After Same-Sex Marriage, N.Y. Archbishop Says Next Step Will be ‘Multiple Partners and Infidelity’
- Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:18am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Two weeks after the New York State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage, the state’s Roman Catholic archbishop said politicians could next redefine marriage to include “multiple partners” and adultery.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan wrote on his blog:
[T]he Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger….And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.
If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!
In the same post, Dolan responded to criticism that the Catholic Church’s opposition to the bill stemmed from homophobia:
We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay….If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.
Dolan referred to the bill as an “ominous threat” to society while it was still pending before the state senate.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 680 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 640 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 312 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 151 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 189 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 151 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (301)
ashestoashes
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:55amInfidellity and multiple marriages? How about the God sanctioned destruction of the United States?
Report Post »Sodom and Gomorrah anyone?
SamIamTwo
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:45amNah, the next thing will be the reported divorce rate will sky…they only stay together for a short period of time and then head off to another. Not many have long term relationships, just a minority of them do.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:43amTHIS man is an AMAZING BISHOP. A straight-shooter…a real man of God. What I love about the Catholic Church is that it is what it is. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It doesn’t cave into fads and temporary mores just to appease the current population.
Without basic values and goals to achieve, we have nothing. No relationship is perfect so for gays to point to marriage as “not so perfect’ is weak. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is MORE of the COMMIES and SOCIALIST (people who want America to decay from the inside out) efforts to ruin America. GAYS can have “marriage” just call it something else. They want marriage because it makes them feel like hetero-sexuals. It may make them feel like that but they are not like that.
I’m not gay and I sympathize with those who are but life has rules. We break them and we all pay the consequences.
Report Post »cloudsofwar
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:46pmAmen
Report Post »Rorybill88
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:51pmHear Hear!
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 2:07pmReally?
What about Vatican 2 in the 1960′s which altered most of its doctrine? What about the Immaculate Conception only becoming an offiicial dogma in 1854?
The only “constant” in the Catholic church is its willingness to atler itself in order to gain more control and money (and avoid prosecution.)
They still, though, want to remain “constant” by “handling” child-raping priests internally and without any help from law enforcement. If you consider that a good and reliable “constant” that can be trusted then so be it…
Report Post »LibertyGirl
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:12pmI think what he means is that the Catholic Church doesn’t just make up things as they go along. Unlike protestant churches that believe that each person’s interpretation of the bible is okay. That is moral relativism.
I will never defend the Catholic church or any organization made of men as perfect. However, Catholics remain consistent in their beliefs compared to so many protestant churches that believe in gay marriage, moral relativism, attacking all those who disagree, and pervert the Word of God for their own purposes. How can you overlook all of the TV evangelists who has milked people out of money for their own gain? How can you overlook sexual abuse in protestant churches? How can you overlook the Westboro Baptist’s church and their actions?
No organization made of men is perfect. Consistency of doctrine throughout the entire Church is important to Catholics. This is distinctly different from protestants. In fact, this is one of the major differences. Protestants need to stop focusing on criticizing the Catholic Church and look to the problems in their own faith.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:14pm@LibertyGirl
How consistent is it for this arch bishop to say this while other say the opposite? How consistent is it for this arch bishop to say this while preventing marriage of church leaders when the Bible clearly says marriage is ok? If you believe Catholic doctrine has not changed and is consistent you’re ignorant of history and that is not an insult but truth. The “Protestant” Churches you say with inconsistent doctrine are the ones who leave their original doctrine and follow Roman Catholic Doctrine. How many poor could the Church help with the money spent on the Pope alone….That is very inconsistent, isn’t it? Yes. first is last, last is first.
Google Club of Rome….Agenda 21 started within the Catholic Church. A form of social justice is doctrine now of the church, distributism. Stating facts isn’t an attack. It’s truth. Sometimes it hurts.
Shouldn‘t this Arch Bishop tell his sheep marriage is God’s duty, not Governments?
Know Jesus Christ is the only Christ, the only way to salvation. You are to bow before no man as Jesus died and arose for all sin and thru repentance to Jesus sin is forgiven.
