birmingham-water-hose-rainbow

The Coming Christian Revolt

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular “progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”

He then resumes shooting, all the while insisting that those uncooperative Christians who scatter for cover behind the word of God and the U.S. Constitution somehow suffer from a “persecution complex” (the baker, the photographer, the florist, the innkeeper, the Christian school administrator, etc.).

Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.

To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, “gay marriage” and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.

Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.

This is both our constitutionally affirmed human right and our Christian duty.

It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to “impose our beliefs” upon others.

It is done from both obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly.

Central to Christianity, and clearly delineated throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is the unambiguous and timeless proposition that any sexual practice outside the bonds of true man-woman marriage constitutes sexual immorality and results in separation from God. This, of course, includes sexual acting out between members of the same sex, whether or not such acting out is tied to the novel notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.”

Likewise central to Christianity is the relatively easy-to-understand concept that a Christ follower must neither take the life of a pre-born child nor aid and abet, in any way, the taking of such life.

It is not so much that Christians wish, willy-nilly, to call abortion, homosexual behavior, fornication, adultery, bestiality, incest or any other disordered sexual proclivity “sinful.” It is, rather, that we must. For the true Christian, God’s objective truths will always trump man’s subjective desires.

Newton’s Third Law states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

For every law, regulation, activist court ruling or presidential edict that demands Christians violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt a postmodern, moral relativist way of life, there increases, in exact proportion, the likelihood of widespread civil disobedience – disobedience of the sort we haven’t seen since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and ’60s.

Indeed, if, in the spirit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., we, his fellow Christian travelers, must again face the water hoses, then face them we shall.

As the recent Hobby Lobby decision reaffirmed, the government cannot legislate away religious free exercise. Where your desire, intense though it may be, for me to employ you despite your antagonistic values system, pay for your abortion, or host, photograph or otherwise bake a rainbow cake for your faux “wedding,” comes into conflict with my absolute right to religious liberty, the result is a foregone conclusion.

I win, you lose.

We have seen and will continue to see an exponential increase in Christian business owners refusing to violate God’s commands by complying with unconstitutional, immoral and unjust government dictates.

For 2,000 years, whenever such conflicts have arisen, Christians have placed the laws of God above the laws of man.

What makes you think we’re about to change now?

As many in the early church refused to bow a knee to Caesar in worship, so, too, will many modern Christians refuse, under any circumstances, to obey any law that presumes to make sin obligatory.

If the ancient church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to face the lions in hopeful anticipation of joining Jesus, then we, too, under the same Spirit, will face anything today’s pagan left can threaten.

In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.

This will never happen.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In 2012, after the Obama administration unilaterally issued its now gutted HHS contraception/abortion mandate, Catholic priests from across the nation, to their great credit, read from the pulpit a letter that contained the following declaration: “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”

As our secularist government increasingly imposes similar laws, so, too, increases the certitude of civil disobedience.

While there are those who will give way out of fear, weakness or a desire to conform to the world, there are many others who will not. Christians must peacefully come together, lock arms and redouble our resistance to evil.

Even when that evil is adorned with the presidential seal and signature.

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

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

    The signs of the end times are everywhere…

    As we witness such things as the spread of globalism, the building of a one-world church, the increase of wickedness, the breakdown of the traditional family, the destruction of that priceless bastion of liberty called America, the normalization of homosexuality, the callous murder of babies, the filthy pop culture, the breathtaking increase in governmental surveillance, we become fearful, uncertain, frustrated, angry, and discouraged, but this is because our minds and hearts are too focused on things of this world rather than things above. Too often we have the same short view that “conservative” unbelievers have rather than the long view that comes from the light of Bible prophecy…

    The devil is the god of this world, and his handiwork is evident everywhere, but he is not God and he is not in control of the times and the seasons.

    “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2:20-21).

    We should stand in the confidence that the present evil is exceedingly temporary and will soon be cut down.

    Please visit my Bible prophecy website at: itshallcometopass.org

    • Colin Meloy

      I’ve seen your comments on Clash Daily. You say things that are pertinent to the article there, and don’t just copy and paste stuff. Why not do the same here? It would be very nice to hear your opinions on things.

  • jack_foobar

    “We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior” Have you read your own article? How about you get as good as you give, and then I’ll comment.

    • WXRGina

      It looks like you just did comment, unless I’m hallucinating. There is nothing objectionable about the pure truth, which is what Matt’s column is. The truth is only “objectionable” to people who despise the Truth.

      • Azrael

        And here’s your problem – you believe it to be The Truth despite all the evidence to the contrary.

        • QuadGMoto

          SMH

          The willful blindness is strong.

        • WXRGina

          Liar. What “all the evidence to the contrary” are you talking about? You cannot refute a single point in this column.

          • Azrael

            Actually i can refute them all since he hasn’t presented any evidence whatsoever to support them, only his heavily distorted opinions.
            FYI his opinions on the subject aren’t evidence.

          • QuadGMoto

            So links, quotations, etc. are not “evidence” by your reckoning?

          • Azrael

            Not when they express more baseless opinions.

          • QuadGMoto

            I hope you never wind up on a jury.

          • WXRGina

            Your premise is a lie.

          • Azrael

            And again, that’s your opinion. And again, completely baseless.

          • thisoldspouse

            Funny that court decisions are called “opinions,” too. Does that mean that they are baseless?

          • Azrael

            No, it means that they have legal power on their own. Please educate yourself before belching other stupidities.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Here’s IRONCLAD EVIDENCE pervert!

            If you are born with a penis, YOU’RE A MALE! If you are born with a vagina, YOU’RE A FEMALE! Anything else is simply a MISTAKE OF NATURE!!!
            There are NO GRAY AREAS!
            As far as “gay families” go, they are an OXYMORON and are to be ignored!
            2 males together, or 2 females together are not allowed to procreate by GOD himself!!! THAT IS A FACT!!!
            Therefore, “gay families” simply cannot exist on this planet!

            The homo/lesbo’s CHOSEN behavior is Immoral, Perverted, Dysfunctional behavior! ALWAYS HAS BEEN & ALWAYS WILL BE!!!
            It’s already been decided by GOD!

            CASE CLOSED!!!

          • Azrael

            Ironclad? You surely meant to say imaginary.
            Actually there have been countless cases of men born with vaginas and women born with penises. There have been numerous cases in which people have discovered that they are of the opposing sex only after a genetic test. If you want to know why just research sexual genetic development – there’s a site specifically dedicated to that. So yea, there’s plenty of grey area.
            No, it’s not, and yelling won’t change that.
            Since gods don’t exist, let alone yours, this point is moot. BTW it’s biology that still doesn’t allow that – and judging by how science is progressing this point will also be moot in the near future (you might want to read about the successful research in producing offspring from only female rats and ovules and sperm from stem cells).
            Yet, these families exist, go figure.
            Only you say so, not them, not the rest of the world.
            What an imaginary god decides matters only to those dumb enough to believe in it.
            Yes, the case is closed, society has definitely decided that you have lost.
            As for the insults – they only show you for what you really are: a sore loser.

      • Pope Ron Polyp II

        It’s objectionable to people who value good mental health, and the article being commented upon is desperately insane.

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

      What are you talking about? Please cite specifics.

    • El Mac

      @jack_foobar, is that the best you can do dude?

  • psychic

    I didn’t see the writer’s name before reading the article but I knew it was Matt Barber. He has his own certain style.

    • thisoldspouse

      Yes, the emphatic rogue sentences. I love it!

  • tomd

    “The Good Lord was the original segregationist. He put the black man in Africa…. He made us white because he wanted us white, and He intended that we should stay that way.” (Ross Barnett,
    Governor of Mississippi)

    We decided in the 60s that civil rights at times took precedence over religious rights. Do we have to fight this issue again? The answer appears to be yes.

    • thisoldspouse

      Yes, Gov. Barnett’s statement came straight out if the Bible.

      Well, maybe your “bible.”

      • tomd

        Doesn’t matter. These were his “sincerely held” Christian beliefs – beliefs held by many of his constituents as well. And they could back them up with Bible verses too.

        And we decided then that government-mandated civil right took precedence over these religious freedoms.

        • thisoldspouse

          Yes, does matter whether your religious beliefs are based on eons-old doctrine held by precedent of its founders, and based on solid, objective writings recognized through the ages as authoritative, or popular, regional cultural whims.

          No, do-it-yourself, contrived “religions” are not to be given license on par with Christianity.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Your response indicates you believe in religious freedom, but only for “true Christians”. So, who decides who are the “true Christians” who have the right to religious freedom? Who decides what are “contrived” religions that are undeserving of such freedom?

            I am quite certain that there were many among the founders who completely shared Governor Barnett’s views on God’s actions regarding the separation of the races, so it doesn’t really solve the problem to say that religious freedom only applies to those whose religious beliefs were in agreement with those of the founders.

          • thisoldspouse

            “Religion,” as referenced by the Founders of this nation, unambiguously meant the Christian religion. I know it pains you to hear that, but the Founders would not have countenanced Islam, Wicca, Satanism or even atheism as deserving of equal footing with Christianity, if any footing at all as far as public policy.

            The truth.

          • tomd

            “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

            -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

            They had a broader view than you think.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Are you so intellectually lazy you can’t do better than a burned up strawman?

      Try again.

      • tomd

        Nope. In the 60s, MLK fought for civil rights *against* the religious freedoms of many white people in the South.

        You and people like Barber want the right to discriminate against gay people. And you’ve decided to use “religious freedom” as your leverage to do that. But other people are perfectly capable of using that lever to overturn civil rights for other groups, even if that isn’t what you intended.

        My only hope is that one of those civil rights is *yours*. When courts rule that being able to fire gays for religious reasons also means being able to fire Christians for religious reasons, you might sit up and take notice.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Sorry, but trying to control the parameters of the debate with a false premise (i.e. “sexual behavior is comparable to skin color”) isn’t going to work with me.

          Do you have anything relevant to contribute?

          • tomd

            It doesn’t matter. You don’t get to approve the legitimacy of other people’s religious views, and the SCOTUS made that very clear in the Hobby Lobby case. There are people in this country who would have religious objections to serving black customers. There are people in this country who have objections to serving Jews, or Christians, or women. You may not share these objections, but it won’t be up to you. It will be up to the courts to decide if all these people can use the same loophole as Hobby Lobby and hide behind their religion.

          • Truth Offends

            “loophole”? What “loophole”?

          • tomd

            The idea that you’re allowed to ignore laws if you have a religious objection to them.

          • Truth Offends

            So, the “loophole” is the First Amendment to the Constitution?

          • QuadGMoto

            So, the First Amendment is a “loophole”? Got it.

            It was put in place precisely because of people like you.

          • tomd

            The First Amendment doesn’t prevent me from firing you because you’re a
            Christian. It also doesn’t allow to break laws that I must follow. All rights have limits.

          • QuadGMoto

            Your version of those limits is “no First Amendment rights”.

          • tomd

            Not at all. I believe in maximizing personal rights, including religious rights. But not all “religious freedoms” are equal. Going to the church of your choice, praying where you want to, etc. – these are clearly religious rights. And personal expressions of religion – wearing a cross or a burkha, sure.

            But demanding the right to fire someone or evict them simply because they are gay? To me, that’s bigotry, not religion. You enjoy protections against that kind of thing, but are happy to throw another group under the bus.

          • QuadGMoto

            The word in the First Amendment is “exercise”.

            Try looking at a dictionary sometime:

            a putting into action, use, operation, or effect

          • tomd

            So you don’t think there should be any limits on “exercising” religion?

          • Truth Offends

            Do you think business owners should have ANY freedom to exercise their religion–in their business practices?

          • tomd

            Of course! They should have as much freedom as possible – but they can’t break the law. And as I pointed out above, this country decided 50 years ago that religion doesn’t permit businesses to discriminate against certain groups in public accommodations. Are you proposing we change that?

            And now you can answer my question -do you think there should be any limits on the “exercise” of religion?

          • QuadGMoto

            but they can’t break the law.

            In other words, “anything we can pass into law”, which is just another way of saying “no freedom at all if we get our way.”

          • tomd

            Ahh – so you think businesses can randomly ignore laws?

          • QuadGMoto

            The Constitution is law. Furthermore, it is law which supersedes lesser law. If a law is itself illegal (because it violates law which is superior) then it is not binding.

            The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

            Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

            — John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison

            When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.

            — State v. Sutton, 1909

            Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.

            — Thomas Jefferson

            “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

            — Thomas Jefferson

            There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

            — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

          • tomd

            Anti discrimination laws were deemed constitutional 50 years ago. The danger of this approach by the right to use “religious freedom” to attack gays is that it may overturn those decisions and undo the Civil Rights Act.

          • Truth Offends

            I told you only YESTERDAY(!) that the Civil Rights Act offers protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act does not offer protections to people based on their sexual preferences and/or desires!

          • tomd

            Yes. Quad was claiming that laws that protect gays were unconstitutional. Courts ruled that anti-discrimination laws in general were constitutional.

            However, if courts continue to accept religious exceptions for laws, then all discrimination laws are up for grabs. You cannot distinguish between people objecting to gays for religious reasons and people objecting to blacks for religious reasons.

          • Truth Offends

            The baker did not discriminate against homosexuals. He refused to make a “gay wedding” cake.

          • QuadGMoto

            They just can’t tell the truth at all. I guess that’s because there is no truth in them.

          • Truth Offends

            My answer to your second question is, “yes, of course.”
            The baker did not discriminate against homosexuals. He only refused to make a “gay wedding” cake. I suppose you think a Christian dressmaker should be forced (under penalty of law) to make dresses for men.

          • Truth Offends

            If you truly believed business owners should have “as much freedom as possible,” then you would not support forcing the baker to make “gay wedding” cakes (knowing, of course, that the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals). But, you don’t(!) truly believe that.

          • helligusvart

            Certain groups, yes. But homosexuals were not among them, and they shouldn’t be now.

          • tomd

            If you want to argue that specifically, that’s one thing. But people are arguing this based on religious freedom. Once you use that argument, there’s no difference between religious beliefs against gays and religious beliefs against black people.

          • helligusvart

            Very few people want to fire someone for being homosexual, unless his/her homosexuality will impede his/her job performance, such as teaching in a Catholic school. That is a non-issue.

          • tomd

            No sweat. And most people wouldn’t fire a black person – except for racist bigots. Being gay doesn’t mean someone is a bad teacher. Most people wouldn’t fire a Christian, but we still have laws against it.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          Christians are not abnormal, nor perverted! homo/lesbo’s ARE!

          Therefore, your argument is MOOT!

          • tomd

            Not at all. Evangelical Christians are a minority in the country, which makes them “abnormal” too. On that basis, can I fire you for that reason?

          • thisoldspouse

            Fire away. That would be YOUR exercise of freedom with the property (your business) that you own and control.

            I find ALL “anti-discrimination” laws repugnant – yes, even those based on race or religion. They are the antithesis of freedom when concerning private property. Basic rights, like the right to vote, own property unencumbered, etc, are all that are guaranteed by the Constitution. That we have to give special groups a contrived “right” to trump the will of someone else, even if they’re wrong and truly bigoted, concerning the control of their property would spark another American Revolution among the Founders if they were alive today.

