Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox (true and correct when contrasted with Liberal theology) Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another website.
Sign in to follow this  
theophilus

How Does Gay 'Marriage' Hurt Us? Here's How.

Recommended Posts

Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

 

Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

 

The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

 

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

 

But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

 

Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

 

Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations. But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

 

Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway.

 

As Michael Coren puts it, “it’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents”—precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay “marriage.”

 

If you think this couldn’t happen here, think again. This year [2012] we’ve seen ObamaCare attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for church employees. And just last week, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

 

This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, “How does gay ‘marriage’ hurt us?” It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay “marriage,” but to condone it as well.

 

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/how-does-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It will not hurt free speech or religious freedom. It hasn't in America because America isn't Canada. In the United States, we have a good balance between Liberal and Conservative, while Canada is extremely Liberal and far ahead of us in Liberal policies. Our current balance keeps our constitutional rights from being infringed upon. Therefore, regardless of who someone chooses to kiss, we should not neglect their marriage. But rather welcome them into the Church, so that they may find Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It will not hurt free speech or religious freedom. It hasn't in America because America isn't Canada. In the United States, we have a good balance between Liberal and Conservative, while Canada is extremely Liberal and far ahead of us in Liberal policies. Our current balance keeps our constitutional rights from being infringed upon. Therefore, regardless of who someone chooses to kiss, we should not neglect their marriage. But rather welcome them into the Church, so that they may find Jesus Christ.

 

If I close my eyes and cover my ears while rejecting reality for make believe I can see the world you live in!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will not hurt free speech or religious freedom. It hasn't in America because America isn't Canada. In the United States, we have a good balance between Liberal and Conservative, while Canada is extremely Liberal and far ahead of us in Liberal policies. Our current balance keeps our constitutional rights from being infringed upon. Therefore, regardless of who someone chooses to kiss, we should not neglect their marriage. But rather welcome them into the Church, so that they may find Jesus Christ.
So naïve. The fact is that the Bible condemns homosexuality (both Testaments). There is simply no debate about it.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So naïve. The fact is that the Bible condemns homosexuality (both Testaments). There is simply no debate about it.

 

 

Sin, in general, not only affects an individual, but also people immediately around them, such as family, local community, and it even extends nationally. But not homosexuality, no, not that . I think a reoccurring theme in the OT concerning Israel or a holy peoples is not to take upon themselves the ways of surrounding culture, except when culture finds things like homosexuality really cool. Then it is okay

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sin, in general, not only affects an individual, but also people immediately around them, such as family, local community, and it even extends nationally. But not homosexuality, no, not that . I think a reoccurring theme in the OT concerning Israel or a holy peoples is not to take upon themselves the ways of surrounding culture, except when culture finds things like homosexuality really cool. Then it is okay

 

God bless,

William

Sin is a disease and if left unchecked it will spread and contaminate the whole body (Church metaphor).

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The wicked strut about on every side when vileness is exalted among the sons of men" ~Psalm 12:8

 

Is this verse not playing itself out as if the Lord, through the pen of King David, wrote it for us, and for the very time in which we are now living?

 

Yours and His,

David

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . .regardless of who someone chooses to kiss, we should not neglect their marriage. But rather welcome them into the Church, so that they may find Jesus Christ.
Christianity is against same sex marriages so it does matter who someone decides to kiss. While yes I don't see why they shouldn't be welcomed to church so they can be reminded that what they are doing is wrong, the church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge a union which is clearly defined as sinful by scriptures.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
A sin is a sin. Even if it is white-washed, it still is a sin.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself kind of torn on this issue. For the secular world, same-sex marriage needs to be accepted and those couples need to be afforded the same rights as traditional marriages. I fully believe that same-sex couples should legally be allowed to marry, just not in a church by a priest/pastor/etc. I believe the words used come down to "civil union" vs. "marriage" - civil union is fine, marriage is not since the term marriage is a religious union between two people of the opposite sex. However, that is all technicality talking. As Christian's, it looks bad on our "culture" as a whole to condemn same-sex marriage, especially when we are called to love everyone. I feel that the line needs to be drawn at the separation of church and state, which means NOT allowing same-sex marriages to be performed inside of a church or by a pastor/priest/etc. In the meantime, we need to accept them and minister to them (without condemning them since we are all sinners also), and hope that we can affect a change in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Christian's, it looks bad on our "culture" as a whole to condemn same-sex marriage, especially when we are called to love everyone.

