Sep 18 2008Brad Pitt cuts a check for gay marriage

First?

He's a fucking fag himself!!!

WTF

waheyy

I just figured it out.....
there is a 3 way going on with Brad, Tom and George.....

and Matt Damon is just the gimp

Fish! Did the geekologie writer's mom kick you out of bed early or are you working from home?

f this bloated looking elitist

WOW...Ill bet rough Diddy is stoked to hear this. As well as Matt Damon the "rhodes scholar" (internet translation= al bores greenie cock gobbler)

You know Angelina nails him with a strap-on.....

.

Good for him

[Insert homosexual George Clooney/Brad Pitt joke here...or up Brad Pitt's ass]

#9 - Well, she is the man of the household!

you are not your khakis

Being kind to queers is so trendy. I can't imagine California denying gay people the right to marriage. If it happens then a bunch of people are closet haters. I admire gay people... from a distance, with awkward hugs and discussions of the weather. But as far as marriage goes - have at it and enjoy.

The voters of California did vote and pass Prop 22, banning gay marriage in California. But a bunch of liberal homo judges said they didn't care what the voters wanted, they were going to ignore their vote and say gay marriage is legal. So now Prop 8 will define marriage as between a man and a woman and that it is a California Constitional Amendment. So no liberal judge can change it. Even though George Clooney wants to marry Brad Pitt. They can still pack each others fudge, but not as a married couple.

Why can't gays be just as miserable as the rest of the world. Seriously. If a 54 hour marriage is okay with everyone because it was between a man and a women, then what is wrong with a 54 year marriage between two happy old dykes?

I love Brad Pitt and Angelina to death but what are they doing to help people
in Texas ? I believe this is a far better cause than gay marriage. And will they
please help their neighbors first ,they've given so much already to Africa.

"Especially George Clooney," Pitt said. "Now, that guy should be driving up to city hall with a dump truck full of cash. I'm not implying anything, but 'dedicated bachelor'? That's about as convincing as marrying Katie Holmes."

he said that? REALLY???

fish???

his wife was lesbo . that is why!!!

God bless this man. I'm torn between him being pussy whipped by that skank he's with and the good samaritan he is. But he has a good heart. Whether all the things he's doing is just for publicity or he actually really cares about other people, God bless him. At least he's doing something positive with his fame.... All those other worthless, fame whores who call themselves celebrities need to take a good look at this man and be ashamed of themselves.

pitt and cruise should bang each other till someone's ass explodes. then deny they are gay, of course.

He is really nice.... I really like he is saying out loud something we all think/know.

George Clooney is gay and Tom Cruise is Freddy Mercury.

It's an admirable message, but Brad Pitt's not married, now is he?

Wait a sec. He thinks gays should get married, but he won't marry a women he's knocked up/adopted kids with/lives with?

WTF? He was so traumatized by his breakup with Jen, that he'll never get married again? Whatever.

Wow, another hollywood double standard that defies logic.

Is this guy meant to play Captain America or what?

Tom Cruise once shoved a gay couple up his ass.

Supporting same sex marriage doesn't make you gay. Supporting vegans doesn't make you a cow. Supporting the environment doesn't make you a tree. Idiots.

To #16: That's ridiculous. Texas is already getting massive help. I'm not saying they are good to go, but they're being taken care of. They are helping the needed, and US is not the first one on the list when it comes to that. There are problems all around the world so stop focusing on US only. That's selfish.

"No one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it" - Amazingly said.

"No one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it" What a hypocrite! I bet that philosophy stops at the unborn! Brad are you "Pro-Life" now?
It must be great to be a fabulously wealthy celeb and talk out your ass all day!

I wish to marry my dog-got a problem with that!

@27

The dog can't consent, so yes, we have a problem with it. Plus, it probably wouldn't want to fuck your dirty ass, anyway.

Also, try actually reading the Roe Vs Wade decision and you'll see that only people in *born* in the US are protected by the constitution, therefore if it's not born, it has no rights. And I quote "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense".

*thumbs nose*

Yes, because he is an icon to marriage.

Plus, can this man, or his paramour, do anything without publicity?

So does that mean if i lived in California i could marry Obammy, skip the election, and we could live happy ever after??

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it".. But it's ok for you to spend money and force your view on me.
FUCK YOU PITT, Go suck Obama's dick, and while your at it, lick my PELOSI!

It doesn't matter what happens with the proposition. The people in California have no right to decide for themselves. The ninth circuit will overrule anything passed. Prop 187 anyone?

#28

that's a gross argument if a fetus (let's be honest, baby) is viable. if it feels pain and knows hunger, it's a baby.

and #27 is right, his argument has holes in it pertaining to allowing life. there are lots of adults who would love those babies here in the US

#31

"lick my pelosi"...hahaha...that's great.

Hear, hear 14.

Prop 8 is an unfortunate do-over to prop 22 passed and unconstitutionally revoked by the California courts.

I don't give a shit....B.P. is the man. I'd love to be in a Clooney/Pitt sandwich.
And Hell, I guess if Angie had to be there, as well, that'd be o.k.

That's half of my laminated list, right there!

. . . he cut a great big gassy beans and burrito fart for gay marriage. The huge blapping gasser was collected immediately by an awestruck Tom Cruise in a garbage bag, and will be sold at auction at Sotheby's . . . that is if Tom was able to refrain from huffing it . . .

If you click the blue link, you'll get some idea of how it went . . .