          • Truth Offends

            I always thought it would be better to know the business owner up the street was a racist than not know.

          • Lisa Whitney

            Yeah, they are just bigots and weak minded to the point that I would like to introduce population control to weed them out!

        • helligusvart

          In case you haven’t noticed, Christians have already been fired from their jobs for religious reasons. Matt is one of them. And yes, we have sat up and taken notice.

          • tomd

            Not really, but go ahead and provide examples.

    • maccamcfc

      Then planes were invented, didn’t the good lord see that coming.

  • Phil Heinricke

    Cudos to Matt Barber and the many who remind of the intense persecution we face. Every dime you give to a church is tax deductible and not taxable to the church. The church doesn’t even have to file a Form 990 like other charitable organizations are required to do, and their financial statements do not require an expensive audit. Preachers’ housing allowances are not taxable to the preacher. Exemption from property taxes. All these benes. In Manhattan, it takes seemingly a miracle to find a parking place, but the city of NY restricts parking around St Patrick’s on Sunday mornings for church use only.

    With all these benefits that the church enjoys adding up to billions of dollars over the years, sometimes people forget the intense persecution and unfair treatment that Christians must face in this nation. Every now and then we need to be reminded.

    • Azima Khan

      If you faced actual persecution, he wouldn’t need to speak about it in metaphor and simile.

      • Phil Heinricke

        Don’t you persecute me

    • maccamcfc

      Barber wouldn’t know persecution if it slapped him in the face.

      • Phil Heinricke

        I agree, bu then again… Real persecution just might be what it takes to jolt him into coherence.

      • thisoldspouse

        And you apparently know nothing of what Matt Barber has endured. He was summarily fired from his job at Allstate for penning an article, on his own time and computer, critical of homosexuality.

        But you don’t think that losing your livelihood for expressing your viewpoint is persecution. Typical.

        • maccamcfc

          How do you know there wasn’t more to it, lets be honest he is a pompous arse.

          • John Francis Russo

            Your ad hominem attacks against Mr Barber do not impress me.

          • maccamcfc

            Who are you his dad? do you think I am arsed what you think, Barber attacks enough people so I am sure he can take it and they call us thin skinned.

          • ryan charisma

            no, but they are factual.

          • Guest

            and a douche.

    • bigben37601 .

      Phil Heinricke, where and what is this “intense persecution and unfair treatment” which Christians must endure in this nation? I am a fellow Christian, was born in and have lived in America my entire life, and I have never felt as though I were persecuted, or in any other way mistreated for my religious faith.

      I will tell you where I have seen persecution and discrimination, against women and against fellow human beings who belong to the LGBT community. It is discrimination when women make, on the average, 77 cents on the dollar as men in the exact same position make. I have also seen persecution and discrimination against members of the LGBT community that was SOLELY because of their being a member of that community. And yes, it IS discrimination when, in nearly 30 states, a person can be fired if it is discovered that they are LGBT. They are somebody’s son, daughter, brother, sister, or other kind of relative, which makes them just as human as you and I. And as fellow humans, they deserve our love, compassion, and respect.
      I might also add that it has been my experience that most of the persecution against the previously mentioned fellow humans has been discrimination by those who profess to be Christian against those fellow humans, NOT the other way around.

      So, before you speak of how we as Christians are being persecuted, perhaps you should look into what it actually is, who it is being exercised against, and be thankful to the Lord that you have never actually had to deal with it.

      • Lisa Whitney

        Right on, Bigben! I could not have said it better myself.

      • Phil Heinricke

        But bigben. Sometimes people are mean to us. Sure, we deserve it for being cruel and arrogant and condescending and judgmental. And I know that some Federally recognized holidays are Christian holidays but none are from other religions and all the aforementioned privileges that Christians receive, but but but when people are mean to us, it really hurts.

      • helligusvart

        Methinks Mr. Heinricke is being sarcastic. He is no friend of conservative Christianity.

    • Lisa Whitney

      You’ve got to be kidding me, right?

      • Phil Heinricke

        Right

    • murphyj87

      Matt Barber , and bigots like him, are definitely revolting.

  • shepetgene

    This disgruntled patriot-persecuted Christian narrative the Matt Barber is pushing is getting harder and harder to support. For instance, when the Hobby Lobby decision largely supports your position how can you argue “activist judges” are anti-Christian and moving us toward a post-Christian nation? Moreover, when the articles on this site are doing the best they can to basically dehumanize the Latin American, largely children, immigrants of the border crisis and boil it down to money (“Your tax dollars are paying for a resort!”) how are we to believe you’re Christianity is really preeminent for you? At a certain point these narratives conflict with one another, because a Christian wouldn’t hold the US Government so sacred – clutching the “word of God and the US Constitution.” It’s quite frankly shocking how many on here are able to blur their sincerely-held Christian beliefs to adhere to the patriot narrative.

    • El Mac

      @shepetgene, clearly, the US Godvernment is not the same as the US Constitution. The one should be subservient to the other. But no longer is that true.

      • murphyj87

        In 2003, The Superior Court of Ontario struck down the “traditional definition of marriage” as being unconstitutional (as the “traditional definition of marriage” is similarly unconstitutional in the United States).

        In June 2005, by an act of the federal Parliament of Canada, the definition of marriage nationwide in Canada became “the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others”, and 78% of Canadians, including many fundamentalist Christians and the Conservative Party of Canada, support same sex marriage.

        • El Mac

          And what exactly is your point?

        • g weaver

          Can you support your statement that many fundamentalist Christians support same sex marriage?
          Obviously you want same sex marriage to be okay for God and His followers….not gonna happen…sorry to disappoint you. We will accept those who want to ‘marry’ another of the same sex but will never condone it nor support it.

          • murphyj87

            Whether I support same sex marriage (I do) is irrelevant.

            What counts is that the duly elected federal Parliament of Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act in June 2005, which states that marriage is “the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others”, and the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians support the laws of Canada (including the law making same sex marriage legal nationwide, and the law which states that life begins at birth). The platform of the Conservative Party (led by fundamentalist Christian Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper) is to support same sex marriage, and to vote AGAINST any bill that restricts abortion or that changes the law that life begins at birth.
            ——————————

            Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday he will vote against a motion tabled by a Conservative MP to have Parliament determine when human life begins.

            The private member’s motion was launched by Kitchener, Ont., MP Stephen Woodworth, who contends the current legal definition of human life is based on 400-year-old British tradition and needs to be updated.

            The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is putting heavy pressure on members of the Conservative caucus to vote down a Tory MP’s effort to trigger a legislative review of when human life legally begins.

            It’s unusual for a PMO to work against its own MPs’ motions and private members’ bills but Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are anxious to avoid association with any legislative activity that could be characterized by opponents as re-opening the debate over abortion.

            ————————–

            It is also true that over 78% of Canadians support same sex marriage and over 60% of Canadians describe themselves as liberal or very liberal (compared to 55% of Americans who support same sex marriage, and 37% of Americans describe themselves as liberal or very liberal). In a Gallup-style Canadian poll, a similarly higher number of Canadians across all demographics including religion support same sex marriage and are pro-choice.

          • murphyj87

            I quote further:

            The leaders of the various mainline churches, consisting not only of
            priests and ministers, but also of a surprisingly large number of ‘lay
            activists,’ are not only the main opinion-forming elite of the various
            denominations, but also exercise tight control over comparatively large
            financial resources which are typically used to lobby for left-wing
            causes. The evangelical fundamentalist branches of Christianity in
            Canada (fairly small in number, but gaining in strength) may be
            characterized as generally apolitical. There is no massive political
            mobilization comparable to that of the Christian Coalition in the U.S.

    • RJLigier

      As a pathologically lying, criminal and borderline psychotic homosexual, do you ever tire of projecting and prevaricating or attributing your sociopathic behavior to the normal heterosexual population?

      • ryan charisma

        if that’s “normal”, I don’t want any part of it.

        Because it looks an awful lot like greed & selfishness to me.

      • shepetgene

        You’ve leveled four pretty hefty claims on my character with basically nothing to back those up. Did you have a point in there or did it just make you happy to call me names?

        • Juvie Record

          6000 years of recorded and written history have proven time and time again the attributes of dishonesty, psychopathy, criminality inherent in every homosexual, case in point; Hitler. Personal experience of billions of people I tells that anyone who supports left, progressive, Homofascist agendas will often reveal to be a closeted homosexual. 6000 years of history and the opinion of billions, hmmm, nope that doesn’t amount to anything. Oh dear.

          • shepetgene

            Your quality of evidence for what you just said there is “people say that….so it must be true.” And I think most reputable historians would argue with your assumption that Hitler was gay.

    • Barrustio

      Biblically speaking God allows for the creation of borders and requires that people adhere to the laws of those within those borders. So inspite of how humane and sympathethic one may be for the plight of the Immigrant children, nothing says you are inhumane by repatriating them in a humane fashion

    • Andrew Beacham

      The Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with morality. Yep, it was the Supreme Court’s attempt to save their heads along with their Federal Government buddies, so it was just common-sense. The public is about a hair from a shooting war. If the stunt on the border hasn’t set things in motion, already. Obama is the one who is killing babies, and Obama is the one who has puts children in harm’s way on the border. like the dumbass pig he is..

      WHO WOULD HOLD OUT FALSE PROMISES TO CHILDREN AND THE POOR? OBAMA and Demoncrats, have. WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?? YOU IDIOTS!!

    • linda

      the true Christian follows the laws of government in so much as they do not go against the laws and percepts of God. To enable, support and make room for anything that is sinful ( ie: abortion, LGBT agendas like Gay marriage etc.) makes that Christian just as guilty of that same sin by their acquiescence, silence and in action.
      We will stand,up, speak out, resist and refuse to comply with any law that goes against our God and His call to live by His principles and precepts.
      We will count the cost and find the ways of this perverse generation and immoral laws lacking and not worthy of compliance when in so doing brings separation from God and his judgement.
      It is NOT about patriotism , it is about choosing to live, move and breathe in the truth and light of Jesus Christ in obedience to the Father and to His glory

      • John Francis Russo

        In addition the Bible teaches us, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

      • Grizzly Adams

        It seems JC’s message of love and tolerance is lost on you

        • g weaver

          tolerance is much different than support or acceptance.

          • Grizzly Adams

            those concepts are lost on linda as well

          • g weaver

            It is unfortunate that so many are deceived! And equally unfortunate that many believe in tolerance and religious freedom yet do not allow a Christian to have their beliefs that we must subject ourselves to everyone else’s.

          • Grizzly Adams

            christian can have his belief…when he tries to impose it on me however, it becomes my first amendment rights he’s messing with

          • g weaver

            Very interesting Grizzly, so how do you experience that a Christian is imposing his or her beliefs upon you. Or are you offended by free speech and religion?

          • Grizzly Adams

            When they knock on my front door…and exercise their free speech at the expense of my right to safety and security of person

        • dukestreet

          Jesus Christ’s message was of love, never tolerance. if you read the gospels you will never see or hear Jesus say. I will tolerate your sinfulness. He said “Go and sin no more”. Christ never tolerated evil and sin.

          • Grizzly Adams

            “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone” is indeed a message of tolerance…just sayin

      • murphyj87

        78% of Canadians (including many fundamentalist Christians and the election platform of the Conservative Party of Canada) support same sex marriage, which has been legal nationwide in Canada since 2005, almost 10 years.

        In June 2005, the federal Parliament of Canada passed a law which makes the definition of marriage to be “the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others”, after Canadian courts struck down the “traditional definition of marriage” as being unconstitutional in 2003

        Similarly, the .”traditional definition of marriage” is unconstitutional in the United States.

        • dukestreet

          The fact is that Stephen Harper is a politician. He will do anything to avoid rocking the boat. There are very few true followers of Jesus who are successful politicians.

          Politics is about compromise and therefore it is almost impossible to consistently hold traditional values, display them, and get elected to any position of power. This is why Harper keeps most of his personal beliefs out of it. He would not be PM if he did otherwise.
          Most fundamentalist would not really agree with same sex marriage and hold to traditional marriage. Many of them will not say so, because as we see in this situation, the radical thought community will accuse them of various crimes against progressivism . Whether it be homophobia or against right to choose etc. They don’t yet want to get into activism. At least not yet. if they wait much longer it will be too late. I could never go into politics since I couldn’t do the lying and underhanded activity it usually requires.

          As we see activism these days, is very uncouth,violent and extreme. It is almost impossible to peacefully protest something without getting violent radicals in your face.

          Most true Christ followers recognize that persecution is actively going on in many parts of the world and passively and more often actively going on in the west. Especially Europe.

    • IvanRider

      The Heavenly Governance will always trump the Earthly Governance. When the two are not of one accord, the Earthly Governance is always the usurper. Always. There aren’t “Two Kingdoms.” There is only one – God’s. The Earthly Governance is but a jurisdiction. It must adhere to the higher one’s will with its laws, or be held accountable as the usurper it has chosen to be.

    • Jo Brown

      “It’s quite frankly shocking how many on here are able to blur their
      sincerely-held Christian beliefs to adhere to the patriot narrative.”
      Insightful. Appeals to our patriotism are often also appeals to our good nature, and many people -Christians included- can be easily swayed by them. With so many causes and narratives to navigate, it is easy to become sidetracked, and you’re right that Christians should be clutching only the word of God and doing His will.
      As for persecution of Christians though, I do think that is definitely on the rise.

  • tb03

    Corretta Scott King supported same sex marriage and often compared the gay rights struggle to MLK interpretation of Liberation Theology. I’m sure she would be appalled to learn that her husband’s words were being twisted to support unconstitutional laws that legislate discrimination.

    • Truth Offends

      Anyone who believes MLK would have supported “Liberation Theology” (as it exists today) and the pro-homosexuality movement, would need to also believe he would have abandoned Christianity.

      • tb03

        It is very ironic in this article that there is a comparison of the cake baker that ignored civil rights laws and the Civil Rights movement/MLK. Anyone who believes that MLK would have supported the bakers religious freedom in this situation would also need to believe that he would support repealing the Civil Rights Act.

        • Truth Offends

          Let me guess: You obtained your “critical thinking skills” from government indoctrination centers we call “public schools.”
          Am I right?

          • tb03

            Let me guess, you don’t have a follow up argument so you have to invent a phony “insult”. Either participate in the relevant discussion or move on.

          • Truth Offends

            It is absurd to believe that those who would support a baker’s religious freedom to refuse to bake a “gay-wedding cake” would need to also support repealing the Civil Rights Act!
            But, sadly, that’s what you believe.
            ———————————————————————-
            “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
            ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

            A man who prefers/desires to have sex with other men is a matter of his “character”.
            MLK dreamed of a day when our nation would “judge” others by their “character”!

            The Civil Rights Act offers protections to people based on (*other than religion) things that have absolutely nothing to do with their “character” (race, color, *religion, sex, or national origin).

            So, was my guess right? Did you obtain your “critical thinking skills” from government schools?

          • tb03

            Really? The Colorado Baker Mr. Phillips was sued and lost on the longstanding Colorado law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He violated civil rights laws, the ones that Dr. King basically died for. MLK strongly believe that public businesses have no right to discriminate. This is basic American history.

