Gallows

Gay-KK Longin’ for a Lynchin’

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Are you ready for a lynching? Well, ready or not, guess who’s been selected to take the long walk to the gallows?

None other than BarbWire Editor-in-Chief Matt Barber and yours truly. This is nothing new for Matt, but for me, this is a first. Honored to be in such great company, if I do say so myself.

Chew on this macabre morsel that was recently served up in BarbWire’s “Comments & Barbs” section:

Hello, You Nazis are all going to die. Matt Barber will be the first to hang. Jeff Allen will be next. All of this after being legally tried, convicted, and sentenced to hang for your crimes against humanity in a court of law, of course. You are abominations worthy of death and you will meet your King in Hell.

Am I just imagining things or does this person sound deranged? And to think, they started off so nicely with a big, friendly “hello.” It sounds like maybe this “tolerant” lunatic has designated himself judge, jury and executioner. There’s nothing like a predetermined verdict with a death sentence to boot, but isn’t this proof of exactly what we’ve been trying to say all along about the homofascist left?

I actually received about 30 death threats or ominous messages over a two-day period from what appears to be two different individuals (or at least two different email addresses).

But the death threats weren’t all that this/these loveable fuzz balls did. Oh, no, not by a long shot! They publicly posted my home phone number numerous times, called me a “parasite” (Isn’t that what the Nazis called the Jews?), and they also contacted my Bishop and my District Superintendent. The very day after the threats ceased, I received a visit from the district’s Assistant D.S. at my church office. It seems that there are those who don’t like it when I call things as they really are. They said it was more a matter of the tone of my columns that bothered them so much. And they really were upset by the Nazi rainbow flag that was attached to one of my articles. Hey, it is what it is. As a matter of fact, it’s getting harder every day to tell our modern homo-fascists from the Nazis of the 1930s and 40s. “Gay”-stapo or Gestapo, could somebody please tell me the difference?

In response to the complaint about my “harsh” tone, I told the Assistant D.S., In John Chapter 2, I bet when Jesus turned over the tables, pulled out the whip, yelled at the people, scattered the money and set the animals scurrying throughout the Temple, nobody felt all warm and fuzzy either.” Apparently, Jesus needs to work on his tone too.

Unfortunately, though, if I were to break my vows to the denomination, violate the Bible, and preach lies, everything would be just peachy.

To be honest, I was a little upset to discover that I was second on the executioner’s list. Geez, what’s a guy gotta do to be first around here? I guess I’ve got a lot of catching up to do; I’ll try not to disappoint.

In the meantime, the Gay-KK can keep their noose “on ice.”

“We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” — Benjamin Franklin

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • JPT

    It probably isn’t wise to judge an entire movement based on the rantings of its fringe elements. I’m sure most of my Christian brethren wouldn’t wish to be tinged with the aura projected by you and Matt.

    • thisoldspouse

      These “fringe” elements would be supported by the monolithic homosexual culture if they got their ardent wish. I don’t hear many homosexuals decrying the homosexuals suing the Church of England to force the Church to “marry” them, something the homosexual Left always tells us is the line they won’t cross, and many have promised that they would march with us if crossed. Crickets.

      Your numerous assurances have panned out to be blatant lies, which you conveniently forget (is amnesia a sub-pathology of homosexuality?) and yet you expect us to keep trying to kick that football. We can all remember when you just “wanted to be left alone.”

      • RhondaStar

        Amen, ThisOldSpouse! The examples of homosexual hatred are so rampant that it’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

        • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

          Rhonda, you might want to read some of the other “facts” that spouse pushes before you “amen” him. He copies and pastes a number of 20-year old disproven soundbites He also still believes that gay people can be “cured.”

          • thisoldspouse

            Not 20 years old, truth-hater, but current. From the CDC website:

            Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

            Additionally:

            Gay men are at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active MSM be tested annually for these infections.

            Is the CDC “homophobic” now? Haters, right?

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Ok, you showed your facts. I verified them. I was wrong on the 20 year old facts. Yes, gay males are proportionally more likely to be infected than their heterosexual brothers. But it is not a gay disease. If you want to label a disease by the group most hit by it, then you should truly be calling it (according to your CDC article) the black gay man’s disease. But you won’t. Why? Because it implies that being black somehow CAUSES HIV. Just like being gay does not CAUSE HIV. When you label a disease that way you imply causality which is not accurate.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            As thisoldspouse pointed out, when somewhere around 70% of HIV cases are being generated by a 2-3% demographic, it is obvious that demographic “owns” that disease.

            The ironic and sad thing about HIV/AIDS is that it is completely and totally avoidable (now that homosexuals are no longer allowed to donate blood). Just abstain from sex outside of marriage, and AIDS would be on the ash heap of history. But hedonism kills.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Then let us get married. You can’t have it both ways, my friend.

          • thisoldspouse

            The problem is, “marriage” to a homosexual is altogether different than what most people traditionally think marriage entails, universally involving outside infidelity, by their own admission. So, the risks still exist. “Marriage” isn’t a band-aid to apply to bad conduct.

            You really do seem to be quite naive about these issues. First, you seem to be completely oblivious to the health hazards of homosexual behavior when information about it is ubiquitous in the scientific community; has been for decades.

            All I can conclude is that you are willfully blind.

          • Theodore Fenton

            How is it that heterosexuals perform so badly when it comes to marriage?

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Spouse, you are so willfully blind to what is coming down the road. You can deny it, fight it, and pretend it won’t happen, but that ship has sailed. Gay marriages are half as likely to fail as heterosexual marriages. Look it up. Your statement of “universally involving outside infidelity” is completely made up and based only on your conspiratorial beliefs. The health hazards disappear when gay people enter monogamous relationships, just like their hetero brothers and sisters. I pray God removes the blinders from your eyes so you can see the ridiculousness of your bigotry.

          • Jeff Allen

            I have looked it up. Every study ever conducted on homosexual relationships (“marriages” or civil unions) are LESS faithful and LESS permanent. Even in the countries that first legalized “gay marriage” and are the most “gay”-friendly places in the world, the studies show the same thing. Pride just ONE study to prove the opposite.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            No, he’s worse than that. Wait until these deviants start to openly rationalize and defend having sex with kids. And if you think you think that’s not coming soon, you are sadly mistaken.

