DSavage_Bully

Random Thoughts on the Rapacious Rainbow Revolution

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Random thoughts on the homoerotic cultural revolution:

1.)  I received an email last week from a Christian who was upset that I published a loathsome video of Dan Savage even though I provided ample warning that the content was offensive. It seems appropriate, therefore, to revisit the reasons we occasionally publish either obscene hateful emails we receive, excerpts from offensive novels taught in our public schools, or video reminders of infamous homosexual “anti-bullying” bully, Dan Savage.

We do not expose the dark realities of this pernicious movement in order to be sensationalistic or titillating. We do it because Americans are inundated daily with images and words about homoeroticism intended to desensitize, sooth, and confuse. These words and images are built on a foundation of unarticulated and/or unexamined false assumptions and lies that are persuading even Christians that wrong is right.

Unfortunately, many conservatives do not fully realize the evil nature of the enemy we fight. And merely describing it does not adequately convey how profoundly wicked it is. Without a fuller apprehension of the nature and extent of the evil, many Christians are complacent and silent. Often it is only an encounter with such evil that generates a proper response from Christians.

Why view photos from Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen? Why view photos of lynchings? Why view photos of aborted babies? Why view the photo of the young napalmed Vietnamese girl? Why view photos of animals caught in steel leg traps or baby seals bludgeoned to death? Aren’t these images shocking and obscene?

I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement. I am, rather, illuminating the necessity of occasionally viewing the evil in our midst about which humans have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.

As Christians, however, we should remain conscious of the fact that a life of unrepentant homoerotic activity will result in eternal separation from God. How do we measure the magnitude of temporal suffering relative to that of eternal suffering?

2.)  The oft-repeated claim that affirming homoerotic identity politics signifies being “on the right side of history,” requires prior acceptance of factual errors and unexamined assumptions. History does, indeed, move on, but it is a mistake to believe that history marches perpetually toward truth.

Far too many Christians have failed to heed the warnings of those Christians-often marginalized by the lies of the Left-who have been predicting for decades the social, moral, political, and theological upheaval that would follow if society were to accept homoerotic activity as the moral equivalent of natural sex between men and women. Church leaders should have been on the forefront of relentlessly exposing, critiquing, and challenging the fallacious ideas that propel the pro-homoerotic juggernaut that portends temporal and eternal suffering for those the church claims to love.  The cowardly and foolish failure of Christendom-both church leaders and their flocks-to engage in the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural work-including political work-required of them is just beginning to bear its diseased fruit.

The homosexuality-affirming movement has been built on fallacious arguments. Tragically, when every last lie is exposed as such, it won’t matter because homosexual activists will have achieved their culture-destroying goals: Widespread cultural approval (not tolerance, but approval) of homoerotic identity politics and the demonization of right moral thinking will be a fait accompli. It will no longer matter to the unthinking masses that this cultural revolution was built on spider’s web of fallacious claims.

3.)  Christians seem to believe the Left’s relentless claim that it is orthodox Christians espousing true biblical beliefs with civility that causes teens who experience same-sex attraction to be bullied and contemplate suicide. It is the Left’s effective exploitation of children and teens that has contributed to the self-censorship of Christians.

Well, here are some other ideas on which Christians should spend some time ruminating:

  • Christians should consider whether same-sex attraction, like suicidal ideation, may be a symptom of other underlying causes such as family dysfunction or sexual abuse.
  • They ought not ignore the countless numbers of adults who not only choose to place their unchosen homoerotic desires at the center of their identity, but who also seek to compel the entire world to approve of homoerotic activity.
  • They should  consider that the Left makes no distinction between the vile words of Rev. (“God Hates F**gs”) Phelps and the words of Catholic and Protestant theologians who affirm that God, while loving his creation, abhors much of what we choose to do, including homoerotic activity. Christians should consider that the Left makes no distinction between hateful words and words they don’t like.
  • Christians should consider whether appearing to affirm that which God abhors is pleasing to God.
  • Christians should consider whether affirming or appearing to affirm homoerotic activity, which the Bible teaches will prevent entrance into Heaven, is a loving act.

4.)   The Left feigns indignation and even outrage at comparisons of homoeroticism to polyamory or consensual adult incest. But understand this, their indignation is but a deflection and distraction, a red herring designed to silence their opponents without having to respond to an argument. They feign anger that anyone would dare compare homoeroticism to any conditions or behaviors that they believe are actually immoral. Of course, the moral status of homoerotic acts is precisely the controversial issue. (As an aside, inquiring minds would like to know if those homosexuals who express such outrage actually hate polyamorists and those who “love” their siblings.)

What dupes and cowards Christians are. What poor servants of the one who was willing to die for us. While Christ died a humiliating and horrifying death for us, we’re unwilling to endure any degree of discomfort for him. As we welcome each sophistical lie with a secret sigh of relief for being offered a rationalization to justify either our silence or capitulation, we facilitate evil. Those who experience unchosen same-sex attraction are not evil. They are sinners just like every other human-save one-who has ever existed. We all experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings.  Our task as moral beings is to figure out upon which of these feelings it is morally legitimate to act. Christians do no service to God, women, children, men, or their country when they refuse to speak the truth about homosexuality. Instead, we help push America into the historical abyss.

“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me,
let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me’”
(Luke 9:23).

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

  • 19gundog43

    Can’t wait for the Rainbow Shirts and their Sodomite Rapid Response Teams to start screeching and whining HOMOPHOBE!!! HATER!!!! You vil be silenced!! Let the hate comments begin. LMAO!

    • tomd

      No, she can say anything she wants. No one has any interest in silencing her. We may all point and laugh and make fun of her, and criticize what she says, but she has the perfect right to froth all over her keyboard if that’s what she’s in to.

      Especially where she’s actually helping the gay rights movement. The more extreme people like Higgins get, the more sympathy people have for the other side. And the more toxic the word “Christian” becomes.

      • Laurie Higgins

        What constitutes “frothing”? It seems to be a favorite verb for “progressives” to use when describing any dissent from their sexuality dogma expressed in language that, though strong, pales in comparison to the venom from the likes of Dan Savage et al.

        • sagecreek

          You really shouldn’t use the word frothing in this context :)

        • tomd

          cf. Auschwitz.

          • Laurie Higgins

            Are you suggesting that “word choices” are unimportant, irrelevant, meaningless?

          • sagecreek

            Don’t get too much up on your high horse there, Miss Copyright Infringer.

          • tomd

            No, but then I’m not the one using three similar words when one would be sufficient.

          • Laurie Higgins

            Rhetorical demagoguery is no minor issue. In fact, it’s the stock in trade of “progressives.” Our myth-makers and storytellers in the world of literature and politics understand full well the power of words.

          • tomd

            Rhetorical demagoguery – did you read your own article?

            And Auschwitz – going to address that?

          • Laurie Higgins

            Easy-peasy. The Christian who complained to me argued that we shouldn’t publish anything that’s obscene. I was asking if she or others who may feel similarly would apply their anti-obscenity prohibition consistently to all images that are obscene or if it’s just obscenity related to sexual perversity that should never be displayed in public.

          • sagecreek

            Oh, nice stretch there. The fact is that you are a weak writer who resorts to the easiest, most offensive cliches you can find.

          • tomd

            Auschwitz is a place where you can still see the fingernail scratches on the brick walls as people tried to claw their way out of the gas chambers while dying.

            Please explain how this is *exactly* like two consenting women doing something they find enjoyable in private. Please explain how anything Dan Savage has posted compares to those fingernail scratches.

            When you do this, you are trivializing the suffering at Auschwitz. You are turning it into a meaningless catchphrase to support your agenda.

            And your response is “easy-peasy”? Reprehensible.

          • Laurie Higgins

            “Easy-peasy” referred to answering your question. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust or the American genocide of the unborn. Surely you know that.
            Once more for the deliberately obtuse, I never argued that either Nazi gas chambers or American fetal abattoirs were “exactly” like two people of the same sex engaging in homoerotic activity or anything like them. I argued that Nazi gas chambers, fetal abattoirs, and Dan Savage’s comments in Bill Maher’s interview were all obscene. If the fact of something being obscene renders it unsuitable for public consumption than we shouldn’t view images of the Holocaust.
            Interestingly, you have reinforced my point. If the public shouldn’t view obscene images, then the enormity of the evil and the incalculable obscenity of the Holocaust would demand that images should be censored.

          • tomd

            No. This is that demagoguery thing you mentioned.

            The whole point of that story about your “concerned Christian” is to bring up the supposed “obscene” video and then deliberately link that to the most horrific things you could think of so anyone reading would make the same connection. That way, anyone who hasn’t seen the video is automatically equating it with Auschwitz. This why conservatives keep using Nazi references. You need to stop.

            Save the “it was purely a censorship argument”. That wasn’t what your article was about. And you know that perfectly well.

