QUICK LINKS
Change Your Ways -- Joe Lieberman to Democrats
Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s Vice-Presidential nominee for 2000, says he hopes Democrats win, but they must change their ways. “Otherwise,” he said in a speech in New Haven, Connecticut, a few days ago, “it won’t represent real progress. It’s not going to be much of a step forward if there’s a new Democratic leadership that doesn’t change the tone in Washington.”
I would suggest that perhaps both parties could change. I believe our prosperity and blessing has been directly related to the Biblical ideas and principles of our Founding Fathers.
In fact, James Russell Lowell was asked by the French historian, Francois Guizot, “How long will the American republic endure?” He wisely replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue to dominate.”
The future of America and our communities is up for grabs and will be determined in this generation. It could go either way – to the secular progressive left and let an elitist minority of secularists lead this nation to impotence, stagnation and slavery – or to the right and place control with those who will continue to lead in the true spirit of the Founding Fathers, who led this nation to respect for God and man, moral sanity, true religious freedom, national strength, prosperity and opportunity.
It has been said, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.”
Our Founding Fathers did their part. Now it is up to us to do what we can do to give America its brightest and most hopeful future.
______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
NEW FAITH & FREEDOM POLL: Click here to cast your vote.
62 Comments:
I just voted in your poll about voting in November and was shocked to see that nearly 40% of your respondents do not intend to vote. What's up with that?
Change the tone?
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the GOP promised to Change the tone when the took over congress in 1994? The tone did change, congress became more viscously partisan and corrupt than ever before. Then GWBush promised to Change the tone after the partisan impeachment side show against Clinton, again the tone changed, this administration has been less open to views from across the aisle then any in recent memory.
Now that it looks like the corrupt GOP might loose it hold on power and thier actions, as well as those of Bush, might actually get investigated, partisan hacks like Gary are getting the vapors over the need to Change the tone and stop all that horrible partisan bickering. All of it rings a bit hollow and self-serving if you ask me.
-John Colgan
Yeah, well Lieberman can talk all he wants about the Democrats needing to change their ways but the democrat voters in Connecticut already told him pretty clearly what they thought of the ways he's been changing lately.
And Gary has said some pretty awful lies and horrible implications before, but this crap about how supposedly the progressives are leading us to "slavery" - that's beyond irresponsible. It's the progressives who lead this country OUT of having slavery. It's the progressives who have ALWAYS lead this country to be more prosperous (check out your boy W's mounting debt total and his father's before him). It's the progressives who have always been the champions of opportunity - for all people, not just the elitist, white, heterosexual men who totally run the Republican party. You quote James Russell Lowell, which is ironic since he was strongly against the very intemperance that continues to plague the Republican party today.
I'll keep waiting for the tone of Republicans masquerading as Christians to change - let's see how long that takes.
John. The hate I have heard has been coming from the Democrats.
I think Gary was quoting Leiberman regarding change. Relax man.
What is up for grabs is a modicum of accountability from our leaders.
It has nothing to do with the secular left.
just found the website. what are you people thinking? i have never seen a conservative or christian site allow posts like this. nor have i seen an oppurtunity more abused and taken advantage of. can't we make our case with some class and dignity? these people show more tolerance than i've seen in quite some time.
I'm confused by anon 1:14. Who is he talking to? Has he never seen a conservative or Christian site allow posts like the garbage Randall puts out every day - or is he just ridiculously offended that anyone is allowed to disagree here because he is used to environments where everyone thinks the same?
we should disagree, but does it have to be so tacky? isn't this randall's site or his group's site? of course they are going to put their own beliefs on it?
Anon 1:46
Your point may be well taken. Where the ire of the genuine disciple is raised is when subtility and guile are used regularly as on the FNF site (including the very name itself)in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Randall's blogs are ALWAYS heavily slanted and contain massive falsehoods that anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge is well aware.
We can start with those wonderful slave owner's who oppressed women and Africans, etc. that were involved in drafting a constitution that really had very little if anything to do with the Bible or Christianity and everything to do with English Common law and current political theory (Gary apparently hopes that if keeps saying the contrary enough times, the ignorant will buy in). Further many people desperately did NOT want the centralized power of the Federal government that was forced upon them by the Constitution but it was forced on them by that what was in fact a political minority. These are just the facts.
It is especially hideous when Gary's basic emphasis is to use the name of Jesus to advocate a system that will oppress and hurt people who practice relgions other than himself. This in contrast with Rom 13:10 - Love does not hurt its neighbor and living peaceably with all men, etc.
Your point re: whether the genuine disciple should point these errors out with perhaps a little less vitrolic is perhaps well taken - HOWEVER, I note that Jesus' ire was significantly raised when religious leaders of His day engaged in the same type of behavior that Gary does as well as the majority of the Evangelical community.
NOTE: I have pointed out that I give Gary and FNF credit in that they allow ALL points of views including criticism of themselves to be posted on his blog. This does not go unnoticed and, as you pointed out, their allowing such posts is contrary to the standard Evangelical site where the bare mention of things like "marijuana" sends the monitors into a sort of frenzy (despite the fact that God created it, called it "good" and gave it mankind to use as we all well know).
I hope my post perhaps provides some understanding including maybe a consideration of a bit less vitrolic on the part of those disicples who see the hypocrisy that is routinely posted by FNF.
Peace,
In Him who is our peace,
Human
Anon @12:45 (anon-prudie perhaps?)
If you haven't heard any hate from the Republicans in the last 14 years then you simply aren't listening. Maybe instead of being so relaxed, you should go out in search of a clue, because you obviously desperately need one!
-JC
Oh, and Anon-Prudie?
Since LIEberman is a de-facto Republican, it's not like his quotes have any more merit than the "Nancy Pelosi marched with NAMBLA" lie that Gary attempted to foist off on you fools.
-JC
Nancy Pelosi marched with NAMBLA?
