U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: If Homosexuals ‘Marry,’ Why Can’t Four Attorneys?

AlitoWASHINGTON — During Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito questioned an attorney if multiple consenting adults should be allowed to “marry” if those of the same gender are granted the same recognition.

“Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” he asked.

“I believe so, your honor,” replied attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented a homosexual man in Michigan.

“What would be the reason?” Alito inquired.

She said that the arrangement might not fall within the definition of marriage and that it might be “disruptive” to families.

“One [reason] is whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage,” Bonauto stated. “But then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons.”

Alito then provided a hypothetical scenario of consenting adults.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[T]hese are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not–it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers,” he said, evoking laughter. “What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case?”

“What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” Alito asked.

Bonauto replied that she believes that marriage should be kept within two people.

“Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people,” she stated.

“I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be,” Bonauto added when she continued to be questioned.

As previously reported, some have stated that mankind has made up its own rules along the way in regard to marriage in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?

“If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Dr. Michael Brown wrote for Charisma News earlier this year regarding the Thailand “marriage” of three men. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • LeftCoast

    So a gay couple getting married is ok, not a sin. But if 3-4 people get together, what a horrible sin. Hey gay community, can you give us a list of what you deem moral and immoral? A list of sins and not a sin? A list of do’s and don’ts?

    • Zasz

      Nobody is promoting the idea to marry more than one person. And what is considered a sin or not is completely irrelevant. It would only be an excuse to deny people the same rights christians have.

      • Martin Walsh

        What about Bi-sexuals? Don’t they get a chance?

        • Zasz

          I dont see any reason why they should not be treated equally.

          • Martin Walsh

            So they should be allowed to marry more than 1 person then. Earlier you said that no one wants to marry more than 1 person. What gives?

          • Zasz

            Name someone that is actually promoting the idea or is willing to marry more than one person outside jewish or muslim religions. Because as far as I know, polgygamy is illegal in america, europe, russia and asia. Definately not illegal in islamic countries or africa.

          • Martin Walsh

            There was that story recently about a lesbian thruple who got ‘married’ or the homosex quadruple in Thailand. I don’t have their names – I wasn’t invited to either wedding. Polygamy is illegal in those countries and regions because of the Christian heritage of their laws and customs. A heritage that you greatly resent and would deny. Polygamy is not practised in Judaism.

          • Bill

            it use to be and a few still a practice it

          • Martin Walsh

            Bill,
            Not now and not for a long time. The Essenes in the days of Christ argued from Genesis for monogamy. I am aware that there are some fringe groups in Judaism who do practise polygamy but it is not mainstream teaching.

    • Jade

      If you are going to understand my answer, you will first have to remove your religious blinders. Gay people are real people who currently cannot get married in some states in America. Straight people can get married in all 50 states. Marriage is not a heterosexual privelege it is a human right. When justice comes to the LGBT community, 100% of the adult human population in America will be able to get married if they desire. After that there is no need to consider any other type of rediculous polygomous relationships even though most of the Bible speaks of a man with multiple wives and concubines. 613 laws given to Moses, yet not a single law that says a man or a woman should have only ONE spouse! I really wish Christians would take the time to thoroughly read their entire Bible as I have numerous times. You would be surprised at what you would find.

      • LeftCoast

        Jade, I believe that America will be 100% come June. I truly do believe that the Justices will side with secularism.
        I have read my Bible and I teach the Bible, if you are going off old testament, then you don’t understand the Christian faith. So, why is same sex marriage holy and not polygamy? It’s all a sin and it’s all unholy in the eyes of God. But, in a secular world, why is there morals and standards? can’t happen, it’s all good in the eyes of the government. Why would the government limit it’s definition of marriage? Here is the bottom line, come June, marriage is open to whatever in the eyes of this government. But, with God, it’s all still a sin.

        • Zasz

          Secularism doesnt work that way. Its equality for everyone that includes LGBTs, religious and non-religious people.
          In a theocracy on the other hand, only religious people get their way while everyone that disagrees is an outsider or an enemy of the state. See islamic countries for that. You want america to be like that? You want people to be stoned, hanged or otherwise executed just for not affecting your life at all?
          Yes? Maybe you feel better moving to islamic countries then.
          No? Then throw away your bible and promote equality instead of hatred based on a book.

          • MC

            “Its equality for everyone”

            And that includes polygamists and incestuous relationships. You can’t discriminate against them, they want their equality too.

        • Jade

          The Bible did an extremely poor job of teaching us that marriage is only between a man and a woman. First of all we are told in Genesis that “this explains why a man leaves his mother and father and joins his wife and the two become one” right after the story of Adam and Eve. At that time both the man and his wife would be coming from the same mother and father, right? Then all we read about is man with multiple women. 613 laws yet none that teaches us that a man or woman should have only one partner in life. Even when discussing kings, the law is that kings should not take MANY wives. King Solomon marries 1000 women which leads to idol worship and the beginning of the destruction of the Israelites. We are told that God had warned men not to intermarry with those nations but NOTHING about polygamous marriages. All that human suffering from the genocide to get into the Land of Canaan only to have more human suffering because there was not law against man with multiple wives! Then when we get into the New Testament, all we read from Paul is that we should not get married. As I stated before, an extremely poor job of teaching us about marriage!

          • Martin Walsh

            In fact, yours is an extremely poor exposition of the Bible’s teachings. The Biblical ideal is monogamous heterosexual life-long marriage. It’s right there in Genesis 1 and 2 as you allude to. The comment about leaving his father and mother is quite obviously about the creation of another nuclear family unit. The fact that their parents were Adam and Eze is irrelevant to the point. This is the model for all of humanity since. The Bible records, warts and all, the many failings of mankind and in particular the people of Israel. It also records the warnings of God, the giving of His laws as a way to live and enjoy life. Polygamy, serial and concurrent, is a deviation from Gods express decree and we see the many dreadful consequences that ensued in Israel’s history for all of her disobedience to God in this area and others.

            Paul doesn’t just teach celibacy. He teaches faithful marriage!

            But thanks be to God that He sent His son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins!

          • MC

            If you think the Bible does a poor job of teaching us that marriage is only between a man and a woman then I have to seriously question your intelligence.

          • Jade

            Don’t just make a general statement, back it up with your scriptures. You won’t find them.

          • MC

            If you think that Jesus saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, TWICE, once in the OT and once in the NT, and Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, (God), saying marriage is between a man and a woman is somehow cryptic, then I’m definitely questioning your intelligence and comprehension skills.

          • Jade

            In the Gospels, Jesus is responding to a question about a man and a woman in a divorce situation. His quoted response which was made 30 – 70 years after the question would be expected to be about a man and a woman. Also if Paul is speaking for God then we must believe that God thinks it is best not to get married or if we do marry then the woman (like me) needs to be submissive to their husbands in everything. So what we have is the Genesis writing (at a very odd time since the man would be marrying his sister) and then we have to wait until the Gospels (74% through the Bible) until we see another reference to one man and one woman (repeat of Genesis). This is a very poor argument that God commands for us to live with one man and one woman. You would have a much better argument for one man and many wives!

          • MC

            Nowhere in Genesis is Jesus talking about divorce, all he’s doing in the NT is reiterating what he said in Genesis. That a marriage is between a man and a woman.

            “His quoted response which was made 30 – 70 years after the question would be expected to be about a man and a woman.”

            I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

            “Also if Paul is speaking for God then we must believe that God thinks it is best not to get married”.

            Absolutely. And Paul says IF they have the gift of singleness. And because you can devote all your time to God and spreading the Gospel.

            “or if we do marry then the woman (like me) needs to be submissive to their husbands in everything.”

            Yes. Just like we submit to God and other Christians.

            “So what we have is the Genesis writing (at a very odd time since the man would be marrying his sister)”

            Um no, Adam and Eve were NOT birthed through a mother, Adam was made from dust and Eve was made from his rib. They were NOT brother and sister.

            “and then we have to wait until the Gospels (74% through the Bible) until we see another reference to one man and one woman (repeat of Genesis). This is a very poor argument that God commands for us to live with one man and one woman.”

            Duh! The Jews already knew that marriage was between a man and a woman, it was part of their law that they followed, as you read a lot of marriages between one man and one woman in the Bible. Why would they keep repeating the same thing over and over when it’s already understood and law? That’s like saying, ” You must come to a complete stop at a red traffic light”, over and over again ad nauseam. Why would you do that when you already know the law?

            “You would have a much better argument for one man and many wives!”

            Only if you’re a moron I suppose.

          • MC

            Nowhere in Genesis is Jesus talking about divorce, all he’s doing in the NT is reiterating what he said in Genesis. That a marriage is between a man and a woman.

            “His quoted response which was made 30 – 70 years after the question would be expected to be about a man and a woman.”

            I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

            “Also if Paul is speaking for God then we must believe that God thinks it is best not to get married”.

            Absolutely. And Paul says IF they have the gift of singleness. And because you can devote all your time to God and spreading the Gospel.

            “or if we do marry then the woman (like me) needs to be submissive to their husbands in everything.”

            Yes. Just like we submit to God and other Christians.

            “So what we have is the Genesis writing (at a very odd time since the man would be marrying his sister)”

            Um no, Adam and Eve were NOT birthed through a mother, Adam was made from dust and Eve was made from his rib. They were NOT brother and sister. If you’re talking about their children then yes, how else were they going to start civilization? In the very beginning the human genetic code was free from defects, by the time of Moses God commanded against incest.

            “and then we have to wait until the Gospels (74% through the Bible) until we see another reference to one man and one woman (repeat of Genesis). This is a very poor argument that God commands for us to live with one man and one woman.”

            Duh! The Jews already knew that marriage was between a man and a woman, it was part of their law that they followed, as you read a lot of marriages between one man and one woman in the Bible. Why would they keep repeating the same thing over and over when it’s already understood and law? That’s like saying, ” You must come to a complete stop at a red traffic light”, over and over again ad nauseam. Why would you do that when you already know the law?

            “You would have a much better argument for one man and many wives!”

            Only if you’re a moron I suppose.

          • Jade

            “Nowhere in Genesis is Jesus talking about divorce” ??? what are you talking about Jesus in Genesis? Look at the “Gospels” in Matthew 19, Jesus is responding to some Pharisees about “divorce”. Yes I am talking about the children of Adam and Eve. Very odd to put that scripture there with man leaving his mother and father because his sister would be leaving the same mother and father. There were very few one man and one woman in OT, (try to find some). No negative statement from God on marrying multiple wives and concubines, only negative statement about intermarrying between nations. Finally, the Gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus left this earth.