          • Truth Offends

            We’re talking about the Civil Rights Act–which you brought up! And, MLK had long passed away before any law about “sexual orientation”! Come on! “This is basic American history.”

            And, given MLK “dreamed” of a day when America would “judge” people by “the content of their character”–what evidence do you have that he would have “dreamed of” (and “died for”) a day when America would NOT “judge” people “by the content of their character”?

          • tb03

            Yes, The Civil rights act, to quote Kennedy, was designed for “giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public”. You’ve already undermined your own “content of character” argument with the inclusion of religion as a protected class (did you edit your post?), so I’ll ignore this along with your presumptions of my lack of education (which perhaps demonstrates your poor character, Sir ). It is true the initial law did not specify sexual orientation, but the law, along with the 14th amendment, proves that there is a prescription of equality in our society that we are bound to follow.

          • Truth Offends

            We were discussing MLK and you brought up the Civil Rights Act. Yes. I did edit my comment. I said that the Civil Rights Act offers protection against discrimination based on things that, other than religion, have nothing to do with “character.”

            So, again, given MLK “dreamed” of a day when America would “judge” people “by the content of their character,” what evidence do you have that, according to you, MLK would have “dreamed of” (and even would have “died for”) a day when our nation would NOT “judge” people “by the content of their character” (their sexual preferences/desires/actions)?

            BTW: The baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He only refused to make a “gay-wedding cake”.

          • johnny boatmann

            He refused to serve two members of the general public wanting to buy a cake. He broke public accomodation laws of the State of Colorado. He broke civil law.

          • thisoldspouse

            He UPHELD the Colorado Constitution, which does not recognize same-sex “marriage” within the state.

          • johnny boatmann

            Nope. He broke Colorado civil law. It’s not his job to enforce the Colorado constitution…that’s for the Attorney General of Colorado.

          • thisoldspouse

            It’s everyone’s right to OBSERVE the law, which belongs to all citizens.

          • johnny boatmann

            Because Colorado has a ban on marraige equality doesn’t n egate the fact that he man had a business open to the general public and refused to serve two people against the laws of the state of colorado

          • QuadGMoto

            So you’re arguing that if known crack dealers come into a chemical supply house, the owner is required to sell them whatever they want, even though crack is illegal?

            Are you serious?!?

          • John Francis Russo

            Again, none of those items makes any difference. The baker has every right to refuse ANY law which violates his religious beliefs.

          • John Francis Russo

            Yes ! And, it is the right of every citizen to refuse to obey unjust laws. In fact the civil rights movement of the 1960′s practiced civil disobedience to defy the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the south.

          • murphyj87

            Federal law in Canada has made same sex marriage legal nationwide since June 2005.

          • John Francis Russo

            It is HIS iob, and the job of every citizen to refuse to obey ANY unjust law. The unconstitutional application of the Colarado statute should be disobeyed.

          • jc

            Um – no. Breaking the law makes you a lawbreaker. Don’t like it? Change the law. Otherwise shut up and live with it.

          • QuadGMoto

            Tell that to MLK, or Corrie Ten Boom.

          • murphyj87

            The courts, not citizens, are the only ones who can judge a law or situation to be unjust, just as Canadian courts ruled the “traditional definition of marriage” to be unconstitutional in 2003., as it should be unconstitutional in the US as well.

          • John Francis Russo

            And, more importantly, he upheld God’s law which supersedes ANY man made law. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • Truth Offends

            No. He refused to make a “gay wedding” cake. If I recall correctly, he offered to make them a birthday cake, or any other kind of cake. Just not a “gay wedding” cake.
            And, as far as “breaking civil law” goes…that’s according to only one judge. It’s up on appeal.
            Homosexual activists wage LAWFARE!

          • johnny boatmann

            Nope. He refused to provide a service for a homosexual couple that he would provide for a heterosexual couple which is a violation of the State of Colorado’s public accomodation law.

          • Truth Offends

            A violation according to one judge. It’s up on appeal.

          • John Francis Russo

            Again, even if that judge’s decision is upheld. The law and its application in this case is unjust and violates the rights of the baker. Therefore; this law should be disobeyed.

          • John Francis Russo

            I don’t care what your man made law says !!! What you are saying is that anti-discrimination REQUIRES the baker to violate his or her OWN conscience. This nation was founded by people who fled Europe to escape such dictitorial government actions. It is called religious freedom for a reason. And, it is why we have the first amendment. Lastly, we should disobey any and all UNJUST laws. For example, when National Socialists pass laws to put Jews into concentration camps, it becomes our moral to help hide the Jews. Remember, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • Grizzly Adams

            Provide evidence of this god guy you keep bringing up, and I’ll buy it…not before

          • John Francis Russo

            AND, even if it is a law and upheld by a higher court; “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • jc

            A cake can’t be gay. He refused to serve the public – and broke the law.

          • Truth Offends

            Are you dense? The baker did not, as you wrongly claim, “refuse to serve the public.” He refused to make a “gay wedding” cake.

          • ryan charisma

            you’re mincing words.

            FALSE.

            point goes to the other team.

          • Grizzly Adams

            cakes can be gay? I didn’t even know they had private parts?

          • helligusvart

            Obviously the “jc” doesn’t stand for Jesus Christ.

          • John Francis Russo

            Good ! Unjust laws should be broken. Civil disobedience is what was done by the civil rights movement. Were MLK and others wrong to break Jim Crow laws ? Again, I will quote from the new testament. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • helligusvart

            We need some good old-fashioned civil disobedience from Christians these days. Unfortunately, too many Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that they must meekly accept all indignities under the guise of “love.” Love is the single most misunderstood aspect of the Christian life. “We must be nice, we must be winsome.” TTBHPPPH!!! Christian love does not require that we lie down and take it. We have rights, too, and I for one will not stand by while my Christian faith is legislated out of existence in favor of disgusting sexual perverts. I will flagrantly disobey discriminatory laws. I will also refuse to vote for anyone who supports the homosexual agenda in any way, shape or form. And I will not stop until homosexuality is back in the closet where it belongs.

          • Jo Brown

            Another way to look at the misunderstanding of love is this:
            Suppose your 5 year old child is playing on the train-tracks, having a jolly good time building a picture by arranging sticks and stones on the ground. Then you notice this and tell little Johnny to get off the track at once, and he instantly goes into bitch-and-whine mode because he is enjoying making his stick and stone picture and wants to finish his grand design. Again you tell him to get off the track because it is very dangerous and a train could come any time. The whining continues, and Johnny stays on the tracks building his picture, adamant that you are mean and intolerant.
            Now, is it “loving” to relent and let Johnny have his fun on the tracks?
            Or is it more loving to deny Johnny this temporal pleasure and save him from being minced when the train comes barrelling past?

            Gays like to accuse Christians of “hate” when Christians speak against the gay lifestyle. But in reality, it is out of love that Christians do this. (Or really, it SHOULD be out of love that Christians do this, but there are some rather misguided Christians who actually relish the act of attacking gays with their words and attitudes.)

          • Grizzly Adams

            Yawn…Love? I find your comparison of an activity that has a high risk of death, to an activity in which all risks can be mitigated utterly ridiculous

          • Jo Brown

            You failed to discern the message in my post, which was of course written from the Christian perspective. The “train” therefore represents the final judgment from God that each individual on Earth must face. Being on the wrong side of this judgment means utter destruction for the person concerned. No condom will mitigate that risk.

          • Jo Brown

            He had to, in order to honor God’s law, which is his right and duty to do. No one may dictate to another person how he should serve his God, that is for each man’s conscience to decide. Those gay people could have simply gone to another baker, but no… they just HAD to show their intolerance of others and engage the justice system to kick this baker in the gonads on their behalf.

          • johnny boatmann

            Why should theu have to go elsewhere when you and I don’t. Sorry but that doesnt wiork

          • Jo Brown

            They should have to go elsewhere because to not do so (and take the course that they did) would entail violating another person’s conscience and trampling on his right to freedom of religion. Your rights end where another’s rights begin.

          • John Francis Russo

            Does your “prescription of equality” include child molestors ? How about rapists ? Murderers ? IF the government decides to make child molestation legal; may we then also be barred from “discriminating” against them ?

          • tb03

            This is not a serious argument. The rights of others have end where another’s rights begin. Human rights cannot cause harm to another. It is not MY prescription of equality, but the Constitution

          • Grizzly Adams

            being ridiculous hardly helps your argument

          • helligusvart

            You have, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the agenda of all pro-homosexual activists: the complete eradication of religious freedom. You claim that Truth Offends “undermined (his) own ‘content of character’ argument with the inclusion of religion as a protected class.” FYI, drippo, religion IS a protected class! The First Amendment says so!! Religious freedom trumps all other freedoms except the freedom to physically live. If you don’t like religious freedom, then perhaps America is not for you.

          • Grizzly Adams

            My religion says butt sex is ok…please respect my first amendments rights

          • Jo Brown

            Only if you’re prepared to respect other people’s first amendment rights, which means they may not be able to provide you with service from their business if they feel that to do so would violate their conscience before God.

          • Grizzly Adams

            I find your character to be lacking

          • El Mac

            Who’s rights did the baker violate? NO ONE’S!

          • RJLigier

            Strained logic……..as contemptible as equating neurotic behavior to the immutable characteristic of race……….

          • tb03

            Strained logic? There are strong arguments and countless personal testimonies that sexual orientation is not a choice. One could also say that because there are protections of behavioral choices such as religion and marital status it doesn’t matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not. Gay families are deserving of equal protection, and not subject to subjugation and humiliation.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Of course sexual orientation is “not a choice”! It’s pre-determined by GOD!
            If you are born with a penis, YOU’RE A MALE! If you are born with a vagina, YOU’RE A FEMALE! Anything else is simply a MISTAKE OF NATURE!!! There are NO GRAY AREAS!
            As far as “gay families” go, they are an OXYMORON and are to be ignored!
            2 males together, or 2 females together are not allowed to procreate by GOD himself!!! THAT IS A FACT!!!
            Therefore, “gay families” simply cannot exist on this planet!

            The homo/lesbo’s CHOSEN behavior is Immoral, Perverted, Dysfunctional behavior! ALWAYS HAS BEEN & ALWAYS WILL BE!!!
            It’s already been decided by GOD!

            CASE CLOSED!!!

          • Lisa Whitney

            Mad much Nunnyah? You are the most uneducated person I have come across today! You win the booby prize!

          • Nunnyah Biz

            So when are you gonna give up them boobies Lisa???!!!

          • Chris

            A mistake of nature? Not a mistake of God? Or is it only “nature” when it relates to something that makes you uncomfortable?

          • John Francis Russo

            Actually, God does not make mistakes. But, I am often puzzeled by such things as birth defects. Does God have a purpose in allowing some people to be born misshappen ? Or are all of these the result of the sin of Adam and Eve and the resulting fall of mankind ? But, we are now straying very far from the original discussion. For the more lawyer minded among us let me offer this line of legal reasoning. According to amendment XIII, section 1, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place ssubject to their jurisdiction.”. I therefore contend that any “law” which compels any business owner to serve any customer in violation of that business owners own conscience violates the XIII amendment. In addition, I reassert that, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • John Francis Russo

            AND, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • John Francis Russo

            The very laws you are quoting are NOT about “equal protection”. Those laws are about giving a special status to a gender preference. Your insistence that this is not a “choice” is ludicrious, or debateable at the best. AND, equating sexual orientation with race, is, itself, an unjustified assumption. Your entire argument is based on one unsubstantiated assumption after another.

          • tb03

            No, no special status as everyone has a sex, gender, marital status, race, sexual orientation, ect. Non discrimination laws protect everyone. My argument that even if sexual orientation is a choice (I happen to believe it us inborn), it is irrelevant because many chosen behaviors, such as religion, are a protected class. It is unfair to single gays out and assign a special criteria of rights just because they are gay.

          • Barrustio

            Well guess what ….many liberal elements are now dropping their support for the employment anti-discrimination act because it gives religious people the same freedoms it gives to the LGBT….so who is trying to violate other people’s civil rights here?

          • tb03

            Dropping their support? These are laws not to be shirked for convenience. Would you please provide your reference for this statement

          • Barrustio

            Heheh….read up on the Employment Non-discrimination Ordinance just passed in Houston and the groups who supported it having second thoughts because the same Ordinance and can be used by the religious lobby to argue cases of religious discrimination based on the requirements of the ordinance that it MUST NOT discriminate against anyone’s religious convictions. Live and learn

          • tb03

            Religion is a federally protected classification. I could not find the article, only about LGBT protections

          • Barrustio

            Basically the employment non-discrimination ordinance mandates that an employer may not deny employment to a religious person who is of the opinion that homosexuality is an aberration just as it may not deny employment to a homosexual for believing that homosexuality is normal.

          • John Francis Russo

            Violating an unjust and improper law is what civil disobvedience is all about. Or don’t you grasp that concept ? Would you also oppose the hiding, and smuggeling of Jews to help them escape Germany’s National Socialists ? To what extent do you advcate a slavish devotion to government ? Did America’s founders err on 19 April 1775 A.D. ? As for myself, I will be guided by this passage from the new testament, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5 : 29 KJV)

          • tb03

            The Civil Rights Act is a “unjust and improper law”? Interesting. If it is a theocracy you want why stay in this country?

          • helligusvart

            Except that in MLK’s day that would not have included homosexuality. And besides, to force a person to be party to sin is a violation of HIS civil rights. (2 John 9-11)

          • Matthew T. Mason

            If you are going to talk about things relevant, then understand any comparison between what black people went through right up until the late 1960s and what homosexuals have gone through is not relevant.

          • tb03

            Coretta Scott King thought there were many parallels. Gay activists are strongly influenced by the Civil rights movement and Liberation Theology. The similarity between the marriage equality court cases and Loving v. Virginia are strikingly similar. I would say there is a relevancy.

          • Truth Offends

            A man’s preference/desire to have sex with other men is in no way analogous to another man’s skin color.

            PS: In its Opinion on Loving, the Supreme Court said that “marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival”. In making this statement, the Court cited the Court’s Opinion on the Skinner case, when it tied marriage to procreation. “Marriage” b/w two homosexual men is in no way “fundamental to our very existence and survival”!

          • tb03

            Yet many gays have kids, and many straight people don’t. There has never been a procreative requirement to marriage, so this argument is irrelevant unless demonstrating how there are a lack of protections to families when marriage is prohibited. The Loving case was decided under the equal protection law. There goes this argument

          • El Mac

            There is NO way for a gay “couple” to have kids. They can raise kids, but they can not HAVE kids. Nice try.

          • tb03

            What’s your point? Are we limiting marriage rights for infertile couples and elderly couples because they can’t “have” children? Nice try, but the double standard is obvious.

          • El Mac

            @tb03, my point was: correcting your lie – sodomites can not HAVE children.
            My other point is, society should not condone sin and filth by sanctioning sodomites getting married.

          • Azrael

            Society can’t condone sin simply because sin doesn’t exist. BTW “filth” is an subjective opinion – for example every rational person believes that your faith is truly filth. As such the state doesn’t regulates or condones any subjective opinion whatsoever.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            You must be referring to the muslim faith!

          • Azrael

            No, to all of them. BTW there is no such thing as muslim faith, it’s islam, and it doesn’t have sin, it has haram – similar but not identical.