Did Gary use that one??
Isn't that like saying Israel has the right of self-defense while they obliterate the entire country of Lebanon killing children, women and destroying families using US munitions paid for US citizens and supported by the Republican Party and the Evangelical Elite??
Gary - Care to comment??
Peace,
In Him who gave Himself for us,
Human
Has anyone noticed that Massachussetts has had gay marriage for a couple years now?
Maybe it's time to start analyzing the terrible effects it's had by reducing the birth rate and hetero marriage rate. Obviously, traditional marriage must have been destroyed in that state by now.
Plus, as Rick Santorum predicted, 'man on dog' must be pretty common in Massachussetts by now.
Gary maybe a good statistical analysis is due!
Thanks
You can't do statistics with the conservative Republicans. They simply refuse to acknowledge the facts that the lowest states for divorce rate are predeominantly Democrat and the highest states for divorce rate are predominantly Republican. Of course since Christians are still tracking themselves as getting divorced just as much as non-Christians do, I suppose that should make sense. Marriage as an instituion is under attack, but it's under attack from it's own defense as much as anyone else.
The marriage law has no effect in Massachussets ?
Massachuseets already has had an effect becaus eof it .You don't notice it because the information you are sensitive to and the sources will never speak of it .. You need to read and listen to more sides , it provides a better understanding , or in this case , the enormous complexity of the debate ..
The Catholic Charties was a large adoption provider for couples in Massachussetts . And of course they are required by state law to have a state liscense. So under the new law they would have to provide adoptions for same sex couples and disregard their Faith and value of right and wrong . They chose their faith . Now many people will not care less coming from the liberal side , however those who actually respect people of faith as many people respect those with different orienations , may see a problem and a lost to a ministry that did allot of good , and cheaper then a state run institution .
Religious institutions with traditional views are effected mainly . The legal term marriage permeates every sphere of law: taxes, education, and employment. These laws in turn regulate religious institutions and para-church organizations like schools, hospitals, orphanages, and Prison Fellowship, day cares , etc .
I live in a rural area , but we have police officers required evenn in the middle public schools .
My view is America was once a very religious nation , I would say we still are a spirtual people , possibly not dedicated to the principles of Judaism or Christianity , but we still benefitted from those beliefs in how we took care of the poor , elderly and those without ..
Seeing liberalism and secularism push people of faith out of particpating , or giving them the choice to disregard their faith , is not good for America,
If you believe homosexual marriage will benefit America more , well I guess we just disagree. I have never seen a homosexual pride parade yet that was dedicated to supporting the poor
But will welcome it ..
Tell me how homosexual marriage will hurt America or the institution of marriage more than abusive marriages or marriages marred by infidelity.
And then show me where the religious right is working hard to change the constitution to stop those plagues on marriage.
Show me ANY religious group that spends half as much time, money, and energy fighting cheating and abuse in marriages as they do homosexuality.
I understand your point and I don't think someone like Catholic Charities should be forced to allow adoptions by those whom they determine should not have them, but I have a hard time believing that an orphan adopted by a loving, committed, faithful homosexual couple is really enterring into a worse home environment than one where Daddy comes home drunk five nights a week and takes his belt and who knows what else to Mommy - who then turns around and sleeps with Uncle Joey to get revenge for that.
Mick,
So the horrible affects of this is that Religious organizations aren't allowed to discriminate against same sex couples and still get government monies? I'd have to see a link before I'll believe that a private adoption firm was forced to close for refusing to allow same sex couples to adopt. Last I checked this nation was chock-a-block with private adoption firms that discriminate based on the religious beliefs of the prospective parents, so I find your claims a little hard to believe absent any evidence.
No one is preventing people of faith from participating in charitable acts, far from it.
As for your gay pride parade dedicated to supporting the poor, I'm sure it's coming right after all those rallies held by the Christian right supporting the poor! Oh wait, that's right, the only rallies the "faith community" holds these days are against homosexuals getting married!
I guess gays should act like Chrisitans believe, rather than how Christians actually act.
-JC
"Tell me how homosexual marriage will hurt America or the institution of marriage more than abusive marriages or marriages marred by infidelity."
This is jumbling the issues.
But since you brought it up, yes abusive marriage and infidelity is wrong. But homosexual marriage is far worse. That is where the energy goes.
Incidentally, Christians provide classes for marriage and counseling for married couples, premarital counseling and teach that abuse in marriage and infidelity is a sin. There are Christian groups that try to change the trash on TV and stop pornography.
Anon 1:14 PM
These anti-faith and freedom types are shocking aren't they?
Yes they have abused this site and taken advantage of it.
But the good is--and it took me a while to see it--is it shows us how important the work Gary does is. We can't afford to sit back and let others force their values on the rest of this country. Hopely, others will see just what these people are really like.
I also find it interesting that the people hostile to Gary monopolize this site. Where do they find the time or the energy to fuel their hate?
Human are you a new Christian?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
(ooh, scary link, look out Anon-prudie)
It's just as I suspected Mick. Catholic Charities has not been prevented from arranging adoptions in MA at all, they are merely no longer getting a state contract to do so. I see know reason why any group should get state funds to discriminate against others. I also see no reason why Catholic Charities cannot continue to provide private adoption services in MA, absent a government contract. Does Catholic Charities believe charitable actions are only worthwhile if the government is compensating them? Can such actions even be acurately defined as charity?
Nothing in this article about state liscening requirements, just those to get a contract with the state. I also note that this action has NOTHING to do with legalized same sex marriage, but came about because of a change in anti-discrimnation law in MA. So looks like you are wrong on all counts.
from the article:
"The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract."
It's also interesting to note that the 42 member board of Catholic Charities voted to consider same sex couples for adoption placements, and eight of them resigned in protest over the decision of the bishops to put thier religious dogma above the needs of special needs children.
