Comments for Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom at http://www.interfaithalliance.org , comment 1 to 42 out of 20 comments http://www.interfaithalliance.org Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:33:44 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-80 This to primarily address Dr. Gaddy's overall support of Islam, also same sex marriage. I don't have the time or the inclination to address the many other controversial issues that I'm sure he apparently writes about. Frankly I just came across an article he'd written and found out who he is.....I honestly had not heard of him before today. But my immediate opinion of him is very low indeed. Dr. Gaddy is sorely confused and mentally challenged when it comes to several issues concerning religion. First ....he needs to get off this kick about 'separation of church and state'.....the US Constitution says NOTHING about 'separation of church and state'. If he is so sure it does, then let him quote it from the Constitution.... he will fail because it's NOT THERE! Dr. Gaddy is also pathetically misguided in his summation about Islam and the need for Americans to respect religions of all persuasions. For one thing, where does he find that we should be tolerant of Islam? Certainly not in the Holy Bible? If Dr. Gaddy is himself a Christian how can he support such a position? Has he not read his own bible? Does he call himself a Christian....a Baptist even? Where has he read that Christians are supposed to tolerate a religion that is more of an ideology and political institution masquerading as a religious sect. Furthermore, how can he support the Islamic's own Qu'ran where it instructs Muslims to kill non believers? What kind of cool aid has Dr. Gaddy been drinking to come up with his pathetic justifications for a religion that condones murdering non believers, to say nothing of condoning older men marrying little girls against their will and stoning to death women and girls through "honor killings"....which by the way, he ought to witness one of these killings and see if he still finds Islam the religion of peace and worthy of our acceptance. Does he not first owe allegiance to God and the Holy Bible if he calls himself a Christian? And if so, why isn't he trying to reach Muslims with the TRUTH? Instead, he goes about peddling the exhortation that we should all respect all religions! What hypocrasy! I also find his position on same sex marriage to be hypocritical. Either he should confess Jesus Christ and speak out against these unions, OR embrace paganism/atheism or whatever to jusify his leanings. Surely he can't argue that he's right to condone same sex marriage while at the same time professing Christianity....on what basis does he do that while he claims to be a Christian? And btw, he's obviously condoning same sex marriage if he argues their cause to government. It's really sad that such a person actually preaches to others and attempts to put them on a guilt trip if they don't 'love' everybody. Well guess what Dr. Gaddy.....you're supposed to love everybody but HATE the sin!!! True Christians have no hatred toward others, but they do have hatred toward the sin that is being committed. If Dr. Gaddy is so eager to go around preaching his own form of religion, let him do it without hiding under the cloak of Christianity. Shame on you Dr. Gaddy. - Mary Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:26:08 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-79 Religion was involved in marriages long before the state was, folks used the marriage certificate in their family bibles to keep a record of it. Marriage license originally came about to prevent interracial marriages. The state got involved so they could decide who was allowed to marry. - Debora Roach Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:42:02 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-78 I am alarmed that Bob-the-Chef would recommend NARTH be considered in any intelligent debate about homosexuality. NARTH has been thoroughly discredited. It's a think-tank to promote the Conservative agenda at the expense of Christianity. If Luiz Sérgio Solimeo has no credentials on animal sexuality. If the question of animal sexuality is pertinent then a credible source would be biologist Bruce Bagemihl PhD. He studied animal sexuality for 15 years and published his findings in the book Biological Exuberance. He has documented homosexual behaviour in hundreds of species in both captivity and the wild. The only logical conclusion is God made homosexuals too. May that which God created let no man put asunder. - Nate West Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:24:42 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-77 Way to put spin on the issue. While a shallow undestanding of the issue of same sex marriage is common, your arrogant presumption is to believe that the crux of the error lies on the side of those opposed. The language in this article is seductive. It employs a false tone of compassion in order to sedate reason and softly pry the minds of those opposed from their convictions through obscurantism. Whether you consciously do this is a matter of debate. A chief error in your argument, among others, is to assume that interpretations are arbitrary. At times, given limited knowledge, interpretations are indeed arbitrary with respect to certain subjects. However, the subject of homosexuality has been given extensive and deep treatment by numerous Catholic theologians, and the lack of awareness or understanding on your part of their elaborations is disappointing. In a nutshell... The Catholic Church, or those reared intellectually and authentically in its tradition, is the only body qualified to interpret the Bible correctly and with full awareness of what the Church can and cannot definitively say about it. Why? Because it is the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible, removed portions which were not consistent with the living tradition established by Christ, and it is the Church alone that interprets Scripture in its totality (and not as many Protestants do it, which often amounts to quoting out of context, reading whatever meaning into it they wish). Now, while most faiths oppose homosexuality, I recognize that in a pluralistic society, Scripture passages by themselves do not always constitute a