Pennsylvania Man Seeks to ‘Marry’ His Adopted Son

Bosee-compressedPITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania man is seeking to “marry” another man that he adopted as his son three years ago.

Nino Esposito, 78, had been with his partner Roland Bosee, 68, for 40 years when the two decided that Esposito would adopt Bosee as his son so that they could be considered “family” under the law.

“[The adoption] gave us the most legitimate thing available to us,” Bosee told reporters.

They were granted their request in court and have lived under the law as father and son, but after a judge struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex “marriage” ban last year, the two decided to annul the adoption and instead “wed” each other.

But after filing paperwork to do so, Esposito and Bosee were rejected since fathers are not allowed to “marry” their adopted sons.

Judge Lawrence O’Toole of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, who is considered to be an advocate for homosexual causes, told the men that although he was “sympathetic” to their situation, he could not grant the request “because they are legally father and son.”

The men, who are being represented by the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are now seeking to find a way to annul their adoption and convert it to a “marriage.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“The ACLU is hopeful that the Superior Court will apply established legal principles to allow annulment of adoptions by same-sex couples who that they can finally partake of their constitutional right to marry,” the group told CNN.

The ACLU says that it discovered that there were others in the state who also adopted their partners as a way to seek recognition under the law.

This week, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey (D) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to request that she get involved in the matter.

“LGBT couples should have the right to obtain a marriage license, no matter the state or jurisdiction in which they reside,” he wrote. “In adoption cases such as these, the law has changed dramatically since the adoptions were first carried out.”

Christian author and commentator Dr. Michael Brown says that he has warned about consensual adult incestual relationships becoming the next civil rights quest.

“[I]f the taboos against homosexual ‘marriage’ are now considered outdated and intolerant, why can’t the same thing be said about the taboos against adult incest?” he wrote in a recent article entitled “[I]f Leviticus 18 does not apply to believers today (including, of course, the prohibition against homosexual practice in Leviticus 18:22), then why should the prohibitions against incest in that same chapter (found in verses 6-17) still apply? After all, Jesus didn’t say anything about incest, so it couldn’t be that important, right?”

“Haven’t we heard all these arguments before when it comes to homosexual unions?” Brown stated. “This is the inevitable downward slide that results when you separate marriage from procreation and from joining children to their mother and father.”

“The good news is that history is still being written and, just as we are the generation that opened wide the floodgates of radical, negative change, we are the generation that can put the brakes on this social madness and return to higher ground,” he said.


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
  • Guest

    I’m surprised that this is a ‘revelation’ to anyone – gay couples were adopting to establish a legally recognized familial status for a very long time. Did they ever live as a ‘father and son’? No, of course not, they lived as spouses and that’s the issue. The time for such half-way solutions that were the only legal option (there are aspects of a legally recognized familial relationship that can’t be duplicated through private contracts) at the time are no longer required.

    But… as the judge noted if they were to allow the dissolving of this adoption it might impinge on the integrity of other adoptions. Since they do have all their legal ducks in a row for inheritance and status issues I would suggest they just have a private, non-civil wedding ceremony and be a thankful that they will be the last of those couple that had to resort to this less than satisfactory solution.

  • Jade

    It is shameful that we read late in this story an attempt to show that after gay marriage was allowed, we would see family members wanting to marry each other (incest). Really?!? These poor men had to do what they did at the time because religion had placed homosexuals in such a difficult situation. I have no doubt that common sense will prevail and these men will be able to marry each other.

    • bowie1

      It doesn’t appear they are biologically related so technically it’s not incest. However it does deviate from what God had in mind from the beginning of Creation.

      • Jade

        Maybe God did have homosexuals in mind from the beginning of creation in order to keep the world population in check. Or maybe to adopt children whose parents die or whose parents are unable or unwilling to take care of them. Or maybe for the artistic talents or other contributions that many LGBT people bring to society.

        • bowie1

          I don’t think so since infertility may already do that. Not all artists are gay either since I am artist myself and am happily married to a lady of the female persuasion who is a crafty person herself.

          • BalancedMind

            Maybe you are just not talented enough as an artist.
            Homosexuals are too talented to be bothered by children.
            Maybe god wanted to differentiate humans from the animal kingdom and let humanity be about more than procreation only….

          • America the Great

            WHAT????? Now your just being one of those “crazy guys” at a gay parade. Homosexuals can’t be that talented. They don’t even understand how genetics is passed from one generation to another.

          • BalancedMind

            We understand genetics very much. It seems you don’t understand. Have you ever heard about dominant and recessive traits?
            You just made yourself look like a fool.
            May I suggest besides “evolution for dummies” another book “genetics for dummies”?

          • America the Great

            Again I have to laugh a little. Are you the dominant or the recessive………..trait that is

          • BalancedMind

            you practiced your google on evolution, now try genetics…

          • America the Great

            Oh, no, it’s your turn now. But before you go into Genetics, I assume you agree with the position of the Discovery Institute? Wow and to think I already had that in my list of papers from my own database.

          • BalancedMind

            I am sincerely proud of you that you did have some information about evolution in your “own database”. Then you should understand that homosexuality would have died out, if it was not in some way a favorable trait for humanity (and the animal kingdom where it occurs as well). That is where genetics comes in to play. I strongly suggest you read up on the basic genetics as well.

          • America the Great

            That is improbable considering homosexuality is not genetic to start with.

          • BalancedMind

            Clearly not, otherwise it would have died out long time ago…
            Remember, the fact that we do not understand doesn’t mean it is not… It only means that we don’t understand yet…

          • America the Great

            Not if it’s by choice. If by choice it will never die out. That is my point. If genetic then a much larger population would have gay characteristics, as the gene pool would pass down the genetic information to the next generation. Was your father or mother Gay?

          • BalancedMind

            So sad…. love is not expressed by domination or submission… Love is expressed by the joining of two people that become one. One way or the other…

          • America the Great

            The only way I could possibly envision that, is the Love between my wife and I, the love I have for my daughter, and my two Grandchildren, and that truely is sad for you. It’s not possible for you and your male friend to have children and enjoy the love I have for my two Grandbabies. Oh you may be able to adopt now, be married etc. but that will never be the same thing. I remember a good friend of mine who was raised by two wonderful women and she did say she loved her mother and her mother’s partner, but she wanted that father, mother, bond so badly that she finally went and found him. It changed her life. Those are the types of things that nobody thinks about when two males or females try to raise children. They almost always pay for being put in a position of confusion. I could go on and on about that particular story and all I’ll say is hopefully if you have a child, that you allow that child to know both father and mother as they grow up. I don’t think you will regret that decision down the line.

          • BalancedMind

            Well, you can’t blame others for your incapability of envisioning love in different ways than yours.

            I am happy you are (hopefully) happy married, have a daughter and two grandchildren. And truly hope that the relationship with your wife is not based on domination…

            I forgive you your lack of empathy for people that are different from you. You are entitled to your opinions and so far have had the luxury that you have not met the situation where you have to revisit your opinions.

            The question is, what will you do when one of your grandchildren comes to you and tells you that he or she is attracted to the same sex. That is the moment when your grandchild really will know if you love him/her or not….

          • America the Great

            The same thing I would tell you. I would love them and care about them. I’m sure you are a good person and I would consider you a friend if I knew you. It is not my place to judge your life. It is my opinion that with experience and time, you may end up taking a different road at some point. If not, I wish you the best life possible. I just want you to understand in everyone’s lives we have to be responsible for our actions, now and later. I’ll ask you a question. What will you do if your child is suffering because of your relationship with a person of the same sex. Please don’t tell me it won’t happen. It happens a great deal. How will you handle a situation where your son or daughter says they won’t live with you as long as you are in a same sex relationship?

          • BalancedMind

            I have been homosexual all my life. Out of peer pressure I have tried the more conventional route, but it was a road of utter unhappiness, and totally unfair towards the other party involved. And technically it didn’t work at all. As you might know, a human being is not meant to be alone. I have found an amazing man, who I love, I care for and whom I honor. There will not be a different road, as there is no other road for me. And as we have been married for five years now, I am not going back on my wedding vows. Till death do us part….
            We are currently not considering children, although that might change in the future. If we go that route, we will adopt as we both strongly believe that there are enough children in this world. Or we establish our own orphanage, depending our financial strength and our life, as we are living in a country with too many orphans that nobody looks after for.
            What I know is that we both have enough love in us to become great parents. If the kids run into any difficulty because of having same sex parents, it will be because of an unaccepting environment. That is not a problem caused by us, but by that environment…

          • BalancedMind

            Well, you can’t blame others for your incapability of envisioning love in different ways than yours.

            I am happy you are (hopefully) happy married, have a daughter and two grandchildren. And truly hope that the relationship with your wife is not based on domination…

            I forgive you your lack of empathy for people that are different from you. You are entitled to your opinions and so far have had the luxury that you have not met the situation where you have to revisit your opinions.

            The question is, what will you do when one of your grandchildren comes to you and tells you that he or she is attracted to the same sex. That is the moment when your grandchild really will know if you love him/her or not….

          • America the Great

            Just to clear up what Evolution for Dummies and genetics for dummies suggests lol:

            Evolutionists often challenge us for referring to Darwinian evolution as “random.” They point to the fact that natural selection, the force that supposedly drives the train, always selects more “fit” organisms, and so is not random. That is only part of the story, though, and to understand why evolution can indeed be called random, the rest needs to be told.

            Evolution can be considered to be composed of four parts. The first part, the grist for the mill, is the process by which mutations are generated. Generally this is thought to be a random process, with some qualifications. Single base changes occur more or less randomly, but there is some skewing as to which bases are substituted for which. Other kinds of mutations, like deletions or rearrangements or recombinations (where DNA is exchanged between chromosomes), often occur in hotspots, but not always. The net effect is that mutations occur without regard for what the organism requires, but higgledy-piggledy. In that sense mutation is random

            The next part, random drift, is like a roll of the dice that decides which changes are preserved and which are lost. As the name implies, this process is also random, the result of accidental events, and without regard for the benefit of the organism. Most mutations get lost in the mix, especially when newly emerging, just because their host organisms fail to reproduce, or die from causes unrelated to genetics. It can also happen that new mutations are combined with other mutations that are harmful, and so get eliminated.

            The random effects of drift are large enough to overwhelm natural selection in organisms with small breeding populations, less than a million, say. New mutations are not born fast enough to escape loss due to drift. There is a fractional threshold in the population that must be crossed before a new mutation can become “fixed,” that is, universally present in every individual. A new mutation generally is lost to drift before that population threshold is crossed.

            The third part, natural selection, is not random. It acts to preserve beneficial change and eliminate harmful ones. It can be said to be directional. But there are several caveats. Beneficial mutations are rare, and usually only weakly beneficial, so the effects of natural selection are not usually all that strong. Most changes provide only a slight advantage.

            In addition, it can happen, and often does, that a “beneficial” mutation involves breaking something, meaning a loss of information, and a loss of potential improvement. This breaking can be irreversible for all intents and purposes. The premiere example in human evolution is that of sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation to the hemoglobin gene that makes red blood cells resistant to the malarial parasite. In one copy the broken gene is beneficial (it increases resistance to malaria), but when two copies are present (both chromosomes carry the mutation), the red blood cells are deformed and cause painful debilitation. The broken gene is actually functionally worse than its normal version, except where malaria is present.

            This brings out an important point. Natural selection does not always select the same mutations. The environment determines which mutations are favored. For example, natural selection acts to favor individuals carrying one copy of the sickle cell trait where malaria is present, but acts against the sickle cell gene where malaria is absent. So in this context, selection meanders over a fluctuating landscape of varying criteria for what is beneficial and what is not. Now it is beneficial to carry the sickle cell trait, now it is not. Different populations get favored at different times. In this sense one might say selection has a random component too, because only rarely is selection strong and unidirectional, always favoring the same mutation.

            We see this variation in selection with another example, the evolution of finch beaks on the Galápagos Islands. In drought, large beaks are favored, in wet years, small beaks. The weather fluctuates, and so do the beak sizes.

            Subpopulations may acquire traits, but because of environmental variation the traits do not become universal. For example, lactose intolerance — we do not all carry the version of the gene that allows us to digest lactose as adults. Unless suddenly everyone in the world has to eat cheese as a major part of their diet, lactose intolerance won’t disappear from our population.

            There is a special way evolution can occur — a sudden bottleneck in the population will tend to fix the traits that predominate in that population. Suppose a nuclear holocaust wiped out everyone except Swedes. The lactose-digesting gene would almost certainly become fixed, as would blond hair, blue eyes, and other Scandinavian traits, provided they ate cheese and lived at high latitudes. Until new mutations in new environments occurred, that would remain the case.

