?

Or am I reading it wrong when you say you will not vote to give American citizens the same legal rights you possess?

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

The answer to that question appears to be yes.

At first, he claimed he would neither vote to deny nor grant rights, but then acknowledged that he would vote to deny same-sex marriages.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Nicely said.

But that sort of distinction seems to be a bit too subtle for religious believers.

They don't seem to understand that they're free to believe what they like, but that doesn't give them the right to discriminate.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago


They aren't free to marry somebody they love of the gender they prefer.

That's like saying that when inter-racial marriage was illegal, blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, so there was no issue.

Your religious beliefs are yours to keep and hold as you like.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago


Again, that's like saying that when people could all marry someone of the same race, there wasn't an issue.

But, we know there was.

It's the same thing now, with gay marriage.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Phoenix, it's terribly obvious that you do not have a working grasp of the word "equality".

Equality is NOT you have all the rights we decide to give you, or you can only do the things that we condone.

Equality is the same exact availability to the rights and privledges as other citizens. Pure and simple.

As to your religious discrimination, what a load of horse apples. You DO realize, brainiac, that you can say "I Do" in a church until you drop over dead, but the LEGAL protections and privledges cannot be claimed until you gasp follow the law and get a marriage lisence?

If you truly want to talk about religious discrimination, why is it acceptable for Christians to forbid Wiccans from presiding over gay marriages, despite both being recognized religions under the Constitution?

I bet you'd lose your little mind if the tables were turned. Selfish, spoiled little brat.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

The Bible openly condones slavery, both Old and New Testament.

Your argument is a a sad joke if you don't condone slavery as well as condemnation of homosexuality.

And yes, I can't wait to see your argument to defend your adamant declaration that your faith alone is a good enough reason to deny an American citizen the same legal freedoms you enjoy.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

I was hoping for a more expansive response.

I suppose that I was asking for too much.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

SO God's Law supercedes Man's Law? I am assuming that is the basis of your argument.

I don't have a problem with your faith. I have my own. I don't even want you to privately and/or personally condone something that goes against your faith.

During the Civil War, slavery was defended by zealous preachers in the South. Their reasoning was that even Jesus refused to denounce slavery as unjust, even if it was the slavery of the Jew.

Simply because a book says something is wrong doesn;t make it wrong. Yes, the Bible is a book. It was assembled during the Council of Nicea shortly after Constantine I became baptised and realized that Christianity was about as fractured a faith as possible and still be a faith. Records of the Council show that a number of books, including several accounts and writings of Jesus, were excluded. In short, the Bible was assembled by popular vote.

My mention of slavery was taken the wrong way. I never said it was a sin. There are at least a dozen more passages that support slavery than there are denouncing homosexuality.

My question, which I guess you overlooked, is how can you, in good faith, say slavery is wrong, which is contrary to God's word in at least 5 passages I can remember, but say homosexuality is wrong, which is only mentioned 4 or 5 times, at best?

Either the word of God is tantamount or you only endorse it when it happens to coincide with your opinion.

ivalueamerica 6 years, 3 months ago

The same place the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination it also says wearing clothes of mixed fibers is as well and I know you have at least one poly-cotton blend in your closet. Should we then use scripture to allow you to go to prison.

And at the end of the day, I consider poly-cotton blend a much greater threat to humanity and marriage than I do homosexuality.

mr_right_wing 6 years, 3 months ago

First, there is no such thing as 'obscure passages' anywhere in the Bible. I am a 'fundy' and not all of us (thanks for the blanket statement) are 'homophobic' I fear no 'gay' person, and more importantly I hate no 'gay' person...they are sinners like me who need a pardon from that sin. The point on divorce is absolutely right; the two choices God provides (through his word) are reconcilliation or seperation. Man and wife are a picture of Jeus Christ and the church (the bride of Christ), and I'm very glad, as much as we diserve it, God cannot divorce us!

mr_right_wing; putting the 'FUN' back in 'fundy'!

Kookamooka 6 years, 3 months ago

All that "faith talk" sounds crazy. And people who quote Bible verses might as well be quoting football statistics-they are equally irrelevant. How people let that dusty old relic of literature rule their lives for two millenia is the real miracle. Glad to hear more people are putting on their thinking caps and questioning its authority. Let's hope everyone wakes up before Brownback makes all the women in Kansas his handmaidens.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

Jesus, at least most of his teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount is cool. It's religion that tends to suck. Never let something as fragile as a god into human hands.

Jean Robart 6 years, 3 months ago

somebody else said " From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

sad_lawrencian 6 years, 3 months ago

It's only a matter time before Brownback and the GOPs ban divorce in Kansas. I think I'm going to start calling Brownback 'Emperor Sam'.

Armstrong 6 years, 3 months ago

Ahhh, love the sounds of the hysterical left. More poor me and I'm a victim please !!!!

Armstrong 6 years, 3 months ago

You would think after 3 + years the left would finally learn tallk is cheap, but the left is the left

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 3 months ago

Long after all of the great great great great great grandchildren of the posters here are all long dead and forgotten in their graves, the Bible will still be being read.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 3 months ago

Do you think they will be reading the Marquis de Sade's writings for moral guidance instead?

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, considering the way things are going, there won't be a future to worry about.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

See the C-Street Cult, Doug Coe, for examples. They discarded the bible long ago; it's 'jesus plus nothing' and the Great ESSENE is nothing more than a businessman/unionbuster. That's Sam's position; he just won't talk about it much any more.

Armstrong 6 years, 3 months ago

It's theses kinds of posts Gandalf that make you such a valued poster

Armstrong 6 years, 3 months ago

At least they have morals, which is much more than can be said about some.

tolawdjk 6 years, 3 months ago

Gingrinchian morality: "Divorce is an Obamanation unless you can trade up to younger and prettier to further your political career."

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Should we compile a list of "moral" guidances in Christianity and then use said list to find the same references in other, older religions?

Nah, would hate to make people step outside of their comfort zone.

Armored_One 6 years, 3 months ago

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. -Ayn Rand

Was never fond of Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, but in all honesty, Ayn Rand was right.

Do you want your rights decided by a popular vote? Maybe an abolishment of religion in this nation should be put up for a popular vote. Or perhaps a vote on which religion should endorsed.

No, I didn't think you would enjoy something like that.

Remember when people said that interracial marriages would be the death of marriage? Didn't seem to impede me from getting married, or my parents, or my grandparents. Gay marriage isn't the end of anything other than gay dating. In 20 to 30 years, this will be a non-issue, pure and simple. The next generation will take over, and thankfully, they aren't as bigotted as my generation and my parents' generation.

Beside, I though that marriage was simply a ceremony in a religious institution, not the piece of paper you have to have that ACTUALLY matters. I really can't believe that Americans, who take great pride in being tolerant to the point that illegal immigrants have the same legal rights as natural born citizens, will gladly look at a natural born citizen and tell them that they are not entitled to the same rights as other Americans.

THAT is the death of American values, my friends. No American is a lesser citizen than any other American citizen.

There is no "Gay Agenda". There is simply a rectifying of an injustice. Slaves were not 3/5 of a person and neither are homosexuals.

Or are you saying the Constitution of the United States of America should be rewritten to say that only heterosexuals are a whole and complete citizen? I'm only asking because it is what you are saying, so why not make it the actuality.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.