Elton John: Jesus Christ would have been pro-gay marriage & anti-celibacy


The UK made same-sex civil unions legal back in 2004, and then this year, they made gay marriage legal. A decade ago, Elton John and his long-time love David Furnish made it official by entering into a domestic partnership/union, and when the UK legalized gay marriage several months ago, Elton announced that he and David were going to get married as well. I kind of thought Elton and David were dual citizens by now – don’t they spend most of their time in LA anyway? Aren’t they pretty much raising their kids in America? But I guess they wanted to wait for the UK to legalize it, and so be it. Elton gave an exclusive interview to Sky News about his plans to wed David, why he likes the new Pope and why he thinks Jesus would have been cool with gay marriage:

Elton plans to speak to Vladimir Putin about gay rights this year: “Globally, we seem to have gone backwards over the last 18 months. I will see Putin and talk to him – I don’t know what good it will do though.”

He hopes the Church of England will learn tolerance from Pope Francis: “The new Pope has been wonderful, he’s excited me so much. He’s stripped it [the Church] down to the bare bones and said it’s all basically about love.”

He thinks gay clergy should be allowed to get married & suggested that the celibacy vow for Catholic priests be abolished: “These are old and stupid things. If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen. He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together and that’s what the church should be about.”

His marriage plans: “I don’t think we can get married until next year. However, when we do do, it will be very quiet and off the cuff – we had our big shebang when we had our civil union.”

[From Sky News]

In case you’re going to yell at Elton for just talking about personal stuff and religion, he did the interview to promote a charity concert which would raise money for SportsAid, an organization that would support young athletes training for the Olympics and Paralympics. He hopes the concert will raise something like $1 million and “for the next eight years 20 kids will get a grant of £2,000 that they normally couldn’t get. It is just a way of supplementing their incomes and giving them hope for the future.”

As for what Elton has to say about gay marriage and Jesus Christ… I don’t know, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I tend to think that Christianity would do better to strip away everything but the teachings of Christ. So, yeah, I think Jesus would probably be fine with two people loving each other, getting married and raising some babies, regardless if that couple was straight or gay.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

87 Responses to “Elton John: Jesus Christ would have been pro-gay marriage & anti-celibacy”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Luca26 says:

    Well I don’t know about gay marriage (though I personally agree with and support it) but biblically he’s right about celibacy it didn’t start until a few centuries after Christ.

  2. Audrey says:

    It’s weird how people pick and choose what parts of the bible should be followed.

    The supreme court ruling on birth control is another huge setback.

    Happy I’m no longer in the US

    • Algernon says:

      Any time someone invokes the Bible as a reason to refuse equal marriage rights to people, I ask that person if they’re also okay with slavery and stoning women to death, because all that crap comes from the same part of the Bible. Same book, even (Leviticus). Inevitably they’re like, “No, of course not, slavery is wrong! Stoning people is bad!” And then I point out that the rules about how to treat “disgraced” women and slaves are laid out right alongside the rules about sexuality. You can’t even say it’s from two different eras of Bible-writing, it’s literally all the same stuff. You can’t pick and choose–if you’re okay with one, you have to be okay with all, or else you’re a big fat hypocrite.

      There has never been a sound comeback to this argument. I win every time. :)

      • Jayna says:


      • Macey says:


        same here. Its so funny watching them blow off those verses tho, or better yet when they try to justify it by use of The New and improved kinder and gentler Testament to back up their hate even tho tho verses are all together in the OT.

      • doofus says:

        you can also ask them about mixing fabrics.

        and other such stupid rules that they conveniently forget about.

        ETA: you can also just say that, if their objection to it is a religious one, then there’s no argument at all since we have no state-sponsored religion. if THEIR religion is against gay marriage, then they shouldn’t get gay-married. but they shouldn’t force others who DON’T practice their religion to live by their religion’s rules.

      • Neelyo says:

        Thanks Algernon, I’m going to use that one.

      • candy corn says:


      • Amy says:

        Yep. If you believe there’s a invisible man below and above you lmao

  3. Kay says:

    Amen, elton john.
    And he would have also been pro-woman and been as horrified as any sensible person by what happened yesterday (re: Supreme Court nonsense.)