          • vorpal

            To claim that that is universal is absurd. My husband and I are married, and are completely monogamous. We know quite a few other long-term gay couples who are monogamous as well.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            You CAN get married already, subject to the same requirements as anyone else: find a marriage partner who consents, is of legal age, not a close relative, isn’t already married to someone else, and is of the opposite sex.

            You have to do what’s required to form a marriage to create one. You can’t have it both ways.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Bob, please don’t suggest the non-sensical option of “Just marry a woman” Seriously, that is not a viable option for gay people. I’m cool with the other requirements. By the way, the “opposite sex” requirement is no longer required by the US govt, just certain states.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            It’s not nonsensical. It’s reality. You just don’t like reality, so you expect reality and everyone else to bend to your desires. Real life doesn’t work that way.

            As Abraham Lincoln said, calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make the dog have five legs.

            You don’t get to call a gum wrapper a $20 bill and get away with it.

            You don’t get to be a fireman just because you say “I want to drive a firetruck and be a fireman;” you have to get hired and go through the requirements necessary first.

            You want to get married? Meet the requirements. You want to avoid HIV/AIDS? Behave in a sexually responsible manner.

            And yes, the normal, been-that-way-for-thousands-of-years-and-now-spelled-out-on-paper requirement that marriage consists of a man and a woman is still a requirement for the U.S. government. In the American form of republican government, the legislative branch makes the laws, not the executive or judicial branches, and the only law on the books says what everyone has known for thousands of years: it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage.

            You liberals just have a vendetta against a reality that doesn’t allow you to do whatever you want, and expect the rest of us to just let you wish it away. Not going to happen. We’re going to continue fighting for what is right, and will reclaim this nation from the anarchists, narcissists and children.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Bob I typically don’t name-call (like spouse does). But what you just said about the US government defining marriage as being ONLY between a man and a woman is a lie. An outright lie. The closest you ever got was DOMA, but the Supreme Court threw out that requirement because it was discriminatory. I will say it again. The US government DOES NOT require a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I defy you to find that federal requirement.

          • Truth Offends

            In its DOMA decision, the US Supreme Court went beyond its Constitutional authority (changed the definition of a word) in order to allow homosexuals to “marry” one another.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            That’s like saying black people can choose to be white simply by bleaching their skin. They’ve always had that right. Complete rubbish. And even the suggestion that they need to is proof of your bigotry.

          • Truth Offends

            A man’s desire/preference to have sex w/ other men is not analogous to another man’s skin color.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Of course it is. Both are traits you are born with and both are un changeable.

          • Truth Offends

            There is no evidence that people are born homosexual. But, even if, for the sake of argument they were, that does not mean our nation should be forced to affirm and promote homosexuality as normal. Some people may be born with a propensity toward violence. That does not mean we should promote and affirm violence as acceptable.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Assuming you are a heterosexual male, is your attraction to women a propensity or were you born this way?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            In other words, “Were you born straight?”

            Strawman.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Attention everyone: “Anyone who Matthew can’t refute is a troll and a straw man and did say troll?” Matthew, grow up and debate like a man.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Shut up, troll.

            The fact of the matter is, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only thing you are sure of is how intellectually superior you are to us stupid Christians.

            To which I strongly recommend you Google the term, “delusions of grandeur.”

            You are WRONG. You are WRONG about God. You are WRONG about Jesus. You are WRONG about the Bible. You are WRONG about the Constitution. You are WRONG about basically everything you have wasted bandwidth spewing.

            You remind me of Michael Moore, a man with an agenda that has absolutely no scruples. A man willing to lie, and lie blatantly, to get people to his way of thinking. But the difference here is, the only person you are trying to convince is YOU, because **NOBODY HERE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.**

            How many times do I have to say this: We are DONE talking. STOP bothering me and what’s more, STOP trolling others with your junk.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Matthew, as you can see from the other people I am discussing issues with, you don’t represent anyone but yourself. They and I continue to debate (sometimes heatedly, but respectful). I have not called you a name. You call me troll. I don’t expect anyone here to change their mind based on what I say. And I don’t think they believe they will change mine.

            But that’s not the reason we debate. You have completely missed the value of these boards. I do it for me, not for you. I put myself out there with all of my beliefs and invite people to disagree. It makes me a stronger person. It forces me to fact-check myself against both the Bible and the laws of this country.

            Some people believe things just because that’s what they were told to believe. I call those “sheeple.” I never want to be that. I want to be able to back up everything I’ve said. I want to be able to defend my beliefs with facts (including Biblical).

            If you were to go back through my posts, you would see times when I admitted I was wrong about something. You would see posts where I concede a point because I couldn’t back it up. You would see posts where I apologize to someone for being too crass or impolite.

            I’m human like everyone else. The only perfect expert is God. I do not claim to even come close. But where I have everyone beat, but God is that I am the pre-eminent expert on ME. No one but God can question that.

            And that’s the point. My own life experiences are facts that play into these discussions – facts that cannot be debated. You, too, have life experiences that I cannot debate.

            One last note. Perhaps the anger you feel toward me is actually the Holy Spirit’s tug at your heart on this issue. Be honest with yourself. Be honest with God. In the end, that’s the benefit we receive through these conversations.

            Praying for you, my friend.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            And yet, you didn’t answer the question. Telling.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            There is also no evidence that some people are born heterosexual. But it does not cause me to question that fact in you.

            I am not asking you to promote homosexuality just like you are not asking me to promote heterosexuality. They do not need promotion. They both exist and always will.

            Violence is never acceptable, gay or straight.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You are correct. It’s a false analogy, propped up by something this guy knows to be untrue.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Your delusion does not make it untrue!

          • vorpal

            Treating the relationships of gay people as second class is discrimination.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            There you go again, rebelling against reality. DOMA is a law passed by a majority of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by a U.S. president.

            As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court doesn’t get to make law. It was NOT discriminatory; it holds every American to the same requirement: a man must find a woman to get married and a woman must find a man to get married.

            Since you need help getting a grip on reality, this is what the law says:

            `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

            No law has been passed to repeal, rescind, supersede or change this.