          • Barrustio

            That may be true that to some, our faith may be filth but it’s imaginary filth. The act of using a disposal system as a…..never mind

          • helligusvart

            Then there must be very few rational people in this world. Even most atheists aren’t as hateful as you are.

          • Azrael

            Since when is stating the truth an act of hate? Oh, wait, i forgot, you religionists hate the truth.

          • Jo Brown

            That’s a fallacious argument of the “No true Scotsman…” variety.
            I’m a rational person, and I don’t think the Christian faith is filth. But, since I don’t think the Christian faith is filth, you will just re-classify me as non-rational, so that your fallacious argument appears to remain intact.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            No We are limiting marriage rights to NORMAL, HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES!
            Those WHOM have CHOSEN to engage in Immoral, perverted, Dysfunctional behavior deserve no rights, nor privileges, until they get out of denial, get into rehab, and get the help they so desperately NEED!!!

          • Lisa Whitney

            Haha, you seem to be losing that battle!

          • Chris

            LOL! Easy there, you’ll burst a blood vessel in your brain.

          • helligusvart

            That may be a bit further than even I would go. All people deserve basic human rights. Forcing people to violate their consciences, however, is not a right, no matter who is doing the forcing.

          • Grizzly Adams

            “The only way that GOD has ordained marriage!”…Bible Much? I get a kick out of the fact I routinely encounter “Devoted” Christians that have no clue about the contents of their “Book of Abrahamic Mythology” (Bible) and how their mythical god ordained marriage…To clarify, the following lists marriage types that the sky faerie deemed acceptable…Man + Woman; Man + Brother’s Widow; Man + Wives + Concubines; Rapist and Victim; Man + Woman + Woman’s Property; Male Soldier + POW; Man + Woman + Woman + Woman…; Male Slave + Female Slave…I understand your unwillingness to read it though, I found it impossible to buy the bullshit there in contained before I was half way through.

          • Azrael

            I’m sorry to burst your bubble but the advances in medicine such as in-vitro fertilization and surrogates have made your argument moot.

          • QuadGMoto

            Really? Scientists can now get the egg from males or sperm from females? Why hasn’t that been splashed all over the news?

          • Azrael

            No, i never said that and they still can’t do that (not that’s impossible) – but the rest if routinely done: just look at Elton John and his kids.

          • QuadGMoto

            Then you admit our point. A man and a woman are REQUIRED to produce children, even if you manually intervene in how those two are brought together.

          • Azrael

            Yes, they still are. But not for long, since scientist have managed to obtain gametes asexually so the moment when that will no longer be a problem is really not that far away.

          • QuadGMoto

            And you call that “natural”?!?

          • Azrael

            Yes, it’s the exact same natural process, the only difference is where it happens and why.

          • QuadGMoto

            … exact same … difference … where … and why.

            To the intellectually honest, those words would be a clue that there is something very wrong with your claims.

          • Azrael

            Yes, there is – they can only be understood by a person that has at least a medium scientific education.

          • QuadGMoto

            Contradictions are supported by science education?!?

            Sorry, but that’s Eastern Mysticism, not science.

          • Dale_G1

            So Mr. Science. Could you please show me proof of homosexuality in nature? I have way more than a “medium” understanding of that and I’ve NEVER seen an episode of Nature, Nova, Jack Hanna’s multiple shows, Wild Kingdom, and so on that show ANY existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom ( especially among mammals ). And please don’t tell me about the Bonobo chimps. Much of what the “gay” community WANTS TO SEE as homosexual behavior is merely dominant, Alpha male mounting behavior.

            If homosexuality can be found in animals, then I think we MUST accept that when a dog humps the legs of your furniture ( or your leg ) then that dog must have been “born” a furnialegasexual. It is not only a choice. It’s a psychosexual,
            addictive emotional disorder. Nothing more.

          • Jo Brown

            You COMPLETELY missed his point, oh ye of feeble mind.

          • helligusvart

            And with His soul.

          • helligusvart

            You are truly a sick person. You need help.

          • Azrael

            Every insane person will think that’s normal and everybody else is insane so you acting like that is completely normal.
            BTW i don’t deny it exists (deny implies possibility that it does), i just know that it doesn’t simply because not only there has never been even the slightest evidence that it did but its existence is logically impossible.

          • Jo Brown

            (1) The universe did not, and cannot, make itself.
            (2) The natural world is inclined towards dis-order, but to have life its building blocks must be arranged in a very precise order contrary to their natural inclination. An outside intelligence is required to impose this order.
            (3) The universe shows a lot of evidence for design.
            (4) Life shows a lot of evidence for design.
            (5) The world contains evidence of a world-wide flood that shaped the landscape through massive water flows and caused billions of dead things to be buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Many cultures around the world have a legend of a man and a boat and a bunch of animals and God’s judgement by flooding. These both confirm the biblical account that God judged the earth through a flood.
            (6) There is evidence in the bible that it was composed by an intelligence outside of our time domain, able to see the whole span of time, and thus able to prophesy the things that will take place. From our point in time, we can see that many of the things predicted HAVE taken place exactly as predicted. (For instance, read the book of Daniel and its many prophecies regarding the rise and fall of certain kingdoms.)
            (7) Many people have experiences of God, and even science has found evidence of an existence beyond death, thus proving that the material world is not the only manifestation in creation, but that there is a spiritual dimension too.

            Just 7 brief points, but there are many more, if you care to investigate them.

          • Grizzly Adams

            “The world contains evidence of a world-wide flood” billions of dead things and not a single kangaroo or platypus fossil outside of Oz…interesting

          • Jo Brown

            You’re misinformed. Kangaroo fossils have been found in Asia.
            Also, that platypus fossils have not (yet) been found outside of Oz does not prove anything. Such fossils may yet be found.
            Funny you should mention the platypus. From what prior creature did it evolve? Evolutionists are rather stumped by that, but perhaps you know?

          • Grizzly Adams

            yawn

          • Jo Brown

            As is typical, I’m once again just blown away by the sheer “intellect” displayed by a naysayer such as you.
            If your argument had any strength, you would have refuted my comment and answered the question, instead of “yawning”.

          • Grizzly Adams

            Arguing with a fool only proves that there are two

          • Jo Brown

            Yes indeed. And now that you’ve proven yourself a fool with your “yawn” comment, I shall withdraw from this pointless discourse, lest I become a fool like you. Goodbye.

          • Grizzly Adams

            contrary to popular opinion disinterest doesn’t necessarily equate to foolishness, it equates to disinterest…if your looking for an argument find an evolutionist…that’s what their paid to do…I simply don’t have the time to debate every random troll on the internet

          • Jo Brown

            Wow, I watched you beginning to type your reply within seconds of me posting mine, and now you’ve finally hit the ‘post’ button! So it took you that long to formulate something to attempt to save face! And to save face, you now claim “disinterest” rather than an inability to defend your point of view. Yeah… sure, buddy! Whatever you say. Thanks for the laugh! LoL.

          • Grizzly Adams

            Actually I have a business to run, but stick to your incorrect assumptions and assertions about me if that what floats your boat. I have no need to defend my point of view…for the record, yawning is a typical behavior for disinterested people.

          • Jo Brown

            Good for you buddy!

          • Grizzly Adams

            That’s not a point, that is a fact…a point would be what this fact claims to support…do you have a point, or are you just interested in spewing random scientific facts

          • El Mac

            @Azrael, uhmmm…no, actually my point still stands.

          • Azrael

            Actually no – since they (or at least one of them) can have kids.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            So you’re saying that if someone sticks some eggs & sperm in some guys rectum, he will have a child???!!!………………………….hmmmmm!

          • Azrael

            Gee, i wonder what that word ”surrogate” means.

          • thisoldspouse

            It means that a woman, someone of the opposite sex, had to be involved. That is instructive.

            Who knew that nature was such a homophobic bigot?

          • Azrael

            Don’t worry, science is well under way to get rid of the need for a female womb altogether. I wonder what your argument will be then, if you’ll live that long.

          • Truth Offends

            In the “fundamentally transformed America,” children are created in Frankenstein’s laboratory!…b/c homosexuality!

          • Azrael

            Actually no, they are created in science labs because many infertile couples want them.

          • QuadGMoto

            Frankenstein was a scientist.

          • Azrael

            A fictional one, whose supposed research (if you read the book he actually doesn’t do any, just some crude attempts that magically succeed) had absolutely nothing in common with what is actually biologically possible.

          • Jo Brown

            They should adopt unwanted or orphaned children instead.
            Frankly, while there are children still in need of parents, the entire fertility industry should be outlawed.

          • QuadGMoto

            I am amazed at how willingly, aggresively, and openly some people work to prove the truth Paul wrote in Romans:

            Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
            — Romans 1:22

          • helligusvart

            And this is something you would welcome?

          • Azrael

            Of course, every scientific advancement should be welcomed.

          • QuadGMoto

            Who knew that nature was such a homophobic bigot?

            I am so stealing that!

          • murphyj87

            Have you not considered artificial insemination by lesbian couples?

            Same sex adoption has been legal in Canada for several decades.

          • Tiny Coupe

            Science is hard. Better get this one a helmet.

          • Barrustio

            In -vitro….surrogate…..seems ….sounds more like confirmation to me

          • JRJ21

            Not moot,it is still a mans seed in a woman’s womb,the only place it belongs duhhhhh

          • helligusvart

            A man still can’t give birth. A woman still can’t impregnate another woman. They have to resort to artificial means.

          • Azrael

            Yes, but with them they can, so your argument is moot.
            BTW there are several species on this Earth that can do just that so these processes aren’t not completely artificial – they mimic natural ones.

          • Jo Brown

            No, you’re wrong. Even with in-vitro fertilization and surrogates, the participation of members of the opposite sex is still required.
            Can two lesbians create a child together, without at some point obtaining sperm from a male? No!
            Can two gays create a child together, without at some point obtaining ova (and a womb!) from a female? No!

          • Nunnyah Biz

            homo/lesbo’s CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN! They dishonestly manipulate Normal, Heterosexual partners into surrogatIng children for them! Just like that lesbo jody foster did!!!

            FACT!

          • johnny boatmann

            Procreation is no requirement for marriage.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            According to who? You?

          • johnny boatmann

            Can you point me to hwere it says it is?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            May I remind you the principals in Loving v. Virginia were male and female.

            False analogy. Move on.

          • RJLigier

            Marriage equality? ROFLMAO……….the consensus of borderline psychotic homosexuals and bisexuals within the judiciary and the APAs equating neurotic behavior to the immutable characteristic of race?

          • Nunnyah Biz

            But being black is NOT an ABOMINATION!

            Choosing to be a homo/lesbo IS an ABOMINATION!

            IT’S THAT SIMPLE, AND NO COMPARISON IS POSSIBLE ON THIS PLANET!

          • Lisa Whitney

            YOU are an abomination!!

          • John Francis Russo

            RELEVANCY ! NO ! The LGBT activists have simply clothed their movement in civil rights garb for political gain. They have thus managed to drum up support from those like yourself who are misled by the bogus comparison.

          • johnny boatmann

            How is it not relevant?

          • johnny boatmann

            This is only your opinion. Others see it far differently.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            The only “others” are homosexuals and their apologists. Commonly known as “imbeciles.”

          • johnny boatmann

            Name calling shows your true nature

          • johnny boatmann

            In your opinion

          • ryan charisma

            I’m going to go out on a limb and say:

            “you’re never right.”

            how’s that?

        • Barrustio

          I believe MLK would have said that just because you own a business you shouldn’t have to reject your own morals for the sake of others’ convenience and trivial statement

          • tb03

            No, he believed that public businesses should not discriminate. That was the whole point of the Civil Rights Act.

          • Barrustio

            It was a different day and I don’t know that he would have been on the bandwagon to push social agendas disguised as civil rights at the expense Christians’ religious rights and freedoms

        • helligusvart

          The cakemaker has civil rights, too—namely, the right to freedom of religious expression as enumerated in our very first amendment.

      • thisoldspouse

        “Liberation Theology” is anathema to the proposition of deference to “content of character” over skin color.

      • murphyj87

        Many fundamentalist Christians in Canada support same sex marriage, which has been legal nationwide for almost 10 years.

        • Truth Offends

          LOL!

          • murphyj87

            78% of Canadians support same sex marriage, and only 61% of Canadians describe themselves as liberal.

            The election platform of the Conservative Party of Canada (including those who are fundamentalist Christians) supports same sex marriage.

            During World Pride Week in Toronto last month, during the mass marriage ceremony of 110 same sex couples, several fundamentalist Christian ministers joined other priests, ministers and rabbis in taking part in officiating at those marriages.

          • Truth Offends

            You must have a very warped definition of “fundamentalist Christian” if you think “fundamentalist Christians” support “marriage” b/w two homosexual men!

          • murphyj87

            It not my definition, it is THEIRS.

            Just because the Third World United States has bigoted people, it doesn’t mean that people in advanced modern nations are as bigoted and backward as Americans.

            Recurrent polls show that many fundamentalist Christians in Canada support same sex marriage.

            Same sex marriage has been legal nationwide in Canada since 2005.

            Same sex marriage is also legal nationwide in Britain and France, and almost all EU nations.

            Basically, the only major western nation where same sex marriage is NOT legal nationwide is the United States.

            The “traditional definition of marriage: was ruled unconstitutional by the Superior Court of Ontario in 2003.

          • Truth Offends

            FYI: The entire world could believe a lie.

            In a matter of only one posting, you’ve shown yourself to be a self-righteous bigoted elitist, thinking you’re so socially and culturally superior to Americans simply because you think men having sex with other men is just fabulous. And, you’ve shown you have nothing but contempt for America. ~Goodbye

          • murphyj87

            The majority of Americans don’t deserve respect because the majority of the theocracy of Christian States of America (on a par with the Islamic Republic of Iran) are homophobic, xenophobic, racists.

            I really don’t care if men have sex with other men or not, I do stand by their constitutional right to do so and to marry.

            For over 4 decades, the official position of the Government of Canada has been the the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation (or in the doctor’s offices of the nation, except to pay the bill.). The government in Canada cannot deny health care and medical treatment to any Canadian in the way that the insurance company bureaucrats who stand between Americans and a doctor do deny Americans medical treatment.

            For every Canadian who goes to the US for medical care, over 60 Americans have to come to Canada for life saving medical treatment they were denied in the US by the insurance company bureaucrats which decide which half of Americans can have medical treatment and which half of Americans can never have medical treatment because of the insurance takeover of American health care,

            You reenforce the opinion of people outside the United States that Americans are backward and are wrong about everything.

          • Truth Offends

            FYI: I edited my original reply.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      I’m sorry, what does Corretta Scott King have to do with any of this?

    • Azrael

      And who cares what Corretta Scott King thinks? Being related with some important person doesn’t make you so.

    • Truth Offends

      Read===> MLK: Homosexuality a ‘Problem’ With a ‘Solution’

      barbwire DOT com/2014/01/29/mlk-homosexuality-problem-solution/
      (replace DOT w/ actual dot, remove spaces before and after DOT)

    • Barrustio

      I believe Ms. King believed that marriage is between a man and a woman

      • tb03

        She was a very vocal supporter or gay rights and firmly believed that Dr. King would have felt the same.