    • Francesca says:

      I completely disagree with you on this. Jesus would not approve of abortifacients. He loved and cherished children.

      • Kay says:

        well bless your heart, sugar. that is your god-given right, I suppose. you do know that contraceptives are used for more than just family planning, right? like, for health reasons that have NOTHING to do with (gasp) having or not having children? maybe lay off the fox news and john roberts worship and get back to me when you have a clue.

      • Francesca says:

        Kay, I do not watch Fox News nor do I worship any human beings. I also am not stupid and fully understand the different forms of and uses for contraceptives. My comment specified abortifacients which are used specifically to terminate pregnancies. As a Christian, I absolutely do not believe that Jesus, the Son of the Creator, would sanction the destruction if human lives. There is no need for condescension or disrespect in this kind of conversation.

      • RN says:

        It’s a shame that many Christians love and cherish the fetus only. They could give a sh*t about actual children, who require pesky things like healthcare, education and food.

        Should we return to the days of women having back-to-back pregnancies? Because here’s a history lesson for you – birth control and abortion have always existed in some form. Always. Let’s stop trying to punish women for having sex. And let’s stop making one person’s religion more important than other’s. Newsflash – not every US citizen is Christian.

      • Kiddo says:

        @RN, Indeed.

      • Kay says:


      • doofus says:

        IUDs and RU486 (when used in the days immediately following unprotected intercourse) are not considered abortifacients by the AMA.

        if a Christian does, that’s their right to have that stance, but the AMA stance is the only one that should matter to a “unbiased” and “impartial” court. religion should not be part of a decision that affects ALL Americans, regardless of what religion they follow, if any.

      • Kiddo says:

        THIS: Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

        Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k)..


        It’s about the money, not the principle anyway. How do you find paying for contraceptives ‘morally repugnant’, but investing in them morally acceptable?

      • Twofer says:

        A feotus is not a baby just as a bowl of batter is not a cake. So called “pro-lifers” (what a propaganda coup that they were able to hijack and keep that evidently disingenous title) need to just stop with the bs. I find it hilarious that with all their “baby precious” talk, these same bunch resist systems that could reduce unwanted pregnancies or provide for poor mothers when the baby is born.

      • WinterLady says:

        RN, that is so freaking right. It never fails to amaze me that the first ones to bitch about abortion and murdering of unborn fetuses are the first ones to bitch if a parent seeks medicaid or other financial support for their children. Not to mention how many children languish in the system year after year. The hypocrisy of some so-called Christians astounds me sometimes, especially since Christ would be the first one to preach tolerance for people’s choices and charity to families/children in need.

      • astra says:

        Kay, not everyone who holds a more traditional or conservative viewpoint has been spoon fed that view from TV or John Roberts (whoever that is). Believe it or not, many people make up their own minds even knowing both sides of an argument. I doubt you would appreciate someone dismissing your beliefs and opinions with snide remarks and insults, so why would you do it to others?

        Not trying to attack you, just wondering why you feel the need to be so nasty towards someone who is merely expressing an opinion in a polite and respectful manner.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        None of the contraceptives are abortifacients. They prevent ovulation, not implanation. Hobby Lobby was incorrect in their interpretation of the science on these contraceptives, which makes the ruling all the more idiotic.

      • Deb says:

        @Doofus and Tiffany. Thank you for posting. Hobby Lobby is promoting junk science by claiming these products are abortifacients.

  4. Maude says:

    He lives here in Atlanta up in Buckhead primarily. A lot of his band live here too. I have seen them at one of the local steak places a few different times.

  5. G says:

    Could not agree more- remember the golden rule- the commandment above all others! Love God, love one another.
    As for Hobby Lobby ruling- could not be more clear- religious right are going straight Taliban on us.