            And even if we were silly enough to pass a law doing so, it still wouldn’t change reality any more than calling a dog’s tail a leg would give him five legs.

            Mature, healthy people adjust to reality; they don’t expect reality to adjust to them. Would you like to be a mature, healthy person?

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            And mature healthy people don’t lie. That part of doma is gone. Period. It was ruled discriminatory by the body of judges put there to interpret laws. I’ll say it again. There is no federal law that defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman. I defy you to prove otherwise.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            You’re right; mature, healthy people don’t lie. That’s some advice you desperately need to take for yourself.

            As I pointed out, DOMA is clearly not discriminatory because it applies to each and every American equally. As I also pointed out, in a constitutional republic, the legislative branch makes law, NOT the executive or judicial.

            DOMA has not been repealed, amended, changed or rescinded.

            Once again, 1 U.S. Code § 7:

            `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

            Please, do everyone–including yourself–a favor and try to conform to reality, rather than insisting that reality conform to your desires.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. Have you noticed none of your friends are supporting your flight of fancy? Just because you disagree with what the supremes did foes not invalidate my point. Doma section 3 is not enforceable because it is discriminatory. Therefore it is not current US federal law. Period.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Sorry, reality doesn’t change. I’ll help you with it again.

            In a constitutional republic, the legislative branch makes laws, not the executive or judicial.

            The legislative branch made this law–spelling out what was instinctively understood by everyone around the world for thousands of years–back in the 1990s.

            Has a new law been passed by the legislative branch amending it, changing it, or repealing it?

            If not, and if we are still in a constitutional republic where only the legislative branch can make laws, then this is still the law, regardless of what a group of law-breaking government officials say.

            And as I have pointed out three times now, it is not discriminatory because it applies equally to each and every American.

            Wow, you really ARE hostile to a reality you don’t like, aren’t you? Hopefully you can come to terms with it soon.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Sad. Not one person agrees with you that doma section 3 is an active, enforceable law, but you keep defending it. You remind me of sadam husseins public relations guy. Sad.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Sad. Not one bit of historical or constitutional fact lines up with your fantasy, yet you continue to expect the rest of us to buy it.

            The truth doesn’t change, no matter how many people humor you in a lie. The sooner you adjust to reality, the happier you’ll be.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Ok, lets settle this once and for all. You call any federal agency you want and ask this question: “Is there any enforceable federal law preventing two men from marrying each other?”

            I’m waiting….

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Do you disagree with this fact: That every American is held to these same standards with regard to marriage requirements, i.e. that their marriage partner must consent, be of legal age, not a close relative, not already married to someone else, and their marriage partner must be of the opposite sex. Is ANYONE not held to ANY of these standards by DOMA or any other existing constitutionally established U.S. law?

            Do you disagree with this fact: In a constitutional republic, the legislative branch makes laws, not the executive or judicial.

            Do you disagree with this fact: The legislative branch made this law.

            Do you disagree with this fact: No new law has been passed by the legislative branch amending it, changing it, or repealing it?

            Do you disagree with this fact: The United States is STILL a constitutional republic where only the legislative branch can make laws.

            Do you disagree with this fact: An action taken by a government official which is not legal for them to take according to the U.S. Constitution is in fact an ILLEGAL and unconstitutional action.

            Do you disagree with this fact: An illegal or unconstitutional act committed by a government official carries no moral or legal force of law, and in fact reveals them to be a lawbreaker.

            It’s really quite simple. If you disagree with any of these established realities, you are not grounded in reality and are not willing to deal with others with honesty and maturity, and thus are not worthy of continued dialog. If you do NOT disagree with any of these established realities, then you concede the truth of my position, and no further argument is necessary.

            I’m waiting…

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Ok, I think I finally get where you are coming from. You are operating from the logic of supposition. I am operating from the logic of reality. Here me out. I did not say that as an insult.

            You have put a lot more thought and done a lot more research into the “details” of this than I. I give you that point. If you take each of your facts above on its own, then, yes, I suppose they are all true, except for the first one.

            But here’s the problem. No one with the power to effect change agrees with you. Our little tit-for-tat exchange has been very beneficial to me, and I hope, you. But in the end, that’s all it is, an exchange of beliefs.

            You truly believe that the US Supreme Court broke the law when they struck down that piece of DOMA. I get that. But I don’t agree. What you see as a power over-reach, I see as justice. Same event: two perspectives.

            Unfortunately, the majority of the country sees it as I do, and that must be frustrating.

            Change is hard, my friend. But you, like Dan Cathay and World Vision and countless others who are fighting this issue are slowly realizing that God’s purpose on this issue may not be what you think. Regardless of what happens, God will be glorified. I think you and I can both agree on that. I just ask that you consider ALL the ways that glory may be achieved.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, I am operating from the logic of reality, as I have demonstrated several times now.

            So you don’t agree with this statement: Every American is held to these same standards with regard to marriage requirements, i.e. that their marriage partner must consent, be of legal age, not a close relative, not already married to someone else, and their marriage partner must be of the opposite sex. Is ANYONE not held to ANY of these standards by DOMA or any other existing constitutionally established U.S. law?

            And apparently you don’t agree with most if not all of the rest.

            Well, it’s obvious where that puts you: on the opposite side from reality, because each and every one of those statements is 100% true and 100% grounded in reality. And it doesn’t matter how many people you have with you in your error or delusion–error and delusion are still error and delusion.

            Those who pervert morality and truth–including the Supreme Court with their Dred Scott decision–sooner or later have to come to terms with reality. The sad part is how many people have to suffer in the meantime. It took a LOT of that before the asininity of the Dred Scott position was finally revealed for what it was, and I can only hope there will be less suffering before society returns to sanity in this case.

            It sounds like you may be grudgingly coming to grips (not there yet, but coming) with reality. I hope you complete the journey, but until you do, there isn’t any meaningful dialog to be had that hasn’t already been stated.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Remove the “opposite sex” requirement and we’re good.

            As it relates to the Dred Scott case, I also believe it was a terrible decision. The Supreme Court was basically abused its powers in order to discriminate against a people, much like States are trying to do with their gay marriage bans. I believe the Supreme Court learned its lessons with Dred Scott and will never use their powers to allow discrimination against a group.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            The reality is playing out in our society today. And it does not line up with your views on this.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Having dealt with this self-serving, condescending troll, I need to point out you are wasting your time.