-JC
Do biblical values work?
well lets see....my risk for:
aids 0%
herpes 0%
syphillis 0%
gonorhea 0%
unwanted pregnancy 0%
PAP virus 0%
Yes I would say they work.
"they are merely no longer getting a state contract to do so. "
>>>>and<<<<<
"said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract."
The second quote listed here is from the article--it agrees with what Mic said. The first quote interpreting it is an incorrect interpretation of the situation and the quote from the article.
John Colgan we love you.
May God bless you and pierce your heart with His love.
Anonymous @5:44,
How exactly does the second quote support Mick's claim that CC is losing their liscence to be an adoption agency because of their decision to no longer consider same-sex couples for placements? There is nothing what so ever in that entire article about liscencing. There is nothing that indicates that CC couldn't continue to provide private adoption services.
The simple fact is that CC is getting out of the aboption business in MA becuase they will no longer be able to suck at the public teat while discriminating against law abiding taxpayers. Well boo-freakin-hoo.
You've done nothing re-assert Mick's false claim without providing any evidence to support it. How patently, but sadly not unexpectedly, dishonest of you.
-JC
Anonyous,
You don't even know me.
I'm plenty blessed already, thanks. Go sell crazy to someone else.
-JC
Hey Guru ,
I never said that I don't think homosexuals should not be able to adopt . I believe you have me figured out by images that are promoted in certain segments of our culture , instead of an actual get to kow you kind of conversation and knowing my intent .
I am for homosexual adoption , but not as the first choice . Loving and caring parents is better then a home filled with hurt and abuse .. We agree . The first choice and standard sghould be a mom and dad . Not meant to hurt anyone , too bad such a logical statement has to be concerned about that though . A Mom has certain cgaracteristics and a dad has certain characteristics , bith given in a loving manner is what is best for any child.. The God I know is the God of plan Bs , he has helped me plenty of times when i goofed up my plan A . anyway ,, And so can families ,
Some one made a comment about nothing happening in our culture with homosexuals being able to be married , and I brought up some points.
Interesting you were kind of hostile if I can undertand e mail , which proves my point , would you not say so ? When homosexual issues come forward , religious liberty becomes threatened or in certain instances forced to remove themselves from the public square . Western Civilization has a long history and a value system that goes along with it ... Modern humanism seems to be able to pick what they want , and dump the rest . We could have a long discussion on that , but I believe that thinking has causes some social changes for the immediate good and also for the long term bad . Did I mention the middle schools in my rural area needs police officers at the middle schools now . 4o years ago we had spit balls , now its different .. In either case , just because a person has a morality that is somewhat traditional , they need to be confronted for it , when they do no harm to anyone , and just like you do the best they can , with the God they know ? Its why tolerance seems so shallow of a word to Conservative minded Christians . Tolerance for who ?
When Rome invaded Israel , they were tolerant , they had free love , many gods , do what you want sexuality , of course they murdered and plundered a nation that was built on what our coulture of the day would call uptight traditionalist , obey religious dogma . Again , who was tolerant , Rome or Israel ?
Sorry my gramamr is harsh , I got to get this blog thing down better .
Hope you understood ?
Thats all I said ...
I am willing to have a discussion about it , not to change your mind , just to point out that this is a no win situation as I see it , the more secular we become , the worse I believeour neigborhoods and culture will become .
Homosexuals included will be worse off in a culture of secularism being the only world view around ..
And from history , it has a worst track record then religion for how it treats its citizenery , in fact last century more people were kileed or murdered by secular governments then all the centuries combined . And religious history was nothing to brag about ..
JC Not so fast .. I think you are wrong , at least this gay activists agrees with me .His article is in the link provided . Read it and let me know if you are wrong ? Ok
He appas slanted to liberalsim , but has a respect for honesty and fairness . He points out the Catholic Charities should have appealled the ruling . The reason it is in the best interest of even tax payers to support organizations like Catholic Charties is not because they suck the teat as you say , but because if the state did it , the overhead and cost would be so much higher .
Its why the state does not do it , they are too busy spending money on more important things . ????The organization and fundamental ability for Catholci Charties to provide this service is so much cheaper ... Of course they based some of their expenses on government aid , what world do you live in ? They were providing ready staff , a system to contact parents and community connections and all the rest that a large organization has , and just because it has a Religious aspect to it , that has atraditional belief they had to shut down .. The gay activist who supports my position is that it is a shame that government can dictate to a religion what is a family and what is not , just as i would have a problem with government telling me I had to have a male partner , or in a homosexual case a female partner . And which is preferental ... Its none of the governments business , so much for tolerance ? Unless its your tolerance ?
It appears the same situation is being debated in San Francisco right . By the way , Catholic Charties is the largest social service provider in the United States . Has a history of helping , including homosexuals . because their belief system comes from above ,is not a reason to show a lack of concernor respect for them . They in no way hurt you , in fact , you might come in contact with people they have helped , straight , black , bi or even by God , a conservative Christian .,. If you are friends with any ?
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/03/compromise-on-catholic-charities-and-gay-adoption.html
c'mon guys, back to the question...
I've read lots of posts on here about how gay marriage would decimate traditional marriage rates and that it would destroy traditional marriage in its purpose of procreation.
Now that we have a real live laboratory in Massachussetts, how 'bout some stats? Show where these predictions have come to fruition where gay marriage has existed for two years. I'm truly open to any numbers resulting from good, scientific research.
This is your opportunity to show the world how gay marriage has destroyed traditional marriage right here in the land of freedom.
Sorry Mick, but I still think you're wrong. If Catholic Charities is using government funds to run it's adoption agency it is acting as an agent of the state and shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. The fact that Catholic Charities values dicriminating against gay couples more than they value helping kids is sad, but it is hardly a result of gay marriage. Catholic Charities wouldn't be allowed to disciminate against jewish or muslim couples either.