            Now you know more about the population genetics of evolution than you imagined could be true. The sum of all these factors is what is responsible for evolution, or change over time. Mutation, drift, selection, and environmental change all play a role. Three out of these four forces are random, without regard for the needs of the organism. Even selection can be random in its direction, depending on the environment.

            So tell me. Is evolution random? Most of the processes at work definitely are. Certainly evolution won’t make steady progress in one direction without some other factor at work. What that factor might be remains to be seen. I personally do not think a material explanation will be found, because any process to guide evolution in a purposeful way will require a purposeful designer to create it.

          • bowie1

            Perhaps you stereotype too much Bub. I’ve been told I am sometimes temperamental which is one of those stereotypes and I have this possible touch of aspergers syndrome too.

          • BalancedMind

            Something done most often on this site.
            But I will admit that the above was not my most serious post here 😉

        • singlemom_4

          God was against homosexuality from the beginning. How do we know? Because he created them: male and female and they become one, as he said (Genesis 1:27-28). When God saw that it wasn’t good for man to be alone, he specifically created the women and called her Adam’s wife, Eve—God defined and performed the first marriage on earth (Genesis 2:18-25). Morality is set by God, not mankind.
          God condemned the perverted practice of homosexuality, incess, and bestiality
          (Leviticus 18:22, 23; 20:13-22 saying you will keep all of my statutes and judgments, and do them).

          Genesis 19:1-28
          Deut 23:17
          1 Kings 14:24

          1 Kings 15:11-12
          Asa pleased the LORD like his ancestor King David. He removed the homosexuals out of the land, and removed all the idols that his father’s had made.

          Condemnation of Homosexuality in the New Testament

          Romans 1:26-32
          1 Cor 6:9-10
          1 Timothy 1:9-11

          This generation is compared to the days of Lot, perverted and this proves as much (Luke 17:28-30).

          Dispelling lies by telling the truth which is Love. -Truth is Love!

          • John N

            >’Morality is set by God, not mankind. ‘

            Yeah right. That is why we threat or slaves usually well (Leviticus 25:44-46), rape the women we want to marry (Judges 21:10-24), murder our children when they curse us (Leviticus 20:9), and forbid woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34).

            >’God condemned the perverted practice of homosexuality, incest, and bestiality’

            As the story goes, he then created one man, cloned him from his own rib, and then ordered these two to procreate. Which is of course completely different from incest and homosexuality.

          • BalancedMind

            Very interesting misinterpretations again.

            1 kings 15: 11-12. He did not remove all homosexuals, he only removed male temple prostitutes.

            That is also the context for Leviticus. Temple prostitution to worship baal.

            Sodom never had anything to do with homosexuality either, read up ezekiel. It is the sin of greed, inhospitality to foreigners and grave injustice that doomed Sodom. Sounds pretty much like the gop policies don’t you think?

            Romans 1 speaks about shameful lusts. It doesn’t talk about loving and caring relationships, therefore not applicable.

            1 Cor 6:9-10, read the untranslated text in greek and you will see that it is far from sure that homosexuality was mentioned.

            and regarding 1 timothy 1:9-11:

            The original Greek word “arsenokoitai” was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time. The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as “homosexual.” That is, a men or women who is sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. Also, “arsen” in Greek means “man.” Thus, it is most unlikely that “arsenokoitai” could refer to both male gays and lesbians.

            Various commentators have suggested that “arsenokoitai” means masturbators, pimps, prostitutes, boy sex slaves, male prostitutes, or abusive pedophiles

            Read up on Jonathan and David. Or Ruth and Naomi…

          • MamaBear

            Try actually reading the account in Genesis 19.

            4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

            Just what do you think “have relations with them” means? Especially when Lot offers to send out his virgin daughters instead?

            And I don’t know where you checked the Greek for I Corinthians 6:9-10, but according to Strong’s it is ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoites): a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity. Word origin is árrhēn, “a male” and koítē, “a mat, bed” – properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual. Whether or not it refers to sex slaves, male prostitutes, etc, is somebody’s guess. The plain meaning of Scripture is HOMOSEXUAL!
            Paul did not make up the word. It is used in other forms outside of Scriptures.

          • BalancedMind

            Your translation fails you again. The original bible text does not speak of “have relations with them”, it speaks of “knowing” the strangers in Lots house.

            The root of the Hebrew verb for “know” is ידע yada. A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.) To try to make this word mean sex everywhere will get us in a lot of trouble, because the scripture tells us that God knew David, and uses a form of this word. We don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attach a sexual meaning to that. When the crowd outside Lot’s house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were. Or at least, that was what they meant when they started out.

            And even if this was about sex, than it still has nothing to do with loving and caring homosexual relationships. Then it is about rape.

            And a last remark, sodom and gomorrah, and all the other cities of the plains, where condemned before lot arrived, and before the threat of rape was made.

            A man that is condemned is being executed. While he walks to the gallows he curses his guards and the executioner. Your line of reasoning means that the man is being executed for cursing his executioner.

            The word sodomy, used as implying a sexual sin, does not appear until A.D. 395 in letters between Saint Jerome and a priest Amandus, but the details of the act and the nature of the sin are not explained.

            In his Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas ranked sodomy as the worst crime second only to murder itself, because it essentially amounted to wanton destruction of a potential person. As the only proper place for the male seed is the female womb, those who masturbate, engage in oral sex, and, yes, even those who use contraceptives are all sodomites! (Until recently Oregon and Maryland included mutual masturbation in their sodomy laws.) If the sin of sodomy is the practice of nonprocreative sex, then every sexually active human being is a sodomite!

          • MamaBear

            The Hebrew is וְנֵדְעָ֖ה
            and literally means to know, but to know was the Hebrew euphemism for sexual relations. NIV, NLT, NASB, Holman, NET, ISV, and NAS translations all used “have relations with” or “have sex with” and other translations stuck with the literal Hebrew euphemism, but I guess you (in your own eyes) are smarter than all those translators. Josephus assumes them to have been of “beautiful countenances” (‘Ant.,’ 1:11, 3), which caused the lust of the men of Sodom. I think that considering Lot offers his daughters instead, that it was pretty clear the meaning was sexual. Was this Sodom’s only sin? Of course not. But do not pretend it was not there.
            Leviticus 18:22 makes it quite clear that a man is not to have sexual relations with another man. Nothing there to excuse it as only wrong if by force or only wrong if connected with idol worship. Plain and simple, a man must not lay with a man like he does with a woman.
            Jude 1:7 makes it quite clear that Sodom’s sins included sexual perversions. ” In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

          • BalancedMind

            Leviticus again refers to temple prostitution…..
            Jude 1:7 does not speak of homosexuality….
            You can not deny that the translations all are made within a context, a context where the sin of sodom was already seen to be homosexuality. That doesn’t make it true. Translations contain historical bias…. You are engaging in circle reasoning…
            And even if to know means having sex, than it is rape and still not comparable to a loving and caring relationship.

          • MamaBear

            Leviticus 18:22 does not mention temple prostitution. You are reading into it your own thoughts. It is part of a long list of things “you shall not” do, including various forms of incest and not laying with your neighbors wife or with animals. Yes, there is a prohibition of child sacrifice in there as well, but unless you say the incest and adultery prohibitions are only referring to temple prostitution, you cannot say vs. 22 is.

          • BalancedMind

            And regarding I Corinthians 6:

            Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

            1. To accept a favorite English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.

            2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. These is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.

            On the word Arsenokoitai:

            “Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”

            Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

            Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”

            “Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse, rape, unsafe sex, manipulative sex, coercive sex, etc).

            Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” — people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

            Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which contains the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.” 3

            Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

          • MamaBear

            Twist words all you want. Men and women who are far more knowledgeable than you, working independently on differing translations, do not agree with you.
            And you are way off on Martin Luther. In his Bible translation, arsenokotai is translated Knabenschander (put an umlaut over that second a) which literally means boys’ shame, defilement, or molestation.

          • BalancedMind

            Such a miss interpretation. First of all, your use of the word sodomy is far from an absolute reference. Homosexuality was never the sin of Sodom. That is a christian invention. Ask the original copyright holders of that story (Judaism) and you get a total different answer: greed, inhospitality towards foreigners and grave injustice (for proof, read Ezekiel). Sodom having anything to do with homosexuality was a 5th century invention of the roman catholic church.
            Secondly, the post 5th century interpretation of the word sodomy used to cover the sin of spilled seed: anal sex, masturbation and coitus interruptus. “Sins” committed primarily by heterosexual couples.
            If you take the historical contexts of the so called clobber passages into account you can only come to the conclusion that these passages do not refer to loving, caring and committed same sex relationships.
            If you want examples of such same sex relationships you can read up on the story of david and jonathan, ruth and naomi, and Daniel…
            Ultimately even jesus himself explains that gay men (born eunuchs) are exempt from the duty to marry a woman.

          • MamaBear

            No, eunuchs are not born gay men, however you twist it. You pretend to be an expert and do not even know it is “misinterpretation,” not “miss interpretation.” You read into a friendship like David and Jonathan, and a mother/daughter relationship like Ruth and Naomi, homosexuality? Does every relationship have to be sexual to you?
            Jesus never said there was a duty to marry, nor does the Old Testament, so why should he exempt any from a duty never commanded by Himself or God the Father.

            From Expositor’s Greek Testament:
            “Jesus distinguishes three sorts, two physical and one ethical: (1) those born with a defect (ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως); (2) those made such by art (εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων); (3) those who make themselves eunuchs (εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς).—διὰ τὴν β. τ. ο., for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. . . . . Here, as in Matthew 15:17, Jesus touches on a delicate subject to teach His disciples a very important lesson, viz., that the claims of the Kingdom of God are paramount; that when necessary even the powerful impulses leading to marriage must be resisted out of regard to them.”

          • BalancedMind

            When you read other’s broken english, it just means they have a different mother tongue than you. Which other languages do you speak and write fluently besides your english?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Impeccable Greek. Impeccable Biblical apologetics.

          • BalancedMind

            Leviticus again refers to temple prostitution…..
            Jude 1:7 does not speak of homosexuality….
            You can not deny that the translations all are made within a context, a context where the sin of sodom was already seen to be homosexuality. That doesn’t make it true. Translations contain historical bias…. You are engaging in circle reasoning…
            And even if to know means having sex, than it is rape and still not comparable to a loving and caring relationship.

          • MamaBear

            Leviticus has no mention of temple prostitution. “Other flesh” in Jude is a euphemism for homosexuality. By the way, since it directly refers to Sodom, what kind of sex could it refer to, as the men of Sodom thought the angels were men and demanded they be brought out for sex?
            You are really desperate to twist Scripture to defend homosexuality. It just is not there and it is you who are engaging in circle reasoning.
            This conversation is ended. I suggest you read the Scriptures themselves and pray for the Holy Spirit to open your eyes. Jesus died on the cross for you. If we repent of our sins rather than seeking excuses for them, we are forgiven, washed clean.

          • BalancedMind

            Very interesting misinterpretations again.

            1 kings 15: 11-12. He did not remove all homosexuals, he only removed male temple prostitutes.

            That is also the context for Leviticus. Temple prostitution to worship baal.

            Sodom never had anything to do with homosexuality either, read up ezekiel. It is the sin of greed, inhospitality to foreigners and grave injustice that doomed Sodom. Sounds pretty much like the gop policies don’t you think?

            Romans 1 speaks about shameful lusts. It doesn’t talk about loving and caring relationships, therefore not applicable.

            1 Cor 6:9-10, read the untranslated text in greek and you will see that it is far from sure that homosexuality was mentioned.

            and regarding 1 timothy 1:9-11:

            The original Greek word “arsenokoitai” was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 CE. No record remains of any writer using the term before that time. The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as “homosexual.” That is, a men or women who is sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. Also, “arsen” in Greek means “man.” Thus, it is most unlikely that “arsenokoitai” could refer to both male gays and lesbians.

            Various commentators have suggested that “arsenokoitai” means masturbators, pimps, prostitutes, boy sex slaves, male prostitutes, or abusive pedophiles

            Read up on Jonathan and David. Or Ruth and Naomi…

        • Josey

          No, God did not, since homosexuality or sodomy is considered a sin by God and a choice that people make and Almighty God does not change His mind just because man is fickle and goes backwards but God is all knowing and yes He saw this beforehand what choices some would make and He clearly condemned that choice as well as other sinful choices man would make in His Holy Word and not only did He condemn those choices He laid out the consequences of making sinful choices which is death and the only true freedom from sin and death is trusting and obeying Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. There is No Other Way, whom the Son sets free is free indeed!