I must tell you to be honest to yourself and see the Catholic Church is very Anti-Christ and inconsistent with Bible teachings.
LIC
Report Post »venerablebede
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:41amIt is the will of Allah, now the government has to allow the marriage between one man and four women. Otherwise it is racist and discrimination.
Report Post »agameofthrones
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 12:26pmI wouldn’t be surprised to see that next!
Report Post »salvawhoray
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:39amHow does a man look at another man’s ass and finds love?
Report Post »How does that work?
“Sam Kinison”
Silat
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:16pmNow that is funny….I don’t care who you are!
I man was walking down the street and saw a warm pile of dog pooh and attacked it. That is the same as being into that sort of vile sex.
Report Post »normbal
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:29amPolygamy and infidelity? No. The end game is bestiality. After all, a man is a boy is a dog is a baby. Isn‘t that the PETA code of life’s equality? The goal of “the left” (democrats, homosexual lobby, PETA, SEIU, and the other powers and principalities of the air – and computers) is to end ALL of God’s institutions and His covenants among mankind. The new world order will be what Alistair Crowley once said it should be, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Only problem for them is what will they do about islam? “cause slims don’t play that game. They won’t be co-opted quite so easily. Enjoy your new world order while you can.
Report Post »don young
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:24amGOD is watching payback is hell.
Report Post »maryjanesuncle
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:21amDarn..sounds like they gave both women and blacks the right to vote..or join the army…sounds like I have heard all this BS before..I woke up this morning, my family, the same..dont worry they wont out breed you..lol
Report Post »awizard
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:38pmmary; You and NY. missed a point, gays have always had the “same rights” as the rest of us, any gay man can marry any woman that will have, ‘same with the *****.’s. What they have been granted is “special rights” which defiles the purpose of marriage, “they” already have (in most states) civil unions and a host of other “special rights” … Why did “they” have to attack marriage?..
Oh, by the way, Women were allowed to vote til the prog.’s took it away. Blacks were on track to be citizens and vote in the original intent of the constitution, and have been in the military since the revolution war (and add to that were fully integrated til the prog.‘s took that away in the early 1900’s.
Report Post »tom
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:18amGood to hear the Bishop speak-up, finally. They should have about Catholics voting for Obama but were to afraid of being charged with racism and having to pay tax in the U.S. So let’s see, if the Catholic U.S. Bishops (who claim to be pro life) would have stood up for the unborn, and for that lost their tax free status, would saving the lives of millions of babies on Obama’s watch, be worth we in the pews digging a little deeper in our pockets each Sunday? In my opinion, racism is evil, but no where close to the evil of slaughtering the unborn. (A Nation That Murders There Children Has No Hope) The U.S.C.C.B. (U.S. Bishops) tried to say racism was just as evil as abortion in their “Catholics and Voting letter to the faithful”, before the 2008 election) but what they actually wanted was Obama to win the election so Obamacare could become a reality for themselves, retired priest and nuns. They were not all that upset about tax payers funding for abortion in the new Obamacare law as they would like us to believe, by sending two letters to Obama. Now, they too, along with Obama, and his evil administration, and other liberal pro choice people, will one day stand before God and those babies who “never had a chance for life” and try explain themselves why they chose murdering God’s greatest gift to humankind, life from conception to natural death. Vote them out in 2012.
Report Post »sodacrackers2
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:17pmThere is definitely a Marxist element in the Church, but many popes have declared communism and socialism great evils.
Report Post »LibertyGirl
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:38pmI believe you are incorrect about Catholic support for liberals. It is usually non-practicing Catholics who tend to be most liberal. I am a Catholic and find that most of the churches that I have attended focus on charitable giving (not government programs) and definitely do not support pro-abortion candidates. Recently I attended a Catholic Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia that had a Catholic Voter’s Guide. It urged Catholics not to support pro-abortion candidates. For practicing Catholics, supporting such a person is breaking the commandment not to kill.
Report Post »AmericanWomanFirst
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:09amWhat is next…Objectum Sexuality rights of marriage?
Report Post »http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread711929/pg1
psst
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:56amyada yad yada -blah-blah-blah.
Report Post »hey Archie. is the Cuomo family still the most imporant RC Church member in NY?