-JC
John ,
In regards to change the tone ...
I will grant you this has not been the best uniter as far as Preseidents go ..
He was pretty good in Texas from what I understand of bring both parties together to work on issues .
I am some conserned about terroism are you not ? But now if it is brought up it is considered political , and being decribed as a nazi , liar , murderer , and such , is not exactly the right way to answer claims of being with us or against us as being intolerant either .
I am looking froward to a change in DC , I guess the democrats will bring one , though I seldom vote for a democrat .. I just have no idea what they stand for , except its all the fault of Bush ...
Raise social security taxes , ? Whats the plan ... Universal health care , by raising taxes , whats the plan , by taking away military spending ? Whats the plan , Do you know ? I guess it will be interesting , but man I feel sorry for the next democrat President , man is he going to get the hate mail ... Politics is seldom about issues , it appears more about payback these days .
By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | March 10, 2006
BOSTON --The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract. It said that the state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.
"The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
"But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley, who had sought an exemption from the law, said the church was faced with a choice between its faith and the state law.
"Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago," O'Malley said in a statement.
The state's four Catholic bishops had said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.
Gay rights groups criticized the decision.
"All of the homes were good and loving homes and now through the pressure of the bishops Catholic Charities is being forced to get out of the business," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. "There are no winners here. The children are the ones who suffer."
Eight members of Catholic Charities' board stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.
Catholic Charities has been involved in adoptions for about a century, but has had a contract with the state Department of Social Services to provide special needs adoption services to children with severe emotional and physical needs since 1977. The contract expires June 30.
In the past two decades, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 with same-sex couples. The bulk of adoptive children in Massachusetts are placed by DSS, rather than outside agencies such as Catholic Charities, the agency said.
Within an hour of Catholic Charities' announcement, Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services
Page 2 of 2 --"This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children," Romney, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said in a statement issued while he was in Tennessee to address the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. "It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children.
"While I respect the board's decision to stay true to their principles, I find the current state of the law deeply disturbing and a threat to religious freedom," he said.
Kerry Healey, Romney's lieutenant governor and a Republican candidate for governor, has said she wouldn't support any legislation to create an exemption.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi issued a statement Friday saying he regretted the decision, but supports the anti-discrimination law. He said he would review Romney's bill.
Tim Fitzgerald and his partner John Budron adopted two toddler-aged brothers in 1997 through DSS. Fitzgerald, who married Budron in 2004 after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, called the decision by Catholic Charities "tragic."
Jc ,
I can not argue with your logic or the law .
I was just making a point of that by changing the law , religious institutions are being effected .
If that is a good thing or bad thing is nothing I or anyone can change anyone's mind about .
I guess I am going through a mid life crisis , but I rememebra time when religion and those involved in religion was held up in high esteem , like teachers , doctors , and such ..
Our Culture is changing very quickly ..
I thought this article stated that Romney was trying to get a religious exemption for religious organizations . That becaus eof the marriage laws allowing gays , discrimination stopping gay adoption was illegal .
Did I mis read this JC , or was the article false in your opinion ?
Mick
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions
Gay issue stirred move by agency
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006
In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Local RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints/permissions
More:
Globe City/Region stories |
Latest local news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for:
Globe Headlines e-mail |
Breaking News Alerts
The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston, and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board, said that after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is ''immoral" with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.
''This is a difficult and sad day for Catholic Charities," Hehir said. ''We have been doing adoptions for more than 100 years."
Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them.
Officials in government, social services, and gay-rights groups expressed disappointment about the decision. Catholic Charities is widely respected among adoption providers and has handled more adoptions of foster children than any other private agency in the state.
RELATED:
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions (By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff)
Church's rift with Beacon Hill grows (By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff)
POLITICAL REACTION: Romney eyes bill exempting religious groups on bias laws (By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff)
EFFECT ON CHILDREN: Workers rush to fill void left by Boston agency's decision (By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent)
GLOBE GRAPHICS: Catholic Charity's role Faith-based money
NECN: Catholic Charities to end adoption program
Harry Spence, the state's commissioner of social services, said he was ''deeply saddened" to hear of Catholic Charities' withdrawal.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the outcome was ''very unfortunate."
Almost immediately after the announcement, Governor Mitt Romney, who was in Tennessee speaking to a Republican group, issued a statement saying he would file legislation to exempt religious organizations that provide adoption services from the state's antidiscrimination laws.
''I ask the Legislature to work with me on a bill that I will file to ensure that religious institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs," Romney said.
Lawmakers have said that Romney's bill has little chance of passage, and some Democrats derided it as a presidential election ploy by the governor.
State officials and other adoption agencies were still absorbing the news yesterday, but said they would work to fill the gap left by Catholic Charities. The agency was especially adept at finding homes for so-called ''special needs" adoptions, which include children who are older or who have significant physical or emotional disabilities.
Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the archdiocese, will shut down its adoption operation June 30, Hehir said. Adoptions underway will be completed, he said.
Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.Continued...
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, Hehir and O'Malley met with Romney in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O'Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O'Malley realized it would cost ''too much time and energy" -- without any certainty of victory.
''It became clear our options were narrow," Hehir said.
In recent weeks, Hehir said, he had become increasingly concerned that the struggle over gay adoption would detract from other important work done by Catholic Charities. Since its founding, the agency had branched out significantly, helping 200,000 people in about 130 programs, including food pantries, day-care services, immigration legal clinics, and substance abuse programs. Only $1.3 million, or less than 4 percent of total revenues, is dedicated to adoption work now, Hehir said.
Some board members said another concern was the potential impact on financing. The United Way of Massachusetts Bay, which provided $1.2 million to Catholic Charities last year and is the largest private funder of the agency, planned to review its funding if the agency discriminated against gays and lesbians in its adoption work.