          • sagecreek

            No kidding, Tom, she’s operating right out of the AFA handbook. Poor Laurie, she didn’t realize this site had been infiltrated with some folks who are smarter than her.

          • Laurie Higgins

            Sorry, tomd, wrong again. Once again, the Left presumes to know the secret motives and real “points” of those who dissent from their dogma.
            My very clearly articulated point was that there are justifications for publishing and viewing obscene images.
            I realize my actual point doesn’t square with your fanciful notions of me or my “point,” but I said what I meant and meant what I said.
            Here is my “metanarratival” point: God loves his creation, but hates much that we think, say, and do. As a result of our inability to live a life worthy of communion with a holy God, he sent his son to live a perfect life and die a horrific substitutionary death on the cross for us. Real peace and joy–as opposed to pleasure and misguided notions about fulfillment from hearts and minds clouded by sin–come from a relationship with the risen Christ. This is available to all, but will require repentance. And repentance is required of all–me, you, everyone.

          • sagecreek

            There is nothing secret about your motives. You are either a hateful bigot, or (assuming you have a brain in your head) you are pretending to be a hateful bigot in order to draw a paycheck. Either way, not admirable.

            You also appear to be confusing “religion” with “Christianity”, which is a pretty freshman-level error for a so-called professional writer to make.

            Not every person of faith is a Christian, and not every person of faith is a bigot. I very much resent you implying otherwise.

          • Doug Bristow

            What is hateful and bigoted in this article? Please explain.

          • sagecreek

            Why? It’s clear as day, so even if I were to explain, you wouldn’t get it.

          • Doug Bristow

            In other words once again you are making groundless knee jerk accusations that you cannot back up. That seems to be a reoccurring theme with you.

          • sagecreek

            Hey, if that makes you feel better, fine. You are the smartest guy in the room. And so pretty!

            (Protip — saying that an entire class of people is vile due to their inborn sexual orientation is hateful bigotry. Just a little fyi.)

          • Doug Bristow

            And yet again you dodge and deflect because you have nothing of substance.

          • sagecreek

            Uh, I think I was pretty direct in my parenthetical comment, but okay. You’re smart, you’re special, and darn it, people like you.

          • Doug Bristow

            The pathetic attempt at deflection on your part continues. Ever hear of the old saying, put up or shut up?

          • sagecreek

            Well, you’re being pathetic now, but whatever. You’re right, you’re pretty, you’re smarter than any boy in your class.

            Happy now?

          • Doug Bristow

            Answer the question please.

          • sagecreek

            I don’t know what question you are talking about. If it’s about why Higgins is hateful and bigoted, I don’t know. Ask her parents, ask her shrink.

            Seriously, the reason you keep coming back and commenting is that it bothers you that I don’t take you seriously.

            And you’re right. And I’m sorry in kind of an abstract way, but you are participating in a very silly, very bigoted website, and the only way I know how to deal with that is to laugh at you. I could engage in long, factual debates, but I don’t care to. I don’t find you worth that much of my time.

            So, that’s the issue. I don’t take you seriously, you don’t like that, I acknowledge it but kind of don’t care.

            Now, this is your cue to go off on a big rant about how I just don’t have a leg to stand on and have no facts and so you win and blah blah blah. And….action! Remember…the Academy is watching.

          • Doug Bristow

            What is hateful and bigoted in this article? Please explain.

            Answer the question please.

          • sagecreek

            SNORF. Slow learner. And shoo. I shall no longer bandy words with you.

          • Doug Bristow

            You are the one who decided to bandy words as a deflection instead of answering my question about your baseless, groundless and knee jerk accusations against the author and her article when you said she and it were hateful and bigoted.

          • Doug Bristow

            Answer the question please.

          • shepetgene

            She calls “homoeroticism” evil and calls the goals of the Gay Rights Movement “Culture Destroying”. Conflates it with the holocaust and abortion (now I get that she says that’s to prove an obscenity point but the line connecting those is in poor taste – you could easily relate to another uncomfortable topic we discuss without resorting over and over again to the Holocaust). She implies that gay men and woman are psychologically damaged and “choose” to be the way they are. And then she says it’s basically the same thing as polyamory and incest and goes into a slippery slope argument.

            It has now been spelled out for you.

          • Doug Bristow

            Sorry but you have failed to prove your point. Still does not rise to the level of hatred and bigotry.

          • shepetgene

            Merriam Webster: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

            Devoting much of an article to degrading a class of people? Check. Using out-dated stereotypes unsupported by the natural and social sciences and refusing to accept their opinions about them (Lauria Higgins: the APA is a politically biased group who should not be believed). Check.

            What would make it rise to the level of bigotry for you?

          • Doug Bristow

            The truth is what it is and shows no hate, bigotry or prejudice. The author of this article is telling the truth.

          • shepetgene

            Okay well there’s really no arguing once a person has claimed a truth for themselves. The “truths” that we both value are probably irrevocably separate. I agree the word bigoted is overused and has lost value. I do, however, stand by the statement that what I indicated earlier about the piece is wrong-headed. You’re free to disagree with me.

          • tomd

            First, I don’t need to know your “secret motives” – I just need to read what you wrote. It’s not secret. It was deliberately written to elicit specific reactions of fear and disgust in your target audience.

            Second, your claim of a censorship argument don’t fly, because your argument doesn’t make sense.

            Savage’s video may or may not be obscene – that’s a matter of morality that differs across times and places.

            Pictures of Auschwitz are not obscene as usually defined. Horrific and disturbing, yes. But they are pictures of fact. Unless you are a Holocaust denier, there is no subjectivity involved. But you deliberately compare them anyway. So even your cover story leverages the atrocities at Auschwitz for your agenda.

            The proof will be in the next thing you write. If you make a Nazi reference again, it will be obvious what your goal is.

          • sagecreek

            The more I read your writing, the more I think that you are worse than reprehensible. Shame on you.

      • Doug Bristow

        The TRUTH of God’s Word is indeed extreme to those who are perishing because they will not listen and repent of their sins.

  • tomd

    “I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement. ”

    Yes, dear, you are. Bless your heart.

    • sagecreek

      To quote the very wise and wonderful Princess Sparkle Pony, “…and while some “conservative” sites have learned to cool it with the Nazi comparisons, Barbwire embraces them with such frequency and enthusiasm that it’s almost like a verbal tic.”

      • tomd

        She speaks truth. (As usual.)

    • Ken

      By your post you are either a sarcastic left or an ignorant right.

      • tomd

        I’ll let you figure that one out.

  • Ed Adams

    lol. it’s the radical anti-gay agenda of laurie, & co that is based on lies.

    homosexuality is 100% natural and normal.

    there is NO credible evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, much less for the totalitarian sky deity of the judeo-christian tradition, who convicts of thought crime, tortures sadistically, punishes for offenses not committed (“original sin”), and then resorts to the barbaric practices of scape-goating, human sacrifice, and ritualistic symbolic cannibalism.

    chirstianity is truly a disgusting and barbaric religion that has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had. that’s why it’s declining in the industrialized west.

    • Laurie Higgins

      Ed,
      What is your proof that “homosexuality is 100% natural and normal”?

      • Ed Adams

        lol. the overwhelming scientific evidence–the same evidence that has led all the major psychiatric, psychological, medical, pediatric, sociological and anthropological associations to endorse same-sex marriage and adoption.

        the american psychological association:
        “lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

        you’re on the whacky religionista right-wing fringe spreading lies and distortions about lgbts and their famiies. you’re truly despicable.

        throw your bible away. it’s a piece of crap based on bronze and iron age hebrew mythology. the industrialized west is sick and tired of deluded folks like you trying to shove that nonsense down everyone’s throat.

        whatever consenting religionists like you do in the privacy of your homes and churches is your business. but bring those gay-bashing lies into the public arena, and the gloves come off.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          The American Psychological Association? The very same organization that published the infamous Rind study?

          • Ed Adams

            lol. “The then American Psychological Association CEO Raymond D. Fowler succinctly reiterated the prevailing view in a 1999 letter to Congressman Delay “that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults,” and “sexual activity between children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable”.

            Some aspects of Rind’s findings have been duplicated.

            Unlike barbaric, archaic religions, science self-corrects.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            1) What exactly are you quoting?

            2) Fowler was, at that point, in CYA mode. Which was expected considering the organization he was the head of had, at that point in time, published a study that gained condemnation from nearly the entire US House of Representatives.

            3) Science always changes. God never does.

          • shepetgene

            In response to 3. Science changes as new information is discovered. Here’s a great quote from Leslie Knope on Parks and Rec when she is accused of flip-flopping: “I used to think chocolate milk came from chocolate cows, then I found out there was something called chocolate syrup.” I wouldn’t describe that characteristic as a flaw of science.

            And people’s understanding and relationship to God changes all the time.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            “Science changes as new information is discovered” may be true in theory, but it isn’t so in fact, at least not on politically sensitive topics. I wonder if any of the global warming scientists who recently sailed to Antarctica to document the disappearance of the ice cap changed their views after their ship got caught in ice so abundant it’s setting records.