          • MC

            Um, you do know that Jesus IS God, right? Who do you think gave Moses the commandments? And no, just because some people practiced polygamy doesn’t mean God approved of it, he actually condemns it. And the ones who practiced it suffered the consequences.

            He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. (‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭17‬:‭17‬ NASB)

            For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (‭1 Kings‬ ‭11‬:‭4‬ NASB)

            An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬ NASB)

            namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (‭Titus‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬ NASB)

            Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭15-17‬ NASB)

            But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            “Very odd to put that scripture there with man leaving his mother and father because his sister would be leaving the same mother and father”.

            Not strange at all, welcome to starting civilization.

            “Finally, the Gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus left this earth.”

            So what? Remember what Jesus promised?

            “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭25-26‬ NASB)

            You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭48-49‬ NASB)

            But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (‭John‬ ‭16‬:‭13-15‬ NASB)

            Who’s the Holy Spirit that Jesus said would not only teach them all things but also bring to remembrance everything Jesus taught them? God. God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God. They always existed, eternally distinct, in one essence. One God.

            Here Jesus speaks in Isaiah.

            “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (‭Isaiah‬ ‭48‬:‭16‬ NASB)

            The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; (‭Isaiah‬ ‭61‬:‭1‬ NASB)

            And Jesus speaks in Luke.

            And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all. And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “THE S PIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED M E TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (‭Luke‬ ‭4‬:‭14-21‬ NASB)

            Jesus spoke in Genesis and said marriage is between one man and one woman and then he reiterated what he said in the NT. Jesus does he mention divorce in Genesis.

          • Jade

            Just because your reply is lengthy, does not mean it has much value in our discussion. Your responses just shows the way the Bible is written, you can find scriptures to support any argument (one side or the other). To simplify my response, we see that it was not a problem with a man marrying multiple wives with God. It began with Lamech marrying 2 women (Genesis) and continued throughout the OT. There are many men who married many wive/concubines with absolutely NO negative response from God (Abraham, Jacob, King David, King Solomon, Abijah, etc). It was clear in the scriptures that a woman must not have more than one husband (or she was stoned) but a man could have multiple wives as long as they were not bringing idols into the marriage. With your best scripture (Genesis 1:24), did you ever consider that maybe it refers to the physical act of intercouse which creates a position where both bodies are connected or the DNA from man and DNA from a woman unit to form one flesh (a child) and has nothing to do with marriage? This verse would have been true for any of King David’s many wives.

          • MC

            Well, when I compare your OPINION against Scripture, your OPINION has no value, at all.

          • MC

            Um, you do know that Jesus IS God, right? Who do you think gave Moses the commandments? And no, just because some people practiced polygamy doesn’t mean God approved of it, he actually condemns it. And the ones who practiced it suffered the consequences.

            He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. (‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭17‬:‭17‬ NASB)

            For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (‭1 Kings‬ ‭11‬:‭4‬ NASB)

            An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬ NASB)

            namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (‭Titus‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬ NASB)

            Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭15-17‬ NASB)

            But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            “Very odd to put that scripture there with man leaving his mother and father because his sister would be leaving the same mother and father”.

            Not strange at all, welcome to starting civilization.

            “Finally, the Gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus left this earth.”

            So what? Remember what Jesus promised?

            “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭25-26‬ NASB)

            You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭48-49‬ NASB)

            But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (‭John‬ ‭16‬:‭13-15‬ NASB)

            Who’s the Holy Spirit that Jesus said would not only teach them all things but also bring to remembrance everything Jesus taught them? God. God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God. They always existed, eternally distinct, in one essence. One God.

            Here Jesus speaks in Isaiah.

            “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (‭Isaiah‬ ‭48‬:‭16‬ NASB)

            The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; (‭Isaiah‬ ‭61‬:‭1‬ NASB)

            And Jesus speaks in Luke.

            And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all. And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “THE S PIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED M E TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (‭Luke‬ ‭4‬:‭14-21‬ NASB)

            Jesus spoke in Genesis and said marriage is between one man and one woman and then he reiterated what he said in the NT. Jesus is NOT talking about divorce in Genesis.

          • MC

            Um, you do know that Jesus IS God, right? Who do you think gave Moses the commandments? And no, just because some people practiced polygamy doesn’t mean God approved of it, he actually condemns it. And the ones who practiced it suffered the consequences.

            He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. (‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭17‬:‭17‬ NASB)

            For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (‭1 Kings‬ ‭11‬:‭4‬ NASB)

            An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬ NASB)

            namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (‭Titus‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬ NASB)

            Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭15-17‬ NASB)

            But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭2‬ NASB)

            “Very odd to put that scripture there with man leaving his mother and father because his sister would be leaving the same mother and father”.

            Not strange at all, welcome to starting civilization.

            “Finally, the Gospels were not written until 30-70 years after Jesus left this earth.”

            So what? Remember what Jesus promised?

            “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭25-26‬ NASB)

            You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭48-49‬ NASB)

            But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (‭John‬ ‭16‬:‭13-15‬ NASB)

            Who’s the Holy Spirit that Jesus said would not only teach them all things but also bring to remembrance everything Jesus taught them? God. God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God. They always existed, eternally distinct, in one essence. One God.

            Here Jesus speaks in Isaiah.

            “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (‭Isaiah‬ ‭48‬:‭16‬ NASB)

            The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; (‭Isaiah‬ ‭61‬:‭1‬ NASB)

            And Jesus speaks in Luke.

            And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all. And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “THE S PIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED M E TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (‭Luke‬ ‭4‬:‭14-21‬ NASB)

            Jesus spoke in Genesis and said marriage is between one man and one woman and then he reiterated what he said in the NT. Jesus is NOT talking about divorce in Genesis.

      • Martin Walsh

        You say “when justice comes to the LGBT community….” Let’s focus on the B then. Presumably, justice to a bi-sexual person would allow them to marry a man and a woman. Why not? Any other response from you that seeks to limit marriage to 2 people is an arbitrary distinction and ergo promotes injustice to bi-sexual a.

        • LeftCoast

          You just got moded. What a burn!!!! LOL

          • Martin Walsh

            What for?

          • LeftCoast

            LOL, not you Martin but Jade. You burned Jade. And the moded was a joke on the 90s.

          • Martin Walsh

            Ah! I thought you meant moderated.

        • Jade

          Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other. If a bi-sexual falls in love whether that be with a man or a woman, then that is their partner hopefully for life. That commitment completes their human right to marry. Marriage is a commitment to ONE person and it would not be an injustice to prevent a bi-sexual from a polygamous relationship. Sorry.

          • Martin Walsh

            The reason marriage is a commitment between 2 people, man and woman, is because of Christianity. You reject that moral tradition and custom when you propose SSM. You saying it has to be 2 people only is arbitrary. There is no reason at all why this has to be so according to your logic. The point of being bi-sexual is that you are attracted to both sexes and can fall in ‘love’with two people at the same time. So why can’t they marry 2 people?
            Your last sentence is just irrational. If a bi-sexual man marries another man and then has a relationship with a woman against his ‘husbands’ wishes, isn’t that a type of adultery? But if it’s an injustice to deny him this then how could it be wrong?

          • Zasz

            “The reason marriage is a commitment between 2 people, man and woman, is because of Christianity. ”
            Marriage is not a religious right, its a civil right. Since there are no christian nations on this planet, christians dont make the rules about who is and who is not allowed to marry. Unfortunately christian politicians violate the laws by creating laws against non-christians or prohibiting laws that guarantee equal rights.
            There is a reason why the constitution contains the seperation of church and state clause.

          • Martin Walsh

            Yawn. I didn’t say marriage is a religious right, did I? What I said was that the limitation of 2 people, male and female in a marriage as currently recognised by the laws of the land in the good ole USA is because of the Christian heritage of the country and its laws. How do you violate a law by making a law?

          • Zasz

            “I didn’t say marriage is a religious right, did I?”
            Then why the fuck do you argue against same-sex marriage using christianity?

          • Martin Walsh

            You implied that I said it which I didn’t. You have implied a number of things I haven’t said. The reason I argue against SSM is because I am a Chtristian and it is what God says that matters. He says in His law what marriage is and who it is for. He laws are not a la carte.

          • Zasz

            You not going out and not killing gays regardless that its promoted in leviticus makes you a cherry picker.

          • Martin Walsh

            No. I am not entitled or required to kill anybody, nor was that the case in the OT i.e. Vigilantyism was not permitted. There were courts and due process to be followed then and appointed judges and officers of the law.

          • Zasz

            ” I am not entitled or required to kill anybody”
            Leviticus 20:13
            If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
            It doesnt say by whom. Unless you can cite any credible source for those “courts and due process”, I think you are making stuff up again.

          • Martin Walsh

            Try reading the whole of the Torah. Your ignorance of the bible again manifest. The fact that you can go on the Internet and copy and paste choice verses does not mean you understand what they are saying, why they are saying it and the cultural and other contexts in which they were said.

          • Jade

            Martin, you seem to be the one who is ignorant of the Bible. You don’t even properly capitalize it when you comment.

          • Martin Walsh

            Really, I didn’t capitalise the b in Bible…..how about addressing my comments re Bi-sexuality (notice the capital) and your inability to justify the limitation of marriage to 2 people without having to appeal to moral tradition and custom.

          • Jade

            I already answered your question with extreme clarity. You just have refused to remove your religious blinders.

          • Martin Walsh

            No you have not. Simply asserting that marriage should only be restricted to 2 people is not the same thing as providing sound reasons what that ought to be so. You are clearly avoiding answering because you and I both know that it is only in the context of Christian moral teaching, tradition and custom that this is justified. Obviously you cannot do this because it undermines your case for SSM. My ‘religious blinders’ don’t prevent me from detecting untenable arguments.

          • MC

            Hey simpleton, that was the judicial law of the ancient Israelites in the ANE. Here in America we have different judicial laws. Would you like to bring back ancient Roman judicial law and start having crucifixions again?

          • Names_Stan

            So I don’t even have to go back further than the 5th century BC to find Plato expounding on Marriage.

            I assume with research I could go back much farther. But let’s stick to Plato.

            For you to claim that Judaism independently came up with marriage (whether by God’s communication or without), you’d have to show that Plato got his ideas from Jewish scripture.

