Louie Giglio’s comments on homosexuality in his own words

JEWEL SAMAD AFP/GETTY IMAGES Construction work continues for US President Barack Obama’s second inauguration at the Capitol Hill in Washington, … Continued



Construction work continues for US President Barack Obama’s second inauguration at the Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2013. Obama’s second inauguration will take place with a public ceremonial oath of office on January 21, 2013.

Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio has backed out of his planned benediction at President Obama’s upcoming inauguration, saying in a statement that the uproar over anti-gay comments he made over a decade ago would distract from the event.

“It is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda a focal point of the inauguration,” Giglio said. “Though the president and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms.”

The Presidential Inaugural Committee said Thursday:

Here’s how it went down: 48 hours ago the White House announced that Giglio would be delivering the benediction at Obama’s inauguration, citing the pastor’s “work raising awareness about modern-day slavery and human trafficking.” Wednesday, ThinkProgress.org posted a link to a sermon Giglio gave in the mid-1990s warning about the mainstreaming of homosexuality and speaking out against changing the definition of marriage. Thursday morning, there’s a WhiteHouse.gov petition calling for the president to replace Giglio with a religious leader “with a history of supporting LGBT equality”and an A section story in the New York Times on the preacher, and a blogosphere ablaze.

And then God said, “Let there be controversy!” And there was controversy.

You can listen to Giglio’s teaching on homosexuality that’s getting so much attention here (H/T: ThinkProgress).

View Photo Gallery: From same sex marriages to prohibitions on homosexual behavior, Christian churches range in their outreach to gay members.

In the audio, Giglio calls Christians to “lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” of gay activists.

Giglio also explains in the sermon that he believes that homosexuality is akin to an unwanted addiction; that even if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual orientation, that does not change the fact that he sees it as sin.

He also spoke out against gay marriage (37:18), saying:

Giglio has been much more widely known in the Christian world recently for his work raising awareness and funds to combat human trafficking —including sex trafficking and what organizers call “modern day slavery.” According to a report by Christianity Today,
Giglio’s Passion Conference, held last week in Atlanta’s Georgia Dome, gathered 60,000 university-aged people for a four-day long worship event that raised $2.9 million to combat human trafficking worldwide.

In addition to his advocacy work, Giglio has become known for this kind of dynamic preaching and outreach to Christian college students.

He also runs the Passion City Church in Atlanta, opened in 2009. In many of his sermons, Giglio presents a vision of gender roles that reflects a traditional view of men, women and marriage, often known in Christian circles as complementarianism (as opposed to egalitarianism —debates rage). You can get a sense of this approach in the series Giglio gave on God’s plan for marriage in 2012 that is posted to his Web site. He prefaced his opening sermon in March titled ‘In the Beginning’ this way:

Giglio added:

Then, after reading from the Book of Genesis, Giglio paraphrased the Scripture.

Buzzfeed also pointed to Giglio’s Nov 2012 convocation address to Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world (including on-campus and online students), in which the pastor challenges the students to find and live their purpose. Giglio’s style is energetic and often self-effacing, speaking directly to the his audience and challenging them to deepen their relationships with God. In one exchange, Giglio uses the language of falling in love to talk about his spiritual story:

Giglio is only the latest religious leader associated with Obama to cause controversy. During Obama’s 2008 inauguration, he was also criticized by gay rights groups for his selection of Rick Warren,also seen as anti-gay. (Obama did invite then-New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, to give a prayer at a 2008 inauguration event.) Obama has also continued to take heat for his relationship with Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who made controversial remarks about 9/11.. With a now-open spot for a benediction prayer, more scrutiny is likely to come.

Elizabeth Tenety
Written by

  • whorton1

    You know how we can avoid this and similar problems, now and moving forward? Dump the benediction entirely. It’s a government function, not a religious ceremony.

  • quiensabe

    Does this mean “this administration’s vision [of] acceptance for all Americans“ does not include those of us who are not homosexuals?

  • CarolAnne1

    Hasn’t Rev. Giglio ever read Samuels 1 and 2? Doesn’t he know about the love between David and Jonathan, which surpassed the love of women?

    And don’t the Inaugural Committee members know how to use Google? A few minutes of searching would have exposed his homophobia.

  • lrobby1

    It seems that way, quiensabe.

  • bucinka8

    You beat me to it. And don’t forget the love between Ruth and Naomi.

  • Ken in Cville

    No, but you’ll keep twisting reality.

  • rrouse1962

    Can anyone explain why the inauguration needs a representative from a religious club to begin with? They need to get rid of that archaic practice.

  • gregphillyburbs

    good riddance, reverend. that he was chosen at all reflects obama’s ambivilance on gay rights and how he has to be pushed by biden to act, interesting how the reverend quotes a likely closet homosexual, the apostle paul to bolster his case.

