CNN finally gets the Gay Agenda RIGHT!


Finally CNN presents a voice of reason and of calm to the argument discriminating against Marriage. Billy Graham has spoken up for MARRIAGE.

It is about time. But, I think it may be too late.

Why? Because if it had any chance of derailing their agenda, CNN would not publish the true news.

Isn’t that sad? You and I know that to be true. But, they still label their agenda as news. And they push it on everyone else.

Even though they KNOW marriage is better for society. The KNOW marriage is better for children. They KNOW discriminating against marriage is BAD.

It may be too late, but at least they are finally admitting the truth.

What do you think?

Can the next generation of children hope to have a father in their family?  In their lives?  Can they hope to have a mother who loves them as well?

Can we still save marriage?

Or, should we give up on marriage?

Is it too old-fashioned for you?

Do you want to discriminate against marriage?


About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Culture, God, Marriage, News, People, Politics, Religion, Society. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to CNN finally gets the Gay Agenda RIGHT!

  1. Pingback: What do MY readers want to read? | luvsiesous

  2. “My Religion founded America.”

    See, I took this crazy thing called “history” in school. Let me point to the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796. “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” Huh, seems to be saying the complete opposite.

  3. I am an atheist, as is my ex-husband. We were married, with no religon playing a part in that. Did that discriminate against you? Did that affect your religious freedom? Did that force you to deny your religion? Did that destroy your church, prevent you from attending church, prevent you from living your religion, or anything else? Did my marriage hurt you in any way?

  4. joesix says:

    Wayne, my friend, I’ve come up with the perfect solution for you. You seem intent on preserving the “definition” of marriage — I didn’t realize you were that serious about the literal definition. So, why don’t Christian fundamentalists just use a different word? Why not use the original word? חתונה or “hatuna” is the Hebrew word first used in the Bible to define the covenant you find so sacrosanct. Of course, by using this word and promoting the most traditional form of marriage, you would also have to allow the traditional practice of domestic abuse, polygamy, and incest.

    • Wayne says:

      Actually those practices you seem to admire are banned in the Bible …. along with homosexuality.

      Usually in the same verses.

      • Wayne says:

        The Bible.

        If you haven’t read it, goto .

        And as for history recording sin, and your evidently stating that recording sin is a failure of the culture, what do you do about Clinton?


      • joesix says:

        I’ve read the Bible and come across these gems about חתונה :

        Chronicles 4:5 — And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

        Genesis 25:1 — Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

        Genesis 4:17 — And Cain knew his wife [his sister], and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch.

        Genesis 20:12 — Howbeit, otherwise also she is truly my [Abraham’s] sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife.

        Exodus 21:7 — And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

        Exodus 21:10 — If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

        Leviticus 19:20 — And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

        Numbers 5:19 — And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse.

        Deuteronomy 22:13-15 — If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her. And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, “I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid.” Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.

        Deuteronomy 22:22-24 — If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

        Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on [rape] her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

        A lot of this stuff wouldn’t even be allowed on HBO today. I’ve found dozens more passages like this, far outnumbering all excerpts referring to homosexuality. I don’t understand the jump from Biblical marriage to Bill Clinton, though I eagerly await your reasonable explanation.

      • Wayne says:

        You just read the Bible? Or, you used a search engine?

        Much of the Bible is history. The culture was not good towards women.

        Thank God, God made it better for women.

        Too bad progressives are making it worse for women.


      • joesix says:

        I studied the Bible every Sunday morning at Temple Kol Ami Religious School from the age of 9 to 15. I did find those specific excerpts from a quick Google search, but I doubt I would find any difference from the search engine you linked to.

        I am still curious to see the passages you referred to that apparently ban domestic abuse, polygamy, and incest. I assume they’re from the New Testament, which would seem to support my claim that our cultural attitudes about marriage have (and must) evolved as bigotry, sexism, and violence are revealed to be the sins they are. Thank God for making progressives to ensure equal pay, equal opportunities, and equal protection for all women.

      • Wayne says:

        Actually, it was Judeo-Christian ethics which brought about good pay, equality, etc.

        The progressives took over the agenda and then went further.

        They try to eliminate God, equality, or responsibility from Judeo-Christian ethics ….


        Actually, I only use the search engines to find things when I don’t have my study bible handy. Anything worth re-finding is well marked.

        Nice things happen when you read the Bible multiple times in multiple languages ….