    • astra says:

      Don’t you think that’s just a little bit overdramatic? Do you REALLY think that the so called “religious right” in this country are anything like the Taliban? Honestly? A company going through proper legal channels to object to things they disagree with is in no way, shape or form like the Taliban and you must know that. If you disagreed with something, wouldn’t you want the right to fight it through whatever legal means you choose (lawfully, of course)? Why would you be so against it for someone who has a different ideology than yours? Don’t people, corporations, etc, have the right to express their opinions,even if they are unpopular among certain segments of the population? Isn’t that the very POINT and DEFINITION of freedom?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Corporations do not have religious views. Corporations are not people. The main point of incorporating is to separate the company from the person, to protect the person from lawsuits against the company. It makes no sense to me that the SC has now turned around granted a corporation the right to hold personal beliefs that can be “violated” by following the law.

        I think saying the religious right in this country is like the Taliban is wrong in that they don’t commit terrorist acts. Oh wait, abortion clinics, but I’ll grant you that’s a small minority. But I do think the attitude of the religious right bears many of the same characteristics as any fanatic religion – complete intolerance of views other than their own, the wish to make laws that enforce fundamentalist religious views, such as no same sex marriages, trying to hijack education of children to fit their own views, like creationists, trying to force women into specific, limited roles, etc. A fanatic is a fanatic, and no less dangerous just because they’re Christian.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        GoodNames, so many great points in your post.

        “Why would you be so against it for someone who has a different ideology than yours? ”

        That is the thing. Hobby Lobby isn’t accepting that their employees might have different views than them on their health care options, so they are FORCING that view on their employees.

        The worst thing about this is that Plan B is a drug taken by many victims of rape. Some women who are employed by HL and are using contraceptives that are ok’d by HL might not know that they will need access to Plan B in the future. I think they need to be held accountable for how their selfish lawsuit will impact victims of rape and limit their choices.

      • Lady Macbeth (ex HiddlesF) says:


        Great post!! :)

      • Other Kitty says:

        Astra, I love you. Thank you for being a voice of reason and respect in this discussion. Everyone has a right to his or her opinions, whether or not the majority approves of said opinion.

  6. Brittney B says:

    Yeah, it’s mind-boggling how all these American fundamentalist “Christians” cling to obscure passages from the Old Testament and completely overlook the fact that Jesus Christ never. once. said anything about homosexuality. Hell, he admonished people for judging single women with active sex lives! I’m 100% certain he would be horrified that corporations are using his name to discriminate against women and take away their reproductive health care.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. The same passage that says homosexuality is an abomination also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, an if a man and woman have sex while the woman is having her period, they should be stoned to death. So yeah, let’s all go by that. Because that’s what God would want.

  7. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Jesus never commented on homosexuality. I think if he thought it was some heinous sin, he would have, so I’m going with Elton on that one. Also agree about celibacy. As Luca26 says above, that rule was put into effect centuries after Christ, at least partly to prevent priests from leaving their worldly goods to their families instead of the church. I think forced celibacy is unnatural and wrong, and I’ve never understood how someone who has not been in a relationship is supposed to give advice on marriage.

    • videli says:

      …And clerical marriage/nicholaism continued de facto for about a millennium. The papacy clamped down on it only in the early 13th century, mostly because it wanted to reinforce its political control. When marrying into the local communities, priests tended to forgo their allegiance to Rome. It had less to do with living like Christ or the apostles.

      • Malificent says:

        It was also a way of keeping money from wealthy families whose sons and daughters joined the Church. Typically, endowments/dowries accompanied a wealthy child’s entrance into the Church.

      • videli says:

        To be a bit picky, those hefty endowments speed-tracked a noble son to a clerical career either in a cathedral, and that meant high-tier church administration, or a monastery. Celibacy in both cathedrals and abbeys was never a subject of debate. Marriage for priests was only an issue in the case of parish priests, not a desirable position for aristocratic sons.

        But can you imagine noble families vying for entrance in a ‘good’ monastery?

    • blue marie says:

      Completely agree GoodNames.

    • BratB says:

      I’m pretty sure that Jesus made it clear that he was about this father’ s business. I don’t think that because we didn’t read about him speaking on it means that he would have approved of it! that is a far reach to me! I’m not sure when celibacy came into play but I do know that it is better to marry than to burn ( If you’ve gotta have it, get married).

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        What is “this father?” And what is it’s business? I don’t understand what you mean.