  • gregphillyburbs

    if only those two closet homosexuals, the apostle paul and augustine, could have dated,

  • gregphillyburbs

    no it means you are an idiot, quiensabe.

  • Barby1


  • jaynashvil

    Mr. Giglio is free to preach against gay people all he wants. He can babble on about how we want “special rights,” how we are going to destroy the fabric of society by getting married, and all the other clichés he can come up with. But his message of exclusion and intolerance is not fitting at a presidential inauguration; at least not when one of the country’s principles says that all citizen are created equal.

  • SimonTemplar

    Giglio’s statements, at least where they relate to Christian scriptures, are correct. Are his opponents trying to suggest that those passages are not in the scriptures? That would be utterly absurd! Are they suggesting that he has no right to preach from those passages of scripture? Equally absurd!

    They have every right to be offended by those passages since the passages speak against their predispositions. So what? Do they expect to go through life never being offended? Never being challenged in their positions? Do they expect that they should go through life with every person they ever meet affirming everything they think, say and do to be right, good and just?

  • Barby1

    o for pete’s sake. Jonathan and David didn’t practice anal and oral sex. Or they would’ve been in big trouble. and probably died of AIDS –“receiving the recompense for their error in their bodies, ” as ST. Paul said about homosexual acts. That act was forbidden clearly to the Jews. Jonathan and David had a love of close friends –that is what is meant. Don’t put your spin on the Bible.

    David certainly had a lust for women and got himself into trouble with adultery.

  • Barby1

    Paul was not a closet homosexual –clearly denouncing gay behaviors in Romans 1. REad it.

  • Barby1

    In fact, there are men today who aren’t nice to their wives, though they prefer them sexually. they prefer the company of their bar and beer and golf buddies –and may be said to love them more than women–but that doesn’t mean they want to defile their bodies with each other –and it doesn’t mean they don’t desire women for sex.

  • Pamsm

    While Giglio was busy reading First Corinthians Chapter 6, verses 9 & 10, he might have gone on to read verse 11.

    But no, much more fun to spread hatred and bigotry.

  • Pamsm

    Prove that there even was a “Sodom and Gomorrah,” and that homosexuality is what caused them (or Rome) to “fall”).

    You are so steeped in your silly superstition that you can’t even begin to see what’s real.

  • texasagg20

    Today it’s almost impossible to be a genuine follower of Jesus and not get slammed with being a “gay-hating bigot.” The Scriptures in the Bible take a clear stance on homosexuality but are just as clear in instructing us to not cast judgement, or evaluate the entirety of someone’s character based on one trait. Does that mean that all Christian pastors are supposed to bow down to shifting political currents and social norms and water down their message? Compromise what the Scripture says? Louie is NOT an “exclusionist” or “intolerant.” Really consider that if God exists, where do we draw the line between following Him and passing legislature?

  • SimonTemplar

    Why stop at verse 11. One may as well finish of the last few verses of the chapter.

  • gregphillyburbs

    or read the verses from romans i think, that male clergy fall all over, “women shall submit to their husbands”. i wouldnt rely on a closet case like Paul for advice on gays or family relations.,..

  • gregphillyburbs

    barby, jonathan took it and david gave it. right after they exterminated the ammonites.

  • gregphillyburbs

    hasnt texas seceded already? lets give it back to mexico and seal our borders.

  • you people

    Not surprising at all that the source of Obama’s embarassment turns out to be “religious” people. After aren’t they the same constant source of embarassment for the republicans too? face it, there is no god, just like there is no santa, that is unless you’re a child, or at least have a child’s mind.

  • you people

    christ was gay, or at least that’s what the bible leads one to believe.

  • Secular1

    Do you guys still wonder why I call that stupid tome, as filthy, wicked an devoid of any morality,

  • Barby1

    O my. Not in the least. Jews considered homosexual acts an abomination to God –something God detests –because it contradicts His creation of female for male for one-flesh union with possibility of procreation. When Jesus taught about marriage, he referred to Creation scripture and said a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife –and not divorce for any reason except the spouse’s infidelity/adultery. Let no man come between what GOD has joined together, He said –male and female created He them; in the image of God He created them. So sexuality is sacred to God –to Christ –to the Jews and the Early Church. St. Paul gets specific when in Rome where they DID practice homosexuality -and preaches against it strongly.

    They found no fault in Jesus by their moral code –except that He claimed equality with God. “He who has seen me has seen the Father –the Father and I are one –No man comes to the Father except through me.”

  • Barby1

    Be sure, the pharisees would’ve accused the disciples of homosexuality if there were any evidence of it –because that was a big sin in their religion and culture.