          • BalancedMind

            Such a miss interpretation. First of all, your use of the word sodomy is far from an absolute reference. Homosexuality was never the sin of Sodom. That is a christian invention. Ask the original copyright holders of that story (Judaism) and you get a total different answer: greed, inhospitality towards foreigners and grave injustice (for proof, reed Ezekiel). Sodom having anything to do with homosexuality was a 5th century invention of the roman catholic church.
            Secondly, the post 5th century interpretation of the word sodomy used to cover the sin of spilled seed: anal sex, masturbation and coitus interruptus. “Sins” committed primarily by heterosexual couples.
            If you take the historical contexts of the so called clobber passages into account you can only come to the conclusion that these passages do not refer to loving, caring and committed same sex relationships.
            If you want examples of such same sex relationships you can read up on the story of david and jonathan, ruth and naomi, and Daniel…
            Ultimately even jesus himself explains that gay men (born eunuchs) are exempt from the duty to marry a woman.

          • MamaBear

            Eunuchs are NOT homosexuals. Although the word can refer to males born without testicles, and sometimes used for men lacking all sexual desire, the dictionary definition is “a man who has had his sexual organs removed.”
            Actually read Genesis 19 and you will find the sin of Sodom was indeed homosexuality. Ezekiel assumed his readers had read Genesis as it is part of the Torah.
            Do you have a citation for your “redefinition” of sodomy, or did you make that one up like your silly claim that Sodom and homosexuality were not associated until the 5th century?
            David and Jonathan were friends and both had normal relations with women. (With David, it was quite a few women.) Ruth and Naomi were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. To assume anything other than a mother/daughter type relationship is just sick. Naomi even helped Ruth get a remarried. Since Daniel and his friends were put in under the charge of the chief of the eunuchs, it is a pretty good guess they had no chance for sexual relationships at all. (See definition for eunuch at the beginning of this comment.) Your attempt to use these people as “proof” is pretty good evidence that you are not telling the truth, whether your lies are made up by you or others.

          • BalancedMind

            Born Eunuchs are homosexuals. You can find reference in the historical context of the bible: The Talmud and Roman Law of that time.
            The Talmud states that a born eunuch can be cured. The roman law distinguishes between man made eunuchs and born eunuchs. The first is a condition that needs to be specified upfront in a sale transaction of a slave, the latter is not. Why? because a born eunuch can still technically procreate. His capacity to procreate is not impaired. Hence, a born eunuch is not somebody without testicles.

            Regarding David and Jonathan, they might have had heterosexual relationships, but that clearly doesn’t exclude homosexual relationships. Your translation of the bible conveniently left out the word gadal, in the sentence where David kissed Jonathan. It would translate to “to become large”. The original text says: David and Jonathan kissed, and David became large…

            David even compares his love for Jonathan for his love for women, and he clearly prefers his love for Jonathan. Saul tells David that David becomes his son in law for the second time when he marries his daughter. When did your friends strip in front of you for the last time? and when did you love your friends more than your own soul?

            In the story of Ruth and Naomi, de relationship between the two is central to the story. Not the relationship between Ruth and her “husband”. It is for good reason that they use the same words for the relationship between Ruth and Naomi as is used in Genisis: Ruth cleaves to Naomi. It is the vow between Ruth and Naomi that is used in current day in approx. 50% of the weddings. And when Ruth receives a baby, the bible says that Ruth gave Naomi a son. It doesn’t say that Ruth gave her husband a son, and it doesn’t say that Ruth gave Naomi a grandson…

            Regarding Daniel, your definition for eunuchs is historically incorrect, and therefore your reasoning for Daniel is failing as well.

            Regarding Sodomy:

            Your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed their ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

            Ezekiel 16:46-50

            Some Jewish scripture:

            Nachmanides commenting on the verse “AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM”.

            Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land… many will come there and they despised charity… they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor… In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin – i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy – since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

            Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis, 13th century

            Rabbi Ze era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt… Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven… Rabbi Joshua… said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked…

            Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account… Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

            R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and take away his money. Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 50:7

            Said R Levi, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. There was the case of two girls, who went down to draw water from the well. One said to her friend, Why are you pale? The other said, All the food is gone from our house and we are ready to die. What did the other do? She filled the jug with flour and exchanged it for her own. Each took the one of the other. When the Sodomites found out about it, they took the girl (who had shared the food) and burned her. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. What is written is not, ‘In accord with their cry’, but, ‘according to her cry’, referring in particular to the girl.

            Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 49:6

            The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them…They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land…

            There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

            If one wounded his neighbour they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for bleeding thee [bloodletting was sometimes considered medically beneficial in those days; Here the Sodomite judge cruelly ruled that if one beats you until you bleed, you owe your attacker money for this “beneficial” medical service”…]

            … they had beds upon which travellers slept. If the guest was too long they shortened him by lopping off his feet; if too short, they stretched him out…

            If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar [coin], upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized such coins, and refused to accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his (denar)…

            A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: on account of the maiden (ribah).

            Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a

            the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance…

            Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5

          • MamaBear

            The Talmud is not Scripture. You cannot use stories from it to interpret Scripture. Jesus warned against following the traditions of men rather than the Word of God in Matthew 15:8-9.

          • BalancedMind

            You need to understand the historical context. The meaning of words of that time…
            Without the historical context, non of the words of the bible have a meaning….

          • MamaBear

            The Talmud stories were made up at last 1500 years later than Genesis. They are not historical context.

          • BalancedMind

            Born eunuchs are not described in genesis, but a term used by Jesus. He lived much closer to the time that the talmud was written. Therefore the Talmud is a better reference than your current day dictionary…

          • acontraryview

            “the dictionary definition is “a man who has had his sexual organs removed.””

            While that is the current definition, it was not the definition in biblical times. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus clearly notes that there are three distinct types of “eunuchs”. “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

            It refers to men who either have no sexual desire for women (the first and second) or who choose not to act upon their sexual desire (the third). The second example is men who have been castrated. The first is men who are “born that way from their mother’s womb” – in other words, homosexual men.

            Homosexual men were prized in Roman society as the perfect individuals to guard women, as there was no concern about the men sexually assaulting the women.

            While I realize that this does not fit into the narrative of some Christians, it nonetheless is true.

          • BalancedMind

            Thanks for explaining it much better than I can with my broken english…

          • acontraryview

            You’re quite welcome, although you did a find job as well.

      • MamaBear

        Sorry, but check state laws on incest. Almost all, if not all, treat children by adoption the same as natural children, therefore no matter what the age when you adopt, you cannot marry your adopted child or an adopted sibling as it is legally incest.

        • bowie1

          I agree which is why I point to Genesis.

  • The Last Trump

    Slippery slope indeed.
    Won’t be long before the dog’s status as “pet” is annulled too in favour of unholy matrimony.
    Bizarro America. How the mighty have fallen 🙁

    • Valri

      Nope, not even a slippery slope – a stupid slope.
      I’ll bet a story like this is one in a million. No, one in 100 million. You just have to work that much harder to find them to make your point about gay marriage sending the world into the toilet – which is clearly hasn’t.

    • acontraryview

      How is a situation where an adult adopts another adult for no purpose other than to secure certain legal protections, and now wishes to annul that adoption since legal protections previously denied are now available, is evidence of a “slippery slope”.

  • Lisa

    “we are the generation that can put the brakes on this social madness and return to higher ground,” he said.

    I don’t think that will happen.

  • acontraryview

    ““This is the inevitable downward slide that results when you separate marriage from procreation and from joining children to their mother and father.””

    Wow. Such a statement of desperation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    The usual conservative commentators and evangelical websites are having a field day with this. It usually starts with something like, “Can you BELIEVE this? A father getting married to his son! THIS is what happens when you let those wicked homersexuals get married!!!”

    But truth be told, I actually know a couple who did exactly the same thing. Long before there was much talk of allowing Gay couples to legally marry, ONE of the options was for one partner to legally ADOPT the other, thus providing such financial benefits such as survivorship under Social Security. Such an arrangement might sound wildly unconventional, but it’s not like the couple have to refer to one another as “daddy” and “son.” The were a Gay couple that simply used a legal strategy to establish a legal relationship status.

    Remember, couples who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual) have never had to worry about jumping through these kinds of legal hoops.

    These kinds of salacious, misleading headlines are shameful.

    • afchief

      Homosexuality is “contrary to nature.” Since the vast majority of homosexuals are liberals and believe they evolved from monkeys they should be learning from the monkeys. At this point in their evolution thinking the monkeys are evolving while the homosexuals are devolving into something perverted.

      • John N

        You have a very strange idea on how evolution works.

        No heterosexual or homosexual ever evolved from monkeys.

        They ARE apes, and therefore monkeys, mammals, tetrapods, invertebrates, and so on.

        And you don’t have to be a liberal or homosexual to ‘believe’ that. There is enough scientific evidence for evolution, no belief is necessary. Yes, the same kind of science that discovered chromosomes, which you seem to know about.

        Homosexual behaviour has been observed in more than 500 animal species, so it is clearly not ‘contrary to nature’.

        ‘Devolution’ does not exist, and ‘something perverted’ must be religious talk – I don’t find a scientific definition for that.

        • afchief

          “Homosexual behaviour has been observed in more than 500 animal species, so it is clearly not ‘contrary to nature’.”

          Yes, you ARE a liar!!! Most animals that engage in homosexual behavior as a bullying method, to degrade and humiliate others, bringing them down in the pecking order. Are you declaring that human homosexual sex has the same purpose and meaning?

          • John N

            >’Yes, you ARE a liar!!!
            That is the second time you call me a liar. You really are out of rational arguments, aren’t you?

            Please tell me what in the statement ‘Homosexual behaviour has been observed in more than 500 animal species, so it is clearly not ‘contrary to nature” is a lie?

            >’Most animals that engage in homosexual behavior as a bullying method,…’
            And your evidence for this is? Please point me to some scientific sources. I do not accept your holy book as evidence.

          • afchief

            You don’t have to accept as truth, but I do. When you have a reprobate mind, you are deceived by lies. It is quite obvious by your posts. Besides, there is no biological or genetic basis for homosexuality; it’s obviously a lifestyle choice. Since it’s probably a choice made very early in childhood development, it’s not an informed choice, so the homosexuals can feel “proud” and pose as victims at the same time.

            The dirty truth of the matter is homosexuality is not about ‘love’, it is about sex. You can love someone without fulfilling a hedonistic lustful desire. Nothing about the homosexual ‘movement’ is honest. No one will ever convince true Christians and clear thinking people of our country that there is anything normal about homosexuality. It is a deviant, perversion and sin.

          • BalancedMind

            You where clearly not the smartest kid in school…
            The fact that we don’t know the biological or genetic basis for homosexuality doesn’t mean that there isn’t. It just means that human kind doesn’t understand it yet. Just like in the past when we didn’t know if the earth was round or the earth was flat (I hope you have updated your opinion about that one by now). We also do not understand yet why it is happening. But it is happening, and evolution seldomly does something without reason. So we still don’t understand it.
            Homosexuality is of all times, all cultures, all parts of the world, and even widely seen in nature. For the (limited number of) mammals that form long term pairs, there is evidence of long term same sex pairs. So your bullying comment is crap.

            There is sufficient scientific proof available that homosexuality is not a life choice. Ask the people that should know. Ask all of them. I bet you get very statistically relevant answers.

            Please also let us know when YOU chose to be heterosexual.

            I am in a loving and caring same sex relationship for over five years. We live together, sleep together, etc. There are many same sex relationships of more that fifty years. If it would have only about the sex, it would have been over long time ago. We have sex three times a week, and sometimes only once a month. Just like straight couples. Try to sleep next to somebody who you don’t love but only lust for. You will be probably in jail for murder after the 2nd month.

            You choose to remain ignorant. I bet jesus considers you to be an embarrassment for his church…

          • afchief

            Oh no! We understand homosexuality quite well! It is sin!!!

            Romans 1:18-28 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • BalancedMind

            You can’t read Romans 1 without Romans 2 as well:

            2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

            Roman 1 acts as a mirror to the people (like you). A mirror for people that condemn homosexuality and other “sins” and warns them not to judge as they are condemning themselves… So with your judgement of homosexuality you are clearly condemning yourself….

            that is the point Paul wants to make with his Romans 1.

          • afchief

            Sorry I’m judging NO one. Just pointing out that homosexuality IS a sin.
            It is QUITE clear!!!

          • BalancedMind

            It is not… Not at all.
            If you read in Romans 3, you see that the old law is not applicable to gentiles…

          • afchief

            Well with your logic, I guess the 10 Commandments are throw out the window!!!

            I guess it’s ok to kill? To steal? To commit adultery?

            Homosexuality was a sin 6000 years ago. It STILL is today.

          • BalancedMind

            Actually, Jesus told us so. He replaced the ten commandments with the following two: Love god and love your neighbor.