What a fucking degenerate.

#33
Yes, there are plenty of people who would love to have a child and that's why they have adoption centers. Oh wait, that's right... No one likes adopting a child older than 5, too much of a hassle. Everyone wants a freaking baby, never a kid and that's why many of them spend the rest of their life in a terrible system.
Then comes the chance that the child might be abused once it gets adopted, I heard the horror stories from my friend who as soon as she hit 18 left her so called "loving parents" and never saw them again (fun fact: they are super religious and that was one of the key reasons why they were able to adopt her)
I'm not saying that a baby shouldn't get a chance but it's her choice, she's not forcing you to make the same one in her situation and she doesn't want your guilt trip.

And who the hell cares if gay people want to get married or not, let them go ahead and do it. We all have hopes and dreams to form a family so why can't they? Because they are different? Why do people care so much about what they do behind closed doors, they are (fully grown & thinking) human beings just like us and their rights should be the same as ours.

I am so sick of HOLLYWOOD. Yah I read Brad helped out in the south after hurricane. His big lipped wife(uck) helps out the rest of the world -but heres what I see., I see brad having what? 10-11 homes, MIllions in homes which cost millions to run each yearly. I see brad living in a what? 80 million dollor winery in another country. Adopting kids other than american kids. Heres why I am mad. I visited Califonia, I saw the thousands of HOMELESS on the beach, warf, IN DUMPSTERS in the alleys of all you rich movie tars searching for food. FIX YOUR OWN DAM TOWN. FEED YOUR OWN DAM TOWN.ADOPT CHILDREN FROM YOUR OW DAM TOWN. SELL SOME OF YOUR COLLECTINS OF HOMES, CARS JEWELRY AND HELP THE PEOPLE IN TEXAS AND HATTI YOU SICK SELFISH ASSHOLES. THERE IS NO ONE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH LET ALONE "STARS" THAT DESERVE MILLIONS TO MAKE A MOVIE. tHE COUNTRY IS CRUNBLING AND ALLL YOU STARS CARE ABOUT IS YOU . I PUKE AND SPIT ON YOU LIVING THE LIFESTYLE YOU LIVE WHILE SO MANY IN THE USA SUFFER. YOU MAKE MORE IN ONE MINUTE THAN THE NORMAL MAN MAKES IN A YR. yOU ARE THE REASON THE WORLD IS SO F'D UP. wHY CAN'T POLICEMAN AND TEACHERS, FIREMEN ETC. BE PAID BETTER? ALL STARS HAVE TO DO IS READ AND MEMORIZE A SCRIPT.OH MY GOD ,THATS SOOOOO HARD. aND GET MILLIONS TO TO IT.AS DO MANY SPORTS FIGURES.WHERE THRE HELL ARE OUR PRIORITYS AS A NATION???? wHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

P.S. BRAD- WHY DON'T YOU PUT ONE OF YOUR HUNDREDS OF TV'S ON CHANNEL 102-PICK OUT ANY OF THE 8 SCRENES AND SEE WHATS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. DO YOU SEE THE PEOPLE IN HATTI? DO YOU SEE THE PEOPLE IN TEXAS? DO YOU SEE THE THE MULTIBLE HITS THE SOUTH HAS TAKEN IN STORMS AND FLOODS GOING ON AS WE SPEAK? DO YOU SEE PEOPLE FIGHTING EACH OTHER FOR WATER? AS YOU AND YOUR LITTER SIT IN YOUR IVORY TOWERS? YOU MAKE ME PUKE. I GUESS YOU WERE TO BUSY WRITTING YOUR CHECK FOR THE GAYS INSTEAD OF SENDING THAT CHECK TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. I SIT HERE WONDERING HOW ME AND MY HUSBAND WILL HAVE A FUTURE, HOW WE WORK AND WORK AND CAN NEVER GET AHEAD. HOW YOU PUT ON YOUR MAKE-UP AND GET MILLIONS TO '"ACT" I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT.OH YAH -PRETTY F'ING GOOD.

#39 minerva,

seriously. 'a hassle'? mothers need to form a bond with their BABIES. otherwise, you get a ted bundy or john wayne gacy. i would call that more than a hassle. and to take a child from a foster care system is like playing russian roulette. don't belittle it to a 'hassle'. what a neat little box and bow you just stuck everyone in because they want to have an emotionally happy child.

and while we're at it, spare me with the 'it's her choice' and she 'doesn't need a guilt trip argument. if it cries, feels pain or has hunger, it's a baby and you shouldn't kill it.

i am sorry about your friend tho. her parents are nuts-but not becuz they are 'religious'.

AWESOME. All you homophobes can fuck yourselves.

it's so funny to see people argue on the internet, who gives a shit about anything, we're all gonna waste away someday, love life while you can! peace and love haters

p.s. Brad is sooooooo effin hot! I'd tap that over and over again

@42
Of course it's like playing Russian Roulette which is why it is a hassle. What in the hell are you talking about putting people in a box, an emotionally happy child comes from an emotionally happy family and even then. You don't know how your child will turn out even if you were the best parent in the universe and my point was that people have this crazy belief that just because you adopt a baby instead of a child things will be happy and dandy.
And while you're at it, YOU CAN'T TELL A PERSON WHAT TO DO, they will do it the legal way or back door ally way... But of course you wouldn't care, it goes against your belief so you don't care about the health of the woman, her options, what happened and why she's doing this. I'm not saying that child shouldn't be cared for, I'm not saying that life shouldn't be given a chance but it's none of your business what someone else does and you cannot blame them for it. When it's your choice, when it matters TO YOU then fuck, do whatever you seem fits best.
And yes, I feel sorry about my friend too. She's highly messed up in many ways but she still goes on with her life. Like I said, you never know how someone will turn out.
And just for the record, I just mentioned the whole super religious thing as a point, that just because you "Praise God" in public doesn't mean you're a rotten person on the inside. I'm religious and proud of it, I would never deny my faith and yet still I know that the choice of a man is their own.