  • Barby1

    greg –I think you have the wrong chapter. Romans 1 is where we get our strongest verses against homosexual acts and homosexual lust, worship of creature more than Creator.

    There are plenty of passages in the Bible to bring balance on the women’s issues –try this one “There is no slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile –but all are one in Christ.”

    And Jesus encouraged Mary to learn at his feet along with the men–instead of doing women’s work in the kitchen.

    And women are mentioned as leaders in the N.T. Church. women are the first to see the resurrected Jesus and relay that Gospel news.

    And Paul says that in the last days God’s Spirit will fall upon the young men AND the young women –and they will prophesy–tell forth the Word of God.

    The Radical teachings in Jesus’s day were the ones on forgiveness and love of neighbor, brother, and enemy (everyone.) And on generosity and humility –unselfishness. And the fact that salvation was being offered through his death to the Gentiles –so that ALL people could be the “chosen people of God” –not just the children of Abraham. And that it is FAITH (and repentance) not WORKS which saves the sinner –lest any man should boast. Yet we are called to righteousness which includes Ten C morality. And it is Jesus who commands us to help the poor and unfortunate, widows and orphans, and not be tied to material things –to consider the lilies of the field –He is the one who tells us that we are ALL sinners who need the Good Shepherd to save them –and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus said He is the Good shepherd –but He is also the Lamb of God. He is both shepherd and lamb; God and man.

    “There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.” He knocks hypocrisy –and spares the adulteress from stoning because her accusers are also sinners, He points out. He tells her to “go and sin no more.” He doesn’t remove the stigma from adultery.

  • Barby1

    About 1/3 of the country is evangelical, i believe –yet the Inaugural Committee says they want someone who shares their “vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans” –except Bible-believers, pro-lifers, pro-traditional marriage people. They don’t accept and include them in the inaugural activities.

    Just as well –1/2 of the nation may wear black that day.

  • Barby1

    I’m a Republican and am not embarrassed by pro-life, pro-morality, pro-self-reliance, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro hetero-marriage to give kids moms and dads.

    Atheism, You People, is even harder to believe than theism. I can’t believe our brains just happened to evolve –after eons of evolution from amoeba slithering from the primordial soup. I don’t get where the sexes evolve –and I don’t think science has any good explanation –for the wonder and complexity of life without a Designer. Natural selection and adaptation are facts –but only to a point. They can’t account for all the colors to see –and the eyes which can see them–and the soul which appreciates the beauties of nature.

  • Barby1

    No –we don’t wonder. We know why. It’s spiritual blindness. Perhaps some day you can sing “I once was blind–but now I see.”

  • Barby1

    Pamsm: prove there was no Sodom and Gomorrah. Pam is it not true that gay marriage deprives children of either mother or father? Is it not true that the most victims of HIV/AIDS in U.S. are the homosexual males? Is it not true that the San Francisco obituary pages reflect that gays don’t attain old age in near the numbers of straights? It’s 20 some percent to 70-some per cent.

    History has long “taught”us that Rome fell from within with their sexual debauchery, including homosexuality –and their idolatry. I believe Gibbon wrote the book.

    Kerby Anderson writes (guest host on USA RADIO’s POINT of VIEW): “Manners and social life fell into debauchery. Under Justinian, entertainment grew bawdier and more bizarre. Orgies and love feasts were common. Homosexuality and bestiality were openly practiced. Under Nero, Christians were blamed for the great fire in Rome and horribly persecuted.

    Similar patterns can be found in other civilizations. In Greece, the music of the young people became wild and coarse. Popular entertainment was brutal and vulgar. Promiscuity, homosexuality, and drunkenness became a daily part of life. And all moral and social restraints were lost leading to greater decadence.”

    Several historians, culture analysts, say the decline of religion starts a nation’s slide. That nations can’t hold together without religion and morality. They become corrupt and brutal within, having no reason for morals and virtue.

  • Barby1

    You are a revisionist historian, gregphillyburbs. It’s not in the Bible.

  • Catken1

    No, it’s “those-who-want-to-impose-Biblical-law-on-everyone,” “pro-co-opting-other-people’s-bodies-against-their-will-to-support-lives-we-deem-more-innocent-and-important-than-theirs,” and “pro-special-privileges-for-heterosexual (not traditional)-marriage-because-we-don’t-think-it’s-valuable-or-worthwhile-enough-to-survive-without-government-welfare,” who aren’t welcome.

    Those who can follow the Bible in their own lives while respecting other Americans’ right to follow their own religious or moral beliefs, those who respect all human lives, including those of pregnant women, and do not turn some into property to serve the interests of others, and those who have enough confidence in their choice of spouse to protect and cherish their own marriages without needing to tear down others, are more than welcome.

