Gay “Marriage” Ice Cream

A friend just e-mailed me this little tidbit from the culture. This is no joke, and it wouldn’t be funny if it were. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream has rebranded one of it flavors in support of gay “marriage.” Here’s what the press release says:

‘Ben & Jerry’s, known for its euphoric ice cream flavors and dedication to social justice, celebrates the beginning of the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont with the symbolic renaming of its well-known ice cream flavor “Chubby Hubby” to “Hubby Hubby.” In partnership with Freedom to Marry, Ben & Jerry’s aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and, to show its support, will serve “Hubby Hubby” sundaes in Vermont Scoop Shops throughout the month of September.’

To read more about it, see here.

30 Responses to Gay “Marriage” Ice Cream

  1. Luke Britt September 15, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    but their ice cream is really really good.

  2. paul September 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    OH NO! A company dedicated to liberal causes is dedicated to yet another liberal cause! OH MY GOSH!

    Denny, you need to find better things to do with your time. Maybe you and Barry could start an ice cream company that makes ice cream even better than Ben and Jerry’s, but dedicated to conservative values.

  3. Adam Omelianchuk September 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Yeah, your brand could be called “headship hubby.”

  4. Matt Svoboda September 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Paul,

    Thats the difference… Conservatives dont waste their time with ridiculous things like gay marriage ice cream.

    Denny doesnt need to find a better way to spend his time, liberals do.

  5. paul September 15, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    Matt,

    would you also like to tell me that you are rubber and I am glue, so on and etc?

    By Ben and Jerry renaming their product, they get free press from both Denny (and many, many others like him) and those for whom gay marriage is a major concern. And no matter which side of the spectrum you’re on, there are plenty more people talking about Ben & Jerry’s ice cream today. It’s brilliant, actually.

    Which means, Matt, that maybe you need to think about what you say before you say it.

  6. Luke Britt September 15, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    I like Adam’s comment. Complementarians and Cream?

    Submission Swirl?

    Denny, you should bring this up at the next CBMW meeting.

  7. Darius T September 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    Submission Swirl… nice.

    Paul, I think Ben & Jerry’s will get hurt more by this than helped. It’s one thing if it was a product that few people would ever use or know about… but Ben & Jerry’s? I know I am less inclined to buy their oh-so-delicious ice cream now that I’ve seen where they spend, I mean waste their profits.

  8. John Holmberg September 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    Are you serious? You seriously deleted my post? You’re amazing. . .

  9. DennyReader September 16, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    Darius, think Unilever instead.

  10. Kelly September 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Old and young like ice cream Darius…and poll after poll shows that most young people are liberal and unbigoted on the issue of gay marriage. I suspect the demographic that buys the most B&J is younger than older. In the long run, it is a good business move, in the short run, it expressed a gracious tolerance the lack thereof is the cause that pollsters like Barna point out is the reason most young people now hold conservatives churches (and ALL Christians) in low esteem over, even outright hostility in fact (go to Barna, check out the attitudes of the younger generations towards the church…they think conservative churches are mean spirted no gay issues…I wonder why?), and finally, speaking as someone with gay relatives who are now married, it was just a classy thing to do to recognize such marriages. We see pictures of straight couples on products all the time after all. My married gay relatives are a family. They are part of my family. I am not trying to tear up any of your relatives marriages. Please, show the same respect to me.

    Also, B&J’s are in Vermont…low crime, low teenage pregnancy rate, low drop out rate, VERY high education standards and percentages of population with college degrees, overwhelmingly open minded and informed people, most of whom are very gay friendly and affirming. In other words, liberal. (before anyone gets upset, look up the states with the most ‘conservative’ churhes and church attendence and overlap the map with crime/divorce/teenage pregnancy rates. Thanks)

    They are headquartered there (as part of a multinational) and that liberal progressive attitude that has made them a great company for years is being expressed by this name on the ice cream.

    Long and short of it, they are not bigots, they know most of their customers are not bigots, and if some are, maybe this name change will make someone (gasp) think. If not, well, the number of people who would be offended by this gets smaller and smaller each year. So, even if it were not the right thing to do (it is) it is the good business thing to do.

    All the problems in the Bible belt…all the teen pregnancy, all the divorce, all the poverty…but, a company headquartered in VT classily shows support for allowing two adults in love to marry who happen to be of the same gender, and THAT gets conservatives interested enough to post.