How about other NY RC pols.
Most of these NY RC pols seems to be into this Abomination thingy or approves of it.
Archie! Say again, I really don’t remember if the Bible say this Abomination thingy is agin God and man.
If that’s a Bigggg YES Siree Bob.. Then why not a Public Excommunication thingy .
Or are you still giving Communion to these so called RC pols.
If you are. then just shut the hell up.And Go away.
No one can serve two masters. You either believe, or you don’t.
Same as One cannot be a little pregnant.You are, or you’re not.
Zorba53
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:54amLet those men that wish to marry men do it.
Report Post »Let those women that wish to marry women do it.
Let those women that wish to abort their babies do it.
In three generations, there won’t be any democrats!I
I LOVE it when a plan comes together!!!
drago
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:16amNever thought of it that way, but your right…
Report Post »DETROIT JOHN
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:32amThats why we have a open borders with MEX-HECO. The Dem/liberal/commies need the illegals to vote them in office!
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:41pmMy father was a Republican and I’m a Democrat, so it doesn’t always work out that way. Of course I’m not sure he’d still be a Republican. He used to vote for socialists like Eisenhower who supported union rights and built the Interstate Highway System instead of waiting for corporations to do it because everyone knows that government never does anything right, and Nixon who established regulatory agencies like the EPA and OSHA, and Reagan who gave amnesty to illegal aliens and cut and ran when our troops were attacked by terrorists.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:52amOur Founders warned that if we became mostly a non-Christian nation (yes, they specified Christian – see my other post) – we could not flourish and would fall. Guess what? They were right, as they were about other things.
Report Post »This is so simple & obvious – just as it was with “abortion rights”, “gay rights”, atheists using separation of church of state erroneously to remove prayer/crosses/Ten commandments everywhere and anywhere at any occasion …so is this — for their “acceptance”. It’s the “slippery slope” that others against them have warned about. Now it’s this stuff. It’s the continuing, growing anti-God/Bible/Constitution group trying to make all biblical principles “null and void”, making this nation secular Socialists, where the “mainstream” is living these immoral lives (as it pertains to the Bible). They figure this way they can finally do as they please and be totally “free” of any “guilt” or feel accountable to any “higher power”. Aw….finally…Utopia!! Once a lifestyle is accepted, it grows like cancer & ends up mainstream bc of fallen human nature. Look at abortion & “living together” w/o marriage. It’s as old as dirt & naturally, from satan…the first to rebel against God. They are his “children”. And why stop there? There are other things as well. Very alarming, to say the least. 8-(
mickie4
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:54pmThanks for your excellent posts Momprayn, Why haven’t we heard an outcry from the religous community over this outragous ruling? So far I can only remember hearing from the Catholics., who are regularly bashed on all forums.
Report Post »Greenwood
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 6:59pmBut know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of money, selfassuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to it’s power, and from these turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1- 5
Report Post »These are just the times we now live in ……………………………When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him then he will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Matthew 25:31 -33
Ronald Wilson
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:52amWhether I like a hammer and a chicken getting married or not, doesn’t matter. New York made a choice, and it’s their right to do so. Being homophobic is a right too, just as is all free speech.
Report Post »Don‘t waste time comparing an individual’s choice to the end of civilization, it’s demeaning to all of us.
As far as state politics goes, either vote your representatives in, or vote with your feet.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:28pmNew York recently switched to a paper ballot that you fill in with a pen instead of the old booths with levers, so it’s now much harder to vote with your feet.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:35pmWell if you would stop name calling for a minute and study history, you would find that the comparison is good and far from chicken little shouting, this has been tried dozens of times before through out history and has always ended in the utter collapse of societies that have tried it, and always will.
Report Post »annieoakley
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:50amThe Communist Agenda is moving along quite nicely with help from the Catholic/Protestant Christian Leadership. How can all of you not see where this is going? All of you backed Obama. The first (well one of the first) orders he issued was to remove the ban on partial birth abortions! Duh? Then he allows fetal stem cell research! All of you are hypocrites exactly like the Communists! God is not wrong but you all are wrong. Selfish, spoiled power-mad brats! I cannot for the life of me see any difference between the Archbishop and the POTUS and the head of the Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians. All of you want it both ways and talk out of both sides of your mouth. Shame!