            This guy spent a couple of hours earlier today trying to convince me that not only is God okay with homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but He’s also cool with you abandoning your principles. Who CARES what the Bible says and all that, right?

            Flag and ignore.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I know. Anyone interested in the truth would have gotten it by now. I’ve been on the wrong side of the truth a number of times, especially in my youth, but at least by the grace of God, when it was pointed out to me, I found it in me to say, “Oh, I was wrong. I guess I’d better adjust my opinion to reality.” That’s awful hard for some folks to do.

            But it’s still kind of interesting (or at least illustrative) to watch someone try desperately and repeatedly to wiggle out of the truth. They usually don’t even realize how badly they indict themselves in the process.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            He is a homosexual who feels the need to come to a Christian conservative website to defend his behavior. That says more about him than anything he has written to date.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. – Attributed to George Orwell

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            I agree. But your deceit is no longer universal. And I don’t consider myself a revolutionary. But thanks for the compliment!

          • Jeff Allen

            My article The Five Defining Features of Marriage (on this website), under the point Exclusive Intimacy, there are some studies proving that homosexual “marriage” is less permanent and less faithful.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            When many people assert that in a constitutional republic, the executive or judicial branch can create law, and assert that two men or two women can form a “marriage,” or that “tolerance” is exemplified in killing someone who tells the truth, we’re fast approaching a state of universal deceit.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Judges don’t make laws, but they can toss bad ones. Didn’t you take civics in school? And who is killing anybody over this? Stop being a drama queen. That’s my job LOL!

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Really?Where in Article III of the U.S. Constitution are judges empowered to toss “bad” laws?

            One might make the case that they are allowed to overturn unconstitutional laws which are clearly in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.

            But there is nothing whatsoever in DOMA, as I have pointed out multiple times now, that stands in the slightest shred of contradiction to anything whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution.

            That would make even the attempt by a judicial activist to overturn a constitutionally-passed law an illegal act on their part.

            And if a government official carries out an act which is illegal, is their action or its outcome a legal action?

            I think the answer to that is pretty obvious–at least to people who can come to grips with reality.

          • Zohydro

            I think it is quite likely that many of the cases of HIV infection in heterosexuals were acquired through precisely the same sorts of sexual behaviour through which homosexual males acquired theirs…

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            According to research data, many heterosexual HIV infection cases have come from bisexual contacts between bisexuals and homosexuals, then in turn bisexuals with heterosexuals.

            When less than 3% of the population accounts for more than 70% of the infection rate, it’s pretty obvious where the main problem lies.

          • Zohydro

            I recall a rumour that the CDC would record an HIV infection as a case of “heterosexual” exposure if the respondent reported even a single instance of heterosexual contact in spite of an extensive history of homosexual activity…

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I can’t say for sure, but I doubt they’d operate that way. At a minimum I would think they would try to calculate someone who “crossed over” back and forth as being in whatever camp they spent most of their time. I do know they use the term “male to male” rather than “homosexual,” indicating they are more concerned with the actual sexual behavior than a broader “identification” type category.

          • thisoldspouse

            And, Truth-hater, from the FDA website:

            Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the
            beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently
            deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at
            increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that
            can be transmitted by transfusion.

            Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US
            population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In
            2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the
            U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were
            attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the
            estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the
            incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations.
            The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years.

            Let’s pause to consider one scientific FACT here. Ages 13 to 24 years?!!!! So, children are included in an age group with INCREASED incidences of infection from a gay disease (yes, it IS a “gay” disease, by the FACTS listed above.) And homosexuals say that children are not affected by “what they do in private.”

          • MGS

            While slightly offended by the deferral of donating blood, I can also understand the reasoning behind it. Yes, gay men have the reputation of being promiscuous. And while its not only gay, but straight people today who are promiscuous, I would say that everyone should be screened before donating blood. Not everyone is being safe and using protection or being abstinent. It’s just a fact of life. Same fact that drug use also causes the spread of STDs, with needles and such.
            As for the children part, you are inferring that adult males are actively seeking out and having sex with minors. That entire mindset/suggestion is just as wrong and disturbing as the act itself. I will not deny that pedophiles and rapists exist. However, they are only a needle in a haystack of the gay population. Also, you should remember that as the decades have gone by, the youth is getting more and more adventurous sexually, so there could be two 13 year olds experimenting with each other.
            There are a lot of possibilities when it comes to these numbers, and assuming the worst possible reasoning helps no one.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Homosexuals have more than just the reputation of being promiscuous. As promiscuous as many heterosexuals are, homosexuals are typically jaw-droppingly promiscuous. And it shows in the vastly (understatement alert) larger AIDS and other STD rate of less than 3% of the population versus that of heterosexuals.

            It’s also true that pedophelia is much more prevalent in the homosexual community, so much so that a relationship has been identified by multiple researchers. The pedophilia seems in significant degree to perpetuate the homosexuality and vice versa in an ongoing cycle. I’d provide links, but links snag a comment in the moderation filter. Anyone interested in the truth can find them pretty easily, though.

            There’s just nothing redeeming about homosexual behavior, and a whole lot that’s bad. What a shame that so few people have the courage to say the simple truth in love anymore.

          • MGS

            Pedophilia is no more a relationship to homosexuality than the relationship of pedophilia and the catholic church. As a vast majority it does not exist, but yes, there are cases where it happens. However, the belief that all or most gay people are pedophiles and use it as a medium to recruit others is completely false.

            And Heterosexual behavior can be just as bad, so I don’t see how it is any worse than homosexual behavior. A person chooses what they do in their life, and on either side it can be good or bad.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            “Pedophilia is no more a relationship to homosexuality than the relationship of pedophilia and the catholic church.”

            “However, the belief that all or most gay people are pedophiles and use it as a medium to recruit others is completely false.”

            And yet, you had homosexuals and their apologists in the lamestream media deliberately and consistently referring to Russia’s passing of a law that prohibited the intentional dissemination of homosexuality and homosexual propaganda to minors.