By late last week, Hehir said, it became clear that the simplest approach would be to withdraw from adoption services altogether. He convened a meeting with the board yesterday morning, in which members voted unanimously to pull out. After that, Hehir said he visited two of the agency's offices in Boston and Lawrence to tell adoption staff that its services would be over by the end of the fiscal year. Currently, the agency has 15 full-time adoption workers who will need to find new jobs.
He said workers were tearful, but understood the anguishing decision that Hehir faced.
Board members of Catholic Charities said they were also deeply saddened by the news. Some members, however, expressed some relief that they no longer had to wrestle with the painful clash between gay rights and religious freedom. James Brett, a board member, said the withdrawal was approved ''with a heavy heart," but it is preferable to a protracted battle over an exemption.
''This is a better resolution," he said. ''It's more straightforward."
Despite the board's sentiment, the decision upset some Catholics yesterday. Some were angry at Catholic Charities for giving up the fight for an exemption on religious grounds. The bishops have said that a 2003 Vatican document says children are best raised by a mother and father and described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral."
''It's a defeat for religious freedom," said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, a conservative Catholic advocacy group. ''Not only does the church and society suffer, but the church is allowing itself to be marginalized."
Andrew Davidson, 35, who was adopted as a baby through Catholic Charities of Boston, said he felt betrayed that leaders of the agency would so quickly abandon their longstanding mission rather than accommodate a small number of gay adoptions. ''My first reaction is shame on them and disappointment," he said.
Davidson, a development officer at Harvard University and father of two, said it had been ''a source of pride" to say he had been adopted as an infant through Catholic Charities of Boston. His birth mother had wanted to place him with an agency that would care about Catholic upbringing. He said the church has long told desperate pregnant women that the wrong choice is abortion, and the right decision is adoption. ''And now they're getting out of the adoption business?" he said.
The decision by Catholic Charities of Boston does not affect the other dioceses in the state, agency officials said. The dioceses in Worcester and Fall River, which do a small number of adoptions, are reviewing the future of their adoption programs. The diocese of Springfield does not handle adoptions.
The reverberations over the issue are beginning to be felt outside Massachusetts. On Thursday, archdiocesan officials in San Francisco said they will be reviewing their practice of allowing a small number of gay adoptions. They were told this week by their former archbishop, now a top Vatican official overseeing church doctrine, that such practices are banned under church doctrine.
Patricia Wen can be reached at wen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
1 2 Next
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions
Gay issue stirred move by agency
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006
In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston, and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board, said that after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is ''immoral" with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.
''This is a difficult and sad day for Catholic Charities," Hehir said. ''We have been doing adoptions for more than 100 years."
Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them.
Officials in government, social services, and gay-rights groups expressed disappointment about the decision. Catholic Charities is widely respected among adoption providers and has handled more adoptions of foster children than any other private agency in the state.
Harry Spence, the state's commissioner of social services, said he was ''deeply saddened" to hear of Catholic Charities' withdrawal.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the outcome was ''very unfortunate."
Almost immediately after the announcement, Governor Mitt Romney, who was in Tennessee speaking to a Republican group, issued a statement saying he would file legislation to exempt religious organizations that provide adoption services from the state's antidiscrimination laws.
''I ask the Legislature to work with me on a bill that I will file to ensure that religious institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs," Romney said.
Lawmakers have said that Romney's bill has little chance of passage, and some Democrats derided it as a presidential election ploy by the governor.
State officials and other adoption agencies were still absorbing the news yesterday, but said they would work to fill the gap left by Catholic Charities. The agency was especially adept at finding homes for so-called ''special needs" adoptions, which include children who are older or who have significant physical or emotional disabilities.
Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the archdiocese, will shut down its adoption operation June 30, Hehir said. Adoptions underway will be completed, he said.
Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Page 2 of 2 --
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Local RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints/permissions
More:
Globe City/Region stories |
Latest local news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for:
Globe Headlines e-mail |
Breaking News Alerts
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, Hehir and O'Malley met with Romney in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O'Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O'Malley realized it would cost ''too much time and energy" -- without any certainty of victory.
''It became clear our options were narrow," Hehir said.
In recent weeks, Hehir said, he had become increasingly concerned that the struggle over gay adoption would detract from other important work done by Catholic Charities. Since its founding, the agency had branched out significantly, helping 200,000 people in about 130 programs, including food pantries, day-care services, immigration legal clinics, and substance abuse programs. Only $1.3 million, or less than 4 percent of total revenues, is dedicated to adoption work now, Hehir said.
RELATED:
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions (By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff)
Church's rift with Beacon Hill grows (By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff)
POLITICAL REACTION: Romney eyes bill exempting religious groups on bias laws (By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff)
EFFECT ON CHILDREN: Workers rush to fill void left by Boston agency's decision (By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent)
GLOBE GRAPHICS: Catholic Charity's role Faith-based money
NECN: Catholic Charities to end adoption program
Some board members said another concern was the potential impact on financing. The United Way of Massachusetts Bay, which provided $1.2 million to Catholic Charities last year and is the largest private funder of the agency, planned to review its funding if the agency discriminated against gays and lesbians in its adoption work.
By late last week, Hehir said, it became clear that the simplest approach would be to withdraw from adoption services altogether. He convened a meeting with the board yesterday morning, in which members voted unanimously to pull out. After that, Hehir said he visited two of the agency's offices in Boston and Lawrence to tell adoption staff that its services would be over by the end of the fiscal year. Currently, the agency has 15 full-time adoption workers who will need to find new jobs.
He said workers were tearful, but understood the anguishing decision that Hehir faced.
Board members of Catholic Charities said they were also deeply saddened by the news. Some members, however, expressed some relief that they no longer had to wrestle with the painful clash between gay rights and religious freedom. James Brett, a board member, said the withdrawal was approved ''with a heavy heart," but it is preferable to a protracted battle over an exemption.