        Jesus talked about how to live your life and what sins to avoid. Why didn’t he mention homosexuality if he disapproved of it? I think it’s a reach to say he DID disapprove. A reach by people who want to feel superior to anyone different from themselves.

        And it’s “it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.” Why do people always leave the last part out? Because they want to change the meaning to suit themselves.

      • WinterLady says:

        Well, BratB, I would guess that woe could least infer from Jesus not bothering to comment on homosexuality that it was a non-issue to him (and his heavenly father). I would think the bigger issues of hate, greed, violence, and poverty would have concerned them more then two guys or girls kissing. I am just a naive atheist, though, so I may be wrong :)

      • BratB says:

        His* father, that was a typo. No need to get testy, I’m simply saying that I don’t think that God would have sent Jesus unless they were on the same page. It’s my understanding that Jesus only taught for a short time, I believe it was three years, before he was crucified so was everything said, no, but his work was done.
        I don’t fell superior to anyone, I wasn’t raised that way and I don’t raise my children that way, so I would appreciate it if you didn’t type to me in that tone of voice!!!! lol (jk)

    • Star says:

      “Jesus never commented on homosexuality. I think if he thought it was some heinous sin, he would have, so I’m going with Elton on that one.”

      On the contrary, if Christ’s views on homosexuality contradicted those of the Old Testament, only then would He have said something. The fact that He never said anything about the subject can only mean He didn’t have a problem with what was already being taught.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yeah, that’s only contradicted about a thousand times in the Bible. What a ludicrous statement. So you’re saying that everything Christ taught contradicts what is taught in the Old Testament? Or He wouldn’t have mentioned it? So He’s for murder, adultery…okay. That makes so much sense.

    • Lady Macbeth (ex HiddlesF) says:


      Yes. In fact Vatican state is actually the richest country of the planet. Guess why….

  8. Jaderu says:

    I believe Jesus had a very basic teaching style. Be nice and take care of one another and don’t be a dick.
    It’s 2000 years of other’s agendas that have skewed and twisted the original message. I agree with Elton 100%.

  9. Francesca says:

    Oh, ok, Elton. I didn’t know you were a religious scholar AND a pop star, too. Wow.

  10. skipper says:

    I was raised a strict Pentecostal but I am an Atheist. I have no problem with religion unless it spews hate. I would like to think if Jesus were real, he would approve of all types of love. However, who knows anymore? People have twisted the bible so much to support what they want it to mean that none of it makes sense anymore. I think it is all just a fairy tale. Honestly, a big boat that carried pairs of all animals that lived through a flood that covered the earth? A “loving” god that burns people in hell after they die if they choose not to accept him as their personal savior? Immaculate conception? A whale that swallowed Jonah and he lived to tell about it? A man that was raised from the dead? I could go on for days. If someone said all this today they would be pumped with Thorazine and locked away in a mental institution.

    • Macey says:

      Im with you on everything in your post. the last part of your post reminded me of the Late George Carlin’s bit on religion. He pretty much said everything you just said but in that George way…RIP

    • Nicole says:

      Well the atheists (communists) in the USSR medicated Christians and locked them in mental institutions so what you suggest has already been done. Of course, they also locked people in mental institutions if they disagreed with the Party on anything significant…the ones they didn’t send to the Gulags or torture or execute. Come to think of it, they do that in North Korea to this day. It’s always amazing how intolerant people become of all opposition, when they absolutely KNOW they’re right, whatever their beliefs or un-beliefs are. But if you tell people (as many atheists do) that they are just lumps of matter with the illusion of consciousness then I can’t help but think you are setting things up for a particularly unrestrained bloodbath…as indeed it has proved throughout the 20th century. At least Jesus tells us to love our enemies, even if most humans, including those who claim to be his followers, are incapable of doing so.