  • Catken1

    Your religion is still irrelevant to civil law, Barby. You can’t bar a gay couple from civil marriage – as this guy was arguing we should – because they don’t comply with your religious dogma in choosing a spouse. That’s as un-American as a Muslim seeking to take away YOUR marriage and hurt YOUR family because you didn’t abide by Sharia law in some way when you got married.

  • Catken1

    You are against pro-life policies, since Republican policies treat half of all human lives as pieces of property designed to serve the interests of others.
    Attacking other people’s marriages and families makes you immoral, not moral.
    And no, needing special privileges to “protect” heterosexual marriage from competition (competition that by definition, won’t even appeal to most heterosexuals!) implies that you think it’s too weak and worthless to survive without welfare. That’s hardly “pro-hetero-marriage.”
    Nor, by banning gay marriage, do we give any kid “moms and dads” who wouldn’t already have them. Barring gay marriage does not stop heterosexuals from abandoning their kids, giving them up for adoption, dying, divorcing, being found unfit to parent, or donating sperm/surrogate motherhood without the intent to be a real parent. It just makes gay people’s kids harder and more painful, for no real reason other than you don’t like their choice of parent. How kind and humane. Not.

    As for your arguments for intelligent design, “I’m not intelligent enough to find a good explanation for the wonder and complexity of life, and I don’t want to do the work of looking for one, so I’m going to believe it was all magicked into existence by a superbeing,” is neither a rational nor a sensible argument. Be warned about the god of the gaps – he shrinks every time another gap is closed, and science keeps on closing them…

  • Catken1

    Your bible is still irrelevant to civil law. Try again.

  • Catken1

    Whine, whine, whine. No one’s arguing that he doesn’t have a right to preach, we just don’t want to celebrate that kind of immorality. And yes, it’s in your bible. It’s still immoral, just like beating kids and holding slaves, also in your bible.

    And yes, Barby, you go on believing that everyone in the world who doesn’t follow your religion is “spiritually blind.” So comforting, to think that all the smart, moral, decent people in the world who don’t believe in your faith have no possible rational reason not to do so – just “blindness”. Only your kind can see, right?

  • Catken1

    “Pamsm: prove there was no Sodom and Gomorrah.”

    Your own Bible gives the sin of Sodom as laziness, lack of hospitality, and lack of concern for the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49.

    “Pam is it not true that gay marriage deprives children of either mother or father?”

    Nope, not at all true. No child loses either father or mother just because two gay people get married. Marriage does not in fact require the kidnapping of children from stable, loving hetero families to hand them over to gays. Gay couples do raise children – and banning their marriages does not stop them from doing so, it just makes those kids’ lives harder and less secure – but those children were already abandoned, given up for adoption, orphaned, born to parents who proceeded to divorce with at least one finding a same-sex partner subsequently, or the product of sperm donation or surrogate parenting with the donor parent either remaining involved in a non-custodial way or else voluntarily giving up their parenting role. Barring gay people’s marriages does NOTHING to stop biological parents from doing ANY of the above.

    “Is it not true that the most victims of HIV/AIDS in U.S. are the homosexual males?”

    Is it not true that marriage and monogamy are particularly to be encouraged among groups at high risk of STDs? If we want to actually STOP STDs, rather than simply use them as a vehicle to feel all smug and superior because we are in a low-risk group?

    (But of course, you aren’t. Lesbians have far lower risk of AIDS, and all other STDs, than straight women. It’s sleeping with men that spreads AIDS, not being gay – maybe we should bar men from marriage, and have all children conceived through carefully-screened sperm donations. If you think that marriage rights should be affected by vulnerability to AIDS, anyway.)

  • Catken1

    “Is it not true that the San Francisco obituary pages reflect that gays don’t attain old age in near the numbers of straights? It’s 20 some percent to 70-some per cent.”

    First of all, that’s based on a highly methodologically-flawed and discredited study. Second, we do not bar people’s marriages because they belong to a group that tends to die young, even if it were true.

    “History has long “taught”us that Rome fell from within with their sexual debauchery, including homosexuality –and their idolatry. I believe Gibbon wrote the book. ”

    Given that at the height of the empire, Rome was all Pagan, and tolerated homosexuality far more than the later empire did, while Rome at its fall was Christian and homosexuality carried the death penalty, I hardly think you have much argument there. And I doubt you’ve read Gibbon, since he blames Christianity in part for the fall.

    Greece lost its energy through repeated warfare, both external and internal, but maintained its cultural influence for generations after the empire’s fall.

    “Several historians, culture analysts, say the decline of religion starts a nation’s slide.”