          • shepetgene

            One incident doesn’t change a vast history of observation. For instance, a polar vortex in one area of the world doesn’t suddenly mean the entire world is colder.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Quite true. But seventeen consecutive years, and counting, of no measured increase in global temperatures, when the climatology models all say we should be broiling by now, indicate a problem with the computer models. And the refusal of the global warming community to acknowledge the hard evidence and abandon their models must bring their commitment to science itself into question.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            That’s true, but seventeen consecutive years, and counting, of no measured increase in global temperatures, when the computer models say we should be broiling by now, ought to call into question the reliability of the models, shouldn’t it? If anything, we’re headed into a period of lower temperatures, not higher. Why are so many climatologists stubbornly standing behind the models in the face of so much hard empirical evidence to the contrary? Could it have anything to do with career prospects, research grants, environmentalist ideology, or radical political agendas? Politics has a tremendous ability to distort science.

        • Dusquene Whistler

          “…sick and tired of deluded folks like you trying to shove that nonsense down everyone’s throat.” Well, it’s better than a penis.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. you must be bad at sex.

          • sagecreek

            They got upset the other day when I mentioned the existence of oral, so yeah, it’s safe to say they are pretty bad at it.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You must be good at perversion.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. oral sex is not perversion.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            To this crowd the only sex that’s allowed is light’s out, missionary position, and it better result in conception or it’s a sin.

          • Ed Adams

            these folks are the worst of the worst.

            even pat robertson has endorsed oral sex.

        • Laurie Higgins

          So, your “proof” is assertions by politically biased mental health organizations that they believe homoerotic acts are not disordered? Seriously? What is the research proving it is “normal.” You cited none.

          I’m not sure how you are using the term “normal.” Statistically, homosexual activity lies well outside the norm.
          You seem, however, to be arguing that the normality of homoerotic activity confers some automatic moral status on it that requires approval. You seem to be saying that because homoerotic activity can be found in “many different cultures and historical eras,” it is inherently moral. By that argument virtually every behavior is morally licit.
          The central cultural question is: Are homoerotic acts moral? The central question is not: How prevalent is homoeroticism transculturally and historically?
          Of course, there are other important questions, like, “In what specific ways is homoeroticism per se analogous to race?” But that’s a question from which the Left flees.

          • shepetgene

            They don’t typically flee. They lodge rational complaints with as much scientific and sociologic backing as possible and then you discount it because it goes counter to your religious beliefs. No one is questioning your right to say “this is counter to my religion and therefore morally wrong.” The issue is when you press for social marginalization and political disenfranchisement because of this.

            And as much as you dislike the APA, they’re the foremost and most highly regarded organization in the psychological science realm.

          • sagecreek

            Oh, Higgins, seriously? You work for the loathsome Illinois Family Institute and you are dissing the APA as “politically biased”? Do you own a mirror?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            The IFI is biased towards what is right, good, true. APA has been hijacked by the homofascists deviants.

          • sagecreek

            Well, no bias in that comment…

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Just more truth.

          • sagecreek

            As I’ve mentioned before, it’s a clear sign of immaturity when someone cannot conceive that their opinion is not always the truth.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Applies to your own words.

          • sagecreek

            Nope. I’m juding the things people are saying, you are deciding who is going to hell and who is not. There is a qualitative difference between those two things.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            We are deciding nothing. People make that decision for themselves. We are merely repeating the words of God. You are shooting the messenger.

          • sagecreek

            I’m not shooting anyone, although some of the nuts over on the Justina Pelletier article probably need to be watched.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Yes, you are attacking Christians for sharing the warnings of God’s word. Even the atheist Penn Teller has said that it would be hateful to not tell people if you believe the Bible.

          • sagecreek

            I have many Christian friends, most of whom are actual members of the Clergy.

            I am not attacking Christians. I am attacking people who try to hide their psychological issues and hatred behind Christianity.

          • 19gundog43

            They can’t handle the Truth!!

          • Ed Adams

            lol. vile anti-gay bigotry is not right, good, or true. it’s hideous.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            It’s pro-gay teaching. Pro because they want homosexuals to go to heaven and to protect the true family. You are the anti folks because you encourage people as they destroy their lives.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. basing your position on fairytales and mythological constructs for which there is no credible evidence.

            there is no evidence that there is such a thing as the “true family.” family structures have taken many forms throughout the history of mankind.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            That is a totally subjective opinion that has no basis in reality. You might just as well be saying “Green is the best color.”

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Look up for yourself the “research” used by the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM. You’ll only find two studies, both of which were fraudulent: Evelyn Hooker and Kinsey. The APA decision was political, through and through, driven largely by homosexual and homosexual-friendly psychiatrists, along with the homosexual activists who invaded and broke up APA meetings.

          • shepetgene

            And there has been no research on homosexuality by anyone affiliated with or to add credence to the APA’s decision since?

            I mentioned on another forum as well that the DSM defines “diseases.” What is and is not a “disease” is not simply a matter of fact. There are social underpinnings in that classification. It makes since then that political and social factors would be involved in a decision such as that. Homosexuality is a variant of sexuality, it is quite easy to incorporate a gay person into society and there is no major detriment to society in doing so. Based on some animal observations it may provide benefit to society. Additionally the standard treatment for mental disorders causes harm. Furthermore, the existence across multiple species gives some credence that it is possibly a very widespread variant of sexuality and might then be classified as “normal.”

            You would also give more credence to the title “moderator” if you commented on a single post from someone that agreed with the author. It seems a bit biased how you have chosen to moderate this forum.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Hi, shepetgene, I’ve been hoping we might get a chance to chat. Much of what you say here I agree with. Of course there are political and social underpinnings in classifying diseases. Of course I prefer to embrace gay people into society, as the alternative is expulsion, which I wish on no one. I hope you would agree with me that sending in hooligans to disrupt professional conferences and coerce the professionals into removing homosexuality from the DSM, which really happened in the early1970s, is not an approach likely to shed a great deal of scientific light.

            Whether it would be best for society to normalize homosexual behavior and the “gay identity,” as opposed to embracing gay people individually as fellow human beings, is another matter entirely. Have you ever read any of the work by J.D. Unwin or Pitirim Sorokin? Unwin, in particular, explains why the increased incidence of homosexual practice, or any sexual practice outside of heterosexual marriage, is a symptom that a society is very, very ill. Will Durant also observed that societies about to collapse usually witness a sharp increase in the incidence of homosexual behavior.

            As the moderator, my principal job is to make sure everybody gets a chance to make his point, while observing a rather low standard of civility. No foul language, no threats of violence. You might be surprised and pleased to find out that I’ve disciplined more conservative than liberal commenters. I don’t do it in public, though, I contact them directly by email.

            I usually refrain from wading into the donnybrook. My sense is my participation as moderator would chill the discussion. Occasionally, though, I feel the need to stand up for our writers, a remarkable group of people who do not deserve the vitriol they so frequently receive. In this case, Sagecreek referred to Laurie Higgins’ employer as “loathsome.” It’s much more difficult to prove IFI is “loathsome” than it is to prove the APA is “politically biased.”

      • Peter Quebbeman

        What is your proof, besides your interpretation of the Bible, that it isn’t?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          So, you guys have none. Just your opinion. The Bible on the other hand is time tested and true.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            The bible is an iron books of myths and legends written by a scientifically illiterate people, kind of like you fundies.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Nope, wrong again, you elitist.

            Written by people inspired by God. The God you obvious don’t believe in because if you did, you’d know that He can work through anyone. That’s what makes Him God.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. claiming to know things you don’t know. there is no credible evidence for anything supernatural.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You need to come out from the rock you’ve been living under. There are many evidences for God’s existence. You just don’t WANT to believe because you don’t want to change.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. you’ve drunk the poison koolaid.

            there is no credible evidence for anything supernatural, much less for the barbaric bronze and iron age father sky god of the judeo-christian tradition.

            that’s why christianity is declining in the industrialized west.

            your game of deluding folks with lies is coming to an end.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Don’t try to project onto me and other Christians the things that you do…koolaid, tin foil hats, deluding folks. That’s a description of yourselves.

          • Ed Adams

            lol. except that it’s not.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Peter, I invite you to investigate two questions: Does God exist? Did He communicate to us through the Bible? Until you’ve examined the evidence for these two propositions, you simply cannot make an informed comment about the Bible or religion. You might start with Josh McDowell, More than a Carpenter, and then the heavy stuff, McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Save it, I’ve read them all, I come from a fundy Christian religious family, and none of them provide any empirical evidence for your claims of an anthropomorphic supreme being and they are all based on logical fallacies and poor arguments. Perhaps you read “Misquoting Jesus, by Bible scholar who became an atheist Bart Erhman.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I come from a Catholic family, complete with a nun, and because nobody in the family or in our parish could explain why the faith is true, I became an atheist at 14. At 19 or so I switched to agnostic, because I realized after reading some logic that it’s impossible to prove God does not exist, so being an atheist is irrational. At 26 a fundy challenged me to consider the evidence that God exists and communicated to us through the Bible, and after several months I had to admit the empirical evidence is simply overwhelming.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            That is to say, the empirical evidence that something supernatural communicated to us through the Bible is overwhelming. That’s not to say the Bible is perfectly preserved from the original manuscripts, just that aspects of it, like the fulfilled prophecies, must be of supernatural origin. Ehrman’s problem is that after realizing the text we have is imperfect, he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

        • Laurie Higgins

          First, why should I prove a claim that I haven’t made?
          Second, neither you nor Ed Adams have defined the terms “normal” or “natural.”