      • skipper says:

        I assure you, I’m not a communist. I’ve seen Christians try to exorcise demons out of gay teenagers. It was very traumatic for everyone, especially the teens that were being exorcised. Christians do horrible things to people that don’t believe what they believe in the name of god. I’ve seen Christians do the same to people who listen to secular music or read secular magazines, books etc. That is what I don’t like about Christianity. Like I said, I don’t mind religion as long as it doesn’t spew hate. You could also say all Christians are communists as well but I wouldn’t go that far. I won’t take offense to you calling me a communist because I’m an atheist b/c that is what you were taught to believe and I know it is not true. It is really unfortunate you feel that way. I’m sorry if you had a bad experience with an Atheist. We’re not all bad just like all Christians aren’t bad.

      • astra says:

        Don’t forget what’s being done to Christians in the Middle East and Africa!

      • skipper says:

        Astra, it is horrible what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa. I think we should all be able to co-exist. Maybe someday we all will. It would take everyone globally to work towards it together.

      • sonalaceae (Nighty) says:

        What is supposed to be the relation between atheists and communists???? I’m atheist and not communist (communism is an ideology that I don’t like much). Don’t mix religion and politics… I don’t believe in God, but I believe we should all live together, accept eachother’s ideologies without being judgmental…

      • skipper says:

        @sonalacea, I didn’t understand the relation between the two either but I was trying to be as diplomatic as possible. I don’t think she really understands what she’s talking about. I agree with everything you said in your comment. :)

    • Lady Macbeth (ex HiddlesF) says:


      I am non-religious too, but I respect other people’s beliefs. They are free to believe in the Bible or any holy book as I am free not to believe in any.
      I just can’t stand when any religious groups wants to dominate the others or the nonbelievers. That’s dictatorial and I stand up against that.
      Religions also irk me when some zealot approaches me trying to convince their beliefs are better. Then I send them back with empty hands and if they insist a good kick in the curb….

  11. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    He would have undoubtedly been pro-weed as well, toking on the hookahs they had back in biblical times and visiting brothels, enjoying life as God intended.

  12. Sal says:

    I strongly agree with Elton John. I’ve always believed God would approve of gays being able to marry. Don’t forget, the Bible was written by 40, forty different men, many who never even met Jesus. I believe in the Christian God but the Bible I feel is NOT representative – or at least – 100% accurate representation of God. I very strongly believe God would not be anti gays, I have no doubt about that.

  13. Tang says:

    Alhough Jesus did not promote celibacy, he did not promote sex either.

  14. Sam says:

    Jesus also didnt say anything about pedophilia. So I guess thats okay too?

    For those of you think that Jesus is all in for homsexuality need to read this.


    I love when people who have no understanding of the Bible through some stupid lame brained idea out.

    Hobby Lobby supplies 16 different types of contraception. All they will not supply is 4 different types of abortifecants. Two entirely different things. Because they believe, and the science is settled, when two humans have sex and ends up in a fertilized egg, that egg will become a baby. When you abort that egg, two cells, 5000 cells or whatever timeline you are in the pregnancy it is a baby. Stop with this gelatinous goo and be honest about it. It is a baby. If your mom aborted you when she was 6 weeks pregnant, you wouldnt be here. It was just goo to her then, but you are a human now. if you want someone to pay for your abortificants, then dont work at Hobby Lobby, problem solved. But if you tax payers to pay for your abortions, quit yelling its your womb your right. its my checkbook, I get to say where my money goes. Stay out of my wallet, I’ll step away from your abortions.

    And please stop with the Republicans dont care about them after they are born!!!!11!!! Im a conservative/indpendent, I send out 100+ dollars a month to help need children. I am sure a lot of other people do too. you dont know that so dont make blanket statements.

    • BratB says:

      Thank you, I wish I had kept my comment this simple!

    • astra says:

      Yay! Such a great comment!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Nobody in the Bible said anything about pedophilia. People got married when they were 11 years old then. Your point is idiotic.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      The 4 contraceptives they will not allow are NOT abortifecants. The prevent OVULATION, not implantation.

      If you read the courts decision, they include all kinds of qualifying terms such as “including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing”. The courts decision was based on what Hobby Lobby feels the contraceptives are….not what the contraceptives actually do.

      The fact is that this decision allows an employer to force their religious beliefs on their employers through limiting their health care options. It is shameful. You talk about people staying out of your wallet, but what about the employees who pay for a large portion of their health care premiums themselves? They pay for the plan, but the plan options are dictated by their employer’s religion.