            Midrash commentaries didn’t exist yet, and there’s no evidence that Greek translations existed yet. Do you want to claim that Plato had someone personally translating Hebrew for him, and he got his ideas from Judaism.

            But wait…where is the one man, one woman edict in the OT?

            Unless you can cite that, Paul would be the first to record a Christian definition in the first century. Do you want to say no earlier societies defined marriage similar to Paul, before Paul?

          • Martin Walsh

            Stan, I’m not sure what a Disney character has to do with this discussion….:-)

            Seriously, I haven’t studied Plato and cannot comment on his teachings or where he got his ideas from.

            The ideal of monogamous life long marriage is found in Genessis 1 and 2, in the creation of man narratives, right at the beginning. Written well before Plato. It is this that Jesus Himself confirms in the NT.

            Genesis 1:27 NIV
            [27] So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

            Genesis 2:24 NIV
            [24] That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

            Mark 10:7-9 NIV
            [7] ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [8] and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. [9] Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

          • MC

            Um, you do know that in the ANE it was an oral culture, right?

          • Names_Stan

            Everyone who hadn’t come up with writing yet was an oral culture, sure.

            One small problem is the tablet inscriptions of Genesis, which would have been 1300 years before Christ, but we’ll overlook that one.

            The discussion is whether Judeo-Christian scripture had any origination claim to “marriage”. The key point is that the hetero couple exclusive arrangement isn’t commanded until the first century.

            Before that, there were multiple wives and concubines and hand maidens.

            Marriage rules were cultural, as anthropology tells us. But those varying rules, including hetero couple exclusive, existed in cultures long before Judeo or Christian rules could have been spread.

          • Martin Walsh

            How about responding to my response to you earlier.

          • Names_Stan

            I thought I addressed that by stating that scholarship considers those narratives to be 6th-7th century BCE in origin.

            Also, there are two problems with citing Pentateuch for a model of marriage:
            A) Pointing to the creation story as a model is problematic because populating beyond the first couple implies incest.

            B) If the creation story really is the beginning of the narrative, and really a model for modern marriage, there’s a disconnect. Why would the prohibition against adultery in the Ten Commandments not have also stipulated that polygamy did was forbidden?

            I think it’s fairly obvious that the definition of Jesus and Paul mirrored what was already occurring in their world.

            But polygamy, much like slavery, raises the question of inerrancy. Why not be clear and consistent and outlaw these things, rather than endorse them?

            The obvious answer for liberal Christians is that men wrote the endorsements, not God.

            And man in his reason has built a society far advanced in our understanding of philosophy, ethics and science than the ancients. The scripture has relevance and is instructive. And no doubt is the story of ancient man’s quest for God. But it’s not “inerrant and infallable”.

          • Martin Walsh

            Stan,

            It’s not my field but I’m sure that other scholars date the Pentateuch to earlier times. There is no uniform view on this.
            You seem to be saying that the concept of monogamous marriage among the Jews was not derived principally from the scriptures but from other cultures around them. Obviously, marriage predates the writing of the scriptures. The scriptures represent and record God’s creation of the world and His decrees concerning sex and marriage. My point in citing Genesis was to show that the concept of monogamous lifelong heterosexual marriage is clearly set out as part of the creation narrative as God’s decree from the start. Jesus affirmed this while closing loopholes concerning divorce.
            Clearly the propagation of humanity from the original Adam Eve couple had to involve brother and sister and cousin etc. That’s obvious. The prohibition on incest comes in at a much later date when it is not necessary to couple with near relatives.
            The commandment against adultery, in the context of monogamous marriage as normative and proscriptive, obviously relates to polygamy. It is not necessary to list every circumstance of application for universal prohibitions.
            Whether or not the wider culture (outside second temple Judaism) of Jesus and Paul’s time reflected Jewish practise is irrelevant. Both Jesus and Paul cite the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative source of teaching and doctrine concerning sex and marriage. You seem to want to overlook this in favour of assumed influences from outside that you infer but cannot demonstrate. Correlation is not causation.
            I don’t agree that polygamy and slavery are endorsed. They are certainly recorded as practised by people then. However, we do see clearly expressed God’s decrees in respect of marriage and individual dignity and freedom. People of course, then as now, are sinners and disobey God. Christ came to free us from our slavery to sin and death – that is the great story of slavery in the Bible.
            Undoubtedly, we are advanced technologically and scientifically etc. but as humans in terms of our behaviour, attitudes, and desire to be gods, we are no different from our ancestors.
            As a Reformed Christian I affirm the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. God’s authority is at stake otherwise.

          • Jade

            Your logic is giving me a headache. Anybody can fall in love with two people at the same time – it happens but of course it is wrong. That is why we get married and make a committment to ONE person. Try to understand that for ALL people (gay and straight) your human right to marry is completed when you are legally married. After that any relationship with another human being is adultery for ALL people.

          • Martin Walsh

            Why is it wrong? I know why it is wrong but you need to explain why you are being arbitrary and ( judgemental as well) against bi-sexuals.

          • William Keeler

            “Marriage is a commitment to ONE person…” That is only YOUR opinion, Jade.

    • MC

      How can the immoral deem what’s moral? That’s like asking a plumber to do brain surgery.

  • Peter Leh

    “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group
    consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would
    there be any ground for denying them a license?”

    indeed there would be no grounds to deny a license. in america one can form any group they wish. moreover, just as teh church does not have to recognize homosexual or an adulterous marriage, the church dos not have to recognize 4 people marrying or polygamy.

    • LeftCoast

      Exactly, the government will recognize all types of unions. The church, that truly follows God, will not. So pick, government or Holy God? Can’t have it both ways.

      • Zasz

        The fact that we ruled out many of the biblical laws as immoral or inhuman should tell you something.

  • Zasz

    Just as nobody turned black when black people were allowed to vote in america, nobody will turn gay when gay people are allowed to marry like everyone else. Also nobody wants to marry more than one person.
    The people that married more than one person already exist. They are called marriage fraudsters.

    Each of the following appears in the bible and is approved by god:
    One man and his sister;
    One man and his dead brother’s wife;
    One man and one woman and her servants;
    One man and his rape victim;
    One man and many women;
    One man and 700 women and 300 concubines;
    One man and one woman and her slaves;
    One soldier and his virgin prisoners.

    Let’s hear it for traditional, biblical marriage. *sarcasm*

    • Martin Walsh

      There are people who want to marry more than 1 person. Outside the moral foundations provided by Christianity, the limitation of marriage to just 2 people is an arbitrary position and cannot reasonably be upheld.
      Most of the things you cite as being in the Bible and therefore approved by God are not actually approved by God and could easily be shown to be so elsewhere in the Bible if you were bothered to read it. It’s a juvenile mistake to make – you are confusing reports of what people did and how they behaved with God’s endorsement. To make it simple for you; when you read in the media of a woman being raped do you automatically think that the reporter is condoning her rape? I hope not.
      As to the other points there are good reason why in the context of that society, thousands of years ago, why marriage was mandated to ameliorate destitution of the woman.

      • Zasz

        “There are people who want to marry more than 1 person.”
        Guess what, they are mostly religious.

        “Most of the things you cite as being in the Bible and therefore approved by God are not actually approved by God”

        The bible says if anyone has sexual relations other than described in the bible, they must be put to death. So you are using a part of the bible to justify your hatred but dont use the other parts of the bible you disagree with. Hypocracy and cherry picking at its best.

        “To make it simple for you; when you read in the media of a woman being raped do you automatically think that the reporter is condoning her rape? I hope not.”
        How did we get from “I dont like equality” to “hypothetical scenarios in the media”?

        • Martin Walsh

          Your knowledge of the bible displays a lot of ignorance. Death wasn’t mandated for all and every type of sexual immorality – it was for incest, adultery, homosexual acts and bestiality, and only when provable in court. In any event, you have changed the topic here. Your earlier post is about different types of marriage you believe that God endorses just because they are reported in the Bible.
          As to my ‘hatred’… What a childish slur. What have I said that’s hateful? Of course you may not like it but as the saying goes..the truth hurts.
          The example of a report of rape in the media and how one views it is directly analogous to your simplistic belief that the Bible and God condones everything it reports. Not a difficult concept to grasp really.

          • Zasz

            “Your knowledge of the bible displays a lot of ignorance. Death wasn’t mandated for all and every type of sexual immorality – it was for incest, adultery, homosexual acts and bestiality, and only when provable in court. ”
            Yet the bible claims the earth was populated by incest. TWICE! So it was ok first, then outlawed, then it was ok again and finally outlawed again… by the neverchanging god… And you claim Im ignorant?

            “What have I said that’s hateful? Of course you may not like it but as the saying goes..the truth hurts.”
            What you said is hatred, not truth.

            “The example of a report of rape in the media and how one views it is…”
            a false analogy to the topic at hand.

          • Martin Walsh

            Like I said…poor understanding. The prohibition against incest came in with the law of Moses. Quite some time after Adam and Eve and their progeny.

          • Zasz

            Doesnt change what Ive said. Incest was ok in the bible. Twice.

          • Martin Walsh

            But it’s not now is it? And the bible says it isn’t. Unless you want to argue that laws or practices cannot change, do you? It was legal in the USA to own slaves not so long ago but that law was repealed. Should we still practise slavery just because it was ok 2 hundred years ago?

          • Zasz

            Genesis 19:32-36 says its ok. Leviticus 18:6 says its forbidden. But the OT is no longer “valid”, right? So its ok again.

            “It was legal in the USA to own slaves not so long ago but that law was repealed.”
            Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation… Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Colossians 3, and Ephesians 6 are examples where the Christian God or his prophets sanction slavery. Slavery, the owning of another human being, is immoral.
            You seem to be saying that the same God that created the universe, inspired the writing of the Bible, created our moral sense, and had a direct and personal hand in human affairs from, say, 4000 BC to 50AD (at least!), couldn’t come up with a way to solve the slavery problem? Really? The best God could do was to drop in some conflicting perspectives on the issue into a book so that 1500 years after that we could finally get rid of slaves? Is it truly unreasonable to expect a clear condemnation of slavery in a book purporting to deliver the message of absolute morality from an all-knowing source?

            “Should we still practise slavery just because it was ok 2 hundred years ago?”
            Should we still practise “marriage between one man and one woman” because it was not ok 2k years ago?