To whom does it look bad, to God or to other people? By allowing same sex marriage we are encouraging people to engage in acts that are against God's laws and will result in eternal punishment. Is that love?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To whom does it look bad, to God or to other people? By allowing same sex marriage we are encouraging people to engage in acts that are against God's laws and will result in eternal punishment. Is that love?

 

From my experience, there is a "cloud" that surrounds Christians to the secular world as being overly judgmental and condemning of other people. While same-sex marriage is obviously against God's laws, and we are called to follow God's laws and try to evangelize to others, my belief is that condemning same-sex marriage will actually be counter-productive in our society (the U.S.) to reaching this goal. Love is accepting the person and working on affecting a change in their lives (I would not condemn my children if one of them told me they were gay). Often, telling someone that they are wrong is the surest way to get them to turn a deaf ear to your arguments. Instead, I have found it more beneficial to accept them for who they are, and have discussions on who God is and what He stands for. When dealing with LGBTQ people, I tend to completely avoid the subject that God condemns these behaviors and focus on the "other" sins and God's loving nature. Over time (and with a little luck and prayer), they should feel their "heart-strings" being pulled by God to change this behavior, without me ever telling them they were wrong for feeling this way. I know I tend to be on the more progressive side of Christian beliefs. It is hard to explain exactly, but I feel that we need to accept the secular viewpoint and work at affecting change on a personal level with people rather than in national policies. By working at the national level, we are attempting to "strong-arm" people to believe the same way that we do, which tends to turn people off to religion. Hope that makes a little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It will not hurt free speech or religious freedom. It hasn't in America because America isn't Canada. In the United States, we have a good balance between Liberal and Conservative, while Canada is extremely Liberal and far ahead of us in Liberal policies. Our current balance keeps our constitutional rights from being infringed upon. Therefore, regardless of who someone chooses to kiss, we should not neglect their marriage. But rather welcome them into the Church, so that they may find Jesus Christ.

 

You're kidding right? The left side and the LGBT community threw a hissy fit about a couple who didn't want to make them a wedding cake. They are already infringing on our right to refuse service for any reason, and religious beliefs are a strong one. It doesn't matter that Canada is extremely liberal, we're heading there if common sense doesn't return to our government. Christianity and homosexuality is completely incompatible.

 

Genesis 19 gives lengthy passage about the utter destruction of Sodom, and is were we get the word for sodomy.

 

Leviticus 18:22, 24: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things.

 

Leviticus 20:13 : If a man also lie with mankind, as he leith with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

1 Kings talks about Asa and Johashaphat got rid of the sodomites from their lands during their rule.

 

Romans 1:26-27 : For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working what which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 : Or know ye not that he unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not led astray. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor homosexuals.

 

1 Timothy 1:9-10 : knowing this, that law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if any other thing opposes sound doctrine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're kidding right? The left side and the LGBT community threw a hissy fit about a couple who didn't want to make them a wedding cake.

 

I don't believe the Christian baker didn't want to make the homosexual couple a wedding cake. I believe they didn't want to make a homosexual wedding cake. Betcha they'd be more than happy to provide a traditional wedding cake. The bigoted or prejudice argument really is far from the truth when it comes to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone. Any one man with one woman may enter into marriage. Traditional marriage does not discriminate against any one man or any one woman from entering into the union. Again, homosexuals are free to enter the union between one man and one woman, but they do not want to get married, they want to redefine it.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're kidding right? The left side and the LGBT community threw a hissy fit about a couple who didn't want to make them a wedding cake. They are already infringing on our right to refuse service for any reason, and religious beliefs are a strong one. It doesn't matter that Canada is extremely liberal, we're heading there if common sense doesn't return to our government. Christianity and homosexuality is completely incompatible.