        • Barrustio

          He should turning in his grave at having people invoke his name in assuming he would be a half-assed Christian

          • tb03

            Exactly

          • Barrustio

            He would love all as the Bible teaches….doesn’t mean he would denounce parts of the Bible which speak to aberrations.

  • Pingback: The Coming Christian Revolt

  • Azima Khan

    I’ll take “Things that aren’t happening” for 300, Alex.

  • Truth Offends

    Read===> MLK: Homosexuality a ‘Problem’ With a ‘Solution’

    barbwire DOT com/2014/01/29/mlk-homosexuality-problem-solution/
    (replace DOT w/ actual dot, and remove spaces before and after DOT)

  • Gene Brake

    Wow, you are one crazy sob aren’t you? MLK stood up for his trusted friend Bayard Rustin, one of the architects of the March on Washington, who happened to be gay. If he lived today, I have no doubt he would be on the side of equality for all, including gay citizens. You say we have an agenda and compare us to Hitler…. I would say, it’s you and your supporters with an agenda and more in line with Hitler. What a surprise you teach at Liberty Univ, a hotbed of ignorance and lies.

    • thisoldspouse

      LOL! As you pose in your avatar pic with a known homosexual pedophilic predator.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    And yet I feel you would probably be upset and ranting about Christian persecution if shop owners tried to not serve Christian customers, something you seem to feel Christian business owners should be allowed to do with everyone else.

    • thisoldspouse

      It’s happened, and those people go to businesses where they’re wanted. They respect liberty.

      • tomd

        Can you provide examples of these Christian customers that are being discriminated against?

        • thisoldspouse

          Susanna Martinez, Governor of New Mexico. Refused service by a homosexual hair stylist because of her Christian view on marriage.

          Alan Sears, CEO and lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom. Refused service by a photographer for family Christmas photos because of his Christian viewpoints on marriage.

          • tomd

            And in both these cases, the stylist and photographer were happy to serve other Christians. These weren’t cases of religious discrimination. That’s why the ADF went elsewhere – he knew he didn’t have a case.

          • thisoldspouse

            Wrong. Any instance of discrimination is cause for a lawsuit.

            By your reasoning, Masterpiece Cake’s willingness to serve all they “gays” that they have in the past nullifies their “discrimination” charge.

          • tomd

            It’s a finer point, but I don’t think so. The equivalent would be if the baker *did* bake cakes for SS weddings, but refused a pornographic one. If the baker didn’t normally do such cakes for anyone, the gay couple couldn’t sue.

            Similarly, a black baker could refuse a KKK cake (even though the KKK is Christian) because they likely have served other Christians. It’s the viewpoint in this case, and that’s not protected.

          • thisoldspouse

            It’s not a fine point, but is solid as a rock. Masterpiece’s owner offered to sell the homosexuals whatever else they wanted, only he could not participate in what was against his sound religious convictions, AND against official state policy on top of that.

            No discrimination here, unless you want to consider the discrimination of the gays and their bullying state board who want to violate non-harmful, sacred religious beliefs.

      • Chris

        Yeah, citation needed there. Just today, news of an extreme Christian pro-life RN suing a family planning clinic (that distributes birth control) for refusing to hire her on the basis that, if hired, her religious beliefs would interfere with her ability to perform the basic duties required of the position for which she applied.

        Seriously, go cry me a river.

  • Lisa Whitney

    Matt Barber, you sir, are an idiot.

    • thisoldspouse

      Such unassailable logic. Are you a federal court judge?

  • Pingback: Matt Barber Offends Everyone As He Co-opts Civil Rights Image | DanNation.org

  • Chris

    In terms of this fight, you guys are toast. All of this nonsense is little more than the desperate, frightened barking of a mangy, cornered shelter dog about to be put down.

    Want to know why you’ve already lost? It actually has very little to do with gay people directly – it has EVERYTHING to do with straight people. The people you’re really going up against? Straight mama and papa bears of gay children is who. Straight brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and friends. You don’t roll back the clock on these people and when you attack their LBGT loved ones, they will come at you with a ferocity unparalleled. They have taken you apart at the ballot box, in the streets and in the churches and it’s only going to get worse.

    There are lots of political issues where people can and do change their minds – the rights and humanity of their own children/loved ones aren’t typically one of those.

    Every day it gets worse for you, and there is no going back. You’re done. If you wish to have any real hope of salvaging your broken ideology, move on.

    • thisoldspouse

      Spoken like a true fascist. Good thing you homo-fascists think guns are icky, because that leaves more for the freedom-loving patriots. And we are not afraid to use them when the Gaystapo knocks on our door.

      Yes, that’s a threat, made in the context of self-defense. Now go cry to your metrosexual leader.

      • Azrael

        You might want to look what happened when guys like you tried to use them against the LEO – hint, it’s not pretty.

        • thisoldspouse

          Used against ANYONE intent on squashing our Constitutional rights to exercise our freedoms, it is a fight worth having.

          • Azrael

            Your religious freedoms don’t allow you to trample on my civil ones. And don’t act surprised when you’ll lose.

          • thisoldspouse

            Your “civil” ones are false “rights,” concocted from whole cloth. They had to be legislated and extrapolate by incoherent judges because they weren’t found in the constitution.

          • Azrael

            Since they are enshrined in our law they are anything but false and disrespecting them will make you face the full might of the government.
            BTW all rights, including yours, had to be legislated because they weren’t found in the constitution.

          • thisoldspouse

            Such constitutional ignorance. The Founders called such rights “self-evident.” That you had to concoct such far-reaching “rights,” which make claims on other peoples property and freedoms, implies that yours are not self-evident.

          • Azrael

            They might be self evident to you but they surely aren’t to me – if they are so self evident why didn’t they included them in the original format of the constitution? Why did they inserted them later, as amendments?
            Not only that but, legally, if they aren’t protected by law they aren’t worth a damn.

          • thisoldspouse

            If they aren’t self-evident to you when they were to the Founders of this country, perhaps you are an enemy to what the Founders proposed.

            I propose you leave.

          • Azrael

            Funny thing here – you claim that they were yet you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever.
            You’re the dumb one, you leave, we more than enough of your kind.

          • Perrofelix

            So the founders were the only ones who could identify “self-evident” rights? And they went and founded a nations where blacks were in chains and counted as 3/5 of a human being. Go on and champion the repeal of child labor laws then, and the right of women to vote. And any other marker of progress since this country was founded. It’s where your “logic” leads you.

          • Chris

            Keep barking toothless dog.

          • thisoldspouse

            Says the yapping chihuahua.

          • Chris

            Bark, bark, bark. It’s all empty and fleeting. Your time to fade in to sad obscurity has come.

      • Chris

        Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not a democrat, I didn’t vote for Obama either time, I’m a combat vet of two wars and I personally own enough guns and ammo to stock the back room of every country store from here to Dixie.

        Okay, the last one may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I almost certainly own more than you do. I’m not scared of you and your hollow little “threats”.

        Your hubris would be a great source of hilarity if it wasn’t so pathetic. I think Jesus would have some choice words for you regarding your utter lack of humility. It’s funny to me that you tell me to go cry to my “metrosexual leader” given the comment to which you’re responding. Even if he was my choice, why would I need to go cry to him? We’ve won. You’ve lost. There are no tears here.

        Your stupid, histrionic false equivalencies (wherein, apparently, a minority group demanding protection under the law = the Holocaust) are shameful. You are not better than other people and you not being able to force your will on those not like you does not make you oppressed. It makes you a pitiable crybaby. You are the reason the youth is leaving the church in droves. You are the reason that Christianity is in crisis in this country. You are a relic that your children’s children’s children will regard with distant embarrassment, and mentions of you and what you stand for will likely be followed with the excuse of “well, he/she was a product of his/her time, so it’s hard to be too critical…”. Those of us who actually value human freedom and dignity have nothing to despair over in this matter. The tide was turned and there’s no pushing it back in to the ocean. Your words ring hollow and cowardly.

        • thisoldspouse

          Where to begin with your error-a-sentence sceed, not the mention the non-stop lies. You are no patriot, in fact, I’ll bet you spit on returning veterans of both wars. You are not worthy of this country and what it has represented from the beginning.

          • Chris

            Don’t you even dare pertain to attack my patriotism or my service just because, unlike you, I’m not obsessed with controlling the sexual and romantic lives of others. You’ve revealed the sort of person you are and I know your type. You claim to support us so long as we fall in line with whatever party line you’ve deemed to be worthy, as if you’re God himself and can make such pronouncements.

            You are a coward and you are an embarrassment. Your own words speak more about you than I ever could.

          • thisoldspouse

            Again, go move to North Korea, where your fascist bent can be more appreciated. You are a stench to true Americans, and I’m not afraid to say it.

      • Nameless Cynic

        “Yes, that’s a threat.” You think you’re justified in killing people for being gay. And you’re calling anyone who argues with you a fascist.

        Irony is dead, isn’t it?

        • thisoldspouse

          No, we’re justified in using deadly force against rabid homosexuals who attack us.

          • Perrofelix

            Delusional then. So you think rabid bands of gays are going to come door to door attacking Christians… Is that before you’re all herded into FEMA camps, or after the UN black helicopters come for you? What other delusions are living in that mind of yours? Enjoy your fear-based life.

  • Truth Offends

    “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” ~Chai Feldblum, commenting on conflict b/w religious liberty and sexual “liberty”

    Obama appointee, Chai Feldblum-Commissioner of EEOC, term ends July 2018

    • thisoldspouse

      The implication made by Feldblum is that religious liberty should lose. What utter, contemptible, traitorous gall.

      The Communists truly are in charge.

      • Truth Offends

        In the “fundamentally transformed America,” homosexuality trumps religious freedom.

        • Azrael

          Oh no, you are still free to whoreship whatever god you want in whatever way you want it. It’s just that you’re no longer allowed to ignore or trample on other’s people rights while doing that.
          Basically, you’re no longer a privileged citizen anymore.

          • Truth Offends

            Like I said, In the “fundamentally transformed America,” homosexuality trumps religious freedom.
            And you rejoice.

          • Azrael

            No, that’s not what i just wrote. Are you sure you are literate?
            And yes, i rejoice that you’re no longer allowed to impose your obsolete way of thinking on all of us.

  • aCultureWarrior

    With all due respect Matt Barber, I cringe when you use Martin Luther King Jr. as some kind of role model. Remember that he (along with others) was the first recipient of the Planned Parenthood-Margaret Sanger Award. Remember that King’s close associate was openly homosexual Baynard Rustin. Please don’t continue to use this evil evil man as some kind of icon for the Christian movement.
    Respectfully,
    aCW

    • Terry Lee

      + aCultureWarrior – With all due respect Baynard Rustin was a homosexual and a close associate of MLK, you are correct there. What you neglected to include that when Rustin asked MLK to put his name behind the pro-gay movement, and to show support for them…….MLK declined, saying he could not in good conscious support the pro gay movement (due to his Christian faith), and that he did not believe the ‘struggle for gay rights & marriage equality’ was in any way comparable to to ‘civil rights’ and the issue of colour.

      Despite the request of his close associate and advisor, MLK had to turn Rustin down. He was not going to compromise his sincere Christian faith. I suppose although this information is readily available, and not difficult at all to find, I should not be surprised that it has been conveniently left out of the many posts trying to convince us MLk was all for gay rights.

      It’s like you’re re-writing history to suit yourselves, and assigning the relevant historical figures the ideals you feel they should have had, rather than accepting the views they did have.

      You would even have us believe Jesus was for it, and that being gay was all part of God’s original plan for mankind………it was just somehow left on the cutting room floor.
      What utter tripe!!

      • aCultureWarrior

        What kind of support from mainstream America do you think King would have gotten if he attempted to push a sexual deviancy agenda on the United States back in the mid 60′s? There were rumors that Bayard Rustin and King were lovers, hence King fired Rustin and later rehired him to help organize the March on Washington.

        Regarding King being a “Christian”: Remember he was the first co-recipient of the Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood Award. The argument is that he didn’t know what Sanger stood for (Hitler was a fan of her thoughts on eugenics). LBJ was one of the co-recipients of the same award, and the President of the United States would have the resources to find out (and share with others) what Margaret Sanger stood for.

        More on King being a “Christian”: (From Alan Stang’s “Uncelebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day”:

        “Among the papers with his name on it is one entitled, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.” The title itself tells us something is wrong. These doctrines came not from anyone’s “experience,” but from history and from what Jesus said. But, “Dr.” King comments, “these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable.” (sic)

        Here is how Jesus got to be divine, according to “Dr.” King: “The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. (sic) . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded (sic) in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.

        “. . . As Hedley laconically states, ‘the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.’” In short, according to King, it was the Greeks who made Jesus “divine.” My guess is that King really did write this, because it is so incompetent. This is the writing of a mediocre high school sophomore, not a man with a doctorate.

        Here is King on the virgin birth: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to (sic) shallow to convince any objective thinker . . . .” So, according to Mike,[MLK Jr.] there was no virgin birth.

        Finally, consider that the resurrection is the master doctrine of Christian belief. Catholics believe it. Protestants believe it. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity; there is just another “wise man.” If you don’t believe in the resurrection – if you don’t believe that Jesus died, was dead and then rose – then go your way in peace, but you are not a Christian.”
        Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share the truth about this fraud of a man.

        • Terry Lee

          No…thank you for your reply and the detail that went into it. I will look into what to you have said CW, and I don’t doubt that I will find what you say to be true.
          I confess I had never come across that particular information, and admittedly I have not put as much into researching MLk as you have.

          The information I have on MLk is carried forth from my highschool days, and he is not what I would call a hero of mine, although I admire what he managed to accomplish. If MLK did indeed write what you quoted above then I too would have to ask if he truly was a Christian myself – as you rightly point out no-one could in any real sense claim to be a follower of Christ, and hold to those beliefs.

          As I have’nt had a chance to look into it yet, I don’t know when during his life he held to those beliefs, or if he may have come change his views as he grew both in years, and (one would hope),a little wisdom.

          That is of course providing MLK was the author of the above statements – it does not seem to gel with what he was known to have to said and claimed, but that does not mean it is not correct.
          I thank you again for your reply CW, and the detail you provided.

          I think that we will need to agree to disagree on what we each believe the Bible and Jesus say about the matter however, but it is not necessary for Christians to see eye to eye on everything.
          Homosexuality is not something that I actively speak out against on these posts usually. While I view the ‘relations’ between two men as sinful, I do not see homosexuality as any worse a sin than adultery, divorce, abortion etc. and I know of plenty of Churches who have no problem making compromises in regards to those, and I don’t think it fair to focus only upon any one sin or any one particular group of people.

          Jesus blood was sufficient for all, and His Grace is extended to all – we all sin and fall short.

          God bless.

          • aCultureWarrior

            The truth isn’t always pretty Terry, so please look into the information that I’ve provided. That being said: Wait until I expose Ronald Reagan on here when the opportunity presents itself for his pro homosexual, pro abortion, anti family legislation while he was Governor of California (needless to say I won’t be popular with many in the conservative movement, but the truth has to be told).