          • sagecreek

            But you did make the claim. And you made it in a particularly vile way. Are you seriously arguing that calling homosexual behavior “pernicious, evil, immoral” is not calling it abnormal?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            There’s no other way to describe homosexuality. It is a vile practice.

          • Laurie Higgins

            The effort to normalize homoerotic activity is pernicious, particularly when it takes place in public schools.
            No one in this thread is defining what they mean by either “normal” or “natural.” It seems that what is being argued is the moral status of homoerotic activity–not whether it stands outside the statistical norm.
            As such, neither the hard sciences nor the soft sciences have anything meaningful to contribute.

          • sagecreek

            Well, you certainly have nothing to contribute, besides a certain talent at circular arguing. Be gone. And I still hope Inman sues you.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            And neither have you. Just as you haven’t defined ANY of the insulting terms that you repeatedly use against gays. Everyone one of your insults are your opinion, only, aren’t they?

      • http://batman-news.com David Franks

        Ms. Higgins, what is your proof that it’s NOT, apart from your superstitious belief in an imaginary deity?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          You really need to ask this question? Do you not know what the anus is for? Do you not know that the majority of AIDS are found in homosexuals? Do you not understand anatomy and biology?

          • shepetgene

            You really need to get off this HIV/AIDS in gay men means it is not natural kick. One, that’s specific to the West. But more importantly, being the reservoir for a disease does not suddenly make something “unnatural”.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            We’ll have to disagree on that. But you ignored all my other questions. You really should learn how the sex organs were intended to be used.

          • sagecreek

            Ever heard of the prostate, Jacobus?

          • shepetgene

            1. Do I know what the anus is for?
            In the most rudimentary biologic sense, the anus is for controlling the voiding of fecal matter.

            2. Do I not understand anatomy and physiology?
            I think I have a much deeper understanding of it than yourself.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            So, if it’s for fecal matter, then keep penises out.

          • sagecreek

            You really think about this a lot, don’t you?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You really don’t think.

          • shepetgene

            A couple of things. First and foremost not all gay men engage in anal sex. Stop using anal sex as a synecdoche for all gay intimacy, it’s reductive and makes you look sex-obsessed.

            Secondly, what is socially acceptable to be involved in sexual play is a social construction, not biological. The only people arguing for strict penile-vaginal sex in sexual intercourse seem to be very extreme people.

          • sagecreek

            I laugh every time you use the word synecdoche. Probably not one they know around here ;)

          • Jacobus Arminius

            You need to learn the meaning of deviancy and perversity.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Oh, dear. Why must we try to convince ourselves that people who disagree with us are less intelligent than we are?

            I used to attend the Freethinkers of Ventura County, and they were very, very sure that they were much, much more intelligent than those miserable, one-evolutionary-step-above-pond-scum religious believers. I used to challenge their positions on very simple evidential or logical grounds, and they invariably responded by dismissing me as ignorant (they didn’t know about my Ivy League degree or my 4.0 in seminary). They refused to take me seriously until I entered, and won, their annual Scrabble tournament. Nothing I could have done, short of bringing Jesus down from heaven on a flying carpet, could have been so disconcerting to them.

            So speaking as the moderator, why don’t we confine ourselves to responding to arguments with better arguments?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Most perverts are sex obsessed. You just don’t like us putting the mirror in front of you. You don’t like what you see so you have to create a sanitized version of the “truth.”

            Hey make sure you stay away from the slippery slope, lesbian throuple article on BarbWire today. It’s a great argument (without using the Bible) to reject the redefining of marriage. It lead to all types of perversions.

          • sagecreek

            It really is unmistakable how much they focus on anal sex…and why.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            What’s really funny is they link anal sex to only gay sex without the slightest clue that many if not the majority of heterosexuals engage in anal sex.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Oh, you’re so smart. We never thought of that. Give me a break. You really shouldn’t try to condone bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Just because there are heterosexuals who don’t understand the proper use of the anus doesn’t make anal sex okay.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Wow feel sorry for you and your spouse if you have one. I’ll bet you have a very repressed sex life if you have one at all. Of course that’s probably the reason you fundies are so angry and hate filled.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          She doesn’t have to prove a negative, David. FAIL.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            Wrong. She DOES have to prove that being gay is “immoral”, “unnatural”, “perverse” and all of the other totally unfounded insults she hurls at gays. ALL of which are based, entirely, on her superstitious belief in a non-existent deity.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Look up “negative proof fallacy.”

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            Wrong, again. I’m not asking her to prove a negative. I’m asking her (or you) to support her claims. The only “proof” she ever can provide is something like “imaginary sky-god tells me so,” which is worthless.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You get the same invitation as the others above, David. You shouldn’t condemn Christianity, or theism, without understanding the reasons why people say “yes” to two basic questions: Does God exist? Did He communicate to us through the Bible? I invite you to read Josh McDowell’s More than a Carpenter as a beginning, and McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict when you’re ready to wade into the heavy material.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            Who said I’m condemning anything? I’m just asking for proof, which no one, including you, has managed to provide. And, no, I’m not going to read a book.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Read Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer and I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist by Frank Turek. Plenty of proof there. Then, we’ll talk.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            No, let’s talk now. I’ve asked you a very simple question, which you refuse to answer: What is the basis for considering homosexuality “immoral”, “perverse”, etc.? Recommending books is a dodge. Please answer my question.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            The books prove the existence of God.

            Let me educate you, this is a internet comment forum. What you are asking for is not conducive to sound bite answers. That’s the method that you emotional, non-rational types use. But the truth is more complex than that.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            Since you won’t answer my question, I’ll do it for you: You think homosexuality is “perverse”, etc. because your non-existent, imaginary deity tells you so. The books you reference do not prove the existence of this, or any other, god. Like all religious fanatics, you confuse imagination with reality.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            And if I have to explain how abandoning the obvious, biological uses of the sex organs is perverse, then you’re really messed up.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You condemned Christianity repeatedly right in this string, by referring to “imaginary sky gods” and so forth. And if you’re not willing to read the books I’ve recommended, then how can you expect me to prove anything to you? Would you be moved by the logical argument that every effect must have a cause, which implies that you can trace the causal string back until you find a First Cause that must be self-existent, i.e. God? Probably not. Or we could look at the collapse of Darwinian theory, and the impossibility of explaining the existence of life, or existence itself, without a Creator. You tell me.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You condemn Christianity whenever you refer to “imaginary Sky Gods” and the like. You demand proof repeatedly, yet you refuse to read the books I recommend to you, which lay out the proof in detail. If you won’t even consider the evidence, how am I supposed to prove anything to you? By osmosis? Place your forehead against the screen … My own transition from agnosticism to Christian faith required eight months of study, of McDowell, the Bible and other books. No way can I distill the results of such a lengthy study — comparative manuscripts, textual reliability, accuracy of translation, on and on — into a blog post.

            But I can give you three quick arguments, one logical, one evidential, and one Scriptural, that might cause you to think.

            Logical: the First Cause. Every effect (that is, everything you see happening around you) requires a cause. Trace the effect and cause trail back to its origin, and you must conclude that there was a First Cause, not caused by anything, but self-causing and self-existent, and immensely powerful, because it was able to bring about every subsequent cause and effect.

            Empirical: human beings exist, and they must have gotten here somehow. Evolution? Can’t be, because of the principle of irreducible complexity. Too many bodily organs and systems exist that are too sophisticated, complex and interconnected to have developed by random mutation. The eye, for example, is composed of three separate organs: the iris, the retina, and the optic nerve, none of which can do anything without the presence of the other two. They couldn’t have evolved separately by random mutation, and they couldn’t have evolved together by random mutation. They had to be created simultaneously, as a fully functioning system. Something must have created the eye.

            Also, existence exists. It didn’t get here by itself. Nothing comes from nothing. Something self-existent must have created it.

            Finally, Scripture: there are hundreds of prophecies recorded in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in detail centuries later, elsewhere in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. Read the accounts of Christ’s crucifixion in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and then read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, both written at least seven centuries earlier. Men can’t predict the future in explicit detail, at least not without supernatural help. Can you honestly deny that a supernatural actor must have been behind Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53? And the additional 300-odd OT prophecies about the coming Messiah?