        Polygamy is the only one I do not remember directly mentioned. But, since the Bible spends quite a bit of time discussing marriage as a singular couple, as opposed to the cultural tendencies of the time for plural marriage, I think that is a strong indicator.

        As to the rest, those are clearly marked. Incest was banned directly. Although, I don’t think it went as far as first cousins. I haven’t looked at that in a while.

        Treatment of women was generally much better in the Old Testament than in the culture around the Jews. Women were treated badly accept by the Jews and then the Christians as well.

        Just visit an Asian, or Muslim country for a quick comparison.


    • joesix says:

      I am still curious to see the passages you referred to that apparently ban domestic abuse, polygamy, and incest.

      I am even more interested in the passages about equal pay laws. Orthodox Jews and Christian extremists treat women slightly better than most cultures in the Muslim cultures I’ve lived in, but much worse than the Asian countries I’ve lived in.

      You seem to be implying that Judeo-Christian cultures didn’t follow the laws of marriage defined by the Bible. Why then are you so intent on following its laws on homosexuality when those are mentioned much less than heterosexuality?

      • Wayne says:


        I have lived in Asian countries. And I did NOT see women treated ‘well.’ They were respected. And where Christian influence was around, they were treated much better.

        I told you I don’t think there was a specific passage on polygamy, but, David & Solomon both gave great examples of what results from Polygamous marriages.

        A mess.

        Incest Lev 18.

        Domestic abuse was not singled out. But, it was wrong to even strike someone. And the “eye for an eye” would apply even to your wife.

        Your claim reads like the Bible instructed men to abuse their wives. Is that what you are trying to imply?


      • joesix says:

        I am still curious to see the passages you referred to that apparently ban domestic abuse, polygamy, and incest.

        Judeo-Christian religions did an okay job of preaching a kind of morality for the past few thousand years. But it’s 2012 and our culture has moved beyond the oversimplified logic of “be good or burn in Hell.” is a popular website that lets people give micro-loans to aspiring business owners all over the world for no (or little) interest. The most generous bunch of lenders is a group called “Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious.” Humanity can get along just fine without Judeo-Christian religions, and I can think of nowhere more apt to illustrate that than here in South Korea where the majority of people are either non-religious or Buddhist. The Bible goes past “an eye for an eye” and actually promotes “an eye for suspecting your wife is having an affair.” Secular culture defends the rights of all far beyond anything the Bible claims to do, especially when it’s full of laws like this:

        “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on [rape] her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

        Any book that defends rape lost all credibility 2,000 years ago. I’m sure if you really tried, you could find those excerpts that contradict many of the other barbaric laws regarding חתונה, but even that would only prove my point that cultural attitudes change as naturally as the wind blows.

      • Wayne says:

        Cultural attitudes seldom change ‘naturally.’

  5. Pingback: North Carolina’s Traditional Marriage Amendment Likely to Pass | THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE

  6. Daz says:

    You want me to deny my Religion.

    No, I want you to acknowledge that not everyone shares your particular religious beliefs, and that the principle of religious freedom denies you, and them, the right to force each of your religious precepts on each other. Including views on gay marriage.

    In the work place, in school, in relationships, and in how taxes are spent.

    And none of these things are damaged by same-sex marriage.

    And in the military,

    My own country has allowed homosexuals to serve whilst being openly gay for years now, as have many others, to no detrimental effect.

    and in how children get abused

    Homosexual ≠ paedophile.

    I personally would have deep misgivings about accepting a report on such a contentious matter—especially dating from a time when many homosexuals would deliberately lie to cover up their sexuality—which claims accuracy to half a percent. I suspect had the report been made in, say, the early 70s, more accurate data might have been produced.

    Lack of female companionship? Just how, outside of growing up in a monastery, does one achieve such a thing?

    • Daz says:

      A note about that 0.5% figure.

      if we survey 1,000 people, 0.5% is ten people. If only ten people lied to cover up their sexuality for fear of repercussion, then the real incidence of homosexuality goes up to 1%. I’d find it quite amazing if at least ten people in a thousand didn’t lie. There’s just no way we could honestly claim an error-bar that narrow.

      • Daz says:

        oops, 0.5% is five people. (I’ve been up all night, the brain’s gone fuzzy.) Only five in a thousand need to lie to throw our result out by half a percent. Ridiculous accuracy! I wouldn’t base research on cat-food preferences on that, let alone try to argue a case of lawmaking on it.

      • Wayne says:


        All statistics are done that way.


      • Wayne says:

        You have hit on it! That is the answer!

        All the people who say they are ‘gay’ are lying.