            Matthew 22:
            37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

          • afchief

            Well then, if you love God you will not want to sin, will you?

            1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

          • BalancedMind

            Again you are using an incorrect translation. Much closer translation is:

            “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

            In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion. First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often viewed as a reference to nelly gay men. In truth, however, the Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” (See note 1.) So Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.

            Note 2. Dale B. Martin, Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, 1996), page 124. Nissinen also offers “frailty of body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” as other possibilities for the meaning of this word in other contexts (page 117).

            This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage. (See note 2.) The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.

            But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.” (See note 3.) They saw all pleasure-seeking men as effeminate, whomever they sought pleasure with. In first-century Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate, because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes and posturing. From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.

          • afchief

            It is so sad how man has been trying to justify sin for 6000 years. You are no different. You get this from your homosexual/liberal websites. I see it ALL the time.

            The scripture is QUITE clear. Homosexuality IS sin. It is perverted!! It is deviant. It is dangerous to ones health!!! You homos ignore the dangers and the impact of homosexual behavior. They cover up the causes and ill effects. Every medical epidemic is sensationalized except the HIV epidemic. That cover up is a smoking gun to the evil. The cost to the rest of us is never, never reported on. Never in my life time has a behavior that causes on average 15,000 deaths a year in this country and 1.7 million around the world been declared a constitutional right.

          • BalancedMind

            You have tried several parts of scripture, and I have disproven all to be applicable. Loving and caring same sex relationships are not a sin. Not even in the bible.

          • afchief

            The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by St. Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don’t get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15.

            Homosexual behavior is always discussed in the Bible as a serious sin. It is usually not singled out, but listed among other particularly heinous sins as examples of how depraved one can become. It is discussed in the context of idolatry. Idolatry is a most serious offense against God, and its seriousness helps explain why homosexual behavior was a capital offense in the Old Testament. Historical Christian interpretation has consistently viewed homosexual behavior as sinful. The modern word sodomy even comes from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            It should be pointed out that what the Bible condemns is not personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man (or masculine feelings on the part of a woman). However, Jesus taught that sin runs deep. He said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28; compare Mark 7:15-23). But notice the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “such were some of you.” This seems a clear indication that homosexuals can change. While our basest instincts of many sorts are difficult to control, we are not like animals in the forest; we can overcome our temptations to become blameless in God’s sight (Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:7, 6:14; Titus 1:6; 1 John 3:4-10).

            There are those who take some of the passages of Scripture above and attempt to show that they do not really mean to condemn homosexuality. But these arguments fall short, and upon investigation become an obvious ploy to distort the plain meaning of Scripture. As applies to other doctrines of the Bible, one must avoid trying to interpret Scripture in light of one’s proclivities, and instead, interpret one’s proclivities in light of Scripture. The Bible is its own grid. It is wrong to overlay your own grid on the Bible. For a more detailed look at this, see Biblical Interpretation.

            Is the biblical view still valid?

            Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocritical on homosexuality because they ignore the death penalty for this sin as prescribed in Leviticus. This is a false charge based on a limited understanding of the Bible. It is helpful to understand the difference between CIVIL or CEREMONIAL LAWS versus MORAL LAWS in the Bible. While civil or ceremonial laws can and do change from country to country or time period to time period, moral laws do not change because they are rooted in the nature of man. The New Testament repealed Old Testament civil law (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) and Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws (Acts 10:12-15; Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). So the Old Testament PENALTY for homosexuality (death) does not carry forward into New Testament times, even though the NATURE of the sin and its condemnation remains. The Bible is consistent throughout on moral law, which includes homosexual behavior.

            This understanding is consistent with how Jesus deals with other sins. We see in John 8 how Jesus treats the adulterous woman. He condemns her actions, yet helps her escape the severe penalties common in their culture.

            What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

            No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:7). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage, Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.

            Jesus was quite clear about his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Jesus’ teaching on moral issues in fact toughened and strengthened them, such as in Matthew 5:27-30 when he expanded our understanding of sexual sin to even lusting in our heart!

            Jesus didn’t merely accept people as he found them—he turned people’s lives around. After his encounter with Jesus, the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged to pay back his debts fourfold (Luke 19:1-10). And Jesus made it clear to the adulteress in John 8:1-11 to leave her life of sin.

            Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.

            “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” ——Jesus per Mark 10:7

            The God of the Bible is not merely a God of love and forgiveness. God has characteristics of love AND justice (among others). Jesus, for example, warns about hell more than any other biblical figure! We must not underestimate the holiness of God, who demands right conduct—in fact, perfection (Matthew 5:48). For examples of the wrath and judgment of God, read: Genesis 2:17; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 74:1, 79:5, 90:11; Proverbs 10:16; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 3:8; Matthew 5:29, 7:13, 23:25-28, 25:46; Romans 1:32, 2:8, 6:23; Acts 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 6:7-8; Philippians 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:15; and Revelation 20:12-15.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            In addition to that chief (as you’ve likely seen me post before), I would also like to present a Biblical summary of what Scripture says regarding homosexuality (save for the reference to II Peter, included in your post). I’m not sure how this site treats links, but one can find a study doc pertaining to homosexuality at the website I have linked in my DISQUS profile.

            And to be accurate: the Bible condemns all forms of sexual activity outside of a marriage covenant between one man and one woman.

            BIBLICAL SUMMARY OF HOMOSEXUALITY

            • A wicked act (Gen 19:7; Judges 19:23)
            • An abomination (Lev 18:22; Lev. 18:26-27; Lev. 18:29-30; Lev. 20:13; Deut. 23:18; I Kings 14:24; Eze. 16:50; Rev. 21:27)
            • A sodomite (Deut. 23:17; I Kings 14:24; I Kings 15:12; I Kings 22:46; II Kings 23:7)
            • A dog (Deut. 23:18; Rev. 22:15)
            • Associated with Belial (Judg. 19:22)
            • Folly (Judges 19:23)
            • A vile act (Judges 19:24)
            • A vile affection (Rom 1:26)
            • An act against nature (Rom 1:26-27)
            • Burning lust (Gen. 19:9,11; Judg. 19:25; Rom. 1:27)
            • Named amongst the unrighteous (I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:9)
            • An abusive act (1 Cor 6:9)
            • A sin against one’s own body (1 Cor 6:18)
            • An act that defiles (Lev. 18:24-25; Lev. 18:27-28; Lev. 18:30; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 1:8)
            • Strange flesh (Jude 1:7)

            Those that practice it shall not inherit the Kingdom of God
            (Rom. 1:32; I Cor 6:9-10; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:13; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 21:27; Rev. 22:25)

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Dear Adam how many times must those verses be shown one to be totally out of context. That they are either mistranslations either through poor skills in translations or deliberate attempts to demonise an already marginalised group. Ezekiel 16:50 , should be read in context again as it describes idolatry 16:46-50. That is why Samaria and later on Judaea are taken into captivity. If you continue this purposeful deceit I will post all of the other posts re Sodom and Gomorrah, the definition of toevah; the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22 etc . When are you going to stop being wilful?

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            The first of your posts deals with Sodom and Gomorrah. I postings this as it is a long read for others who have been bashed over the head with the bible, It is a long read, BUT A deeply satisfying one for those who feel that the Lord God does not bless and sanctify our unions.

            One of the more common arguments against homosexuality used to be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We say “used to be,” because many biblical scholars and teachers today realise that there is insufficient scriptural backing for that argument. Let us together take a clear, honest look at these cities, and let us determine who the inhabitants were, and why God destroyed them.

            The first thing to realize is that it wasn’t just two cities involved. Today, we only remember the names of two, but in truth, God was about to destroy all the cities of the plain. In addition to Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar were also about to be destroyed. (Gen. 14:2; Deut. 29:23) Zoar was spared so that Lot and his daughters could flee there, but Admah and Zeboiim met the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah. Another interesting point is that, at least in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible doesn’t tell us their real names. Consider: The Hebrew word for Sodom is סדם S’dom and means “burnt.” The Hebrew word for Gomorrah is עמורה ‘Amorah, and means “a ruined heap.” There can be no question that these names were given to the cities after they were destroyed, and were not their original names.

            The inhabitants of these cities, like all the Canaanites, were worshippers of false gods. These included the god Molech, arguably the most horrible of all the idols of Canaan. Molech was a huge statue with his arms held out in front of him. A fire would be kindled between his arms, and then newborn children would be placed in his arms and burned alive. This was known as “passing your children through the fire to Molech.”

            Other practices engaged in by the Canaanites included adult human sacrifice, cannibalism, and temple prostitution. (Having sexual relations with temple prostitutes as a form of worship in fertility cults.) Is it any wonder that God was determined to destroy these cities? From a spiritual perspective, people who worship idols and engage in the above-mentioned practices are extremely likely to become demon-possessed, and it is quite probable that many, if not most, of the inhabitants of the cities of the plain were possessed.

            Lot, Abraham’s nephew, moved to the city of Sodom with his wife and two daughters. God sent two angels to Sodom in the evening, ostensibly to investigate the rumours of the sinfulness of the city. The real purpose of their visit, though, (since God already knew what was going on) was to rescue Lot and his family from the impending destruction. The account of their visit to the city is found in Genesis 19. Lot was sitting in the gate. This is significant. The person who sat in the gate, that is, the gatekeeper, was entrusted by the rulers of the city to monitor all traffic in and out of the city, and not to admit anyone who could endanger the city in any way. This was a serious responsibility, and the fact that it was given to Lot, who was not a native of the city, but a relative newcomer, was unusual.

            A word about the angels: Forget, for a moment, the traditional stereotypes of angels, that is, women with flowing blond hair and huge feathered wings. In scripture, angels usually appeared in the form of men. Frequently, there was nothing unusual about their appearance that would suggest they were anything other than human beings.

            Lot greeted the two visitors, as was his responsibility as gatekeeper. (He bowed to the ground, which was not an uncommon form of greeting from an inferior to a superior, in this case, from a public servant to strangers whose social status was unknown.) He then evidently inquired about their business in the city and specific destination, again, as part of his job. Upon learning that they intended to spend the night in the street, Lot insisted that they stay at his house. Some have argued that this was because he knew they would not be safe in the streets. The obvious aside, that there has probably never been a city where it is safe to sleep in the streets at night, the reason for Lot’s insistence was actually quite different. It was simply the law of hospitality. This law was unwritten at the time, but was universal throughout the area. It simply stated that if a stranger came to your home or city, you were to treat them as if they were part of your family. You were responsible to lodge, feed and protect them, even at the cost of your own life. Examples of Abraham treating strangers in this way can be found both in scripture and other Jewish writings. This law was later included in the Law of Moses.

            After much urging from Lot, the two visitors went to Lot’s house and he made dinner for them. Later that night, a mob formed outside of Lot’s house, demanding he bring out the guests. Traditionalists would have us believe that the mob was made up of homosexual men, wanting to have sex with the angels. But a careful reading of the verses shows clearly that this was not the case. Gen. 19:4 tells us “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” At first glance, it does appear to be a crowd of men.

            But let’s look deeper. The phrase “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom” is misleading. In Hebrew, אנשי העיר אנשי סדם “anshei ha’ir, anshei S’dom,” can also be translated as “the people of the city, the people of Sodom.” But is that a more correct translation? The rest of the verse will answer that for us: “…both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” There is no question, then, that the entire population of Sodom gathered outside Lot’s house, men, women and children. This alone tells us that the traditionalists were wrong about the intent of this mob: If you are planning a homosexual orgy, you don’t invite the wife and kids!

            Of course, this begs the question, how did this mob come to form, and what did they want? The Bible doesn’t tell us, so we have to read between the lines and in so doing, backtrack from the mob scene outside Lot’s house to where the crowd first gathered. First, the fact that the entire population of the city was involved tells us that this was, to them, a matter of vital civic importance. They evidently felt that the visit of these two strangers was something that could affect every person in the city in some way. So logic suggests that the gathering would have begun at whatever public place Sodom used for such things, such as a City Hall or public square. Here was the situation as they would have seen it: Lot, a stranger who moved here and was given a position of some responsibility, has invited two strangers of unknown origin into the city and into his home. Sodom had only recently come out of war (Gen. 14:1-2), and for all they knew, these men could have been spies. It was essential for the safety and peace of mind of all the citizens, that they determine the identity of these men. They knew, of course, of the law of hospitality, but the safety and security of the city overrode that. So a plan was devised: They would peacefully go to Lot’s house and ask to meet the strangers and know who they were. They even had their words chosen: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out and let us know them.” It should be noted that this was phrased as a request, using a polite form of the verb “to know,” and was not phrased in a hostile, demanding way. And so the crowd began to move toward Lot’s house.