    Well, if you prefer modern Saudi Arabia or medieval Europe, where torture was the appropriate response to not following the “right” religious beliefs to a free nation, that’s your choice. But this is America, and we do cherish freedom of religion here, so go found your theocracy somewhere else.

    History shows, in fact, that almost all theocracies end up brutal, vicious, oppressive, and inclined to torture or go to war over even trivial differences in doctrine. They’re not fun or healthy places to live. The healthiest cultures, in fact, are those with a wide diversity of religious beliefs and widespread religious tolerance – early medieval Al-Andalus, for example, or the Roman empire at its best, Mughal India, or our own beloved USA.

  • Catken1

    “Or they would’ve been in big trouble. and probably died of AIDS –“receiving the recompense for their error in their bodies, ” as ST. Paul said about homosexual acts”

    Homosexuality existed before the middle of the last century. AIDS didn’t.

    And how then do you explain that straight women are far more vulnerable to AIDS than lesbians? Is it disordered and sick to be straight and female? Or just to sleep with men in general?

  • Catken1

    “Does this mean “this administration’s vision [of] acceptance for all Americans“ does not include those of us who are not homosexuals?”

    Quiensabe, I know this will break your heart, but there are a number of people who are not gay who nonetheless do not need to bar gays from marriage to enjoy their marriages, do not need to whine to government for special privileges for hetero marriage in order to value their spouses, and do not feel threatened in any way by gay couples living their lives as they see fit.

    Sorry, but the equation of not-gay to anti-gay has never been accurate, and is far less so these days.

  • Bridgette Chapman

    It’s better, more profitable to HONOR GOD rather than man whose thoughts and ways constantly lead to death and destruction rather than life, liberty, freedom and justice for all….in accordance to the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD, the giver of life and Creator of all things!

  • cricket44

    There’s nothing moral about the anti-choice stance.

  • Secular1

    Barby1, you said “Be sure, the pharisees would’ve accused the disciples of homosexuality if there were any evidence of it –because that was a big sin in their religion and culture.” If there ever was a historical Jesus, he was a very very minor player. It is not even clear how long he was rambling his inanities. All we know is from new tetsament and very little of it is corraborated with contempraneous accounts or histircal writings. All that is corraborated is Pilate the Roman administrator had him crucified along with run of the mill criminals, at thebehest of the Jewish clergy. There is no reason to believe that he posed any great threat, but that the clergy perhaps wanted to make an example of upstart street side preachers. This I come to looking at the fact that for all the years of his preaching he had just 12 staunch followers. Off of them one sold him out, and the rest abandoned him when he was captured. Beyond these facts rest of Jesus story is myth and speculation committed to a book.

    And one more thing, Barby1 that musty tome you revere is nothing but one of the fithiest, wickedest and the most amoral pieces of lierature, which is also devoid of any literary merit in of itself along teh same lines as al kitab.

  • Sanity7

    Obviously you have done little to no research in regards to Jesus or the Bible. Speaking out if ignorance at the level in which you do makes your comments puts you in the same category as those who claim the Holocaust never happened. I would recommend a book or two, but it appears you don’t read!

  • Sanity7

    It’s obvious that you have done little to no actual research in regards to Jesus nor the Bible. Your ignorance is on display!
    I’d recommend a couple books but it’s obvious you don’t read.
    I’m a Christian and I don’t care what people outside of faith do. Like the Apostle Paul I don’t think it’s any of my business. The church needs to represent Jesus who said we are to ‘love The Lord our God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.’ The Church needs to take care of it’s own business and get it’s act together before we can expect that we have anything to say. Will we ever speak to the issues of pride? Greed? Selfish ambition? Gossip,slander, malicious talk. Which the Bible speaks far more to than other sin.

  • DerpaDerp

    Catken1, civil law is founded upon religious beliefs and moral absolutes. Where do you think civil marriage comes from? How about laws against murder and theft? Did someone just dream those up out of nothing?

  • Catken1

    Well, then, stop living in a sinful country where others are permitted by law – even protected in their right – to disobey your religious laws, and go found a theocracy that honors your god.

    Here, you need to actually provide evidence that there is actually any deity in existence, that there is one and only one true deity, and that that deity doesn’t want gay people to have marriages and families, in order to use your god to affect other people’s civil rights.

  • DerpaDerp

    My, how “tolerant” you are of those with a different perspective.

  • DerpaDerp

    Catken1, God’s existence can be shown by the prime mover principal. Everything that exists is in some state of motion and was triggered by a mover, whether its a gust of wind, your thoughts, or the movements of atoms. Trace back far enough in the chain of events and it is inevitable that you will arrive at the one prime mover that is responsible everything that is created…God.

  • DerpaDerp

    Christ was gay? Do you have any evidence to conclude that? Got any Bible references?

