To the Editor: Pastor responds to letter on same-sex marriage
Written by John Randall   
Wednesday, 06 June 2012 09:26
A recent contributor wrote: "I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage is a matter of justice and equality," and (we say in our church), "It is not who you love, only that you love." In these statements is the crux of the conversation about homosexual marriage. Implicit is the heretical conviction that we have been given license to define what love is. God's love is grounded in holiness and sovereignty. Blessings are predicated on faith and obedience. To paraphrase my drill instructor: "If God wants your opinion, He'll give it to you." And He has. Homosexuals are fully deserving of the common respect and dignity due all people. But God has clearly and repeatedly said that homosexual practice is aberrant to the created order. Whether same-sex attraction is genetic or learned is immaterial. It's physical fulfillment is forbidden by scripture, and any church which rejects the authority of scripture is a house without a foundation.
Is it unfair that blind people can't drive and little people aren't chosen for professional football? Is it fair that the sick and elderly must learn to forgo certain activities because of their health? Pedophiles may genuinely love the children they seduce, but we prohibit them from doing what seems 'natural' to them. There are lonely Christian singles to whom God may never grant a 'soul-mate.' No one gets everything they want, no matter how sincerely, desperately or naturally we desire it. The true Christian surrenders everything to Christ, including his or her desires, hopes, disappointments, and even understanding. We do so in the confidence that no sacrifice is asked for without a divine reason, and never goes unnoticed or unrewarded. Jesus promised that anything we give up will ultimately be made up, that God will "restore the years the locusts have eaten." To call oneself "Reverend" and then deprecate the "old ways" of God is close to Phariseeism - a show religion lacking understanding, genuine faith, or love for God. Jesus says of them, "You err, knowing neither the scripture not the power thereof."
John Randall, pastor
Sugar Ridge Community Church
Bowling Green
 

Comments  

 
# 2012-06-06 09:51
Two things make me frothing mad at this letter. First, Mr. Randall skips around the fact that his firm and unquestionable interpretation of scripture and is actually hotly contested by many people who are deeply immersed in scripture, including Bishop Desmond Tutu. Appealing to one's drill instructor conveys little confidence that Mr. Randall understands the civic values of a democratic socirty. Secondly, likening the rejection of gays by god to "unfairness" commonly and practically encountered in life and to raise the dog whistle of pedophilia is a pernicious and unchristian bad-faith argument. The blind and sick were explicitly ministered to by Christ; but Mr. Randall just shrugs that it is merely "unfair" that GLTB people will be forever alienated from God's love.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 13:36
Thank you for your eloquent rebuttal Mr. Williams. I for one appreciate your comments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-11 09:10
Read comments here and you understand why people are increasingly being turned off by "religion."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 09:55
It is also disappointing that Mr. Randall, a pastor, doesn't understand what the pharisees were: they were keepers of religious law who opposed Jesus for violating the letter of the law but loudly proclaimed their own self-righteousness for all to see, masking whatever hypocrisy they may have internally possessed. It is Mr. Randall who is the pharisee here, and by his attack on a pastor of a different denomination for lacking "understanding" and abusing the title "Reverend," he is in effect calling out pastors even within the BG community as being false (especially if they follow the trends of ELCA, the Episcopal Church, and PC-USA), as well as prominent Christians around the world (like Tutu) who are progressives on this issue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 12:30
Thanks for your response. Actually, I wrestled with using the term Pharisee. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for believing they were keeping God's law, when in fact they either didn't understand it, distorted it, or added to it, which I believe applies. There were some genuinely righteous Pharisees like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. John
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 14:44
I appreciate your response, Pastor Randall. The important point, about which we agree, is that the Pharisees saw their role as keeping God's law, but for whatever reason (depending on context) did not live up to the law or misunderstood. In any case, Jesus was always using basic, first principles to trump the observation of the letter of the law, when the letter seemed to have become detached from those first pcinciples. I believe we need therefore to exercise due humility before stating with certainty exactly how God's word is to be interpreted--especially when so many of the Levitican prohibitions have been superseded even within our most observant churches.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 10:16
What an ugly, hateful, Un-American letter. Thank you for your opinion, but not everyone believes in your god or your "truth". Your justification for denying tax paying law abiding citizens a basic civil right saddens and sickens me. Pedophilia? Really? We are talking about consensual adults. You are correct that not everyone gets what they want---I only pray that you fall into that category.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 16:18
Quoting flanoggin:
--I only pray that you fall into that category.

