dictatorship1

How ‘Sexual Liberty’ Devours Real Liberty

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Whenever there is a conflict between “sexual liberty” and religious freedom, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any cases in which religious liberty should win.”

So spoke Chai Feldblum, Georgetown law professor and member of the Obama administration, a commissioner of the EEOC. We understand her to mean that “sexual liberty,” or the freedom to fornicate, must always trump the free exercise of religion.

Case in point, and only one of many: the attorney general of the state of Washington has vowed to fine a florist $2,000 a day because she committed the crime of refusing to decorate a homosexual mock marriage event. She, with her little one-shop business, is an enemy of the people. She must be crushed. And just to make sure she gets the message, the ACLU is suing her, too. To stop her from being a bully, I guess.

Mind you, this is happening before the Supreme Court discovers a “right to gay marriage” cleverly concealed within the Constitution. Already the explicitly-stated First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion has been made to bow to a “sexual liberty” mentioned nowhere in the document. Maybe James Madison hid it under the coffee table.

If they come roaring after religious liberty like this before the Supremes enthrone “gay marriage,” what will life in America be like afterward?

Oh! But we can just all get along, can’t we?

The homosexual movement is insatiable and unappeasable. Like a fire, it won’t stop after consuming half the log. It’ll go on and on until either someone puts it out or all its fuel is consumed and there’s nothing left to burn.

Here is what we must expect.

The free exercise of the Christian religion will give way to the forced exercise of the secular humanist religion.

The federal government will force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” exercises. Pastors and priests will be punished if they speak against it.

All public schools—in case there are still a few that aren’t already doing it—will teach the normalization, acceptance, and celebration of homosexuality. As is already being done, children will be encouraged to try all sorts of sexual practices. Parents will not be allowed to opt their children out of these programs, and soon will be stripped of their right to determine the nature of their own children’s education. The religious schools will cease to be a refuge; and how long do you think Christian homeschooling will be allowed?

No one will be permitted to say or publish anything adverse to homosexuality (this is already the case in Britain and Canada). Our other First Amendment freedoms—of speech, of the press (presuming, perhaps wrongly, there’s still anyone among the press who might wish to exercise this freedom), and of association—will all be subordinated to “sexual liberty.” The fire will consume them all.

If that’s what we should expect, what ought we to do?

“As for me and my house,” said Joshua, “we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

They can’t jail all the Christians in America. But even if they could, it wouldn’t let us out of our duty to stay faithful to our Lord and His commandments.

Refuse, refuse—refuse outright to obey wicked officials in thrall to Big Sodomy. If your churches surrender, as some have done already, they aren’t churches anymore. Leave them to their apostasy and form house churches, as the Christians do in China.

Never, never speak of a same-sex coupling as “marriage.” It is no marriage, and will never be.

The hard part will be to decide what to do when they come for your children. But is it so much easier just to sit and suck it up when the “gender coach” comes to your first-grader’s classroom to teach the kiddies that “you can be a boy one day and a girl the next, depending on how you feel”? Is it so much easier to allow your kids to be recruited to march in a “Trans Pride Parade”?

The longer we wait to re-assert our God-given liberties—as opposed to newfangled bogus liberties made up by a lot of academic pinheads in their never-ending quest for a Garden of Eden run by themselves instead of God—the harder it’ll be to get them back at all. We won’t get them back for the asking. “Gee, Mr. Gay Activist Judge, I really miss my religious freedom. Do you think I might have it back, sometime soon? And maybe a little bit of freedom of speech to go with it?”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to say yes.

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

comments

  • thisoldspouse

    Well stated, Lee. You exaggerate not at all.

    • skinnercitycyclist

      Hehehehe, nice sarcasm!

  • RCQ_92130

    Fortunately, GayGestapo is the home of tolerance and the enemy of bullying, so none of this will actually happen.

    • thisoldspouse

      You seem too assured. Didn’t you read the part where some of this IS happening?

      Regarding churches, already they are being sued for refusing to employ open, militant homosexuals.