            Between their starting point and Lot’s house, something happened to this crowd of concerned citizens that turned them into a mob. When they reached Lot’s house, they delivered their prepared request, but even though the grammar was still very polite, the character of the people was now that of an ugly lynch mob. What could have happened?

            If the people of Sodom were possessed, as they most likely were, this would explain what happened. Even though the people did not know the visitors were angels, the evil spirits inside of them did. When you put a devil in the presence of someone holy, there will almost always be a reaction from the devil. (See Mark 5:1-7) The closer this crowd got to the angels at Lot’s house, the more riled up the demons got, and the more out of control the people got. This seems the only plausible explanation. The polite grammar of the crowd shows clearly that they could not have started out as a mob.

            There are those who claim that when the crowd said “let us know them,” they meant “have sex.” There are even translations of the Bible that say “let us have sex with them,”or “let us know them carnally.” Let us state categorically, that the Hebrew text will NOT support such “translations.”

            Some say that Hebrew has more than one verb for “know” and that the one used here means “have sex.” Let’s set the record straight on this. The root of the Hebrew verb for “know” is ידע yada. A form of yadais used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.) To try to make this word mean sex everywhere will get us in a lot of trouble, because the scripture tells us that God knew David, and uses a form of this word. We don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attach a sexual meaning to that. When the crowd outside Lot’s house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were. Or at least, that was what they meant when they started out.

            It doesn’t take a genius to recognise a lynch mob. And a tiny family like Lot’s couldn’t hope to fight off such a mob. The only hope in such cases is to try to talk them out of it, or, failing in that, to try to distract them in some way. Lot tried both. He went out to them and asked them not to behave so wickedly. The hostile intent of the mob was clear to him, despite the polite words they used. It was also clear immediately that talking was not going to work. They were in what could only be termed a bloodlust. Lot, in desperation to protect his guests, did what the law of hospitality required. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of his daughters to protect the guests. A word about the two daughters: These girls were engaged to two men from Sodom. An engagement was much more binding in those days than it is today. Lot offered his two daughters, still virgins, to the crowd in place of the strangers. If he could distract the men of the crowd, then they, as the leaders of the city, could have disbanded the mob, and the guests would be safe.

            Consider this: If the men of Sodom were homosexual, there is no way Lot would not have known. He would have known it would be pointless to offer women to homosexual men. He could, and would, have offered them something they would be more likely to accept. (Had the crowd outside Lot’s house really been interested in raping the men inside, it hardly seems plausible that they would politely ask permission to do so, using a mild euphemism for sex. Hebrew has a number of verbs to describe sexual intercourse, and at least one of these, עגב agav, is considered somewhat vulgar. A rape gang would be far more likely to use a crude verb such as this.)

            Lot’s offer was refused, and they seized him, and said they were going to do worse to him than they were planning to do to his guests. Did they attempt any type of sexual contact with Lot? No! Instead, they tried to kill him. There was no sexual situation here at all. But, just for the sake of argument, if the intent of the crowd had been to force the angels to have sex, the crime would have been rape, not homosexuality.

            Ezekiel recorded the sins of Sodom: Ezek. 16:49-50 – pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, they were haughty and committed abomination, or actually ‘taboo’. A note about this unspecified abomination: In the Law of Moses, many things are called abomination, including such things as eating pork and shellfish, having sex with a woman during her period, etc.

            But Sodom and the other cities were destroyed before the Law was written, so we need to look outside the Law for the definition of this word. Outside the Law, the word abomination almost always refers to the practices associated with idol worship, some of which were enumerated earlier. It should also be noted that ancient Jewish commentaries on Sodom (in the Mishnah) all agree that Sodom and the other cities were destroyed because of their cruelty to strangers and their failure to help the poor. None of them suggests anything in regard to homosexual activity.

          • BalancedMind

            However, regardless of whether Paul intended to refer specifically to male prostitutes or more generally to all men considered morally soft, it is apparent that the term malakoi has nothing to do with the question we bring to Scripture. We are not defending prostitution, nor vanity or self-indulgence. Our question is whether same-sex couples may live in loving, committed relationships with the blessing of God. The term malakoi does not address that.

            The next key phrase in this passage is rendered in the King James Version as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A similar phrase appears in a list of sins in I Timothy 1:10. Both phrases are derived from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is quite rare. In fact, these two biblical references may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. (See note 4.) Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess.

            One translation technique is to look at the root words alone. Arsenokoitai is a combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to sex, and another meaning “male.” (See note 5.) Thus, some scholars surmise the term has something to do with male sexual expression — perhaps exclusive male sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.

            Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray. For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means. It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, lady and killer. So, it must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear — particularly when we know lady-killer was a term used in the 1970s to refer to men whom women supposedly found irresistible.

            A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, never used the word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior. (See note 7.)

            A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual activity using terms other than arsenokoitai. (See note 8.) If Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male sex, he had other commonly-used, well-known words at his disposal. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous compound word, which future generations would find difficult to translate. Apparently Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type of behavior.

            This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73 times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. (See note 9.) (There are no known instances before Paul.) In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are, however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author uses the term when cataloguing the sins of the Greek gods. (See note 10.) In this context, the term is probably intended to refer to the time Zeus abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend in which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had him like a boy. Naas’ sin is called arsenokoitai. (See note 11.) These examples suggest that arsenokoitai refers to instances when one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.

            This premise is reinforced by yet another translation technique. As noted above, most of the times when arsenokoitai is used in early Greek literature, it occurs in a list of sins (just like in 1 Corinthians 6). (See note 12.) Common experience tells us list-makers tend to group similar items together. (When Tyler makes a grocery list, he puts the vegetables at the top, the dairy at the bottom, and everything else in-between.) In these lists, arsenokoitai is often placed at the end of the list of sex sins and the beginning of the list of economic sins or vice versa. (See note 13.) For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, we find it between malakoi (which may refer to male prostitutes) and “thieves.” In I Timothy 1:10, the word appears between “fornication” and “slave traders.” This is consistent with the meaning suggested above — that arsenokoitai describes a male who aggressively takes sexual advantage of another male. Examples of this type of behavior would include a man who rapes another (as in the Sodom story or the story of Zeus and Ganymede) or a man who uses economic power to buy sex from a male prostitute who sells his body to survive. This latter example is an especially neat fit if malakoi is understood to be a reference to the prostitute, in which case Paul’s list would include a reference both to the male prostitute (malakoi) and the man who takes advantage of the prostitute (arsenokoitai). This type of person is a close kin to the thief and the greedy — the two Greek words that most often follow arsenokoitai in the lists of sins.

            A thief, a greedy person, and one who uses power to obtain sex are all seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them.

            Thus, we conclude that aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force themselves sexually on others. This conclusion is consistent with the New Revised Standard Version, the English translation of the Bible often regarded as most scholarly. The New Revised Standard Version translates arsenokoitai as “sodomite.” As we have already seen, the men of Sodom were the ultimate example of sexual aggression and oppression. Even the New International Version, a more conservative English translation, appears to have been uncomfortable translating aresenokotai as a general reference to homosexuality. Instead, in 1 Corinthians 6 they translate the term as “homosexual offender,” suggesting that to commit the sin referred to here one must use homosexuality in an aggressive or offensive way.

            Finally, there is one more approach for finding the meaning of an obscure word relevant to the present discussion. Etymology is an attempt to trace the origins of a word — not just its component parts or uses after it was created, but where the word originally came from. For a word as old as arsenokoitai, doing etymological research is often quite speculative, but some scholars have pointed out that the two Greek words scrunched together to form this new word appear next to each other (as separate words) in Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul would have read.) From this, they gather that the word was created by people familiar with this passage, and that Paul was probably referring to the same behavior prohibited by Leviticus 20:13. (See note 14.)

            This brings us full circle. As we’ve already seen in our discussion of Old Testament law, Leviticus 20:13 was written in the context of cultic sexual practices, including temple prostitution. In Romans, we saw that Paul was addressing homosexual behavior that occurred in similar cultic situations, where people had abandoned the one true God to worship pagan idols. If Paul derived the term arsenokoitai from Leviticus 20:13 (and that’s a big if), it would follow that Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 would provide the best evidence of the type of homosexual behavior he was intending to prohibit, i.e., cultic sexual practices.

          • afchief

            I don’t even read your garbage. Because that’s what it is garbage. I see this all the time from homosexuals. As a born again Christian for 33 years I know the Word of God. You are no different than any other homosexual trying to justify your sin. IT IS SIN!!!! Any person with a rational and logical mind KNOWS this. You do NOT use the back door as a sexual organ. It is wrong!!! It is dangerous!!! It is disgusting!!!

            It is the cover ups that are the proof of the evil. HIV is caused by homosexual behavior. Like most diseases it can be spread to innocent victims and it has and that is lied about. It is constantly mutating against the medical serums that attempt to control it and that creates related drug resistant viruses that can be blamed on something other than HIV. The corruption of the industry created by this creates a voter base to keep it going, not cure it. This is lied about. The annual HIV death rate averages 15000 in this country and 1.7 million around the world. Add to that 19000 a year due to related viruses, most notably gonorrhea for which there is no longer a cure and has the highest incidence among males in the western part of the country. This is reported by the CDC but not sensationalized by the gay media

          • BalancedMind

            And finally, to come back to Matthew 22:

            37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

            If these two commandments are the two founding commandments that are the foundation of all other laws and commandments, please deduct from these two commandments that homosexuality as in loving and caring same sex relationships is a sin. You can not.

          • afchief

            It is so sad to see you try and justify your sin. You KNOW in your heart it is wrong. You are here because you are looking for affirmation of your lifestyle from us Christians and God. It will never come. We Christians know the Word of God. We know how evil homosexuality is. When you are trapped in this sin, you become blind. Your heart is hard. You are looking for freedom, but cannot find it. It will only come when you give your life over to Jesus.

          • BalancedMind

            That is not the answer.

            Basically you can’t rationalize homosexuality to be a sin based on Jesus his two commandments…

          • afchief

            It is sin. Something so perverted and deviant is sin. A reprobate does not understand this. We Christians do!!!!

          • BalancedMind

            Sorry, but the fact that you have the opinion that homosexuality is perverted and deviant, doesn’t make it a sin in the context of the bible…. You claim to be a christian, but still you can not deduct your own opinion from jesus his two founding moral principles or commandments. Actually, quite some of his teaching is about people like you. I refer his teachings about pharisees. Even paul repeats this teaching in romans 2, the one you so conveniently ignore.
            Don’t call yourself christian. That is blasphemy….

          • afchief

            I am a Christian!!! Yes Jesus loves you and is waiting for you to give your life to him. He came to this earth and died so that you can have life. If you think you sin means nothing, then Jesus died needlessly.

            You have this life to turn yours around. When you leave this life, there is no second chance.

          • BalancedMind

            Read up on the story about the inside of the cup and the outside of the cup….

          • afchief

            I have numerous times!

          • BalancedMind

            Read, but not understood the meaning, clearly….

          • BalancedMind

            Love can never be a sin.
            Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He actually put them on the same level as apostles and other religious people that chose to be celibate. Remember the passage about born eunuchs, man made eunuchs and celibates?
            Remember David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and his love for his eunuch….
            You are reading your bible trough a cloud of judgement and bigotry, based on out of historical context translations and interpretations.

          • afchief

            God did not create Adam and Steve to anal and oral sex with each other. God created Adam and Eve. Just imagine if God had meant for homosexuality to be “normal” behavior, none of us would be here today. God meant for man and woman to be together, not two men and two women.

            You are never going to normalize perversion to moral, rational people, no matter how hard you try. God’s law and man’s law are two different things. Just because man passes a law to be politically correct, does not make it right in God’s eyes.

            Homosexuality is sin. It is perverted, deviant and dangerous. This is nothing redeeming about homosexuality. It is immoral!!!

          • BalancedMind

            It is not. Not at all…. You are wrong, and you are abusing gods word to further your own bigotry. That is a lots of sins in one:
            You are sinning to jesus his second commandment: Love your neighbor as you love your self.
            And if you still like the original ten: you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.
            It is you who are sinning and is immoral. Repent!

          • afchief

            Pretty cut and dry to me. Homosexuality IS an abomination.

            Leviticus 18:22 (NASB) You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

          • BalancedMind

            in the context of temple prostitution…

          • afchief

            It is quite clear you are blinded by this sin. A reprobate mind causes this. There is nothing natural, healthy or wholesome about the homo lifestyle. It is quite dangerous.

            Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • BalancedMind

            What a nonsense. Where do you find stuff like that?

            About homosexuality not being natural. Homosexuality is of all times, all cultures and all places of the earth. It happens amongst humans of all races. It happens in the animal kingdom. There are strong indications that it is genetic. It is as natural as you can get it.