  • DerpaDerp

    cricket44, so you mean it is moral to crush an unborn baby’s head, or inject it with saline and watch it writhe in pain?

  • Catken1

    That is not evidence that your “prime mover” is a god, is even sentient, or is opposed to gay marriage. Try again. (And if that’s the case, what set God in motion?)

  • Catken1

    DerpaDerp, so you mean it is moral to treat another human being as property, and use her body and her internal organs without her consent for someone else’s good?

  • Catken1

    “Catken1, civil law is founded upon religious beliefs and moral absolutes.”

    No, in this country, civil law is founded upon the Constitution, established by mutual consent of the states and accepted as the common law of our nation. And its basic premise is that Americans are free to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not unduly infringe on the lives and liberties of others.

    Where does civil marriage come from? From the fact that a lot of people wish to enter into a civil contract designating another person as their spouse and next of kin, and establishing certain rights and responsibilities with respect to their relationship. In a free country, if people choose to enter into a civil contract with each other, that is their civil right – and it just makes sense to establish a template contract called “marriage”, that suits the needs of the vast majority of individuals seeking that sort of contract.

    Laws against murder and theft come from the fact that murder and theft hurt other people and interfere with their rightful liberties.

    We don’t bar murder and theft because your religion doesn’t like them, we bar them because they do real damage to others. We don’t allow marriage only to those who conform to the tenets of your faith – atheist married couples are just as civilly married as those of your faith are.

  • kingpigeon

    “Giglio said, ‘my life with Jesus completely changed. I was intoxicated by him. I had a crush on him. And I don’t mean that in some goofy weird way…’ ”

    Uh, no. I really can’t process that in anything but a “goofy weird way.” Sounds like Mr. Giglio might have some issues to sort out.

  • Joel Hardman

    Of course Giglio can preach whatever he wants, we just don’t want him to have a public platform. Personally, I don’t think there’s a good reason to give any preacher at all a public platform during the inauguration.

  • DerpaDerp

    Nothing set God in motion, because the cycle cannot continue ad infinitum (there would be nothing in motion today if God set in motion God set in motion God set in motion God etc…), so there must be a Prime (First) Mover.

    To your other point…regarding gay “marriage”, I would be curious for you to define what marriage means to you before we go any further in the discussion.

  • DerpaDerp

    Catken1, I don’t understand where you are coming from. Treating a human being as property is immoral. But abortion is not about about a human being treated as property. It is about killing a human being in the mother’s womb, which is also immoral.

  • DerpaDerp

    Civil marriage, the US Constitution, laws against murder, and laws against theft all presuppose moral absolutes, which have been extolled in most world religious.

    At some point, a group of people said “hey, it’s good to be married”, “hey, it’s good not to kill members of society”, “hey, neighbors stealing is against the common good of all” and they proceeded to codify those beliefs and enforce it by law.

    It hurts to hear the truth, but the many laws which you hold so dear are based on moral presuppositions of what is GOOD, RIGHT, and OUGHT to be done. No law degree needed here, folks. These moral absolutes have been the bedrock for successful nations, and, until the 20th century have guided this country well. Unfortunately, the rise of moral relativism and its manifestation in laws legalizing abortion (murder) and homosexual marriage (sodomy), among others, will lead to the inevitable cultural downfall of this nation.

  • bradpi

    flagged as spam

  • cricket44

    Derpa, step away from the propaganda sites and educate yourself. Saline abortions have not been performed in *years.* The huge majority of abortions in the first trimester-16 weeks and Late term ones when something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy.

    There is nothing moral about treating women as animals to breed against their will.

  • Catken1

    “Nothing set God in motion, because the cycle cannot continue ad infinitum (there would be nothing in motion today if God set in motion God set in motion God set in motion God etc…), so there must be a Prime (First) Mover.”

    I see. And now what evidence do you have that there is no possible way for motion, time and space to have a beginning without a prime mover? (It only needs to happen once, so “it’s not happened in the 6000 years humans have been writing things down” isn’t a really good argument.)
    And what evidence do you have that that mover is sentient? Or is a deity with any ethical authority whatsoever? Or has any opinion whatsoever about anyone’s sex life?

    ” I would be curious for you to define what marriage means to you before we go any further in the discussion.”

    Civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals conferring certain rights and responsibilities. Marriage to me as a person, my marriage, is a loving commitment of minds and hearts between myself and my husband. The marriages I approve of personally tend to likewise be loving commitments agreed upon by the couple in question as equals – people who marry simply for publicity, or to provide an attractive accessory, or to have a big party, or to gain adult status, or citizenship, or the approval of one’s parents or one’s religion, or wealth, or only to have babies, I do not tend to consider as real as those that are solid mind-and-heart commitments. But even those marriages I disapprove of have real civil status, and real rights, and I cannot take those away because I disapprove of them. It is not my place to tell another person what their marriage “should” be like as long as they meet the requirements for a civil contract, and/or whatever requirements their own personal code and/or religion require of them – it’s my place to manage my own marriage, and let others manage theirs.

