Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36055 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23825 Jan 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that question is a joke? What is twisted or untrue about it? I simply stated a factual observation.
Are you insinuating that butch lesbians are ashamed of their identity?
Smile.
I insinuated one thing, that you were immature. You only state you opinion.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23826 Jan 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what I believe.
All I have done is simply point out how your documentation utterly fails to explain a passage that is easily understood as translated.
And interestingly, you only quote documentation that matches your belief system (or lack thereof). A belief system that is an old wine skin dying minority.
You just want me to take a back seat so you won't be all alone.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Wow, you throw a viciously maligned woman into the fray and shift to politics??? Hateful, chauvinistic, twisted and troll all rolled up into one.
Nothing of your history of apostatizing addresses your failure to connect your documentation to a coherent meaning of a passage.
Nothing derogatory, just simple common sense. The derogatory remarks are clearly all yours.
Smile.
2 Peter, chapter 2
False Teachers.*
1There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.a
*[2:1–3] The pattern of false prophets among the Old Testament people of God will recur through false teachers in the church. Such destructive opinions of heretical sects bring loss of faith in Christ, contempt for the way of salvation (cf. 2 Pt 2:21), and immorality.

a.[2:1] Mt 24:11, 24; 1 Tm 4:1; Jude 4.

MATTHEW
Chapter 7
False Prophets.* 15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k 16l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

*[7:15–20] Christian disciples who claimed to speak in the name of God are called prophets (Mt 7:15) in Mt 10:41; Mt 23:34. They were presumably an important group within the church of Matthew. As in the case of the Old Testament prophets, there were both true and false ones, and for Matthew the difference could be recognized by the quality of their deeds, the fruits (Mt 7:16). The mention of fruits leads to the comparison with trees, some producing good fruit, others bad.

k.[7:15] 2 Pt 2:1.
l.[7:16–17] 12:33; Lk 6:43–44.

“16. by their fruits: The true test of prophets or disciples is their life. The comparison of trees and fruits is painfully elaborated. Luke felt the necessity of explaining the comparison (6:45), with the addition of a phrase that makes speech the principal fruit; this is not the real meaning of the original comparison, which refers to deeds. See the recital in Mt 23. JBC[43:84].

Paraphrased: By their [spoken word] you will know them. Or, By their [deeds] you will know them.

If I remember right, you related fruits to procreation.

Now, presented here is the documentation and a paraphrase of the passage. The passage is about those inside the Church, their revelations; the passage is about prophets or disciples lives.

I believe that I stated that this passage fits you perfectly. I mean to say that you resemble bad fruit in Christianity. You know that is because you impart opinion not documentation. Can't have a discourse with your opinion. If that means I am being deragatory, so be it. I do not stand still for Biblicist's profaning the Word of God and influencing politics. It also means that you are being asinine.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23827 Jan 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I have asked them. And because I understand the dynamics of mating behavior.
You clearly have not. And your answers make as much sense as your explanations of Bible passages. In fact, by your explanation, lesbianism is a choice.
Like you "ask" question on these threads ?!?

And what have they answered?