      Funny that the right used to be opposed to people getting in between a woman and her doctor…apparently they think an exception should be made for the employer.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      “if you want someone to pay for your abortificants, then dont work at Hobby Lobby, problem solved. ”

      1. These aren’t abortificants.
      2. What if a woman works at Hobby Lobby and is a victim of rape and would like to use Plan B? Hobby Lobby is limiting the medical treatment of rape victims, who cannot know in advance whether or not the would need such a medication during their lifetime.

    • Sam says:

      Bratb and Astra, thank you!

      GoodNames, commentors at the top of the thread are saying that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so ergo it is okay. So me pointing out that he never mentioned pediophilia is on topic. So if my point is idiotic, so is saying that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Please, who married someone who was 11? I must have missed that in Bible Study. although I do recall it in the Koran, but she was 6.

      Tiffany, if you believe that pregnancy starts at implantation you are correct (except for abortion that does abort, obviously), IUD’s and the morning after pill do, however, cause implantation of a fertilized egg not to take place. if you beleive, as most Christians do, that pregnancy starts at fertilization, then it is abortion.

      This wasnt a decision of an employer making decisions for a woman, this was a decision about Obamacare over reaching and telling citizens and corporations what they will pay for. If you want to work at Hobby Lobby, Sunday’s off and they pay close to double the minimum wage, opt out of their insurance and get on Obamacare. Then you can have all the contraceptives, and abortions you want at the tax payer expense.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Sam, that is not correct. My beliefs have no impact on this matter, I am talking about the science.

        There is no implantation to prevent, as these contraceptives prevent OVULATION, not implantation. If a woman has already ovulated, these contraceptives will not work.

        This was absolutely a decision that allows the employer to make medical decisions for women. It prevents rape victims who might be employees of Hobby Lobby from getting medical care that might be important to them.

        You falsely say that an employee can opt out of the Hobby Lobby insurance and “get on Obamacare”. First of all, Obamacare isn’t an insurance policy, it is a set of regulations and sets up an exchage. Secondly, employees who are offered coverage at their work are not yet eligible to apply for private insurance policies through the Health Insurance Exchanges.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Many people confuse RU486 with Plan B and Ella. Hobby Lobby was confused on this point.


        “The morning-after pill he’s referring to is sold under the brand name Plan B. The week-after pill, which actually only works for five days after unprotected sex, is called ella.”

        Both are classified by the Food and Drug Administration as contraceptives. Neither is the same as the abortion drug RU486, or Mifeprex. That pill isn’t considered a contraceptive and isn’t covered by the new insurance requirements

        “a study published just last year led the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics to declare that Plan B does not inhibit implantation.”.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Sam, my point is that homosexuality cannot be compared to pedophilia for many reasons, but in this context specifically because it was not a concept that people recognized in Biblical times. Children were property. What we now consider children were married as soon as girls reached childbearing age. I should have said 12, not 11 as that was the law in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, but Jesus never discussed it. Pedophilia was never mentioned in the Bible at all. So your statement makes no sense, but then, you never make sense to me, so I don’t know why I bother, and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

      • Sam says:

        Ella is thought to work for emergency contraception primarily by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from the ovary, so no egg will be available for a sperm to fertilize. It is possible that Ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus.

        Plan B works in two ways:
        It may prevent or delay ovulation.
        It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.
        It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

        since they both have the possibility of preventing implantation, Hobby Lobby is not wrong in how they see it.

        This ruling does not prevent woman from getting birth control, access to birth control or abortions, or rape victims being treated or given the morning after pill the day she is raped or waiting nine months for an abortion. This this means that through HL’s insurance plan, they will not be paying for those. You, as a woman, are still free to do obtain these 4 forms of birth control/or abortificants, however you want to look at, on your own, even if you work for HL. So you are definitely wrong there.

        And yes you can opt out of your business insurance, I do it, because my husband’s work has a much better plan than I do, for us and for our kids. Or you can get your own. There is no law saying you have to take your business’s insurance they offer.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        The scientific community (FDA, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) say that these contraceptives are not abortifacients. I noticed you qualified all of your statements about the drugs with “possible”.