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Read the slippery slope, lesbian throuple article. That’s another great reason (aside from the Bible) as to why to reject the redefining of marriage.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            I wasn’t talking about marriage. I was asking you to justify your condemnation of gays, which you refuse to do.

      • Peter Quebbeman

        Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different species. Did Satan turn all of those animals gay?

        • Laurie Higgins

          Is your argument that because animals engage in homosexual acts, such activity is inherently moral for humans?

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Well humans are an animal species like the rest so there’s evidence of it being a normal part of nature. “Moral” is an argument based upon subjective opinion, which isn’t in the realm of science. What you believe is “moral” is based upon your own interpretation of the bible and the circular reasoning that it purports to prove your version of an anthropomorphic supreme being.

          • Laurie Higgins

            I quite agree with you that moral propositions are not facts, although clearly some are true and others are false. And this brings us to one of the central problems with “progressives.” They insist on promoting their moral propositions as facts, including in public schools and to young children. What is your proof that volitional homoerotic acts are morally licit? On what basis have you concluded that homoerotic acts are morally licit?

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Moral propositions are best found in the gold en rule, do unto others… Anytime two consenting adults who love each act in accordance with their desires and harm no one else, that is their business and can be a moral act. And don’t give me that bs about child molestation. That’s not backed up by any reputable studies or data and there are just as many pedophiles if not more in the heterosexual community.

          • Laurie Higgins

            First, here is the whole verse as it’s found in Matthew: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
            Second, what I most want for myself and others is eternal life with the creator of all things that have been created. Affirming homoerotic acts, “identity,” and relationships would be manifesting the anti-Golden rule. It would require that I do to others that which I would never seek for myself.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Nice Bible quote but in no way does it answer my post.

      • http://evilifiction.blogspot.com/ Pat

        Things that exist in nature are natural.

        The proof is in the definition.

        • Laurie Higgins

          Of course, you’re correct, Pat, but both terms “natural” and “normal” were used today and neither defined. By most definitions of “normal,” homoerotic acts would not be considered normal.
          The central problem, however, is that some of the commenters are using these terms as synonymous with morally licit or suggesting that naturalness confers a positive moral status on volitional homoerotic acts. If that is the case they’re making, they’re in a peck of trouble for there are many behaviors that exist in nature–both among critters as well as humans–that few would deem moral.

          • shepetgene

            Most medical and sociological associations agree that homosexuality is a “normal” expression of human sexuality. So by that definition, “homoerotic acts” are in fact “normal. I assume you’re meaning there are a minority of people who are attracted to the same-sex. You would be right. Whether it is normal or not is a social idea, not something that is determined by the prevalence of same-sex attraction.

          • sagecreek

            There you go, being nasty again.

            You are so wrong, and you don’t even claim any kind of basis for it. It’s just what pays your rent. You are lower than low.

          • sagecreek

            Should we tell you about slash, the world in which completely heterosexual women write porn about male homoeroticism? And these are married straight women active in their communities and churches.

            Face it, Laurie, you’re an idiot. Or, more likely, you’re just complicit for the sake of a paycheck. Which, frankly, is far worse.

          • http://evilifiction.blogspot.com/ Pat

            Ms Higgins, could you please define “of” for me? And “course,” “you’re,” and “correct,” while you’re at it.
            Oh gosh, you’ve actually used quite a number of words without defining them.

            Perhaps we don’t need to define every term we use; you obviously know what it means.
            I do like how you pretend not to know what “natural” means but then you use such terms as “synonymous,” “licit,” and “volitional”–that’s quite some hypocrisy (not that I needed them defined, but given the context of the post…).

            Now “normal” could mean that something is typical, which is obviously not the case for homosexuality. You are somewhat correct there; I would not personally use the word “normal” to describe homosexuality.
            But I actually usually try to avoid the usage of the word “normal,” personally–it gets so often used erroneously as a statement of value, wouldn’t you say?

            Actually, I can’t help but notice that your ilk like to imply that something being unnatural or abnormal also makes it immoral, when such is obviously not the case. The fact that you were lying about the applicability of the term “unnatural” in the first place is really secondary, to my mind.

        • thisoldspouse

          Do you really want us to point out to you other things that exist in nature that even you might not approve of?

          • http://evilifiction.blogspot.com/ Pat

            Gosh, it’s almost like claiming that homosexuality was “unnatural” was both a really obvious lie and utterly irrelevant because nature is neither inherently good nor inherently evil.
            Thank you for… rudely backing me up, I guess?

          • thisoldspouse

            How was my question “rude,” other than it just opposed you?

          • http://evilifiction.blogspot.com/ Pat

            It didn’t actually impose me, so it was probably the rudeness to which I was referring.

        • Oscar

          Such as cannibalism, perhaps?

          • thisoldspouse

            Or infanticide? (oops, we already have that down pat with Roe)

    • 19gundog43

      This is a joke, right???? LMAO. 100% normal. Brahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

      • sagecreek

        Pssst, honey. Protip: using lots of exclamation points doesn’t make it wit.

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      Ed, before you entrench yourself in your preferred conclusions, I invite you to investigate two simple questions: Does God exist? Did He communicate to us through the Bible? Once you sift through the evidence and understand the arguments on both sides of these issues, you can begin to make informed comments about Christianity. There are many excellent Christian apologists. You might start with Josh McDowell’s More than a Carpenter, and if you want to go deeper into the nuts and bolts, read McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

  • BG

    I didn’t see the Dan Savage article mentioned, but I have seen others that are unspeakably vile. A lot of people’s reactions remind me of many of the ancient Israelites that refused to listen to any of God’s warnings. They just wanted to hear positive things from the prophets (so much so that they silenced them by murdering them). I have read things from the hedonists, I could not bring myself to repeat, but it is true, some have to be jarred to the core before they will act.

  • sagecreek

    Oooh! Let’s make sure he knows :)

  • Oscar

    Well, THIS Christian was one of those who has criticized you in the past, Laurie. Not for exposing the radical gays with videos of their own words, but for using personal slurs for them in YOUR articles.

    This article was different; it only insulted OUR side. Here, it is the CHRISTIANS who are “dupes and cowards”.

    Wow. When will Christians learn to fight the culture war like, well, Christians?

    • Laurie Higgins

      Oscar,
      If by “personal slurs” you mean epithets (aka name-calling), when did I hurl an epithet? I try to be careful to use the harshest language to criticize actions not individuals.
      That said, Christians are not biblically prohibited from using harsh descriptors since both Jesus and John the Baptist used the term “brood of vipers,” and Paul uses the terms thieves, swindlers, drunkards, revilers, hypocrites, adulterers, the greedy, and idolaters.

      • Oscar

        I totally support your right to call sin what God in the Bible calls sin. You would be wrong NOT to do such. That is not the problem.

        Jesus, as God, had the absolute moral right to use those harsh descriptors. You, nor I have same. Christ knew who was who and what was what. We don’t and therefore can’t. WWJD doesn’t always apply.

        When Jesus, and John the Baptiser, and Paul did use them, it was in the vastly large part, in reference to religious hypocrites, not to unsaved sinners. Your parallel thus fails.

        You are one of the very LEAST offensive writers at this site. Others, calling themselves Christians here, are hateful and violent, embarassing Matt and harming the cause of Christ.

        Your calling SOME of us Christians “dupes and cowards” may even be accurate in some situations. We are not immune from appropriate criticism. But I have, and will, call out these unbiblical tactics, when they occur.

        PLEASE do not sink to the level of these sad, sick frauds. I understand Christians’ frustration at the gains of the radical gays. I get it that we are horrified by the moral free fall in our culture. But we have higher standards to maintain. We are taught to “speak the truth in love”. We can’t become what we condemn.

        If Barbwire continues its slide into sensationalism and hatred and provocation of the gays, then feigning outrage and pretending that we are persecuted, you may well need to separate yourself from all of this and choose to write for a site with moral standards that match yours.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          1 Corinthians 6:9-11 was talking about people who will not inherit the kingdom of God (not believers, who do inherit the kingdom of God.) Wrong again, Oscar!

          • Oscar

            I do not have any idea who you are writing to, why you brought that passage into play, or why you felt the need to get into the middle of a conversation.
            Where you came up with that passage, how it applies to anythingI wrote, and why you feel it is necessary to inject yourself here is simply inexplicable. Bizarre!

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Because that verse lists the same terms that Laurie mentioned (aduterers, idolators, swindlers), which you said Paul used to describe hypocritical believers. And that was not true.

          • Oscar

            Again, a LIE.

            I said “in vastly large part”. And I did not say “hypocritical believers”; YOU did. I said “religious hypocrites”. Therefore, my comment is precisely and totally true, your frail protests to the contrary nothwithstanding.

            Again, trying to speak with Laurie.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            And I am trying to come to her defense. I stand with people who are being attacked.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            “Hypocritical believers” and “religious hypocrites” — not that big of a deal. Okay, there’s a difference, but you’re obviously making a mountain out of a mole hill. Chill out!