Dressing is a choice.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23828 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Peter, chapter 2
False Teachers.*
1There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.a
*[2:1–3] The pattern of false prophets among the Old Testament people of God will recur through false teachers in the church. Such destructive opinions of heretical sects bring loss of faith in Christ, contempt for the way of salvation (cf. 2 Pt 2:21), and immorality.
a.[2:1] Mt 24:11, 24; 1 Tm 4:1; Jude 4.
MATTHEW
Chapter 7
False Prophets.* 15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k 16l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
*[7:15–20] Christian disciples who claimed to speak in the name of God are called prophets (Mt 7:15) in Mt 10:41; Mt 23:34. They were presumably an important group within the church of Matthew. As in the case of the Old Testament prophets, there were both true and false ones, and for Matthew the difference could be recognized by the quality of their deeds, the fruits (Mt 7:16). The mention of fruits leads to the comparison with trees, some producing good fruit, others bad.
k.[7:15] 2 Pt 2:1.
l.[7:16–17] 12:33; Lk 6:43–44.
“16. by their fruits: The true test of prophets or disciples is their life. The comparison of trees and fruits is painfully elaborated. Luke felt the necessity of explaining the comparison (6:45), with the addition of a phrase that makes speech the principal fruit; this is not the real meaning of the original comparison, which refers to deeds. See the recital in Mt 23. JBC[43:84].
Paraphrased: By their [spoken word] you will know them. Or, By their [deeds] you will know them.
If I remember right, you related fruits to procreation.
Now, presented here is the documentation and a paraphrase of the passage. The passage is about those inside the Church, their revelations; the passage is about prophets or disciples lives.
I believe that I stated that this passage fits you perfectly. I mean to say that you resemble bad fruit in Christianity. You know that is because you impart opinion not documentation. Can't have a discourse with your opinion. If that means I am being deragatory, so be it. I do not stand still for Biblicist's profaning the Word of God and influencing politics. It also means that you are being asinine.
Do you read what you post?
"Such destructive opinions of heretical sects bring loss of faith in Christ, contempt for the way of salvation (cf. 2 Pt 2:21), and immorality."
I bring no new doctrine into the faith. In fact, as just stated, I simply point out how YOUR doctrine does exactly what YOU posted in conflict with the overt message of the passage.
And yes, I related procreation to fruit. Human fruit to be exact. You have a problem with that?
And yes, you can have a conversation with opinions. That is exactly what we are doing. The only conflict is, we disagree on whose opinion to respect.
By the way, your attack on a woman is the fruit of your thinking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23829 Jan 2, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Like you "ask" question on these threads ?!?
And what have they answered?
Dressing is a choice.
I said, specifically, "dress and act like a man". You know that, but lie about it. Moreover, you now lie about what you insinuated.

I would suggest you look up mating behavior, and try some simple common sense applied to my question. To help your defensive bigotry, read some butch blogs and see how butch lesbians talk about themselves.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23830 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I have asked them. And because I understand the dynamics of mating behavior.
You clearly have not. And your answers make as much sense as your explanations of Bible passages. In fact, by your explanation, lesbianism is a choice.
I find your reply, which is a simple defense of your having presented a question that shows that you cavalierly stereotype, to be very telling.

Above, you answer, "And because I understand the dynamics of mating behavior. You clearly have not...."

But, you have not asked everyone who dresses the way they dress why they dress as they often do. Instead, you may say that you have asked a few. After that, you make broad statements based upon your limited knowledge and the equally limited stereotyping inferences and conclusions that you have drawn.

Then, because someone else is able to draw different conclusions or disagrees with your conclusions, you immediately assume that they could not have drawn their conclusions correctly or from any greater or more representative set than you have.

That's hogwash. That is simply your limited knowledge upon which you have formed an equally limited opinion.

People dress to exhibit a personal mental and emotional and habitual makeup. Is that concoction of expression necessarily based upon the peculiarities of their sexual preferences for the particular day? Or is it also a product of their buying habits and the wardrobe they have amassed over a period of time? And, is this wardrobe a singular expression of their entire sexuality? Or is it also a selection of what they have seen in magazines and in store displays and in similarities observed as being the styles worn by others?

In short, you think you understand all of the personal motivations of anyone you deem to fit within a particular stereotype.

THAT is what is wrong. The stereotype of the "butch lesbian," although broadly similar in some ways across a number of individuals, cannot correctly describe each of the multitude of choices and influences accepted by either all or by any one of the individuals who may exhibit a few of the set characteristics.

In other words, the stereotype is no more than a partially correct convenience that, by its inferences, can not ever be conclusively applied correctly.

According to you, the fact that you can observe and place a few people into a classification of "butch lesbian" by knowing the brands and styles of their underwear and boots, allows you the incontrovertible privilege of declaring yourself to be right about the individual genetics of all short-haired blonde women.

No can do.

A couple more things about your statement above:

#1. You understand the dynamics of mating behavior?

No. You may partially understand the mating behavior that you experience of yourself. But, you certainly do not fully understand the dynamics of the mating behavior of everyone else. Even the experts in these fields of behavior don't make cockamamie claims like that. In fact, any such claim disqualifies any claimed expertise of the person who has made such a statement, for obvious reasons.

#2. You have inferred that lesbianism is a matter of a choice or choices, as if you can now classify or stereotype ALL of the individuals within a set of externally evident displays of personal habits and styling choices to be living an externally imposed "lifestyle choice" that further dictates, from the outside in, the core of the person.
But, you don't explain why a person may be motivated to make groups of choices in the first place.

Now, I've probably said the same thing each time a little differently about nine times in a row. But, the point is that the style of reversed logic thinking which results in stereotyped conclusions is the very same style that causes the "biblicist/literalist " to overrun bible passage variables in order to arrive at the desired incontrovertible conclusions.