fully convincing argument. That much is obvious, and its a point missed by Protestants who forget that such arguments fall flat on the ground with those who don't believe. The Catholic Church presents the topic on the basis of reason as well. The funny thing about reason is that it can't convince another of something if they haven't the same basis from which we reason. If someone doesn't understand the concept of an even number, then argumentation depending on an understanding of even numbers won't work. Same here. A brief summary of the main points behind the Church's stance on homosexuality is more or less the following: - The Church only classifies acts as homosexual. It does not confuse act with person (just as it realizes the distinction between the act of murder and the person who commits the act). While various treatments on the various causes of homosexuality exist (psychological confusion is most convincing to me), in its official pronouncements, the Church sets aside the causes and focuses on the concrete homosexual act which it reaffirms is disordered. - The Church affirms that homosexual acts are disordered because they are contrary to human nature and the purpose of sexual activity which is simultaneously unitive and procreative. Homosexual acts do not work towards these ends, or they are wholly incapable of attaining these ends. Dialog is a mechanism that somehow guarantees the truth. Dialog is there for the benefit of individuals to know the other's arguments and so on, and to perhaps open the door for truth in any of the parties, but more often then not I see it used to push a rhetorical and polemical campaign in favor of this issue (usually by presenting the opposition in an unfavorable light in front of an audience). Truth is known by individuals, not by herds. I also recommend looking into the psychological causes of homosexuality. I recommend looking into NARTH. There is a good article by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo on the subject of animal sexuality that is of particular relevance here. - Bob the Chef Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:24:11 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-76 Thank you for writing this article, I sincerely thank you. It speaks of so much truth. I only wish that some people would really take the time to read the whole thing, I mean without prejudice or bigotry but purely with a sincere willingness to reach possible understanding. The thing is, most people have an intense fear of being proved wrong, and that is only human. I, myself share the same fear. But I believe in whatever that stands for freedom and equality, that whatever spreads the hatred and passes judegement to individuals is against my principle. This conviction I adhere to without fear because it is something that is as simple and natural as human nature, to want to be loved and to love. - Carissa Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:46:21 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-75 It is not at all hard to distinguish between race and sexual preference for purposes of civil rights. There is a reason that only the California Supreme court has ever declared homosexuals a "suspect class" (and that is because California is incredibly generous is what constitutes a suspect class) and very few have declared them a "quasi-suspect class." Read some marriage decisions and you will see why. This is also why churches that refuse to ordain women and receive tax-exempt status and those who refuse to ordain blacks cannot. Therefore, the religious liberty balance is appropriately handled quite differently. - Mike Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:28:32 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-74 First, I very sincerely thank you and the Interfaith Alliance for addressing this topic and for a rational, public discussion. Secondly, I thank you for simply using the term 'same-gender' rather than the stereotypical term 'same-sex'. There is a vast difference and the term begins to change the mindset. - Dick Ullrich Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:30:22 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-73 I received 1 st business loans when I was not very old and this aided my relatives very much. However, I require the credit loan over again. - REGINA34Harrison Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:55:45 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-72 Dwana wrote: "Clergy who won't marry gays will be prosecuted for hate crimes; gay activists will see to that." Dwana, you are a liar. As you know quite well, every "gay rights" law ever passed in the USA - indeed, every "race rights" law, every "gender rights" law, every "religious rights" law - has specifically EXCLUDED religious institutions from having to obey that law. Legally, religions can be as racist, as sexist, as homophobic, and as full of hate for other religions as they wish. Clergy can ignore ALL civil rights laws just so long as they are not getting money from the government. Legalized discrimination is a special privilege given only to religions and the military in the US. And isn't that a sad commentary on religion in this country. - ModernMillie Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:24:32 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-69 Is this radicalism funded by my tax dollars? It is well known that anyone can sin as they please...as long as it doesn't hurt others...but, it always does hurt others! This site is so wrong in attempting to brain wash Americans and Judeo-Christians into believing that homosexuality is an OK option! You are guilty of causing children and adults to sin by doing this! And I don't agree with using my money to cause others to sin and lead an unholy life! God knows what is best for His children and he said has and will destroy nations who promote these unatural affections! I will work as hard as I can and pray to God that this interfaith alliance actually reads Gods' laws, promises and learns who the real God is! It's not you or the government! God is God...and I will follow His laws...not yours! God is opposed to homosexual marriange....you talk to Him, not me. And my children are my own..not the governments..to feed these lies into their minds through the public schools. Gays chose not to have children when they chose their