    It would be funny if it were not so sad.

  11. Darius T September 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    Actually Kelly, today’s young people tend to be more conservative than their parents, who came out of the 70’s. They realized the excesses of their parents are not healthy and have pushed back against them.

  12. DennyReader September 17, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    look up the states with the most ‘conservative’ churhes and church attendence and overlap the map with crime/divorce/teenage pregnancy rates.

    Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you making the assertion conservative church attendance is the cause of crime, divorce, and teenage pregnancy?

    pollsters like Barna point out is the reason most young people now hold conservatives churches (and ALL Christians) in low esteem over, even outright hostility

    First, morality is not based on popular opinion. Even if it is true that most young people favors homosexual marriage and are hostile to conservative churches, it still does not make them right. And I don’t think you believe that the minority should immediately switch their moral values just because the majority disagrees with them do you? Shouldn’t the minority work even harder to change the erroneous views of the majority?

    Let me ask you a question. Do any of these angry young people that you speak of, attend the conservative churches that you imply connects to crime, divorce and teenage pregnancy?

    20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
    Is 5:20-21

    The only intolerance and bigots I see are from liberals who want to silence those who speak out against homosexuality. Many homosexuality advocates have no problem with violating the rights of those who advocates that marriage has always been define as the union between a man and a woman. You would think these homosexuality advocates would have the basic courtesy of creating a separate label like gay marriage/homosexual marriage instead of forcing everyone else to change our definition of what marriage mean. It is obvious the GLBT do not respect the rights of others by forcing society to accept homosexuality as normal. It is about forcing Christians who hold the institution of marriage as established by God to accept an abomination against the Word of God.

  13. Kelly September 18, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    To be homophobic IS to be immoral Denny reader. The higher quality theology churches (Lutheran, Episcopal, UCC, etc. realize this, and do what is right…even if it is not always popular).

    Your arguements against gay marriage sound identical to the ones my southern relatives used to use against integration, civil rights, religious minorities, etc. It is about having a legal playing field. What about the rights of the ministers in the United Church of Christ to legally marry same sex couples in their church down the road from yours? They are Christians and have a different interpretation of scripture than you. The government should decide which one should apply to all? After all, if the law says they cannot preform a same gender marriage, THEIR rights as Christian church are violated. Better to be neutral, allow those who feel it is their Christian duty to perform such marriages do so, and allow those who do not to refuse to do so. If it IS legal, you would have no obligation to marry anyone you do not want to. No one here has ever heard of a Catholic church being forced to marry a divorced person, etc. Thats a straw man argument. As per the “what about my right not to even acknowledge such a marriage?” That is sooo selfish, and no different than the old “What about my right not to hire someone whose color or religion or national origin? I have rights to!” arguement.(none of which can be changed, save religion I suppose…please dont insult me and your own intelligence with the ‘ex gay’ thing. I work with former ‘ex gays’ thank you very much). The right to a bigoted opinion should not extend to the opinion allowing discrimination. Period. Just like bigoted persons on issues of race or religion or national origin can still be bigoted, they have no right to hurt some one in hiring, or home ownership, or immigration etc. due to their conser4vative character flaw. The same should (and will) apply to the rights of gay couples, and the churches they belong to.

    As per the crime rates, divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates in the Bible belt, wow! Do you LIVE in the south? YES, YES! they often attend those churches, run those state governments and dominate much of the local culture and social programs. Look at the SBC and other evangelical divorce rates! Look at the rate of crime in the states with the most fundamentalists! At the very least, they are not influencing those around them, and it is beyond question that the states with the most problems are the ones where the conservative evangelicals are most influencial. In the areas where they controllthe government and culture, the rates of these problems are the highest. The stats on teen birth and teen pregnancy rates and conservative evangelicals are on line and easily accessible for anyone who wants to read them to do so. Are they they cause of teen pregnancy and high divorce rates? Well, with the “just say no” appoach to sex ed dominant in these states due to their influence, vs the more libertine (but well educated in sex ed liberal states like VT, where kids have sex and know about birth controll, sex ed. and abortion is readily available) yes, the answer is yes. The conservative evangelicals have put in laws in schools and in society where young people, who still have sex, don’t know how to prevent pregnancy. As per divorce, well, the stats speak for themselves. As per education, fundamentalism and education accomplishment seldom travel well together. And as per the ill health and other problems, once again, look at a map showing where fundamentalism and these problems exist. The overlap is astounding. Contrast that to ‘awful’ northern liberal states that provide gay rights.