Rev. Ken

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23831 Jan 2, 2014
Kimare wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing ....
Yes you are, good observation.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23832 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding is that God does not influence mankind in any way whatsoever because God's creation in our minds is perfect. How can a perfect God change what God created, perfect and as was intended? For a God to hate goes against man's perception of a loving God. And then there is an understanding that God is not so much a loving God as God is a suffering God. What a mixed bag of thoughts. Man really does not know God after all. Biblical stories, interpretations and all are man's perception. My point is as useless as anybodies. I'd have to write a book to fully explain God's love and hate relationship with mankind.
Assuming that such a being actually exists. And we have no proof for the existence of this being. What we do have is the Bible and a lot of stupid and ignorant people claiming that a God they invented in their own image wrote it.

Man does not know himself and rarely do we find an individual interested in the inward journey necessary to find out. The Bible tells us the kingdom of God is within, and few if any of our Bible Thumpers want to try to understand what that means. And even fewer are willing to make the efforts necessary for the exploration.

How many times in a day do you even know you exist?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23833 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>.. That truth in my mind is that there is a God and I will never know that God as long as I live in God's creation ...
You can't know this God you allege when you do not even know yourself. You live in a creation that arose on the surface of the planet earth. Maybe you should start with something a little closer to home, like yourself.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23834 Jan 2, 2014
akopen: Rev. Alan, you speak of two different things, evil and chaos. "Evil is no giant staggering through the wold a his own whim; somehow it accomplishes God's will for purifying and disciplining his chose ones (Am 3:6; Is 10:5-20; Jgs 2:6-3:6). JBC[22:25:6-7].

ALAN: What about your will? Or lack of I should say. And what about you choosing yourself? Are you even interested in "purifying" yourself and if so what is involved?

akopen: Douglas John Hall, in his book, God and Human Suffering, has this to say about evil.
"A diety personally and directly responsible for all the agony of earth, would be unrecognizable as God from the perspective of biblical faith." (p. 74.)

ALAN: I am not interested in people who know nothing and teaching it to others.

akopen: "We have affirmed that suffering-as-struggle belongs, according to the tradition of Jerusalem, to life's foundational basis and goodness. It is a significant dimension of the becoming that is implicit in the creaturely being of all that is, especially of the human creature." (p.62,63.)

ALAN: It would be more useful if he could verify his own existence. Do you even have a clue what "life's foundational basis and goodness" is? That is a whole lot of empty words.

akopen: In our temporal world, we have always strived for that "Golden Age" (Hall, p.54) where a utopia exists. The Garden of Eden, a biblical mythology, is far from a utopia. Eden had its own suffering as presented in the story of the Fall: loneliness; limitations; temptation and; anxiety. What we have in God's creation is a temporal existence that in itself an estrangement from God's perfect being, existence. As the Fall goes, that in itself is a window to which sin enters. It is a window that allows for suffering. Our sun could destroy earth in an instant and yet it gives life. The universe is a chaotic existence and it is God's creation.

ALAN: Can you prove a word of that?

akopen: A window exists for life and for death. From dust we come and to dust we return.

ALAN: What is this "we"? Yes it is true, what is of the earth remains on the earth. But as a human being you have the possibility of creating for yourself something that is of yourself and does not fall under the laws of life and death.

akopen: It is that life that matters in our existence. We can make matters worse or we can make them better.

ALAN: It is an illusion that you can do anything. For human beings everything just happens. You can no more make things worse than you can make them better, mostly because there is no single individual you. What matters in our existence is becoming conscious.

And do not believe me. Come to now and see how long you can stay there.

akopen: This then is man's ability to renew, as in the "New Being," in Jesus as the Christ.(Tillich.)" Our spirit(Gen 1:27) then, is man's effort to make things better or worse. We speak of the doctrine of "Free Will." All is man's perception of what we do not understand.

ALAN: Until you understand yourself, what you are and what your possibilities are you understand nothing. Something in you just repeats what it has heard and pretends it is truth.
You pour from the empty into the void.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23835 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I have asked them. And because I understand the dynamics of mating behavior.
You clearly have not. And your answers make as much sense as your explanations of Bible passages. In fact, by your explanation, lesbianism is a choice.
You have asked all Lesbians? No Lesbian, butch or otherwise would give you the time of day let alone answer such stupid questions as to why they dress like a man. Anyone who believes you understand "the dynamics of mating behavior" has been warming pews for way too long.