On a lighter note... why is Brad Pitt dressed like a pimp with a bleached outfit?

AMNESIA is there a particular reason why you have that name or is it because someone slapped the fuck out of you so hard you got it. If your going to ramble on then please do all of us the favor and make sense. I totally agree with minerva.

what a sick country we have. men can suck each others turdy cocks but we prosecute bigamist????

No surprise that Brad Pitt is a closet case limp wristed faggot.

Is that the Great Gatsby?

50 - say what you want. he wont hear you. you are not good enough to lick his boots.

I still don't understand why people are threatened by homosexuality.

#48 lenore

i couldn't care less you disagree with me or dislike my name. At least half the US agrees with me and quite a bit of the world as well.

I think researching the actual 'back-alley statistics' would surprise you and Minerva both.

And yes, I completely stand by the fact that most parents want to raise an infant so they can properly bond with it. That's a fact, toots and if that sounds like rambling, I will reply next time using only mono-syllable words for my feisty opponent.

I love how #31 Zuggy thinks a view is being forced upon him/her... as if oppressive views aren't being forced upon gays to begin with... as if gay marriage is going to affect Zuggy's life.

Good to know there's so many haters alive and well in the Superficial message boards. Hopefully at some point they will go back to finish Jr. High and learn about, hmm...

-SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - (the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing on the legal status)
-SEPARATE BUT EQUAL = NOT EQUAL (civil unions are kinda like having to move to the back of the bus)
-maybe some common decency. Gays are people, just with naturally different desires. Homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom, just Youtube it if you don't believe it. Quit living in fear and hatred, just live and let live.

I love how #31 Zuggy thinks a view is being forced upon him/her... as if oppressive views aren't being forced upon gays to begin with... as if gay marriage is going to affect Zuggy's life.

Good to know there's so many haters alive and well in the Superficial message boards. Hopefully at some point they will go back to finish Jr. High and learn about, hmm...

-SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - (the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing on the legal status)
-SEPARATE BUT EQUAL = NOT EQUAL (civil unions are kinda like having to move to the back of the bus)
-maybe some common decency. Gays are people, just with naturally different desires. Homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom, just Youtube it if you don't believe it. Quit living in fear and hatred, just live and let live.

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Questions?

Hey buddy, God doesn't exist. Other humans born before you wrote the bible in his imaginary name. Now those ancient social laws tell you what to do and how to think. So wise up and use your brain that makebelieve-God gave you or just go to imaginary-Hell.

God = Santa Claus for adults. You believe in God just as much as children believe flying reindeer land on their roof on Dec. 24th. Taking moral advice from a fairy tale makes you gullible, forcing those values on other people makes you a dick.

Questions?

57,

There has never, ever, been any proof that any gawd exists or ever existed. Gawds only exist in the imaginations of the fools who believe in them; there have been thousands of gawds worshipped yet none have ever been proven to exist.

The bible is a book of fairy tales fabricated by ancient men who had no science; they were guessing that they were like the 3rd generation on the planet. Of course the sciences and Darwin shattered the glass houses of religions. Your glass house was shattered by Darwin 150 years before you were told what to believe.

Get a clue, fool.

FAG

@ 54
It's cute to see how you react, the last punch trying to make someone feel less than you... Really doesn't though, in fact it makes me feel like somehow you felt threatened and that's why you have to use that as your comeback.
It's ok you can talk to me just like any person, no need to spell things out for me. You know you can't change my mind and I can't change yours (not like I was planning to anyway) I wonder what that was again, oh yes, choice.
Go ahead and think what you want. I'm out of work so I really don't give a damn anymore haha... But remember though, don't treat a person as your inferior just because they don't agree with you, it just makes you look like a bigger moron in the end...

If the bible is false, how do you explain the prophecies that come true thous ands of years later?

#62- minerva

relax. i was responding to lenore. go back and read her post and then apply your advice accordingly.

thanks, hon

@ Minerva and #56-John and several other people:
It's great to see that there are some open minded, intelligent people in the world, and I absolutely agree with you. I just want to hug you all and have a giant intelligent conversation.

#65 megan

supporting a woman's right to make careful choices about her body should be celebrated.

using abortion as birth control is disgusting. i'd like to hug you too and tell you it's okay to suck the head off a baby. but it isn't and it shouldn't be a random choice for a 3rd trimester baby (life of mother, possible severe deformity excluded).

tell yourself you're the bigger person and you're open minded. if you think it's okay for a woman to choose an abortion on a healthy 36-week old baby, you're a joke. enjoy your 'intelligent' conversation.

Brad is only helping contribute to the moral decay that this country is already experiencing...disappointing that he gave financial support for something like this.

Didn't Angelina Jolie say she wouldn't get married again until everyone had the right to marry? Wow he's really putting some work in to tie her down.