lifestyle...so leave mine alone! They are mine and Gods and the schools cannot and will not teach them that having sex with their same sex partner is OK~ Homesexuals cannot have chidren...that is the punishment for their sinful ways! Feel free to attempt to contact me and brainwash me....it won't work...I will stear you to Gods' laws and His word...end of story. Fight God not me! - Mary Martin Koski Fri, 21 May 2010 05:52:27 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-68 Alas, the one point no one seems to want to face: Marriage, by the defining means of any Prophet, is a union of two hearts and souls. Period. Just because the celebrants are Adam and Steve means naught. Were the "union of two bodies" the real point, there are many whom I'd have never put together, not even as friends. If a soul is true to the emotion, and a heart sharing all it may, who are we to say Annette and Stephanie should not enjoy the unique position of matrimony? As the heart, so the love and the life. As the soul, so the faith in each other to truly make two hearts one. Else none should enjoy the place of marriage, and none should enjoy the secular benefits inherent. How would some like being told today they were not allowed to marry because they were Black/Indian/Chinese/Japanese/"retarded"/"deformed"/or any of several hundred Ethnicities or physical conditions? If this is how the worlds religions wish to be about the people in their congregations, especially those who are "a little bit different", it's no wonder they're moving to a faith that recognizes them as people, hearts and souls first. I happen to be one of those who found a faith that works for me. Happily preaching a message taken from all the new Prophets. And I am one of the "little bit different". - Rev. Leynda Erwin, The Kirk O' the Way Tue, 11 May 2010 14:24:25 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-67 Sure would cut down on unwanted pregnancies wouldn't it? Harold - Harold Bentley Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:15:23 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-64 For those that say homosexuality is a choice, I have a son and a sister who are both gay and I can assure you it is genetic, although we obviously do not understand the genetic code that has caused this to occur for centuries. For those that point to God's word and say it is "in black and white" and wrong, I also point to the wise words of Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas in his book "10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You": "So, is homosexuality a sin? Is that what the Bible really says? Certainly the writer of Leviticus thought so...The book of Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty on everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you're going to accept one as the absolute, uneqquivocal word of God, you'd better be prepared to accept them all." Take the following questions he features as an example: 1. "When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice (remember, sacrifices are mandatory), I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?" 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?" 5. "I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath (literally Saturday). Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Must I also kill his offspring? There are many other examples but I think the idea is clearly communicated with these examples. As Rev. Thomas indicates, mainstream religion moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery, and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. - MB Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:19:57 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-63 I do not buy the arguement that homosexuals are simply born that way, and therefore should be allowed to act out their desires with like minded folk. All heterosexual men are born with the instinct to spread their seed as much as possible, into every attractive woman who walks by. Because that is how I am born, does that give me license to act on my feelings? Crack your Bible folks. The answers are in black and white. - Robert Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:27:09 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-41 why dont you start a medicin treatment for the people who feel that they are deferent from others like hormons or somthing medical anyway for me i respect all mankind and wish everybody goodness but i dont feel good when i look at two person who are the same sex getting married something wrong it is out of nature and against it so why we support something not naturally and against our nature this is wrong thing you are doing thank you - sudad Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:46:02 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-40 It's obvious that many of you have fallen for the (what has yet NEVER been proven) idea that homosexuality is genetic. I do not share such a notion and believe that it's a preferance and a choice. Even though I believe being gay is not genetic, I do believe a person's choice is theirs alone. Saying that, I have to say some things that many may not share about this subject. First, anyone who makes such speculations about the Bible that is truely baseless shouldn't make the Bible into an unfounded justification for thier personal views. I believe TK made a statement that marriage is not mentioned in the Bible and Sarah Laducer-Pierson used the relationships between both King David and Johnathan as well as the relationships of Ruth and Naomi to excuse here sexual preferances. As is often said in the daytime talk shows "Don't get it twisted".King David having a homosexual relationship with Johnathan would have left David dethroned and painfully killed right beside his supposed lover Johnathan. The Bible mentions many scandals and a homosexual "bromance" would've been mentioned. In the Bible, King David lamented about the loss of Johnathon where he states " I grieve for you, Johnathan my BROTHER; you were very dear to me." Your confusion might be where right after, David continues lamenting by saying " Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a WOMAN." This is more of a "Bro's before Hoes" declaration, not a justification for homosexuality (Please forgive the "Bro's before Hoes" statement. It was the easiest way to explain the point). As for Ruth and Naomi. Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. After Ruth married Boaz (See TK? There's marriage in the Bible!) she later gave birth to a son, Ruth gave her son to Naomi to take care of, but, that's as far as the relationship was. They were family. Second, did anyone consider this as a cultural problem? People which I've talk to take this as an actual attack on those who embrace a traditional life style. I would argue that marriage was not primarily a pagan civil matter, nor was marriage first embraced by the church in the 8th Century. Christians had secret marriages performed in secret way before it was leagle to be Christian. Before Christ was even promissed in prophacy, for thousands of years, marriage was used as a means to procreate and enlarge the family. This would raise the status of a man's family and keep a man's name in tact. If a man had a daughter, many times that daughter would be married off in a form of trade giving another man's name a chance to prosper and grow while gaining some form of gift (such as a herd of lambs or some grain or [if the trade is with a man of riches] gold and/or jewels). However, if the man has a son, a reversal of gifts may be offered. Also, if the man was important, he was offered many gifts if he decides to let his son marry the other man's daughter. Many cultures have tied marriage and procreation using a key desire throughout the ages ... prosperity. So, for thousands of years, marriage which was at one time a utencil for an organized means of procreation, has become a huge foundation for the heterosexual lifestyle and (for many current cultures) still symbolizes prosperity. Gee, and you honestly wonder why this is not being taken well by most? The homosexual groups are expecting heterosexuals to give up a HUGE part of heterosexual culture (in a matter of a few years) in the name of one of the biggest hoaxes of all... equality. The very idea of equality is a fools dream. Think about it. I can NEVER be honestly compared to another because there will always be something different about me than the other pearson I'm being compared to. What these overbearing and annoying homosexual groups really want is acceptance. Which makes them hypocrites because they aren't willing to accept the differences that many religions have with them. Which is the view that the homosexual act is a sin and will lead to judgement before God. Oh, and let's be clear. The Bible has constantly shown that God has love for those who who respect his commandments and a heavy desire to regain a relationship with those in sin. However, there is such thing as Godly anger and judgement from that anger. Which has been shown throughout the Old Testament. Jesus himself stated that we must still follow those commandments and that he hasn't changed such expectations (this the same God which finds the homosexual act "detestable" [Lev. 18:22]). The reason I mention this to make the point that acceptance will NEVER be offered by many of those who's religion deems the homosexual act as "detestable". I noticed some have claim to be Christian, yet, states that the same God who declares such an act "detestable" also accepts their sexual preferences. I don't think most religous groups will share that opinion and anyone who links those who will not accept homosexuality with those who are terrorist and cruel religious groups show themselves to be just a group of hypocrites who demand acceptance and yet, shows no acceptance towards those whom think differently. - Bruce McGilvray Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:35:30 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-39 Since my faith permits same sex marriage, I take issue with those who would ban it. My first ammendment right to allow homosexual marriage is currently being restricted. - JSW Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:21:26 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-38 The problem is that there's a huge misunderstanding in people who think civil marriage is a Church invention. Civil Marriage is a Pagan custom of civil law, and its purpose is for civil law, legal matters, nothing more. We inherited these pre-Christian laws. It has nothing to do with religious laws or the bible. In fact, I don't think the bible even mention's marriage anywhere. The Church didn't adopt the practice of marriage until after the 8th century or later, and prior to that people were simply together just by stating they were a couple. If they had property then they would more likely get a civil license. The church started marrying people and making it in the eyes of that church's god and their own religious beliefs. The church also started documenting marriage because some smaller towns had no civil office, so people had to go to the church to document it. The church did take control of all civil matters in those darker days, lots of information was lost, burned and many people where killed for speaking out against the church, so we don’t have to many documents remaining from these day’s. Civil marriages true purpose was legal, not religious, and it’s for proving property rights, heirs and other legal matters, not church. We now have civil offices all over, and it's not the church's business to document those civil marriages, but if people have a particular faith they may want to have a church wedding, but that is their business, and it has nothing to do with the civil office. People can have a Justice of the Peace sign a marriage license, and even I can sign one, it doesn’t have to be a religious wedding of any sort, nor does it have to have the word of god evoked. - TK Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:08:49 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-37 Rachel, Why do you want the government to impose its definition of marriage on you? - Christian Miller Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:02:18 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-36 Why should I, a Pagan, have to submit my marriage for Christians' approval? I don't see why conservative Christians here think they should be able to define everyone else's secular, state-sponsored marriages in the U.S. Define your church's marriages that way if you must, but don't dare impose your definition on me. - Rachel Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:39:13 +0100