            The fact that we do not understand the mechanics or the reasons for homosexuality to happen doesn’t mean that there is no mechanics or no reason. It only means that we do not understand it yet.

            There are more homosexuals in the US than jews. So although a minority, still worth of protection.

          • afchief

            The dirty truth of the matter is homosexuality is not about ‘love’, it is about sex. You can love someone without fulfilling a hedonistic lustful desire. Nothing about the homosexual ‘movement’ is honest. No one will ever convince true Christians and clear thinking people of our country that there is anything normal about homosexuality. It is a deviant, perversion and sin.

          • BalancedMind

            There you go wrong again. You are telling other people what they feel?
            Tell me, how long can you live together with someone for sex only? If you would merry the hottest girl in town, but you can’t have any feelings of love for her, do you really think your marriage will survive a year?
            There are many examples of gay couples that live for more than fifty years together. I am myself in a marriage with my husband now for five years. My gay friends around me are in relationships of more than ten-fifteen years.
            And we are not more hedonistic as you are. In the beginning of a relationships we make love three times a day, but just as any other relationship it becomes pretty average after a while. Anywhere between one to three times a week, but even with months we only make love once. Sounds pretty similar don’t you think?
            If you truly believe your post to be true, you have not been in any meaningful relationship yourself.
            .

          • afchief

            Man is becoming his own god now. Sex became and is, the only high calling of humanity. Sex, separated from procreation, love, and marriage has been THE opening of Pandora’s Box and the major reason humans are returning to a state of barbarism and devaluing humanity on a scale never known before in human history. Yes, Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

            You know if the truth would come out about the homosexual lifestyle which our media never tells us about. More people would know the truth of how sick and twisted this lifestyle is. For example; some gays may have to wear diapers for the rest of their poor lives. The few unfortunates who have AIDS may have their lives shortened to just 38.547 years. Sure doesn’t sound normal to me but abbynormal!!!!

          • BalancedMind

            Such a nonsense. Gay people can get as old as any people, unless they are being killed by bigots. Even with HIV you can get as old as anyone, but the far majority of homosexuals are actually HIV negative.

            Interesting you mention barbarism. Did you know that the universal declaration of human rights has been established to stop barbarism? Something religions have never been able to accomplish. Worse, the majority of barbarous acts have been committed in name of religion, with christanity being the market leader.

            Has it ever come to your mind that god has made humans different from animals for a reason? and that therefore humanity is not only about procreation? maybe humanity is about civilization as well?

            You can not deny that homosexuals contribute above average to civilization as we are above average involved in arts , and besides arts also above average successful in other areas (business, politics, etc.).

            That was actually in the past the “sin” of homosexuals. Often they where the leaders of their communities, often as spiritual leaders. To competing for religious leaders like priests, etc….

          • afchief

            If we continue on our present course, I see a very dark future for our country– for what I see taking place in our nation is not a growing equality of treatment for persons, but a growing blindness to the moral inequality of different lifestyle choices. From a moral standpoint, the choice an unmarried couple makes to engage in sexual relations is not morally ‘equal’ to the choice a married couple makes to have sex or an unmarried couple makes to abstain from sex until they enter into the sacred, lifelong bonds of matrimony . Likewise, the choice two men make to engage in sexual acts with each other is not morally ‘equal’ to the choice a husband and wife make to give their bodies to each other as a gift of love within the context of their marital union. The former act is impure, the latter pure. Society should not view all these choices as morally equal. They should discriminate between them and grant honor and dignity to some acts and lifestyle choices that they do not grant to others. A society which has lost the ability to see moral “inequalities” has fallen to the level of brute beasts, who always act on the level of desire and instinct and are unable to exercise any moral discrimination, since they lack a conscience and a soul

          • BalancedMind

            It is people like you that give a country a dark future (or better history). We call it the dark ages…
            You mix prejudice with morality, talking about life style choices while it is not. You are condemning people for what they are.

            Prejudice and ignorance is a choice. Homosexuality is not…

            You read the words of the bible, but understand none. I can give you two commandments from the bible that you are sinning against:

            You are bearing false witness against your neighbor
            And you clearly do not love your neighbor as you love yourself

            You are a sole lost in the darkness

            You deserve pitty, and I hope for you that god will be merciful when you come to him, as you will clearly need it…

          • afchief

            You are liar and have a reprobate mind. It is quite obvious.

          • BalancedMind

            So that is your ultimate argument…

            not so strong…

          • afchief

            You are stuck in sin (homosexuality) and cannot see truth. The bible says the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so they cannot see the truth. You have also been given over to a reprobate mind.

            Unless you repent of your sin, you will perish!

          • BalancedMind

            that is what you believe. and you have every right to do so. I believe it is the other way around…

          • BalancedMind

            And btw, you earlier stated you where not judgmental. Please read up the definition of judgmental….

            Romans 2:

            for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself….

          • afchief

            Did I not say you have a reprobate mind and cannot understand scripture? I sure did!!! It is our job to warn you of your wicked ways. And homosexuality is wickedness!

            Ezekiel 33:7-9 (NASB) “Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. 9 But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

          • BalancedMind

            Did you know that most people that are engaging in anal sex are heterosexual?
            About 50% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, approx. same percentage for homosexual couples. It is because the catholic church forbids the use of contraceptives. So actually it is very very normal….

          • afchief

            I hear this lie from every homosexual on the internet. Very few hetros engage in anal sex. VERY FEW!!! The anus is a one way street and not meant for sex! The anal muscle is what’s known as a “round muscle”. Think of it as being like a rubber band, rather than a sheet stretching from one area to another. These muscles have a very specific design and function. They are meant to keep things closed.

            If that muscle is stretched, it develops microtears. Now with a regular muscle, microtears mend and the muscle is built up, which is how exercise gets you toned and/or built. Round muscles don’t work that way. Microtears never fully heal, and the entire muscle is weakened.

            That is *why* gay men end up needing diapers over time. The anal muscle can no longer close tightly enough to prevent leakage.

          • BalancedMind

            I looked it up for you. 44% of heterosexual man engage in anal sex, according to the research of CDC…. So you are right that I was exaggerating (with 6%).

            The passive (male) partner in anal sex can reach his climax without any further manual stimulation. If that isn’t nature at its best….

          • afchief

            Yes, you are a boldface liar!!!! When you have a reprobate mind like you do…..it comes naturally.

          • BalancedMind

            so far i have been able to substantiate any statement i have made. You haven’t substantiated any of your statements. I guess that means that you are the only liar here…

          • BalancedMind

            and finally from romans 2:

            14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

          • afchief

            As a homosexual, stop trying to use scripture. You have NO idea what you are saying!!!

            1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

            Homosexuality is sin. Read Romans 1

          • BalancedMind

            You can’t read Romans 1 without Romans 2, as the full meaning of the first part comes in the second. And that part is all about you….

          • afchief

            You just proved my point. Romans 1 is talking about people given over to a depraved mind to do ungodly (homosexuality) things. It has NOTHING to do with judging.

            You are making yourself look foolish.

          • BalancedMind

            you can’t read…

          • America the Great

            You can use the same argument when talking about Jesus. Just because you don’t read the Bible doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t exist. Actually it means that Jesus does exist. So far, with all of the ongoing study’s happening, scientists should have by now some confirming evidence that somehow homosexuality is a biological mechanism within ‘a vary few’ humans. In reality there is no such evidence. Ask Elton John he will tell you it’s a choice. He will also tell you that sometimes women are his choice. Another you could just as likely read about is Rock Hudson. He stated it was a choice to have sex with men he hired. One last thing. It is a proven fact, that the LGBT generally have a shorter lifespan, have more serious illness’s (not just aids) and create problems with same sex people that try to raise children. Rosy O’donnell and her daughter (adopted of course) has completely broken Rosie’s daughter and she rebelled against that lifestyle.

          • BalancedMind

            I don’t understand your point. I do read the bible…. And the fact if jesus has existed or not, and if he did, what he was, is not subject to discussion.
            Asking only Elton John does not constitute a statistical sufficient sample size (n=1), and therefore does not lead to any statistical significant conclusions. I can not speak for Elton John, but if he sometimes goes for women, and other times for man means that he is probably bisexual. If you are attracted to both, a choice might be available. Others do not have that “luxury”. I myself have not a single attraction to the opposite sex. I find the idea of sharing a bed with the opposite sex repulsive. I tried (because of pear pressure) for several years and it did not work. Not once. And those ladies where not ugly. So no choice at all.
            Homosexuality is of all times, all cultures and all places on earth. It is even common in nature. It is clearly part of evolution. And although we don’t understand the reason, nothing happens in evolution without reason.
            Even under the most severe oppression there are still people that are homosexual. It is highly unlikely that anybody would voluntarily chose for a “life style” if that leads to crucifixion or being burned at the stake,
            Just as there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, there is also no proof that it is not. Given the more than significant available empirical evidence, and applying all the logic available, you can not come to the conclusion that homosexuality being a choice is the most likely outcome.
            I understand your problem. Ultimately we will find the reason and the mechanics. And then it will be proven that your interpretation of your religion is wrong. That is the reason why the (catholic) church is so anti homosexuality. Because if homosexuality is indeed genetic, it disproofs lots of christian “beliefs”.

          • America the Great

            Allow me to correct you. Jesus is relevant to all conversation, once you apply him to your life. I used two examples, but as you may know there are thousands of examples of people who say their homolifestyle is a choice. You must be a woman, I cannot imagine why a man would think that another man would be sexually stimulating. At the very least, women have far superior bodies to men. Yes Elton John is Bi-sexual, that is why he would be the perfect person to talk to and he is very open to that discussion. You keep saying it’s common in nature, however if it were as common as you try to explain it, there would be over time no species of any kind that would exist. That is why same sex cannot procreate. Again I must correct you. Darwin’s evolutionary model suggested that because of mutations and random selection the process would only be an improvement within a particular species group. We know that to be false since we can now analyze the genetic code. Telemeres at the end of the strand do not express themselves in the same manner from ape to human, just as donkey DNA which is also found in a human’s genetic makeup would allow for the process of Donkey to human. I’m not telling you that you are going to hell because you desire the rear end of a man, I don’t make those calls. I don’t know about what Catholics believe I’m not a Catholic, but the new Pope seemed to approach Gays, in a similar manner as Christ. Jesus is a loving man, and God, and from his example I’m sure he loves you as much as the “crazy christian” lol. If homosexuality is genetic, than we as a species are in real trouble. If we cannot pass on our genetics to a next generation it doesn’t matter if being gay is a choice or not. We are doomed as a species. My major problem is not you being gay. It’s the approach of the LGBT to push their agenda down everyone’s throat. An example would be at the gay parade when what looked like a bunch of nut bags were wearing the cross on their genitals. I don’t care if they were gay or not, either way, I consider that type of person to be crude and strange. If you believe in Jesus, you also know of his love for all mankind, and know of his righteousness when it comes to a persons heart. Being a lustful Christian isn’t any better than a loose Homosexual. In closing, it has to be a choice, because in the end if we become extinct as a result of the actions you live by (yes that is a long shot, but not impossible if you believe its genetic) then can you really say its normal? I think not.

          • John N

            ‘Besides, there is no biological or genetic basis for homosexuality …’
            And you know this how?

            ‘… it is probably a choice made very early in childhood development…’
            Again, you know this how? It must be somewhere in your bible, as scientific research points to the opposit.

            I didn’t bother to read the rest of your message. I was expecting some rational arguments, you clearly have none.

          • afchief

            What about the obvious scientific inefficiencies of homosexuality? Can two animals of the same sex produce offspring – no. What about certain kinds of so called “natural” activities performed by same sex partners – talk to a proctologist, all joking aside, posterior sex causes a lot of damage. Frankly, science isn’t a friend to homosexuality. Survival of the fittest, if gay is born-in then nature is telling you that your genetics are unfit to pass into the future. So, it’s not us, it’s your Gaia that is “homophobic”. People can’t change their sexual orientation?…Hogwash! If that is true then why the “b” in the lgtb? Bisexuals, by definition, are people who constantly change their sexual orientation. Indeed, homosexuals have changed too, some have even un-done their gayness?

          • BalancedMind

            The fact that we don’t know the biological or genetic basis for homosexuality doesn’t mean that there isn’t. It just means that human kind doesn’t understand it yet. Just like in the past when we didn’t know if the earth was round or the earth was flat (I hope you have updated your opinion about that one by now). We also do not understand yet why it is happening. But it is happening, and evolution seldomly does something without reason. So we still don’t understand it.
            Homosexuality is of all times, all cultures, all parts of the world, and even widely seen in nature. For the (limited number of) mammals that form long term pairs, there is evidence of long term same sex pairs. So your bullying comment is crap.