Why can't Bible passages stand on their own? And mean what they say? Because if they did everyone would have to accept that it is all a bunch of contradictory nonsense that con-artists use to deceive the rubes.

Whether or not Lesbianism is a choice or not is irrelevant. In our Republic adults own themselves and are free to make their personal decisions as to whom they want to form peaceful relationships with. It is none of your business and it is none of the governments business.

If you have a life you would be living it instead of sticking your nose into other people's lives who would realize, once they got to know you, that they want nothing to do with your defective anti-American BS.

The real question in this whole discussion thread is; Can the Bible be trusted to tell us about homosexuality? And the answer is no, it can not.

1 SAM. 13:1

("Saul was .?. years old when he began to reign"--RSV, NAB, NWT, MT)
versus
("50 years old"--NEB)
versus
("40 years old"--ASV, NAS)
versus
("30 years old"--NIV).

Again, 1 SAM. 13:1

("...and for 2 years he reigned over Israel"--NWT, MT, NAB)
versus
("and he reigned over Israel for 22 years" --NEB)
versus
("he reigned 32 years"--NAS)
versus
("he reigned over Israel 42 years"--NIV)
versus
("one or two years"--LV).

KJ = King James Version, RS = Revised Standard Version, ML = Modern Language, AS = American Standard Version, NEB = New English Bible, NAB = New American Bible, NI = New International Version, NAS = New American Standard, TEV = Today's English Version, BBE = Bible in Basic English, NWT = New World Translation, JB = Jerusalem Bible, LV = Lamsa's Version, MT = Masoretic Text, LB = Living Bible].

Only a moron would trust a book this defective, contradictory and inconsistent to tell them about anything including homosexuality.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23836 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that question is a joke? What is twisted or untrue about it? I simply stated a factual observation.
Are you insinuating that butch lesbians are ashamed of their identity?
Smile.
No of course he isn't. I however am stating that you are dishonest and that makes you the joke. Not a very funny one but a joke just the same. Everything you post has some twisted untruth in it such that it makes normal conversation impossible.

Are you insinuating that former Con-artists who lied to pew warmers are always going to be con-artists who like to play word games because they have no life and only experience joy when causing other people an unpleasant experience?

JESUS: Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."

JESUS: Matt. 10:34, NIV "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23837 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
I insinuated one thing, that you were immature. You only state you opinion.
How would he be able to state anything else but his opinion? He has no access to any truth. He has wasted his whole entire life deceiving people by telling them things he knows nothing about. KiMare is a con-artist. When you wake up and realize you are dealing with a defective, deceitful, dishonest reprobate you might start to realize that you can never, Never NEVER expect anything from him other than the cruelty he loves to dish out.

You are like a lab rat he loves to torture. KiMare is not capable of experience normal pleasure, he only has joy when he causes suffering in the world. And here you reply to him like he is a normal intelligent human being, he is not.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23838 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Peter, chapter 2
False Teachers.*
And you can forget quoting the Bible to KiMare. He could give a shit what the Bible says. He knows what he wants it to say, so any facts or evidence you might provide are just a waste of time. It is your time to waste however. But never deceive yourself into believing you can reach that Con-artist with reason and logic, or facts and evidence: never happen.

You are like the zoo keeper who believes because he has fed the lion the lion won't eat him first chance he gets.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23839 Jan 2, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Like you "ask" question on these threads ?!?
And what have they answered?
Dressing is a choice.
I'll take Thousand Island if you are out of Vinegar and Oil.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23840 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that, but lie about it. Moreover, you now lie about what you insinuated.
pot/kettle