#40 + 41

I am praying your UPPER CASE post was a joke, if so, great (don't read below), if not read on:

RE: Brad Pitt; At least he does something. He does not have to do a thing to help anyone. He could just sit on his yacht and let gerbils munch his hoop. As for you, if you fill out an employment application form with your spelling and grammar, I can see where some of your problems have started. Have some personal accountability and stop focusing on shit you can't change and focus on things you can. Like pressing the caps lock button.

As for #57 - TJ; God does not exist, you douchebag.....get a clue.....

Am I the only one fairly amused about how people bitch and whine about celebrities, their lifestyle, their supposedly doublestandards, their looks, their sexuality, their hair, their looks, their toenail-clippings, how they might masturbate etc...

Yet..

They still check out this blog and probably "iwatchstuff.com" too...?

..and they always seems to be coming back for more...

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," Pitt said Wednesday.

That said by a muthafucker who is pro-abortion. Can you believe these Hollywood hypocrites?

Waw these old fashion remarks are even funnier than what the superfish writes. Welcome back in the prehistory!

This fraud eurasian bastard doesn't even live in America and has no intention of ever returning to America. Brangelina isn't married. Americans genetically wouldn't know gay from happy. Most of the posers on this page have another agenda, just like Brangelina had in America. Pitt, Clooney and Damon are losers who've probably done a threesome. Don't count that out. Eurasia hates gays AND Africans, let alone Americans. Americans don't care what eurasians hate because Americans can beat them up in their own caves. Marriage is a piece of holy government crap. Love RULES!!!!!!!!

VOTE McCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear, Amnesia...... its mainly pointless to write you this because by tommorow you wont remember this.... but wait maybe it is a good idea so you can re-read it here in your absent minded head. Incase you didnt know this is a place where people can express there ideas, thoughts beliefs and whatever.... so much like minerva said ..... well it doesnt matter. Basically FUCK OFF. if YOU care to have a smart remark much like you do to many ppl just follow me into another post spot where i can royally let u lick my ass...... oh by the way you have something on your upperlip. I didnt feel the need to use toilet paper because i knew you would come......... *toodles

Minerva you were so right!

What's funny is most gays are anti-religion yet marriage is a religious institution. Why does it matter to them if we call it a civil union, so the can get their benefits or whatever? If it was truly about equal rights, than why can't we call it "a certificate of royal ass slamming and carpet munchery"? They could even have their own ceremonies with flannel shirts/tutu's.

It's because they want special rights, not equal rights. So a compromise (civil union) is offered, yet is refused.

Face it, they aren't the same. They're "special" Why do they want to be treated the same?

pay attention: MISTER FAGGOT HIMSELF IS SPEAKING!!
Are you a fucking priest or something?
OR AN APOSTEL OR EVEN "JESUS"?
Get a life, you IDIOT!!

I can't believe the majority of the comments posted on here. It's very saddening to hear that so many people in this country are so biggoted, conservative, and closed-minded to say such mean things about Brad Pitt and gay people in general. So what if someone is gay or bisexual? It doesn't really matter. People should be celebrating gay and lesbian people and the fact that they are interested in pursuing marriage. It's difficult in this world for gay and lesbian people as it is. Having the benefits (and some of the problems) of marriage would make it a little easier for gays and lesbians - at least economically and socially. I don't understand how or why so many people in this country believe that the Bible is against homosexuality. That is TOTALLY FALSE. In fact, the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality in the modern sense of the idea as being morally wrong. It says that men who lie with another man as with a woman is wrong. That could mean a lot of things. Most gay men who lie with another man are not doing it as though they were with a woman. They are doing it as men lie with a man. But beyond this whole Bible issue, even if the Bible was against homosexuality does not mean that gay and lesbian people should be discriminated against and not allowed the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals. Freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, liberty and justice for all, not just the heterosexual Christians. So please go read more and educate yourselves about what is most important in this country and world - equality.

I don't see the point in criticizing people for taking up one cause over another. Gay marriage over Hurricane relief. Adoption over Aids research. Whatever it is.
Who gives a shit WHAT they decide to support, as long as they support SOMETHING!!!

YES ! He should, since he has owned half of it.

Whatever the fuck he's wearing, he's makes it look gay. Like him.

i am proud to see so many people still hate fags. there is still hope for this country!

I am a Ph.D. qualified attorney (New York Law School, New York University; 1996) and I can happily tell you that there is no legal right to be a homosexual (The Human Rights Act (1958)). Laughing at me? So long as you are a flawless Ph.D. attorney too. Check old prospectuses for New York University and you will see something called The Criminal Offenses Act (1958) referred to and this is one of a set of Acts that include The Human Rights Act (1958). In The Criminal Offenses Act (1958) it is made clear that ALL crime comes from homosexuality in the brain.

Any claimed legalization of homosexuality is legally a FALSE legalization. Therefore, any claim that gay marriage is legal is also FALSE.

This makes me think of the "Takes one to know one" phrase for Brad Pitt. As a 100% heterosexual I can tell you Brad Pitt's behavior here is not what a 100% heterosexual would do, this behavior of his stems solely from homosexuality in his mind - is he a bisexual?