Pray?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 07:18
Are you insinuating that support of same-sex marriage is incompatible with prayer? Are you calling out the congregations that support same-sex unions in our area (the Unitarian Universalist Church is not the only one) as non-Christian?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 12:03
Christopher!
He is praying something bad happens to someone. You are smarter then that, I hope?
You are always trying to paint people in a bad light, that don't agree with your minority view points.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 06:10
I did not interpret flanoggin's vague statement as wishing ill on Pastor Randall, but rather wishing that Pastor Randall's interpretation that gays are alienated from God not be true. I'm not sure how you define your sample group in which my views are "minority" viewpoints. Support of gay marriage in the U.S. currently stands at about 53%, but civil rights for minorities would not exist if left up to opinion polls. In a culture where over 40% don't believe in basic operating theories of science (geological age, evolution, for instance), I don't entrust my view of the world to popularity. Lots of people may be ignorant, but their numbers do not make them more credible.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 12:33
Thanks for your response. As to your first question, no. As to the second, emphatically yes. Everything and anything is subject for prayer as God cares about every and any aspect of our lives. Best wishes, John
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 22:27
Mr. Randall, if you would enlighten me then. I am a Christian, and yet I am diametrically opposed to your viewpoints. My question to you is this, are the homosexuals that you speak of born homosexual? This really seems to be the lynchpin of the hatred movement. It seems in your original message that you are awknowledging that these folks are born with a genetic attraction towards their own sex. Why then would your God (and I say your, because I have a feeling your guy is different than my guy) build one of his own this way, and then damn them for being so? Does that make any sense to you? My God is not petty or spiteful in that way.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 06:11
emphatically yes... So, First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green are not Christians?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 12:31
Thanks for you response. I agree that my remarks only apply to those who claim to share the Christian faith, not unbelievers. Best wishes, John
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 06:13
The problem, though, is that your letter extrapolates a particular and not universally accepted interpretation of Scripture as a truth that applies to all society. Absolutely no one has suggested that churches recognize or perform same-sex marriages or even commitment ceremonies (which are all that are currently legal in Ohio).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 10:47
"But God has clearly and repeatedly said..."

What a bunch of ..... Yeah Sugar Ridge Community Church just marginalized itself.

More hate speech. The same arguments were used against interracial marriage.

The bible is a myth, NOT a codex for ethics. Mr. Randall is also very very bad at interpreting any of it. What are you afraid of Mr. Randall? that Xtianity will no longer have a stranglehold on how our relationships interact with our system of governance?

Love was around long before the god of Judeo-Xtianity was made up.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 06:22
I would disagree with your statement that the bible is not a codex for ethics. I think it very much is, but that is where the challenge lies. Many of the specific laws about behavior reflect the values of a separatist community over 1000 BCE, and others in the NT reflect a troubled eastern Mediterranean culture 2000 years ago. It is curious that the prohibitions on homosexuality are cherry-picked as still relevant when the vast majority of the other Levitican laws are rejected as meaningless. But the Ten Commandments and the idea of the Golden Rule have strong echoes and support in most other world religions, as well as in secular definitions of ethics. I agree though: love--not just for procreation--pre-dates modern religion; it is also what religion aspires to.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 12:58
Well, your disagreement confuses me as you say, "the Ten Commandments and the idea of the Golden Rule have strong echoes and support in most other world religions, as well as in secular definitions of ethics."

My assertion that the Bible is not a relevant code of Ethics is precisely based on the things you observed (namely: "Many of the specific laws about behavior reflect the values of a separatist community over 1000 BCE, and others in the NT reflect a troubled eastern Mediterranean culture 2000 years ago. It is curious that the prohibitions on homosexuality are cherry-picked as still relevant when the vast majority of the other Levitican laws are rejected as meaningless.")

(cont'd)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 12:58
(cont'd)
If other systems have had the same basic rules (e.g., Golden Rule, etc.) and yet are not always considered relevant when they are attached to a mythology, what makes the Bible any better?