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23841 Jan 2, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I find your reply, which is a simple defense of your having presented a question that shows that you cavalierly stereotype, to be very telling.
Above, you answer, "And because I understand the dynamics of mating behavior. You clearly have not...."
But, you have not asked everyone who dresses the way they dress why they dress as they often do. Instead, you may say that you have asked a few. After that, you make broad statements based upon your limited knowledge and the equally limited stereotyping inferences and conclusions that you have drawn.
Then, because someone else is able to draw different conclusions or disagrees with your conclusions, you immediately assume that they could not have drawn their conclusions correctly or from any greater or more representative set than you have.
That's hogwash. That is simply your limited knowledge upon which you have formed an equally limited opinion.
People dress to exhibit a personal mental and emotional and habitual makeup. Is that concoction of expression necessarily based upon the peculiarities of their sexual preferences for the particular day? Or is it also a product of their buying habits and the wardrobe they have amassed over a period of time? And, is this wardrobe a singular expression of their entire sexuality? Or is it also a selection of what they have seen in magazines and in store displays and in similarities observed as being the styles worn by others?
In short, you think you understand all of the personal motivations of anyone you deem to fit within a particular stereotype.
THAT is what is wrong. The stereotype of the "butch lesbian," although broadly similar in some ways across a number of individuals, cannot correctly describe each of the multitude of choices and influences accepted by either all or by any one of the individuals who may exhibit a few of the set characteristics.
In other words, the stereotype is no more than a partially correct convenience that, by its inferences, can not ever be conclusively applied correctly.
According to you, the fact that you can observe and place a few people into a classification of "butch lesbian" by knowing the brands and styles of their underwear and boots, allows you the incontrovertible privilege of declaring yourself to be right about the individual genetics of all short-haired blonde women.
No can do.
A couple more things about your statement above:
#1. You understand the dynamics of mating behavior?
No. You may partially understand the mating behavior that you experience of yourself. But, you certainly do not fully understand the dynamics of the mating behavior of everyone else. Even the experts in these fields of behavior don't make cockamamie claims like that. In fact, any such claim disqualifies any claimed expertise of the person who has made such a statement, for obvious reasons.
#2. You have inferred that lesbianism is a matter of a choice or choices, as if you can now classify or stereotype ALL of the individuals within a set of externally evident displays of personal habits and styling choices to be living an externally imposed "lifestyle choice" that further dictates, from the outside in, the core of the person.
But, you don't explain why a person may be motivated to make groups of choices in the first place.
Now, I've probably said the same thing each time a little differently about nine times in a row. But, the point is that the style of reversed logic thinking which results in stereotyped conclusions is the very same style that causes the "biblicist/literalist " to overrun bible passage variables in order to arrive at the desired incontrovertible conclusions.
Rev. Ken
You could have said KiMare is defective and dishonest.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23842 Jan 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that such a being actually exists. And we have no proof for the existence of this being. What we do have is the Bible and a lot of stupid and ignorant people claiming that a God they invented in their own image wrote it.
Man does not know himself and rarely do we find an individual interested in the inward journey necessary to find out. The Bible tells us the kingdom of God is within, and few if any of our Bible Thumpers want to try to understand what that means. And even fewer are willing to make the efforts necessary for the exploration.
How many times in a day do you even know you exist?
An "Atheist" Teaches the Gospel of Christ.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23843 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you read what you post?
"Such destructive opinions of heretical sects bring loss of faith in Christ, contempt for the way of salvation (cf. 2 Pt 2:21), and immorality."
I bring no new doctrine into the faith. In fact, as just stated, I simply point out how YOUR doctrine does exactly what YOU posted in conflict with the overt message of the passage.
And yes, I related procreation to fruit. Human fruit to be exact. You have a problem with that?
And yes, you can have a conversation with opinions. That is exactly what we are doing. The only conflict is, we disagree on whose opinion to respect.
By the way, your attack on a woman is the fruit of your thinking.
I did not attack women. Your confused opinion. It is your faith that is in question as it is all Christianity. Well, not all, some get it. My exegesis is about the correctness of Christian faith. If you notice, I've taken my documentation from sound documentation.

Yes, you did take out of context and put into the passage your own opinion considering procreation as the meaning of the passage. You presented no documentation in regards to your opinion. Others are supposed to believe you just because you say so?

The difference between your opinion and my opinion is that I document!

Respect comes to those that are credible.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23844 Jan 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that such a being actually exists. And we have no proof for the existence of this being. What we do have is the Bible and a lot of stupid and ignorant people claiming that a God they invented in their own image wrote it.
Man does not know himself and rarely do we find an individual interested in the inward journey necessary to find out. The Bible tells us the kingdom of God is within, and few if any of our Bible Thumpers want to try to understand what that means. And even fewer are willing to make the efforts necessary for the exploration.
How many times in a day do you even know you exist?
Agreed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Pope Rainbow 6,049
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 5 hr Roy 1
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... Wed The Wheeze of Trump 5
News New mayor supports young people Wed not all eh 1
News Taiwan to make landmark gay marriage ruling Tue Mitts Gold Plated... 1
News 'He did it to himself': Anthony Weiner faces pr... May 22 overlord 1
More from around the web