          • Martin Walsh

            Where in the story of Lot and his daughers does it say that it was OK? I mean, are we told to follow this example? Is it presented as a model for everyone else?
            Leviticus was written hundreds of years later and what we see is a tightening up of what is permissible.
            You really need to address the points I make, not the ones in your head. I don’t say nor do I believe that the OT is invalid.
            The bible doesn’t sanction slavery as you assert. Rules that were far more humane than conventional practise at that time were instituted to regulate slavery and ultimately lead to its abolition. Hebrew slavery was not the same as American slavery.
            I don’t know how you know what is moral or evil. As an atheist (?) you have no basis for decrying evil or immoral behaviour because such concepts do not make sense in your worldview nor can they be justified.
            Slavery in the USA was legal but immoral and evil. Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is neither immoral nor evil.

          • Zasz

            “Where in the story of Lot and his daughers does it say that it was OK?”
            So the two angels just saved him from the destruction of sodom and gomorrah so that he can make children with his daughters? Why save him just to let him commit something that “is not ok”?

            “I don’t say nor do I believe that the OT is invalid. ”
            Then you should go out and kill gays. Thats what the OT says you should do.

            “The bible doesn’t sanction slavery as you assert.”
            Exodus 21
            Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.
            2 When you buy a Hebrew SLAVE, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
            3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
            4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.
            5 But if the SLAVE plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
            6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his SLAVE forever.
            7 “When a man sells his daughter as a SLAVE, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
            8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
            9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.
            10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
            11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment or money.

            What were you lying about? It says SLAVES, right?

            “Hebrew slavery was not the same as American slavery. ”
            Selling people, considering them as property, using them for labor… yeah. Totally different…

            “I don’t know how you know what is moral or evil. As an atheist (?) you have no basis for decrying evil or immoral behaviour because such concepts do not make sense in your worldview nor can they be justified.”
            You want to know what keeps me from murdering or raping people all day? MORALS! But someone that just prays the guilt away cant understand this reasonable concept.

            “Slavery in the USA was legal but immoral and evil. Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is neither immoral nor evil.”
            Then why does the bible say that gays must be put to death? Doesnt make sense to kill people for no reason or to kill them because they must take the blame for the mistakes of someone else…

            Leviticus 20:13
            If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

          • Martin Walsh

            The fact of Lot and his daughters being saved does not logically imply approval for the act of incest committed later.

            The Hebrew ‘slaves’ mentioned are more properly understood as indentured or bonded labour. Selling yourself or your children in this way, for a period, could be the difference between staying alive and dying from starvation – there was no social welfare system in those days. There are also laws that regulate how these ‘slaves’ were to be treated including rights to be freed.

            Once again you put words in my mouth and mis-represent what I say. Slavery is recorded on the Bible, obviously, but your contention that it was sanctioned and approved by God is incorrect. Simples.

            I dint say that you don’t have morals. You just can’t account for them as an atheist according to your professed worldview.

            You quote Leviticus and that explains why the death penalty applied to homosexual acts. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

          • Zasz

            “The fact of Lot and his daughters being saved does not logically imply approval for the act of incest committed later.”
            It makes zero sense to safe three people from the destruction of an “evil” city and then not care that they do the same as the people from those evil cities.

            “There are also laws that regulate how these ‘slaves’ were to be treated including rights to be freed.”
            Including the rules to beat them almost to death, then its ok. But if they die, you get in trouble. You really believe that nonsense you spread?

            “Slavery is recorded on the Bible, obviously, but your contention that it was sanctioned and approved by God is incorrect.”
            I quoted the exact verse that says otherwise. Which means right now you are deliberatly lying.

            “I dint say that you don’t have morals. You just can’t account for them as an atheist according to your professed worldview.”
            The fact that I have them is evidence that I can account for them. Otherwise it would be silly to have something that I cant justify.
            If you get your morals from a fictional monster that drowned his own children, you should really just shut up.

            “You quote Leviticus and that explains why the death penalty applied to homosexual acts. Not sure what point you are trying to make.”
            No suprise.
            The verse says
            – homosexuality is a sin
            – homosexuals must be killed
            It says you should kill them (Lev 20:13). If you are not willing to do that, then stop using the bible to justify your discrimination because you arent even following it.

          • Martin Walsh

            I’m now going to take the advice of Jesus and not cast pearls before swine.

          • Zasz

            Its “pearls before swines”, you moron.
            Btw, by insulting me you broke a commandment:

            Matthew 5:22
            But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

          • Martin Walsh

            Pearls before pigs (NIV), pearles before swine (Geneva) … Depends on the translation but you got the point.
            You are obviously not my brother. I’m not angry with you, I pity you. And again, you don’t understand the quote do you. Jesus is referring to wasting one’s time sharing spiritual truths with people who cannot or do not have the capacity to understand.

          • Zasz

            I understand perfectly. I saw through your lies, your ignorance towards the book you misquoted, the parts of history you made up and the insults. And still you pretend to have the upper hand. You´re a special kind of stupid, arent you?

          • Martin Walsh

            Now you’re just boring me. Grow up you child. As I said cut and pasting from the Internet does not qualify as reasoned argument.

          • MC

            He’s not your brother.

          • cnav

            Hold on. If you read about Lot and his daughters then you should know.
            His daughters got him super drunk and then basically man raped him……so how is God condoning that horrendous act again? Come on dude at least read the whole book instead of cherry picking. My goodness.

          • Paul Hiett

            God killed children for making fun of a bald man, but does nothing to Lot’s daughters whom you now admit raped him?

            Exactly what kind of a god are you worshiping?

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            They were reprobate rebellious children That disrespected an elder and a prophet. Be glad that God is more patient than the Prophet with you, for you mock the Most High God and esteem yourself higher than Him.

          • MC

            They weren’t children and they were mocking a prophet of God.

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            Zazs has a reprobate mind. You guys are casting pearls before swine. He is a vessel created for destruction.

          • MC

            That’s true. I think he suffers from low self esteem and some sort of mental illness.

          • MC

            I already refuted your arguments. You just keep posting the exact same arguments on every page. You seem to have some sort of mental illness.

          • Paul Hiett

            FYI Zasz, it was the Romans, under Constantine in 313, that made brought the idea of “one man, one woman” into Christianity, and not the other way around. Most Christians don’t realize that though.

          • Martin Walsh

            Nonsense. It’s rooted in Genesis 1 and 2 in the creation narrative and confirmed by Christ in the NT. see my response to Stan for the citations.

          • Patricia Janak

            I don’t believe God condoned Slavery after all even they were Gods creation and he gave them life same as every body else .we are all different

          • Paul Hiett

            Should we still ban gay marriage just because it’s been illegal in the past?

          • The Last Trump

            No. Because it’s still immoral.

          • Paul Hiett

            Only to you.

          • The Last Trump

            Keep watching the news, troll.
            Pay close attention to the millions of people who will be standing up to your bullying tactics and Supreme Court tyranny in the coming days.
            Should be an interesting summer.

          • Paul Hiett

            So once SCOTUS declares SSM legal…then what? What are you going to do? Go around killing gay couples who want to marry? Are you going to find their weddings, and blow them up?

            No…you’re going to do nothing. You’ll moan and groan and talk big like you always do, but in the end, you’ll do absolutely nothing.

          • Ayjayar

            Don’t be too sure. We can always DISOBEY CIVIL AUTHORITIES who will trample our rights to follow the bible.

            com/articles/55311/20150429/christian-leaders-including-franklin-graham-and-mike-huckabee-say-we-will-not-obey-if-supreme-court-legalizes-gay-marriage.htm

            And you will do something?

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            No, it will be people like you that will be doing the killing or cheerleading for killing locking up in camps the christians, jews and Muslims that refuse to obey the immoral laws of men.

          • MisterPine

            www dot fstdt dot com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=108194

          • Martin Walsh

            The reasons for banning SSM are moral and rooted in God’s laws and decrees. The law and morality are not the same and often conflict e.g. Legalised SSM.

          • Patricia Janak

            Hey sorry but you don’t what you are talking about you need to study the Bible before you try to teach someone else

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            In other words, what zazs is saying is that if what you said disagrees with what he/she feels/thinks, it’s hateful and hate speech! As I have noted many times in my 43 years – there is always some whiny azzhat waiting to be offended by anyone who disagrees with them. We’re living with a generation of self-centered brats who expect the world to bend to their every whim. It’s time to grow the hell up, kid!!!

          • MC

            Zasz has some sort of mental illness. It looks to be paranoia.

        • MC

          How many times are you going to post the same refuted strawman arguments? Are you a little kid?

      • Wayne McIntosh

        Amen! Waste of time trying to explain common sense to the un-believing…satan has them in a strangle hold!

    • LeftCoast

      Z, if you go to a real church, you will turn Christian.

    • Patricia Janak

      No stupid God did not approve and only someone with a perverted mine would say something like that

    • ivanvivian

      Are you saying that because it is recorded that it is AUTOMATICALLY justified? If so, I thinkyou be be rrevealing your gross ignorance in a ‘gotcha’!

    • MC

      Ah, you copy pasted your strawman argument, again…

  • The Last Trump

    Marriage is either between one man and one woman or it’s a free for all.
    Any gender, any number of people. Heck, even throw in an animal or two. Why not?

    Once we disregard the plan of our Creator, supported by the clear design of the male and female body, WHO then should decide? Hollywood? Yeah, right. The most hedonistic pleasure seeking, sexually immoral, drug and alcohol addicted embarrassment to humanity is going to dictate to the rest of us how to live!? Not bloody likely.

    The individual states have already passed their own laws via democratically elected officials to protect the sanctity of marriage, between one man and one woman, AS IT HAS BEEN FOREVER.

    The Supreme Court cannot mandate on a whim to overturn these laws without drastic consequences. This insanity is literally tearing the country apart. While our enemies are arming to the teeth and salivating over the prospect of our destruction. God help us.

    • Zasz

      Yeah, the idea that two people that love eachother should have the right to get married is totally crazy!! Oh wait…

      So far its only christians promoting the idea that people “would” come up with the idea to marry animals. Unfortunately there is a tiny group that would benefit from this idea: NAMBLA. North American Man/Boy Love Association. They promote the idea that they have the right to marry children. Like muslims, just in america.

      “Once we disregard the plan of our Creator, supported by the clear design of the male and female body”
      Well, muslims have their own idea about marriage and so have jews and hindus… But YOUR belief is the only one that should be allowed to make decisions for EVERYONE?