Report Post »GrannyATL
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:51pmAnnie, I think you need to explain yourself a little better. Are you saying that Archibshop Dolan’s comments above are similar to those expressed by Obama? That they are on the same page regarding stem-cell research, etc.?
I can’t figure out how you can lump the two into the same category. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:50amJOHN ADAMS: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly INADEQUATE to the government of any other.”* “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of CHRISTIANITY. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God” *”The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity”
John Quincy Adams: “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of CHRISTIANITY.”
John Dickinson (signer of Constitution) “Governments could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings (Jesus), and Lord of all the earth.”
Ben Franklin: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
Report Post »SafeguardOurLiberty
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:22pmYeah, Ben Franklin is someone to quote. He was shacked up with many women in his lifetime. Thomas Jefferson sired many childern with his slaves, and John Adams also had an affair. These were great men as far as starting a country, but they were not chaste! Some of our Founding Fathers were deists, including Ben.
Report Post »awall1231
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:42amPretty soon the musloons will be able to marry there goats as the CRAYON teaches.
Report Post »obama-mecca-me-sick
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:07pmBut there will public outcry if they marry a pig.
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:38pmClearly you’re not very smart, a marriage requires two consenting adults and an animal cannot consent. Nice try, but that argument fails every time.
Report Post »BillyPenn
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:44pmThey already have. That’s why they make their females wear veils.
Report Post »concealled9mms
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:40ambill o reilley made the same statement 2 years ago about the doors of marriage will open to many types of unreal marriages. if *** marriage is allowed
Report Post »Iman Barak Hussein
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:43pmgays are immoral perverts with more slighty more brain damage than ordinary liberal.
Report Post »Grasshopper42
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:37amLesbian Packing Hollow Points, contrary to your perverted thinking, some of us are faithful to our contracts with our spouses. That is, our opposite sex spouses. Sorry, but that’s the way God made it from the beginning. One man, one woman. Two guys can‘t make a child and two gals can’t do it either.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:00amActually, reproductive science (originally intended to help infertile men conceive, but will likely be used by lesbian couples too) takes an adult stem cell and coerces it to undergo reduction division and become a sperm cell. Done with a female stem cell, lesbians will be able to reproduce among themselves. Then, all that will be left is automobile maintenance and squishing bugs with bootheels.
And to understand truly just how much heterosexuals hold their marriages in low regard, one need only look at the incidence of heterosexual divorce. Way to hold down the fort, guys.
Report Post »Grasshopper42
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:47amProverbs 26:4-5
Isaiah 5:21
2 Corinthians 4:4
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:55pmOne man…One women…Of the same race…No more than five years age difference…No incest
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:21pmPlenty of people have spoken to and addressed the bias that accounts for the allegedly high divorce rate. Then again, bias tends to promote unreasonable stances and statements.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:01pm@ Shylow
Same race huh. I haven’t read your other posts to see if you are a plant or sincere.
I’ll assume that your are sincere. Have you hear of heterozygosity, allele diversity, the hypothesis for the origins of sex, founder effect, island effect, hybrid vigor.
Don’t worry I have plenty of science and stats to spar with the other sides junk science.
Report Post »dquak
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:35amArchbishop Dolan is right to say this is a pro-marriage stance, not an anti-gay one. On the other hand, marriage was instituted by God, not the state. Perhaps it’s time the state got out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Pretty soon, “marriage” will be redefined to mean anything, just like “family” has been redefined. Our culture is busting lose of its moorings.
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:31amHe forgot about animals. Next thing you know, New Yankers will be marrying their own Weiner dogs.
Report Post »drago
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:14amOk, thats funny……
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:18pmIs that not what Male Gay marriage is all about?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:20pmThe whole slippery slope argument is as dumb as is someone back when everyone was forced by the ignorant and superstitious to right with their right hand had claimed that allowing people to write left handed would lead to them doing it with their feet.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:36pmOk Chet you made your point about the slippery slope. Now tell us believers in that Slippery Slope why Marriage should be limited to 2 people as you claim? Eager for your response
Report Post »LibertyGirl
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:26pmAh….but dogs are very loyal! LOL! Sorry….the dog lover in me had to mention that!