''This is a better resolution," he said. ''It's more straightforward."
Despite the board's sentiment, the decision upset some Catholics yesterday. Some were angry at Catholic Charities for giving up the fight for an exemption on religious grounds. The bishops have said that a 2003 Vatican document says children are best raised by a mother and father and described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral."
''It's a defeat for religious freedom," said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, a conservative Catholic advocacy group. ''Not only does the church and society suffer, but the church is allowing itself to be marginalized."
Andrew Davidson, 35, who was adopted as a baby through Catholic Charities of Boston, said he felt betrayed that leaders of the agency would so quickly abandon their longstanding mission rather than accommodate a small number of gay adoptions. ''My first reaction is shame on them and disappointment," he said.
Davidson, a development officer at Harvard University and father of two, said it had been ''a source of pride" to say he had been adopted as an infant through Catholic Charities of Boston. His birth mother had wanted to place him with an agency that would care about Catholic upbringing. He said the church has long told desperate pregnant women that the wrong choice is abortion, and the right decision is adoption. ''And now they're getting out of the adoption business?" he said.
The decision by Catholic Charities of Boston does not affect the other dioceses in the state, agency officials said. The dioceses in Worcester and Fall River, which do a small number of adoptions, are reviewing the future of their adoption programs. The diocese of Springfield does not handle adoptions.
The reverberations over the issue are beginning to be felt outside Massachusetts. On Thursday, archdiocesan officials in San Francisco said they will be reviewing their practice of allowing a small number of gay adoptions. They were told this week by their former archbishop, now a top Vatican official overseeing church doctrine, that such practices are banned under church doctrine.
Patricia Wen can be reached at wen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Previous 1 2
Mick,
I think you are misreading things, Romeny tried to get CC an exemption to allow them to recieve a state contract and use that money to discriminate against some taxpayers.
It is clear to me that the Bishops are putting the making of a political point ahead of helping orphaned children find homes, how sad. The claim of the Bishop's that considering same-sex couples for adoption would be an infringement of thier religious beliefs rings especially hollow when you realize that they have already placed some 13 children with same-sex couples for adoption.
So to sum things up, Catholic Charities had no problem placing children with same-sex couples in the past, but now it's such an outrage that they would rather stop placing any children for adoption than do so. What's changed in the intervening time? Oh, that's right MA legalized same-sex marriage and the Catholic Church has pumped millions into campaigns to stop it and now repeal it. The actions of the Bishops, overruling a unanimous vote of the Catholic Charties, reek of politics.
-JC
"But since you brought it up, yes abusive marriage and infidelity is wrong. But homosexual marriage is far worse."
Still waiting for a single legitimate reason for this passage. Sounds like nothing more than homo-phobia, but I'm willing to wait to hear if you have some actual decent reason for this.
And Mick, I never said or implied you were against homosexual adoption because you didn't say that I try not to read any more into something than what someone actually writes. On that note, I wasn't being "hostile" either, so while I'm not even sure what your point was supposed to be, it probably wasn't proven.
Sorry Geru ,
I guess I needed the mirror check . E mail and passionate issues do not mix ..
my potnt was that homosexual marriage does have effect on religious liberties as we know them today , and also on the rest of society . I think the point where some say that ministry was bigoted and no loss proves the point myself . That many people do not want religion dealing with social issues , unless the religion is based on the present culture . I know in the Seattle area there was problems with a Catholic sevice that gave shelter to the homelss when homosexual couples were sheltered together ..
I know at my home I would have no problem with housing some gay relatives I have , but yeah , just like my son and his girlfriend when they came to stay , they be in different rooms . When you do it for my son and his girlfriend , I am old fashioned , but to some people when I do it for my gay relatives , I am a bigot . Hopefully you may understand the predictament that some of us are in with this current modern understanding of acceptance for everything but traditional beliefs .
Abusive relationships and divorce can cause more problems for kids in my opinion , but to me our culture is helping those bad situations , homosexual marriage is not . But is part of the results of a culture which has lost a unity of standards that we could help one another to keep for all our benefits . If that makes sense ?
It is hard to ever make blanket statements which is worse or which is better . And some homosexual parents can be great parents and some folks may be good couples , hetrosexuals and lousy parents .
From a religious stand point , or doctrinal I guess , Jesus told us from the beginning we were made man and women for marriage . He also got ticked and really let us gave because we lived by traditions of man and not by the love of God .
He spoke on divorce , which the current identified church has divorce rates as high as non Christian .. I noticed you state they are higher in non Bush states ? Ok I guess that means with larger Evangelical populations we are worse , which to me says the problem is worse then I even thought . Why would you think this made a point for anything but sadness and hurt to familes is weird , you mean more divorce and hurt among Evangelicals proves we are hypocrits and liars .. ???
Wow , to me it just means we need a touch of God in all our lives , would you not agree ?
I do notice the giving to charity rates are higher in Bush states too , so obviously the divorce lawyers are not getting all the money .
To me marriage is is based more on a standard , a Bibical standard that makes sense even to non Christians . Just like homosexduals who get married , they are usually happier , more confident in their own self , and economically better , and health wise better .. Marriage is good for people , God's principles help everyone , its the way we were made I believe .
But lets say you change the rules for homosexuals , allow homosexuals to get married , which likely will occur . Does it not bother you this change is coming while marriage is ending up with so many divorces , that so many children are growing up in poverty , that sexually and physical abuse are growing because of the single parent situations we are having ... That our moral codes are becomming less universal and more to each individual to figure out and tolerance is for those who choose different , but not those who believe morality is better when we all support it ..
Abstinence gets snickered at by health officials in many circels , our health department even has reasons why abstinence does not work on their web site . This is not good geru , the standard of waiting to marriage may not be for the majority , but having that standard set high , kept people from having few partners then if their was no standard at all .. Thats what I believe anyway .