        C’mon? My Religion is a Constitutional REASON. Guessing is what?

        Study Kinsey. I didn’t like him. But, he was ground breaking. Then there are newer studies, ‘gayness’ is on the rise.

        It is the new black they say.

      • Daz says:

        Wayne, I know how statistics are done. I took maths. What I’m saying is that a claim of accuracy to within 0.5% on ,em>any survey is dubious at best. Such a claim when the subject is one where people have a vested interest in lying, where they might be fearful of repercussion, is ridiculous.

        As for your ‘they must be lying’, think about it. No one is going to lie and say they are gay, which might lead to repercussion, but plenty are likely to say they aren’t for that very reason. The results will always be skewed so that the number of gay people is ‘officially’ lower than it in fact is.

        All of which is beside the point.

        You have no case, bar a personal religiously-based bias which isn’t even shared by the majority of Christians, which you feel should be enforced by law onto other people who don’t share your belief.

        You can’t, and haven’t tried to justify this position, but merely fall back on a vague and unsubstantiated claim that it damages your religion when people who are not of your religion do things you don’t like.

        You wouldn’t want their religious beliefs and practices forced onto you by law, but you’re perfectly happy to have yours forced onto them.

        There’s a name for people who act in such ways, Wayne. Bigots.

      • Wayne says:


        I am honest to my faith and my history.

        You are not even honest to your own math.

        That is worse than being what did you say I was, a bigot? Wow. Talk about intimidation for telling the truth.

        How can gay people tell a lie, and you support them, but I tell the truth, and you call me a bigot?


      • Daz says:

        Where is my maths dishonest? To claim that five or more people in a thousand might lie because of fear of repercussion (think about homosexuals were viewed and treated in the 1950s) is not dishonest. To note that the result gives a range from 0.5 to 1%, thereby claiming an accuracy to within 0.5%, ie five people in a thousand, is not dishonest. To note that the claim of such accuracy, especially in the face of a very good reason for people to cover up their sexuality, is dubious at best, and better described as ridiculous, is not dishonest.

        So tell me Wayne, where was I dishonest to my own maths?

        If you can’t see why people would lie about their sexuality where they have very good reason to fear ostracism, bullying, blackmail and murder (and possibly harassment by government forces, if they’re employed by the government—we’re talking McCarthy period, remember, and J Edgar Hoover’s anti-homosexual policies), then you need to take a reality check.

        And this whole thing about statistics and ‘why there are more gays now’ according to you, is a side-issue from the main point:

        I call you a bigot because you would force your beliefs and tenets on others, whilst not being willing to have theirs forced on you.

      • Wayne says:


        Because I believe in the last 400 years ….. You do not believe in the last 400 years. So, you magically believe homosexuals all lie.

        OK, they all lie. I agreed with you.

        And for that you stepped up the outrageous commentary and labeled me a bigot.

        I have been called ‘gay’ by your gay friends. So, bigot is a much nicer word in my vocabulary.

        So, why is it gays lie about themselves? Why is it they label other people ‘gay’ as if they themselves consider that the ultimate humiliation?


      • Daz says:

        You believe in the last 400 years? What does that even mean? You’re making no sense.

        Where did I say all homosexuals lie? I said that some—understandably, given the way they were/are treated—would lie to cover up their sexuality. If you don’t understand why, you need to think about what real persecution is. It’s not someone doing something you happen not to like, it’s people spitting at you in the street, crossing the road rather than walk near you, accusing you of paedophilia and other crimes, blackmailing you, beating you up, firing you from jobs, refusing to serve you in shops, denying you equal rights, killing you. All for merely existing, as you would put it, Wayne, the way God made you. Some of you Christians in the western countries like to make a show of being persecuted, but you’re none of you really persecuted at all, unlike gay people who most certainly are.

        I have no idea why someone would call you gay. And I don’t know why you’re asking me. Did you ask the person/people who called you it? Or are you just happy to damn all homosexuals on the basis of those who you believe insulted you?

      • Wayne says:

        Real persecution?

        Yes, I have been called queer many times by your gay friends …. So many, I cannot even count.

        I had to get over it.

        They can to.


      • Daz says:

        I have no idea why someone would call you queer, Wayne. Personally, were I homosexual, that last thing I’d want to do would be to give any impression that you had anything in common with me except the ability to breath.

        But really, you think that’s persecution on the same level that homosexuals have experienced over the years? You need a better imagination, matey.

        And just what is it that they should ‘get over’? Being denied their equal rights? Would you also say that Rosa Parks should have shut up and given her seat up?