            And yet, you had people demanding open homosexuals to be allowed into the Boy Scouts of America as Scout leaders.

            And yet, you have people like Larry Kramer, Pat Califia and Allen Ginsburg singing the praises of pedophilia.

            And yet, there’s the existence of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. (And somehow, Catholics don’t have a similar organization.)

            Hi, I’m Mr. Rogers. Can you say, “Liar?” I knew you could.

          • MGS

            Hi, I can say liar. I can also say that I am not one and that you did a wonderful job chopping up my post and paraphrasing it to meet your agenda. especially where you removed the part where I admitted pedophilia happens but not as vastly as people think, thus, you can say Liar too, I hope.

            Also, I do not know much about the Russian law so I will not comment on that.

            For the boy scouts, I feel openly gay minors should be allowed, but not adults. Yes, I do have the same worries as others that a person might take advantage of that. However, that shouldn’t bar minors, regardless of their orientations.

            I honestly don’t know who those people are, and have no intention of researching someone who supports pedophilia.

            Yes, the organization exists. no, I don’t approve of it. Also, you’re right, the catholic church doesn’t have that, instead they shuffle the clergymen around and tries to make their offenses vanish while putting them back in the presence of children, knowing the clergymen’s past offenses.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            “Hi, I can say liar. I can also say that I am not one and that you did a wonderful job
            chopping up my post and paraphrasing it to meet your agenda. especially
            where you removed the part where I admitted pedophilia happens but not
            as vastly as people think, thus, you can say Liar too, I hope.”

            So, are you saying you did NOT say the following?

            “However, the belief that all or most gay people are pedophiles and use it as a medium to recruit others is completely false.”

            Everything I posted was in response to this direct quote from you, to show your statement to be what I see as a deliberate falsehood.

            If you are in fact ignorant of these facts, I do apologize, but I would also strongly suggest you stop hiding behind your ignorance and find out just exactly who it is you are defending. Chances are you won’t like what you see, if you are honest with yourself.

          • Richard

            You are correct that there is a tiny percent of the population that are pedophiles. It’s something like less than half of a percent, but you are wrong to fear that gay scout leaders would molest children. I know you are trying to help, but that kind of thinking is not better than Matthew’s.

            Shame on you.

            The majority of pedophiles are family members, the majority don’t repeat their offenses after being caught.

            The idea there are these sexual predators lurking in every dark shadow is preposterous. While they do exist the number is very small and rare.

            These are scare tactics that have be used by humanity since the beginning of time. When one group doesn’t like another, they immediately paint them as harmful to children.

            “For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.”

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I don’t know of anyone who has said that all homoseuxals are pedophiles, and few who would say “most.”

            But is there a compelling statistical relationship? Oh yeah.

            A study in England about five years ago found that of 4,244 homosexual men in the study, 40% reported childhood sexual abuse.

            A 1987 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found that homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation rate of girls. The study found that 150 boys are molested by one male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual offenders.

            A report a few years ago by Brian Clowes examined research which went back about 60 years and these were just some of the findings:

            - 37% of all male homosexuals admitted having sex with children under 17

            - homosexuality among pedophiles was found to be as high as 30-40%

            - less than 3% of men attracted to adults are homosexual, 25-40% of men attracted to children preferred boys, meaning a homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

            - the proportion of sex offenders against male children much higher than the molestation rate against female children by heterosexual men

            - a study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found 86% of sex offenders against males identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual

            - In 1988, a leading American psychological journal, Behavior Today, claimed that”Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raises the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”

            - an editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, a member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist’s Association stated that “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous.”

            - Pat Califia, lesbian author and activist, wrote in the “mainstream” homosexual publication The Advocate: “Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them.”

            And these are just a few of the findings out there.

            The correlation is to strong for the honest, rational mind to ignore.

          • MGS

            I will not deny that there is pedophilia in the homosexual community. however, it’s not as strong as people would believe. The dates that you presented were done at the end of the 80′s, which is over a decade ago. I would like to know how many known homosexuals where around during this study, to compare the numbers of this study to the overall population in the area of the study.
            As for my own personal stance, I find pedophilia completely disgusting and horrible. to take a minor and do adult things to them, whether they are willing or not, is wrong. Minors should be able to discover their own sexuality on their own. I will never support them. As for pedophilia as a sexual orientation, I don’t believe it registers. Orientation to me is a reference as to which gender you have a preference for.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Actually those studies range as late as 2010. And human nature never changes.

            I’m glad you are repulsed by pedophilia. Unfortunately, as the statistics show, many homosexuals are not. And even more unfortunate is the fact that there is a growing call, as more sexual perversion is tolerated, to normalize pedophilia.

            It’s a sad truth, but once you open the door to a little perversion, the “give ‘em an inch” rule always kicks in. That, too, is human nature.

          • vorpal

            Please cite any studies from 2000 on. I would love to see these claims for myself, as I suspect they are lies or not saying what you think they say.

          • LouiseCA

            Yes. I read documentation on the average numbers of sexual contacts which homosexuals engage in in one day. It was staggering.

          • David

            that documentation, as are the stats on pedophilia, is based on urban areas with dense gay male population many of whom have moved there for exactly the scene that exists. It does not represent everyone, or even a majority. Promiscuity is rampant in a subset of the gay communities, very true. That is my beef with so much that is quoted, it is warped. If one goes into a neighborhood where drugs are easily available a study would be apt to find a very high percentage of junkies eh? I’m not attempting to sway anyone into a pro-gay position, lol, that would be futile. My position is you have to tell the truth, not sensationalist nonsense based on a few examples. You believe it’s a sin, cool with me, preach it from the rafters but stick with the Bible because most of the other arguments presented are pure excrement.

          • vorpal

            Excuse me? The average number of sexual contacts in ONE DAY? Are you absurd?

          • Richard

            “It’s also true that pedophelia is much more prevalent in the homosexual community”

            That’s not true at all. Psychology, Medical Science, Sociology, etc. all disagree with you. I did do a search on the web and the only information I can find are right wing religious conservatives that did agree with you.

            Science and medicine, professionals and people with educations that didn’t come from a fictional book written 2000 years ago, ALL say you are wrong.