Like we all should support say getting A's in school . If the teachers said ahh, get a B , get a c , it does not matter , the important thing is you come to school . That would hurt some kids from trying harder to get an A . God still loves us when we get a C , but he wants us to try to get the A .
I see the same thing with morality , tell some it Ok to do that , you over there its ok to do that , and decide for yourselves what is right and wrong .. Well , I think its our nature to take the easist way out ..
The hurt and debate is because homosexuals have no choice , Right . So I am left reading a Bible that makes sexual sin of this nature wrong. I have heard some say no it does not , well I wish I could read it that way , man I think I would have been more POPULAR in certain areas , been able to particpate in many more places , and not have to endure the steady bashing of my faith in the media in this area , especially when a Pat Roberston says something , of course we are all like him .
I guess I said too much ..
common sense says it is far worse (a feces sewage system used as a love canal??)
and:
1 Cor 6:9,10
Romans 1:21, 26, 27
1 Tim 1:10, 11
Romans 6:11-14, 22
And for you Guru:
Matt 5:22
Eph 4:31
Pro 29:22
Ecc 7:9
Pro 19:11
Pro 14:17
Pro 14:29
Pro 15:18
Well common sense is certainly very much in the eye of the beholder.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says NOTHING about homosexual marriage. It does talk about "the sexually immoral", which certainly would include those who cheat on their spouse and "drunkards", which we all know can often lead to abuse.
Romans 1:21,26,27 also says nothing about homosexual marriage - but it does talk about "dishonorable passions", which again surely includes infidelity.
1 Timothy 1 also says nothing about homosexual marriage - but it does again reference "the sexually immoral" and also "liars" and "whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" - which again sounds a lot like cheaters and abusers to me.
Romans 6 says nothing specifically about any of what we've been talking about. I'm sure we can both see how to interpret it so it fits.
And then that is quite the list of verses for me specifically - and quite the assumptions being made with them.
Try this passage:
Matthew 21: 12-22
Some things are worth getting worked up about.
It's not about saying too much or too little - it's about what you say, why you say it, and how you say it.
I have several homosexual friends. They all respect me and welcome me and they all know that I will never support homosexual marriage. But they know that's because I do believe homosexuality to be a sin and I don't think any marriages should be plagued by sin and they know I am just as much (if not more) against infidelity and abuse in marriages. And while they disagree, they don't think I'm bigoted or rude or not worth hearing more from. And they also don't know any other Christians who are like that.
When it comes to sexual sin, I'm about as conservative as they come. I can totally identify with your example mick - I didn't let my sister and her boyfriend share a room at our place until they got married either. When it comes to homosexuals though, I would rather come along side them, love and respect them, and build relationships where then you can minister to them. Being on a war path to unnecessarily change the constitution to ban something that mostly doesn't exist anyways and constant negative references (like the lovely "feces sewage" line from earlier)is a slap in the face and it's not helping anything and in the comparitive absence of efforts to admonish and stop other far greater detriments to marriage, it doesn't do anything good.
Geru,
Praise God , you said that quite well and with a spirit of love ..
.
"Being on a war path to unnecessarily change the constitution"
Who here is on the warpath to change a constitution?'
It is the homsexuals that want things to change. If I recall all my life it has been marriage between a man and a woman. The change and war comes from the other direction. Not from christians.
Romans 1 (21 - 31)it starts out with yes they knew god, but they wouldnt worship him as god or even give him thanks----and then began foolish ideas of what God was like."
then down to trading truth for a lie. And God abandoned them to their shameful desires....goes on to exclaimthe shameful sinful things and goes on to say they suffered
within themselves the penalty they deserve.
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God he abandoned them to every kind of wickedness.
Supporters of gay marriage aren't generally advocating for a constitutional amendment to allow it. Opponenets of gay marriage have been very aggressive in wanting a constitutional amendment to deny it. And to their credit, it makes sense to believe a constitutional amendment would be needed to stop this from happening, because the reality is that the definition of marriage has undergone a lot of change through the last 150 years in America. Much of that has to do with the legal rights of a wife, but it has also included the age of those who can wed, bigamy, polygamy, interracial marriage, citizenship, nationality, and contraception. True, that until recently it has never been about same-sex partners, but the definition of marriage has changed a lot in this country - that really isn't even debatable.
"And they also don't know any other Christians who are like that."
Then they don't know many Christians.
Earth to Guru!!!!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Romans 1:21,26,27
1 Timothy 1:10, 11
All SPECIFICALLY address homosexuality. You may not like what the bible calls homosexuality but it is there in 1 Tim.
Didn't this happen another time? Someone gave you scripture and you said it didn't address what you were asking for? They told you it most certainly did? I agree with the last person who pointed that out to you---it is an indication of an unteachable spirit.
Red flag--someone who gets all bent out of shape over a mispelling i.e. "Geru"
You get mad over anything.
Gurufrisbee are you unfamiliar with reading the bible?
If you go to a Christian bookstore you can ask them for something that lays the bible out topically. It is a good way to get started. You can look up a topic like "hope" or "homosexuality" or "grief" or whatever you need. It will lay out relevant scriptures and a good one will have a good discussion section with it.
Someone had said that people are leaving the church. That is true of the mainstream denominations. But the other denominations and non-denominational churches are alive, thriving, and growing.
It's so wonderful to see total strangers freaking out in response to comments that clearly still are not actually reading.
No one (not me anyways) said those comments did not address homosexuality. They do not address homosexual marriage. And I could read my bible or my commentaries or anything else, but it still won't actually change that there is nothing in the Bible specifically talking about homosexual marriage - which is all I said before, too.
And the example you reference to before was when I pointed out to someone that I believed the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman did have applications to the death penalty. The other person disagreed with me. I never judged them as having an "unteachable spirit" - I just took at as one of the many ways in which people can read the Bible and find different meanings.