      • Wayne says:


        Most social scientists believe there are 5 times as many men who were raped as boys as there are ‘Gays.’

        So, who is being denied their rights?

        Who is being victimized.

        You need a better reality.

        Victims should not have to become ‘gay’ in order to get past what you and others think is a CUTE social experiment.

        I don’t know what your hang up is about this, but children need real men standing up for them. The sexual assault rate has moved from around 5% to somewhere over 20% ….

        Actually the last number I saw was 30%, I just don’t want to believe that is true.

        PS Rosa Parks was not actively supporting an agenda hurting little children, was she?


      • Daz says:

        Wayne, let’s get something straight right here. ‘Homosexual’ does not mean ‘paedophile’.

        Adults who rape children are not homosexuals, they are paedophiles. They may be heterosexual paedophiles, they may be bisexual paedophiles or they may be homosexual paedophiles, but neither hetero- nor bi- nor automatically, or often, involves paedophilia. Often, especially with those who go for prepubescent children, they don’t even show a preference for either sex when choosing a victim, but I stress, that does not make all, or even a large percentage of bisexuals paedophiles.

        You need to learn some basic facts before spouting off.

      • Wayne says:


        Again, you want to re-define the words.

        Words have meant the same basic things in our culture for thousands of years.

        Now, you want to change that to protect the guilty.

        I won’t.

      • Daz says:

        That should read:

        “but neither hetero- nor bi- nor homosexuality automatically, or often, involves paedophilia.”

      • Wayne says:

        That is NOT what the studies indicate …..

        The studies indicate 50% or more show attraction issues.

        And I have talked with Homosexuals about their attractions ….. They were never


        They were, and probably still are



    • Daz says:

      Wayne, this conversation is over. You know nothing of the meaning words ‘paedophile’ or ‘homosexual’, preferring your own biases to reality. You also, I feel, know nothing of the words ‘truth,’ ‘honesty,’ ‘justice,’ or ‘civil rights’.

      I’m casting pearls before swine, and wasting my time here. You’ll never be open to reason. In the words of one as puritanical as you, but at least open to reason:

      I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
      Oliver Cromwell

    • Wayne says:


      Thanks for your comment.

      By changing the definition of marriage to include gays, you DO attack my religion. No traditional (historic) religion supports the new definition.

      I believe society is damaged by same sex marriage.

      I have seen the damage in the military. After asking me to present on PBS, PBS refused to acknowledge the facts, and I was not interviewed.

      About a fifth to a third of pedophiles self identify as ‘gay.’ And they abuse more children than those who identify as heterosexual ….

      Why should we deny studies because they disagree with your interpretation?


  7. Daz says:

    Please explain how two people of the same sex who marry can possibly affect, detrimentally or otherwise, the marriage of a heterosexual couple. How is the proposed treatment of homosexuals as human beings with all the same rights as other human beings “discriminatory” toward other human beings?

    On the contrary, I say that when all enjoy those rights, the rights become stronger, as all will have a personal stake in defending them.

    • Wayne says:

      Marriage is a religiously defined word.

      So, please explain why it should be re-defined by a secular populist movement?


      • Daz says:

        1: Marriage is a legal contract.

        2: Assuming you’re American, my understanding is that there are legal aspects in your country to marriage—the right to automatically inherit, for instance—which are not accrued to any purely secular partnership.

        3: Marriage as a purely religious institution is relatively recent. It certainly doesn’t go back to Biblical times, as many religionists claim.

        4: Traditional ≠ fair, just or right. It just means that’s the way granddad did it. Being forced, by social pressure or other means, to marry one’s rapist was ‘traditional’ for centuries. I hardly think you’d agree to anyone defending that on religious grounds, yet it was defended so, for many years.

        5: No one is redefining ‘marriage’. What is being redefined, in light of more humane values, is ‘who is eligible to be married’.

        6: Many religious people are pro same-sex marriage. In light of this, even if your claim of it being a religious institution was correct, your argument that same-sex marriage would somehow undermine the religious aspect would not hold water.

        You still haven’t explained how, as you stated in your reply to Sociallythinking, it is somehow discriminatory to heterosexuals. Discrimination is the singling out of a particular group and denying them certain rights. How are heterosexuals being singled out by same-sex marriage, and which of their rights are they being denied?

      • Wayne says:


        You are singling out the religious and the married and telling them it is ok for you to change their definition.

        That is why discrimination is such a bad thing. It is always working in small steps.