George W. Bush is a homosexual. Laugh. Go on, laugh. Have one of the best laughs in your life. Laugh at George W. Bush (errm, his REAL name is Dennis Norris) because he honestly is a homosexual. In August 2008 Barack Obama was telling people that George W. Bush is a homosexual, so there you go here is some proof for you. I know things about George W. Bush, like having some involvement in those two 1995 nuclear bombings in the U.S.A., and all the other nuclear bombings around the World. It was a 100% homosexual that led these nuclear bombings and he did so from his 100% hatred of everyone and everything - natural love turned into unnatural hatred all because of homosexuality in his brain.

Brad Pitt reckons himself to be a 'hard man' and a 'big tough guy' so maybe he should prove he is these things, instead of just reckoning he is them, and stand AGAINST same-sex marriages.

I do not hate homosexuals - but I completely disagree with them. Hatred is a mental problem suffered by those that enjoy homosexuality. People that are 100% heterosexuals hate no one, they hate nothing and they can only completely disagree with homosexuals not hate them.

The best thing for homosexuals can not be done for them and for the human race and that is to kill them. The most realistic thing that can be done for homosexuals is to fade them out, just like a failed business.

Like The Criminal Offenses Act (1958) the TRUE Bible is very rare and like The Criminal Offenses Act (1958) I have copies of it. In the TRUE Bible the first (and most important) Commandment truly translates to Thou Shalt Not Be A Homosexual. So, yes the (TRUE) Bible is primarily and 100% AGAINST homosexuality.

Have you heard the revolting crap in the music charts recently? E.g. Rihanna, Akon, Kanye West, Kelly Rowland, Beyonce Knowles, Timbaland, Justin Timberlake? They are all connected to the lead nuclear bomber (a 100% homosexual (and, by the way, he is English) and they all know he is), they are all pro-homosexuality for themselves and others, their revolting crap comes from their own inner homosexuality and they do it primarily for capital gain. Would you listen to any of these on a Naim Audio system? Nope.

"Homosexuals are not human."

'Bye for now.

According to a scholarly website called religioustolerance.com:

The institution of marriage has been in a state of flux for centuries. In the U.S., it has continually been redefined:
It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
Prior to and during 1967, at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal throughout the U.S. after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in that year.
But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.

This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when The Netherlands expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month. The capitulated when threatened by a lawsuit. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29. South Africa's law came into effect on 2006-NOV-30.

Many political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship as a civil union or domestic partnership and gain some benefits. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, the UK, Switzerland, and a number of states in the U.S.: The enabling legislation varies greatly among the jurisdictions. Many couples receive only some of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. In the case of the U.S., couples typically receive a few hundred state benefits but not the over one thousand federal benefits.

This web site ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm ) uses the term "same-sex marriage" (abbreviation: SSM) in place of the more commonly used "homosexual marriage" because it is more precise and inclusive. Some individuals with a bisexual orientation form loving committed same-sex relationships and want to marry. The term "SSM" covers them as well as homosexuals.

Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the next few decades -- whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.

Others -- typically religious and social conservatives -- feel that same-sex marriage is a major threat to the institution of marriage itself. They often describe themselves as "supporters of traditional marriage" which actually means that they want to prevent same-sex couples and their children to be forever denied the approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage.

Bible passages describing same-sex marriage:

There are none! You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, and not see even a single same-sex marriage mentioned.

The Bible does contain:
Three stories of loving, same-sex relationships in the Bible involving David, Ruth and Daniel. But there is no indication that any of the three involved sexual activity.
A dozen or so oft-quoted passages about homosexual behavior in the Bible. Because conservative and liberal Christians interpreted the Bible very differently, they reach totally different conclusions about their meaning:
Many conservative Christians interpret these passages as stating unambiguously that all homosexual behavior is forbidden, is an abomination, and is hated by God. It does not matter whether it is in the form of casual sex with a stranger, or sex within a committed, monogamous relationship. It is all sinful. Some consider it an "ordinary" sin -- in the same league as all other incorrect behavior, like lying, cheating or stealing. Others consider it such a serious sin that it will prevent gays and lesbians from attaining Heaven after death, even if they had previously been saved.
Many liberal Christians largely ignore English translations of the Bible which are often heavily biased against homosexuality. They prefer to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek. They frequently interpret these passages as condemning:
Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).

But on the topic of sexual activity within a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship, many religious liberals view the Bible as being completely silent.
One of the very few beliefs on which conservative and liberal Christians agree is that there are no definitive statements in the Bible which deal directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, either.

There are two sources that we can use to infer Christian perspectives on same-sex marriage:
Bible passages which deal with principles of love, sex, and marriage. Conservative and liberal approaches are described below. They come to opposite conclusions.
Direct assessment of the will of God through prayer. Unfortunately, according to a pilot study of some visitors to this web site, this path does not seem to be available.

Celibacy: The Bible generally promotes celibacy, for the minority of humans who can experience a complete, fulfilled life without sex.
Sexually active singles: The Hebrew Scriptures contains very severe penalties, including burning alive and stoning and for sexually active single women. Some passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures condemn sexual behavior by both single men and single women.
Committed relationships are strongly supported throughout the Bible, from the Song of Solomon to Paul's epistles. Although not specifically mentioned in the Bible, same-sex permanent relationships would seem to be as beneficial and holy for a gay couple as they are to a heterosexual couple. It benefits society as well, in terms of lessened promiscuity and greater social stability. As of mid-2001, only gays and lesbians who are residents of the Netherlands can actually marry. Americans and Canadians can only register a civil union in Vermont, U.S. or as a domestic partnership in Nova Scotia, Canada. This situation is bound to change in the future.