    Once again, I will say it; with all the problems in their back yards, and in their own churches and breaking up families, the conservative evangelicals still find time to mock a company that is celebrating the right of people in the state it is located in to marry if they are in love. Nice to see where the priorites are…and once again, as the conservative Barna pointed out from his polling, I see why so many of the young hold the Christian church in such disdain.

    It has earned it.

    Finally, Darius, if you think younger people are more conservative on gay and lesbian rights issues than the previous generation, well…You are going for humor, right? Seriously, I am perplexed by that statement. Even the other conservative posters here must find that an interesting (and that is being kind) assumption on your part. Among the younger genertation, being gay is, as conservative commentator George Will put it, ‘no different than being left or right handed. It is just not an issue for them’. Except as an issue of civil rights I would add.

  14. Kelly September 18, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    One last comment to Dennyreader, you ask a fair question…go to Barna and read the article on the attitudes of the young towards the church. In answer to your question, yes, a lot of them DID attend a conservative congregation at one point. But not now. And when asked about why they feel the way they do about the church, they often give concrete examples of why they do so. You might find it uncomfortable, but you will find it informative I think.

  15. Darius T September 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Unlike everything you say, mine was not an assumption, Kelly. Poll after poll have shown that this generation is more conservative than their parents.

  16. Patrick September 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    Darius, you should show such a poll supporting your belief. Here’s one supporting Kelly’s assertations, found after about 10 seconds on Google:

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/24/gay-marriage-civil-union-homosexuality-opinions-columnists-legal.html

    Specifically read the line which says: “In the Newsweek poll, 51% of 18- to 34-year-olds supported gay marriage; 22% of those 65 or older did.”

  17. DennyReader September 19, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    I was right. Those who advocate homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle are intolerant and bigoted. If I dare to challenge and speak out against them, then I am a homophobe and disagreement with Kelly IS immoral. What next are you going to pull a Perez Hilton?

    Am I one of your southern relatives? Do you know if I agreed with any of those charges you’ve made? What if I say that the arguments that you use to support gay marriage is the same as those use by NAMBLA? Does that invalidate your argument? You are conflating homosexuality with other issue to buy yourself legitimacy. This is a flagrant mischaracterization of me and shows how weak your argument is.

    You also said that some self professing Christians support homosexuality because they interpret Scripture differently than I do. Do you know what Scripture they use to support homosexuality? Can you give me some Scripture examples and how they would use it to support homosexuality? Maybe you are just shopping for sympathetic supporters without regard for the merit of their arguments? And I have never said that government should get involved in interpreting theology.

    Your arguments are just convoluted, so let me offer you a lesson in critical thinking. Take your example of conflating two different categories.

    “what about my right not to even acknowledge such a marriage?” That is sooo selfish, and no different than the old “What about my right not to hire someone whose color or religion or national origin? I have rights to!”

    First you will notice that this type of sophomoric arguments is only used by people like you as a straw man just to knock it down. I have never used or heard of anyone opposed to gay marriage claim that we should deny gay marriage because we have the right to deny hiring on the basis of race and religion. Now, let’s think about what you are saying. The basis for hiring someone to perform a specific function is based on that person’s ability to perform that job’s function. The person’s skin color or religious belief has no bearing on that person’s ability to perform that function. Therefore as an employer, my outcome would not change as a result of a person’s race or religion. However, this is not true with gay marriage advocacy. Even putting the Bible aside, what is the definition of marriage? Marriage has always been understood as the union between a man and a woman from time in memorial. The race and religion of the couple, as long as it is a man and a woman, does not change the institution of marriage. But gay marriage will fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage. So if we allow gay marriage then we would no longer know what it means when someone say, they are married. Is that person married to someone in the opposite sex or the same sex? We can disagree on the significance of that but the fact is that the definition of marriage has been changed. That makes you a bigot and intolerant for forcing a change upon me that I do not agree with. It may sound great using this straw man among your gay advocates but it is specious and illogical.