            There is sufficient scientific proof available that homosexuality is not a life choice. Ask the people that should know. Ask all of them. I bet you get very statistically relevant answers.

            Please also let us know when YOU chose to be heterosexual.

            I am in a loving and caring same sex relationship for over five years. We live together, sleep together, etc. There are many same sex relationships of more that fifty years. If it would have only about the sex, it would have been over long time ago. We have sex three times a week, and sometimes only once a month. Just like straight couples. Try to sleep next to somebody who you don’t love but only lust for. You will be probably in jail for murder after the 2nd month.

          • afchief

            The Case Against Homosexual Activity

            Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society—specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other “gay rights” issues—revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and “legalizeable” or immoral and “illegalizeable”?

            If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

            Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and “illegalizeable,” then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

            Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity—and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

            In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

            To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA’s controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because—just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture—a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

            Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn’t it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

            For centuries, the position of “traditional value” people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

            Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to “discriminate” against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to “discriminate” against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like “Exhibitionists offend people.” We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don’t want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

            Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

            Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

            For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior’s coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

            To those “freedom-loving” liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone’s property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

            And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether “freedom-loving” liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they’ve established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

            Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

            Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than “normal,” they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually “normal” people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty—it doesn’t hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not “hurt” anybody.

            If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the “path of least resistance.”

            Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

            Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

            Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio—all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

            It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

            Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

            The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

            (We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned “race” in the preceding paragraph—homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

            Homosexuals try to “naturalize” their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

            (There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally “mount” another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

            As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point—what if some poor guy felt a “natural/instinctual” desire to have sex with a consenting sheep—are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn’t “hurt” anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

            “There’s a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations,” we’ve heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong—stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

            Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences—the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most “convenient” to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

            “But it’s love,” homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn’t justify immoral sexual activity.

            And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature’s way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

            Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings—from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

            The response to that is: allowing “unnatural” things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

            “Who are you to judge others?” we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.—obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and “homophobic” for being against homosexual activity.

            Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

            Then there is the “consenting adults” argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

          • BalancedMind

            Civilization is measured by the way minorities are treated…

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is not a minority class. It is a mental and spiritual disorder.

          • BalancedMind

            That is only your opinion, and not supported by science or people that actually know about mental disorders.

          • afchief

            Nope, it is fact!!!

            Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

            Posted by Tony Listi on October 1, 2007

            BY RYAN SORBA

            “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

            “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

            -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

            Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

            In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

            Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

            Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

            On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

            Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

            After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

            On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

            Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

            Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

            Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

            Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

            Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

            It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

            Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

            Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

            Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

            Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

            Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

            Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

            The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

            Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

            Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

            Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

            If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

            Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

          • BalancedMind

            Romans 2:

            for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself,…

          • afchief

            When you have a reprobate mind like you do, you have NO understanding of scripture. None!

          • BalancedMind

            That explains pretty much you…

          • BalancedMind

            And regarding I Corinthians 6:

            Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

            1. To accept a favorite English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.

            2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. These is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.

            On the word Arsenokoitai:

            “Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”

            Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

            Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”

            “Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse, rape, unsafe sex, manipulative sex, coercive sex, etc).

            Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” — people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

            Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which contains the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.” 3

            Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

          • afchief

            When you have reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) you copy and paste garbage like this. It’s just not Christians that believe homosexuality is wrong, ALL major religions have taught the same thing. It is wrong for homosexuals to overturn marriage who are a very small percentage of the population that are sexually perverse and mentally ill.

            Promoting any kind of deviant sexual behavior as being acceptable and normal, was one of the ways the communists was to bring down America. They seem to be making magnificent strides in their goal of burying us from the inside out. Look at these stats. It shows how dangerous homosexuality is!!!

            75% increase in rectal cancers in the gay male community

            30% increase in HIV in the last 5yrs…. (50% in San Fransisco alone)

            60% increase in demotic violence among same sex couples

            35% increase in single parents…do to the divorce rate among gay cpls.. (in states that decide it would be a good social experiment, and good for taxes)

            50% ADD (peoples choice for disorders) Diagnosed at a high rate in children with Same sex parents.

            100% uncontrolled hatred for people that speak out against the Militant Gay Agenda

          • BalancedMind

            Not at all.
            Hinduism and Buddhism (together the biggest) are not against homosexuality at all…

          • afchief

            Really? I don’t recall any homosexual Hindu or Buddhist monks

          • BalancedMind

            Do you actually recall any hindu or buddhist monk?

          • BalancedMind

            The third largest religion in the world – after Christianity and Islam – Hinduism accounts for roughly 14% of the global population, with approximately 2 million Hindus living in the United States. Among its most familiar texts are the Bhagavad Gita, though the Vedas are considered the authoritative guiding text by which one’s life is shaped. Dating to 6,000 BCE, the Vedas constitute the oldest scripture in the world.

            In Hindu belief, deities can take many forms, but all combine in the universal spirit of Brahman. Unlike Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which focus on the actions of a single lifetime, Hindu belief centers on a continuous process of birth and rebirth that ultimately releases the true self from the limitations of body and the ego – a freeing of the spirit called moksha. That process includes a release from sensual experiences, including sexuality. Hindu sacred texts, however, do not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual acts. While Hindu sacred texts do not specifically use those terms (heterosexual and homosexual), they do distinguish between procreative sexual acts (within marriage) and non-procreative sexual acts such as oral, etc. The latter are explicitly discouraged not for the common man but for brahmanas and priests.

            Because there is no central Hindu authority, attitudes to LGBT issues vary at different temples and ashrams. The Hindu American Foundation, in its policy brief on Hindus and Homosexuality, notes that “Hinduism does not provide a fundamental spiritual reason to reject or ostracize homosexuals,” and that, “Given their inherent spiritual equality, Hindus should not socially ostracize homosexuals, but should accept them as fellow sojourners on the path to moksha.”

            The Vedas refer to a “third sex,” roughly defined as people for whom sex is not procreative, either through impotence or a lack of desire for the opposite sex. Members of the third sex are not ostracized, however, and are sometimes recognized for having divine powers or insights. The Kama Sutra, a Hindu text detailing the pleasures of sexuality, states that same-sex experience is “to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.”

          • afchief

            All roads lead to the mountain, but only one gets you to the top.

            John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

            Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

          • BalancedMind

            So if there is only one way to the top, why are you not following it? You are at a dead end…

          • afchief

            I do follow Jesus. He is the only way!!!

          • BalancedMind

            In the early sutras of Buddhism, “accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct” for laypersons “is not specifically mentioned.”[5] “Sexual misconduct” is a broad term, subject to interpretation according to followers’ social norms. Early Buddhism appears to have being silent concerning homosexual relations.[1]

            Regarding Buddhist monks, the Vinaya (code of monastic discipline) bans all sexual activity, but does so in purely physiological terms, making no moral distinctions among the many possible forms of intercourse it lists.[6]

            Among Buddhists there is a wide diversity of opinion about homosexuality. Buddhism teaches that sensual enjoyment and desire in general, and sexual pleasure in particular, are hindrances to enlightenment, and inferior to the kinds of pleasure (see, e.g. pīti, a Pāli word often translated as “rapture”) that are integral to the practice of jhāna. However, most Buddhists do not pursue skill in meditation or aim for enlightenment. For most, the goal is a pleasant life and, after death, a pleasant rebirth. For these Buddhists, enjoying sensual pleasures in a non-harmful way is normative.

            Regarding transsexual people, the earliest texts mention the possibility of a person supernaturally changing sexes; such a person is not barred from ordination, and if already ordained, simply changes orders.[7]

          • John N

            >’…Can two animals of the same sex produce offspring – no’.

            Well, human homosexuals do. By the way, homosexuality only occurs in a small fraction of any population (in human poplulations below 5%?), so that seems to be according your ‘inefficiency’ statement.

            >’…posterior sex causes a lot of damage’
            So you will not allow them to live their life as they want because of an increased risk on ‘damage’? How empathic of you. Please also inform the heterosexuals in your neighourhood who engage in this kind of sex, and who are far in the majority as I showed you.

            By the way, a recent study in Psychological Medicine confirms that religious people seem to be more prone to depression than non-religious. So according to your own ideas, you would better stop that kind of activities.

            >’Survival of the fittest, if gay is born-in then nature is telling you that your genetics are unfit to pass into the future …’

            Still no idea ‘genetics’ actually means, do you? Please don’t use these sciency words until you actually understand them.

            >’Bisexuals, by definition, are people who constantly change their sexual orientation…’

            Afchief, it seems you can’t even get the simplest definition right. No, they don’t constantly change their sexual orientation – they are attracted toward both males and females at the same time.

            >’Indeed, homosexuals have changed too, some have even un-done their gayness?’

            Have they? Please provide scientific evidence, not just untestable anecdotes.
            And in the meantime, a lot more of heterosexuals have lost their ‘straightness’ and became gay.

          • afchief

            LOL! What is deviant sex to you? Is there such a thing? If so what is it? Just ask San Francisco. It’s just another lame attempt to claim that homosexuality should be accepted as just another equal-but-different-so-like-whatever thing. Homosexuality promotes disease and produces no off-spring. It doesn’t advance humankind and does harm only to its’ own kind.

          • John N

            >’Homosexuality promotes disease and produces no off-spring’
            All sex promotes diseases. All safe sex produces no offspring. What’s your problem?

            >’t doesn’t advance humankind and does harm only to its’ own kind’

            So does religion.

            And we don’t forbid religion, do we?

          • afchief

            Not like homosexuality! It is perverted! It is deviant! It is sin! It is death!

            Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • John N

            Afchief, you are incredible good in copying and pasting from homophobic websites without any actual relevance. Did you notice that the studies your friend Frank Joseph cites are 30 years old, even before AIDS became a threath? And more important, refuted by more recent studies.

            So if this is all you got?

            By the way, ‘perverted’, ‘deviant’ and ‘sinful’ are all rather subjective and can be used for heterosexual practices as well. Or do you really believe straight couples know only the missionary position?

      • BalancedMind

        Religion is contrary to nature…

        • America the Great

          Where did you come up with that “logic”? Atheism is contrary to nature, yet if it were not for God, there would be no such thing as an atheist lol

          • BalancedMind

            evolution vs religion…

          • America the Great

            When you can show me evidence that someone can make an ape that becomes a human being, I’m a logical man, show me evidence of that. Human’s haven’t even evolved to have for instance, 6 fingers and 6 toes. What is worse is if we did evolve from apes, we do experiments on our ancestors. How sick is that. I have not seen one complex species evolve into a different complex species and I doubt I ever will.

          • BalancedMind

            Evolution takes generations my friend. It doesn’t happen in five seconds before your eyes. Evolution is not some cartoon like the transformers. If that is the proof you are looking for I have to disappoint you.
            Maybe you want to buy a book “evolution for dummies” to get the basics…

          • America the Great

            LOL, an exercise in the obvious maybe? Like I said before show me two guys that can make a baby and I’ll show you what evolution is all about.

    • kirby76

      I completely agree with you regarding the details of this case; but I do feel obligated to say that I just came from another liberal site, where the commenters were all (as I am) sympathetic to this couple. I felt a bit of unease, though, in reading some of the posts, especially the one that questioned why the incest laws should cover even a biological father and son, since there was no risk of “inbreeding”. And there were others in that general vein.

      Does this mean the anti-marriage equality slippery slopeists were right, and incest is the next logical step? I wouldn’t say so, but I will point out that those commenters used the same reasoning employed to defend same-sex marriage.

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

      Your point is well made. Employing a legal stratagem to establish a legal familial relationship in lieu of a heretofore illegal one is entirely within the law. And the yellow journalism of this site is pretty despicable.

      But creating a special exception in order to “nullify” these adoptions creates an unintended consequence. Men and their adopted daughters seeking to marry ought to then be able to make the case that their adoptions should be nullified as well since both adoptions were equally recognized under the law, and the purpose of the nullification is exactly the same, e.g. to circumvent incest laws. (If this sounds far-fetched then you never heard of Woody Allen.)

      And since legal adoptions are in no way distinguished from biological relationships, then it can be further argued that natural parents ought not be discriminated against just because their chosen mate happens to be a biological offspring.

      You might consider this absurd but that is my point. It is reduction ad absurdum. Laws protecting families exist because our society places great value on the stability of the family. As these relationships become more and more loosely defined and trivialized, we run the real risk of doing irreparable harm to the basic unit upon which our entire society is founded.

  • Oboehner

    The dog looks nervous, I wonder why….

    • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

      What a juvenile thing to say.

      • Oboehner

        No more juvenile than the “born that way” hoax.

        • John N

          So you were not born heterosexually? What made your choice? Some bad experiences?

          • Oboehner

            Laws of nature to procreate the species, next you’ll claim the boy having sex with the donkey doesn’t suffer from the exact same affliction as the homosexual.