A religious liberal might thus conclude that gays and lesbians are called by God to either remain celibate or to enter into committed, loving, supported relationships -- exactly the same lifestyles as God expects of heterosexuals.

#74 lenore

i remember you're ignorant from yesterday. i also remember your charming way with words. you are truly an eloquent speaker who can charm the birds from trees. god bless you, lenore!

Amnesia darling came back for more i see... was a bit tastey?

It’s great that Brad and Angelina have contributed a lot of money to charities. They are generous and have good heart! Brad is open to liberalism and support gay’s right. But one thing HE MAY NOT KNOW is Gay and Homosexual are sinful according to the Bible (1 Corinthian 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, … will inherit the kingdom of God ). If someone denies the truth that homosexual behavior is sin, but instead approves of it or rejoices in it, what that person bring to the homosexual person will not be love – no matter how affirming, kind or tolerant.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the eyes of God. The Bible defines homosexual behavior as “dishonorable” and “shameless” and “contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26-27). God destroyed two cities: Sodom and Gomorrah according to the Old Testament because of their sinful act in homosexuals. Brad is generous for his charity but he is against the will of God.
For the people who are homosexuals, we respect and LOVE them just like anyone else as God love us all. However, we need to pray for them so THEY CAN CHANGE their sinful lifestyle (as stated in the Bible) if they come to God (in the Name of Jesus Christ) and ask for help and repented, unless they are so prideful and want to do things according to own-self’s lust.
We DO NOT WANT OUR KIDS TO BE RAISED UP IN SCHOOL that encourage HOMOSEXUAL as a normal thing to do. People can smoke if they wanted to, but there’s warning sign on the outside cover that smoke can cause cancer and hazard to health. We need to PROTECT FAMILY MARRIAGE between A MAN & A WOMAN, and SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8.
You may read story of a Liberal Democrat at below link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

Why is same sex marriage so hard to accept? It's not like you are forced to go to the wedding.

I wonder how some of you would react if your children turned out gay... or if someone you loved deeply "came out of the closet"

hahaha!
That’s kind of cool of him to say so (if that’s even true..).

In response to post # 86 (Good Friend):

You, my dear, have conviently allowed your religion to out weigh the facts as recorded within Scripture and it's history. Regarding your post, the devil is in the details. Details which you either purposefully or ignorantly ignore. In any event, it's dishonest nonetheless. You may want to pay attention to a response I wrote concerning flawed statements former Baptist Minister, Mike Huckabee made during his run for Presidency. I would suggest you pay close attention because it brings the falacies of your post front and center. Below is that article:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view” - Presidential Hopeful: Mike Huckabee

Mr. Huckabee uttered these words amidst a Michigan audience Monday January 14th 2008. I, for one, welcome his statements. They open a door to the scattered debris buried throughout history regarding the “word of the living God” and “changes”. As a result, one might therefore ask…”How would history respond to Huckabee?” “Would it support Huckabee’s claim that it’s ‘easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God?” Let’s consider just two examples.

Approaching the 13th century, the story about Sodom and Gomorrah had already developed a history of being altered. Now, it was officially adopting this more “contemporary view” - one which associated it with homosexuality. Initially, the reasons for those cities’ fate were confined only to the reasons given within Scripture. Not one biblical reference equated the cities with homosexuality. Nor could it, after all, the victims in the Genesis account were not even human. They were materialized angels, or as Jude 7 terms it ’sarkos heteras’, literally ‘flesh different’.
After the erroneous authorization of homosexuality as one of Sodom’s sins, came defined derivatives of its name: “sodomy”, “sodomize”, “sodomite” - manufactured terms whose influence dates during the 13th century. Ancient ‘New Testament’ records, the Septuagint, and ancient Hebrew texts contain both the Greek and Hebrew words for both “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”. But they do not contain original Greek or Hebrew words for “sodomy”, “sodomize”, “sodomite” or any derivative of the name Sodom. History confirms that it was the ‘traditions of men’ that furthered this misleading addition along with its artificial definitions because according to the “word of the living God’, as some of the earliest manuscripts record it, the term “sodomite” is nowhere to be found. But according to the “word of the living God” as succeeding translators translate it, it’s scattered throughout both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures! This introduced into the text misleading notions and false conclusions. Because the city of Sodom, whose name formulates the word “sodomite”, could now be ‘biblically’ associated with ’same-sex’ activity. Such an alteration provided a bridge for importing into scripture dishonest ideologies and words such as: “homosexuals”, “homosexual offenders”, “those who practice homosexuality”, and “homosexual perversion” just to quote a few bible ‘translations’.

First Corinthians 6:9 contains two Greek words: ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’. Bibles such as the Wyclif (1508), Young (1898), Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (1958), Jerusalem (English) (1968), New King James (1979), New Jerusalem (1985) and the New Revised Standard (1989), all “change” one of the Greek words, ‘arsenokoitai’, to either “synn of Sodom” or “sodomites”. Others, such as the New World Translation with References (1984) supply a footnoted reference containing “sodomite” to justify its faulty rendition. On the other hand, bibles such as The New American Standard (1963), the New International (1973), the New American Catholic (1987), and the New Living Bible (1996) change ‘arsenokoitai’ to “homosexuals”, “homosexual offenders”, and “practicing homosexuals”. The New King James (1979) opted instead to change the Greek word ‘malakoi’, which literally means ’soft’, to “homosexuals.”