      “The most hedonistic pleasure seeking, sexually immoral, drug and alcohol addicted embarrassment to humanity is going to dictate to the rest of us how to live!?”
      But the most corrupt, dishonest, pedophile, filthy rich society of delusional people with an imaginary friend should?

      “Not bloody likely.”

      Why am I not suprised that christians cant understand the definition of a secular government.

      “AS IT HAS BEEN FOREVER.”
      Except for 2k years ago when christians started to promote the bible which conains:
      One man and his sister;
      One man and his dead brother’s wife;
      One man and one woman and her servants;
      One man and his rape victim;
      One man and many women;
      One man and 700 women and 300 concubines;
      One man and one woman and her slaves;
      One soldier and his virgin prisoners.

      But two people of the same gender is so out of the question because…. this book says so…

      “The Supreme Court cannot mandate on a whim to overturn these laws without drastic consequences. This insanity is literally tearing the country apart.”
      Strange that the countries that already have such laws for years are not “literally tearing the country apart”.
      You know whats tearing the country apart? Religious people that use politicians to deny other peoples the same rights religious people have. The right to marry.

      • Patricia Janak

        You are either very Stupid or from somewhere unknown even the other country’s have marriage between man and women you don’t see two men or two women together in marriage

      • Grape Vine

        Spoken clearly from someone who has never read the bible or didn’t understand what they are reading. The bible is about people like us, fallen, sinful people. God’s laws are designed to protect us. There were grave consequences for those situations you mentioned. People doing whatever they wanted because it felt good to them. It wreaked havoc on society. God loves us-homosexuals and heterosexuals. He knows we are weak in flesh. Seek God with all your heart and he will reveal himself to you and then you will also know the truth and the truth will set you free.

    • weasel1886

      Next thing you know blacks will be marrying whites, Chinese with Americans utter chaos!!
      You let people practice their religion no telling what might happen!!

      • The Last Trump

        No worries, talking weasel dude!
        As long as it’s male and female, it’s according to the design. 😉

        • ishkabibble

          What was God thinking when he created hermaphrodites? Is that according to design? Or is that because Eve listened to a linguistically talented snake?

          • romgtr .

            God didn’t create hermaphrodites. As with all disorders, it was because of the fault of our original parents Adam and Eve that death and destruction came into the world.

      • Patricia Janak

        OMG !!! ARE YOU FROM ANOTHER PLANET OR WHAT THIS IS ALREADY HAPPING BEEN GOING ON A VERY LONG TIME

        • weasel1886

          satire

        • Paul Hiett

          FYI, it’s only been legal in the US since 1967.

          • Martin Walsh

            Yes but wrong forever i.e. The laws prohibiting inter- racial marriage. No justification for this is found in the Bible.

        • weasel1886

          Satire

      • Katee Ripid

        Are you against intermarriage, Sir?

        • weasel1886

          satire

        • romgtr .

          race is not an act.

    • MisterPine

      HOLY HATE BOMB BATMAN!

      Wow!

      QUOTE SUBMITTED, Rumpy! This should make you quite a star!

    • Peter Leh

      “Marriage is either between one man and one woman or it’s a free for all.
      Any gender, any number of people. Heck, even throw in an animal or two. Why not?”

      you had a good point until you brought non-consenting entities.

      • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

        Mambla will seek to have its day too, This has nothing to do with consenting. It is what people think makes them feel good. It comes down to sex.

        • Peter Leh

          i can’t see that day coming. Consent is just that: the LAW

    • Wayne McIntosh

      Amen Brother! God will settle the score against the wickedness of this Nation one day soon!

      • vietnam_marine_vet

        Fortunately, your god’s retribution against your village won’t spill over to my village.

        • Homonaseau

          The God of the Bible will surely judge this wicked nation and you’ll feel the direct effect of it, in this life and the one to come.

        • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

          You will find out that you will be held accountable for your actions and words. It will be worldwide, moron.

          • vietnam_marine_vet

            You and Homonaseau are professing that you know what this wrathful, vengeance seeking God is thinking, yet you have no fear that He will smote YOU for claiming to speak His thoughts.

            You would not sound so sure that He will not punish you if you actually feared divine retribution. In other words, you know there is no God for you to fear!

          • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

            BULLSH*T! You will find out when you are the one that gets struck down. These earth changes are HIS way of dealing with people like you.

      • ishkabibble

        I guess this is where God draws the line. Not during slavery or the years of racism. No. When two people devote their lives to each other. That’s when God is going zap us.

        • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

          He has already allowed mega disasters to happen in such numbers that it is disturbing. YES! He is punishing the world because of people like you.

          • Paul Hiett

            So, just to be clear, your deity just killed over 6300 people in Nepal to punish Americans who support same-sex marriage?

            Wow.

          • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

            Yes, God is jealous and he does strike down those that anger him. To blatantly revel in sinful conditions brings HIS wrath. It will get a lot worse too.

          • TheSootyOne

            The Christian god not only has a shitty temper, he’s a really bad aim as well. It’s the as if natural disasters are random and not driven by a petty hateful childish god.

    • uzza

      “supported by the clear design of the male and female body,”
      LOL! The design that puts the orgasm inducing clitoris outside where it’s practically uninvolved in intercourse yet completely accessible to fingers and tongues, and located the orgasm inducing prostate gland exactly one penis length up inside the male rectum? That clear design?

      • Patricia Janak

        You are just plain discussing

        • uzza

          I am. I’m discussing Intelligent Design.

    • lyle gold

      Only if the animal can say I do. Would it be legal lol

    • dikop

      God who sees from above will surely help you guys. Look up to Him(God) alone.

    • vietnam_marine_vet

      Again with sex with animals! Why do ati-gay commentators always think of sex with animals. Sex with animals would never, I mean NEVER, cross my mind when thinking about marriage.

      • Homonaseau

        how is it any different? Sodomy is unnatural in every aspect.

        • TheSootyOne

          Well, Nauseous Homo, the animal kingdom is going to disagree with you as homosexuality is common in many species, not just man. The big difference is that man is the only species that has a small subset trying to control what is and is not an expression of love for the rest of humanity.

          • Homonaseau

            Well, humans were created in the image of God and have a conscious, unlike animals, you can behave like an animal but i certainly won’t.

          • Patricia Janak

            Thank you Amen

          • Paul Hiett

            So what do you say to the recent studies showing morality in animals?

            Oops…

          • Martin Walsh

            What studies? How did they demonstrate moral awareness? How does an animal know right from wrong? BTW instincts and routines don’t count.

          • D. Kirkpat

            No such thing, except to those who choose to use ungrounded and unsubstantiated reasoning. Animals are very instinctive, else they would be equivalent to man. All this knowledge around us, yet so little wisdom.

            When animals violate the natural order of things, the animals end up becoming outcast, thus typically are not permitted to procreate during mating season. There’s an innate ability in animals to sense others with faulty genes and so on. It will take too much time to explain here.

            Distorted reasoning is what you are using as your argument by the way.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            So when was this god around? When we had more hair and bigger brains, or now with less of both? Did it have a navel? Nipples? A foreskin? If so, why?

          • Reasonable Quest

            Do you have any evidence that humans are specially created in the image of god and a re not related to other animals? Everything learned from science show humans are made up of the same stuff as other animals, and DNA shows that all life is related.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Even if you CAN make an argument for man existing in God’s image that STILL doesn’t preclude homosexuality being natural. IN fact you can argue that the very fact that it exists makes it, by definition, natural and in line with God’s plan since “God doesn’t make mistakes”.

          • Donna Mabry

            NO!!!! God doesn’t make mistakes. That’s why he created Male And female instead of just one sex. You can try to twist it anyway you want, but if two sex’s weren’t needed God wouldn’t have created them. Also now two lesbians took their child and are giving her male hormones because they want a boy.You can write and think you’re explaining and you’ll still be wrong.

          • David Cromie

            As it has been alleged about France, ‘god’ made three sexes; male. female, and priests’. However, as we now know, this sky fairy must also have ‘created’ homosexuals (where else could they have come from?).

            Was this happenstance not a mistake, from the religiot’s point of view, since this all-powerful sky fairy is credited with ‘creating everything in the universe’, even French priests?

          • D. Kirkpat

            Yes it does. One simple argument if you want to ignore the existence of a creator who set the boundaries defining marriage and sexual activities.

            Natural science will prove the folly of homosexuality. A simple scientific test can be conducted to show and reveal how homosexual behavior leads to its own demise.

            I call it the three island test where each island has the following composition:

            Island 1 has two healthy heterosexuals ( one male and one female).
            Island 2 has two healthy homosexual males.
            Island 3 has two healthy lesbians (females).

            The people on the islands can never leave the islands. They have plenty of food and water for sustenance. Islands are completely isolated from each other. Everyone is expected to live to be 70 years of age. All have to be sexually active and must procreate.

            Which island is going to have a population in the end. Didn’t have to use the bible to reveal the problem with homosexuality. Natural order and selection reveals it will end, despite ones view or opinions on the subject.

            People who chose not to understand truth will always seek to oppose truth no matter what.

          • amostpolitedebate

            I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Gay people don’t live on islands and in fact make up only 3 or so percent of the population. There’s more than enough straight people around to make up the difference so accepting gay people in no way puts the human population at risk.

            Also, you seem to assume that a relationship has no value without procreation. This point of view seems a bit immature to me. Would you say the same about couple’s who are simply unable to have children for biological reasons?

          • D. Kirkpat

            Thousands of years of evidence, one has to be devoid of sensible reasoning to believe otherwise. Evidence is all around us…the marvel of life.

          • David Cromie

            Humans are animals, even if we are endowed with our own specific capacities to differentiate us, whilst, at the same time, sharing many attributes with the other inhabitants of the animal kingdom. Therefore we cannot behave as many other animals do, but one of the abilities we do share with many other animals is the fact of genetically determined homosexuality. So, if we were ‘created in the image of God’, then your god must have been bisexual/homosexual/heterosexual, as the creative occasion arose.

          • D. Kirkpat

            Now this is probably the most ludicrous argument I have ever read to support homosexuality. A person has to stop using sound reasoning to embrace such sophistry by the way. (LOL!!!)

          • David Cromie

            If it is sophistry you are after, then visit any christer church, of any denomination, and there you will be subjected to sophistry in abundance, with not a scintilla of ‘sound reasoning’!