  • pixeloid

    This site is always hilarious! It’s like a gay version of The Onion. Matt Barber pulls off the closeted self-hating homosexual “Christian” perfectly.

  • Nameless Cynic

    It’s cute that you use the image of a sniper for your equal-rights supporter, since the vast majority of domestic terrorists are right-wing. But I digress.

    Please explain where Christ opposed homosexuality. (Here’s a hint – he’s the guy in the New Testament, where it states that his death and resurrection fulfilled the Scripture.)

    • QuadGMoto

      since the vast majority of domestic terrorists are right-wing.

      You don’t digress, you’re simply wrong on that point.

    • EnemyoftheState

      Homosexuality was and is an abomination. Christ came to fullfil the Law not to do away with it. He clearly states (and anyone who has ears to hear will hear – those who don’t are children of the Devil who prefer darkness to light because their deeds are evil) in

      Mark 10:6-9

      6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      Homosexual “rights” advocates are trying to separate true marriage from itself and as such are guilty before God.

      • Nameless Cynic

        Did you actually READ the Bible? That paragraph is talking about divorce. Not homosexuals. Don’t restrict yourself. Read the whole thing. Mark 10:1-12. It’s saying that anyone who gets divorced will be committing adultery if they ever get married again.

        And anyone with ears to hear, or the reading comprehension of a 6th grader, would know that.

        • QuadGMoto

          Jesus defines marriage (actually, restores the original definition) in that passage as one man, one woman, for life. That’s a much more complete answer than merely divorce. Furthermore, it is a tightening of the Mosaic Law, not a loosening of it. Remember, the Mosaic Law had flat out condemned homosexual behavior using the exact same absolute terms as it condemns idolatry.

          the reading comprehension of a 6th grader

          Yet somehow you “missed” the “man”, “woman”, “husband”, “wife”, “father”, “mother” words. What does that make your reading comprehension level?

          • Nameless Cynic

            Ironic how you skimmed right over “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law.”

            Let’s talk reading comprehension, shall we? At what point in that definition did Jesus PROHIBIT anything except divorce? Yup, he used gender terms – very good. I’m proud of you for seeing that. But where did he say “…and never shall a man marry another man”?

            Nice that you’re such a holy man that you can read the mind of Jesus from this far down the line.

            We can argue about the Mosaic law prohibitions if you’d like, but unless you’re Jewish, please explain how it matters?

            Jesus has made atonement for mankind, once and for all, making all people one with the Father, by dying on the cross for our sins.

            By bringing a new covenant, Christ has transformed the law. The same underlying law still exists—the law of love. Jesus did not change that law at all. Rather, he fulfilled it. The old covenant, including the sacrifices, tassels and Jubilee years, had specific, physical applications of the underlying law of love. But those specifics are, in many cases, now obsolete. The spirit of the law remains, but the letter does not. The old covenant way is not the way to apply the purpose of the law. There are other ways to express our devotion to God and our love for our neighbors.

            After all, if He did not, why are priests no longer sacrificing animals to God? Why are people no longer required to be circumcised? (Actually, that one is a longer discussion, but still related.)

            The Old Testament clearly commanded the Israelites to wear blue threads in tassels on their garments (Numbers 15:38-39). Was this law inspired by God? Of course it was. So how is this law outdated? Who has the authority to declare a God-given law obsolete? Only God.

            Did the New Testament specifically rescind this law? No. It says nothing about blue tassles. But the New Testament declares the entire old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). As a source of laws, it is no longer valid.

            And yet there are some people who insist on picking and choosing a few items to venerate from the Old Testament, merely because those specific requirements allow them to hate somebody and still feel good about themselves.

            But there are others they ignore: Leviticus 19:19 clearly tells them “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” And yet, there they stand in their cotton-polyester clothes.

            So who’s right?

          • EnemyoftheState

            He never prohibited incest, pedophilia or necrophilia either. It was a given that these actions were all proscribed in the books of the Law. Your attempt to sanitize evil by the absence of condemnation of already known sins, is simply absurd. And yes we can read the mind of Christ from ‘down here’ despite the fact He is not “up there” but everywhere.

            1 Corinthians 2:

            16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

          • Nameless Cynic

            Fascinating how sinless you have to be, to be casting all these stones.

            Fascinating. I thought you said you read the Bible, and loved the Old Testament. “…incest…(is)… proscribed in the books of the Law.”

            I suppose it would only be polite at this point to ignore Abraham marrying his half-sister Sara (Genesis 20); or, buried in amongst the generations of the Chosen People in Genesis 11, we find that Nachor married Melcha, his niece; Lot laying with his daughters (or technically, his daughters laying with him) to preserve the family line; or Moses being the son of Amram and his aunt Jochabed; they were all very holy men, blessed by God. But not only would it be rude, but completely off the subject. So let’s move on.

            Oh, wait. Pedophilia… hmmm… ‘They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man… “Now kill all the boys… but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” ‘ (Numbers 31:7,17-18)

            They probably carded the girls, right?

            Perhaps there’s a reason that, by dying on the cross, Jesus made atonement for mankind, making all people one with the Father.

            By bringing a new covenant, Christ transformed the law.

            “This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:38-40)

            You don’t sound like you’re full of love, my friend. You sound like you’re looking for someone to hate.

          • Truth Offends

            You shall love the LORD your God with all you heart, soul, strength, and mind. “This is the first and great commandment.”

            FYI: I can tell that you have not actually read the Bible (or at least not carefully). If you did, you would find that you really don’t know what you’re talking about concerning “casting stones,” Abraham and Sarah, incest in the Bible, the Midian virgin girls, or the new covenant (and about many other things you said in other various posts on this page). You only think you know what you’re talking about. But, you don’t. I just thought you might like to know.

          • Nameless Cynic

            I’m sorry. You don’t have a point? You’re just here to stick your fingers in your ears and say “No! You’re wrong!”?

            Huh. “Truth Offends.” Ironic.

          • Truth Offends

            I seek truth. Do you?
            I thought you might be interested to know you’re wrong about many things concerning God, Jesus, and the Bible.
            You think you’re right?
            Tell me. Where is it written that the matter concerning the Midianite virgins girls is about, according to you, “pedophilia”?

          • Nameless Cynic

            You weren’t willing to make your argument. It’s not my place to drag things out of you.

            Do I think I’m right? Do you think you are? Why?

            Midianite virgins. “save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” During the Bronze Age. You tell me what that says. (It specifies that they should kill the male children, so it’s not that they weren’t gender-specific on underage kids.)

            As for your second question, in the words of Abraham himself (Genesis 20:12): “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”

            Define “half-sister” for me, again?

            I can see why you didn’t make your arguments initially. You aren’t good at it. At least look things up before trying to be sarcastic; it doesn’t reflect well on any point you might hope to make when it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Truth Offends

            “Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Yeah? So? Where is it written that this is about pedophilia?

            “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.” Yeah? So? Where is it written that Abraham was being truthful this time when he said this to a man he had just lied to? Abraham is not God. God calls Sarah, Abraham’s “wife”.

          • Nameless Cynic

            OK. I have to assume you’re being intentionally dim. The word “pedophilia” does not appear in the Bible: it was coined by Krafft-Ebbing in 1886 (as “paedophilia erotica”). But you know what we can do? We can look at the actions, as laid out in Numbers 31.

            31-9: “(they) took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.”

            Got that? All the women and all the children (among other looting). Then Moses commits a war crime.

            31:17-18: (and Moses said) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

            That’s, in fact, how the KJV describes them: “women children.” You’re trying to say that, because there isn’t a pornographic scene there, no sex occurred? Are you sure you aren’t confusing the Bible with 50 Shades of Gray?

            The entire point of Genesis 20 is to show that Abraham (“Father of Multitudes,” the first of the patriarchs of the children of Israel) was an honest man: he may have dissembled, but he had not lied. A prophet cannot be allowed to lie, after all, or how can you believe any of the prophesies?

            I have to assume you’re being intentionally ignorant, or you think that you have a point. Feel free to run along now.

          • Truth Offends

            Where is it written that “keep alive for yourselves” means they were to kept for the purpose of sex?

            Abraham lied at least once before. Where is it written that he did not lie again to the king?
            Where is it written that Abraham was a prophet?
            And where is it written that a prophet cannot lie?

          • EnemyoftheState

            You appear to be a professional and are well named. Let’s take your comments point by point.
            1 – You “thought” I said I loved the Old Testament. I didn’t. But I do love the entire word of God. As you are unable to understand the Old Testament it is probably a good idea for you to check into a basic course in Theology at somewhere such as Westminster Seminary. You fail to (on purpose I am sure) understand the difference between moral and ceremonial Law and will be trotting out the law on eating shellfish next.

            2 – Christ’s death on the cross (actually his resurrection as His death on the cross without it would have been in vain) atoned for the sins of the whole world but not everyone is saved because not everyone believes. Thus all people are *not* “at one” with the Father.

            3 – Christ did not ‘transform’ the Law He fulfilled it. If you had the Holy Spirit you would flee from sin instead of apologising for it.

            4 – You very cleverly do NOT quote the first commandment which is to love GOD with all your heart, mind and strength – because in order to love God you must keep His word close to your heart. Jesus Himself says “If you love me keep my commandments” – as Jesus IS God the commandments stand ( these two being the ones you attempt to cite).

            5 – You do not know God as you purport to tell us that He was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Or do you use the facetious argument that the sin fo Sodom was a lack of hospitality?

            6 – You use the word love to mean Antinomianism. You use scripture not as a sword but as a club. Love without truth is sentimentality – if I did not love the word I would not exercise the time to refute your falsehoods which would snare others to their own ruin.

            7 – I love the truth and your statements are lies, half truths and therefore must be refuted. I wish you no ill and hope one day you discard the ridiculous man centered religion you appear to ascribe to.

            8 – I am a sinner saved by grace alone, I have no merit or part of my own salvation and am deeply conscious of my frailties. I reserve my hate for the workers of iniquity who surround us and daily drip lies into the children’s lives.

          • Nameless Cynic

            Ooh! Numbered lists! I love those. Much easier to answer. (BTW, “professional”? You think I’m getting money for pointing out that Jesus doesn’t appreciate being used to promote hate? I wish.)

            1. Why would I point out the shellfish rules? “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matthew 15:11 – I personally prefer KJV, but will occasionally switch to NIV for clarity. Just thought I’d mention.) You don’t think that, just pointing out the dietary laws, emphasizes that the jots and tittles are already changed? (As long as we’re sticking with Matthew – 5:18, in this case).

            Since Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17), Christians are now under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which I’ll cheerfully shorthand to “love God and others” (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give great examples as to how to show this love (and freedom from the law is not license to sin – Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim (that’s Hebrew for “moral laws,” in case you missed it).

            On that thought, yes, I understand the difference between ceremonial and moral law. Do you? For example: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9) So I assume you’d kill your kid for mouthing off to you, right? Because that doesn’t sound “ceremonial” to me.

            2. Well, that’s a fairly uncontested point. But just out of curiosity, there’s a tribe in Brazil which has never had contact with society until this year (look it up – they contacted the Asháninka Indians). They never heard of Jesus. So you’re saying that every generation of them to this point is condemned to Hell?

            3. I believe the important point here is that YOU are the one who are claiming to read the mind of God and have declared homosexuality a sin. Not everybody believes that.

            4. I’m sorry I didn’t quote the preceding lines – I assumed you knew them already. I just figured my replies are already long enough. Tell me what else you don’t understand – I’ll try to explain it for you. Using shorter words.

            5. “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekial 16:49) I’m back to wondering why you claim to have read the Bible.

            6. “The heresy of Antinomianism! Burn the witch!” Do you even see the irony in you saying “You use scripture not as a sword but as a club”? I’m not the one trying to bludgeon the gays.

            7. “man centered religion.” Quick thought exercise for you. a. Jesus is Lord. Do you agree?
            b. Jesus is also the Son of Man.
            c. Jesus is the “center” of Christianity.
            d. Now, think about the phrase “man-centered religion.”

            You’re almost there. Meditate on it for a while.

            8. Your definition of “workers of iniquity” might need some work – I’m willing to bet I’m included in it. And as for your claim not to hate anyone – well, actions speak louder than words.

            So let’s end with one point – the same one I started with. If the claim that “homosexuallity is a sin” is rooted in the Old Testament, and you claim to be a Christian, why are you so sure that you’re right?

            Because you were told that at some point. Just like people were once told that the body was ruled by humours. People get things wrong.

          • EnemyoftheState

            You use the Bible to justify a sin which whilst not any more vile than murder or rape, defies both the physical and moral order of things. You may use all of these arguments on the day you meet your Maker but I suggest by that time you will realize your arguments have no foundation othere than your own sinful desire to excuse … uh, sin. Glad you like lists as it helps keep things in order.

            No I do not think you are being paid but I suspect your conscience is being rather exercised which is good. As for hate, you do not know me at all and I can assure you I do not hate you but I hate the twisting of scripture to excuse sin of any kind – in your case you think homosexuality to be “ok” with God. It isn’t.

            1 – I mentioned shellfish to preclude you using the argument so often employed by those trying to pretend homosexuality used to be proscribed but now it is not.

            2 – Not at all – I believe God is just above all and as far as this theoretical tribe which never heard of Jesus I would simply refer you to Paul writing in Romans regarding the Gentiles who whilst not under the Law were under a moral Law – after all as man is made in the image of God, one of the explicit proofs of this is the possession of a conscience hence ‘atheists’ know the difference between right and wrong and hence they are subject to both original sin and original guilt before God.
            Romans 2: 12 – 16.

            3 – I am. I do. Others may think they are free to do as they wish but they are subjective and God’s Law is objective. Not everyone believes in God – these too are wrong.

            4 – Unnecessary sarcasm but the point is you left out the primary and relied on the secondary commandment. You put man first and God second. That much is clear.

            5 – and you again leave out a Verse, in this case verse 50. What exactly was the abomination of Sodom, in your opinion? Try Genesis 13:13 and Genesis 18:20. Harsh God, were He to have considered lack of hospitality as a reason to incinerate entire cities. Leviticus 18:22 does however identify the abominations (Heb to.w.e.bah) which in the context of Sodom (Genesis 19: 1-3 and Jude 7 which clearly names the sin of homosexuality).Fornication after strange flesh.

            6 – I am not trying to bludgeon gays – I am exposing heresy which you are trying to use to justify homosexuality and in doing so are leading souls to hell.

            7 – Not even close. Man centered religion is one where man justifies sin in the name of God. You want Jesus as saviour (maybe) but not as Lord. The Word of God is life itself and you are clumsily using it to promote a lie. Therefore I have no option but to expose your lies.

            8 – Jesus defines proper relations between men and women in the context of marriage. He does not sanction homosexuality. Jude confirms this – Jude is a New Testament letter.
            I stand where I stood when I first commented on your false teaching. You are a false teacher hiding behind selective verses in scripture.

          • Nameless Cynic

            “You are a false teacher hiding behind selective verses in scripture.” That a wonderful statement. So let’s examine the evidence you are presenting for Sodom having been a hotbed of gay activity.

            Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

            Genesis 13:13: But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.

            Genesis 18:20-21 (I’ll add the extra verse which you’re leaving out, this time): And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

            Genesis 19:1-3: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

            Jude (1:)7: 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.