    As to your visceral hatred for Christians and what you call fundamentalists is very evident. Unfortunately it has also clouded your objectivity in rational thinking. I might be a bit too subtle before, but can we put our thinking caps on just for a second Kelly? Your desire to blame the problems that you’ve stated on conservative Christianity makes about as much sense as saying, I see a lot of mosquitoes in the morning and evening so mosquitoes must be the cause for sunrise and sunset. Maybe you’ve been reading too much of Christopher Hitchens. Contrary to anti-Christian myth, abstinence does not cause teenage pregnancy. You know, those less educated southerners actually learned enough about modern science to know that unless there is intimate physical contact between a male and a female, pregnancy does not occur. It may come as news to you but trust me this is a fact. Also contrary to anti-Christian myth, abstinence does not somehow magically take possession of a person’s body and force them to engage in sex. The fact is that pregnancy only occurs when a male and female decide not to engage in abstinence. In other words, the problem occurs when people decide to go against the teachings of those crazy conservative Christians, imagine that. It is wild, I know.

    Christians are not perfect, as a matter of fact the reason we are Christians is because we know we are not perfect. Do Christian families have problems like the ones you’ve raise? Yes we do, but that all depends on how committed the parents and their children are to follow the Bible. Even if we do our best there is no guarantee that we will escape the problems you’ve raised but I believe the percentages would be much lower than secularists (confirmed by survey). For one thing if we homeschool our kids then the chances of them engaging in premarital sex would be lowered. Finally, teen pregnancy does not equal promiscuity. Just because non-Christian teenagers have similar pregnancy rates as Christians that does not make them less promiscuous. My guess is that non-Christians are much more promiscuous in order to achieve those similar rates. And promiscuity and premarital sex is what Christians consider as immoral and speaks against. Does this make me a premaritalphobe?

  18. Kelly September 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    No Denny Reader, I am pointed out that my anti semitic relative was a bigot.

    I am pointing out that my racist relative is a bigot.

    And I am pointing out that anyone and everyone who is a homophobe IS a bigot.

    Period. Not any more up for discussion among decent people than the sad arguement that a racist I know makes that I am intollerant of his ‘right’ to only hire people of his race.

    Am I ‘intollerant’ of klansmen? Yup. Apprpriately so. I am a moral person, and they are not
    Am I ‘intollerant’ of racists?
    Yes. Appropriately so. I am a moral person, and they are not.
    Am I intollerant of homophobes?
    Yes. Approriately so. I am a moral person….and no, you are not. PS The sad old NAMBA thing got old a long time ago. I could pull out some hetero organizations, or for that matter, try to conflate snake handlers with the SBC. That would not be fair either.

    And the definition thing? Oh please, you cannot be serious. It now means (read your new issue dictionaries 🙂 that two people have entered into a marital union. Most will be hetero, some will be homo. It was, and will still be, a union of two people who choose to live together, build a life together, and build families together. It wont kill you to deal with this, trust me.

    Are you really so self centered that you think your need for a definition is more important than my cousin and his husband to have all the rights and dignity of marriage as they live their lives (every second of every day…it is not an ‘issue’ to them, it is their lives here) and the lives of their three kids? (great kids by the way) You sure are quick to throw a lot of real people under the bus so that you can feel good about the definition of something that your own denominaitons members (I assume you Baptist) seem to have trouble holding together and were not doing to well with WAY before gay marriage rights became an issue. And what about the religious rights of the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Lutherans, Reformed Jews, and soon Presbyterians to perform the marriages God calls them to perform in their churches? And you dare call ME bigoted? Please, and I say this with all due respect, have you even thought about their religious rights?

    Darius, your so out of touch it staggers the mind.

  19. Darius T September 19, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    Here, Kelly and anyone else, you can now count yourselves informed: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/13/us/survey-finds-90-s-college-freshmen-more-conservative-than-predecessors.html

  20. DennyReader September 19, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    I am sorry but most of what you said didn’t make much sense to me at all. But there are a couple of things you’ve mentioned that I want to respond to.

    It was, and will still be, a union of two people who choose to live together, build a life together, and build families together.

    How would you suggest they build that family together? The only way that I know is either through adoption or artificial means to obtain the products from a male and female union. This once again is contrary to the definition and understanding of the institution of marriage.