      • Daz says:

        How is the definition of a word detrimental to the actual institution of heterosexual marriage, and how is what you refer to as the redefinition of a word at all detrimental to the lives of heterosexual married couples?

        How does a non-heterosexual marriage in any way affect how a heterosexual couple live their lives?

      • Wayne says:

        Well, if it is not a big deal, why would you care? Isn’t that an interesting part of the whole discussion?

        Why would homosexual couples feel a need to have the word “marriage” re-defined.

        Wasn’t re-defining the word “gay” an accomplishment?


      • Daz says:

        Nicely turned around, but you have it backwards. Why on Earth should you care whether two people of he same sex marry or not? At the moment, you enjoy a legal right which is denied to them,. Therefore it is up to you to justify why your fellow human beings should enjoy fewer rights than you do.

        The slave, denied freedom, does not have to justify his wish for an equal right of freedom. It is the slaveholder who needs to justify his denial of the right of freedom to other human beings.

        A woman does not have to justify her wish to have an equal right to vote that a man has. It is for those who deny her that equal right to justify their position that she should be denied the rights that other human beings have.

        A lesbian, denied the equal right to marry the person of her choice, does not have to justify her wish to have the same right to marry that other human beings enjoy. It is for those who deny her that right to justify their contention that they be allowed to have rights that other human beings are denied.

        No one is forcing you, Wayne, to marry another man. No one is telling you that you cannot marry a woman. Unless you can show some actual harm that would automatically arise from same-sex marriage, you have no case. You have to do more to justify your denial of equal rights to your fellow human beings than a offer vague, and much contended even by your fellow religionists, assertion that God wouldn’t like it.

        It’s a big deal because a right to be treated equally is being withheld without sufficient justification.

        And you still haven’t explained how same sex marriage could affect, detrimentally or otherwise, to any real degree, the marriages of heterosexuals. Just exactly how would a heterosexual marriage, full of love and companionship, suddenly be devalued by a homosexual marriage? Would the hetero couple suddenly fall out of love and begin to hate the sight of each other, merely because a couple of gay men got hitched? Would the feeling of companionship suddenly disappear?

        I really want to know how you think it is that the hetero marriage could be deemed somehow less worthy or valuable because another couple enjoy the same feelings but happen to be of the same sex as each other.

      • Wayne says:

        Marriage is a religious concept …. it is NOT a secular concept. Just because the US government has un-Constitutionally done otherwise does not change my religious objections.

        It is against my Religion.


      • Daz says:

        Oops, disregard the italics in the first paragraph, I kinda mucked ’em up.

      • Daz says:

        Fine, it’s against your religion. In that case, don’t marry a man. Just don’t expect your country’s laws to force people who aren’t of your religion, or of your particular sect, to abide by the tenets of your religion or sect.

        The logic which says that, for instance, a homosexual Muslim should be forced by law to obey your interpretation of your scripture and not marry his boyfriend, also says that you should bow down and pray toward Mecca five times a day because of his religious belief. That’s why your country has a separation clause, in the very constitution you just mentioned, explicitly barring government from privileging one religion including yours over another. What’s unconstitutional, is for your government to give more weight to your religiously-based idea of marriage than to that of a person who is religious but pro same-sex marriage.

      • Wayne says:

        My Religion founded America. If you do not like the Constitution my family built for you, MECCA CALLS.

        See how far you can change them.


        There is no reason to re-define Christian Marriage. If you want to fight for a civil arrangement, and be willing to protect the kids, I might support you.


      • Wayne says:

        PS. I should point out there is NOT a separation clause.

        There is a Religious Freedom clause.

      • Daz says:

        Separation, religious freedom, whatever you want to call it, it still forbids your government giving privilege to one religion over another. And that includes different sects of Christianity, both yours and those of Christians who are pro same-sex marriage. Given that your religion, Christianity, is split on the issue, you cannot claim Christianity as a precept.

        I say again, if your personal religion forbids same-sex marriage then don’t marry a man, but if you want to forbid it to those who do not follow your religion, including other Christians of other sects, you have to show that it’s detrimental in some other way than it offending your personal religious sensibilities.

        Here’s John Leyland, the Baptist minister who played a huge part in bringing forth the policy of separation of church and state in your country:

        “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

        “Turks” almost definitely means Muslims, but you’ll note, I hope, that he in no way singles out religious freedom as only belonging to Christians, let alone different sects of Christians. Your idea that Christianity should be privileged above other religions is wrong. Completely. As is your bare-faced statement that marriage is a Christian, and only Christian institution in your country. You do not live in a theocracy, much as you seem to want to.