            Ironically, it’s the Christian priests and pastors that keep getting in trouble for pedophilia. That’s a simple internet search, too.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            So I suppose Alfred Kinsey (definitely no friend to sexual normality or morality) lied, as did the “Archives of Sexual Behavior” publication, the “Journal of Sex Research”, the “Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes,” the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist’s Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, ACT-UP founder Larry Kramer…they all lied or are “right wing religious conservatives.” Because that’s where the citations I provided originate. Sure.

            Another example of how even when the information comes from sources homosexual activists would normally consider friendly, if the information casts their desires in a bad light, it must be utterly rejected. A healthy, rational human being could quickly and easily put 2 and 2 together to come up with the very dark conclusion here…but it’s obvious we aren’t dealing with healthy, rational human beings in the whitewash of this dangerous behavior.

            Talk about unable to get a grip on reality!

            I should also point out that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) sponsored a symposium in 2010 where they discussed–in a move reminiscent of their 1973 removal of homosexual behavior from the list of disorders–removing pedophilia from the list of mental disorders.

            So the progression of normalizing sexual deviancy continues–dangerously continues.

            How many people must suffer before society awakens from this insane slumber?

          • LouiseCA

            To deny that the vast majority of homosexual men desire and seek out young men to fulfill their lusts is being willfully blind.

          • MGS

            it’s no more prevalent than the heterosexual men who desire and seek out young women to fulfill their lusts. Or the women who seek out younger men to fulfill their lusts. Do people find attraction in age differences, yes. I won’t deny that because it happens on BOTH sides of the sexual spectrum. to deny that is also being willfully blind. However, to suggest that homosexuals in large seek out minors to be sexual with is delusional.

          • vorpal

            Fully agreed. These people will stop at nothing to try to demonize LGBT folks.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            1) Flag and ignore the troll.

            2) 13-year-old males are having sex with other males? How old are these other males? I’d bet I could guess…

          • vorpal

            You’re the one who insists on imagining pedophilia / statutory rape where it doesn’t exist. There is something wrong with you, mate.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Of course. You have sex with other guys and yet there’s something wrong with me.

            Grow up.

          • vorpal

            Are you seriously this stupid? You’re actually implying that somehow being gay makes me inherently immature? Then again, you seem intent on linking homosexuality with pedophilia, so yes, I guess you really are this stupid. I think it’s you that needs to grow up. If you have a problem with homosexuality, fine: however, conjuring up imaginary demons and fear mongering is the sign of ignorance or mental illness.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Calm down Matt. If you can’t defend your beliefs, don’t stoop to name-calling.

          • LouiseCA

            They can be. Jesus can heal anyone who truly seeks deliverance with their whole heart.

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Proof? That’s all I’m asking….

          • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

            Louise, I know you believe they can, but they can’t. I’m living proof. Every reparative therapy ministry has one out of business or removed all “gay-to-straight” lingo from their websites. It’s not possible. It’s never happened.

        • vorpal

          What hatred? Are you talking about a response to the lifetime of lies and rejection with which they’re bombarded from a young age, telling them that something as fundamentally important to a human being as their ability to share, experience, and feel love is inferior and a disgusting abomination that must be suppressed or eliminated? How about the fact that they grow up in profound fear, worrying constantly that if they do not successfully maintain the facade that they are heterosexual, they could be rejected by their families, friends, peers, and religious communities.

          On top of that, add the crippling loneliness of having no one to talk to, and the stress of having to lie to all those you love.

          Now perhaps you might be able to appreciate why gay people might be a little angry with those who contribute to the culture of shame against their ability to love.

      • Jeff Allen

        I’m going to use a part of this comment in my next column, coming out tomorrow. Hope that’s okay. In the article, I do indicate that it’s a quote from a reader.

      • David

        Do you read much homosexual press? or left wing publications? No, then how would you hear anyone disagreeing with what that couple in England is doing. It’s a perfect example to me of why a state church should never exist. Since we don’t have that here it will be a lot harder for someone to try it. I’m not saying someone won’t it’s just less likely to be successful. I wonder how it is that gays and the left are supposedly forces that work totally together and everyone thinks the same? Is that true on the right? I don’t think so. Accusing all of one group of supporting what some do is ridiculous. Are all Christians the Westboro cult, or evil liars like Scott Lively? There’s too much hatred to go around on ALLsides.

        • thisoldspouse

          Please point me to a credible news source or homosexual opinion piece which holds an opposition position to the homosexuals in England wanting to force the Church’s hand.

          I’ll be waiting. And I can probably paint my house with the wait I’m in for.

          • David

            Sorry I can’t I’m too busy reading Pink Swastika :) actually I have no clue if there is any written proof of disagreement with the action in England. 2 things – One, the people who are most apt to disagree don’t bother with the activists anyway, content to simply live their lives. Two, disagreement would be stomped on by the self-proclaimed defenders of all things gay. Disagreement is no more welcomed by them that it is on the right. You tow the party line or get slammed.

          • David

            Oh, this would be a good time to paint your house if you live somewhere that the weather allows it :)

        • LouiseCA

          And there’s been outrage in the homosexual community against the woman that married her female dog, has there?
          I must have missed it.

          • vorpal

            When did this happen? I never heard about this.

          • Richard

            Bestiality is legal in states where gay marriage is not. Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, etc. Marrying your first cousin is legal in a lot of states, too. (Alaska, Alabama, etc.)

            So this idea that gay marriage leads to marrying animals or marrying family is simply not true.

      • vorpal

        As a gay man, I certainly oppose the gay couple trying to sue the Church of England to marry them. I think that they are spoiled, entitled brats, and I believe that their lawsuit will fail – and rightfully so.

        Many others agree with me, and I don’t know anyone who feels differently. Churches should be able to use whatever discretion they see fit in performing marriages.

      • Richard

        Gay marriage is legal in Canada and Mexico. I guess I’m confused as to how other countries laws affect the U.S. Why should Americans be concerned with the Church of England?

        But it is my point that if your church, not religion–plenty of Christians are for marriage equality, doesn’t agree with my marriage, I’m don’t want to get married there. It’s that simple.