 

I would point out that the LGBT community is infringing on our right to unlawfully discriminate, not refuse service to anyone for any reason. Not being able to refuse service to anyone has not been an option for a long time, if you doubt that, try refusing service to an African-American, Hispanic, Jewish, female, religious affiliation, etc. The right to refuse service to anyone does not apply when it comes to unlawful discrimination, which is where the issue really lies. Even if the LGBT community gets their names added to the list of: We will not discriminate based on XXXX, an individual will still be allowed to refuse service to them if they ask for something that the owner does not feel comfortable with. If the homosexual couple asks for a traditional wedding cake from a baker, that baker does not have the right to refuse because the couple is homosexual (if they can come up with some other VALID reason to refuse then they still could). However, if they want a wedding cake that shows off homosexual pride, then the baker would still have the right to refuse based on religious/moral grounds and no one could deny him that right. It is about the context and reason for the refusal, not the refusal itself... and yes you do have to justify why you are refusing service to that individual if they want to fight it.

 

Look at the lawsuit against Hobby Lobby and their refusal to cover contraceptives in their healthcare plan, it was an interesting case that went to the Supreme Court and a huge win for religious parties as the decision was made that Hobby Lobby was not required to provide contraceptives as part of their health insurance policy as long as they clearly stated that contraceptives would not be covered. Refusal is still authorized, just not for any reason (you have to be able to justify it).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're kidding right? The left side and the LGBT community threw a hissy fit about a couple who didn't want to make them a wedding cake. They are already infringing on our right to refuse service for any reason, and religious beliefs are a strong one. It doesn't matter that Canada is extremely liberal, we're heading there if common sense doesn't return to our government. Christianity and homosexuality is completely incompatible.

 

Genesis 19 gives lengthy passage about the utter destruction of Sodom, and is were we get the word for sodomy.

 

Leviticus 18:22, 24: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things.

 

Leviticus 20:13 : If a man also lie with mankind, as he leith with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

1 Kings talks about Asa and Johashaphat got rid of the sodomites from their lands during their rule.

 

Romans 1:26-27 : For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working what which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 : Or know ye not that he unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not led astray. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor homosexuals.

 

1 Timothy 1:9-10 : knowing this, that law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if any other thing opposes sound doctrine.

 

Nope, the word "homosexual" is not really found in any of those verses. It was translated as such to compensate for things that people *think* the bible said.

If Christianity, and Homosexuality are "completely incompatible" then, Christianity and Humanity are "completely incompatible" He came for the lame, and we are the lamest. Regardless of sexual orientation, he loves us still.

 

I don't believe our rights should be infringed upon because of this, however, I do not see why one would not bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope, the word "homosexual" is not really found in any of those verses. It was translated as such to compensate for things that people *think* the bible said.

If Christianity, and Homosexuality are "completely incompatible" then, Christianity and Humanity are "completely incompatible" He came for the lame, and we are the lamest. Regardless of sexual orientation, he loves us still.

 

I don't believe our rights should be infringed upon because of this, however, I do not see why one would not bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

 

Biblically, homosexuality is sexual immorality. Adultery, premarital sex, pornography, and homosexual relations are all outside God’s design, which makes them sin (porneia).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope, the word "homosexual" is not really found in any of those verses. It was translated as such to compensate for things that people *think* the bible said.

If Christianity, and Homosexuality are "completely incompatible" then, Christianity and Humanity are "completely incompatible" He came for the lame, and we are the lamest. Regardless of sexual orientation, he loves us still.

 

I don't believe our rights should be infringed upon because of this, however, I do not see why one would not bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

 

https://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946

This article goes more in depth about how the Greek translation used words that weren't specifically homosexual but a class of adult men who practiced sexual intercourse with another adult male or boy and included sodomites, perverts, and perderasts. So while the actual word homosexual was not used in the original text, the equivalent was used and homosexuality is a sin. All bad actions, all sins are incompatible with Christianity. Humanity is incompatible with God because we are full of sin, that's why Jesus died for us. He loves us but that doesn't make what we do right. The problem with making a cake for a homosexual couple is that you're supporting a wedding between two people of the same sex. If a person believes that a homosexual wedding is a sin, then contributing to the wedding is also a sin because you're compromising your values. I don't see why a couple can't refuse to work for someone if they want to for any reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, the word "homosexual" is not really found in any of those verses.
That is because the word homosexual did not exist at that time but there were homosexuals and everyone knew what they were.

 

It was translated as such to compensate for things that people *think* the bible said.
Oh really! I guess Greek scholars just don't know what they are talking about then. The fact is Greek has more than one word to describe homosexual behavior. For example one of the words used in 1 Cor. 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοίτης.