            Point is, we are called to be like Jesus, but you have determined that there are some things that Jesus did, which we are not to do? Not sure how you decide which we do and which we don’t do. But it SOUNDS LIKE (I’m sure you’ll go all histrionic if I’m slightly wrong about this) you only think we should do the nice things, but not the harsh things.

            Yet, you have no trouble calling me a liar over and over. I also remember you getting all upset about something Brian Fitzpatrick said too.

          • Oscar

            I am engaging you, now, not Brian. If I had a disagreement with him, that is another matter.

            I call lies what they are, and would be sinning if I did not. Even when they come from Jacobus.

            Don’t tell me what I think when what I think is recorded above, for you to clearly see. I never stated we should only do nice things, not harsh things. YOU DID.

            I told Laurie that she had every right to call sin what the Bible calls sin, and that she would be WRONG NOT to do so. I don’t appreciate people putting words in my mouth, especially when they are lies. If you want to get offended by the truth, go for it.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Me? Offended? You’re the one getting all bent out of shape, Oscar. Is it possible to have a discussion without things getting so heated? Just sincerely asking, not trying to be snarky.

            By harsh things, I don’t just mean calling sin what the Bible calls sin. I mean being blunt with our words. I believe that we sometimes have to use very strong words (not profanity) to shock the atheists and homosexuals back to reality. If it’s perversity, then call it that. If it’s disgusting, call it that. Or whatever. Beating around the bush isn’t always the best approach for SOME. However, for the sincere homosexual seeker, I believe just the opposite is best.

            And since you’re being so precise, I said it “SOUNDS LIKE” you think we shouldn’t do harsh things (I didn’t say that was absolutely the case). I admit that I don’t exactly know what you’re thinking. But most of your complaints SEEM focused on the harsh terminology of some of the writers on this site.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          There are people who call themselves Christians that will tell people to be more like Jesus, but what they mean by that is they want people to be passive and sit on the sidelines.

          As has been demonstrated here and elsewhere, especially the Bible, Jesus was not passive. And anyone who says He was and therefore you should be, is preaching heresy and cannot be trusted.

          • Oscar

            You have created a great straw man there, Matthew, because you have never read anything RESEMBLING your description coming from me.

            I have never thought that Jesus was passive, never dreamed that I should be passive, never wrote than you should be passive. But it is easy for you to put words in my mouth, then argue against them – something I have NEVER thought, said, or written.

            I do not care for your insinuations that I am not a Christian, sir. I don’t care for your insinuations about my motives. I don’t care for your slurs that I preach heresy and cannot be trusted.

            I have a conversation going with Ms. Higgins, and you felt the need to butt in and smear me. And do it in the name of my Christ. THAT is offensive.

            Readers, if there is any heresy on this thread, if there is anyone who should not be trusted, you can find him directly above this post.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I was not speaking of you, specifically.

            That being said, however, you have most certainly given myself and others I am sure the idea that only God/Jesus can judge, which is a strawman in and of itself.

            If you don’t like being called on the carpet for it, tough. I really don’t care.

            And for you to call me a heretic because I actually have the nerve to read the Bible and believe and stand by what it says is not Christian thinking, period. You owe me an apology.

          • Oscar

            First, you now claim, that in a post REPLYING TO ME, you were not speaking to ME. LIE.

            Second, you can take whatever you wish from my posts, and you can find things in them but they are still LIES.

            Third, after claiming that I preach heresy, you know try to make it out that I called YOU that. LIE.

            Fourth, after saying you “really don’t care” how I feel after your vile accusations, you say that I OWE YOU an apology. LIE.

            Readers, if you want to see something sadly funny, just read this guy’s posts personally attacking me, then picture him now, all curled up in a fetal postition.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            “First, you now claim, that in a post REPLYING TO ME, you were not speaking to ME. LIE.”

            Uh, no. Read it again. Did I address you? Nope. I was making a statement.

            “Second, you can take whatever you wish from my posts, and you can find things in them but they are still LIES.”

            You mean your exact words?

            “Third, after claiming that I preach heresy, you know try to make it out that I called YOU that. LIE.”

            Speaking of exact words, here are yours:

            “Readers, if there is any heresy on this thread, if there is anyone who should not be trusted, you can find him directly above this post.”

            And of course, the “him directly above this post” is me.

            If you are not calling me a heretic, then who is it you were referring to?

            And you called ME a liar. Pot, meet kettle.

      • sagecreek

        Since you don’t seem to be very educated, here’s the Burns poem I was referencing.

        You might want to ponder it in prayer.

        O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
        To see oursels as ithers see us!
        It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
        An’ foolish notion:
        What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
        An’ ev’n devotion!

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          Sage, you might try pondering how Burns applies to you, rather than hurl insults at a very gifted writer. First take the beam out of your own eye.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      How would you assess Jesus’ actions in John 2? Whips, yelling, turning over tables, letting animals run free. Doesn’t seem to fit your definition of “Christian.” Confrontation and strong words are NOT always bad.

      Or when Jesus called people children of the devil (John 8)?

      You’re self-righteousness is getting very old.

      • Oscar

        And yet you come here to judge me, then literally end with the phrase that MY “self-righteousness is getting old”. What is getting old is self-righteous people telling ME that!
        1. I never stated that confrontation and strong words are always bad. YOU did.
        2. I never defined “Christian”, so you would be guessing to decide what I think fits and doesn’t.
        3. We are not to do everything Jesus did. He was God and therefore had the right to do what He did in His Father’s House.
        YOU don’t. I don’t. False comparison. Failed argument.
        4. In John 8, again, Jesus as God, KNEW who was who. He correctly judged. You don’t, and therefore, can’t. FAIL.
        5. Your self-righteousness is getting VERY old.
        6. My post stands as written. Yours is fully of logical, doctrinal, and moral errors.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          You’re very angry and sanctimonious. All you ever do is judge Matt and the authors on this site.

          My post stands as written.

          • sagecreek

            I don’t agree with Oscar on a whole lot, but he’s rarely sanctimonious. He’s certainly a deeper thinker than most of the regulars here.

          • Oscar

            Again, thanks, but Shhhh.

          • Oscar

            That is a lie out of the Devil’s Hell.

            Read all of my posts, not just the ones which you like to cherry-pick. I have criticized AND complimented and defended Matt here. I have criticized and defended several authors here.

            You are lying and worse, you are doing it in the name of God. You are on thin ice, sir. And not with me, either.

            FLAGGED.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Wow, what anger. I did nothing to be flagged over. It’s a general statement that many of your comments have been negative.

          • Oscar

            There you go again with the lies. You made NO “general statement that many of your comments have been negative.” That is another lie.

            What you stated was:

            “All you do is judge Matt and the other authors at this site.”

            Yes, I get angry when people, especially those who call themselves Christians, lie so obviously and casually and easily. You should get angry at the right things, too! But you reserve it for those who call for Christians to act like Christians!

          • Jacobus Arminius

            I did make a general statement, and you even included it in your last post: “All you do is judge Matt and the other authors at this site.” That is most certainly general in nature. Obviously, not “all,” but “several,” of your comments have been negative. That’s what I meant. Sorry it has upset you so much.

            I’ll remember to be more precise with you in the future, especially since you like to keep calling me a liar. Maybe you should act more kind to a Christian brother, who merely disagrees with you. I happen to believe that Matt and Laurie have acted in a Christian manner. But when they don’t, just be sure to remember that nobody’s perfect.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Everyone is allowed to disagree with you without being flagged.

            You talk about love and grace for sinners, but show none towards me, a fellow believer. Thanks.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Oscar, really. The “only God/Jesus can judge” strawman is old and tired and just doesn’t work anymore.

          Exactly whose side are you on?

          • Oscar

            1. I was replying to Jacobus, not you.
            2. Your snarky tone is not appreciated or helpful.
            3. He incorrectly accused me of self-righeousness.
            4. I corrected him by pointing out his own.
            5. I informed him that the Bible commands us to judge correctly. That Jesus had information available to Him that we don’t. He was in a better position to do it than we, so we must take care in this matter.
            6. I have NO idea where you got your argument. You certainly didn’t find it in my post.
            7. I have NO idea how you can honestly mischaracterize me and claim the moral high ground.
            8. I stand against Christians using the world’s language and hatred, when speaking in His name and in defending traditional marriage. I will continue to do so as long as God gives me breath.

            In light of the above, exactly whose side are YOU on?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Dude, seriously. You need to know what it is you said before you reply to what I said, if for no other reason than to save yourself from embarrassment.

            Your posts to Jacobus absolutely carry an undertone of “Only Jesus can judge.” Jacobus made the point Jesus was not passive, and made reference to the temple as an example.

            But your response to him? Only Jesus could do that. Not us.

            And look at what you wrote to me: You say we are to judge “correctly.” (Uh, where is that said in the Bible?) But you don’t stop there. You also say Jesus had more information than we did (Duh! Jesus is omniscient.). So here, you were implying we shouldn’t make any judgments until we know all the facts, and since Jesus knows more than us…

            Please don’t think you can play games with me. I have dealt with trolls here and defeated them easily in the arena of ideas without breaking a sweat. So claiming to not be saying “only Jesus can judge” while simultaneously waltzing with the notion doesn’t impress me.

            As for the side I am on, it’s the only one that matters: God’s. There is no debate on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. God said NO, and that settles the issue. Period.

          • Oscar

            As for whose side you are on, it is now more than clear: YOURS. In your own words, you are a wonderful troll defeater, you winning easily without sweating. And you are in the arena fighting to the death. I’m impressed.

            You did not even deal with the content of my comments, preferring instead to put into my mouth that I am somehow on the side of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”. I never thought, wrote, or dreamed of anything of the sort. Paper tiger much?

            Where did Jesus say judge correctly? John 7:24.

            I stand by my comments that we should defend traditional marriage like Christians. Not that I any longer expect you to do so. I am done wasting my time with someone as self-absorbed as you are.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Dude, really. I have already caught you in a lie and now you are saying I am “self-absorbed” even after I already specifically answered the very same question I asked of you, even though you didn’t do that yourself, by saying I am on God’s side.

            Are you saying then I think I am God? That may sound silly, but only because of your equally preposterous assertion.

            And I am curious what your definition of a Christian is, if you seem to think it includes being passive and not judging.

      • sagecreek

        I think perhaps calling your internet nastiness the equivalent of Jesus’ actions in the temple is a bit…inappropriate.

        • Oscar

          Thank you, sage.
          It may be the only time I will agree with you, but you are absolutely right here. So take my compliment and run!

  • tomd

    Too funny. :-). The new one doesn’t even make sense.

  • Peter Quebbeman

    Typical of the far right fundies. I’m sure Gawd told her she could use it so it’s ok.

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Typical comment from the God-hating Christophobes.

      • Peter Quebbeman

        Poor attempt at deflection from the issue that the writer used that graphic without permission.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          It’s on the internet on many sites. Copyrighted material or public domain? You are also assuming that the author actually was responsible for the image.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            It’s copyrighted, check the cite above. They correctly took the thing down. Your attempts at deflection are growing worse.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Perhaps they realized it after the fact. Nobody’s perfect, except apparently you.

            Point is, you keep making assumptions in the negative, and I’m trying to show you that you could be wrong.

          • sagecreek

            When you are publishing a supposedly professional website, you’d better not be wrong about things like copyright infringement. That’s what keeps lawyers in business, and since Barber is a lawyer, he knew darn well what he was doing.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            What you’re claiming is not possible. These images are on hundreds of sites with no names on them. NO way to track down every image. Yes, he’s a lawyer and that’s why he’s not worried about this.

          • tomd

            He should be. If an image appears on multiple sites it’s still a copyright violation. Inman could still sue Barbwire for not having his permission.

            It’s not hard to manage – you simply only use stock images that give you clear rights. Or you don’t use the image.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Keep grasping for straws.

          • tomd

            Professional websites don’t do this crap. Slipshod websites steal material. They were hoping no one would notice. Just because you don’t understand this stuff doesn’t mean I’m grasping at straws.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Keep grabbing at your straws…and missing. Much ado about NOTHING!

            I understand copyright laws, and you are just into hysterics.

          • tomd

            Well, apparently Barbwire agrees with me, since they took the image down. Because they know Inman could sue them. And he would have.

          • tomd

            Well, apparently Barbwire agrees with me, since they took the image down. Because they know Inman could sue them. And he would have.

          • tomd

            Well, apparently Barbwire agrees with me, since they took the image down. Because they know Inman could sue them. And he would have.

          • Peter Quebbeman

            Keep deflecting.

          • shepetgene

            Directly from the site: “All artwork and content on this site is Copyright © 2014 Matthew Inman. Please don’t steal. “

          • Jacobus Arminius

            First, that was not on the image itself.

            Second, I did a google search and found that image on dozens of sites.

          • shepetgene

            Then it was stolen all of those times unless they received permission to post it.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            So, how would anyone know it’s copyrighted? Again, sorry BarbWire doesn’t know all like you.

          • tomd

            I managed a website for a major company at one point. We had a strict policy that *all* images – even small ones like icons – would not be published without proper attribution and permission. Simple.

            And remember – Matt Barber is a a LAWYER. Just because an image is found elsewhere does not absolve you of copyright issues.

            If you don’t have permission, you don’t use it. If you don’t know where it comes from, you also don’t use it.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            That’s not the point. Point is, there is no way to know what’s copyrighted or who to ask permission, especially when it’s a photo that’s everywhere. Not possible.

          • thisoldspouse

            What graphic did I miss? I’m sure it must have really implicated the sodomites by its truth if they’re this vivid about its use.

  • http://batman-news.com David Franks

    How is Ms. Higgins’ claim that being gay “will result in eternal separation from God” any different from Fred Phelps saying that “God Hates Fags”? Sure sounds like exactly the same message to me. Phelps is just a little cruder and more direct. The real reason that professional homobigots, like Laurie Higgins and her friends at the Illinois “Family” Institute, despise Phelps as much as they do is that he blows their cover.

    • sagecreek

      You’re right, it’s exactly the same. Phelps is cruder, but the IFI is just as hateful and bigoted, they just try to fly under the radar and dupe good Christian folks out of money.

      It was, however, quite amusing to hear Higgins claim that the APA was a “politically biased” organization. Do you think she’s ever read any Robert Burns?

    • Jacobus Arminius

      Higgins would say the same thing to any unrepentant sinner, not just homosexuals…basic Bible teaching.

      And it’s a warning so they DON’T go to hell. Fred, on the other hand, wanted them to go to hell.

      • sagecreek

        Remind me, isn’t there some Bible verse about only God getting to judge?

        • Jacobus Arminius

          There’s a verse about a TYPE of judging, but not ALL judging.

          We are called to warn people and point out what’s right and what’s wrong.

          Jesus said to his disciples, “Make a right judgment” (John 7:24)

        • Jacobus Arminius

          Oh, so now the Bible means something to you? How convenient.

          • shepetgene

            I think she might have been trying to use a source you value to undermine your argument. That is, you care about the Bible and base all of your arguments off of it, so therefore it kind of has to be the basis for any argument you would take seriously.

          • sagecreek

            Actually, I do value the Bible. It’s a classic source of literature and poetry, it’s a valuable font of anthopological info (albeit filtered through myth), and it has many worthy life lessons. But it’s simply not the literal word of God, and I say that as a believer. When people try to use it to defend hatred, I just roll my eyes.

          • shepetgene

            I appreciate the clarification. I shouldn’t have spoken for you. I would also agree with much of how you feel about the Bible.

          • sagecreek

            No prob, Shep, you were right on point, and that IS why I used the Bible reference.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Correction, you didn’t use, you abused the Bible

          • Jacobus Arminius

            The Bible only means something to you when you can distort it to your advantage.

            But aside from the Bible, you better avoid the article today about the slippery slope, lesbian throuple. This argument (not using the Bible) is a great reason to reject your goal to redefine marriage. But then again, you better stay away from that article…it might burst your little gay bubble-of-a-fantasy-world.

          • portertx

            Here is the rub of the issue….the Bible means a lot of things to a lot of people…what people like you cannot accept is not everyone worships the Bible as you do.

        • thisoldspouse

          Do you not judge, all the time?

          • sagecreek

            I judge on people’s remarks. I do not routinely tell them that they’re going to hell. Call me crazy, but I see a difference there.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            We are not telling people they are going to hell. We tell them what leads to hell and how to avoid it. BIG DIFFERENCE.

          • sagecreek

            But you don’t know that. You have no evidence whatsoever as to what leads to hell ,or even if it exists. These are matters of faith and personal belief, and as such, vary from person to person.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Okay, just to play along. Let’s say we don’t know or can’t prove it. How then should you live. Should you play it safe or take unnecessary risks. Just like Russian Roulette…I may not know for sure which chamber has a bullet, but it would be wise to avoid taking the chance.

            Besides, you’re conscience reveals that homosexuality is wrong.

          • sagecreek

            As the Quakers say, I live according to my lights, fulfilling God’s will as I understand it. If you have a problem with that, then it’s your problem, not mine.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            Okay, but make sure you stay away from the slipper slope article, wouldn’t want to burst your bubble.

          • Jacobus Arminius

            But you still seem to be admitting that we are not condemning people to hell. We are doing just the opposite … trying to lead people away, even if you don’t agree with our beliefs.

          • sagecreek

            Reread some comments on this site…there sure is a lot of damnation going on.

          • portertx

            Based upon what you believe will send them to hell.

    • 19gundog43

      The difference is simple. God does not “hate fags” he want’s them to be saved and go to Heaven. Their live choice is what seperates them from God and Heaven. Simple!!!!

      • sagecreek

        I agree with you, God does not hate “fags”. But most of you Barbwire people sure do. And don’t give me that old love the sinner, hate the sin thing. You people are practically salivating with bile.

        Also, honey, review some spelling rules. Never hurts to be correct when you are damning your neighbor to hell.

        • 19gundog43

          Sorry you people can’t handle the Truth…Never damned anyone to Hell. Only you can do that…Honey!

          • sagecreek

            Please do go on.

            Also, just a little tip — unless you are Jack Nicholson, you really cannot say that without looking like a huge d-bag.

          • L1011

            Honey? Is that your way of countering the Feminist Agenda too? If she were standing in front of you, you would probably slap her can, then show her to the nearest kitchen and tell her to make you a sandwich.

      • http://batman-news.com David Franks

        Of course, if gays fail to get “saved” prior to being killed by god,
        then they get to be tortured for all eternity in the fiery pits of
        Hell. That’s a pretty twisted kind of love, isn’t it?

        • sagecreek

          No, but you see, they deserve it. OUT OF LOVE.

        • Jacobus Arminius

          No more twisted than if a loving parent tells their child not to touch a hot stove.

          • http://batman-news.com David Franks

            Loving parents don’t have the ability (or desire) to torture their children for eternity just for touching a hot stove, do they? Kind of a really big difference there, wouldn’t you say?

    • Oscar

      One is true, one is not.
      One is loving, one is hateful.
      One is a warning, the other condemnation.

      Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  • portertx

    Laurie – You can really sum this whole article down to a very simple concept – “What I believe (we as Christians) is right/correct/moral – anything else will damn you to hell”. You can spin it however you like – but that is the crux of your argument.

    Yet many will disagree based upon their beliefs religious or not. So really who is right without “proof” – until God/Jesus comes back it is all just conjecture isn’t it?

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      No, not exactly conjecture. God has been gracious enough to let us know what He thinks about a myriad of issues in the pages of the Bible. Whatever God believes is right, correct and moral by definition, as He defines what is right and wrong.. What Christians believe is right, correct and moral only as long as our beliefs agree with God’s revelation.

      The real issue is whether we can trust that the Bible is God’s revelation, and is therefore authoritative. I invite you to look into two fundamental questions: Does God exist? Did He communicate to us through the Bible?

      • portertx

        Yet we here “GOD” does not change but must have changed – If polygamy, slavery, stoning, dietary restrictions, marriage restrictions, etc,…

        Or are people just misinterpreting God’s revelation.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          At least two people on BarbWire threads have explained this issue in detail in the past couple of weeks. Nevertheless, if you’d like, I’d be happy to write an article explaining the three types of law found in the Old Testament, why two of the three are no longer in effect today, and why none of this means that God has changed in any way. But is this really what you want to know? What’s the point of knowing why I get to eat ham and shrimp, if you don’t believe the Bible is authoritative in the first place?

          • portertx

            Please write away but not just the two of the three I listed 5 items. Which means God does change otherwise why would these restrictions have existed in the first place ? God wanted them and then suddenly does not want them to be followed. This equates to change….unless you are saying these restriction were never from God but man made.

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    Wow, she disses everyone in this rant. Her arguments are about as deep as her photograph. And it appears the target audience on both is the same age.

    But, to sum up, she has given up and blames all Christians. That’s the spirit!

  • Matthew T. Mason

    Here is my take on all of this:

    Laurie, with all due respect, you and the powers that be are making this site look like it is all about fighting the homosexual agenda, for all the articles/essays on it.

    Okay. The homosexual agenda is bad. I agree. I get it. But there are other moral problems with this country, for instance: Abortion. The sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children.

    We also have people and organizations trampling on religious freedom in this country. Just today I heard a child was forbidden from reading their Bible during an independent reading period at school because the teacher deemed it “unacceptable.” Really? Seriously? Where is the report on THAT?

    • thisoldspouse

      It’s all one big Leftist ball of wax, Matt. And we can chew gum and walk – and even read – at the same time. Right now, the sodomite agenda is the very tip of the entire spear of the Leftist agenda. Blunting it is a very effective help to all the other issues.

      • sagecreek

        I really need to update my address, I haven’t gotten my copy of The Sodomite Agenda in ages.

        • thisoldspouse

          Why buy it when you have it memorized by rote?

    • sagecreek

      Over 45 million Americans suffer hunger every day. As a Christian, why aren’t you upset by that?

      • Matthew T. Mason

        And what does that have to do with anything?

        • sagecreek

          I am pointing out what is obvious to everyone, that you are picking and choosing among “sins”…let’s get all upset about gay rights, while completely ignoring the very people that Jesus specifically told us to help.

          I’m pointing out your hypocrisy. Sorry I had to spell it out, I thought it was obvious.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

            No, you are just trying to change the subject by bringing up something that has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone is talking about here.

          • sagecreek

            No, I think I’m pointing out a major flaw in your thinking. Why are you obsessing on the gays when there are many more pressing social issues — and by the way, issues that Christ actually mentioned — that are going unaddressed?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Dude, your non-sequitur isn’t going to work on me. And it is becoming increasingly clear that 1) you didn’t read my original comment and 2) you are trolling me.

            FAIL.

          • sagecreek

            How is it not hypocritical of you to focus on an issue that Jesus never addressed and ignore those issues that he talked about all the time?

            Seriously, “dude”, I’m not following you. But I do suspect that you are terrified by being confronted.

          • WXRGina

            “… an issue that Jesus never addressed”? What are you talking about? Jesus is the God of all creation, and He addressed everything. Just because you don’t believe it, does not mean it’s not true.

            http://barbwire.com/2014/04/19/unfinished-jesus-really-say-nothing-homosexuality-sure/

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You misread what sagecreek said. They did not say Jesus never addressed it, they were asking why WE were not addressing it, as if feeding the hungry is ALL we should be focusing on, and not the deliberate efforts of the morally retarded to destroy everything that is moral and just in this country.

          • WXRGina

            Ah! Got it, Matthew. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.
            Never mind, Sagecreek.

          • WXRGina

            Okay, I went back and re-read the thread, so I did understand that Sagecreek was using the old bogus “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality argument.” So I didn’t misunderstand him after all. :-)

          • Doug Bristow

            AMEN!

          • Alias Darker

            calm down and tell us : which sin would YOU like to pick first instead ? :)

      • L1011

        Oh, well they just aren’t trying hard enough, they are lazy, and are probably demon possessed. This is what happens when people vote for Obama, duh. There were no hungry people in America when Reagan was POTUS. You should know that.

      • thisoldspouse

        Hmmm…. how much have Leftists been spending on the marriage debates and referendums? Probably 8 to 1 against marriage supporters.

        How about putting your own money where your mouth is?

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      Interesting story. Have you apprised us of it in the Newstip feature at the top right of the home page?

  • Norm

    Intellectual assertion to the Lordship of Jesus the Christ is only the first step in becoming like Him and being aligned with the living God. I am surprised at how many God haters comment on here but will not, refuse to read deeper things because of fear and academic ignorance. Jesus is in scripture from Genesis to Revelation and as he was questioned so long ago …”What is truth” it was obvious that He was.
    Read, research, open your minds to the beauty of creation if you will and see the Lord everywhere.

  • Oscar

    My reply speaks for itself. I said, and will repeat, that WWJD does not apply in the situations and regarding the epithets that Christ utilized and you used in your defense. I never stated that all Christians, everywhere, in all matters, are prohibited by scripture from using strong language; YOU, above, put that in my mouth. Never said, nor ever thought that.

    I am well aware that Paul addressed both saved and unsaved, ma’am. I have degrees from two Christian colleges. And I was insulted by your, again, inventing out of whole cloth, arguments I never made (and don’t even believe!) such as that we can’t call drunks drunks or gossips gossips. I really wish you had dealth with the substance of my post instead of fighting paper tigers.

    You never ONCE have seen “we must be nice to the gays” BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT. You never ONCE have seen “we must jump through the rhetorical hoops the homosexuals have set out” BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT. And if you think I am intimidated by the gays here, or am arguing that you should be, you need to research the rest of my posts.

    Now, can we get back to my argument? Can you at least TRY to stick to the point?

  • Alias Darker

    the work that has to be done to counter all this evil doing is a very very long work , it wont be done in a year, or two or five, but on the long run . Christians have to lead the example , like they did before . they cant just go in front of a gay person and tell them : you are sining ! after all, its america, theres freedom (supposedly) . You have to be who you want the other to become, just like they are doing right now. they are showing an example to our youth, how to be feminine, how to be swag , how to look like Macklelemore , and every other feminine guy out there. christians should not be mad, they should think, and find better ways to influence the youth towards a better future. the more you stop a teenager, the more he will go in the forbidden direction . it has to be shown to them how wrong the path they are taking is , thats all , in the same subliminal way the gay left agenda is operationg

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!