So, sure... the Bible is a codex for ethics, but it is an outdated one especially considering it's brutal and backward historical context.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 15:21
To clarify my point: I believe that the life and teachings of Jesus remain quite relevant, particularly in the way he challenged the complacency of his co-religionists, and these teachings focus with particular eloquence on the "basic rules" as you describe them. In this respect, Christianity itself can be quite relevant, but not the Christianity that clings literalisticall y to Old Testament language forges in a bygone time, place, and context. One can't help but remember Mahandas Gandhi's famous phrase: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 19:56
You do realize that both testaments were 'forged' in bygone eras, so I shall not belabor that point for you. The Council of Nicea in 325 where your new testament was written really was not a group of people whose views are relevant today.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 12:25
DONT YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO THAN POST ON BLOGS?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 15:38
Good thing we have that wonderful thing in the USA called seperation of church and state. I don't care what your God says.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 16:56
mr. williams. you are do not know whate your talking about,being homosexual is a sin,and i thank mr. randall for his great letter we need more people like him.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 07:08
actually, you are showing here that you don't even know what Pastor Randall is talking about. At least he makes a distinction between what one does and what one is. "Being" anything cannot be sinful.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 09:03
No, we need LESS ignorance, bigotry and hate. You are sick.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-06 23:22
I would like to thank Pastor Randall for his gutsy letter. I think it is a diplomatic way for him to share his opinion. He does not criticize the gay people, but he explains why gay marriage is not acceptable to many of us. I thought his examples were excellent.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 07:52
Best remark on this post!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 09:03
Diplomatic bigotry is not at all commendable.

Smooth-talking hate is NOT a valid argument for hate.

Published ignorance is not something to be proud of or defend, either!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 10:52
You disagree with same sex marriage, the day may come that the societal view is only 'missionary position' is acceptable, and people look at you to see if you engage in a more Kama Sutra arrangement. Tsk Tsk, shame on you for liking some variety. The people who rallied against racial rights in the 50's and 60's look like idiots to us now, and your grandchildren will view you the same way. They will ask "How was my Grandpa such a small minded bigot?" I am certain that no one has asked Pastor Randall to engage in any man on man sex, so what is his concern? Judge not, Mr. Randall, judge not. (P.S., Its not contagious, you cannot become gay by standing next to a homosexual anymore than you can become rich by standing next to a millionaire, so unless you already have some homosexual leanings, you have nothing to fear.)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 10:53
I could not agree with you more. Hate is hate, no matter how much sugar you pour over it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 22:21
Entitled to his opinion, sure. Entitled to get laughed at and made to look foolish because of the opinion, definitely! Thats my opinion, and I am entitled to that as well!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 07:15
It might be worth pointing out--as it has been, tediously, again and again--that same-sex marriage is a civil ceremony and contract, not a religious one. No church has been required to perform gay marriages, and if pastors choose to perform them that is a matter for themselves and their congregations; it is not up to people who are not members of their congregations to judge.

The arguments used against gay marriage are EXACTLY the same ones once used against interracial marriage. Furthermore, scriptural arguments cannot and should not be used against civil marriages of any sort, not just because of the separation of church and state, but because the same arguments would also apply against interfaith marriage. I know some of you think that only Christians matter in America, but do you really want to go there?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 11:56
Thanks Christopher, I agree with your reasoning and comments. People seem to be able to pick whatever they want out of the Bible. It condemns homosexuality? It also gives approval of slavery and domestic abuse.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 11:01
The Bible also states that the punishment for a disobedient son is to "drag him to the gates of the village where the men of the village will stone him until dead". Same goes for a wife suspected of adultery, a daughter suspected of some minor infraction, and the village idiot who talks too much. (Deuteronomy) If we were to follow the word of Bible to its fullest, stones would be flying like mosquitoes in the swamp. "Thank God" not everyone is a Christian.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 14:12
Pastor Randall is stating that we love the sinner but not the sin. The Bible is replete with commandments to abstain from the sins of the flesh. It is possible to love someone dearly and not have sex with him or her. To say that homosexual love is deserving of marriage is NOT in keeping with God's law and commandments and attempts to frustrate His holy plan of coming to this earth to be tested and to belong to a family. Families can be defined as many things but they do not begin without a MOTHER and a FATHER. Children are not BORN to homosexual couples for a reason.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 14:55
The sticking point, of course, lies with regarding homosexuality as a sin, in and of itself. If it is something that cannot be changed, or helped, and is, in a sense, hard-wired from a very early age--for whatever reason, developmental and/or genetic--then saying that people who are "born that way" can never act on who they are is deeply problematic, even on religious grounds. However, the biggest problem is that your reasoning could equally conclude that families are not families if they have a single parent (let alone two of the same sex), and that marriages are not legitimate if they do not lead to or are based on procreation. And that is just wrong.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-07 20:42
Darling... first, the condemnation regarding same-sex relationships come either from ancient Hebrew belief that the male held all of the matter needed to create life.