          • John N

            ‘Laws of nature’ you say? I’m not a lawyer, so tell me what ‘Law’ is applicable here?

            And of course there is the boy and the donkey. As I said before, the religious mind at work. You must have some serious issues, Oboehner.

          • Oboehner

            Nice obtuse non-answer. Like I said…

          • John N

            Excuse me, what was the question again?

    • afchief

      That’s gross dude.

      • Oboehner

        This whole article is gross.

    • John N

      The religious mind at work …

      • Oboehner

        The pervert minds at work…

        • John N

          One and the same, it seems ..

          • Oboehner

            You brush is a tad too broad.

          • John N

            Whoever fitsthe shoe ….

          • Oboehner

            Be careful it’s not your mouth you fit it in.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    So, does everyone here agree that if they can get the adoption annulled, there would be no legal bar to them getting married?

  • Maranatha2011

    Just another day in Sodom.

  • juandos

    Pervs gone wild…

    This is just so twisted…

  • FoJC_Forever

    Homosexuals can’t be Married. God created Marriage and He has never changed it to include those practicing homosexuality. These two people are among millions rejecting the Truth and embracing the Lie. When they leave this earth and stand before God in Judgement, they will want to tell all those they left behind to turn from their Wicked ways and follow Jesus. Unfortunately for them, they will just be ushered out of Life and into Eternal Death.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

    • BalancedMind

      We can and we are….

      Till approx. 500 after christ it was even common opinion that true christians should not be married as it was against god’s will

  • WGB

    Insanity. Their depraved mental illness has caused them to commit heinous sins and abominations.

    Romans 1:24-28
    24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

    • BalancedMind

      May I suggest you read Romans 2 as well? because roman 1 is pointless without 2…

      2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

      Roman 1 acts as a mirror to the people (like you). A mirror for people that condemn homosexuality and other “sins” and warns them not to judge as they are condemning themselves… So with your judgement of homosexuality you are clearly condemning yourself….

      that is the point Paul wants to make with his Romans 1.

      • WGB

        First, may I suggest that you read the entire Bible and obey it. Second, sharing the Truth of God’s Word is not judging. God’s Word, the Bible, condemns/judges homosexuality as an unnatural and shameful abomination in Romans 1:26-27.

        Further we are directed to share the Truth of God’s Word and it is always better to obey God than man. Mark 16:15-16 – And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. God’s Words again condemns nonbelievers.

        Finally, John 7:24 – judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Meaning, if a Christian judges righteously they are still operating according to God’s Word and will.

        Finally, I know the Word, so you can’t misinterpret scripture, use 2 or 3 verses that you like, and/or take them out of context with me and presume to gain ground. And I will not argue with a reprobate mind, so know that all you will get from me is God’s Word.

        • BalancedMind

          You can repeat Romans 1 again and again, but the relevance of Romans 1 is zero without Romans 2. I quote again:

          2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

          You are only selectively preaching from the gospel. You abuse gods word to further your own bigotry. That has nothing to do with gods will, but is blasphemy at best.

          Judging righteously according to jesus? Maybe you want to read up on what jesus said about pharisees:

          23 Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

          2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

          4 They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. 5 Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels[a] for everyone to see. 6 They love the best seats at banquets and the front seats in the meeting places. 7 And when they are in the market, they like to have people greet them as their teachers.

          8 But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters. 9 Don’t call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven. 10 None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader. 11 Whoever is the greatest should be the servant of the others. 12 If you put yourself above others, you will be put down. But if you humble yourself, you will be honored.

          13-14 You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourselves, and you keep others from going in.[b]

          Remember that jesus had nothing against homosexuality. He even puts them in the same sentence as priests (read up the stories on born eunuchs, man made eunuchs and man that chose to be celibate for religious purposes). All with any condemnation.

          So you might be disappointed when god tosses you out because you have understood nothing of the gospel. You read the words, but your heart doesn’t understand the meaning…

          • WGB

            Your opinions are worthless to me. Your confusion further shows how lost and reprobate you are. You will never change my mind regarding sin and God’s Word. I do not value your thoughts.

            Again:
            “First, may I suggest that you read the entire Bible and obey it. Second, sharing the Truth of God’s Word is not judging. God’s Word, the Bible, condemns/judges homosexuality as an unnatural and shameful abomination in Romans 1:26-27.

            Further we are directed to share the Truth of God’s Word and it is always better to obey God than man. Mark 16:15-16 – And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. God’s Words again condemns nonbelievers.

            John 7:24 – judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Meaning, if a Christian judges righteously they are still operating according to God’s Word and will.

            Finally, I know the Word, so you can’t misinterpret scripture, use 2 or 3 verses that you like, and/or take them out of context with me and presume to gain ground. And I will not argue with a reprobate mind, so know that all you will get from me is God’s Word. You’re essentially arguing for and defending sinful abominations and filth. I can’t take you seriously.”

          • BalancedMind

            You are the one that takes scripture out of its context.

            You still don’t understand that the point of Romans 1 is found in Romans 2….

            By just repeating your earlier stuff word for word without any further explanation means that you are giving up.

            And rightly so. Because you are on the wrong side. I don’t need to tell you. And you don’t need to listen to me. God will tell you. He is the one that will judge you ultimately. Repent!

            Homosexuality being a sin is only your opinion and nothing more. You can not find any passage in the bible condemning loving and caring same sex relationships.

          • WGB

            You are a liar and you are still confused. Again:

            “First, may I suggest that you read the entire Bible and obey it. Second, sharing the Truth of God’s Word is not judging. God’s Word, the Bible, condemns/judges homosexuality as an unnatural and shameful abomination in Romans 1:26-27.

            Further we are directed to share the Truth of God’s Word and it is always better to obey God than man. Mark 16:15-16 – And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. God’s Words again condemns nonbelievers.

            John 7:24 – judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Meaning, if a Christian judges righteously they are still operating according to God’s Word and will.

            Finally, I know the Word, so you can’t misinterpret scripture, use 2 or 3 verses that you like, and/or take them out of context with me and presume to gain ground. And I will not argue with a reprobate mind, so know that all you will get from me is God’s Word. You’re essenptially arguing for and defending sinful abominations and filth. I can’t take you seriously.”

          • BalancedMind

            You are the one that takes scripture out of its context.

            You still don’t understand that the point of Romans 1 is found in Romans 2….

            By just repeating your earlier stuff word for word without any further explanation means that you are giving up.

            And rightly so. Because you are on the wrong side. I don’t need to tell you. And you don’t need to listen to me. God will tell you. He is the one that will judge you ultimately. Repent!

            Homosexuality being a sin is only your opinion and nothing more. You can not find any passage in the bible condemning loving and caring same sex relationships.

          • WGB

            ☝🏽️did not read and will not read anymore of your lies. You are still lying and confused. Again:

            “First, may I suggest that you read the entire Bible and obey it. Second, sharing the Truth of God’s Word is not judging. God’s Word, the Bible, condemns/judges homosexuality as an unnatural and shameful abomination in Romans 1:26-27.

            Further we are directed to share the Truth of God’s Word and it is always better to obey God than man. Mark 16:15-16 – And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. God’s Words again condemns nonbelievers.

            John 7:24 – judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Meaning, if a Christian judges righteously they are still operating according to God’s Word and will.

            Finally, I know the Word, so you can’t misinterpret scripture, use 2 or 3 verses that you like, and/or take them out of context with me and presume to gain ground. And I will not argue with a reprobate mind, so know that all you will get from me is God’s Word. You’re essentially arguing for and defending sinful abominations and filth. I can’t take you seriously.”

          • BalancedMind

            You are the one that takes scripture out of its context. You are the one that commits the sin of selective quotations form the bible.

            Don’t you know the commandment: Do not bear false witness against your neighbor?

            You still don’t understand that the point of Romans 1 is found in Romans 2….

            By just repeating your earlier stuff word for word without any further explanation means that you are giving up.

            And rightly so. Because you are on the wrong side. I don’t need to tell you. And you don’t need to listen to me. God will tell you. He is the one that will judge you ultimately. Repent!

            Homosexuality being a sin is only your opinion and nothing more. You can not find any passage in the bible condemning loving and caring same sex relationships.

          • WGB

            ☝🏽️did not read and will not read any of your lies. You are a confused, manipulative liar. I do not value your opinions. Again:

            “First, may I suggest that you read the entire Bible and obey it. Second, sharing the Truth of God’s Word is not judging. God’s Word, the Bible, condemns/judges homosexuality as an unnatural and shameful abomination in Romans 1:26-27.

            Further we are directed to share the Truth of God’s Word and it is always better to obey God than man. Mark 16:15-16 – And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. God’s Words again condemns nonbelievers.

            John 7:24 – judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. Meaning, if a Christian judges righteously they are still operating according to God’s Word and will.

            Finally, I know the Word, so you can’t misinterpret scripture, use 2 or 3 verses that you like, and/or take them out of context with me and presume to gain ground. And I will not argue with a reprobate mind, so know that all you will get from me is God’s Word. You’re essentially arguing for and defending sinful abominations and filth. I can’t take you seriously.”

  • Rebecca

    Total perversion!!

  • America the Great

    People get stranger and stranger by the minute. Is this some kind of Quasi-molestation? It’s not enough to have the LGBT community, now it seems you can adopt, then molest, then get married? Wow, just when I thought I had seen it all the crazys come out with another crazy idea. Now these two guys can adopt another 50 year old dude and they can have a harem.

    • BalancedMind

      Your lack of empathetical capabilities is worrying…

      • America the Great

        Don’t worry, you’ll come through this just fine

        • BalancedMind

          Should I take it as a compliment that you choose to “follow” me?

          • America the Great

            Yes

          • BalancedMind

            Thanks for the compliment then :-). It is evening here, see you another day then! Wishing you a great remainder of your Sunday…

          • America the Great

            Thank you. You do the same.

  • Dianne

    And this ABOMINATION that brings DESOLATION, may the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY REBUKE IT and ALL who favor it!!!! IN JESUS NAME AMEN!!!

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Yes in Jesus Name amen!

    • BalancedMind

      Romans 2:
      for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself…

      • Dianne

        Hardly condemning myself. WE are to judge with righteous judgement John 7;24 I am NOT a hypocrite which is what you are referring to. But then again PEOPLE who AGREE with sexual immorality NEVER understand anything about the BIBLE…..

        • BalancedMind

          And the context for righteous judgement:

          43“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

          • Dianne

            I noticed that YOU DID NOT put the scripture and verse. How convenient for you. Are you justifying perversion??
            You need to reread Romans 1:18-32 NO HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS OK WITH GOD EVER, ONLY SEX IN MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS ACCEPTABLE WITH GOD. Anything else is perversion and will be punished by GOD in the LAKE OF FIRE for ALL ETERNITY. Start really reading the bible and stop cherry picking to justify SIN.

          • BalancedMind

            You can not read romans 1 without reading romans 2 as well… how convenient for you you left that one out, as it is exactly dealing with your ilk…

            I would have thought you would recognize my quote by heart…

          • Dianne

            You are of you FATHER THE DEVIL…..

          • BalancedMind

            Your next line is probably about your right to judge (me) righteously.

            The context of the word righteously is also often omitted:

            “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

          • Dianne

            Are you still trying to justify sexual sin?

            Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall DESTROY both of them. Now the body is NOT for FORNICATION, but for the LORD; and the LORD for the BODY. 1Corinthians 6:13

          • BalancedMind

            By paul, the self aclaimed apostle…

          • Dianne

            Romans 1:1,2 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle unto the gospel of God ( Which he promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures).

            Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, ( not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

            2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus,

            Apostle Paul’s conversion and calling from Jesus Christ the SON OF GOD. Please read Acts 9:1-31

  • Patrick Van Der Ven

    Let’s look at this article logically? 1. These two gentlemen are not biologically related at all.
    2. They acted in a time where SSM was illegal in Pennsylvania and tried to create the best legal bond so that they could to make sure the other was protected and that their relationship had some legal status. . 3. The implication that their relationship is incestuous is absurd to say the least. 4. Now that the injustice against the LBGTIQ community has been rectified and same sex partners now can marry in all states of the US they want their relationship to be recognised for what it is, a marriage. 5. Hence they are seeking an annulment of the adoption. 6. This is one off special case. I think you would hard t pressed to find a biological father/son or mother daughter relationship at all, especially one that seeks wedlock. If you do then let me be clear, they will not find mass support from the LGBTIQ community to have marriage laws amended to accommodate such an incestuous union. The closest relatives that can marry in the US is first cousins in 27 states. So chill with the alarmist reports of incestuous marriages as these are morally repugnant to the majority of all human beings on an anthropological basis let alone religious basis.