        • thisoldspouse

          And if a baker, photographer, wedding planner doesn’t agree with your marriage, then no homosexual is going to go to them for services, right? (eyeroll.)

    • RhondaStar

      Aren’t you saying exactly what this article said you would?

    • thisoldspouse

      And speaking of fringe, keep in mind that redefining marriage to include unheard of combinations in this country was once a very “fringe” issue only a relatively few short years ago, when enormous, veto-proof majorities in both houses, both Republicans and Democrats, passed DOMA, and was signed by none other than President Clinton, a very popular president.

      The fringe is quickly becoming the movement.

  • Dannyboy

    There is a book by Scott Lively titled “The Pink Swastika”. It talks about the roots of Nazism. It is often dismissed by people who have not read it, but it is quite good. It should not be dismissed. Given the political tendencies of the homosexual movement today, it is worth reading for its insights.

    • thisoldspouse

      It’s on my short list to read. I’ve known about it for years, but haven’t had the time. But the time is getting short.

      • David

        do yourself a favor and read something better than vile fiction written by a disturbed individual.

        • thisoldspouse

          You calling something “vile” is all the more reason to read it for its intrinsic value. I can bank on it.

          • David

            sure, reading fiction has value. I was wrong, the fiction isn’t vile, the author is. Anyone who makes a living deliberately writing material that brings harm to others is vile. Anyone who makes a living telling lies about people is vile. Speaking words of death and arrogantly claiming to somehow be a follower of Christ is vile. If you are sucked into believing his spew, sad for you. In the meantime people like Lively simply make it easier for the extreme gay activists to make their case and win allies.

          • thisoldspouse

            The author is only “vile” from your depraved world view.

            And I would think that an open minded soul would be willing to read something that they disagree with in order to gain understanding. Excuse me for being mistaken.

          • David

            lol, excellent point. Perhaps I would read it if I found a free copy. But I have read plenty of other stuff Lively says and there is little truth and certainly not even a microscopic trace of Christ in his words. Lively, not unlike Phelps, does much for LGBT causes and against Christianity.

          • thisoldspouse

            It’s free on-line, David. Knock yourself out. We’ll compare notes. :)

    • BillTheCat45

      Lively, you mean the guy currently charge with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? Human garbage like him will be tossed in the ash heap of history where he belongs.

  • David

    Mr Allen would do well not to compare himself to Jesus.

    • Truth Offends

      Jeff Allen did not compare himself to Jesus.

    • LouiseCA

      Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do. Imitate Him?

      • David

        absolutely, and Jesus did say that His followers would be hated. What the church must do is make sure that they are hated for Christ in them, not because of their apparent hatred of others. People who have threatened Allen are clearly deranged and would hate him for anything he said, I will concede that.

        • Joey

          There is no “apparent hatred here.” So that eliminates the possibility.

          • David

            If the articles on here about homosexuality were written in the same tone with the same fast and loose attitude towards facts and with the same blanket condemnation of people were written about Christians y’all would be up in arms screaming persecution and predicting a swift end to the world. And rightly so. The hate in some of these articles and from the author is palpable. That you can’t see it speaks about you not the target of the articles. I have said more than once speaking against homosexual behavior and the excesses of the gay activists can be done with the grace and love of God. That is what is not apparent, no, that is what is severely lacking here. I don’t give a fig if one is against homosexual behavior but once you start attacking the people then you are out of line and need to be called on it. Not threatened as some idiots have done to Allen and Barber. He who lives by the sword…

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You know, there comes a time when you need to stop being nice about things, to take away the cuddly and reveal the razor within. This is where we are with people working within the sociopolitical agenda of the homosexual.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Very true. Jesus was very gentle with those who were open to the truth. To the self-righteous who were hostile to the truth, however, Matthew chapter 23 (and other passages) illustrate a less patient and gentle Christ.

          • vorpal

            Yes, those dastardly homosexuals and their sociopolitical agenda of being treated equally to heterosexuals and having their relationships similarly treated as first class, with the same rights granted to heterosexual unions.

            Indeed, the damage being done in this struggle for civil rights is being inflicted on Christians by themselves: their vitriolic reactions are so vile and disgusting that they are rightfully being labeled as hateful and progressively drive more and more people from Christianity.

          • Joey

            Ten thousand times more hatred is poured out against Christians every day.

            You say that the article plays loose with the facts yet you don’t identify any misinformation.

            When you can’t actually dispute anything the author says, you take issue with his “tone.” Well guess what? I take issue with your tone. There’s an obvious condescension there, that you are a great Christian and the author of this piece is not. So take some advice from yourself. How un-Christian of you.

            There is no way that anyone can oppose these radical, in-your-face aggressive homosexuals bullies, There is no proper Christ-like “tone” that would ever be acceptable. So quit lying.

            By the way, you’re an obvious concern troll. You hope that if you pretend to be a Christian that your chiding will have more weight.

          • David

            dude, I am not an obvious anything I can guarantee that. I do not think I am a great Christian at all and I apologize for sounding condescending. You are right about one thing I am concerned. I am concerned that the church is quickly losing it’s voice and becoming just one more ugly noise in a too ugly world. Name calling, slandering, sarcasm, exaggeration and outright lying are all part of the arsenal now. And some seem to think that throwing Jesus name in there occasionally makes it all better. Hardly. The ONLY proper Christ-like tone is one that set the church apart from the world, and on a national level in media of all kinds that doesn’t exist. Of course there is no acceptable tone for the extreme activists but I never advocated trying to please them. Who is being lost are those who struggle with same sex attractions but don’t see the church as a safe place because the overwhelming image is one of hostility. Who is being lost are those who have homosexual friends and family and are sick of hearing how those people are the scum of the earth. Who is being lost are the kids growing up into a war that is none of their making and are assaulted from both sides. Who is being lost is people who have been in the church and because of mistakes on their part have been mistreated and cast out. If the church does not provide a healing environment where Christ is represented then it has no purpose. You cannot spread the Gospel with an ax and an Uzi. Every single person responsible for these being lost will answer for it as I will answer for things I have done and said. If you’re comfortable with leadership and spokespeople who contribute to this atmosphere that drives people away then so be it, we all make our own choices.