It's also why you see the death penalty for male masturbation, but *never* hear of a preacher of hate promote *that*, do you?

Secondly, all of the others comes from the beliefs of *one* man, Paul. A man raised as a Roman of his day, which had a strict social structure based on the Empire's mores on behavior based on gender.

Since we know that lesbians and gays have perfectly working reproductive systems, and NONE of the Empire's outdated beliefs no longer are in force, that means you have NOTHING to use against us.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 06:28
and Jesus himself is not recorded as having said anything at all about homosexuality, one way or another. His command to love one another, even or especially when it was difficult is, however, unambiguous, as is his displeasure with those who clung to old laws rather than the higher truths of the Judaism he was seeking to reform.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 07:32
(Yawwwnnnn.) Go back and read some more Freud. Funny how no one cared about homosexuality until he came out with warped psychological theories on sex.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 09:48
1. factually untrue.
2. I doubt most of the people posting on this blog have the vaguest idea about Freud or his relevance/not to this issue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 13:01
Well, it *IS* true that Freud's psycho-sexual theories are completely debunked and are really quite warped.

Do you mean that is is untrue that no one cared before that? That probably is untrue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 15:08
yes, that is what I meant. You can look at the trial of Oscar Wilde and responses to other artists who identified as homosexual (Tchaikovsky) to see that people were aware of it. My guess, based on other blog comments by "Seriously,...." is that he might be saying the entire issue of homosexuality is a product of warped sexual theories, and thus it has no legitimacy as a subject of concern or defense. But, I could be wrong.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-11 09:00
No, homosexuality is not a product of warped sexual theories. People's opinions on homosexuality is the product of warped sexual theories.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-11 10:41
Which of the opinions are warped, in your opinion? That was why I found your post ambiguous. Usually when I encounter someone complaining about Freud in connection with this topic, it is also a complaint about the APA and other organizations of psychologists, and that usually means that they find the acceptance of homosexuality to be warped, and the condemnation preferred and normal.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 12:35
The U.S. Constitution doesn't address this matter so it must be a state issue. The State constitution can be changed by the people. My church doesn't recognize a civil marriage as real, only one performed by it's ordained priests so sexual orientation shouldn't even come up. So it comes down to seperation of church and state again. If your faith teaches it's not permitted and members disregard your teachings the church involved can excomunicate the members. Since we are talking a civil marriage, it's up to the people to decide what is legal and what isn't. If the people want to impose the values of their church on others it will become a legal matter to decide if it violates the establishment clause. To think this all came about because a sick and dieing person couldn't have their best friend care for them. Dishearting isn't it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:09
Sorry, darling, but the rights of the people are to be NEVER voted on by the mob! *That* is why we have a Constitution!

Because a marriage is an interstate contract, is certainly *does* come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses *requires* that *everyone's* rights are equal. The Due Process clause insures that the restrictions of said rights goes through the *courts*, NOT the ballot box!

Please read the history of the Loving v Virginia case as to the fallacy of state's rights when it comes to marriage.

You even bring up an example as to why the federal courts have *repeatedly* ruled against the bans on DOMA and it's bastard children in the states.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 13:10
Just something to contemplate: I know many homosexual men and women. I have nothing against them and do not judge them. Judgment is left to God. But, truthfully, to say that being homosexual is "hardwired" is something that needs to be examined. Every single person I know who now says that they are homosexual has been married at one time or another and most of them have children. If they had been so "hardwired," why were they ever attracted sexually enough to commit to marriage to someone of the opposite sex and to have children? Hardwired? I don't think so. The evidence is to the contrary.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 14:11
Why don't you ask your "friends"? I think you are lying. There is NO evidence that one's personal and psychological identity is a "choice" and that is EXACTLY what you are implying. there are PLENTY of people who live many many years in a lifestyle that is incompatible with their identity. Actually the overwhelming evidence from the behavioral and social sciences indicates that enforced social norms often override an individual's identity expression. THAT is the actual evidence. Identity IS hardwired, behavior is not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 15:13
I would be willing to bet that if you had a deep conversation with any of these people, they would admit having doubts and concerns about their sexuality even when they were married or dating the opposite sex. And they may admit that these doubts went to their early childhood. Judging from many posts in the Sentinel on the topic, it must be far from easy to grow up gay, or even to entertain the possibility that one is gay growing up, particularly if a person was born before 1980 (since there has been a generational change in attitudes). Add into that all the churches proclaiming that the "lifestyle" is sinful and suggesting that it can be prayed away, and what you observe is hardly surprising.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:21
Look up the research, love.