    Are you really so self centered that you think your need for a definition is more important than my cousin and his husband to have all the rights and dignity of marriage as they live their lives

    Self centered? I am probably guilty of that at times, 🙂 although in this case the problem is not me being self centered. My problem with gay marriage and homosexuality in general is that it is immoral. It is a sin, like many other sins including those that I am guilty of. You and I have a different worldview so I don’t expect you to agree with me that homosexuality is a sin and it is immoral. However, you said you are a moral person. And your moral code empowers you to defend what you believe and feel quite indignant about some things, isn’t that true? We live in a free society and I am content to live and let live, but don’t tread on me. The institution of marriage is what I hold to be moral, and now you want to force your immorality into my moral system and thereby corrupting that institution is treading on me.

    Here is the difference between you and me and why I think you are intolerant and I am tolerant. I believe that everyone is allowed to believe what they want and do what they want as long as it does not violate another’s freedom. Part of that freedom is to allow you to call me immoral, bigot and a homophobe. By the same token I am allow to criticize homosexuality is a sin like any other sin that one needs to repent and seek redemption from. I assume you would agree with me so far. Here is where I think we begin to differ. You want to force people like me to accept homosexuality as normal, moral and wonderful, and you do this by forcing me to include homosexual behaviors as a part of the institution of marriage which violates my moral code. I on the other hand am not forcing your cousin to separate because I think they are immoral. I am not telling them they can’t be in a loving relationship even though I think it is immoral. The exercise of my freedom does not violate your freedom. That is why you are intolerant and I am tolerant. But your intolerance is understandable because you love and care about your cousin. Unfortunately, it has also blinded you from objectivity.

    One last point, freedom is limited in this sense. For example, a murderer does not have the freedom to kill me because his action will deprive me of my freedom. Am I intolerant for denying his freedom and desire to kill me? In the same way gay marriage should not be allowed to force their lifestyle into what has been established as the union between a man and a woman.

  21. DennyReader September 19, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Earlier I’ve made this comment, “there is no guarantee that we will escape the problems you’ve raised but I believe the percentages would be much lower than secularists (confirmed by survey).”
    Here’s the article ‘Evangelical Girls Are Easy’

    * But these numbers shift when controlled for religious intensity. For those who attend church often, sexual activity is delayed until nearly 17, while nominal evangelicals begin at 16.2 years, earlier than the national average.

    * Only 1 percent of conservative Protestants who attend church weekly cohabit, compared to 10 percent of all adults. (On this statistic, nominal evangelicals almost exactly mirror the nation.)

    * Twelve percent of churchgoing evangelicals have children out of wedlock, compared to 33 percent of all mothers.

  22. ex-preacher September 19, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    A couple problems with the study in the article you cite, Darius:
    1. The study was done in 1996.
    2. The study (or at least the article) did’nt cover gay marriage.

    Here’s something to help you be informed:

    A May 7-10, 2009 poll by Gallup asked: “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”

    Here are the responses by age group:

    18-29 years
    YES 59%
    NO 37%

    30-49 years
    YES 40%
    NO 57%

    50-64 years
    YES 37%
    NO 61%

    65 years and older
    YES 32%
    NO 66%

    While the overall support is only at 40%, the fact that so many younger Americans are in support means that it is only a matter of time until same-sex marriage becomes legal.

    The survey contains other encouraging news. In 1993, only 43% supported allowing gays to serve in the military. Today, 69% support this. In 2002, only 46% favored allowing gays adoption rights. Today 54% do.

    For those of us who support full civil equality, the progress can sometimes seem very slow, but measured against the long scope of history, the gains made in the last 15 or 20 years are truly remarkable.

  23. DennyReader September 20, 2009 at 1:08 am #

    ex-preacher, don’t you think the NYT survey also attest to how great your secular education has been has for these youths?

  24. ex-preacher September 20, 2009 at 2:18 am #

    How so?

  25. Darius T September 20, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    EP, what you’re missing is that today’s college students may be less conservative than their parents TODAY, but they are MORE conservative than their parents WERE when they were college students. The poll you showed doesn’t contradict mine at all.

  26. Darius T September 20, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Today’s students have realized that the immoral excesses of yesterday have led to some pretty horrible results in society. That probably hasn’t completely dawned on them yet with the perversity of homosexuality, but it will. Just give the gay lobby enough rope and it will hang itself with it. That’s always the case with all sin and evil.

  27. DennyReader September 21, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    I thought you were quoting from Darius’ link but I was referring to the statistics that you’ve quoted. While you might be proud of those statistics, what it shows me is the steady decline of morality. I repeat, popular opinion is not the same as moral correctness.