"Then they don't know many Christians. "
Unfortunately, not true.
"You get mad over anything."
Fortunately, not true (but then you don't know me at all, so why should I suppose you'd stop to not judge me already)
What is the deal over homosexual marriage? If you believe homosexual is a sin that will send people straight to hell for eternity--why would you then even question that the government should endorse it with a marriage license? There can be no "marriage" in the eyes of God because it is a forbidden activity.
The government isn't there to endorse or stop things that may be a sin in the eyes of the church, but aren't necessarily considered wrong by all people. I'd never argue that a church should have to endorse gay marriage, but I don't necessarily see that there is a governmental position as compelling to forbid it. I'm personally against it, but considering that the definition of marriage has been changed BY THE GOVERNMENT many times over it's history, I'm not sure that the GOVERNMENT should be unwilling to accept this. As a Christian, I'm totally against it, just like infidelity or abuse or other sins that really hurt marriages (and I believe the church in general should be a lot more vocal and active in their fights against those threats to marriage, less they be seen as just being bigoted against homosexuals).
"(but then you don't know me at all, so why should I suppose you'd stop to not judge me already) "
Ah yes the "judgemental card". When all else fails try that one.
Sorry, but your own words and tone are very telling. No one has judged you just because they say you are angry. Most of your posts tell us that. The more recent ones are less angry--that is impressive.
But I'm not angry, so my words and tone aren't telling you anything. You're coming up with something that is simply not there. Maybe I haven't been judged - but apparently my posts have and they've been judged very wrongly.
If god says it is a forbidden activity ----why would anyone want to okay it with a highly sanctified thing like marriage? God says it is not okay. This state has approved marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing more and nothing less. Just because it does not mention gay marriage in the bible does not mean we can stretch it to say our loving god would change his feelings on a gay relationship and sanctify it by a marriage in a holy place like church. No way. You could not possibly turn the bible around and bend it that way. God is never changing. That is our job. We are to change. And it is our minds that need renewed everyday. So pick up your bible and read it for what it says. Not for what you think it could say but does not.
"So pick up your bible and read it for what it says. Not for what you think it could say but does not. "
But that is precisely what you are doing, because it doesn't say you can't have homosexual marriage and while it does say homosexuality is a sin, it also says sexual promiscuity is a sin - and still there are many Biblical examples of marriages with that in them.
gurufrisbee
Are you saying that it is Bibically acceptable for marriage between the same sex , or multiple wives like King David had ?
Or are you saying it is unclear to you from your understanding of scripture and the Holy Spirit in your own life of what the understanding of sexual purity is ?
I think sometimes you are unsure or you say it wrong ?
I'm saying it's not specifically forbidden in the Bible to have homosexual marriage. I've never been unsure of this and frankly, I've never said this wrong before either.
And while it does seem pretty clear (though I've heard arguments against it) that the Bible is against homosexual behavior, that simply saying that automatically means the Bible is against homosexual marriage isn't a very sound line of reason given that the Bible does talk about other sins regarding sexual impurity and still had people getting married who practiced them.
I think people need to stop trying to assume half a dozen things when they read what people write and keep it simple and limited to what is actually said. I know people who don't even know English who have less trouble understanding me.
The bible does not say to allow homosexual marriage. So you are saying why not? since its not there in writing why not. Yet it is very clear that that behavior is a terrible sin. So then you would okay marriage because ????
It is very clear that homosexual behavior should not be rewarded with marriage.The consequenses for sin is not a reward(we have to stand on the side of marriage.) And fidelity in marriage has many rewards (one being happy spouses and children)and non fidelity has many consequenses(one of many divorce).Infidelity is a risky behavior and a sin.So is Homosexual behavior. Problem with the world----They want to do as they want and get what the feel they need right now with all the bells and whistles. Including Gay marriage.And all that comes with a price. A purely paint color example-You can take black (sinfulness)and white(purity) and make grey real easy guru. But you just try and stay white(pure) in a world dumping black(sinfulness) ink all over the road.There is no grey area in the bible. So please do not try and argue the it is not directly in the bible stuff---Sin is sin and it is in there very clear. And marriage is a holy gift from god.What we do with it is a choice- That either has rewards or penalties. We must treat it as a precious gift given to us( man and woman.)
"and still there are many Biblical examples of marriages with that in them. "
That doesn't mean God approves. In fact he made very clear it is forbidden. It was the human element that brought that travesty in.
Guru something is missing here.
I was very liberal and pro-homosexual before I became a Christian.
No one told me it was wrong. I just read the bible and between the bible and the Holy Spirit, which indwells all Christians, I knew it was wrong. I wouldn't have even known who to ask about it--but I knew it was wrong.
The same is true of my, even more liberal and pro-homosexual, friends who became Christians. We never discussed it--we just knew and still know homosexuality is wrong and so is homosexual marriage.
So I can't understand why it is such a problem for you. While the bible doesn't say "marriage" it is very clear it is wrong and forbidden.
All that is missing is me sharing your belief that you can come to whatever conclusions you want.
The reality is that the Bible does not say anything about homosexual marriage. It does say homosexual behavior is a sin, but it also points out other times where marriages have other sins in them, so it clearly does not make the case that marriage has to forbid sin within it.
As I've said many times before, I am against gay marriage - but what troubles me is the bad logic and lack of reason used by others who are also against gay marriage. Arguing about gay marriage changing the definition of marriage is stupid, because the definition of marriage changes a lot. Arguing about gay marriage as being forbidden in the Bible is wrong, because the Bible says nothing about it and doesn't even make the necessary connection between what parts it does say about homosexuality and about marriage.
I've never been "very liberal" and I've never been "pro-homosexual" and I've been a Christian most of my life - I just am tired of Christians coming across as bigoted and simple-minded because they establish positions that they don't have logic or reason that they can express to defend.
Post a Comment
<< Home