  • Catken1

    “But abortion is not about about a human being treated as property.”

    Oh, really? So when we say to a woman, “You have no choice as to whether this other person may or may not inhabit your internal organs and use your blood, bone marrow, and other physical resources, no matter what your wishes or feelings are, or what consequences you or your family suffer as a result” we aren’t treating her body as someone else’s property?

    “It is about killing a human being in the mother’s womb, which is also immoral.”

    The mother’s womb belongs to her. If refusing another person the use of one’s internal organs is murder, then you ought to be jailed every time you fail to give blood every time you might have been eligible. Your body is your own, and it is your right to give or withhold its use to others as YOU see fit. Taking someone else’s body and body parts and demanding they be given over to the use of another whom you deem more important or more “innocent” or just cuter – that’s immoral.

  • Catken1

    “Civil marriage, the US Constitution, laws against murder, and laws against theft all presuppose moral absolutes, which have been extolled in most world religious. ”

    No, the US Constitution does not require moral absolutes above it – it is the supreme law of the land, and has no higher law in the civil jurisdiction of this country.

    Laws against murder and theft are generally common among world cultures, because they do harm – but they are by no means absolute. There are almost always people a particular culture deems it acceptable to kill. Theocracies run by religious absolutists often have quite a lot of them – heretics, infidels, people who crack their breakfast eggs on the wrong side – and somehow, despite laws against theft, it’s usually perfectly acceptable to loot those people’s property once you’ve killed them. Even so, though, there are rational, non-mystical, non-religious reasons to ban murder or theft.

    Marriage is even more flexible – there is very, very little “absolute”, really, in marital law cross-culturally and historically.

    Now, please explain why we need to enforce a particular genital arrangement in marriage in order to ban murder and theft. There is ample reason to continue barring murder and theft, even if marriages you disapprove of are allowed to function – I see no reason why we need to keep ALL laws EXACTLY the same FOREVER, no matter how oppressive or irrational they are, in order to continue laws in place that the vast majority of us find sensible and rational.

    Incidentally, please also explain why it’s murder for a pregnant woman to refuse a nine-month commitment costing an immense amount of resources, energy, money, time and pain, and putting her life and health at at least some risk, maybe quite a lot of risk, but not murder for the same woman (or for the child’s father, or for anyone) to deny the same child a simple blood donation once it’s born, costing her an hour, a pinprick, and some easily-replaced body fluid.

  • Secular1

    Sanity7, what corraborating accounts exist outside of NT that corraborates this iternant preacher man. In any case all he had in terms of staunch followers was just 12 by NT’s addmission itself. Off those 12 one sold him out and few other were gone helter skelter. Just because you believe in those fairy tales does not make them true. They are still fairy tales.

  • Catken1

    Oh, dear, did s/he express an opinion that didn’t kiss your rear and tell you how great you are for being religious?

    Funny how some religious folks define “tolerance.” It’s “tolerance” to take away someone’s marriage and hurt their family because they didn’t abide by your religious laws in choosing a spouse. But it’s “intolerance” for them or anyone else who cares about them to express an opinion in a public forum that isn’t complimentary about your religion. It’s “tolerant” to preach that other human beings are abominations and deserve to burn in agony for eternity because they fell in love with the wrong person and declined to give up their loves and families. But it’s “intolerant” not to invite someone who so preaches to give an invocation at a public event (never mind that had Romney been elected, he would never have chosen a pro-gay activist minister to give his invocation, and I don’t suppose you would have considered that “intolerant” of him.)

    1. Doing real harm to someone and making their lives, their spouses’ lives, and their kids lives’ harder because they don’t make the choices you would have made for them in their lives – “tolerant” and “moral.”

    2. Expressing freely one’s dislike of religion, without in any way taking away religious people’s right to be so or to practice their faith, is “intolerant” and might even be “persecution.”

    Ah, the logic of the religious theocrat.

  • Secular1

    Barby1, what the hell is spiritual blindness. The root for the words spiritual, spirituality si the words spirit. That word mean some non-material craetures. Theres is absolutely no evidence for such creatures at all. So any so called attributes concerning things that do not exist or adjectives rooted in non-existing things is just nonsensical. They are all either fiction or mythical. So your acusation just does not make any sense, at all.