Some of the editions of the same Bible use entirely different choices for ‘arsenokoitai’. Compare the 1st and 2nd editions of the NIV. Other translations such as The Amplified Version (1958), the New English Bible (1961), Today’s English Version (1966), and the Living Bible (1971) opted to combine both Greek words to render a synthesized phrase involving the word “homosexual” in some form or another.

Even more astonishing is that some translators, while combining both Greek terms to render a reading in 1Cor.6:9, will footnote their reason, then without any explanation, provide the exact reading at 1 Tim. 1:10, where this time, only one of the Greek words ‘arsenokoitai(s)’, is used. The New World Translation with References (1984) allows the addition of the ’s’ to manipulate its rendition at 1 Tim. 1:10. Not surprisingly, this action goes unreferenced. In fact, study the differences by comparing the two scriptures as translated in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the GREEK SCRIPTURES (1985). Still, others such as the NIV (2001) use two different translations for the same word and yet, provide no footnote at either location. This shameful stunt easily goes undetected! Then you have the NET Bible (2005) providing extensive commentary to colorfully excuse its predisposed decisions. It does a savory job creating the illusion of being scholastically conclusive.

While the English word for “homosexual” didn’t come onto the scene until around 1869, the Greeks already had such specific terminologies and employed them (ironically, “sodomite” was not one of them). None of those terms, however, occur in the Genesis, Romans, Corinthians, or Timothy passages as recorded in both the Septuagint, or in modern-day Greek copies of the “New Testament” even as written by such consulted scholars as Wescott and Hort. But as history has shown, with the stroke of a pen, the “word of the living God” ‘can’ be changed, and has been! Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, publicly justified such a change on his radio program January 2, 2008 by referencing, albeit erroneously, Romans 1, saying “…female-female homosexuality…”, a phrase that passage never contains. Thereby, in Mr. Mohler’s view, it paves the way for “homosexual” (’both’ sexes going after their own sex) to perform as a viable translation for ‘arsenokoitai’, which literally means ‘male-bed’. In fact, take a listen to him for yourself http://albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-01-02 within the elapsed times of 26:30 - 30:20 min.

Carelessly, anyone attempting to justify ‘arsenokoitai’ being changed or even compared to homosexual, male or female, has first failed at recognizing the cohesive relationship the Scriptures maintain, and then, simply put, failed to translate! The first red flag should have been the fact that ‘arsenokoitai’, unlike the word “homosexual”, does not bear any reference to females. That’s interesting, especially when one considers that so-called Christians try to co-relate Romans 1 with the 1 Corinthian passage to support their erroneous claim. But despite such an unscriptural effort, a glaring omission inadvertently arises. Because while the Romans passage uses a Greek word translated by most as “likewise” to compare the rebellion of “both” sexes, addressing those women who ‘exchanged’ the natural use of themselves, it’s actually only the men whom the passage records as being ‘burned out’ with lust after one another after ‘leaving’ women. More importantly, however, is that the account in Romans never once uses the term ‘malakoi’ or ‘arsenokoitai’. And by the same respect, neither 1 Corinthians nor 1 Timothy utilize the wording found in Romans 1. Yet, coincidently, the same writer, Paul, wrote all three of these books! In fact, it’s worth noting that not even the early “Church Fathers” used 1 Cor6:9 or the two words found there in conjunction with homosexuality or Romans 1. That dishonest practice had yet to formulate, and it wouldn’t become a part of “Sacred Tradition” until centuries later. All the while, not even the structure of the words themselves ever allowed for such a comparison, this fact even being realized by “modern translators” as early as the penning of the Latin Vulgate which literally interprets ‘arsenokoitai’ as ‘liers with males’.

All along, however, it was the original biblical setting of the Romans 1 passage itself that provided the framework and dimension to Paul’s words found there to give it its perspective; because even history contextualized this passage in association with rampant orgies, bestiality, and idolatrous sexcapades. In fact, even within the Mosaic Law, the Levitical Law Code remained contextually accurate regarding the Canaanite culture of its day by addressing the idolatrous sex rituals its male priests engaged in. Hence, the absence of any reference to females. And the explanation of the Law, also known as the book of Deuteronomy, emphasizes this idolatrous theme by this time warning all of Israel against becoming temple prostitutes and cross-dressing, inturn, keeping itself apart from the pagan practices that lay ahead. So fittingly, Paul’s denunciation in Romans for their ‘passions of dishonor’ is something all Christians, gay, straight, or transgendered, agree with! All of this, however, presents a sharp contrast to the reaction Jesus had towards the faithful centurion who asked that his ‘pais’ be healed; or the interaction between the Gospels and the Ethiopian eunuch (or as some presume to hastily finalize: “court official”).

The fact is, the mess religion has made throughout the ages by being more exacting than the scriptures, and ripping apart text from its context concerning the “issue” of homosexuality is without debate! Even more unfortunate is that such influential people as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, have chosen to hide such scriptural exploitations, by using terminologies as “the traditional Christian understanding” and “pro-family” to mask the facts. And to make matters worse, the latest trend by many so-called Christian leaders is to pacify their guilty past of distortion by using “compassion” and “love” as their Trojan Horse.