          • Patricia Janak

            Sorry but you are just plain stupid

          • TheSootyOne

            Oh, ouch, Patricia! You sure showed me! Your wit and strong arguments have convinced me!

          • John_33

            The animal kingdom also exhibits infanticide and pedophilia. Sometimes the young kill off their weaker siblings. Just because animals do something does not mean we should.

          • Martin Walsh

            Yeh… They even eat their young. It’s amazing how often the nature fallacy is trotted out to justify homosex. Let’s all derive our sexual ethics from animals!!

          • amostpolitedebate

            Agreed! But the argument was that sodomy was “unnatural”. The implication being that “natural=good” and “unnatural=bad”. Sooty was merely pointing out that if you are going to use “natural/unnatural” as your only moral guide then you MUST accept homosexuality since it exists in nature, and therefore is “natural”.

          • MC

            Regarding homosexual behavior in nature, please don’t use that argument. It is fallacious.
            Even if there up to 1500 animal species that have demonstrated any form of homosexuality, there are about 3 million species, so that is not exactly an impressive percentage (0.05%). Furthermore, only some individuals within one of those species exhibit homosexual behavior and then also, only some of the time. Which makes the argument extremely weak. Also, I doubt if you could find a single individual of any species that would be ‘exclusively’ homosexual in behavior.
            Also, much of that behavior is like dogs rubbing against posts or trees, which is more like reflex. I’m sure you would not call that ‘love’. Also, I would have to wonder why you would not use examples of cannibalism and power in numbers from nature if you want to look to animals to direct laws for human civilisation. So, do you really want to use this argument? Well?
            The purpose of male and female is abundantly clear and you are arguing foolishly. Homosexuality is unnatural. Without male and female YOU would not even be here and neither would anybody else. 7 billion plus people on the planet deny your paradigm! So there’s no fallacy.
            There’s nothing good about advocating for sexual behavior that is inherently infertile and unhealthy. Life may be short, you seem to want to make it even shorter and unhealthier for some. Your argument fails and has been refuted.

          • TheSootyOne

            Oh those pesky facts! Please note that the original post I was responding to stated that ‘sodomy is unnatural in every aspect’. As you have demonstrated (but not provided any references for, so your numbers are suspect), animal homosexuality is a NON-ZERO percentage. So, either the Christian god finds it un-natural in every aspect (begging the question why he’d let his animal creations practice it) or more likely, the Christian god doesn’t exist (nor any others). Nice strawman with the cannibalism and the dog rubbing, as well. Your argument isn’t even an argument.

          • MC

            My argument refuted your silly strawman argument, you’re just mad because you’re embarrassed. You want to look to nature for your excuse for homosexual behavior yet you don’t like the fact that animals practice cannibalism, animals have no morals. You have been refuted with those pesky facts.

          • David Cromie

            Humans are animals, and some of them are cannibals, while some others seem to have no civilised morals, so what is your killer point?

          • D. Kirkpat

            If he doesn’t exist, natural order supports how ungrounded homosexuality truly is on its own. Homosexuals cannot reproduce by the way. This can be proven through science without using the Christian God rationale by the way.

            A person has to stop using sound reasoning to believe otherwise. By the way it’s your choice and prerogative to do so.

          • David Cromie

            Refuted? I think not! If any species were exclusively homosexual, then it would never have existed in the first place. Dogs rubbing against objects in their environment , including humans (where it is also a sign of ‘love’), are merely marking their territory, or did you mean something else? I expect most people are aware of the possibilities of reproduction when males and females engage in copulation, but why would that make homosexual behaviour ‘unnatural’? I doubt that practising homosexuals are so stupid as to believe that are engaging in some sort of procreation ritual. Finally, there are many more heterosexuals living with STDs than there are homosexuals.

          • D. Kirkpat

            Wait..your quote Reflects the Homosexual agenda….subset trying to dominate the whole through distortion and deceptive tactics through faulty reasoning. Interesting.

          • TheSootyOne

            The fact that you’ve bought into Faux News and that there’s such a thing as a ‘homosexual agenda’ instantly negates your comment about ‘distortion and deceptive tactics’.

        • vietnam_marine_vet

          You don’t date a lot, do you?

          • Homonaseau

            so if one does not affirm your chosen lifestyle they hate?

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          Have you ever explored it? Many people have, and many of those who do, enjoy it so much that they do it again and again. Especially since GW Bush’s “virginity only” sex-anti-education resulted in a massive increase in anal sex by girls striving to save their “precious” virginity for the husbands to be, and enjoying other kinds of sex until then.

          The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB), a
          nationally representative sex survey conducted in the United States and published in 2010 reflected that 27% of guys aged
          25-29 and 24% of guys aged 30-39 reported having insertive anal intercourse (i.e., “topping”) in the last year. For receptive anal intercourse (i.e., “bottoming”), the numbers were 4% and 3%, respectively. Among women, 21% of those aged 25-29 and 22% of those aged 30-39 reported receptive anal intercourse in the last year even though the vast majority of respondents were heterosexual.

          Get some candles, some wine, some lubricant and some condoms and persuade your partner (or rent one) to give it a try. Rather than “unnatural” you might find it turns you on.

        • Reasonable Quest

          If it is unnatural, are you saying it is supernatural? If it happens in the natural world it is natural.

        • daanderzon

          Well then you better go live on an island somewhere because not only is 85% of heteros committing sodomy every day but the government is doing it to you too.

          • NativeBornGeorgian

            I don’t commit sodomy, only same sex people can commit sodomy, hence Sodom and Gomorrah.

          • daanderzon

            You better look up sodomy and get educated. Its obvious your southern schools are lacking in dictionaries.

      • Patricia Janak

        If it is against What God says then it is wrong

        • David Cromie

          Your ‘god’ has said a lot of things which christians are quite happy to ignore, yet the sky has not fallen. Why?

          • romgtr .

            Actually it has, ever since contraceptives came into wide spread practice in this country in the 60s the sky has fallen and will continue to fall. Contraceptives created the hookup culture which have resulted in 1.5 million babies get whacked every year in this country, the number of new STDs has more than double since the 50s, half of all marriages have ended in divorced, single mothers going on wellfare, section 8, obamacare, etc. The only Church/religion that has the foresight against this abomination is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

          • David Cromie

            “…number of new STDs has more than double since the 50s…”. It seems, also, that you are confusing embryos for ‘babies’. If this tale of woe were true, then it would show that people are not using contraceptives, when they should be. What has the divorce rate got to do with contraception?

            As for the RC church, there is nothing ‘holy’ about its history, or its more modern objection to contraception.

          • romgtr .

            Actually David I’m not. The terms embryos and babies are just man made terms describing different stages of human development just as a teenager and a senior citizen are also man made terms. No matter what stage you are at, it’s all human. You kill a teenager then you kill a human. You kill an embryo you kill a human. Don’t make things more complicated that it is.

            Yes, contraceptives are what caused all of these woes because it kicked in the whole hookup culture and sexual revolution. It destroyed babies, marriages, caused EXPONENTIAL INCREASE in porn addiction, STDs, gay marriage, economic debts and ruins (think about it all of these unwed moms on food stamps and welfare…), mental and personality disorders (because the dad’s not around), prison incarceration, etc. All of these and much more because we wanted freedom to play with fire.

            Once the hookup culture got established, men now view every woman as potential sexual partner. Why stick around when the women don’t get pregnant. I can just move on to the next… Women, since they can control their pregnancy they don’t need the men around for support. That mentality now exists whether or not you are in a marriage. As a culture our mentality have totally changed because of contraception. This is why half the marriages end in divorce.

            Can you tell me what problems with the HRCC?

            Can you name another institution that has better credentials than the HRCC?
            1) World longest lasting organization (second longest is the US of A)
            2) The only religion on the entire planet that everyone knows who the leader is. Who is the leader of the Baptist, Islam, Buddhist, Hindus? Everyone from Timbuktu to Nome Alaska knows who is the leader of the HRCC.
            3. Defender of Europe… Check out the Battle of Lepanto and Attila the Hun.
            4. Creator of universities and hospitals.
            5. Patrons of classical music, arts and science.
            6. Sets a higher standards of morality when it comes to life and marriage issues than anyone else on the planet.
            7. Although we have some bad apples we also have the best people in our organization such as Fr. Maximilian Kolbe who sacrificed his life for another prisoner in a NAZI concentration camp.

            So who do have that has better credentials than the HRCC?

          • David Cromie

            An embryo is not a baby, and therefore not a person. The terms may be ‘man made’ (usually), but they describe a biological (another ‘man made’ word for you to quibble about) truth about the human reproductive process (‘gynaecology’ is also a ‘man made’ word). Could you supply a list of non man made words, without using ‘man made’ words?

          • romgtr .

            Sorry I’m not buying it David. It’s arbitrary and nonsense. A baby is just a name that we give to a person who has been born to a certain period of time until they become a toddler. Who died and made you abitor of who is a person or not? So is the baby is premature it would be ok to kill it? If a fetus not a person then why did the court charge Scott Peterson for killing his unborn child?

            If you live in a Chinese culture, when you are born you are already considered 1 year old because they count the period of pregnancy.

            As Dr. Seuss said “A person is a person no matter how small.”

          • David Cromie

            It matters not whether you ‘buy it’, or you don’t. Attempting to redefine accepted words, and their definitions, in order to legitimise your cause (because they are ‘man made’), is not just arbitrary, it is rather silly.

            A premature baby is one that has been born earlier than normal, and is therefore no longer a fetus. Nor has is it yet developed into a ‘person’, that will take some time yet, and killing it would be infanticide.

            The Chinese situation does not hold water, but that is their business, and makes no difference to the facts. It is interesting that the assumed age of a neonate is 12 months, rather than 9 months!

          • Peter Mann

            David Chromie is guilty of doing precisely what he accuses romgtr.

            Chromie hijacked a perfectly respectable word [aTheism] and turned it into its polar opposite [religion]. Chromie’s religion is distinguished only by its addiction to disBelief [the inversion of Belief]

            Both Belief and disBelief are the same process of gullibility, each the reverse of the other. The “Sky Fairy” is a defining element in his religion of baseless disBelief. Without it, he has virtually no conversation whatever. The Sky Fairy is Chromie’s pretext for insulting everybody, just as the Quran is the pretext for ISIS to insult and menace everybody. The equivalence of social dynamic is identical.