          • David

            all the above is not meant to say that there are not millions of caring, loving Christians who confront people’s sin in a healing manner. Or that there are not multitudes of churches that are refuges for those battered by the world. Because there certainly are though for the most part they go unnoticed by the shrill voices both for and against Christianity. That is probably a good thing because neither extreme is interested in seeing people actually do Christ’s work.

  • Kathy Q

    this is nothing but a Hate blog! First, Matt Barber fired for his hate at Allstate, now doubling down with this hate blog! Amazing how many other haters contribute to this website in the name of Jesus. To all LGBT friends, don’t stoop to Matt’s dirty level! He is no better then Phelps.

    • thisoldspouse

      LOL!!! But you can’t stop reading.

      Long live Barbwire!!!

    • Matthew T. Mason

      A hate blog? How is it a hate blog?

      • thisoldspouse

        Disagreement = Hate to the Gaystapo

  • Progressive Patriot

    Good grief. Whoever wrote such a blatantly ridiculous threatening comment should not be considered to be well balanced. Nor should they be considered to be representative of the opposition any more than Westboro is a standard bearer on the other side.

    No one has exclusive claims to crazy. Those who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic inhabit both sides of the debate.

    Clearly there are many who support same-sex marriage, free and open service in the armed forces, and an end to employment discrimination that can also support the opposition’s right to hold differing views. Seems like the price of freedom is to encourage the free flow of ideas in the public square, but also not have the expectation to not be offended by other’s comments — that “have a thick skin” essential part of freedom and free speech.

    Dunno. I vehemently disagree with Mr Barber and Mr Allen’s positions, but will defend their right to hold such views. Seems the civil thing to do.

  • Halou

    I’ve read just as bad remarks being made in the other direction.
    The one guy who said that in a choice between legalizing homosexuality and executing homosexuals he would rather the executions, Paul Cameron whose organization is on record as favoring the expansion of prison sentences and the death penalty laws for homosexual offenses, and the UN groups who ally with Iran’s anti-christian Ayatollah’s and the Sheik’s of Arabia (who use oil money to export shariah advocates and Wahhabi preachers), joining with them to lobby against gay rights.

    That one person went off the rails like that, it is hardly indicative of the society from which they come.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Provide links, please.

    • Joey

      Yeah, I don’t believe you.

      • Halou

        I’ve given you enough information to look through Google on your own. But I guess you’re boycotting that site for it’s gay-friendly employment policies. I would say you could Bing it instead, but Microsoft doesn’t kowtow to bishops either.

        • Joey

          In other words, you got nothin’.

  • peteykins

    At first I thought this website was serious, but I’ve come to realize it must be some kind of brilliant deadpan parody. Well played! You really had me going for a bit!

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Point?

  • BillTheCat45

    More moronic rantings from the mentally ill minds at BW. Only a reject like Barber would take something from a comments section as “news”. Poor lying losers fighting the demise of their demographic.

  • Richard Kingston

    You do know, Jeff, that 80% of the U.S. population identifies at Christian, right? You do know that makes Christians the vast majority in the U.S. right? It seems like it would be really difficult for 10% of the population to kill 80%. Simple math.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      10%?

      • thisoldspouse

        Maths be hard for homos.

      • Richard

        The GLBT community makes up 10% of the population. To be clear, 80% of the GLBT community is Christian, too. Many Christians don’t believe what Jeff does. It just doesn’t make sense that gays and lesbians would not only violently attack the vast majority of Americans, including their straight supporters, family and loved ones, but that they would be successful at it since they are the MINORITY at 10% of the population.

        Last point. If any of this were true, don’t you think you’d have heard about it all over the media? Gay people lynching Christians would make the headlines.

        A majority of the gay and lesbian population is Christian here in the U.S.

        • thisoldspouse

          80% of the population professes Christianity. But get down to a basic catechesis of the essential doctrines of Christianity, and you can cut that percentage well in half, being generous.

          Scriptures, the Apostles, and Jesus himself told us what must be believed to be considered a Christian. Most Mainline Denominations consider these optional.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          “The GLBT community makes up 10% of the population.”

          False. That’s a number culled from the imagination of sexual pervert Alfred Kinsey. Subsequent studies have placed the numbers at closer to 1-3%.

          “To be clear, 80% of the GLBT community is Christian, too.”

          While that number is doubtful on its face, as thisoldspouse pointed out, these are people who profess to be Christian.

          But here’s the problem: While Mel White created the notion you could be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time, the fact was you could only call yourself one, because the Bible clearly states salvation comes not just from believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent to earth to die for us and was resurrected three days later, but also from a sincere willingness to turn away from sin, which is what homosexuality inarguably is from a Biblical standpoint.

          These people have been tricked into thinking they can be a homosexual and still go to heaven, and unless they are willing to awaken to the facts of what the Bible actually says instead of what people with a sociopolitical agenda want it to say, they will go to hell when they die. And Mel White is going to pay for that, you can bet your sweet bippy.

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    Gotta love that liberal/homosexual activist “tolerance.” A model for the (barbaric) world to follow.

  • Truth Offends

    Yesterday, more than 100 comments (including 3 of my own) were posted on this page that did not give any regard, whatsoever, for what Jeff Allen reported in his column: He is receiving death threats!

    I regret posting my 3 comments because, by doing that, I did not give Mr. Allen the proper respect for which I believe he is owed.

    Anyone with eyes to see knows that the “gay-rights” movement is of the devil.
    The devil is a murderer. And a liar. He deceives the whole world and has an enormous army of “children of disobedience” to do his evil works. And the devil has set his eyes on Mr. Allen.

    I am thankful to God for giving Mr. Allen both the courage and the willingness to “resist the devil” where the devil has taken this fight–in the public arena. I hope all Christians reading this will pray that God will protect Mr. Allen and his family, that He will increase their faith in Him during the difficult upcoming trials they will be facing, and that He will give them the strength to endure those trials…till the end.

    • thisoldspouse

      Thanks for pointing out that overlooked fact, Truth. And Allen isn’t alone. There have been CHILDREN who have received death threats, such as during the Minnesota marriage debate, for mere speaking publicly on what real marriage is (wanting a Mother AND a Father.) It was absolutely diabolical what these emissaries from Hell are capable of.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!