        How can you say that this ruling doesn’t prevent a rape victom from getting Plan B? It absolutely does. In the United States, affordability dictates the choices that women have for health care. By making Plan B uncovered, it can ABSOLUTELY make it unavailable to some women by making it too expensive for them to afford. The assumption that a woman can just pay for it on her own without insurance is to deny the reality of the health care industry in the United States and the drastic difference in out of pocket expenses for those items that are covered and not covered.

        Finally, you have a misunderstanding of the law. You can not opt out of your employer sponsored insurance and then go to the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. People whose employers offer insurance cannot be on the exchange. That is not the same thing as getting on your spouses plan. I dont’ know if you were trying to misdirect after you were shown to be wrong, or if you simply misunderstand the law. A person can get on their spouses insurance during qualifying events and open enrollment, BUT a person must be married and their spouse must be offered employer insurance. A single woman who is employed by Hobby Lobby has no choice but to take their insurance or find work elsewhere, which we all know can be hard to do.

  15. LaurieH says:

    People have to remember the Bible was written nearly 2,000 years ago. Things have changed in 2,000 years. Heck, things have changed in the last 20 years. People get so hung up on the cultural and historic aspects of the Bible that they literally lose the message completely. What did Jeaus tell people? Just love each other. Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

    Read the Lord’s Prayer, even if (and especially if) you are not Christian. The most important line in it is “forgive us trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Really think about what that means. For Christians, your asking God to be as forgiving to you for your screw-ups as you’ve been to others; to show as much mercy and understanding to you as you show to others; to judge you the same way you judge others.

    In other words, if you want people to love you, accept you, forgive you and cut you some slack for what you do then you have to treat other people that way

    That’s really the main take-away from the Bible and you don’t have to be a Christian to think that’s a pretty good lesson to live by.

  16. astra says:

    It’s always funny to me when more “liberal” type people claim to know what Jesus “really” thought or what He would be OK with. How is it different when it’s a person like that, as opposed to a “fundie” or traditionally religious person? Isn’t the problem with those people that they claim to know what Jesus meant…but it’s wrong when they do it, but right when someone who is more progressive and PC does it? Interesting!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and I don’t think liberal people have the monopoly on thinking their interpretation is the right one. I think both sides can be intolerant.

    • yoyo says:

      Totally agree astra +1000 I find it ridiculous when anyone purports to KNOW what Jesus, God, The Pope or so and so “really” meant

      I find hilarious for example all these people who are just in LOVE with Pope Francis because they feel that he is all for gay love….uhm no. If that is why you like him then you really heard just what you wanted to hear, just like the people who read just what they want to read into the Bible. People need to read things fully and stop just reading simplified headline written by journalists who want to catch your attention. All he ever said was that gays and abortions weren’t the only things the church should focus on and that he isn’t the one who’ll be doing the judging but that the bible is clear about these matters:

      “During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro, I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the Catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free. It is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person”

      This is what the Catholic church has to say about homosexuality: it’s deviant , should be addressed with compassion and gays are called to chastity.

      “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

      Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

      How people get from the above that he is pro gay is beyond me. Yes if you are gay and don’t act on it or have sinful thoughts then he feels you are Catechism compliant otherwise nope you my friend are hell bound. Is the bar set at : “oh he said gays shouldn’t be publicly stoned. He’s pro gay!” ??

      No he’s saying gay can happen, isn’t your fault, is a burden, don’t act on it and everything will be fine and for non gays that discrimination isn’t acceptable nor christian.

      So people can believe what they want but they should stop putting words in other people’s mouths whether it be Jesus, the Pope or even your next door neighbor.

      For the full article:

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Aren’t you purporting to know what the Pope meant? I guess it’s ok when you do it.

        “For the full article” lol yeah, I’m off to read that. Brainwashed much?