            And religious trolling is Chromie’s life, these days
            with Randi’s sacred blessing
            for his proselytising for their barbarous religion of Denial.
            [fake atheism aka disBelief aka cynicism]

          • David Cromie

            A clear example of projection! You are a deluded moron.

          • Peter Mann

            Reduced to stealing arguments from his critic.
            Chromie has increased his knowledge ! Ye gods ! and Little Fishes !

            A microscopic improvement that is automatically defeated
            by David Chromie’s intrinSick disHonesty.

          • Peter Mann

            More statements of devout belief on undocumented phenomena
            from David Chromie . . . the phoney atheist.

      • Martin Walsh

        There was a case in Germany where a man wanted to marry his dog. It may not cross your mind but it has others. I believe there is even a movement seeking to promote inter-species love!!! In fact, Finland recently made bestiality illegal, not because it is immoral but….wait for it….. because it was cruel and harmed the animal!!!

        • vietnam_marine_vet

          I wasn’t actually looking to get into a discussion on the joys of bestiality.

      • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

        Because it paves a way to deviancy. Mambla will want rights, bestiality will come to the fore, etc. IT NEEDS TO STOP! JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES A PERSON HAPPY DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD TO DO! IT IS INSANITY!

        • vietnam_marine_vet

          Someone as knowledgeable as you are about sodomy is aware how popular sodomy and oral sex are among the heterosexual community. Have your tried your rants with heterosexuals also.

        • David Cromie

          Well, stop it, if you are convinced that it is not good.

      • romgtr .

        How about marriage btw father and daughter and mother and son?

        • David Cromie

          It is called incest, and frowned upon because of the undesirable genetic mutations which are likely to ensue. This applies also to intercourse, whether within marriage or otherwise, between first cousins, as history has shown – see the story of the Spanish branch of the Hapsburgs, for instance.

          • romgtr .

            Would incestual marriage be ok if science can figure out ways to fix the genetic mutations?

          • romgtr .

            How about temporary 1 hr marriage that are ok with some muslim groups?

          • romgtr .

            What if science can figure out a way to prevent undesirable genetic mutations? Would incest be ok then?

        • daanderzon

          According to the bible the only way our civilization grew is through incest. I mean really Adam and Eve then what?

    • MisterPine

      Hee, hee! This one’s just gold. I could read it over and over. Talk about tinfoil hat-itis.

    • ishkabibble

      Same argument when we let non whites and women vote…The democratic process is either between one white man and a vote or it’s a free for all. Who else will be able to vote? Children? Goats? Marshmallows? One person, multiple votes?
      Seriously, what drastic consequences are you talking about? Can you name a few? And why hasn’t God destroyed Canada and Europe?

      • thinkingabovemypaygrade

        Your analogy is not a sound one. And as for destruction. It’s happening all around us…have you seen the stats of the rise in single parent families, the rise in delinquent behavior of the young…and other such destructive behaviors coming out of the 1960s sexual revolution??? And read the secular book “Reviving Ophelia” on how the 1960s sexual revolution’s poisonous ideas…are damaging young girls. I could go on…with stats, etc. showing the societal crumbling…coming out of walking away from marriage …( m-f I.e xy xx marriage). We would reap even more trouble for the next generation of young by further decimating marriage.

    • Борис Смыслов

      Animals cannot consent, PETA will condemn you and Pamela Anderson with Nicky Minaj will burn your house for that!

    • StayFrosty

      I read this and I can’t stop laughing lol

  • Machiavellian

    Who says marriage has to be between two consenting adults only? Yes for polygamy!

    …as long as everyone involved is consenting adults, that is.

  • ishkabibble

    Same question was asked when we gave women and non-white people the vote. If we don’t contain the democratic process to white men, it’s just going to be a free for all. Who will be able to vote next? Children? Donkeys? Toaster Ovens? One person, multiple votes? No. We have lawful limits. Just like marriage. Two consenting adults. It’s that simple.

    • LeftCoast

      You are right, on each marriage certificate there are only two names, Harry and Thelma (for example). Harry goes off and gets a second certificate for him and Steven. He then goes to the court house a gets a third certificate for him and Betty. Lawful or not? How many certificates can a person get? Three certificates, is it his human and legal right? Can we complain or just live with it? Now, the Biblical question, is this a sin or not?

      • ishkabibble

        I find it interesting that Christians are fighting gay marriage because they believe it to be a ‘sin.’ You know what else is a sin? Worshipping other gods. Also the first commandment. Why are Christians not out demanding that all people in the US worship the Christian god?

        • LeftCoast

          We will but first they need to believe that there is sin, Jesus died for their sins, repent from their sins and then to acknowledge Him as the only God. Let’s start with you, do you worship God? Do you believe that you have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God? Do you have other gods that you worship?

          • ishkabibble

            So really you have no interest in the Constitution. You want a theocracy. No thank you.

          • LeftCoast

            I appreciate the constitution and I love living in the greatest country in the world. But, I will not make the constitution a god and my moral compass. I have God for that. I’ve always said that gay marriage will be permitted and it’s all good. My issue is making the church say that a sin is no longer a sin.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    ““If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Dr. Michael Brown wrote for Charisma News earlier this year regarding the Thailand “marriage” of three men. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’””

    This is what the homofascists just do NOT get when they label others as bigots. (Waiting for the hate… :-))

    • Zasz

      When you work to deny a class of people basic human rights, you are a hater. When you oppose marriage equality for the LGBT community, you are homophobic.
      Criticizing christians for being homophobic often leads to christians claiming “christian persecution”. The objection to marriage equality. No justification behind that whatsoever. Their rights as christians are being oppressed because other people are living freely… Which is like “my rights as a vegetarian are being oppressed because other people have meat”.

      • William Keeler

        There is a group of people – right now – in America who want to marry their family members. There is mutual, unforced consent between them. Zasz, You MUST support their “basic human rights” or you are a hater – by your own definition.

        So which is it: Do you support incestuous marriages or are you a hater?

        • Zasz

          Whats the name of those people?
          They cant marry family members because they are already family members. Or are you refering to incest marriages? Those are illegal, not just in america. Thats a very different topic.

          • William Keeler

            You’re such a HATER and a BIGOT. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to force YOUR views of marriage down other people’s throats. Stay out of our bedrooms! It’s none of your business what family members do with each other!

          • The Last Trump

            Wow. Your hate and intolerance are off the charts!
            Who made it illegal? Those evil Christians again?
            Why can’t those laws be changed too? How long until they are?
            “Whooop.” Hear that? Sounds like a can of worms just opened.

        • weasel1886

          There is already a legal relationship between family members

          • William Keeler

            So that gives you a right to deny them a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT??? Listen, weasel, your HATRED, intolerance, and BIGOTRY will not be tolerated here!!

          • The Last Trump

            I can’t believe your hate weasel. Just because the incestuous don’t think like you?!
            How bigoted and intolerant of you.
            More of a beastial!ty type, huh?
            Understandable.

          • weasel1886

            You seem to have a thing for animal sex

          • The Last Trump

            Are you asking me out, you sly fox, I mean, weasel?
            😉

    • Paul Hiett

      There were not three men that were married. You never read the article, just the headline.

      • LeftCoast

        Paul, can you give us a summary of what happened? I want to know.

        • Bill

          they were married in religious ceremony but it wasn’t given government recognition so thy aren’t legally married

  • http://www.engardehealth.com/ Roberta Gabor

    WELL ARGUED.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    I think this whole problem is trying to maintain an anachronistic system in which the church legitimized marriages. It’s time to separate civil from religious definitions/ Churches should get completely out of the business of solemnizing marriage licenses. Everybody, and i mean everybody who wants to get married should do that via a marriage license solemnized by a civil official (I suppose even a notary public could do that). Then if you still want to be married in the eyes of a church find one that will marry you. If the Redneck Baptist Tabernacle doesn’t want to marry gay couples, then gay couples probably don’t want to attend services there anyway.

    • Zasz

      You expect churches to give up power over the government?

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Yes, didn’t you read the post? They never really had that power anyway. Ministers were generally recognized as having the authority to solemnize a license but it never HAD to be a minister. If I were the pastor of a church I would treat everyone the same. I wouldn’t sign anyone’s license. If someone wanted to be married in the eyes of God and the assembly, then they would have to meet the requirements of the doctrine of that church. That has NOTHING to do with the civil definition of marriage.

        • Zasz

          You got the wrong idea about whos in charge. Its christian politicians that make unconstitutional laws, not ministers.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            This is merely a sane way around all this needless bickering. I don’t care if Scientologists in orange jumpsuits make the laws, just get churches out of the civil marriage business.

  • Leisha Holtom

    i heard of a guy who wanted to marry his laptop because he watched porn and felt his computer loved him because of that lol

    • Zasz

      There was a little girl that had to marry a dog.

      • The Last Trump

        Of course there was. Why wouldn’t there be? It’s 2015!

  • vietnam_marine_vet

    Have you ever noticed that anti-gay commentators never address these questions:

    – In the past, blacks couldn’t marry whites, Catholics couldn’t marry Protestants, commoners couldn’t marry nobles. Why could those laws be changed and not this one?

    – The Bible is much more outspoken against adultery, divorce and fornication. Why don’t any churches object to these people marrying?

    – The Catholic Church is against divorce and remarrying. Should it therefore be illegal for the rest of us?

    – How can who someone else marries affect your life… in any manner? (Actually, I’m straight; so when two guys get married there are two more women in the pool for me!)

    • MisterPine

      Yeah, I mean they have their Ten Commandments which you’d think would override all the others, but they treat homosexuality like it’s the #1 worst sin with a bullet!

      • Patricia Janak

        No sin is sin there is only one unforgiveable sin and that is against the Holy Spirit so that would be the worse because even if you are as you say gay if you repent and except Christ as your Savior He is faithful to forgive you

    • uzza

      Just look at the marriage vows:

      “Do you take this (woman/man) to be your lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have
      and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer,
      for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part or some gay guys get married somewhere?”
      “I do”

    • Martin Walsh

      Have you ever noticed that homosex proponents constantly use false analogies and misrepresentation. You know, things like saying SSM is essentially the same as the struggle for civil rights, the ‘legalisation’ of inter-racial marriage etc?
      The problem for you is that all of these laws and prohibitions had no basis in the Bible but were due to the racial, sectarian and class prejudice of people. The laws, such as they were, that upheld these prohibitions were wrong. Ironically, you are calling for the force of law to uphold what is also wrong and immoral i.e. SSM! A bit rich really.
      Adultery, fornication and divorce are all deviations from the norm which is monogamous life-long heterosexual marriage and are condemned as such.
      Divorce and re-marriage are obviously not prohibited in the U.S. Roman Catholicism promotes their teaching which is binding on Catholics alone.
      I am already affected by this issue – I am called a hater and a bigot for simply representing orthodox Christian teachings. My children are being indoctrinated that SSM and homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexual marriage and sex. If I represent to them my Christian beliefs that is unacceptable ‘indoctrination’ apparently.
      We live in communities. What we do affects others, that’s the nature of society. The harm arising from homosexual lifestyle is very well documented – greatly reduced lifespans, much higher incidences of STIs, emotional and psychological harm etc. I suppose I shouldn’t care about that?