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:29amI do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:33amNow, don’t get carried away; you’re already a legend in your own mind.
Report Post »Locutus
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:14amWhy is this always the argument? Gay people just want the same rights as straight people. People aren’t going to go out and marry their frackin dogs. That’s just ridiculous. Why can’t 2 PEOPLE who are in love be allowed to marry? If people are so concerned about farm animal-human weddings popping up all over the country, maybe the laws can state that two people who are in love and of age can marry. Problem solved. That would end all this idiotic talk of beastiality and crap like that. But since most people on here hate gay people…they still wouldn’t be satisfied until all the gays are rounded up and given shock therapy until we have gone straight and confess our love for jeebus.
Report Post »G.E.R
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:54amSince there is no proof of the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible. A fragment of manuscript found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) contains a passage which includes the following text. –
“And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”.
Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. But there are no references in the gospels to his sexuality. Large chunks of Jesus’s life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ’s sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:30pmGer
Report Post »If your mind is your own church where does your wisdom come from? The Worlds Great Religions have amassing the thoughts and wisdom from brilliant people asking the great questions of life for many millennium. Is it not the hight of arrogance for you to equate yourself with Plato, Socrates,Aquinas and Pascal just to name a few.
G.E.R
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 2:10pm@ Paperpushermj
That wisdom comes from asking questions and finding out the facts. Not what someone else regurgitates and then tries to spoon feed me as the truth. None of the religions are great, they are tools used for power and control. And as far as the church amassing wisdom from those great philosophers you mentioned. They were considered pagans, heretics and free thinkers by the church of Rome and England, because they asked questions. They were imprisoned and some were even put to death because they proved that what the church was representing was false.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 2:12pm@LOCUTUS
Report Post »It seems you are the one couching the argument as Civil Rights instead of Standards. Your effort to reduce our argument to the ridiculous by bringing up to marriage to farm animals is not working. Marriage for at least the last 4000 years of human history in every land has always been between the two sexes. If you want us to change to another definition GIVE US A GOOD REASON. HOW WILL SOCIETY BENEFIT?
G.E.R
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 2:43pm@Paperpushermj
Your statement is false.There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus “married” a Carian slave named Hierocles.A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The husband and wife are in fact two men St. Serge and St. Bacchus.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:28amIt’s already started. The very next day I got an e-mail about “WHY SHOULD GAYS be forced to marry, just to get PARTNER benefits?” Here it comes. Open season on benefits for any and ALL sex “partners” and who will pay??
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:15pmNew York State has had a domestic partnership law for years. State and city workers can already get benefits for unmarried partners, and many businesses have adopted the same policy to stay ahead of the competition. The only thing that changes is that gays are now allowed to call their marriages what they really are, marriages.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:26amMultiple partners and infidelity?
Oh, them wacky heterosexuals and their straight marriages with girlfriends and mistresses on the side.
Report Post »docmd
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:55amThe immoral decline of America continues……..so sad ! The FALL of ROME ?????????????
Report Post »booger71
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:10amMore infidelity in the “gay” community that hetero.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:05pm@ hollow points
Report Post »You paint with to broad a brush in describing Marriage. Yes some men and women will not honor their marriage vows. I dare say there is not one human endeavor that is not flawed in some way, but do we not have standards at all because they do not offer 100% compliance? Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough. P.S. I have been married 37 years come August
The Gooch
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 1:11pmAh, the ol‘ moral equivalency claim used as a logic argument to defend’s one bias. Superb example.
Report Post »“Straight people have the right to screw around in what is supposed to be an exclusive relationship. I should have the same right”
Choices aren’t necessarily rights and bad logic arguments are a dime a dozen.
TRUTH
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 2:09pmBooger, Source?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:14pmWhen those become public knowledge those are whole heartily condoned. NOT!
Report Post »LibertyGirl
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:22pmI understand your frustration with the perception. There is a lot of hypocrisy by individuals.