  • Secular1

    Joel Hardman, I absolutely agree with you, every word and every letter of every word. In a secular nation like ours there is no room for fairy tales, and fairy tale peddlers, as fairy tale peddlers in the public square. Of course even fairy tale peddlers can enter the public square, as themselves – sans fairy tales. To make it clear, Bishop Desmond Tutu can particiapte in the public sqaure as Mr. Desmond Tutu, but not as Bishop. Desmond Tutu.

  • Secular1

    Barby1 dear your not playing with afull deck. Just thought I would let you know,

  • PhiloMike

    The analogy with the blood donation doesn’t hold. Abortion more like if you we’re stranded on a desert island with one other person that will die without a blood donation. They say they will take some of your blood, even against your will. You don’t want that, so you kill them.
    If abortion was like blood donation, then it would be like if fetuses fell from the sky and had to find a women within a week in order to live. If you don’t offer your body, then some fetus would die without a womb to be in, but there were millions of others that could have offered theirs.
    Seems there is a difference.

  • slowe111

    It is time for a new, a different question on the issue of gays and church. The church, Christian and others, have been and still are the source for homophobia and the condemnation of homosexuals. Why? because their sacred texts clearly preach against it! This is undeniable. Much convoluted “reasoning” and actual dismissing of certain scriptures is done to escape it and come to accept gays in some congregations. I pose a different question: Why would any gay person want to remain a Christian or a member of any religion that explicitly, condemns them, considers them sinful and lost. Some churches will accept them as long as they do not practice homosexuality! How insulting, and even inhumane. I invite all gay “Christians” to disavow them selves of the self hatred they learn in their churches and have the courage to stand up and say. NO. NO MORE will I be a hypocrite. No more will I agree to this degradation, to these lies. Consider Humanism as a replacement philosophy of life. It is a positive philosophy and has never had to twist itself into contortions to welcome LGBT folks.

  • sclark53715

    ” Why would any gay person want to remain a Christian or a member of any religion that explicitly, condemns them, considers them sinful and lost.”

    Because there are bigger and more important things than sexual preference. God for one. A prediliction to omosexuality is not the issue, it is the homosexual act that is the issue. I do know gay Christians and they work hard to be celibate in order to not sin. But, the rest of us are also sinners and struggle to also not commit our own sins. In that regard there is no difference between gays and the rest of us. So, that is why a gay person can also be a Christian.

    When you ask a question like that, you have flipped your priorities upside down.

  • Catken1

    Whichever analogy, in either case, a human being’s body belongs only to her or him, and it is each person’s sole prerogative to determine who may or may not use their bodies and when.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re the only person who can give that donation or not – the donation is a gift, a gift of something that belongs to you, and therefore it is your right to give or not give as you see fit. If I’m the only person alive with a compatible blood or bone marrow type that someone else needs, does that affect my right to say no to their request for any reason?

  • Catken1

    The short answer to the first point is “we don’t know what set the universe in motion, but the physicists are at least working on the problem rather than throwing up their hands and saying, ‘well, it must have been magic'”. And beware, beware of making your God into a three-letter word meaning “I don’t know that yet”, because when and if we do find out what set the universe in motion, where is your God left then?

  • LJRKehlbeck

    Good luck finding a spiritual leader whose views are completely in line with American culture. While I disagree with Mr. Giglio that our nation’s laws need to reflect biblical principles, and I tend to shudder when my more conservative family members talk about a “gay agenda,” this is not a man who is picketing funerals or speaking about gays themselves in an uncaring manner. And to insist that someone put into a quasi-political role for one day, adhere to a set of beliefs dictated by a certain group, when his existing beliefs hardly scream hate monger, amounts to suppression of speech.

    As to slowe111’s rallying cry for gays to leave the Church, he misses the point. Admittedly, so do most Christians. It’s hard to see anything in the Bible that affirms homosexual behavior as a neutral issue in God’s eyes. But if you understand the Gospel, it’s definitely a secondary issue. The Sin Jesus died to save us from – with a capital S – is the fact that we’re constantly trying to wrest our lives out of God’s hands and run everything ourselves. That happens with gay and straight people, people who have given up on relationships and people who make relationships the center of the universe, people who are defined by their work and people who are defined by their kids and people who are defined by their drug and alcohol use. Every sin we commit stems from this – an unwillingness to let God, who created us, continue to define us.

    The Church has a long way to go in understanding its place in society and the way we ought to treat people whose differences are outwardly obvious because they have the courage to disclose.

    Likewise, I would suggest that the LGBT community has a way to go as well, in accepting that there are degrees of acceptance and understanding, not all of which need to be met with vitriol.

    By the way, Mr. Obama himself has said at one point that marriage – in his view as a Christian, not as a secular policymaker – is between a man and a woman.