            I’m going to leave out Leviticus – there’s an even longer argument about translation on that one, but I’ll mention that it doesn’t, at any point, refer to either Sodom or Gomorrah.

            Jude is absolutely the closest you can come, and even that is in question.

            But you present those verses, and try to claim that they prove that Sodom was a hotbed for gay sex.

            I stand where I stood when I first commented on your false, cruel and hate-filled teaching. You are a false teacher hiding behind selective verses in scripture.

          • EnemyoftheState

            And this is the best apologia for sodomy you can come up with? But if you believe in universal atonement which your earlier post indicated, then no one goes to hell, no one is lost – are they?

            What then of this ?

            1 Corinthians 6 – Authorized King James Version (the Amplified Bible emphasises and underscores this in verse 9) –

            9 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, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

            V 9 Rather nails your poor excuse for homosexual fornication. Thankfully you are not yet judged and may repent. I hope you do.

          • QuadGMoto

            He never prohibited incest, pedophilia or necrophilia either.

            Not by name, but He did condemn them by category.

            And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
            — Mark 7:20–23

          • EnemyoftheState

            Absolutely.

        • EnemyoftheState

          Yes I read the Bible frequently. Your purposed ignorance is pathetic – the statement by the Creator of the universe which includes man and woman makes it abundantly clear that a man is to join a woman. Natural law tells anyone that homosexual sex is aberrant, a perversion of nature. You can call it anything you like, it is still wrong.

          • Nameless Cynic

            “Natural law” says that? “A perversion of nature”? So animals, left on their own, would never commit homosexual acts, correct? Because it’s a “natural law.” (I’ll give you a hint – google “animals homosexuality” before you make yourself look stupider.)

            I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Jesus spoke about people who made up their own minds, and then blamed God for their own prejudices. “But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.” (Matthew 15:9).

            Might want to think about that for a while.

          • EnemyoftheState

            Oh the old hoarey chestnut of homo animals…animals seldom if ever have penetrative sex – they may hump but the main reason your argument is specious in this case is that animals are not moral beings; we are. Animals will not have to give an account for themselves before a Holy God whereas we will. You in fact are teaching your own doctrine which while attempting to justify evil, you wrest scripture to your own destruction.

            You might want to think on this:

            “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

            An evil soul producing holy witness

            Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

            A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

            O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

            ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

          • Nameless Cynic

            They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. (Ephesians 4:18)

            Slightly out of context, but fits here as is.

    • Dale_G1

      Actually “nameless”…and how brave you are to remain so, most “domestic terrorists and/or mass murderers over the past several decades are either liberals, atheists, Democrats, etc.. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of a little school in Colorado called Columbine have you? You’d probably still be alive on that fateful day had you been a student there. You might want to quit
      being a cynic and try a dose of reality.
      As for Christ. In the Book Of Revelation he is quoted as saying that he “hates” a group of sexually immoral Christians called the Nicolations. Christ may not have USED the word “homosexual” ( probably because it wasn’t a word then…but I digress ), but he hasn’t used the words cannibal or pedophile either. Do I take it, based on your…”logic”, that those things were okay with Jesus and should therefore be okay with us?

  • Pingback: HEAVENLY REVOLUTION! The Coming Christian Revolt

  • Russ Neal

    Who knows what MLK would say today about today’s issues, and what does it matter? What matters is that civil rights law today is being used to directly challenge the rights of Christians to live and work in accordance with their faith. The persecution of Christians in America today is pretty light weight compared to what ISIS or Boko Haram or North Korea is doing, but it will serve to separate the wheat from the chaff in the church; something that is periodically necessary. In that sense it is a good thing. I don’t see a mass uprising of Christians to defend their liberty as Barber does, but I do see a useful separation of go-along-to-get-along Christians and true believers, which is a necessary cleansing.

    • CowsomeLoneboy

      “…but I do see a useful separation of go-along-to-get-along Christians and true believers, which is a necessary cleansing.”

      Very good. Pretty much the mindset of Boko Haram that you referred to so tellingly earlier in your screed.

  • Barrustio

    Perhaps the solution he was speaking of was “re-orientation”

  • Dale_G1

    If you don’t think these things are possible or already happening…you are not paying attention. If you value your faith in GOD, Christ, your particular faith and/or religious denomination OVER the politics of flawed men ( and women ), then please keep reading. Don’t be a Christian ostrich with your head buried in the sand or an apathetic lemming looking for a cliff or lost sheep to the waiting wolves. Get informed and get involved.

  • Dale_G1

    This is for Nameless Cynic ( which translated means cowardly pessimist )…

    Actually “nameless”…and how brave you are to remain so, most “domestic terrorists and/or mass murderers over the past several decades are either liberals, atheists, Democrats, etc.. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of a little school in Colorado called Columbine have you? You’d probably still be alive on that fateful day had you been a student there. You might want to quit being a cynic and try a dose of reality.

    As for Christ. In the Book Of Revelation he is quoted as saying that he “hates” a group of sexually immoral Christians called the Nicolations. Christ may not have USED the word “homosexual” ( probably because it wasn’t a word then…but I digress ), but he hasn’t used the words cannibal or pedophile either. Do I take it, based on your…”logic”, that those things were oaky with Jesus and should therefore be okay with us?

    • Nameless Cynic

      Incidentally, I’m just curious. Does it say “Dale_G1″ on your driver’s license? Or are you just immune to irony?

      • Dale_G1

        Good comeback. But I don’t see a response to anything else I said.

        • Nameless Cynic

          That would be because you posted the same comment twice. Check the other one.

  • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

    Coming Christian revolution? I was under the impression that Matt Barber’s kind of Christians were revolting already!

  • CowsomeLoneboy

    As Emelye Waldherr so appropriately points out in her comment below, it is indeed revolting that you’ve arrogated to yourself, Mr. Barber, anything to do with Martin Luther King’s movement to empower and free oppressed people. That you would dare to make such a reprehensible public statement reveals a truly arrogant, benighted mind.

  • QuadGMoto

    Riiiiight. The DHS definition of “right-wing domestic terrorists” which starts with a definition which would include the founders of this country and tacks on racist groups exactly like the New Black Panther Party and La Raza, yet mysteriously excludes those groups.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the leadership of the DHS is as partisan as they come, and that bias is clearly reflected in their distorted “analysis”.

    • Nameless Cynic

      That is so cute! You have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re so fervent about it.

      Know why the New Black Panther Party and La Raza aren’t considered a “terrorist group”? Because they haven’t performed any terrorist acts. That’s kind of the definition, you know?

      (See how I ignored the fact that you complained that neither group was listed as “right-wing domestic terrorists”? I’m generous that way, since I understand that you’re a little “challenged.”)

      I’ll also be generous enough to ignore the paranoia inherent in your claim that the DHS is biased and “as partisan as they come,” since I know how badly you want to be able to claim that somebody is oppressing you.

  • QuadGMoto

    Sure, the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until the end of the 19th Century. It’s also an English word. There were plenty of Greek words Jesus and the Apostles could have used: arrenomanes, erastes, eromenos, kinaidos, paiderastïs, pathikos, and many others, covering several flavors of homosexual relationships.

    Why do you guys keep using the idiotic argument that English words have any affect on the definitions of words in other languages, especially far older languages? It’s the stupidest claim I’ve ever seen! Yet you idiots keep using it!

    Furthermore, why use a word referring to a particular “flavor” of homosexual behavior when Paul’s obvious purpose was to condemn all “flavors”? In fact, if you look at the Septuagint (the official Greek translation of the Old Testment used by first century Jews and Christians) Paul uses the key words from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (arsenos and koitēn) to make that blanket condemnation clear.

  • Gee Lah

    Their prophet was an executed rebel, the constitution that they adore is based upon rebellion from the King, what can people expect?

  • QuadGMoto

    However, the part that you aren’t taking into account is that Paul didn’t use TWO words there. He nailed them together, to form a brand-new construction,

    That is normal in living languages. For example, “blog”.

    As for the rest, all it deserves is copy/paste because it is blindingly obvious that your problem with the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual behavior has nothing to do with the actual words and everything to do with your insistence on having things your way, no matter what.

    ———————————————–

    The two words Paul joined were used to translate the two passages in Leviticus describing men having sex with men.

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

    — Leviticus 18:22

    Here is the Greek (in italics with English word for word translation) from the Septuagint (translated in 285 BC) of that verse:

    kai and meta with arsenos male ou not koimēthēsē sleep koitēn sexual relationship gynaikos woman; bdelygma abomination gar since estin it is.

    And in case it was missed the first time, God repeated it:

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    — Leviticus 20:13

    Here’s the Septuagint’s Greek (with English). This time I’m showing only the first phrase to save time.

    kai and hos who (male form) an ever koimēthē sleep meta with arsenos male koitēn sexual relations gynaikos woman, …

    So if arsenos koitēn means men having sex with men in Leviticus in Greek 300 years before Paul wrote, there is absolutely zero legitimate reason to claim confusion when the space is removed from between them.

    ————————————

    arsēn, male; thēlys, female; arsenokoitēs, male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.

    CL arsēn occurs in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards, sometimes in the Attic form arrēn (often in papyri, and also Philo, Josephus and Rom. 1:27 v.l.). (On the form see Funk ß 34 (2); Moulton, Grammar, II, 103.) It means male as opposed to female, thēlys (cf. Plato, Leg. 2, 9 p. 665c; K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I, 1928, 15, 18). thēlys is also found from Homer onwards as an adj. meaning female, but also with the art. meaning woman (e.g. Hdt. 3, 109; Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 4). On the phrase arsēn kai thēlys, male and female, cf. Plato, Rep. 454d; Aristot., Met. 988a 5.

    OT arsēn occurs some 54 times in the LXX [Septuagint] canonical and uncanonical writings, chiefly for the Heb. zākār. It appears in the phrase arsen kai thēly, male and female, in Gen. 1:27 (Heb. zākār ûneqēbâh) of the creation of male and female in the image of God (cf. also Gen. 5:2; 6:19 f.; 7:2 f., 9, 15 f.; Lev. 3:1, 6; 12:7, referring not only to man and woman but to the male and female of animal species in the flood story and in sacrifice). The male is referred to on his own in Gen. 17:14, 23 (the institution of male circumcision as the covenant sign); Exod. 1:16 ff., 22; 2:2 (Pharaoh’s attempt to exterminate the Israelites by destroying male infants); Exod. 12:5 (the Passover lamb had to be a male without blemish); and Lev. 1:3, 10; 4:23; 22:19; Mal. 1:14 (in connection with sacrifice); Lev. 6:29, 7:6 (of priests); Lev. 18:22; 20:13 (in condemnation of homosexual practices); Lev. 27:3, 5 ff. (in the valuation of the people); Num. 1:2; 3:40 (in the census of the people); Num. 31:17 f.; Jos. 17:2; Jdg. 21:11 f. (in historical narratives); Job 3:3; Isa. 26:14; 66:7; Jer. 20:15; 30:6; Sir. 33:26 (23); 2 Macc. 7:21; 4 Macc. 15:30 (of males generally). The references to the male and female correspond to those to man and woman generally in the OT. On the one hand, there is the recognition in Gen. of the divinely instituted parity in that man and woman together constitute the image of God, and their complementary roles in the transmission of life in both the human and the animal realm. On the other hand, there are certain roles (e.g. in receiving the covenant sign, in the priesthood, and in certain sacrifices) that only the male may fill.

    NT 1 The creative act in Gen. 1:27 is referred to in Matt. 19:4 par. Mk. 10:6 in connection with divorce. Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees takes it as the major premise for his teaching on marriage: “from the beginning he created them male and female.” This leads to the minor premise quoted from Gen. 2:24: “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [Matt. also gives ”and shall cleave to his wife“] and the two shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7 f.). The conclusion is drawn: “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God put together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:8 f.). Gen. 1:27 is also referred to in 1 Clem. 33:5 and 2 Clem. 14:2.

    2 Lk. 2:23 tells how Jesus’ parents offered the sacrifice prescribed for males by Exod. 13:2, 12 at his birth (Bird).

    3 Paul’s use of arsēn is interesting in that it exhibits a tension between the creation ordinances and their abolition in the gospel age. By contrast the ungodly have abolished the creation ordinances for sexual relations in a way which can only bring judgment.

    (a) In Rom. 1:27 arsēn (v.l. arrēn) is used 3 times which RSV translates by “men”: “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” In this passage sexual perversion is seen as a result of (and to that extent as a judgment on) man’s sin in worshipping the creature rather than the creator. Because he has put something else in the place which can only properly belong to God, man’s natural relationships have become perverted. Josephus also pointed out that unnatural relations between males was punishable by death (Ap. 1, 199; cf. Lev. 20:13; 18:22, 29). On Rom. 1 generally, see G. Bornkamm, “The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70. Paul uses the noun arsenokoitēs, a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite (Marriage, art. koíth), as one who is excluded from the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) and condemned by the law (1 Tim. 1:10; cf. Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13; Deut. 23:17; Punishment).

    (b) On the other hand, Gal. 3:28 asserts that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This, however, is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather, it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation history. As Paul goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. also Rom. 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same status before God; but they do not necessarily have the same function. In the context of the circumcision question in Gal., the assertion is doubly relevant. For women could not be recipients of the sign which Judaizers were insisting as a prerequisite for full salvation. There may also be an underlying Adam-typology in the passage. Some rabbis asserted that Adam was originally androgynous (cf. J. Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle, 1969, 326).

    4 Rev. 12:5, 13 takes up the imagery of Isa. 66:7 and Ps. 2:9 in the vision of the dragon’s attack on the woman with the male child: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child.” Whereas the child is here clearly Christ, the woman, in the light of the following verses, represents the mother of Jesus and also the church whose other “offspring” are now pursued by the dragon.

    — “MAN,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

    koitē, bed, marriage bed, intercourse.

    CL In secular Gk. koitē, besides its common meaning bed, connotes the marriage bed (Aeschylus, Sophocles). It was used also of the den of an animal or the nest of a bird as well as of a box or basket.

    OT In Wis. 3:13 the word is used in the phrase hētis ouk egnō koitēn en paraptōmati (“who has not known intercourse in transgression”) to describe an illicit union. In Wis. 3:16 koitē occurs in combination with sperma in a sense similar to the use of sikbat-zera‘ (lit. discharge of seed) in Heb. where the connotation is that of coitus (Lev. 15:18; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13; cf. Lev. 15:16 f., 32; 22:4; see further below). The Greek expression is modified by paranomou (unlawful) to connote the concept of illicit sexual congress. In Sir. 23:18 v.l. the word koitē occurs in the phrase pornos parabainōn apo tēs koitēs autou to describe “a fornicator who strays from his marriage bed.”

    In the LXX [Septuagint] koitē stands for a number of Heb. words, most frequently forms of the verb sākab, lie down. It represents the noun miskāb on numerous occasions with the basic meaning of bed, as the place of sleep or rest (e.g. 2 Sam. 11:13; 1 Ki. 1:47; Mic. 2:1). In Exod. 10:23 koitē represents the Heb. tahat, place, in the context of the plague of darkness on Egypt. The expression is probably used more generally in the Heb. than the LXX allows, for the word tahat may denote a place of sitting as well as lying. In Daniel the word miskāb is represented by koitē in the LXX and, in each instance, refers to the bed as a place of rest. In Isa. 56:10 koitē is used in the sense of rest in the phrase enypniazomenoi koitēn, dreaming of rest.