        By “and be willing to protect the kids” are you implying that homosexuality is the same thing as paedophilia? I hope not, because that’s, frankly, a crock.

        And you still have not answered my most important question regarding your reply to the earlier commenter. How does same-sex marriage devalue or otherwise cheapen or harm heterosexual marriage? If you cannot show that it’s somehow detrimental, you have no case, bar your own interpretation of scripture.

        Why did you assume that your constitution is my constitution? I’m British.

      • Wayne says:

        I assume that Americans would tell other Americans what to do with our constitution.

        I should have thought about the British trying to tell us what to do, again.

        Back to the discussion, why do you want to change my Religion?

        What has it done to you?


      • Daz says:

        My apologies. John Leland, I should have said.

      • Wayne says:

        He was someone I know about. He was Baptist was he not?


    • Daz says:

      I’m not “telling you what to do” as a Brit, I’m explaining basic ethics as a fellow human being who has concerns about your willingness to discriminate against other human beings for no good reason.

      Change your religion? When did I say that? I said that you have no right to force others, not of your religion, to follow the precepts of your religion. No more right, in fact, than a Muslim would have to force you to pray to Mecca five times a day, which is what I meant when I mentioned that earlier, though you seemed to miss the point. Or than a Catholic would have to make you take confession. If a gay person is not of your religion, they should not be forced by law to follow the no-gay-marriage tenet of your religion.

      Yes, he was a Baptist. A Baptist who saw the danger in mixing religion and law.

      And, please, try to answer the question I’ve asked in every comment so far. How does same-sex marriage damage heterosexual marriage? By which I mean actual damage to the institution, not just a quibble about a word being somehow inappropriate.

      • Wayne says:

        I have told you repeatedly, it damages my Religion.

        He was a Baptist like I am. He saw the problem.

        Allowing Government to change the basic definitions of Religion was dangerous.

        And he knew that the biggest problem in America then (& now) was rebellion against God. Sin.

        That is what he preached. That is what I preach.


      • Daz says:

        HOW does it damage your religion if someone who isn’t of your religion does something that your religion doesn’t allow? Does it force you to do that thing? No, it doesn’t. Does it force the particular church you attend to perform gay marriages? No it doesn’t. There’s a big difference between allowing something and making it compulsory.

        Freedom of religion means that different people, of different beliefs, are not forced to unwillingly obey the precepts of religious teachings they don’t believe. You may not like what they do. They may not like what you do. But neither of you has the right to force your beliefs on the the other. And this includes how each of your creeds views sexuality and marriage.

        Your religious belief may exclude same-sex marriage. Other people’s doesn’t. By making, or keeping, it illegal, the law is privileging your beliefs over other peoples, in direct contradiction of the sense of the quote I provided from Leland.

      • Wayne says:

        Have you never thought about why Gay has become so common?

      • Daz says:

        It hasn’t. It’s just become more commonly open and unhidden.

        And again, you fail to answer my question.

      • Wayne says:

        I have not. You want me to deny my Religion.

        In the work place, in school, in relationships, and in how taxes are spent.

        And in the military, and in how children get abused.

        It is not more open. It is much, much more common.

        Kinsey showed that at most .5% to 1% of the population was gay in the 1950’s after most men spent 5 years in the war zone together.

        He and everyone else felt that the high numbers were because of long term lack of female companionship.


  8. I am pro-marriage! For everyone. Marriage is about two adults who love each other, no matter what parts are in their pants.

    • Wayne says:


      I am pro-Marriage! So, why should we discriminate against the historic marriage?


      • In what way am I discriminating against historic marriage? I am not saying straight couples cannot get married, or that their marriage is less than equal, or that they should be punished for getting married. So, where is my discrimination?

      • Wayne says:

        Marriage has always been Religious.

        Re-defining the word, is discrimination for gays and against tradition.


      • “I am not forcing you to become my religion, but neither do I want to become yours.”

        Good, then we are in agreeance here. You don’t have to follow my beliefs, and I don’t follow yours. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. There, problem solved. You’re not forced into anything, and I don’t have to follow your religion’s rules.

        Also, the definition of marriage has already been changed a dozen times.

      • Wayne says:


        It was written to prove your point, not the truth.

      • Wayne says:

        Again, you are changing the definition of marriage which is against my Religion.

        I am not forcing you to become my religion, but neither do I want to become yours.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s