Beginning in *1958* with Dr. Evelyn Hooker, study after study has proven without a shadow of a doubt that both gender identity and sexual orientation is hardwired, just like handedness.

I'm both transgender and lesbian. I *knew* I was born in the wrong body by the time I was nine years old, love.

I knew long before I even read magazine articles on people like Christine Jorgensen, Renee Richards, and Jan Morris.

Please remember that the majority of people are bisexual to a certain point, and that sexual orientation is a spectrum.

Furthermore, there was enormous pressure to conform back in the 1950s, which carries on to this day. The more people who tell the conformists to go to hell, the better off this country will be!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-11 00:53
It is true that all organisms are inherently bisexual at the earliest stages of development. Even after chromosomal placement, human sexual characteristics and gender identity (these are different things, of course) develop much later.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 13:38
There are Christians on both sides of this issue. That said, the Bible clearly opposes homosexuality. Paul called it an abomination, and called homosexuals the same as murderers, drunkards, and dark wizards (seriously). That's just the New Testament. The Old Testament's words on the topic are downright barbaric.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-08 21:31
Why can't the homosexual couples be content with legal domestic partnerships? Why does it have to be "married?" They live a deviant lifestyle and then push and push for the rest of us to accept it and make it a sacrament so they will feel "normal." What's next?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 08:43
several problems with your reactions: 1. if you "accepted" it, there would be no need for them to "push and push." In fact, that you see it as pushing shows that you don't accept it, much as your characterizatio n of it as "a deviant lifestyle." 2. marriage imparts a dignity to the relationship, social and legal, that domestic partnerships do not. Also domestic partnerships are far more liable to political and legal reversals in our current climate. For instance, the NC referendum just passed negated and dissolved all the domestic partnerships as well; Michigan passed a law prohibiting universities from offering benefits to partners in domestic partnerships. I used to think that the d.p.s were enough, too, but I have seen too many of those reversals to buy it anymore.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 14:31
Quoting Cant Help Myself:
Why can't the homosexual couples be content with legal domestic partnerships? Why does it have to be "married?" They live a deviant lifestyle and then push and push for the rest of us to accept it and make it a sacrament so they will feel "normal." What's next?


And that would be another point to make in this discussion: why is it so necessary to PUSH the "alternative lifestyle?" I don't march in parades to bring attention to my heterosexuality nor to my other beliefs. I LIVE them and let others live theirs. To the person who felt it necessary to use quotes in referring to my "friends," I didn't write the word "friends." I wrote that I know people. The fact that they ARE my friends I didn't mention, though it is true. Identity comes through consistent behavior. We are what we DO.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 20:05
So many ways to show the hetero-elite comfort of Mr. 'down the pike' but this kind of privileged ignorance is beneath contempt. SOME people do not get to "live" their lifestyle because they are oppressed.

Enjoy "living" your lifestyle in comfort as a member of a privileged dominant culture. You will never understand how your attitude enables bigotry to thrive in the status quo.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 20:11
Question: do you regard homosexuals behaving in public in the manner that heterosexuals do "pushing" their lifestyles on you? There are no gay pride parades in Wood County. The gay people I know simply desire to be treated exactly the same way anyone else is treated as a matter of basic human decency and respect. They are not attempting to get married in any churches that don't welcome it and, currently, Ohio law does not permit it in any case. All that currently exist are anti-discrimination ordinances, on a community-by-community basis. Human beings deserve to be treated equally. Why can't people keep their judgment to themselves or just within their churches?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:43
Honey, you hets flaunt your sexuality in *every* medium every day! You don't need a bloody parade!

Songs on the radio. Movies and TV shows. Wedding rings and pictures placed in plain view on desk or locker. Engagement pictures and wedding announcements in the local paper.

Try living as an oppressed minority, and maybe you'll gain a little empathy for those of us who have to live under the thumb of benign bigots like you. Then maybe you'll understand!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-13 15:57
Women had to march to get rights.
Blacks had to march to get rights.
Gays have to march to get rights.
I understand many people fully disagree with that lifestyle, but having known many gays, they did not "choose" to be gay, God made them that way and God loves them. You need to accept all of God's creations. Give all people equality and they won't need to march.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:13
Why does it have to be married for heterosexual couples? How about this, just to keep these gays separate, we'll call gay unions Marriage, and heterosexual unions domestic partnerships. You said yourself, why does it have to be "married", right?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:38
Ever hear of the Fourteenth Amendment, love? You know... the one that *requires* equal treatment before the law?