I am a life long Catholic. I have been taught that all sin is equal. Infidelity is as sinful as homosexuality. The people who do not believe this are just plain incorrect.
I don’t want to offend you personally by saying these things. This is the Word of God and the way that I was taught.
The beautiful thing about America is that we can all have different views.
Best to you.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 3:42pmWALKABOUT, or, in the Republicans’ case, they run for the presidency (ie. Gingrich, Giuliani)
Report Post »pennswoods
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 4:00pmThis is for you Tifosa, Yes, remember the sexual addict JFK who had hundreds if not more women on his seduction list? Did you know FDR’s mistress was with him when he died. How about that smarmy John Edwards getting a staff memeber pregnant during the 2008 Presidential campaign? The call girl party boy Elliot Spitzer? Both sides have their share of hypocrites so be fair. Oh, I forgot, Recently there is the the Democratic Congressman Weiner who gave a new meaning to a hot dog.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 8:39pm@GOOCH:
There’s no choice involved here except the choice to get married, and that is a right. The hetero-centric marriage contingent claims that allowing homosexuals to call themselves married under law would demean the institution of marriage. Even assuming the worst case scenario of the hetero-centric forces and same-sex couples are all wicked sex monkeys and there‘s no fidelity and they’re just married, divorced, married, divorced, one long, protracted game of bed hopping… Another favoured refrain of the “traditional marriage” side is, “Queers is too small of a minority. We cain‘t be makin’ laws for such a small minority!”
Okay… which is it? Are LGBT people getting married a monumental threat to opposite-sex marriages, or are LGBT people too inconsequential to deal with? You can’t have it both ways.
The point being that given the rate of heterosexual infidelity and divorce, even the same-sex marriage worst case scenario won’t make the needle move noticeably either way for the better or worse in terms of the respect of disdain the general public has for the institution of marriage.
Regardless, whether you have a examples of long-term relationships that are heterosexual or homosexual, full of faithfulness or infidelity, that is all utterly irrelevant to the question of should homosexuals have their rights restricted from joining the same institution.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 9:10amI disagree that marriage is a right. I do agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, the sun will still rise in the east, set in the west and the world will keep on spinning.
Report Post »My problem, as with many issues championed by the left, is with the bullies who assert: “This is OURS, too! Like it or not, WE get to decide the limits, not society.”
If one bases the rule of law off of precedent (arguments can be made as to why this is good and vice versa), gays have no claim to the tradition of marriage.
Jumping into a logic argument about infidelity is a tactic similar to that used by gun control advocates; it’s, at best, a red herring. Considering your tag, I assume you believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Well, what about Joe Dipcrap down the street who shot his wife… and was considered a legal gun owner? Since Joe couldn’t control himself, we now have irrefutable proof that guns are bad (not just Joe), so all the guns gotta go. In fact, this logic argument isn’t just a red herring, it’s a gross generalization that assumes guilt by association.
You own guns; you’re a danger. All guns should be banned as their is potential danger.
You’re a married hetero; you’re likely a whoring, cheating man or woman. All marriage should be allowed as it really doesn’t mean anything.
Your advocatng for marriage by cheapening it while still calling it a right. Wow. That’s a helluva lot to juggle at one time. Impressive.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 4:10pm@GOOCH:
Wow. Where to start? First, marriage is a right. It goes hand-in-hand with the right of private contracts. The contracts entered into by Persons A & B do not implicate the contracts entered into by Persons C & D.
If Joe Dipcrap proves HIMself unable to control HIMself with HIS guns, then HIS guns should be taken away to protect the rest of society from the manifest threat from JOE. I trust you agree with that statement whole heartily… show me where in that the firearms themselves are implicated as having a will of their own, let alone an evil will. Show me where the rights of others to keep and bear arms according to the Constitution are implicated in the actions of one irresponsible person. You’re engaging in the same guilt by association you purport to abjure.