    • LaurieH says:

      That’s why, nearly 2000 years later, people are STILL trying to figure out this most magnificently mysterious book. Some people attend Bible study regularly. Biblical scholars, archaeologists and historians still study it. I’ve read the book numerous times. It’s WAY over my head. For Christians, it’s kind of like a two-part series (Old Testament and New Testament) – a simplistic analogy, but you get the idea. A lot of it simply chronicals history and culture. The Old Testament is filled with a laundry list of laws, all of which nobody can adhere to perfectly because we’re, well…human. Jesus, being one part of the triune of God, was able to but that’s because He is God (as Christians believe). The rest of us are pretty much hopeless screw-ups. Which is why Jesus basically simplified the whole thing down to “love one another” and treat people the way you want others (including God) to treat you.

      That’s pretty straight-forward. It’s like the “mean people suck” bumper sticker. Who knows if Jesus supported gay marriage or not. If you read the Bible, you know He wasn’t all that hung up on the minutae of corporeal life as he was spiritual life. “Give unto Caesar…” He separated the two. So whether or not Jesus would have been pro-gay marriage is immaterial and silly to even discuss. We know (at least those of us who believe) that Jesus most certainly loves Eton John and given his amazing talent and musical genius, he has many gifts.

      Whether Elton John is gay or not gay or thinks Jesus approves of his marriage or whatever is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is that everytime I hear one of his songs, it makes me feel alive and good.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        LaurieH, perhaps you wouldn’t think the discussion was “silly” if you were gay and all these idiots were telling you God didn’t love you and you were going to Hell.

      • Lady Macbeth (ex HiddlesF) says:

        As an historian I studied the Bible too. And historically speaking, you have to take it with a grain of salt. As why it is studied, well… Homer’s Iliad and Odissey are studied nowadays too, and they are not holy books.

        The New Testament was infamously selected in circa 300 AD. So the historical accuracy is very poor in that case, because the parts early Christians didn’t like were left out.

    • Sam says:

      Astra and yoyo, completely agree!

      Goodnames, if yoyo is quoting what the Pope said and what the Catholic Church says, how is that purporting to know what the church meant. He said it, obviously he meant it.

      For my church yoyo, we look at homesexuality as a sin. But, it is no worse or no better than any other sin. Since we are human, we ALL sin. Every day. My daughter is gay, I couldnt love her more! She believes in God with all her heart. I dont think she is destined for hell anymore than I think I am for the sins I have committed.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        You never get anything.

      • Sam says:

        of course I get nothing sweetie. massive eyeroll.

      • Sam says:

        Who tells gays they are going to hell? If you mean Westboro, they are not Christians.

        The only reason Christians think you dont go to hell is not believing in Christ. You really know absolutely nothing about the Bible or any church.

  17. LovesGossip says:

    A feotus is not a baby just as a bowl of batter is not a cake.

    I cannot stand a “liberals” point of view that a fetus is a baby when it is wanted. When an UNwanted/UNplanned pregnancy occurs suddenly the same fetus becomes a “blob”, a nothing. And for the record I am NOT a right wing anti- women’s rights Christian blah blah blah….. I just cannot stand hypocrisy on any level.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I’m pro-choice, but I think if someone deliberately injures a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, it’s murder, because the intention was for her to carry the baby to term and give birth. Is that what you mean? I guess I can see why that seems hypocritical to you, but I see it as logical.

    • skeptical says:

      Perhaps this is because you cannot understand a policy that puts the WOMAN’S life in the top position.
      If the woman wants to be pregnant, then it is a baby. Otherwise it is a blob.
      You must not ignore the woman, a fully self-actualized being, for the sake of a POTENTIAL who has not shown any signs of self-actualization.
      The woman must come first. That is all. The woman’s choices and will and life must come first, otherwise you reduce her to being only a uterus.

  18. Other Kitty says:

    Jesus Christ was a lot more than a man who “tried to bring people together”. He also said a lot of things that people conveniently leave out of their discussions, because to really follow Christ requires us to look seriously at our lives, and make difficult changes that frankly, most of us don’t want to make. He clearly said who he is in the bible, and if you “don’t believe the bible”, then you pretty much have no source for information about what Christ did and what he taught.

    Loving others does not mean approving of anything and everything they do.