The truth, however, is that the sad consequences of such scribal manipulation are far from innocent, revealing certain aspects of the “Judeo-Christian” alliance to by anything but “pro-family”! The division and discrimination each group has been responsible for throughout every segment of their influence is unparalleled. Many actions and teachings branded with their seal of approval have influenced bible based weaponry and merciless isolation against certain types of individuals all because of their orientation! History well documents how these ones have been tossed out by their families, societies, congregations, and in various cases, themselves. Imagine the constant heartache of being in love with your soul-mate only to believe God is rejecting you as a result. Indeed even the fundamental desire for love and companionship has been trivialized and reduced to merely a tendency to be dealt with! And while a few may appear to, it’s at the peril of giving society false, generalized expectations and simplified conclusions regarding others. Ask yourself, how would all of this make you feel? Regrettably, some, trying to escape the mental torture have been stumbled into denying God and his Word altogether, while many others have sadly gone out searching for comfort within the arms of suicide!

But not all “changes” to the “word of the living God” had the veneer of merely being variations of translation. Consider slavery. “What was ‘God’s standard’ regarding that Mr., Huckabee?” According to his statements, any “contemporary view” should be trumped by the “word of the living God”. “Was it?”

The Bible chronicles history throughout the maturity of humanity. So naturally within its pages, one finds the institution of slavery becoming progressively nullified. Prior to Jesus, the regulation of slavery by the Mosaic Law was a relief in comparison to the conditions of societal norm. But with Jesus came the new commandment to ‘love one another just as I HAVE LOVED YOU’. So while in the ‘Old Testament’ its regulated, in the ‘New Testament’ its woven into the background of biblical settings. And it would soon be made clear that there was no distinction between freeman or slave, Jew or Greek, nor male and female in Christ. Thus, escorting the understanding that all, from the womb onward are created equally and should be treated as such. It was this ’spirit of the law’ that Jesus introduced to those early 1st century Christians, and it was this same law that was to be written upon their hearts.

However, on June 21, 1844, Baptist minister Basil Manly, president of the University of Alabama gave a sermon entitled “National Stability”. In it, he supplied many convincing errors that proved effective at keeping guilt and slavery at opposite ends. Several scriptures were quoted in efforts to give owners justification. He attempted to decorate the institution with Christian principles and accent any benefits slavery provided. His biblical references, in his opinion, projected slavery as a ‘divine ordination’. And in a warped pattern of thought, he reasoned that such an ordination was especially beneficial in that it gave slaves the opportunity to hear the Gospels.

True, during the 1st century, the decay of slavery had yet to be fully excavated from the early Christian congregation. They were still in their formative years! Despite this, Christians were not relieved of their obligation to uphold tenure or to ‘walk two miles when told to walk one’ as Jesus prescribed. Even more so, Christian principles were not off limits. As a result, the bible records Onesimus, himself being converted to Christianity, ultimately heeding Jesus’ example by allowing Paul to return him back to his master. Pastor Manly, however, taught that this and other biblical references implied approval and condoned slavery. As it was, not even a year after his sermon, the Baptists split; and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was officially formed on May of 1845.

Illiteracy for slaves was encouraged. It was feared that if God’s word were studied, their liberation would be realized. That seemed like an odd concern if, according to the “word of the living God”, it was sanctioned. Such an apprehension revealed the Southern Baptist’s awareness of what the “word of the living God” was actually communicating. Although the ‘letter of the law’ may have remained unaltered, it was certainly the religious leaders’ ’spirit of the law’ that was highly tainted. Not surprisingly, Jesus issued a similar indictment against the Pharisees, who too exploited doctrine for personal gain.

The consequences of the SBC’s decision to promote slavery would play a major role in furthering racial relations in America to extreme lows. Their actions would serve as a critical reminder of one of the greatest and simplest commandments expressed by Jesus: “Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF”. More than a century would pass, however, before the Southern Baptist’s organization as a whole would admit any wrongdoing. Hence, in 1995, in a decision referred to as the “Declaration of Repentance”, an apology was officially declared. No longer able to deny the scriptural facts, their conservative, “contemporary view” was finally renounced and regarding slavery, the “word of the living God” had been restored. Such biblical hic-cups, however, would mar the SBC as having a racist and tragic past.

The Constitution, by comparison, denounced slavery nearly 130 years before the SBC’s public apology. And in due course, Jesus, through his perfect example, would confirm that the “word of the living God” never even supported it! Even with its 27 amendments, the Constitution has remained remarkably consistent with its intent as expressed in the Preamble. Amending it entails a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate and a three-fourths approval by the States. It ultimately has to win the hearts and minds of a nation before it can be altered. Not so with the “word of the living God”. As history unmistakably confirms, by merely having the clout, the committee, and the hope that most will be too uniformed to notice, it most definitely can be changed, with ease and with devastating effects! Such actions are a disgusting insult to human dignity and above all Truth!

Mike Huckabee’s scene in Michigan presented a subtle reminder of the power of prestige and the prestige of power. If a former Baptist preacher hands it out, well then it must be true! His cheerful audience didn’t seem to have a problem with it. History, on the other hand, does. Without a doubt, Huckabee’s statements were a masquerading facade. They veil the un-Christian details of some of the religious rights’ positions and rhetoric, both past and present. The fact is, it’s not “easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God”. Clearly, the “word of the living God” has easily been changed. It is therefore not any surprise to find that in more place than one, its loving Author, aware of the possibility of manipulation, sternly warned against it!

Author’s Pen Name: Tru Agape
Revision Date: 12/11/08
Copyright 2008