I wasn’t so much juggling as fighting a war on multiple fronts. Either the institution of heterosexual marriage is holy, sacred, traditional, unchanging, indivisible, immutable, steady state… or it’s not. And historicly, it’s not. the argument that it is is the height of bigotry and selfishness for no real value. Either homosexual couples have the right to engage in marriages just like heterosexual couples, or society at large has the power to define what is and is not a valid marriage, and as we saw with the passing of the Jim Crow Laws and race being a legal criteria for valid marriages, society does not have such a power.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 6:45pmYour argument is maturing and I respect your right to make it. However, I do not accept that behavior (and, arguably) choice equates to race. If society can’t set limits, why are pedophilia and polygamy not still accepted? The chicken or the egg… did law follow society‘s wishes or did law shape society’s stance? Once again, not a right… religions and govts. have never raised marriage to the level of a right. Plenty of limits and requirements on this matter to be cited.
Report Post »The Joe Dipcrap analogy was meant to be grossly simplistic… it was a matter of comparing one overly simplistic line of thought on a seperrate but equally volatile issue with what I see a flawed logic argument advocating for gay marriage.
Precedent is in over males and females from different cultures, races and religions pursuing marriage… LONG before our country was even considered.
I will likely never agree with you, but I respect your right to make a reasoned and civil argument. I’ll defend you, at least, in that realm.
Fare thee well.
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 7:11pm@GOOCH:
Homosexuality is no more a choice than race or any other geneticly informed trait, but even if it were not, that would matter not at all. Any choice we make which, in the words of Tommy Jefferson, “Neither breaks your leg not picks your pocket” is the right of the person making the choice.
So, to drive your overly simplistic analogy straight into the ground, you equate two people who love each other entering into a legally recognized mutual responsibility and dependance arrangement with Joe Dipcrap gunning his family down in cold blood?
Wow. That’s some terminally skewed mentality you have there, but not at all unusual in the annals of hetero-centric marriage bigots.
I’ve also heard homosexual marriage equated to pedophilia and bεstiality. These are misapprehensions of fact and a misplacement of values so profound that it would take a mind far sharper than mine to aid you in setting your mind aright.
The fact is that marriages have taken a number of forms in different places and throughout history. The modern concept of marriage for love is almost unheard of prior to modernity. Plural marriages, arranged marriages, and what we currently refer to as “swinging” has been the norm far, far longer. When you agitate in favour of what you call “traditional” marriage, you do great violence to the term “traditional”.
Society must remain stable, but it must never stand still. What you and yours would have is a society cast in concrete.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on July 11, 2011 at 9:43pmI see lots of folks who wanna defend homosexuality by referencing some genetic compenent or science in general. The APA looked for such a magic bullet argument… and had to admit it could not be found. I don’t care… be gay, be happy. You wanna get ugly on this… I don’t. I’d rather remain civil. You want gay marriage and can make an argument as to why you believe the defintion of marriage it mutable. I would argue you’re skating dangerously close to nihilism. I’m for compromise, and, as I’ve said, could tolerate gay marriage if it became the law of the land. However, if it’s forced upon the collective thru judicial mandate, that sure as hell won‘t mean I have to respect it and toss my dissenting opinion out because activists believe I don’t have a right to my beliefs or opinion.
Report Post »You can have your contract with another person now that asserts you want an outside party to determine how property is divided if you and a significatnt others call it quits. Nothing stopping that from happening now. And you have a very broad summation of how marriage has been many things other than an expression of the romantic ideal. Granted. But do you also recognize that over time, cultures, religions and geography that marriage is the joining of male and female?
I’m ceasing to explain the point I was attempting to make with the analogy. I’ll just leave at this: I would support neither simplistic stance… that’s all I meant to illustrate.
CommonTruth
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 12:20am@ Lesbian Packing….
Interesting point about how the definition of marriage has changed throughout history; plural marriage, arranged, etc.
But in trying to make a point for your side, I think you actually make a point against it- No culture, no people, no religion, etc., even when taking those aspects into account, has ever allowed marriages between the same sex in HUMAN HISTORY. Why now?
Why does your side want that word, “marriage” so badly? Please tell me that.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 1:32am@Common Truth:
If the mods here at The Blaze ever approve my last post, you’ll see the next part of my argument.