    The word koitē stands for several Heb. words that connote the home of an animal such as the Heb. rēbes (Jer. 50:6) which means sheepfold. The word also represents the verbal form rābas in the phrase koitēn poimniōn, fold of flocks, in Isa. 17:2. In Isa. 11:8 koitē stands for the Heb. me’ûrâh which connotes the den of a snake, and in Mic. 2:12 it represents the Heb. dōber, pasture. The noun mā‘ôn, lair, is represented by koitē in Jer. 10:22. And the noun me‘ōnâh, dwelling, lair, is represented by koitē in Job 37:8; 38:40. The word koitē is used of the sick bed in the LXX as in Ex. 21:18 where it represents the Heb. miskāb. See also Job 33:19; Ps. 41:3.

    In the LXX [Septuagint] koitē also stands for the Heb. sekābâh. The Heb. word can connote the idea of layer or deposit as in a layer of dew (Exod. 16:13, 14) as well as the act of lying. The word occurs in the latter sense in the phrase sikbat-zera‘ (lit. “a laying of seed”), a technical term in the Levitical legislation used to refer to the emission of semen. In Lev. 15:18 the expression sikbat-zera‘ occurs as the cognate accusative of sākab, lie, in a section describing the means of cleansing in the case of sexual defilement. Literally the statement says “If a man should lie with a woman ‘a laying of semen,’” and thus describes the act of “laying” in the sense of completion of coition. A similar usage of the expression occurs in Lev. 19:20; Num. 5:13. The word sekābâh seems to have another connotation in the same expression, however, for it is used in Lev. 15:16, 17 of emission of semen apart from coitus in which instance the word seems to be used in the sense of “deposit,” hence emission. The concluding statement to this legislative section (Lev. 15:32) uses the phrase sikbat-zera‘ to cover both instances of emission. The expression is used similarly in Lev. 22:4.

    The word miskab is represented by koitē in the LXX [Septuagint] in a number of instances where the connotation is that of bed in the sense of a place of rest but with associative sexual implications deriving from Levitical regulations relating to various forms of sexual impurity (Lev. 15:21, 23, 24, 26). In Prov. 7:17 the word is used of the harlot’s bed thus connoting in an implicit sense sexual intercourse. It is used similarly in Isa. 57:7 where the prophet berates the people for setting their beds on the mountains. The reference is to idolatry and hence is used also here in the sense of spiritual fornication.

    Frequently the word koitē reflects a distinctly metaphorical use of the Heb. miskāb as a surrogate for sexual congress as in Lev. 18:22; 20:13, where the word occurs in the plural construct state with ’issâh, woman. In Num. 31:17, 18, 35 and Jdg. 21:11, 12 koitē is used in a similar fashion in the expression yāda‘ miskab zākār, to know the bed of a male. The Heb. sekōbet is translated by koitē and also connotes the concept of copulation. It always occurs in construction with nātan, give. This expression occurs in Lev. 18:20, 23; Num. 5:20. In each instance the term connotes illicit sexual relationships.

    The word koitē also represents Heb. words connoting the marriage bed as Gen. 49:4 where miskāb is used, and 1 Chron. 5:1 where the Heb. word is yāsûa‘, a poetic word for bed.

    NT In the NT koitē occurs on 4 occasions. In Lk. 11:7 it is used in the sense of bed as a place of rest. In this context, an individual in Jesus’ parable protests that he cannot help someone who has solicited aid because he is in bed.

    In Rom. 9:10 the word occurs in the expression koitēn echousa, and is a euphemism for coitus, and, by expansion, conception and pregnancy. In this sense it is similar to the use of miskāb as a surrogate for coition, but no clear instance exists in Heb. where the word may connote the result of coition, i.e., conception. The theological point of the passage is that Rebekah conceived children “by one man, our forefather Isaac.” Yet before either of these male twins had done anything good or bad God in his divine sovereignty had decreed that “the elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12; cf. Gen. 25:23). The argument forms an important part of Paul’s case demonstrating to Jewish readers the consistency of divine sovereignty in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God.

    The word koitē is used in the plur. in Rom. 13:13 in the sense of illicit sexual union. In this context the word is accompanied by such terms as revelling (kōmos), drunkenness (methē), and licentiousness (aselgeia), all of which are also in the plur. Believers are warned to avoid them, together with quarreling (eris) and jealousy (zēlos), “but to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14).

    In Heb. 13:4 the word occurs in the sense of “marriage bed” as it does in the OT. In this context the writer affirms that the marriage relationship is an honourable one, and at the same time it is to be kept honourable.

    — “MARRIAGE, ADULTERY, BRIDE, BRIDEGROOM,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

  • jc

    People like Barber don’t understand the difference between “persecution” and discontent when they can’t impose their religious views on everybody. And if there is a God, Barber and his ilk certainly to not speak for him/her.

  • Arthur Adams

    Barber used to be a professional boxer?

    Wow, the fact he was repeatedly hit in the head explains a great deal…

  • ThumperWabbit

    Barber should be in a padded cell for his own protection – this Christian persecution complex claptrap is the ravings of a seriously deluded intellect

  • B. Galbreath

    Matt Barber has gay face.

    • Arthur Adams

      Oh, heck, that build and facial hair? Definite bear. Probable leather daddy. And I’m guessing 100% bottom. Really kinky, too.

  • Dale_G1

    WOW! The last few comments have all the intellectual solidity of a recently dropped moist cow dropping. Touché boys. Now go claim that MENSA prize.

  • Dale_G1

    I stand corrected on Columbine. Thanks for the info. Okay so I totally misspelled Nicolaitans. I haven’t read that passage for quite some time. And I didn’t mean to imply that the passage or reference ONLY applied to homosexuals. The good Lord knows that we heterosexuals have far more perverts than any other perversion. Also thanks for the Greek terms. I’ll put that to good use. I’ll try to digress a little better from now on. ;>)

  • Emma Bishop

    This has to be the most racist and hate filled article I’ve ever read…even the photo is disgusting.

  • Andy Keeping

    This bull you can smell 20 internets away.

  • Arrakis

    Of course it’s done with hate and bigotry you moron.

  • Richard McMillan

    Everything in this article and most of what i read in this responses is just sickening, and this is coming from a straight white male who was raised in a christian home and went to a christian school… the meaning of christian? explain to me where christ went around trying to get the powers that be to write laws against anyone? when did he say, “these people are lesser than, do not care for them”? most of the people here are disgusting and should call themselves something other than “christ-like”

  • Zachary

    Every single person who agrees with the writer of this article is a bigot and a moron. One day, you will die of old age, and the world will move on without you. If you are lucky, you will be forgotten and ignored by history. If not, you will be remembered as a bigot, in-line with those who opposed civil rights activists in the past.

  • TexasBoy

    It’s a shame you quote Dr. King to support your hatred of gays. Dr. King’s wife acknowledged the role of gay people in the fight for rights for the black minority.

    “We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say ‘common struggle’ because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

    Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement,” she said. “Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.

    I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice, but I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

    –Coretta Scott King

  • PoliticalGirl50

    Matt Barber – Fired from Allstate…..homophobic……glutton sinner….hater…..uses God and Jesus word to serve his (Matt’s) needs, not our Lord’s. His hatred of gays is all that fills his days and night. Sad man….probably lots of issues that he is hiding behind his keyboard which he uses to spew hate. Lonely, useless man. His followers are fellow haters, of all those who are different then them. Legacy=tormented man who will not be missed.

  • Gigi

    “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32) There’s nothing kind or compassionate about this incendiary piece of writing. Barber invokes MLK who said, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    True. Laws that deny rights to LGBT people are unjust, which is why the should be disobeyed.

  • Grizzly Adams

    True Christians actually practice tolerance and love. I’d suggest taking this guy’s assertion that he is Christian with a grain of salt…JC had he existed would have never stood for this drivel.

  • Gigi

    This is perhaps one of the most informed, thoughtful and accurate rebuttals to anti-gay rhetoric that I’ve seen. Thank you.

  • Sashineb

    Hey, Matt: check this out. Proverbs 23:2 “and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”

  • murphyj87

    In the 1960s, the backward people of the United States thought that war in Viet Nam was a good thing too. What people believed in the 1960 is very different from what people believe in modern 21st century nations (of course the United States is not a modern 21st century nation anyway, the US is an 18th century nation)

    Even many fundamentalist Christians in Canada support same sex marriage, which has been legal nationwide in Canada for almost 10 years.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

    Here’s an unvarnished truth bomb, Matt. You’re nothing but a fat ignorant bigot trying to make money by perpetuating hate. A grifter of the worst degree.

    And Jesus wept.

  • PoliticalGirl50

    All anyone needs to know is that Matt Barber was fired from Allstate for writing nasty’s blog posts about gay people. Then he had the nerve to sue them but they paid the ransom to get him out of there. That was the smartest $50K they ever paid out on a claim. Oh yea, Fat Matt is a glutton sinner. He hates gay people and all allies! I use the word fat because isn’t being a glutton a sin?

  • Pingback: I’m Wanted for ‘Hate Crimes’ in Canada | American Clarion

  • Max Vincent

    Too bad Matt Barber and his ilk cannot remember this basic fact: Man made religion; religion did NOT make man. There are more of us who do not believe in your god and your bible. We outnumber you and you would do well to remember that the fires of hell are a creation of overactive minds. The bible you speak of and from is taught as a book of fiction in colleges and universities, as it rightly should be.

    • Truth Offends

      Not everyone believes in God? And, those who don’t believe in God believe the Bible is fiction? Oh!…Yeah! That’s right! Wow. Thanks for reminding us!
      BTW: Did you go to Harvard or Princeton?

    • Amschel Leonid Bauer

      The Roman Pagans outnumbered us too, now we outnumber Roman Pagans. In time, we will outnumber the unbelievers also, through evangelism and because we actually make babies and produce the next generation.

    • Seriously

      According to Matt and is ‘ilk’, God created all we know. Which means, God created people, which then created the Bible. So which created what I am sure can be a degree’d course in our universities.

      You do not ‘outnumber’ them in the U.S. Not even close. And world wide? Let’s do some math: 7B(rough world population)-2B(Christians)-1.5B(Muslims)-2B(Hindus, Buddist etc) and you’re left with 1.5 non-believers, give or take. While some don’t have a central God, they surely are NOT atheists. Ops…

      As for fiction, problem is; there are some directly related facts in the Bible that have been born out through historical evidence. In some of our (anti-Christian/American) universities, one can chose to ignore that and get their ‘A’, but it doesn’t make it fiction.

  • Seriously

    “fundamentalist Christians” – if they support homosexual marriage they are not fundamentalists (learn to use your spell checker!) nor Christians. They are CINO’s. Christians In Name Only….

    • murphyj87

      No, They support the law of Canada, which, under federal law, defines marriage nationwide in Canada as “the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others” as passed as an Act of Parliament in June 2005.

      • thisoldspouse

        They “support” this paradigm, or else.

        And it is NOT a “law.” Only a Canadian court decision. It does not represent the will of the people.

    • Rev Michael

      Another darn well said.

  • Seriously

    A lot of folks say this is about hate. (of course all the ‘fat; comments are from love and tolerance…) Please explain? Seems to me he’s explaining ‘his’ Christian stance on a few issues. He’s saying that sooner or later, Christians will have enough of ‘a lot of things’.

    As for people saying this is racist? Homosexuals are NOT a race. Next. For being bigoted? He’s not saying round them up, he’s saying, Christians, refuse laws against your religion. Which BTW, is a God/Creator given right that the Federal government’s job is to ensure I can practice my religion. Arresting and/or putting religious folks out of business because they refuse to serve those their religion disagrees with is un-Constitutional. They didn’t refuse them a graduation/birthday cake. Specically cakes against their beliefs as per their religion and Bible: marriage is a man/woman, homosexual ACTS are an abomination. Supporting/taking part IS to sit at the table of Jezebel.

    To be clear: some of those cases (photographer, baker) are from folks out of state. Some sued in states that didn’t allow homosexual marriage at time. The problem is; they went looking for a refusal. In other words, they were hunting for a Christian to say no to use the force of the courts. The 2nd problem is: an out of state person cannot sue an citizen of that state. It’s against the 11th. So, when the NJ homosexuals sued the baker in CO, it was 100% illegal and un-Constitutional. Regardless of CO ‘human rights laws’.

    • Rev Michael

      Darn well said.

  • Pingback: Hell hath no fury | Jeremy Rumbolt

  • thisoldspouse

    Now you did it, Matt. You got a small entertainment publication in trouble with the Gaystapo. Of course, they published your article on their own initiative, but the messenger will be shot, nevertheless.

  • douglas gray

    Mr. Barber, one can agree that Christian Scripture does not support homosexual acts, but still be in favor of same sex marriage, for two reasons; one spiritual, and one secular. The spiritual reason is that fidelity is preferable to promiscuity, and, in a one-on-one relationship, may eventually lead to abstinence, which is the ideal for both a single heterosexual person, and a homosexual. The secular reason is that Governments world-wide have gone against Christ’s principle, “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s and render unto God, that which is God’s”. They have insisted on meddling in the business of marriage, granting special tax and benefit privileges to married people. All the High Courts in the U.S. have recognized that doing so, while not extending similar benefits to homosexual couples, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Courts in Canada have come to similar conclusions.

  • Radman414

    Mr. Barber — I just finished reading your August 11th post about the patently-”glandular” response to “The Coming Christian Revolt,” but there was no way to comment there. Absolutely nothing in your article even approached the threshhold of “hate speech;” but, when leftists are devoid of any facts regarding an issue, they have no chance of winning the debate, so their modus operandi is to personally ‘attack’ in a vitriolic attempt to marginalize the “messenger.”

    Their goal is not really about “equal rights” for gays. It’s about terminology and the “systematic desensitization to immorality:” The proponents of the radical gay agenda continually try to push the boundaries of religious tolerance in a very transparent attempt to impose their self-defined moral standards on others; and then they vilify the objectors as intolerant if they don’t capitulate and apologize publicly for their “insensitivity.” Furthermore, there are publications, elected officials and others on the political left who work as willing sycophants to promote the indoctrination of our youth…so THEY will eventually begin to accept aberrant behavior, sexual and otherwise, as just one more aspect of “normality.”

  • Pingback: The Coming Christian Revolt - Sons of Liberty Media

  • Pingback: Imagine That! I’m Wanted For ‘Hate Crimes’ In Canada… - Citizens News

  • Pingback: Gay group accuses Newfoundland magazine of hate crimes for piece on Christian sexual teaching | Victims of Gay Bullying

  • Grizzly Adams

    “I am god!”…
    “I am all seeing, all knowing and all powerful!”
    “I invented man and woman with the waste disposal site next to the playground and put man’s hot button in his ass…despite the fact I know everything, I had no clue that butt sex was a possibility in this scenario…Despite being “All Powerful” I am powerless to stop people from having Butt sex”

    “I’m therefore not “all knowing and all powerful!”
    “I’m therefore not god”
    …”at best I’m an engineer”

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!