DPs are the equivalent to black schools in the 1960s -- one of the lynchpins in killing off the "separate but equal" laws the south held.

DPs as well as civil unions are not enforceable outside of the state they're drawn up in. Durable Power of Attorney papers have been routinely been *ignored* by medical personnel, *despite* the fact it IS a contract they're *required* to follow!

Sorry, darling, but either *everyone* has the right to marry (with the few legal restrictions we all know exist!) or NO ONE has!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-10 08:26
Pau7l also called women wearing men's clothing and women speaking up in the church and being supervisors over men an abomination too, precious!

Paul was a Roman male raised in a society which worshiped masculinity. The Roman legions to further emasculate a defeated army ritualistically raped them.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians condemned men who were prostitutes for pagan fertility temples, thus a double taboo for this religious zealot.

You, like every other unquestioning fool has yet to look at your book in its historical, cultural and sociological context. Try doing *than* and maybe... just *maybe* you'll have your eyes, heart and mind open up.

I know your pastor will hate you for that, though!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-11 01:01
Plus, those pagan fertility temples were the repository of accumulated knowledge from the classical world. They were destroyed by Xtians during the Byzantine Period.

Destroying a culture and a history is not a model of behavior any modern society should adopt.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 11:23
Thank you, Pastor Randall, for a letter well written and full of truth. I support you wholeheartedly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-09 19:59
Donna, you are in a shrinking minority on the wrong side of history.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-12 17:43
That is very unfortunate for the future of this country..........
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-13 07:55
Donna, darling -- perverted racists said the same bloody thing when the calls for racial equality began to be heard.

Aren't you glad to be compared with the Klan, sweetie?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-13 09:49
Why is it unfortunate to not be on the wrong side of history? It is really a very very good thing. You should join us!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-13 11:17
I think if you compare the US with countries around the world with strong and their policies toward homosexuality in civil society (i.e. in society apart from life within religious communities), you may wish to reevaluate your opinion. Whose side of history do you want to be on? Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Israel, Sweden (which legally perform or recognize gay marriage)? Or places that ban gay marriage, like Iran, Uganda, Nigeria, etc.. I think one problem that many of those who feel that tolerance for homosexuality is damning for our society is that they really don't think that there IS a society apart from their own religious world. That is why the call for tolerance and acceptance is seen as an attack on their religious beliefs.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-13 16:22
Israel allows gay marriage?!?!?

Tell that to the Zionist Xtian bible-thumpers who blindly support that government.

Talk about contradictions, wow!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-14 06:56
They recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. I do not think that they have reached the point of performing them in-country. There is a secular side of Israel that is not very pleasing to Zionist Christians and Messianic Jews, to say nothing of the ultra-orthodox, and, as uncomfortable as it may seem to say, this secular side is one of the things that provokes the greatest resentment in extremist elements among their neighbors. People pay lots of lip-service to being supportive of Israel while doing so in complete bad faith; try engaging a Christian Zionist in a rational conversation about their attitudes toward Judaism itself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-15 18:11
BEHAVIOR:
WRONG--WRONG** WRONG...
Can you not handle the truth...HELLO!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-16 06:59
I remember when people said the same thing about interracial marriage and dating. Who are you to deny the civil rights of consenting adults who love each other? Who are you to say that because your religion causes you to disapprove of something, that people must be made to live in the shadows and deny themselves? Are you without sin that you can throw stones? There is increasing scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a "choice," that it is the product of complex processes that are set even before the person hits puberty; it can then neither be a "sin" nor "wrong". They commit no offense within your church. Leave them alone.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-17 13:54
Gay Pride is here to stay!
Can you not handle the truth?!?!? Hello!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

NOTE: Comments are moderated. Comments have a 800 character limit! Comments are not posted until reviewed by Sentinel staff. Depending on the time of day you submit comments there may be a delay in posting to the website. If you see a comment that you think needs our attention, please e-mail hbrown@sentinel-tribune.com.


Front Page Stories

BG redistricting lines blurred
05/22/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor
article thumbnail

A map shows the proposed boundaries for the 2013-2014 school year.
The Bowling G [ ... ]


+ Full Story
 North Baltimore residents protest removal of 125 trees
05/22/2013 | JORDAN CRAVENS Sentinel Staff Writer
article thumbnail

NORTH BALTIMORE - A group of village residents are concerned their utility bills will  [ ... ]


+ Full Story
Other Front Page Articles