In no way do I grant that NO culture ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has sanctioned same sex relationships. In fact, I claim the opposite. Throughout time, from antiquity (China) to modernity (Sweden), from empires great (Roman) and small (Indian tribes) have recognized same-sex unions on par with heterosexual marriages.
And even if that were not true, what ever happened to American exceptionalism? Aren’t we supposed to be the land of freedom? Even if no other contemporary nation of the world recognized same-sex marriage (and many, many, MANY do) shouldn’t we be the beacon of light to the rest of the world and recognize the right of all people to be married to the person they love and who loves them?
Seems like an appeal to “Everyone else denies gays equal rights, and so should we.” is an abrogation of American exceptionalism, which is something I will never give up.
Report Post »CommonTruth
Posted on July 12, 2011 at 2:44amThe Romans didn’t see same sex relationships on par with hetero-marriage. That sounds, as well as your other ‘examples’, as trying to homosexualize history. Kinda like when homosexuals try to say Ab Lincoln was gay.
The marriage spectrum has never included same-sex couples. Same-Sex ‘marriage’ has never been part of that word. Which leads me to ask again. Why does your side need to have that word so badly?
I have no problem with the civil union laws. In my home state of California, civil unions have given homosexuals the same legal force as marriage for several years now. Does that count as exceptional?
Please answer my questions. Sincerely, I truly want to know why.
Report Post »suzy000
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:25amProgressives have opened up a can of worms and now anything is game. When will we get a grip and stop this madness?
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:35amUnfortunatly there now is no ending of the madness; the door is fully open, and unless it soon gets nailed shut there is no stopping it – how long until it becomes acceptable for marriage of people and their pets, beastiality as a religious practice, the harming of children and child brides/grooms?
Once the line is crossed, how long until enough people rise up and say “Enough, no more,” and take the stand to restore what should be, and what is morally right?
Report Post »50BMG
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 10:59amThe door can’t be closed voluntarily. Instead, society will eventually collapse in on itself, and go through a period of darkness, before a renaissance.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:06amWhy not allow multiple wives or husbands ?
Report Post »Are we not Free ????
Of course not, Religion has always been there to
control and enslave the masses
That is the only reason the Oligarchy of demons allow Religion to
survive all these years.
booger71
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:11amWhat about marrying little boys and girls like Moohamed did.
Report Post »sooner12
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:14amI see the coming of the second Sodom and Gommorrah.
Report Post »JGraham III
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:23amThe can of worms was opened a long time ago. The relevance of what the Church in America thought or said began to pass in the early 20th century when the subversion of the Church’s role in every day life was begun. The Communist/Progressive movement found that it was far easier to make a communist into a minister than it was to convert a minister into a communist. These supplanters of the Truth moved into the seminaries and Bible colleges and started to ‘educate’ the students, making them into ‘two-fold the children of Hell than themselves’. That is why we now have a “reverend” Wright, a “reverend” Wallis, etc etc etc. I suspect the average denominational church goer has little or nothing to say about moral standards for their own teachers/leaders because they never get taught how to discern the wolves from the sheep.
Report Post »Now that the genie is out of the bottle on marriage, there is no secular way of putting it back unless God forbid we fall under the control of a fanatical theocracy like Islam. The Church went to sleep on so many things in the early 20th century. Moral standards being one; another is the issue of welfare. the Church sat by and allowed the government to take welfare over. The Church needs to wake up and again become salt and light to the world instead of trying to become acceptable by “fitting in”. The world will never accept the Church on its own terms. We can only change the world by changing the hearts and minds of people one person; one family at
Carol Ingian
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 11:27amI agree, sooner12.
Report Post »The church and all others who are against gays ,do not need to apologize to anyone.
They will get increasingly vocal if they know we will back down. I’m not afraid of being called homophobe. they are going against God.
jb.kibs
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:01pmyeah, because no animals in nature mate for life… yeah.. that just never happens.. what are we insects? well i guess some are…
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on July 10, 2011 at 12:04pmlet’s see here.. if we even have to tell you why you should have discipline in your life.. then you obviously are never going to understand. so, don’t bother. just do what you want, good luck to those that have no responsibility or discipline, they will reap what they sow.
Report Post »