    But more directly to your question, and I will use your logic. Do you think the 18-29 years group is overwhelmingly secular educated, Christian private schooled or homeschooled? I think it is probably safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of them are a product of your secular education system. Therefore applying your logic this must be the primary cause for their decline in moral values.

    Oh wait, but you might not agree with me that this is a decline in moral values. So let’s get back to the problems of teen pregnancy, crime and divorce rates that we’ve been talking about here and on the abortion thread. I think we both agree these problems are a shortcoming of a person’s moral value. I think it is also safe to assume the overwhelming majority of these problem teens are a product of your secular education system regardless if they are in the Bible belt or your idyllic more secular states. Once again applying your impeccable logic that would mean secular education is the primary cause for teen pregnancy, higher divorce and crime rates. On the other hand with Christian homeschooling, at least with respect to teen pregnancy and crime rates, it does not even register on the radar. Once again using your logic, we would have to conclude the Christian worldview is overwhelmingly superior to the secular worldview.

  28. Kelly September 24, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Darius, you are WAY out of touch…so much so I wont bother to address it.

    Denny Reader, your a bigot. Sad to say, but, you are.

    I am not intollerant. I am prefectly willing to say you do not have to be in, officiate at, or hold a gay marriage ceremony in your congregation/denomination. You however, are a bigot, and will not grant the right to do so as my Christian faith says is right and good to do. I am saying we should be free to do as God calls us to do. You say we shall all do as you say God calls us to do.

    Big difference. And Bigotry and arrogance on your part.

  29. Kelly September 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    You have my deepest pity Denny Reader. You are no better than the the Klansman I know who says we have taken away his freedom to live in a society where all of his views are the law of the land. NOT IN THE LEAST ARE YOU DIFFERENT. Don’t convince yourself otherwise. And so Selfish and Unmanly! The idea that you would hurt a family, their inheritance rights, taxes, income, visitation rights (don’t bother with the ‘they can get power of attorneys/ visitation rights’…those are often not honored, and examples of that abound) parental rights, etc. etc just so you (GASP!) don’t have to (shock!) acknowledge that other people are in marriges that are not opposite gendered like your own…is amazing. And to be blunt, does not speak well of your own opinion of the strength of heterosexual marriages in general. Dont tread on me you say? The man walking on the lives of people he does not even know because he might be uncomfortable that someone else not just like him has married the person they love?

    OH PLEASE! AT LEAST be honest with yourself! You are comfortable in your bigoted attitudes, and do not care if other people and families are hurt when you force everyone else to live under the same legal definition of marrige you like. At least just come out and say it. I could at least respect that.

    You say you do not want to violate someone elses freedom? You strike me as someone who for all his faults, trys to be honest. Maybe you have just never thought about it, but you have, once it is pointed out to you, see how you totally and utterly violate the most basic personal and religious freedoms of those whom you disagree with on this topic. The right to be a recognized family, with the security and duties involved, and the right of churches to marry these couples as God has called them to do (not your decision…unless they are Baptists…then, thats between you and them and God). Please, think about that before you respond. How would it feel if they shoe were on the other foot, and the state said you could not marry the woman you love?

    Also, in response to my comment that my gay relatives are building families, which they are, by adoption. You state “…the only way I that I know is either by adoption or artificial means to otain the products from a male and female union. This once again is contrary to the definition and understanding of the institution of marriage” WRONG. It is contrary to YOUR understanding. There are non fundamentalist Christian theologians with better understandings (Episcopal, UCC, Lutheran, Presbyterian) who could teach you a lot. I know. They taught me, thankfully.

    I have several relatives who were either adopted, or conceived via what you call artificial means. Are the ones adopted by the straight couples my family Denny reader? Are they less married since they adopted, and adoption and artifical means are ‘contrary to the (sic…you mean your own) definition and understanding of the institution of marriage”? Your quote would imply this. Is the one adopted by the single mother my family by the way? Are the ones adopted by the gay couple my family, since you have deigned yourself able to make the definition for us all? You take the cake.

    And you dare tell me I am intollerant.

  30. Darius T September 24, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    Kelly, I’m sorry, but you in no way follow the God of the Bible. I wish it were as easy as correcting you, but unless God chooses to open your eyes, you will remain doomed for life. I pray that He does.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes