RainbowFace

Rainbow-Hued Is the New Black

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

I was recently asked this question: “Do you believe that disapproval of interracial relationships is indicative of hatred or bigotry? Interracial relationships like homosexual relationships are freely chosen.”

What my interlocutor was really asking is, “Isn’t disapproval of homosexual relationships analogous to disapproval of interracial relationships,” to which I would offer a hearty “Are you kidding?”

Disapproval of interracial relationships makes as much sense intellectually and morally as disapproval of relationships between people who have different eye colors. Race is a non-behavioral condition. It is as meaningless in terms of morality as eye color. It would make no more moral sense to disapprove of interracial relationships than it would to disapprove of relationships between brown-eyed people and blue-eyed people.

Yes, interracial relationships are as freely chosen as same-sex relationships, but it is not the act of choosing that determines the moral status of a relationship. It is the nature of the choice being made that determines its morality or the irrelevance of moral considerations. My frequent reference to volition in discussions of homoeroticism is not to argue that the presence of volition renders an act immoral. Rather, it’s to say that conditions that have no behavioral implications whatsoever—like race or eye color—are, unlike homoerotic activity, devoid of moral implications. It is not the mere fact that someone chooses to engage in sexual activity that renders their sexual activity licit or illicit. Rather, it is the nature of the sexual activity they choose that determines its moral status.

Were laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying equivalent to laws that prohibit two people of the same sex from “marrying”?

As I have written earlier, anti-miscegenation laws were based on a deeply flawed understanding of both race and human nature. They were based on a false belief that different races possessed fundamentally different natures. As Dennis Prager explains:

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is (sic) moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is (sic) not. . . . a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man. The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another.

Laws banning interracial marriages were based on the erroneous belief that whites and blacks are by nature different (and the false and pernicious idea that whites are inherently superior), when, in fact, whites and blacks are not by nature different. Laws that recognize only sexually complementary unions as marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different—a truth that even homosexuals acknowledge.

Whereas a correct definition of marriage emerges from and depends on a proper understanding of the natures of and real differences between men and women, anti-miscegenation laws emerged from and depended upon erroneous understandings of the natures of different races. Marriage is the primary cultural institution that recognizes and is centrally concerned with the ontological differences between men and women, differences that result in children whose rights and proper development are best served by being raised by their biological parents.

Thomas Sowell explains that “The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior.”

A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do.

The reason homosexual activists and their ideological allies continue to compare homoeroticism to race is not because homoeroticism and race are identical or even substantively similar in nature. Homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings and freely chosen behaviors. Whatever contributive role biochemistry may one day be found to play in the development of same-sex attraction is wholly unlike the contributive role biochemistry plays in determining, for example, skin color.

Further, the role of biochemistry tells us precisely nothing about the moral status of freely chosen behaviors. Just as angry outbursts are not justified by the presence of biochemical factors that may contribute to aggressive feelings, neither are homosexual acts rendered inherently moral because biochemical factors may contribute to the development of same-sex attraction.

The reason “progressives” continue to compare homoerotic attraction to race is that such a comparison is strategically effective. They want to imply—without providing evidence—that the two conditions are alike in order to suggest that disapproval of homoerotic relationships is identical or similar to disapproval of interracial relationships. The Left is desperately trying to analogize homosexual relationships to interracial relationships in order to render homosexuality as morally neutral as race.

But since race is an absurd, non-rational analogue for homosexuality, interracial relationships are equally absurd, non-rational analogues for homosexual relationships. Disapproval of interracial relationships is wholly different from and unrelated to disapproval of homoerotic relationships in which morally dubious sexual activity is central.

Is Christian opposition to same-sex “marriage” equivalent to Christian opposition to interracial marriage?

Many “progressives” argue fallaciously that since Christians used Scripture to defend opposition to interracial marriage and were wrong, then Christians who use Scripture to defend opposition to same-sex “marriage” must be equally wrong. By that fallacious reasoning, opposition to plural and incestuous unions must be wrong too for Christians use Scripture to defend their opposition to the legalization of those forms of marriage.

When Christians used Scripture to oppose interracial marriage, they were twisting Scripture rather than adhering to scriptural truth. When Christians use Scripture to support same-sex “marriage,” they are twisting Scripture rather than adhering to scriptural truth. God has made abundantly clear how he views homoerotic activity. It is only the most convoluted and strained exegesis within the last 50 years that has led those, often with a vested personal interest, to arrive at the conclusion that homoerotic activity and relationships please God.

“Progressives” seem to believe that the fact that some Christians were wrong on one issue (i.e., race) is proof positive that they’re wrong on another (i.e., homoerotic activity). And/or they believe that the only point of correspondence between homoeroticism and African-American descent is the fact that some Christians disapproved of both, which, of course, says nothing about either condition per se.

The grievous failure of Christians to follow the clear teachings of Scripture on one issue (i.e., race) does not justify their abandonment of Scripture on other issues, in this case sexuality and marriage. The current twisting of Scripture on sexuality and marriage by the heterodox and by those who don’t even claim to be Christians but seek to use Scripture for their own selfish ends represents the same kind of destructive exploitation of Scripture that racists engaged in to promote their self-generated beliefs. Condemnation of racism and all its institutional manifestations grows out of a right understanding of Scripture. And so too do condemnation of volitional homoerotic activity and opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” grow out of a right understanding of Scripture.

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

  • fredk

    “…believe that the fact that some Christians were wrong on one issue (i.e., race) is proof positive that they’re wrong on another (i.e., homoerotic activity).”

    Nope. Christians were also wrong on civil rights, segregation, women voting, slavery, access to contraception, marrying 12-year-olds, killing heretics, and a few other things.

    It doesn’t mean that sexual orientation is the same as race. It means that your objections have no credibility. We know that eventually you will die and the next generation of Christians will be OK with it. Because that’s what has happened before.

    • Laurie Higgins

      So, if being a Christian automatically renders one’s moral views non-credible and discreditable, then were the views of William Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, Martin Niemoller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie Ten Boom, and Martin Luther King Jr. non-credible and discreditable?
      And I wonder, do the ghastly moral errors of atheists throughout history render all of their moral views automatically non-credible and discreditable?
      It is a fallacious argument to suggest that errors on some issues renders the beliefs of Christians on all issues flawed. The errors of some Christians (not all) on, for example, segregation, does not mean their views on all issues are wrong. Some Christians were right on segregation, and those that were wrong were wrong not because of Scripture but because of their fallenness, which resulted in the corruption and exploitation of Scripture.

      • Clive Johnson

        There’s another explanation though, one that seems to fit the evidence much better. Scripture itself is indeed the problem.

        The fact is that the Bible doesn’t provide the moral guidance on many things that some Christians wish that it did. The Bible is very ambiguous on abortion for example. Abortion didn’t trouble many Southern Baptists several decades ago, at least according to Andrew Balmar in a recent Politico article. The Bible could have been precise and unambiguous about this topic, but it is not.

        Regarding racism, the Bible equally lends credence to both anti-racist and racist interpretations. It is hopelessly unclear on this issue. In the absence of clarity, instead we see psychological projection—believers taking their pre-formed biases and looking for confirmation in the text.

        How could this not be the case with same sex marriage? An allegedly supernaturally inspired document, it could have been crystal clear on this issue, but it is not. Once again as we’ve seen repeatedly historically, it’s not the Bible telling believers that same sex marriage is wrong, its believers drawing from the deep well of hatreds, ignorance and prejudice in our society with regard to LGBTQ people, and then looking for confirmation from the Rorschach test Bible. They see what they want, and what WE see is prejudice looking for a higher authority to justify itself.

        • Laurie Higgins

          Clive,

          You’re correct that Scripture isn’t a comprehensive list of do’s and don’t’s. For example, it says nothing about pedophilia.

          Randall Balmer (not Andrew Balmar) is a liberal Dartmouth professor, which may suggest, shall we say, a non-neutral theological position. More important, his claim that Southern Baptists have changed their view on abortion tells us nothing about either their original or current position. The Bible didn’t speak explicitly about abortion, but it did speak about the inherent value of even preborn life. So it took a few decades of Christian thought to develop on this issue. Prior to Roe v. Wade, legal slaughter of incipient life just wasn’t on the minds of most Americans.. It takes time, study, and deep thought to develop proper moral positions on new cultural issues.

          That said, same-sex “marriage” is a horse of a different color, because Scripture is abundantly clear on homosexual activity, sexuality, and “gender.” Even many homosexual theologians agree on that point. In both Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is condemned unequivocally. It is condemned in the same passages that condemn bestiality and incest, so those who believe that proscriptions of homosexuality no longer apply must believe that proscriptions of bestiality and incest no longer apply. (Of course, none of this discussion is relevant to those who are scientific materialists/atheists.)

          And Jesus both reaffirmed the creation order in Genesis and explicitly taught what marriage is.

          The Bible is less ambiguous on racial issues than the Left and racists would have us believe. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon discusses, for example, the proper exegesis of passages that address slavery, which have been either misunderstood or abused to justify both slavery and affirmation of homosexuality.

          You and I would agree that fallen humans often misunderstand or deliberately twist Scripture to serve their own biases or desires, but why would you assume that only those who oppose the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” are guilty of this? When Scripture is so abundantly clear on marriage and sexuality, don’t you think that perhaps those who have a personal vested interest in homoerotic activity may be twisting Scripture to confirm their biases?

          • Clive Johnson

            Hello Laurie,

            While I certainly understand that moral understanding evolves, this poses two problems for arguments from religious authority. First, it suggests that the religious scripture is not enough on its own to establish certain moral understanding. If it were, it would already have done so. And it could already have done so because it’s not necessarily difficult to be very precise about various moral positions. The Bible could have, for instance, laid out in precise detail the meaning of abortion and why it should be prohibited. That it doesn’t do this also raises a question about its moral authority, because it calls into serious question the claim that supernatural influence—the moral guarantor of this moral authority—was at work at all in the creation of the Bible.

            Second, that moral understanding of abortion as a sin didn’t occur until well into the 20th century for a great many Christians (why wasn’t it already clear in 50 CE?), suggests that it is not the text of the Bible that is compelling changes in moral understanding, it is forces outside the Bible—cultural politics comes to mind. Misunderstanding can’t be ruled out either. An aside, how is abortion a “new cultural issue[s]”?

            You write, “It is condemned in the same passages that condemn bestiality and incest, so those who believe that proscriptions of homosexuality no longer apply must believe that proscriptions of bestiality and incest no longer apply.”

            That doesn’t exactly follow. It doesn’t follow because it presupposes that all three—homosexuality, bestiality and incest—have the same moral status. It’s like saying, if we find three prohibitions in the same holy text, prohibitions against wearing red shirts, playing a musical instrument and murder, then we have to treat them all the same. We can and must make moral distinctions between things, even in allegedly divinely inspired texts, don’t we?

            I’m not familiar with the work of Dr. Robert Gagnon, but I wonder as to the relevance of his exegesis. Take Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” This comes about as clear to an endorse of slavery as you’ll get without saying “Slaver is holy and god condones it.” When you have a number of passages like Ephesians 6:5 is suggests that the Bible…just got it blatantly, offensively, inarguably wrong, and no amount of reinterpretation will put a tux on that toad.

            I don’t assume that only opponents of same sex marriage might be guilty of reinterpreting the Bible to suit their own preconceptions.

            What I do assume is that the Bible can only be interpreted with our current understanding if we are to be rational. Writers of the Bible knew nothing of current science. We know now that the story of Genesis is a myth. There was no flood, there was no Noah’s Ark. Given this and many other refutations on the basis of current understanding, given that the Bible has made an enormous moral blunder with the issue of slavery, why should we treat with any moral seriousness the Bible’s prescriptions on much of anything. Isn’t the Bible functionally, today, given everything we know, a self-mystifying attempt to shore up with a supposed higher authority our own personal biases and preconceptions?

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

            Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

          • garybryson

            More spam

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            I feel sad for you, Clive. You are adamant in your rejection of Scripture (which doesn’t change) and in your determination to follow what you want to follow – regardless of the evidence pointing out your folly.

          • pleasebereasonable

            You are the one to feel sad for, you’ve fallen for this BS hook line and sinker.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            And – yet once again – your inability to answer in a logical and rational way (or any other way) speaks volumes to your ignorance. Instead you throw tantrums and insults, as if that matters a whit.
            As I stated earlier, it’s very sad indeed. The saddest part is that you are so self-deceived you actually think you’re clever, without realizing how blind, deaf and lost you are.
            I’ll be sure to put you on the prayer list. :)

          • pleasebereasonable

            As I stated earlier, it’s very sad indeed. With only circular reasoning (the bible is proof of god because it says so in the bible) you cling to fables and claim they are true….and you think you are clever, without realizing how blind, deaf and gullible you are. I’ll be sure to put you on my thinking list :)

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            You apparently weren’t paying attention to my post (unfortunately not a surprise, as you have a definite pattern regarding that problem). You just try to think up clever stuff in retort to the things you can’t answer. And even then, what? You can’t answer the questions I pose, and you can’t even respond with original thought (you have to use my words).
            However, I do thank you for thinking of me, for whatever good that might do. I appreciate the effort. :)

          • pleasebereasonable

            You didn’t ask a question, just stated how sad it was that someone reject the bible. That isn’t particularly clever to begin with.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            I did actually ask questions, just not specifically to you. They were asked of Persephone 66.
            However, I need to do something;
            It was suggested that I have come across as rude or condescending at times, and I apologize. That is not appropriate behavior – especially coming from someone who follows Christ. I have to admit I get irritated when people don’t answer legitimate questions or try to obfuscate. Most just get angry and start name-calling, cursing, blah, blah, blah. Meh, it’s no big deal as I realize most of them don’t even KNOW why they believe what they believe – they just don’t like what they’re hearing (Christians do that too, tragically enough). But I suppose the irritation I feel is greater when it’s done by someone who seems pretty articulate and/or intelligent (like you). But that is not your problem, it is mine. In any event, I apologize if I came across in a belittling way.

          • Clive Johnson

            I’m willing to entertain contrary evidence at all times.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Good summation. :)

          • Laurie Higgins

            Thanks very much, Thessalonianguy! Friends are few and far between in the comments on this website. “Progressives” are nothing if not dogged.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            LOL – ‘progressives’ have been called many things, but it’s been a while since I heard them referred to as dogged. ;)
            Even so, God still loves them. :D

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          You someday.

          • Clive Johnson

            I do better with complete sentences sometimes. Verbs are nice.

          • garybryson

            ROTFLMAO!!! Spam

          • Clive Johnson

            Ray, hell is a fairy tale designed to scare children and credulous adults.

          • Clive Johnson

            I can’t get over the twisted psychology of this.

            The story goes that Jesus loves you so, so much. He loves you more than you could possibly know. In fact, he gave his life for you.

            “But wait…what’s that?” asks Jesus. “You don’t blindly worship me? You dare doubt that I’m the bestest person in the world? You don’t put me, invisible, seemingly nonexistent me, way over your family in terms of your priorities? Do get I that right?”

            “Ok, enough of my “love,” it’s time for unending torture and death an endless number of times for eternity. You got one chance you SOB and you blew it. How do you like these electrodes attached to your sensitive parts? How do you like those apples? Now, do you regret not loving me?” says Jesus

            If person were actually like that he’d be confined to a mental hospital or prison.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            You state things like this because you have abandoned reason, logic and faith. That is why you are confused. You misunderstand the very simple because it doesn’t ‘fit in’ with your desire to live apart from God. Well, that choice is given to you because you are a human being, with free moral agency. You have the right to be as foolish as you want, and God will honor that.

          • Clive Johnson

            You can define and describe me and my motivations any way you wish. But true understanding comes from a different source.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            You’re absolutely correct! That source is the very God you have chosen to discard.

            I sincerely appreciate your honesty, but the ‘arguments’ you put forth are rather circular in logic. Too bad we couldn’t meet for a conversation over a sandwich and some coffee! You seem like a nice guy. :)

          • Clive Johnson

            I share the sentiment, good sir. We could probably have a very long and friendly chat.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            :)

        • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

          Never said you people had any brains. Just because you can’t understand the Bible doesn’t mean other don’t. You read what you want ….cherry pick if you will. Queers are good at it.

          • Clive Johnson

            I’ve actually been in a heterosexual marriage for about 20 years. I don’t identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender. But I sorta like the word queer. Please use that.

          • MarcoZandrini

            The thing is some of us really comprehend the bible. That’s why we support marriage equality!

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            In what way?

          • pleasebereasonable

            LOL, Christians can’t even agree on what bible means. How would you expect anyone else to?

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Careful Clive – your confusion is showing. :)

      • Boo

        No silly, it just means that appeal to religion is not itself enough to resolve the issue.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

          • Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

          • 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

          • 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

          • garybryson

            More spam

          • Roadrash548

            Thanks for the stats, Ray. Now, how about the veryfyable source of these statistics? Or did you just pull these numbers out of your back-pocket?

          • MDB

            I think it’s from a place a little deeper than his back-pocket.

          • Ron Swaren

            Active male homosexuals are banned from donating blood, too. The simplest, easiest thing that a person could do to help save a life…and they can’t even qualify for that.

          • Roadrash548

            The ban on gay men donating blood has been lifted due to more comprehensive medical screening techniques.
            Additionally, these techiniques have been employed for some years now. However, Christian politicians (read rethuglicans) have, up until recently, be highly successful in delaying the lifting of the ban(s). Jeebus! Keep up Ron.

          • Ron Swaren

            You’re thinking about Mexico. Why don’t you go there? I just gave blood on June 1, and yes, they do have the same battery of questions. You can stop waving your little arms in indignity now. Further, I doubt that your rash is from the road; more likely it’s on your landing strip.

        • Laurie Higgins

          I agree, Boo, which is why most of my arguments against the legal recognition of same-sex unions are secular in nature. I challenge the specious secular presuppositions using secular counter-arguments.
          But if someone else presents theological challenges, I respond to them as well.
          How am I “silly”?

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “I agree, Boo, which is why most of my arguments against the legal recognition of same-sex unions are secular in nature.”

            —And what would those be?

          • Laurie Higgins

            Way too long and time-consuming for a blog response to one person who I suspect has no real interest in my thoughts.
            If you are genuinely interested, I have written extensively on the topics of marriage and homosexuality on the Illinois Family Institute website.

          • Boo

            So, nothing, other words.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            From what I have read, there is nothing at all about your anti-gay positions that are secular in any way. Or are you trying to pass off ‘complementarianism’ as secular?

          • Ron Swaren

            Hindus, Buddhists, atheist Chinese, heck, even South Sea islanders would agree. So it is not per se a “Christian” view, only. Get a grip!

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            In the United States, it is almost exclusively a problem in the religious-right, as per the standards of conservative social-wedge-issue distraction.

          • Ron Swaren

            “It’s almost exclusively a problem in the religious right.” Really? You mean like the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson types? So how did the Catholics get involved in it, and then the Mormons and absolutely the Muslims? Plus there have been a lot of splits in mainline and liturgical denominations over this issue too. And then there’ the redneck non church-goers, like in Wyoming or Montana or Nevada, etc. You fail.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            Right-wing Protestants and Catholic politicians, pundits and patriarchs (this includes Mormons) long ago united to push social wedge issues to advance conservative interests across the board. Dinesh D’Souza would like Muslims to come on board too, but he’s a minority. But regardless, the VAST majority of those involved in these movements are right-wing religiously affiliated… so no, I don’t ‘fail’.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            What was the basis for the formation of these laws in the first place?

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            Anti-sodomy laws were religious in their presumption of what constituted ‘lewdness’ and whatnot… which has ALWAYS placed them at odds with the constitution.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            I don’t think I understand your point, so let me paraphrase;
            “Anti-sodomy laws are religious presumptions of what is considered right and wrong, making them unconstitutional.”
            Is that what you’re claiming?

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            Rather than “right and wrong” in general, sodomy laws dealt in matters of lewdness/lasciviousness… matters of sinful personal conduct rather than ethical conduct towards others.

          • Boo

            Because you said this “So, if being a Christian automatically renders one’s moral views non-credible and discreditable…”
            That is what is known as a “straw man” and is a well known logical fallacy. You shot down an argument your opponent did not actually make. Your secular arguments are, of course, equally silly.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

          Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

          • Boo

            Thank you for making my point Ray.

          • garybryson

            spam

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk
            about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk
            about Fight Club! Third rule of Fight Club: someone yells “stop!”, goes
            limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a
            fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: No shirts,
            no shoes. Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to. And
            the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you
            have to fight.

          • MDB

            Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
            A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
            Then one day he was shootin at some food,
            And up through the ground came a bubblin crude.

            Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.

            Well the first thing you know ol Jed’s a millionaire,
            Kinfolk said “Jed move away from there”
            Said “Californy is the place you ought to be”
            So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.

            Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars.

            Well now its time to say good by to Jed and all his kin. And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
            You’re all invited back a gain to this locality
            To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality

            Hillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

            Y’all come back now, y’hear ?!

          • MDB

            Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
            A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
            Then one day he was shootin at some food,
            And up through the ground came a bubblin crude.

            Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.

            Well the first thing you know ol Jed’s a millionaire,
            Kinfolk said “Jed move away from there”
            Said “Californy is the place you ought to be”
            So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.

            Hills, that is. Swimmin pools… movie stars….
            Well now its time to say good by to Jed and all his kin.
            And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
            You’re all invited back a gain to this locality
            To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality

            Hillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

            Y’all come back now, ya ‘hear !!!

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        “So, if being a Christian automatically renders one’s moral views non-credible and discreditable…”

        —That was not his claim. Note too that segregationist Christians had plenty of scripture on hand to justify their racism, just as antisemitic Christians had plenty to justify their atrocities against Jews. You cannot no-true-scotsman your way out of this one, dear.

        • Laurie Higgins

          Actually, it was his claim. He said Christians have been wrong on many issues, so and I quote, “It means that your objections have no credibility.”

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            He did not claim that ALL christians have been wrong on those points. He did however note that (many) of you have been wrong on quite a number of issues pertaining to equal rights, and on similar grounds… so eventually, this issue will probably work itself out in favor of LGBT equality.

          • fredk

            *your* as in Laurie Higgins. You don’t speak for all Christianity.

      • Roadrash548

        Oh puh-leeze Laurie, @fredk did not say, “Being a Christian automatically renders one’s moral views non-credible and discreditable. But you do actually prove his point in your reply. He just stated, factually, that Christians have been wrong on so many levels and issues, and have the propensity (to the detremental of Christian intellectual honesty) to make totally discreditable claims. Which usually consist of such vitriol and hate of the LGBT community that it galvanized the pro SSM opposition, rightly, to defend the targes of Christian hate. And sorry no, as a Christian you do not love the LGBT community as you’re commanded. One cannot say the vile things that Christians say about them and claim it’s a warning to them, all out of love.
        And indeed, all of the persons of history you named were Christians but their issues were not about marriage equality, and btw, you should read Coretta Scott King’s detailing of how positive her husband Martin would have felt about LGBT civil rights. “Justice delayed is justice denied” when it comes to civil rights whatever the goal may be.
        Marriage equaility is about “civil” marriage. No LGBT organization is lobbying or fighting for the right to marry in churches. There is no right to that, even for heterosexuals. However, the SCOTUS has ruled time and again (not just in Loving v. Virgina) that marraige is a fundamental right and though same-sex marriage equality is in no way the same as the African-American’s struggle for civil rights, it is still a struggle for [a] “civil right.” The right to marry whom you love in line with the 14th Amendment of Constitution, the right of “due process” and “equal protection”.
        And how about those Christian views that are discreditable? How about those “ghastly moral errors of Atheists throughout history” you speak of? Where you conveniently prove @fredk’s point? I couldn’t believe you would actually be ignorant enough of history to bring up that tired old chestnut…that verifyably mendacious talking point about how Atheism is responsible for the holocaust, AND the totalitarian, murderous, communistic regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot simply because the state was Atheist. I was actually surprised you didn’t push Scott Lively’s book claiming that the nazis were all gay and were reeeeally responsible for the holocaust. To crazy even for you huh?
        As you may know, Hitler was a lapsed Roman Catholic and used “God” in his speeches and writings, most often to claim he was doing the “work of God” by ridding Europe of the Jews. And btw, Nazi Germany was 65% Roman Catholic and 32% Lutheran. Hardly an Atheist country. The RCC is still living down their collaboration with the nazis in some of the occupied countries.

        And in those horrific, Stalinest govts., God was replaced by the state. Just look to North Korea, they still worship the “Great Leader Kim Il Sung like a god, who died years ago but is still the head of the party! As Chris Hitchens, who’s been there, said, “It’s a necrocracy!”
        Oh, one more thing. No civilization, in all of history, has ever “fallen” due directly or indirectly to the toleration or acceptance of homosexuality. This is just another ubiquitous (and discreditable) lie of the religious right. Just in case you tried to reply with it.
        I could go on and on about Christian ignorance and lies like science denials, that homosexuality is a choice and not inate, that gays are more likely to molest children, or readily spread more STDs such as HIV, that they can’t reproduce so they recruit, etc., etc..
        Need I go on?

        • Ron Swaren

          You sure have filled up a lot of space with your nonsense. Human society has made progress in deigning what a wholesome family relationship is, or are. There is a ‘dance’ of a lot of factors as society moves along.. Conception is a ‘normal’ factor of family structure, but not an ‘essential” one. Since two men, or two women, can’t conceive this leaves their relation ship somewhere outside the ‘normal’ parameters. It’s like apples and oranges—-and the judges who are S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G the normative parameters of family, under SECULAR LAW, are a bunch of fruitcakes!

          • Roadrash548

            Ron, you are so wrong on so many levels. You don’t even speak of the law, only about what is established as “normal parameters” with no authoritative reference (to or of the law) on what establishes parameters, though in the “normal” sense not withstanding.
            In law, there really is no such thing as “normal parameters”. What you deem as “normal” 50 people might have a different idea. What progress human society has made typically engenders change, and change of the law typically comes by interpretation of law under the US Constitution. The law must serve everyone. Not just one faction, who may be in the majority and seeks to impose their particular “normal parameters” on everyone else. Which, because of this country’s diversity, are usually based on values and principles not shared by a substantial number of other citizens.
            On this issue however, your agument that because same-sex couples cannot concieve (and your wrong about that too as I’ll explain directly) “this leaves their relation ship(sic) somewhere outside the”normal parameters.”
            Hogwash and nonsense. By your reasoning, hetero couples who medically cannot concieve, or an elderly couple wanting to consolidate their resources late in life and who have grown kids and won’t be conceiving, or those young hetero couples who simply don’t want to have kids, should NOT be allowed to marry either as they are “outside YOUR normal parameters” because they won’t or can’t conceive.
            Under the 14th Amendment’s “due process” and “equal protection” clauses, you cannot tell one group (same-sex couples) that they cannot marry because they can’t conceive and tell other groups that they can marry even though they can’t or won’t have kids. I’m not at all sorry to tell you that the Constitution just doesn’t work that way.
            In fact, the 14th Amendment (in conjunction with the striking down of section 3 of DOMA, the Defense of Marraiage Act) is being cited as the main reason all those state same-sex marriage bans are falling like dominoes, and guess what? The states are actually, stupidy, using briefs that cite exactly what you were claiming, and the courts are not listening.
            In California alone some 40,000 children (source: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger) are being raised by same-sex couples. These children are the result of former hetero marraiges, or adopted (often with special needs), or IVF and sperm donations. So, some are actually conceiving.

            Now before I go, I’d like you to answer a simple question: Would those children being raise by same-sex couples not benefit if their same-sex parents had a state-recognized marriage with all the federal and state benefits that go with being married?
            I won’t hold my breath for your answer.
            Yeah, I filled up a lot more space. So what?

          • Ron Swaren

            “These children are the result of former hetero marraiges, or adopted
            (often with special needs), or IVF and sperm donations. So, some are
            actually conceiving.”

            Why should government recognize a three person marriage? that’s the SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL reality here.
            Roadrash=blankstare
            And no you can’t twist the 14th amendment to shoehorn it into something that is contradictory to begin with. I was not in any of those courtrooms and neither were you so we have no idea of how any of the arguments were PRESENTED.

          • Roadrash548

            Again, WTF? Who said anything about govt. recognizing a “three person marriage?
            Your right, blank stare. But only because I don’t think even you know what your trying to say here.
            And I’m not twisting the 14th Amendment. Read it for yourself. Read the news that every recent Federal Court decision striking down state same-sex marriage bans has cited not only the repeal of the federal DOMA (which if you didn’t know, and you probably don’t, allows the Federal govt. for federal puposes, to now recognize same-sex marriages in those states that have marriage equality), but also that the bans violate same-sex couples 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” and “Equal Protection” clauses.
            Look, you’ve already shown you don’t keep up on current events. Indeed, I don’t think you capable of understanding them.
            So why don’t you find somebody else to troll, hmm?

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          That doesn’t make sense.
          Are Christians wrong about murder, incest, stealing and perjury as well?

          • Roadrash548

            1) Uuh, what specifically doesn’t make sense?
            2) When Christians equate all those pejorative crimes with being a member of the LGBT community, Absolutely!!

          • Ron Swaren

            No, silly man. You said:

            “2) When Christians equate all those pejorative crimes with being a member of the LGBT community, Absolutely!!”

            This is yet another example of how people like you will play fast and loose with a discussion.
            No, it is not because you are a member of a subset of our society (i.e. People who engage in mutual masturbation). It is rather when you try to lift that categorical behavior to be equivalent to a well defined and historic responsibility and privilege and seek to burden The People with your mental handicap.

      • fredk

        And you are missing the point.

        If some Christians say “X”, and other Christians say “not X”, then obviously ‘Christianity’ can’t claim any moral force. I will merely support those Christians that hold moral views I agree with (like MLK), and disagree with those (like you) who hold views that are immoral.

        “Some Christians were right on segregation, and those that were wrong were wrong not because of Scripture but because of their fallenness, which resulted in the corruption and exploitation of Scripture.”

        20-20 Christian hindsight. Christians who supported segregation *at the time* were as convinced of their correctness as you are of your views on gays now. Evidence suggests that *you* are fallen, and are responsible for corrupting Scripture.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Thank you, fredk, for putting it so clearly.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          What was the basis for the establishment of laws in the founding of the several states?

          • fredk

            I live in a state that had protection for slave-holders written in to the state constitution. What’s your point?

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Was that provision in the founding articles, or a later addition? Please post your citation as I’m interested in reviewing your response/investigation.

            Thanks!

          • fredk

            Later, of course – added at secession to make a point. (NC). Just like a prohibition against gay marriage was recently added even though there’s already an existing law against it.

            But slavery was perfectly legal at that point already.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            My point is that I don’t believe any of the original constitutions of any state included chattel slavery and neither did the federal Constitution. That is because the people who formed and framed the governments of this country were either Christians, or subscribed to the wisdom of holy Writ. Their adherence to Scriptural integrity and influence prevented that kind of abuse – if nothing else due to group consensus.
            Greedy and unscrupulous men altered the original intent to protect their power in NC, as elsewhere. But then we know the nature of men, don’t we? The fact that something is legal does not make it right (um, correct!). :)

          • fredk

            Some of the founders *owned* slaves.

            Slavery was the elephant in the room during the building of the Constitution. It was recognized that it would prevent agreement, so it wasn’t addressed formally at the time.

            And the fact remains that much of the South felt that the Bible supported slavery.

            This is part of history, and it needs to be faced. Because it keeps happening – it happened again with civil rights and interracial marriage. And it’s happening now with gay marriage. There are Christians on both sides, but only one side will prevail. Are you sure you’re backing the right side?

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            You are correct about many points, but you are missing the bigger picture.
            1. Slave ‘owners’ at the time were few and far between (but that doesn’t make it right). The bigger sin was the fact that both northern and southern whites held a superior attitude when it came to people of color. That attitude is still in effect today in both the north and the south, but hopefully not as much. The difference is that those people who persisted in following the Word rejected chattel slavery consistently, paving the way for both the war between the states and the civil rights movement.
            2. Being black, white or any other form of skin pigmentation is not listed as a sin in the Word of God.
            3. I follow the Word of God, regardless of whose ‘side’ you think it falls under. I follow it regardless of what

      • Clint Batterton

        It’s always fun to see Laurie compare herself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Of course, the Nazis shared Laurie’s hatred of gay men, and threw them into the camps, where they died by the thousands. Also, Coretta Scott King said that Martin would support LGBT civil rights, because no one is free until everyone is free. If you think that hateful, homophobic bigotry is “Christian,” good for you. Thankfully, we live in a secular state where your allegedly “religious” views are not just odious, but legally irrelevant.

      • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

        Good reply. :)

    • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

      I doubt that. We will teach the next generation the truth. They in turn will watch you die from a disease that you chased after. Get used to it. Oh, one more thing….the rainbow is a promise from God, NOT some symbol of perverted pride and behavior.

      • ErickMN

        More whining and moaning about gay people? Thanks for advertising your misery again!

      • Clive Johnson

        You said you’d teach them the truth the last generation, and now a majority of evangelical youth support same sex marriage. Whatever you’re doing, keep it up sir!

      • Rickster Rickster

        this would be the mass murder psychotic god who knows all things and yet is endlessly surprised when what he has known SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINING OF TIME happens? he’s such a loser he couldn’t even keep his angles in line! they revolted!.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          WOW, that was clever.

          • Rickster Rickster

            biblically correct too!

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            My, my – we have a lot of work to do….
            :(

      • fredk

        Good luck with that. The next generation is far more accepting of gays than you are. And the more you try to “teach” them the worse you look.

        And the rainbow is a physical phenomenon and we know exactly what causes it. It doesn’t promise anything.

    • Paul Hue

      Christianity is the basis of the Abolition and Civil Rights movements. Christians were divided on these topics, but Christian ideology won out. People claiming to be christians who supported slavery and Jim Crow were unable to successfully utilize Christian doctrine to support their positions. These movements both arose within Christian churches.

      • fredk

        You really need to investigate your own history.

        Christians in the South believed the Bible supported slavery. They felt abolitionists were ignoring clear directions from God, much like people on this site criticize pro-gay Christians. The Southern Baptist Convention *was formed* as a proslavery group.

        It is incorrect to say “Christian ideology won out”. The Civil War was two groups of Christians arguing over interpretation, and killing 600,000 Christians in the process.

        You can’t take credit for winning when you play both sides.

        • Paul Hue

          Slavery did not arise in Christian churches, but Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement did. Those are the facts.

          On the other hand, marriage didn’t arise in the Christian church, either. People all over the world realized early on the plain biological facts, and codified it with marriage. Please consult a printed dictionary from before 2008.

          • fredk

            You are dancing around the fact that Christians supported slavery. Of course slavery predates Christ – but it continued in this country because some of his followers felt that God approved of it and the Bible said so.

            No one is saying that Christians didn’t support abolitionism and civil rights too – that’s the point.

            Right now, Christians both support *and* are against gay marriage. Only one group is “right”. And that group’s views will become accepted Christian ideology in about 40 years.

          • Paul Hue

            I am dancing around nothing. Some Christians have supported everything, including now some supposed christians support debasing marriage to include couples from the same gender.

            But Christianity has sanctified marriage because it arises from the only physical union that can produce human life. And Christians, employing and citing their Christian doctrine, invented the concepts of Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement.

          • fredk

            Yep. And 40 years from now Christians will claim they invented the gay rights movement. Because current trends suggest that your views will not survive.

          • Paul Hue

            The movement to dismantle marriage did not begin in any church.

          • fredk

            History is a slippery thing, and written by the victors.

            But who knows? We now have a quarter of the country (and growing) as non-Christian. Perhaps this will be seen as a secular victory and Christians will be remembered mostly for their opposition.

          • Paul Hue

            Agreed. History changes, but not always for the best. Dismantling the biological basis of marriage will prove to be destructive, as was destigmatizing divorce, pre-marital sex, and illegitimacy.

          • fredk

            Yes, we should return marriage to its traditional form as transfer of property (the woman) between parent and prospective husband. With goats.

            And we don’t nearly do enough to stigmatize children whose parents aren’t married. Someone might think they’re just as good as anyone else.

          • Paul Hue

            There is nothing about the biological basis of marriage, or in any of the dictionary definitions of the past few hundred years, that renders the wife property or that involves dowries. Ridding those practices I agree represents an upward advancement.

            When legitimacy mattered for social status, there were fewer children born into that sad predicament. Now we have fewer children (none, actually) suffering from such stigma, but many millions suffering from the actual, natural, and significant hurdles erected by illegitimacy. Heaven on earth is not possible, just two imperfect alternatives. Stigmatizing illegitimacy and returning us to 95% legitimacy coincides with a much better overall result than does the current scenario of no stigmatization and legitimacy below 50%.

    • Poppo

      True Christians NEVER claim to be infallible. We are a sinful lot, just like the rest of mankind. The difference is that we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, which also grants us forgiveness from God Almighty when we seek it.

      • fredk

        So if someone insists that God is against gay marriage, and insists that there is no doubt about it, they are not True Christians? Expressing doubt is not something evangelicals do well.

      • Roadrash548

        You know, if you understood evolution you’d know that Genesis did not happen, ergo no fall, ergo no need for redemption, ergo no need for Jesus. Simple no?

        • Poppo

          Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
          Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

          • Roadrash548

            Sorry no, I did not say there is no God. Atheists and Anti-theists are skeptics by nature. If there is no evidence that [a] God does not exist, then we can’t say that. However, even though there is plenty of evidence that the God’s of the world’s religions, especially yours, does not exist, with no diffinitive evidence we can only live our lives as though there is no God. And we’re quite happy despite what you might say about that.
            And reciting Bible verses to someone like me is useless. They only give you an empty satisfaction and a sinful pride with a touch of sanctimony to boot. Such hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    • Sam

      What about the fact that black people do better in America than anywhere else on earth? Where can they do better? This happened because of the spirit that lies in the Christian-Judea culture. Christianity can correct the ills of society and the soul. Some things have been corrected and we have moved ahead thousands of years faster because of it. There is a spiritual blessing in following the principles of the Bible. More people just need to realize this.

      • pleasebereasonable

        “This happened because of the spirit that lies in the Christian-Judea culture” No, that would be because of the negative impact of white colonialism and the hard fought battles of the civil rights movement. Anyway, I think your statement is specious anyway. Blacks do just fine in other countries.

  • Dealing-with-idiots

    Why all the [sic] in prager’s comments? Separate bathrooms is a single concept so “is” is the correct conjugation. Anyhow, it is interesting that her argument comes down to the sex act “white male wants to do same thing with a woman that black male wants to do”. Yet there is another article on the site today saying not to reduce ourselves to sexual acts. Which is it?!?!

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

      I think it’s just a bad argument. I’m bisexual, my relationships have been pretty much the same regardless of the gender of the other person.

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.
        • Clive Johnson

          Which god?

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

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

            Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Now, this is a story all about how

            My life got flipped-turned upside down

            And I’d like to take a minute

            Just sit right there

            I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air

            In west Philadelphia born and raised

            On the playground was where I spent most of my days

            Chillin’ out maxin’ relaxin’ all cool

            And all shootin some b-ball outside of the school

            When a couple of guys who were up to no good

            Started making trouble in my neighborhood

            I got in one little fight and my mom got scared

            She said ‘You’re movin’ with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air’

            I begged and pleaded with her day after day

            But she packed my suit case and sent me on my way

            She gave me a kiss and then she gave me my ticket.

            I put my Walkman on and said, ‘I might as well kick it’.

            First class, yo this is bad

            Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass.

            Is this what the people of Bel-Air living like?

            Hmmmmm this might be alright.

            But wait I hear they’re prissy, bourgeois, all that

            Is this the type of place that they just send this cool cat?

            I don’t think so

            I’ll see when I get there

            I hope they’re prepared for the prince of Bel-Air

            Well, the plane landed and when I came out

            There was a dude who looked like a cop standing there with my name out

            I ain’t trying to get arrested yet

            I just got here

            I sprang with the quickness like lightning, disappeared

            I whistled for a cab and when it came near

            The license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror

            If anything I could say that this cab was rare

            But I thought ‘Nah, forget it’ – ‘Yo, homes to Bel Air’

            I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8

            And I yelled to the cabbie ‘Yo homes smell ya later’

            I looked at my kingdom

            I was finally there

            To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Isaiah 5:20
            Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
            that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
            that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

            Isaiah 5:21
            Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

            Galatians 6:7
            Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever
            a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

          • garybryson

            fairy tale cut and paste

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            U don’t have 2 be beautiful

            2 turn me on

            I just need your body baby

            From dusk till dawn

            U don’t need experience

            2 turn me out

            U just leave it all up 2 me

            I’m gonna show u what it’s all about

            U don’t have 2 be rich

            2 be my girl

            U don’t have 2 be cool

            2 rule my world

            Ain’t no particular sign I’m more compatible with

            I just want your extra time and your

            Kiss

            U got to not talk dirty, baby

            If u wanna impress me

            U can’t be 2 flirty, mama

            I know how 2 undress me (Yeah)

            I want 2 be your fantasy

            Maybe u could be mine

            U just leave it all up to me

            We could have a good time

            U don’t have 2 be rich

            2 be my girl

            U don’t have 2 be cool

            2 rule my world

            Ain’t no particular sign I’m more compatible with

            I just want your extra time and your

            Kiss

            Yes

            I think I wanna dance

            Gotta, Gotta

            Little girl Wendy’s parade

            Gotta, gotta, gotta

            Women not girls rule my world

            I said they rule my world

            Act your age, mama (Not your shoe size)

            Not your shoe size

            Maybe we could do the twirl

            U don’t have 2 watch Dynasty

            2 have an attitude

            U just leave it all up 2 me

            My love will be your food

            Yeah

            U don’t have 2 be rich

            2 be my girl

            U don’t have 2 be cool

            2 rule my world

            Ain’t no particular sign I’m more compatible with

            I just want your extra time and your

            Kiss

          • Ron Swaren

            Pers. you are a self serving knothead. There is no reason that “the people” (i.e which is, for the most part, taxpayers) should financially support your decisions in intimate relationships. That is one of the MAJOR issues here, and a strong reason why SSM—plus a host of other “alternatives” that libertines want–is detrimental to our society. However, being self serving knotheads, like you, they don’t care. It’s all about themselves.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Hey nitwit, unlike religious organisations, I pay taxes. I also work hard to support my family just like any other responsible adult. I help others where I can and give back to the local community where I can. Any detriment to society and self serving on my part exists only in your head where intelligence and common sense should be.

          • Ron Swaren

            Oh so you’re pulling out the ‘discrimination’ card? Did I say something about “religion”—just in your imagination. Your plagiarism of other people’s statements stinks, too. Don’t you have any original thoughts on this subject? As far as taxes religious groups pay income tax, although they are usually exempt from property tax. What ‘giving back to the community’ means in this day of anarchy-inspired activism is probably better described as borderline imbecility. Cookie, if gay marriage was so “common sense’ it would have been deemed beneficial aeons ago. No? Your little bubble of ‘intelligence’ is soooo easy to pop.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Yeah just keep making unfounded accusations there, Sparky. I’ll just leave you to continue to argue with the strawman that you built. Please, make it entertaining. Your form it quite like that of a paraplegic poleclimber.

          • Ron Swaren

            Only unfounded in your demented little universe. Your idioms are incomprehensible—a proliferation of Can’t Understand Normal Thinking syndrome.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            I attempted to set you straight once, Sparky, I won’t make that mistake again.

            Have fun arguing with yourself.

          • Steven Schwartz

            “the people” (i.e which is, for the most part, taxpayers) should financially support your decisions in intimate relationships.

            Actually, yes, there is. For example; a legally married couple can make more economical decisions on health care, including on insurance, avoiding the not-uncommon situation where one member of a couple has to go on public-supported health care because they did not have the right to be on the other’s insurance.

            Similarly, it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that stability in relationships is a positive correlate with economic health.

            So, permitting same-sex couples to formally and legally establish that stability, and accept the supports (primarily legal, though some financial) that go with it, is to the *benefit* of society as a whole.

          • pleasebereasonable

            An there is no reason that “the people” who are prohibited the right to marry, or even those who choose not to get married should financially support YOUR decisions in intimate relationships either, but yet we are forced to. Turnabout is fair play no?

          • garybryson

            spammerific

          • David Thompson

            We are talking to each other via light, not sound, so does that make you a witch??

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          The Flying Spaghetti Monster is OK with it. so what’s your point?

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            John 8:44
            Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
            He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
            because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
            of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Welcome to the jungle

            We’ve got fun ‘n’ games

            We got everything you want

            Honey, we know the names

            We are the people that can find

            Whatever you may need

            If you got the money, honey

            We got your disease

            [CHORUS:]

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Watch it bring you to your

            knees, knees

            I wanna watch you bleed

            Welcome to the jungle

            We take it day by day

            If you want it you’re gonna bleed

            But it’s the price you pay

            And you’re a very sexy girl

            That’s very hard to please

            You can taste the bright lights

            But you won’t get them for free

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Feel my, my, my serpentine

            I, I wanna hear you scream

            Welcome to the jungle

            It gets worse here everyday

            Ya learn ta live like an animal

            In the jungle where we play

            If you got a hunger for what you see

            You’ll take it eventually

            You can have anything you want

            But you better not take it from me

            [CHORUS]

            And when you’re high you never

            Ever want to come down, YEAH!

            You know where you are

            You’re in the jungle baby

            You’re gonna die

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Watch it bring you to your

            knees, knees

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Feel my, my, my serpentine

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Watch it bring you to your

            knees, knees

            In the jungle

            Welcome to the jungle

            Watch it bring you to your

            It’ gonna bring you down-HA!

          • garybryson

            spammer

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8). [This is a reduction in the length of life by 44% (33/75 = 44%)

        • The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

        • Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

        • 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

        • 50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

        • About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          hey look kids, Ray posted a bunch of statistics with no source.

          Ray is over 9000% likely to answer me with bible quote, more statistics with out a source, or some biased spew he found on the internet.

          I can play the statistics game too, but I will win because my statistics are more awesome.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            REFERENCES
            (1) Advocate, 1985.
            (2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.
            (3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
            (4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
            (5) “Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987.
            (6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men.” New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
            (7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
            (8) Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA.
            (9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
            (10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
            (11) Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
            (12) Lesbian News, January 1994.
            (13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
            (14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.
            (15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
            (16) MsKusick, L. et. al. “AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco.” Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
            (17) Newsweek, February 1993.
            (18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
            (19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
            (20) Rueda, E. “The Homosexual Network.” Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
            (21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, “Can We Talk.”
            (22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
            (23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
            (24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
            (25) “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
            (26) United States Census Bureau
            (27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
            (28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp.
            (29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

            © 2000- 2003 International Organization of Heterosexual Rights

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            So nothing even remotely recent and questionable at best.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Your First 6 Days in Hell

            Most vacations include an itinerary. You have an idea what you will see and do before you arrive at your destination. The Bible has enough information to project an itinerary for those whose destination is hell. Let’s look at the first 6 days…

            The trip originates at the gate of death. Since departures are made daily, you are called upon to begin your trip on short notice. Since the journey is only one way, there is no need to concern yourself with return plans. Your initial point of departure may prove more than a little frightening as you suddenly realize the finality of your destination. The trip itself will leave you with little time to contemplate what awaits. As you pass through the doorway of death, you will notice almost immediately that your direction is taking you away from the light toward what appears to be complete and utter darkness. With each passing moment the darkness becomes more intense. At first the absence of light is only annoying, but you feel it becoming more ominous and threatening. The intensity of the darkness is matched only by the absence of any joyful sounds —no music, no laughter, no sounds of merriment. As you move farther, faint sounds of moaning and wailing become detectable. They seem to be coming through the darkness from every direction. You become aware of a faint light. It flickers like a flame, yet thick clouds of black smoke dance all around it, keeping the flame from casting off any real hope of light. Suddenly you find yourself obsessed to know what day and hour it is. Already it feels like you’ve been here for an eternity…and it’s only Day 1.

            The continuing darkness is stifling. It’s as if something is lurking in the veil of night that surrounds you. You yell, you threaten, you even plead, but to no avail. Whatever it is just stays there, producing fear like you’ve never known before. As your eyes struggle to adjust to the dark, you become aware of a new sensation. The heat. It’s right at the edge of unbearable. Hot, searing, intolerable heat. You crave water. You’d give anything for a drink, and you try unsuccessfully to push that desire out of your mind. The air is thick, choking, miserable…and it’s just Day 2.

            At least you think it’s day 3. It seems as if it has already been forever. You’ve not been able to sleep. You still can’t believe you’re here. Where are the friends you thought you would see? The knowledge that they would be here too had brought you some comfort in your lifetime. Where is the fun you thought you would have? It isn’t at all like what you were led to believe. You stumble upon a group of others. You pour out a litany of questions. As they open their mouths, no words come out…only the sounds of weeping and wailing. Some in the group don’t even try to respond. They gnash their teeth, as if in some invisible pain. You wonder when this nightmare will end. You wonder why somebody can’t make it stop…and it’s only Day 3.

            How you wish you could send a message to those you left behind. You’d warn them about this place. You’d tell them what it’s really like, so they’d never come. The thought of your loved ones coming to a place like this is unbearable. You can’t help but think back upon that day when you made your decision to come here. You understood that your rejection of Jesus meant that you would spend eternity in hell, but it didn’t seem real or important then. Looking back, you think how foolish you were to reject God’s offer of salvation. You wish you could choose again. You find yourself hoping that your loved ones will choose differently, even though you realize such a choice means you’ll never see them again…never touch them…never speak to them. What a horrible realization…and it’s only Day 4.

            You’ve become acutely aware of the absence of any good in this place. There’s nothing sacred, nothing holy, nothing of God anywhere to be found. You’re amazed at how evil evil can be. For the first time since your arrival, you begin to sense the great gulf that is fixed between where you are and where God is. The span is beyond your comprehension as you try to realize the degree of distance that will separate you from God and those who chose to serve Him. God is on the other side of that gulf. Loved ones in Christ are on the other side of that gulf. What a lonely realization… and it’s only Day 5.

            Through the darkness you saw a new face today. A new arrival. He stopped to speak with you. You could see the terror in his eyes. He asked questions that you had been asking only days before. You opened your mouth to reply, but all that would come out was the sound of weeping and wailing.

            You’ve just spent your first 6 days in hell. Unfortunately, an unholy, unhappy eternity stretches out before you…and all because you rejected Jesus. If only…. But wait! The fact you’re reading this says you still have a chance! In His mercy, God is giving you an opportunity right now to change your eternal itinerary. “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). Oh, friend, do it now…before it’s too late.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Don’t you know

            So many things they come and go?

            Like your words that once rang true

            Just like the love I thought I found in you

            And I remember the thunder

            Talkin’ ’bout the fire in your eyes

            But you walked away when I needed you most

            Now, maybe baby, maybe baby

            I found someone

            To take away the heartache

            To take away the loneliness

            I’ve been feelin’ since you’ve been gone

            Since you’ve been gone

            Dry your eyes

            I never could bear to see you cry

            Someday your love will shine through

            And show you the feelings if you never really knew

            Baby don’t you lose that thunder

            Talkin’ ’bout the fire in your eyes

            You’re lookin’ at me but you still don’t believe

            That maybe baby, maybe baby

            I found someone

            To take away the heartache

            To take away the loneliness

            I’ve been feelin’ since you’ve been gone

            Since you’ve been gone

            Too long on the borderline

            Wonderin’ if your love was really mine

            But you left me with open eyes

            And when I realized

            Baby I found someone

            To take away the heartache

            To take away the loneliness

            I’ve been feelin’ since you’ve been gone

            Baby I found someone

            To take away the heartache

            To take away the loneliness

            I’ve been feelin’ since you’ve been gone

            Since you’ve been gone

          • garybryson

            You’re a laugh a minute rayray!

          • garybryson

            and even more spam

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Thank you for citing. :)

          • Poppo

            No, Ray will win in the end, if only because he is following God’s will.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            Don’t recall seeing anything in the bible about regurgitating statistics.

        • Boo

          When you cite Paul Cameron you’ve just lost the argument, Ray.

        • garybryson

          cut and paste spam

      • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

        You can be set free from your slavery by the blood of Christ. It happens all the time, but first you must have a repentant heart.

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          What slavery?

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Sexual immorality is a manifestation of sin. I once was an advocate and participant as well, through multiple female encounters (not homosexual ones). But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Human nature is corrupt and must be remade, which is the only way out of the slavery of sin.

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

            So you really have nothing more than a ploy for me to join your cult.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

    If you are going to argue scripture and use it to justify your position, I will just remind you that religion is a choice and not all of us made the same choice. You live by the rules of your religion and you don’t impose them on anyone outside of your religion. Doing such ensures religious freedom for everyone.

    I view race the same way I view hair colour or sexual orientation – benign, insignificant details. Things that may set one apart from the crowd, but nothing that makes one a bad person.

    Finally this – “if a man wants to marry a man, he is
    seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who
    wants to marry a woman seeks to do.” I’m bisexual, having been there and done that, I can tell you its all the same.

    • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

      So then according to your twisted thinking, someone who is ‘in love’ with his own mother or father and wants to ‘marry’ them is OK? How about sex with kids? The list is nearly as endless as the perverted minds that originate them.
      What do you base your rationale on, personal opinion?

      • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

        More like your twisting of what you think that I think. If you wanted my opinion on incest or child molestation, you could have just asked. Though now I seriously doubt you posses the maturity to discuss such subjects.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Your posts are self-explanatory.
          Also, you failed to answer the questions. Thanks for the reply to those, and we can go on from there.

      • pleasebereasonable

        Lot slept with his daughters & Abraham married his sister. For the bible tells us so…….

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Lot was drunk and didn’t know what was going on (hence the Biblical admonition to abstain from drunkenness).
          Sarai was not his direct sister, but a half-sister. Abram married Sarai because of religious and cultural considerations. Besides, there was no prohibition against that type of union at that time.

          • David Thompson

            How about when he offered up his daughters to the crowd? Was he drunk then?

          • pleasebereasonable

            Half is still sister. So god was OK with incest @ one time, but after some time for reflection decided that it was wrong. Your all knowing, all powerful almighty doesn’t see so infallible after all. Hm. Wonder what else he may have gotten wrong.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            You’re phunny, in a sad way. It’s really too bad you can’t seem to get it. No worries, I’ll keep you on the prayer list, as you never know what might happen. :)

          • pleasebereasonable

            And your pathetic, in a sad way. 1/2 sister is still a direct sister. So incest is ok when you are doing your aunt? The biological distance between aunt and half sister are the same.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the question “What is YOUR standard, then?”

        • Paul Hue

          According to the biological basis of marriage, incest should be excluded.

      • Azima Khan

        biblical literalism mandates the view that God supports incest. Adam and Eve’s children would have no one but each other to reproduce with. Using incest as an argument against same sex marriage doesn’t do you any favors.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Thank you for the reply and bringing up Adam and Eve, I was hoping someone would. :)
          Adam and Eve were created under perfect conditions. Under those conditions there would have been faultless genetic transfer, etc., nullifying the problems of deterioration and degradation. Unfortunately Adam chose a different path than the one his Father had outlined for him. Since the Fall, Mankind has been corrupted spirit, soul and body necessitating several changes (or stages) in the way God relates to Man. That corruption has tainted everything since then, and it continues to this day. It has altered the way genetic coding is passed on and it has caused numerous physical changes to the planet, rendering it vastly different than they way God made it to be in the beginning.
          God has, for reasons too numerous to go into in this venue, dealt with Man in various ways down through the ages. This seems to be a point you don’t understand, don’t believe or have never heard of. Because the method of interaction changed, so did the ‘rules’ of those interactions. That’s why the rules of following the Old Testament don’t work any longer. Human interaction with God is now done through faith alone. God has established the better way.
          Thanks again for the reply.

          • Azima Khan

            Nope. Incest is incest is incest. God`s laws are unchanging according to you. Either incest was never okay, or incest was always okay or God`s laws change. Pick one.

            Maybe God changed his mind about homosexuality? We are much more sanitary now than we were before, so sex is much safer for everyone who uses proper precautions. Maybe God invented condoms to make anal sex okay. Unless you are God, you do not speak for God.

            Or you’re a supporter of incest, your pick.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            It’s obvious you missed the part where I stated that “God has, for reasons too numerous to go into in this venue, dealt with Man in various ways down through the ages.” So I’ll repeat it for you;

            “God has, for reasons too numerous to go into in this venue, dealt with Man in various ways down through the ages.”

            But here’s something more to the point;

            There’s nothing ‘sanitary’ about sticking your fist up inside someone’s rectum. over and over again, until they bleed – that is sick.

            There’s nothing ‘sanitary’ about placing rodents up someone’s rectum so they can “thrill” when the animal tries to burrow it’s way out – that is sick.

            There is nothing ‘sanitary’ about defecating or urinating on someone’s face so they can achieve climax – that is sick.

            There is nothing ‘sanitary’ about beating someone – or someone beating you – just so you can achieve climax – that is sick.

            There is nothing sanitary about cutting yourself to relieve the anguish you feel inside (because you know something is wrong inside you) – that is sick.

            I have worked in ERs and ICUs for decades, trying to deal with the results of that kind of ‘sanitary’ deviancy. I have seen these things, and much, much, MUCH more. Some moron sugar coats the vulgarities and idiocy of godlessness, and the world is aquiver with excitement. When someone tries to redirect that wayward thinking back toward God they are rejected as ‘old fashioned.’ Concern for others, integrity, compassion, selflessness, marital intimacy, honor. These are just some of the values of God and Christ, yet the world turns away from them for so-called ‘sanitary’ self-gratifying and selfish desires and ambitions. How stupid.

            Your comment is amazing in it’s dazzling display of perversity and degenerate thought. If you are caught in any of that crap you should know that there is salvation waiting for you, paid for with the precious blood of Christ. He has set others free of similar bondage, and He will do so for you. All you need do is repent and turn to God in faith, trusting in the work completed by Christ. Ask Him, and He will meet you where you are, as soon as you turn from your sin.

          • Azima Khan

            i’d be careful about all that false witness bearing you’re doing, I hear your god doesn’t like it. I’ve heard it’s in its top 10.

            The fact is, you’re using rarer sexual acts that very few people are into, or none in the case of your rodent fantasy,

            to justify your hate. It’d be like if I pointed out all the witch-burning and jew executing you Christians do. We’ve seen what happens when liars and bigots use religion to manipulate people. We’re seeing it now.

            You’re being manipulated into animal instincts. Fearing what’s different and eagerly eating up the fearmongering fed to you by other liars and bigots such as yourself. Animal instincts.

            I also never said I was gay, but that doesn’t stop you from inventing “facts” to suit your views.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            False witnessing? So you know me? You know where I work, my credentials and my experiences, too? Fascinating.
            How do you know these are “rarer sexual acts?” Personal opinion? Why don’t you stop typing and stroll down to the nearest metro ER and ask some questions. But then, that would cause you to actually look at facts and not just admire your sophomoric ramblings from a distance.
            You wrong about many things in your rant here, and especially this one; I don’t hate anyone, not even you. You insult me, call me a liar, blah, blah, blah. That is your right, and you can continue being that way if you decide to do so. You also better understand that there’s a principle called sowing and reaping. Check it out some time.
            You keep blathering and frothing at the mouth, perhaps because you practice such disgusting things? I don’t know and I don’t particularly care, either. But I DO care that you are separated from God, Who desires to show you mercy and leniency. Turning to Him will set you from the foolishness, hatred and blindness you are so evidently bound by.
            Thank about it before it’s too late.

          • Azima Khan

            Oh I see, so calling people hell-bound, sinners, perverts, sodomites, demon-possessed, evil, mentally ill isn’t insulting, but calling someone a liar is?

            And you wonder why we can see through your facade of “love”.

            There’s no hate on our side. All we want is to be left alone and have the children like us who are born with parents like you treated with respect so they don’t end up killing themselves. But apparently that’s asking too much from bigots like you.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            In response to your points;

            1. You ARE hell bound, because you reject the gospel.

            2. You ARE a sinner, as is everyone else on the planet (including me). The only difference is that I trust in the work Christ has completed, allowing me access to the grace of God. That same grace is also available to you, if you avail yourself of it by repentance and faith in Christ.

            3. If you practice the things I mentioned then you ARE a pervert and a sodomite, just like thieves steal, murders murder and liars lie. It’s not that difficult a concept, so why are you having such a difficult time assimilating this information? People are labeled according to their actions all the time.

            4. Demon possessed? A distinct possibility, but more than likely you’re just confused. Liberalism does that to people – quite often.

            5. Evil/mentally ill – see response #3.

            As to your ‘leave us alone’ philosophy, that is the mantra of everyone who wants to continue in a twisted and debased lifestyle. It’s called ambivalence to allow someone to remain in a destructive pattern without trying to offer help. If you care about the welfare of someone who is an alcoholic you try to INTERVENE so that they have opportunity to come to their senses. Christians try to INTERVENE by sharing the truth of God’s Word. If you choose not to believe it, then that is your right. It would seem to be a poor choice, but God gives you the freedom to make as many poor choices as you want. It’s known as free moral agency.

            “Treat you with respect?” You mean the way homosexuals flaunt their deviancy publicly at family-oriented places like Disney World? The way they storm into church services, deliberately disrupting the services? Or like those who knowingly and maliciously infect others with the same incurable diseases they found out they have? Yup, sounds pretty “live and let live” to me.

            I have shared truth with you, and if I came across as rude I apologize as that is not my intent – honestly, it is not. I want, more than anything, that you would soften your heart and mind to the reality of who you are, Who God is, and the opportunity available to you through the blood of Christ.

          • Azima Khan

            I normally try to avoid saying it outright, but someone as hostile and brainwashed as you deserves to hear it;

            You book was created by old men living in the desert, probably high off of some plant, who wanted to control others and justify their meaningless existence.

            Hell does not exist. Christ was just a man, and your worldview is a deception.

            Evil, however, is your actions. Trying to harm people simply for existing. Believing that their being happy is an affront to you, and abusing your children for fear that they may be something outside of your world view.

            I’m not hellbound, but people like you create hell on Earth for people you’ll never meet. Why? Because you are full of hate. Pure, unadulterated, malignant hatred. You follow in the footsteps of the Nazis, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisitors, the witch hunters of Salem, and every evil, genocidal maniac who set their eyes on the LGBT community. That is your heritage, that is is your legacy.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            I’m sure you aren’t aware that when you state you “try to avoid saying it outright” you are misrepresenting yourself. You have done nothing but that throughout this discussion, making yourself less than reasonable. And yet, even with all the belittling and animosity you’ve shown me I can still say factually that I don’t hate anyone – not even you.
            You choose not to believe the things presented to you – so be it. You continue to maintain an ignorant view of the Word (both written and the Person) without trying to look at the truth – so be it. Your hate-filled and pitiful rant does nothing but cement your delusions, blocking you from receiving enlightenment – so be it.
            However, even and in spite of the confusion, hatred and jealously filling your heart, Christ is ready and willing to offer you a way out of your bondage. All you have to do is repent and ask Him, and He will give you a new heart and life. I sincerely hope you choose to do so.

      • Paul Hue

        Your point about incest is powerful, because it involves two consenting adults. According to the “gay marriage” logic, incestuous marriage must be permitted.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Thanks for the affirmation. :)

      • Paul Hue

        I think it is best to deal with the secular atheist hedonists by sticking to the biological basis of marriage.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          Since they limit their thinking to the physical only, your point is well considered. However, as a Christian it’s understood that I should point out the more important aspects about sexual immorality (and ever other kind of immorality, too). While sexual immorality (like homosexuality) goes against nature, I believe the more important point is that it goes against the God of nature. Once you start down that pathway all kinds of error result, because spiritual error always leads to more – and increasingly depraved – spiritual error.
          Thanks for the post! :)

          • Paul Hue

            I have found it much more fruitful to engage them strictly on the science and history of marriage. But I do appreciate your efforts. I think that the scientific and historical facts can also help your case, as the two approaches are in concord.

    • Paul Hue

      There are major differences between coitus and any other form of sexual gratification: only it involves the two complementary reproductive organs acting in accordance with their uniquely designed function, and only it has the potential to create life. These distinctions make the act of physical love between a man and woman (and only exactly one of each can perform this act) special.

      • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

        Considering there’s 7 billion of us, it’s not really that special.

        • Paul Hue

          The act that can produce life is special regardless of the number of people.

  • PATRICIA MEAD

    Of the greatest importance, religion or whatever consideration, is this question? Do you want your race, red, yellow, black, brown or white to be done away with? Race mixing presents children of no race who marry and produce more children of no race.

    • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

      (are you being factitious?)

      • Clive Johnson

        The phrase “race mixing” is a tipoff to me that she’s serious. There are still people out there like this.

        • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

          Perhaps… homophobia, racism, and misogyny all tend to intertwine together.

    • MDB

      WTF ??? My nieces, nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews- all of mixed race – would like to have a “private” word with you.

  • Clive Johnson

    ““Progressives” seem to believe that the fact that some Christians were wrong on one issue (i.e., race) is proof positive that they’re wrong on another (i.e., homoerotic activity).”

    Um, no. What this history of Christian racism proves is that most Christians can be egregiously and obviously wrong about a moral question and despite easily understandable arguments and evidence to the contrary, STILL won’t grasp that fact and still won’t be able to change well-grooved channels of habitual thought.

    What’s tragic is that interracial marriage is still a problem with many conservative Christians. In the latest poll I’ve seen (Gallup, 2011), 22% of Conservatives still opposed interracial marriage, compared with 5% for liberals. Despite readily available information in all media about the heart-breaking toll on lives and wasted human potential, despite innumerable histories and biographies detailing the brutalities and injustices of racism, this still isn’t enough to get through the iron-clad ignorance of almost a quarter of conservatives.

    Further, if you google ‘religious right and interracial marriage’ you’ll find plenty of websites that contain articles along the lines of “What does the Bible say about interracial marriage?” –As if that is still a live question, one that hasn’t been decisively answered already by good-hearted and moral people, as if some significant portion of religious conservatism still can’t figure this racism question out for themselves, but need to be told what to believe.

    Google a little further and you can finds all sorts of Bible-based websites opposing interracial marriage. Take, for instance, these lines from the website faithandheritage in a lengthy column called “The moral status of miscegenation,” in which the author goes to mighty lengths to provide a Biblical justification for opposing interracial dating and marriage. Some of his language sounds mighty familiar to contemporary ears in the context of the same sex marriage debate:

    “Even if one does not believe that miscegenation is wrong in most circumstances, [the author here is arguing against supporters of interracial marriage] we should not think others are evil racists or bigots just because we disagree with them. Nor should we think it racist of others to forbid marriage for their own children to other races, as they would be merely following the example of the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 24:1-4), and also of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 36:6).”

    “There is no neutrality on this issue. In order to maintain the preservation of the human diversity God has created, both biological and cultural, intermarriage must be seen as unnatural and uncommon. To say otherwise is a denial that it is good to preserve one’s own people, heritage, and culture.”

    —Rousas John Rushdoony, father of one of Barbwire’s writers, Christian right leader, and supporter of the Christian homeschooling movement, opposed interracial marriage.

    —Jerry Falwell, before it became politically costly, was an ardent segregationist.

    —It wasn’t until 2000(!) that conservative Christian Bob Jones University finally allowed interracial dating. According to Andrew Balmer in Politico in his The Real Origins of the Religious Right, “Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich [two high profile religious right leaders] quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation.”

    —At random, a USA Today article from 2011 reports on a church that voted to ban mixed-race couples from joining the church. The pastor who pushed for this vote is quoted “I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil” about a race, Thompson said earlier this week in a brief interview. “That’s what this is being portrayed as, but it is not.”

    Haven’t we heard that before a thousand times with regard to same sex marriage? “I’m not prejudiced, I’m not a bigot, I’m only following God’s word.”

    Funny how “God’s word” so often gets in the way of morality.

    In an article on the History News Network, the author mentions four arguments used by southern racists to prop up laws against interracial dating:

    “1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

    2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

    3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God’s will, and

    4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow “unnatural.””

    Sound familiar?

    Higgins writes, “The grievous failure of Christians to follow the clear teachings of Scripture on one issue (i.e., race)…”

    This gets us to the central problem here—the Bible itself. If the Bible were actually clear on issues of race, if it actually said things like “Thou shall not divide the races and treat one as above the other,” and said so in many places and in many different ways, we’d be a lot further along right now as a society. But, the Bible is NOT clear on issues of race. Plenty of conservative Christians can still find scriptural support for their racism.

    What’s happening with Christian conservative opposition to same sex marriage is very clear: They will find absolute Biblical certainty where none exists. The Bible doesn’t do what many of them want it to do. It’s not clear on abortion either.

    Here’s Andrew Balmer again,

    “In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.””

    “When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.””

    First the Bible supports slavery, and then it’s against. The Bible has no problem with abortion, and now it’s against. The Bible is both for and against same sex marriage, depending on who you ask. The Bible refuses to behave as Christian conservatives want it to.

    Do you harbor hatred and prejudice in your heart to gays and lesbians? Turn to the Bible. You can use it to authorize bigotry.

    • Michex

      Every religion has been against homosexuality. I don’t see why homosexuals pick on Christians. Maybe homosexuals don’t know that there are other religions, or they think that marriage was created only after Christ. Homosexuals are be very stupid, though they do make good hair stylists.

      • Clive Johnson

        “Christians” don’t exist as a univocal group. There are liberal Christians, conservative Christians, Christians who have different beliefs about god, Christians who oppose abortion and some who support it, Christians who are swingers and Christians who oppose such sexual activity, Christians who are gay, Christians who are straight. Can we all get clear on this?

        • Michex

          10,000 years ago, did men mate with each other and have babies? Where did the baby pop out, the rectum?
          Could a female and female conceive a baby?
          Gee, I guess marriage has a biological basis, contrary to what homosexuals (they are stupid, or blind) would have us believe. If there are adult ed. courses in biology, I suggest that homosexuals may want to consider taking one.

          • Boo

            Marriage and baby making are two different activities, Michex. Maybe you shouldn’t be calling other people stupid, you know, what with that glass house and all.

          • Clive Johnson

            Where did you ever get the notion that same sex couples could naturally produce children on their own? You keep repeating this, and you keep on getting asked why, since no one actually believes what you’re accusing them of believing.

            I’m horrified at your inner intellectual darkness.

          • John R

            Do you honestly believe people get married just to have kids? Homey those days are long gone.

        • Charlie_Feather

          No, there are true Christians, and then, there are the apostates.

          • Clive Johnson

            I wonder which side you’re on?

      • vorpal

        > “Homosexuals are be very stupid”

        This tells us all we need to know about your level of intelligence.

        • Michex

          Homosexuals are unable to see the biological basis of marriage. That implies stupidity.

          • Clive Johnson

            Your definition of marriage assumes heterosexuality. Why should anyone assume that?

          • Ron Swaren

            Boy you wouldn’t get far in the livestock business, that’s for dang sure. It takes more than cows to get milk, just sayin’

          • pleasebereasonable

            Neither would you. No serious cattle operation has a 1:1 bull/cow ratio. The larger one don’t actually mate the cows, they artificially inseminate.

          • vorpal

            The argument from biology for marriage is so weak and fails on so many fronts that it doesn’t even make sense to propose.

            Again, dumb, dumb, dumb dumb dumb. It’s okay, though, buttercup: I’m sure you’re good at OTHER things.

          • MDB

            you forgot…and DUMB. ;)

          • MarkSebree

            There is no biological basis for marriage. Marriage is a sociological invention meant to establish clear(er) guides of paternal parents in order to provide for inheritance down the male line. Women were to be kept and discourage from mating with any other men besides the one that they were sold (the dowery) and bound to, while the men were not so restricted. Women were ALWAYS subservient to successive men. First, her father, then her husband, then her son(s).

            Archeology suggests that marriage was unlikely to have existed before agriculture become significant, which refutes the claim that there is any biological basis for marriage.

          • Paul Hue

            We are at fault for failing to ensure that we also are clear on why marriage exists in the first place, how it came into existence, and how the vintage (pre-2008) printed dictionaries defined marriage, and the related terms, such as husband, wife, fidelity, and consummation. Only due to the mass ignorance even of we conservatives were the liberals able to pull this fast one.

            Even most conservatives don’t realize that marriage has a biological basis. They are correct to oppose, “gay marriage”, but they are unequipped to make a sound case. Now it is too late.

          • pleasebereasonable

            The ability to biologically reproduce has never been a requirement for marriage.

        • Ron Swaren

          “This tells us all we need to know about your intelligence”

          Children think their parents are stupid, too.

          • vorpal

            Maybe you thought that your parents were stupid, but when I was a kid, I was smart enough to recognize how intelligent my parents are.

          • Ron Swaren

            Proof?

          • vorpal

            …that I thought my parents were intelligent?

          • pleasebereasonable

            Some of the parents actually are.

  • Michex

    Homosexuals have always been able to marry. They would just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of humankind.
    There was no discrimination at all.
    If the homosexual did not want to do that, he or she could always get some liberal church that has no beliefs, such as Unitarians, to perform a “marriage.”
    They could then live as married and sign contracts to get most marriage rights. They would not be legally married but they would get most rights. Instead, homosexuals forced their views on society.

    • Clive Johnson

      “There was no discrimination at all.”

      You know you can read and learn things in books don’t you?

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

        • One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

        • Clive Johnson

          You’re not responding to a discussion, you’re spamming again Ray.

        • garybryson

          more, and more, and more and more spam from ray ray

        • John R

          So what, what’s your point and what does that have to do with marriage?

        • pleasebereasonable

          One study reports that 70% of people named Ray are brain dead.

    • dawn1257

      No. You’re are forcing someone to make a “choice” in creating a partnership that,

      A. Will not last, perpetuating higher divorce rates by ending in one (you don’t want that do you?).

      B. Potentially fostering offspring that will endure the hardships of that divorce (no longer in a two parent home, you don’t want that do you?).

      and,

      C. If the partner of the opposite sex knows their potential spouse is gay, lesbian, bi, or trans before they marry, the reality is NO MARRIAGE (this I believe you do want, don’t you?)!

      Once again you would simply be denying a person equal protections under the 14th Amendment as well as 1st Amendment violations in the freedom of expression and association.

    • Boo

      Maybe you shouldn’t be reinforcing the argument that this article’s author is desperately trying to discredit.

    • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

      “If the homosexual did not want to do that, he or she could always get some liberal church that has no beliefs, such as Unitarians, to perform a “marriage.” They could then live as married and sign contracts to get most marriage rights.”

      —Separate is not equal. Why should Unitarians be prevented from marrying same-sex couples as other denominations marry opposite-sex ones? Why would they have to signs THOUSANDS of said contracts instead of enjoying the automatic legal benefits of married spouses?

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        Sexual Orientation

        • A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is “sexual orientation.” This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex – as if they aren’t engaging in activity forbidden by God Almighty. “Sexual orientation,” as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other “sexual orientations” are just fine, let’s see what other “sexual orientations” you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you’re not going to discriminate based on “sexual orientation”, then you must not discriminate against any of the following. If you discriminate against any of these, you’re a hypocrite. These “sexual orientations” are generally known as “paraphilias”, and are mental disorders – just like homosexuality used to be (29).

        • garybryson

          more cut and paste spam

        • https://www.youtube.com/user/vampswagen Persephone Sixty-Six

          Man:You sit here, dear.

          Wife:All right.
          Man:Morning!
          Waitress:Morning!
          Man:Well, what’ve you got?
          Waitress:Well, there’s egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam;
          egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage
          and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam
          bacon spam tomato and spam;
          Vikings:Spam spam spam spam…
          Waitress:…spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked
          beans spam spam spam…
          Vikings:Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
          Waitress:…or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a
          Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with
          truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
          Wife:Have you got anything without spam?
          Waitress:Well, there’s spam egg sausage and spam, that’s not got much spam in
          it.
          Wife:I don’t want ANY spam!
          Man:Why can’t she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
          Wife:THAT’S got spam in it!
          Man:Hasn’t got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
          Vikings:Spam spam spam spam… (Crescendo through next few lines…)
          Wife:Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
          Waitress:Urgghh!
          Wife:What do you mean ‘Urgghh’? I don’t like spam!
          Vikings:Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
          Waitress:Shut up!
          Vikings:Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
          Waitress:Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can’t have egg bacon
          spam and sausage without the spam.
          Wife:I don’t like spam!
          Man:Sshh, dear, don’t cause a fuss. I’ll have your spam. I love it.
          I’m having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam
          spam and spam!
          Vikings:Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
          Waitress:Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
          Man:Well could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?
          Waitress:You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam… (but it is too late and
          the Vikings drown her words)
          Vikings: (Singing elaborately…) Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful
          spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam!
          Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam
          spam spam!

    • MDB

      If you are married…who (what city, county, municipal, state official) signed the marriage LICENSE from your county and State. Your marriage would be NULL and VOID without the very same, even if the Pope himself affixed His signature.

    • Ron Swaren

      They also have the freedom to have any kind of ceremony they want, live under the same roof, eat together, hold hands, bathe together…..What they really want, but won’t acknowledge—is state power to destroy the family unit.

      • Steven Schwartz

        I’m curious how same-sex marriage will “destroy the family unit”. If your family unit is that weak, you have problems bigger than SSM.

      • pleasebereasonable

        Your reasoning skills are terrible! If this was the plan one would think that we would attempt to get the gov’t out of providing licenses for all marriages as that would have an actual chance at that result, whereas allowing gay people to get the same license as straight people….doesn’t actually stop or discourage straight people from getting married at all.

        • Ron Swaren

          No sir, this is a common smokescreen of the gay “rights” movement. And one cannot raise GENERAL PRINCIPLES in discussing with them, because they will seek a loophole that refutes it. Look, nobody said the Law was perfect. You may be starving but that doesn’t give you the right to rob a bank, no matter how unfair it seems. So, what our society (Western Civilization) has worked out is a balance between competing interests, by which marriage is an institution, recognized and encouraged by the law. That, however does mean a significant intrusion of government, because someone (i.e. taxpayers) will have to pay for: Family Law courts, social services, benefits for minors, entitlement benefits.

          Like I stated gays already have rights they need for enjoyment. In fact the reason they can further the causes that they do is because they know how to get their hands on the money to do it. And, in fact, if they wanted to be good citizens and show everyone else how good they are there are plenty of ways to do it. But no, they seek out the most disreputable scum (certain lawyers) and go straight to the courts that are in the most liberal areas. What would you think if the Red Cross started suing people to get them to donate blood?

          The argument that some raise, i.e. get govt out of the marriage business entirely, is silly because children are vulnerable and worthy of protection. Since homo. relations did not, traditionally, produce children ( I know, there are exceptions) governments did not have a compelling interest in placing their activities under Family Law. But the problem with law is that sometimes the application seems uneven to EVERY last, little situation. But that doesn’t mean the law should be changed. It could just mean that people have to be creative enough to either not get themselves into a mess, or figure out a better way to deal with it.

          Since gays are seeking to REDEFINE what families are under law. and doing it via state, rather than cultural, means—they are destroying families and imposing state control. They are saying that government should have precedence over choices that parents would normally make. My reasoning is not terrible, but sometimes it helps to clear the air and put things in stark, simple terms.

          • pleasebereasonable

            Since gays are seeking to REDEFINE what families are under law. and doing it via state, rather than cultural –

            Change w/i the culture has already occurred. Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans now think that gays should have the right to get married.. This is a fact that you cannot deny. The laws are now catching up to the culture.

    • Ron Swaren

      That’s right Michex. Just like other Americans they have freedoms that can’t be taken away: They can have any CEREMONY they want, and have a wedding cake, too! They can live under the same roof, eat at the same table. they can get in bed together, go on vacations together. Who is trying to deprive them of their rights? This is a manufactured complaint. Their relationship is still significantly different from a conventional marriage, and they are trying to convince society that it is the same. If that were true this argument would have been settle centuries ago.

      • pleasebereasonable

        We HAVE been having ceremonies, even church ones. What we actually want is the same protections under the law that het marriages have. The constitution demands equal treatment under the law.

        “If that were true this argument would have been settled centuries ago” Except that up until recently, we as gay people have been too worried about protecting our actual lives and jobs from murderous bigots who wish nothing for us but harm.

        • Ron Swaren

          Well, a lot of us would like protection from bigots. So join the club. I would never venture into a certain area of our city at night, because it is well know that people are attacked there and I’ve seen muggings go on, firsthand. The fact is, son, I never met so many racists and hatemongers, as when I became a union member. The religious conservatives were pretty tolerant, since they were always finding some justice cause to get behind.

    • pleasebereasonable

      If the Government has a legitimate reason for allowing SSM, THIS is one of the better arguments for allowing it. IF the cries from your side of “a child deserves a mother and a father”, THIS is definitely one of the better arguments for allowing it. The success rate (ie length of time of marriage) of gay people marrying straight people is miserable hon. You want a gay man to marry your daughter only to leave her 5 years latter with three kids?

  • Boo

    Thank you for giving us an example of what’s known as “moving the goalposts.” (Of course then you moved them back when you went back to criticizing homosexuality as subjective feelings and freely chosen behaviors, which race-mixing is too). So instead of racial discrimination, the proper analogue is sex discrimination?

  • DC/Tex

    The homosexual (not PC gay) “AGENDA” is the worst disease infecting and
    destroying the morals, family values, and children (their agendas main target)
    of the USA and the world.
    Homosexuality will NEVER be natural, healthy (mentally or physically), normal,
    accepted, or OK!
    Homosexuality is the worst of the worst of destructive lifestyles.
    Homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY, they CHOOSE their unnatural destructive lifestyle, so, homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue.
    Homosexuals had equal rights, now they have special rights and want more. Every
    special right awarded to homosexuals infringes on our rights.
    God loves everyone, as we all should, including homosexuals. God hates all sin,
    as we all should, including homosexuality and He says it is an abomination.
    The silent Christian majority must put on the whole armor of God and battle
    against the radical homosexual agenda, that is why God provided his armor.

    • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

      And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

      Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus

      • garybryson

        more fairy tales from ray ray

      • BillTheCat45

        OOOO it’s mythical adventure story time!

    • Clive Johnson

      Do you mean the Christian majority that supports same sex marriage? That one?

      • DC/Tex

        No Bible believing Christian supports homosexuality, they cannot be a Christian and not believe the Bible. Marriage = one man and one woman.

        • Clive Johnson

          You’ll have to take that argument up with the many gay Christians, homosexual ministers and Bishops, and those who support them as Christians.

          • DC/Tex

            False prophets!

          • Clive Johnson

            Why do you think you’re so right when no one, not including you, can have anything even approaching certainty with regard to any supernatural claim?

        • Boo

          Homosexuality also doesn’t have the support of any True Scotsmen.

        • BillTheCat45

          Cry more, you lost.

        • John R

          “Marriage = one man and one woman”

          Not any more, times are changing for the better.
          Marriage is also first and foremost a civil contract. Anything religious about it is optional.

    • garybryson

      Yea, ok, …..whatever….LOL

    • BillTheCat45

      “Tex”, as in “Texas will be a blue state within a decade”? LOL

    • John R

      Your copy and paste of the exact same thing day after day, month after month is becoming real boring. Can’t you come up with something more original once in a while even though you are still wrong.

      One question. Name one special right that us gays are seeking.

      • DC/Tex

        The TRUTH is never boring!

  • Pingback: Rainbow-Hued Is the New Black | Victims of Gay Bullying()

  • Theodore Fenton

    Laurie, I’m glad to read that you have evolved from the discriminatory mindset of your ancestors, but you still have a bit more evolving to do.

  • ErickMN

    Higgins must wake up every day and say to herself “What hateful cr*p can I write about gay people today?”. What a waste of a life.

    • BillTheCat45

      Heck, that’s what every Barb Wire writer thinks every morning. Well, that, and how many brown people are voting in elections.

  • Ron Swaren

    In our state, the liberal Attorneney General argued that there was “no rational basis” to deny same sex couples marriage. Who is she kidding? There is plenty of compelling interest by the people NOT TO such as 1. Millions of dollars in publicly funded benefits (and billions nationwide) that now are for hetero. i.e. “normal” familes 2. The interest of children, supposedly guarded by the state, even those not conceived, to avoid becoming objects for the desire of perverts. There is no scientific argument whatsoever, that a same sex couple can conceive a child, although this is normal for hetero. couples. 3. The law enforcement cost to police against same sex sham marriages. This likely would be much higher than current costs to investigate hetero. sham marriages. The burden of proof wouyld be much higher, therefore working against prosecution and conviction of sham SSM. 4. Impact to our immigration system of a new policy of allowing sponsorship of same sex partner to immigrate into the US. 5. Birth tourism by foreing same sex couple to gain access to the UNited STates. Yhis is already an out of control problem, with even drug cartels seeking to have a related child born in the US. 6. Extra costs to family law courts that does not exist now. 7. Extra cost to Child Protective services in each state.

    There are plenty of COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL reasons why SSM should not be allowed. These form a “rational basis.” We are being lied to.

    • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

      “1. Millions of dollars in publicly funded benefits (and billions nationwide) that now are for hetero. i.e. “normal” familes”

      —Wait… are you arguing for extending said benefits to same-sex couples of REMOVING them from opposite-sex ones?

      “2. The interest of children, supposedly guarded by the state, even those not conceived, to avoid becoming objects for the desire of perverts. There is no scientific argument whatsoever, that a same sex couple can conceive a child, although this is normal for hetero. couples.”

      —Opposite-sex partners are just as likely to engage in child sexual abuse, and same-sex couples can indeed have/adopt children… and many opposite-sex ones cannot or do not.

      “3. The law enforcement cost to police against same sex sham marriages.”

      —Do we need to police ‘sham’ opposite-sex marriages? Then why would we do so for same-sex ones?

      “4. Impact to our immigration system of a new policy of allowing sponsorship of same sex partner to immigrate into the US. 5. Birth tourism by foreing same sex couple to gain access to the UNited STates. Yhis is already an out of control problem, with even drug cartels seeking to have a related child born in the US.”

      —Xenophobic conspiracy theories are not salient reasons.

      “6. Extra costs to family law courts that does not exist now. 7. Extra cost to Child Protective services in each state.”

      —So the existing children of same-sex couples do not deserve child protective services and basic legal status? lol

      • Ron Swaren

        You’re nit picking instead of making well founded arguments. Stare decisis, dude. There have been millions of court cases, in which spouses are only male and female. The homo. lobby is trying to piggyback on racial discrimination law, and make the outrageous claim that those cases establish precedent for SSM. What a crock!

        • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

          “You’re nit picking instead of making well founded arguments.”

          —I simply responded to your flurry of brief, specious points. If you wish to look like something more than a glurge-spewer, you need to be more thorough in your initial claims.

          “Stare decisis, dude. There have been millions of court cases, in which spouses are only male and female.”

          —So what? That in itself is not justification for unequal treatment; if it were, NO civil rights legislation or even voting rights would have been extended to women and minorities, as such matters were originally and mainly placed in men’s power.

          “The homo. lobby is trying to piggyback on racial discrimination law, and make the outrageous claim that those cases establish precedent for SSM.”

          —Outrageous… how? You have not made this argument yet.

          What a crock.

          • Ron Swaren

            No, cupcake, in big decisions courts are supposed to consult COURT CERTIFIED EXPERTS. Any anthropologist, biologist even sociologist would tell the court that SSM is an absurdity. This is hijacking of the legal process. You already have freedom of association but an expansion of state power to accomodate an absurdty is tyranny. Americans fought and died to limit the power of government over them. Gay advocates want to expand it. Tyranny!

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “No, cupcake, in big decisions courts are supposed to consult COURT CERTIFIED EXPERTS.”

            —The list of amicus briefs submitted for these recent decisions was rather lengthy, and plenty of people have testified in such cases. However…

            “Any anthropologist, biologist even sociologist would tell the court that SSM is an absurdity.”

            —… the vast majority of such experts are NOT on your side here.

            “This is hijacking of the legal process. You already have freedom of association but an expansion of state power to accomodate an absurdty is tyranny.”

            —Such pseudo-arguments were used during the Civil Rights debate… they too fell dead under even minor scrutiny.

            “Americans fought and died to limit the power of government over them. Gay advocates want to expand it. Tyranny!”

            —Rubbish. LGBT citizens want equal rights… that’s it.
            Any more brownish nuggets for us?

          • Ron Swaren

            No an amicus is not expert testimony. 2nd comment–absolutely untrue, and condescending tone noted. 3rd comment–your mental state is not a FACT, and is basically your problem, not society’s. Grow up and act like an adult. 4th com.–You have the same rights as every citizen. 5th comment–I hope you are not in the legal profession. You obviously have no clue

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “No an amicus is not expert testimony.”

            —But such testimony has been made… and no, your side did not do well.

            “2nd comment–absolutely untrue, and condescending tone noted.”

            —Your irrelevant whining too is getting stale.

            “3rd comment–your mental state is not a FACT, and is basically your problem, not society’s. Grow up and act like an adult.”

            —If you’re speaking of sexual orientation, that most certainly is a fact. And working for equal rights does evince civic maturity… so you swing and miss yet again.

            “4th com.–You have the same rights as every citizen.”

            —Without equal marriage rights and anti-discrimination protections, this is definitely not the case.

            “5th comment–I hope you are not in the legal profession. You obviously have no clue”

            —This is not a rebuttal to anything… are you having a seizure or something?

          • Ron Swaren

            And the things you mention were changed by CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. Not the cickens–t way that gays go about it, with their ACLU lawsuits. Hopefully your BS gets packed in real good before it messes up the floor…

          • Steven Schwartz

            You mean the way that Congress ended school segregation? (To pick an example totally at non-random) Or the ban against interracial marriage?

            Wow. I wonder how Earl Warren missed that.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            You seem to forget that major civil-rights SCOTUS cases (Brown and others) were first to cross that color line… congressional action came after.

          • Ron Swaren

            Uh, no…The Civil War authorized by Congress was a major milestone. You know Republican Abraham Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation? The Democrat Party haters, including the founders of the KKK, are still spinning in their graves over that one.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            If you’re unwilling to confront the fact that neither party is the same as their mid-19th-century versions, I’m not sure ANY conversation with you would be productive.

          • Ron Swaren

            Once a job is done, you can stop.

            The GOP/Evangelicals worked hard to give women various dignities, including the right to vote. However there is a reasonable limit. Obama/Progressives claim that women receive unequal pay for the same work. However in businesses and professions they are already equal or have equal opportunity, and some get better treatment. In rough jobs ( I worked in construction, I know) they DO NOT do equivalent work. I would RATHER have worked with women, compared to the progressive jackasses that proliferate in such vocations. But, I can’t be responsible to cover for their mistakes and inadequacies. Just can’t do it. The sort of division of labor we have has been worked out by supply and demand laws. Probably though, with more technological advance making some jobs easier, women will come up to equal footing. Example: High stress medical surgery is still predominately male, but as these procedures become more technologically controlled, it will probably balance out. I saw a lawsuit by a female against a tire company alleging discrimination, because they gave a managerial position to a man. But, the women don’t start out busting tires off the big rigs.. Once a clerk, always a clerk.

            In your case, your argument has virtually no merit. And the bottom line is you are a troll intent on wreaking havoc. Like James Dobson said; “(Fags) want it all.” I wish the moderators would get you trolls off of here. You can’t intelligently comment on the issues.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “The GOP/Evangelicals worked hard to give women various dignities, including the right to vote.”

            —Again, this was a long time ago; today, the GOP is against women’s rights and well-being in almost every sphere.

            “However in businesses and professions they are already equal or have equal opportunity, and some get better treatment.”

            —And then you say…

            “In rough jobs ( I worked in construction, I know) they DO NOT do equivalent work… I can’t be responsible to cover for their mistakes and inadequacies… The sort of division of labor we have has been worked out by supply and demand laws.”

            —… which scrubs your previous claim about equality. There still exists significant pay/benefit disparities as well as many occupational inequalities. Circular appeals to supply and demand is no justification for the sex/gender inequities in the same marketplace.

            “Example: High stress medical surgery is still predominately male, but as these procedures become more technologically controlled, it will probably balance out.”

            —And why would that be the case? Do men sweat less? lol

            “I saw a lawsuit by a female against a tire company alleging discrimination, because they gave a managerial position to a man. But, the women don’t start out busting tires off the big rigs.. Once a clerk, always a clerk.”

            —And why is that the case? I’ve not seen many managers who worked from the bottom up; you’re using veiled class inequalities to cover for sex/gender inequalities… funny, but specious just the same.

          • Ron Swaren

            “—Again, this was a long time ago; today, the GOP is against women’s rights and well-being in almost every sphere.”

            Sure. That’s why conservative women are better money earners, are healthier, have stronger marriages…..Duh.

            —… which scrubs your previous claim about equality. There still exists significant pay/benefit disparities as well as many occupational inequalities

            OK. I’ll bite. Union carpenters use 62 lb sheets of 3/4 form ply, climb up and down forms carrying forty to fifty pounds of tools, work through temperature from 0-100 degrees, walk through thick mud and rough gravel carrying lumber that weighs up to 80 lbs., pound stakes in with 12 lb hammers, are subject to electric shocks in bad weather. Even in the so called finish aspect, they carry 80 lbs doors down narrow hallways, drill through metal all day, climb up and down scaffold and ladders, etc. In most of these functions, women would start out by getting bruised, even if they could physically do the work, because they have subcutaneous fat and you can’t avoid a certain amount of accidental contact with things. Send Barbie my way, and I’m sure she will start complaining about her nails getting broken. (Which I’ve already seen)

            —And why would that be the case? Do men sweat less? lol
            Just go to a hospital and see the photos of the staff in their specialties. Women gravitate to practices where they can give tests, work with general diagnoses, or do things not requiring extensive surgery. However, as robotization and minimal invasion methods proceed I think this will change. But right now there are not that many female surgeons, and it is not because someone is stopping them. You’re not going to see very many women docs. crack open a thorax and do heart surgery, or go in and remove a colon cancer.

            A friend of mine who was a utility electrician (high voltage lines) said they get about one 120volt shock a day. Sure, women are going to go out and repair the lines during a storm, work on the arctic frontier all winter in sub freezing conditions, climb towers and string lines across the desert?

            Once again, as in your other posts, you offer nothing more than politicized doggerel. Why don’t you go into the “occupational inequalities” mantra a little bit, for us> You think brains will always overcome strength and skill, and thus pave the way for females to ascend to the better paying careers in each field? You’re in a dream world, are insulting to people who actually know how to work. And, obviously, blind to the economic principle of “Risk.” Look it up, kumquat.

    • Steven Schwartz

      I am always impressed by ‘human rights cost too much” arguments.

      • Ron Swaren

        That’s what the jailbirds say, too. Keep trying. If you were really that beneficial to society it would have been made clear generations ago.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Considering that real research into GLBT folk wasn’t done until a couple of generations ago to *start* with, I don’t think your claim has any validity.

          People like you have been trying to *prevent* any analysis of GLBT folk, let alone whether or not they’re beneficial, so I see no reason to trust your claim.

    • BillTheCat45

      You keep calling yourself “normal”, but your internet porn search history most likely says otherwise.

      • MDB

        b,b,b,but ….it’s just normal, natural porn; “I was just searching “porn” while doing research.”

        • Ron Swaren

          No I get the Barbwire in my mailbox.

  • Rickster Rickster

    there is no such thing as the supernatural. your religious book is nothing but MYTH. amazing how you ignore the fact the same book was used up until the late 1800’s to justify slavery. GET YOUR SUPERNATURAL NONSENSE OUT OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS

  • Rickster Rickster

    MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL CONTRACT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION OR CHILDREN. and amazingly the Mexican supreme court had no problem with saying that.

  • Clint Batterton

    Since the national debate is about civil, not religious, marriage, this article is irrelevant. Mainstream protestant denominations, like the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Unitarians and the UCC are performing same-sex marriages in their churches. Laurie’s personal theology, such as it is, is legally irrelevant. If she doesn’t believe in marriage equality, she doesn’t have to marry another woman, or perform or recognize such a marriage. Of course, I can understand her defensiveness about the Southern fundamentalists’ position, which is almost an homage to their racist heritage. They said that black people were inferior human beings and therefore should have inferior legal rights. They claimed that God had divided the races and that you couldn’t be a Christian and support race mixin’ (according to Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi). They claimed that the Bible justified segregation and even slavery, and formed “Christian” academies to evade integration. Now they claim that LGBT Americans are morally inferior, according to God, and so should not have the same legal rights as everyone else. In the Bostic case in Virginia, as the judge noted, they made virtually the same arguments they made against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Some of us would say that fundamentalism is to Christian theology what “paint by numbers” is to art, while others subscribe to it. In any event, theology has no place in determining anyone’s civil rights under our Constitution. You can’t deny civil rights to someone just because you hate them, by popular vote or otherwise, or whether you think “God is on your side” or not.

  • Jeff Baker

    Remember back in the 1990’s when the GOP realized they didn’t have the Black vote? Congress staged a vote to repeal the interracial marriage laws still on the books in the states (granted none of those laws are still enforced.) Yes, it was for show to demonstrate that they weren’t racist. Oh, by the way, the GOP repeal vote went down to defeat. I always thought the “party of Lincoln” didn’t want to offend their base.

  • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

    A label does not a person make.
    Just because someone is a Christian (or thinks they are one) doesn’t make them impervious to error. The correction for error is the Word of God.
    Why do you think that some of the most vocal opponents of segregation and slavery (among many other injustices) were Christian?

    • fredk

      And the most vocal supporters of those injustices were *also* Christians.

      In each of those cases, you had Christians on both sides and one side eventually became “wrong”. To you it’s obvious, because you know how it turned out. It wasn’t obvious to people at the time.

      Right now, you have Christians on both sides of the gay marriage fight. Which ones will be called “correct” in future years?

      • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

        Fred, they didn’t ‘become’ wrong. Anyone who claims he has the ‘right’ to own another person against their will (except for sentencing resulting from crime) is deluded. Whether you abuse the Word to confirm what you believe doesn’t make it any more right than believing people have a ‘right’ to unnatural unions.
        My point is that God’s Word has not changed through the ages. Men have misinterpreted that Word to serve their own ends, wouldn’t you agree? That misinterpretation, however, does not negate the truth.

        • fredk

          I fully agree that men have used Scripture to serve their own ends.

          The question is, for the gay marriage debate, is which side is doing that *right now*? You’ve chosen your side – in 50 years, will you be counted with the abolitionists or the slave holders?

          You might want to ask yourself – which side then supported extending rights to minorities? Just putting that out there.

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            Do you see the people in this photo? Nearly all them were pastors or members of evangelical Christian churches – both black and white. Their correct understanding of Scripture, just like the thousands of people who died for securing rights for minorities, prevented them from remaining inactive in the face of blatant injustice.
            Sexual immorality, on the other hand, is not a matter of equality. It is the attempted normalization of errant practices. Just as adultery, fornication, group sex and other forms of sexual immorality are errant, so are those who practice the homosexual lifestyle.
            Misunderstanding (or worse, contorting) the Scriptures is at the heart of all kinds of evil and mischief in the world.

          • Charlie_Feather

            There is a clear condemnation of homosexual behavior in the Bible, which is different from what people may have inferred from various Biblical instructions, stories and accounts of events.

            The point is that it wasn’t clear in the Bible what the correct position on slavery, for example, should have been, whereas, there is no doubt where it concerns homosexuality.

          • fredk

            It was *very* clear to slavery proponents in the 1700 and 1800s.

            The future will decide. As it always has.

      • Charlie_Feather

        Probably the apostate Christians will be called “correct” in the future, because the whole world is going to Hell.

        • fredk

          That’s OK. Abolitionists were considered apostate too.

          They got over it. And the world got better. And the world will get better this time too.

  • Charlie_Feather

    The acceptance of homosexuality necessarily implies the rejection of the moral values of the world’s major religions, and putting in their stead the moral values of Sodom and Gomorrah. I don’t think the gay rights movement will succeed because of this, because religion is a force too powerful to contend with. People will sacrifice and die for their religion; no one will die for the right of buggery.

    • pleasebereasonable

      I have know problem rejecting the moral values of the world’s major religions. I doubt you have a problem with rejecting those if Islam, why should others not reject yours?

      • Charlie_Feather

        Where it concerns homosexuality, those of Islam and Judaism are nearly identical. Christianity is far more tolerant and the nicest one of all, but in no way does it approve, promote or celebrate homosexuality. It condemns it in no uncertain terms.

        Others are free to reject religions, but they do this at their own risk and peril, because religion is a force stronger than even government power. The communists tried to suppress religion, and now communism is gone, and yet, religion is back with a vengeance. The lesson: Don’t mess with religion!

        • pleasebereasonable

          So, it is religion itself you are pimping, and it matters not which one…just so long as it is an abrahamic one?

          • Charlie_Feather

            Well, not really. And I wouldn’t use such an offensive term as “pimping”.

            I would choose the best of the lot, which I believe to be Christianity, and for a number of reasons, which needn’t be discussed here.

            Nevertheless, religious or spiritual sentiments seem to be hardwired into the DNA of human beings, so it is best not to tamper with these. One may try to channel these into positive and socially constructive forms, but trying to suppress these sentiments, dismissing them, or pretending they don’t exist is not a very realistic policy.

          • pleasebereasonable

            So religiosity is hardwired into DNA and it doesn’t matter, really in the grand scheme of things which religion you choose, just so long as you do. That certainly says a whole lot about the legitimacy of any religious scripture. If it matters not which you choose, how can you possibly be opposed homosexuality (which appears to be as hardwired to the DNA as religiosity)? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is welcomes homosexuality, so homosexuality should be fine, Zeus probably was not against homosexuaity either. Why are the Abrahamic religions the only legitimate ones? Why is no religion not an option, and why should those who choose none be subjected to religious edicts of someone else’s religion?

  • Charlie_Feather

    Since this is Gay Pride month, and there are all these gay prides parades, let’s apply a mind experiment to see just how “normal” and “acceptable” homosexuality might be: Are gay pride parades, which gays celebrate as representative of their community, the sort of event that is appropriate for children? Are these the sort of things responsible parents would want their children to see? Are gay pride parades an example of wholesome sexuality that parents and society should uphold to children as one to follow?

    More to the point, is pornography, simulated sex, lewdness, nudity, obscene exhibitionism, decadence and debauchery something that parents and society want their children to emulate as examples of wholesome sexuality?

    An honest appraisal of the question should give a good indication of the moral status of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

  • Azima Khan

    I’m sorry Ms Higgins, but history won’t see the difference.

  • polymath156

    Excellent piece with solid analysis!. The travesty on history the LGBT folks are attempting must make Rev Martin Luther King Jr roll over in his grave.

  • Ron Swaren

    I knew it would be above your head. In fact you and your cohorts are pretty much lost and wandering in your arguments anyway. Courts often turn down completely logical arguments, and it turns out, their decisions are still right. You have to read some of them to understand. Perhaps the US’ most famous jurist (and one of my ancestors) put it clearly: “The life of the law is not Logic. It is experience.” It’s in the preface to “The Common Law.” by Holmes

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!