 

According to Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd Ed. (Johannes P. Louw & Eugene A. Nida: American Bible Society, 1989, 2 Vols.): "ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse — ‘homosexual.’"

 

Also check A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker: University Of Chicago Press, 2000). On page 135 it states:

 

"a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex"

"pederast" (Do you know what the word pederast means? Look it up.)

 

These are scholarly lexicons written by Greek scholars. And these are not the only examples found in the N.T. Can you prove them wrong?

 

Also the N.T. goes even further. The N.T. describes the actions which are evil.

"for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working what which is unseemly

 

Thus the N.T. authors used the Greek words for homosexuals and they also describe the actions of homosexuals which God condemns.

 

AGustOfWind you are quite wrong on every point.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is because the word homosexual did not exist at that time but there were homosexuals and everyone knew what they were.

 

Oh really! I guess Greek scholars just don't know what they are talking about then. The fact is Greek has more than one word to describe homosexual behavior. For example one of the words used in 1 Cor. 6:9 is ἀρσενοκοίτης.

 

According to Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd Ed. (Johannes P. Louw & Eugene A. Nida: American Bible Society, 1989, 2 Vols.): "ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse — ‘homosexual.’"

 

Also check A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Ed. (William Bauer, revised and edited by F. W. Danker: University Of Chicago Press, 2000). On page 135 it states:

 

"a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex"

"pederast" (Do you know what they word pederast means? Look it up.)

 

These are scholarly lexicons written by Greek scholars. And these are not the only examples found in the N.T. Can you prove them wrong?

 

Also the N.T. goes even further. The N.T. describes the actions which are evil.

 

 

Thus the N.T. authors used the Greek words for homosexuals and they also describe the actions of homosexuals which God condemns.

 

AGustOfWind you are quite wrong on every point.

 

I can only imagine the expression left on the face of leftists after reading your post Origen. Perhaps an artist rendering of the left's poster child is pertinent? @AGustOfWind if you want a handkerchief or tissue lemme know. You were just schooled by a Christian Scholar.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n21885[/ATTACH]

obama-baby.jpg.39f7ca462571eb5b381d2333a6b8635f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like a bunch of homo[phobic p[propaganda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds to me like a bunch of homo[phobic p[propaganda.

 

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You turn to the Huffington Post? I'd also prefer you not to leave crap from the Huffington Post scattered around this forum. If you're looking for a publication whose Christians align more with unbelievers rather than believers, you found a gold mine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ought to just leave it in the toilet. That is where excrement belongs. Since that is where you find your theology, I can see why you are extremely confused. Note that none of the sources cited are recognized Hebrew or Greek scholars.

 

I will not waste a lot of time on this article for reasons that will be very clear in a moment. Let's examine just one example.

Steve Chalke make the argument that "idolatry, promiscuity, and shrine prostitution are what Paul is addressing [here] in Romans 1 - not same-sex relationships between faithful and committed partners.

 

Chalke claims that this Romans 1:26-27 concerns cultic prostitution. This point is so easily refuted it makes one wonder how Chalke could even suggest it without looking ignorant. Romans 1:26-27 states:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
There are a number of points about this passage that proves Clalke is wrong.

 

(1) There is no reference to cultic prostitution in the passage. Nor is any evidence given for such a claim by Chalke.

 

(2) The passage clearly states that men and women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. Then Paul tell what those unnatural relations are. Thus men with men and women with women are unnatural according to Paul. That alone points to something other than cultic prostitution.

 

(3) There was also heterosexual cultic prostitution. If Chalke's claim was correct, why would Paul leave out heterosexual cultic prostitution? Was heterosexual cultic prostitution just fine with Paul? If it was cultic prostitution Paul was addressing, then surely he would have also condemned heterosexual cultic prostitution.

 

The fact is Chalke is simply twisting this passage (and others) for his own sake. Don't believe me. Well just read the Huffington Post (I will not link to the site because I have zero respect for it). He has announced that the Bible is not the inerrant and infallible word of God. What a shock! Not really. What else can he do? The Bible condemns homosexuality and no amount of deceit on anyone's part can change that.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After reading what's going on in Canada, I guess I should be happy to be in the US; however, it doesn't take a genius to understand that we aren't far behind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News