      • vietnam_marine_vet

        You are a bigot, and you are trying to use your religion to hurt others. That makes you evil. Perhaps not capital letter Evil like Hitler, but definitely a bad person. If two people want the happiness of marriage for themselves, this has no effect whatsoever on your life. Period.

        If you really believed there was a God, you would be too fearful of his rightful wrath for daring to claim that you speak for Him. So you are a hypocrite also.

        • Martin Walsh

          So I demonstrate the nonsense of your comments and lo and behold I’m a hater and bigot. I can live with that. How do my opinions translate into using religion to hurt others? As for the rest of your rant, childish and infantile.
          God has revealed His prescriptive will in the Boble. It’s there for all to read. Faithfully representing His word is not a presumptuous thing to do. In fact, God commands us to contend for the faith, to speak truth and in doing so to love our fellow man.
          I don’t know what your definition of a hypocrite is, in mine it’s acting contrary to what you are saying. So tell me, how am I a hypocrite or is this just another of your favourite slurs to spew out?

          • vietnam_marine_vet

            You want to cause unhappiness to another group of people for no reason except your animus towards them. That makes you a bigot. Saying your god is forcing to act that way just makes you appear mentally unstable.

          • Martin Walsh

            No I do not. I do not hate gay people. I happen to have gay uncles. I don’t hate them, I love them – I simply do not approve or support or condone their behaviour and chosen lifestyle, nor is it a condition of love that I do. In fact, it is truly loving to warn people of the consequences of their behaviour. You would condone it. My God doesn’t force me to do anything – His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
            So I’m a hater, a bigot, and now I’m mentally unstable. Is it possible for you and others like you to engage in debate, respecting others’ opinions and not resort to name calling and ‘hateful’ contempt. That’s how adults are meant to behave. If you are really a Vietnam vet, that makes you in your 70s or older presumably and you haven’t learnt courtesy!

          • vietnam_marine_vet

            Nope, I haven’t learned courtesy to people like you. You don’t approve of their lifestyle. So what. I don’t approve of people who spout global warming. But just because I don’t approve doesn’t give me the right to forbid their activities. And you should not feel that your disapproval gives you the right to stop gays from getting married.

        • Martin Walsh

          Ps: one definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples views or opinions. Sounds just like you then.

          • vietnam_marine_vet

            You are right. Deep down inside, bigots are all about hatred of a group. And, deep down, I hate bigots.

          • Martin Walsh

            So your response to hatred is hatred. Have you considered a different approach? How about loving your enemies, as Jesus said?
            Luke 6:27 NIV
            [27] “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

      • Jennifer LaRose

        The bible was used for years to justify the fact that interracial marriage was illegal, so that argument is out.

        • Martin Walsh

          Yes, but the Bible was wrongly used to justify it. It is not a teaching of the Bible that people of different races should not marry. In the same way SSM is nowhere justified by any proper interpretation of scripture.
          My main point was that there is no similarity in promoting SSM and legalising inter-racial marriage and it is disingenuous to do so. Who you choose to have sex with, an issue of morality and ethics, is not the same category as racism which discriminates against people based on their skin colour and ethnicity, factors over which we have no control.

  • Homonaseau

    One way around this is for the states to just not issue any marriage license at all to anyone. Let the church marry people. The 2nd Amendment would protect the church from govt intrustion one would expect.

    • LeftCoast

      Bingo, sounds good to me. Give Cesar what is Cesar’s and give God what is God’s

    • vietnam_marine_vet

      Religions should not be able to dictate what we the people do as a secular nation! If we the people want government sanctioned marriage, no church should be able to declare that marriage is reserved for them!

      • Homonaseau

        Go to the MCC and get married. States rights, I cannot find the word marriage in the constitution, can you? The 10th Amendment applies here. Move to a gay marriage state. The 1st Amendment trumphs gay “rights”, all day, every day.

        • SFBruce

          LGBT people have civil liberties, too, and that includes First Amendment liberties. And don’t forget that very important Fourteenth Amendment which demands equal treatment under the law.

    • Reasonable Quest

      So you are fine with dropping any special legal rights that are afforded to people with government recognized civic marriages?

      • Homonaseau

        leave it to the states. period

  • vietnam_marine_vet

    Has anyone ever noticed how authoritatively many religious people sound when they declare what God’s position is on an issue. They talk about how God’s righteous wrath will smote those who transgress God’s will on that issue. No one ever comments on how perfectly their opinion and God’s opinion agree…God hates what they hate, and God approves of what they approve. And if other people have a different idea about God’s position, those other people are, of course, mistaken.

    And yet…none of these self professed mouthpieces for God has ever actually had God over for dinner to discuss the issue. If these people were truly fearful of God’s righteous wrath, they would be nervous about putting words in His mouth. They would never speak so certainly about their wife’s views, for fear she would contradict them. And she does not have the power to turn them into a pillar of ash!

    The only logical conclusion is that they don’t fear God’s righteous wrath for presuming to speak for Him because they know they will never face His wrath…that He does not exist!

    • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

      Are you really that stupid? If you picked up a Bible and read it, it would tell you exactly what God hates. Try it sometime.

      • Reasonable Quest

        You just made the original posters point. Your certainty that the private revelations made to the men who wrote, transcribed, and chose what books to put into the bible are not proof of anything. These accounts in the bible are only 2nd hand hearsay at best since these revelations were not made to you, but to the original authors.

        • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

          Oh shut up! You idiots don’t know a thing of what you are talking about. If that Bible says it….IT IS THE TRUTH AND THE DAMN GOSPEL! There is NO questioning it! And you will all find out on Judgment Day!

          • vietnam_marine_vet

            Imagine Grim Reaper’s dismay if he found out that his God was not a vengeful, wrathful, angry Being, but instead was a gentle, beatific Buddha type.

            Of course, your god can be whatever you want it to be. We can see what type of loving person Grim Reaper is.

          • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

            You know nothing, but you will find out the truth.

        • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

          No, I did not make the point. I KNOW that God will lash out in fury when HE has had enough of people like you.

      • vietnam_marine_vet

        You have that right. According to the Bible, I should kill any friend or relative who follows a different religion like God commanded Moses to do after He gave him the Ten Commandments.

        That is what you do, right?

        • http://tonyabrooks99.blogspot.com/ Grim Reaper

          Muslims already do this. And you pukes are all about bowing down to them, aren’t you?

  • Angel Marrero

    I’d say, just keep it legal and performed in the courts and/or City Hall. It will NEVER be legal in the churches. If they want to get married, so be it. But NOT via the house of God.

  • Reasonable Quest

    Currently the government recognizes the civil marriage of 2 persons, but not every state recognizes a civil marriage between 2 people of the same sex. If the government is going to be in the business of granting special rights to two person and call that a marriage, then it seems to me not allowing those who identify as gay the same 2 person legal status is not liberty and justice for all, and if the only argument against that is on religious grounds, then that is a violation of 1st amendment separation of church and state. Not everyone’s religion is opposed to gay relationships, so by no allowing the same 2 person marriage rights to gays, the government is favoring one religion over others. I haven’t heard any secular reason not to give equal rights to gays that isn’t an argument against civil marriage in general.

    • Mr. Avatar

      Separation is no where in the 1st amendment! As it is written!

      • Reasonable Quest

        Basing secular laws on a particular religious theology is certainly respecting an establishment of religion.

  • jun

    Funny because before marriage were seen as a religious ritual, it simply involved giving your daughter away for a dowry such as coins, jewels, or livestock. It was a form of currency. Oh well it is what it is.

  • harold

    marriage is not a religious act it is a contract about property. The property used to be the women and now all property and probate. If you don’t believe that check the divorce courts, the judge does not say what church do you go to but rather show the property and bank accounts.

  • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

    There’s a very obvious answer to the four-lawyer problem: when there are children, who is the father? All children have a father and a mother. They cannot have two fathers and two mothers. This is called science. Children need a place to belong. If there are people acting as father and mother who are not actually father and mother, there really should be a compelling reason for it – something which is in the interest of the child: not something which has the children as an accessory added after the fact to legitimize a non-parent relationship.

    • Reasonable Quest

      The government allready recognizes the civil marriages of people with children who get remarried after a divorce, and allow people with no intention of having children, or beyond the age when they can have children to get married. Are you suggesting that the government only recognize a marriage for civic purposes during the period while a couple is rearing children? Seems like your argument isn’t just against gay marriage, but would dissolve most current marriages between heterosexuals.

      • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

        You are saying something. You are not asking what I am saying.

  • All Kim

    Wish that the courts would establish separate definitions for marriage and for civil union.

  • C Joseph

    Even animals in nature don’t do such despicable acts.

  • daanderzon

    The obvious answer is 4 lawyers would rather form a corporation and get more benefits then marriage offers.

  • patriotgamer

    Maybe more people will finally wake up to the fact that those who argue for homosexual marriage just like to argue? When are people going to understand that “no, because you can’t” is good enough? You owe them nothing. Let them whine and don’t feel obligated to justify your position. That is what they need to twist your words to make it fit their agenda.

  • shelterfromthestorm

    This decision is really about whether or not the dictates of Christianity will remain as the underpinnings of the American experiment.

  • Donna Mabry

    To the Supreme Court…….You can not o.k. the same sex marriage AND IT NOT BE THE START OF SOMETHING SICK,SICK,SICK.. They’re already talking about three people marrying. Two lesbians are shooting their girl with male horrmones because they want a boy ;Humans are going to keep going until they’re all mutants. Where did all these freaks come from. Did they all escape the circus. COME ONE< COME ALL SEE MALE TURN INTO A FEMALE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON"T LET THIS PASS