      • RCQ_92130

        I though SURELY, for THIS comment, it would be superfluous to add “”.

        Maybe not …

        • thisoldspouse

          My sarcasm detector isn’t operative until after 9 am.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          Dang, fooled agin…;-)

      • skinnercitycyclist

        Bullshit.

    • marlene

      Long live the GayGestapo. Down with the intolerant gay bullies.

      • Mic T.

        Lol. Fail. The “GayGestapo” is what Barbwire likes to call the “radical gays.” Thanks for the support, sweetie. ;-)

  • Mic T.

    Paranoia and the persecution complex at its finest.

    • thisoldspouse

      Facts are not paranoia.

      You missed the part where Chai Feldblum states that religious liberty must always lose to sexual perverts.

      Do you live on the River De Nial?

      • Mic T.

        That’s not what she said. You simply inferred that based on what you want to believe. What she did is condemn this new definition of “religious liberty,” which involves none of the two. Having the right to condemn people based on something you personally find morally wrong, something that other people may not find wrong? No, that’s not “religious liberty.”

        If that is what religious liberty is, then no, it should never trump the basic human right to love.

        • marlene

          ugh! religious liberty doesn’t exist without laws to protect it. indicting christians for practicing their faith is neither religious liberty nor lawful. the lgbt is satanic. oh by the way, you’re obviously confusing love with sex. gotta be moral to understand and appreciate the difference.

          • Mic T.

            And how is condemning homosexuality part of your faith?

            Condemning things you agree with as “Satanic” is very rude and childish of you, honey. Not to mention untrue.

            And yes, there is a difference between love and sex. We know that. Do you honestly think we are completely sex-oriented?

          • tomd

            So you support the KKK – they’re “living their faith” too.

          • Greg

            To whom does the KKK have their faith in? Themselves? Satan?

          • tomd

            Most members of the KKK consider themselves Christian.

          • Greg

            And members of ISIS think they’re going to heaven too. Both groups serve Satan.

          • Mic T.

            How about the Westboro Baptist Church? They consider themselves Christian. Do they have it right?

          • skinnercitycyclist

            The Klan is Kristian. Please do not give us “no true Scotsman.”

          • jimcastro65

            proof of satan’s existence?

          • thisoldspouse

            You.

          • Mic T.

            Lol. Is that you, Shirley Phelps-Roper?

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Are you saying there are no points of contact between love and sex?

      • Michael Hampton

        You choose to persecute yourself and then cry about being denied religious freedom. It’s the saddest thing I have ever seen.

      • 19gundog43

        It’s typical of sodomites and their sycophants to deny the facts and attack the messenger. They’ve learned their lessons well from the likes of Saul Alinsky. Nothing new for deviates.

        • marlene

          i agree

        • skinnercitycyclist

          Extra wingnut points for mentioning Saul Alinsky! But you lose a point for not using the term “playbook.”

  • Michex

    About one hundred pro-homosexual intellectuals and leaders stated years ago that they wanted POLYGAMY.

    Go to BeyondMarriage DOT org

    See the part about more than 1 conjugal partner, which is polygamy, here:

    “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”

    See the famous “Signatories.”

    Polygamy is part of the homosexual agenda.

    • thisoldspouse

      Most homosexual couplings already incorporate outside sexual partners in their “monogamous” relationship, so why wouldn’t they champion plural relationships? (See Colleen Hoff’s “Gay Couple Study” for details.)

      • skinnercitycyclist

        And so do a lot of straight couples.

    • Mic T.

      Nice way to take information out of context.

      In the statement, they talk about how there are already several different types of families, and that the kind that only the religious right agrees with is not the only one that should have all the economic and social benefits. They list cases in which elderly people live together and serve as their caretakers, adult children taking care of their elderly parents, and yes, polygamous marriages. Polygamy is still alive and well in many parts of the country. Look up Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. They are not expressly approving of polygamous marriages; they are simply saying that in the eyes of the law, they should be given the same rights as “traditional marriages.”

      • marlene

        being alive and well does’t make it moral. whether legal or not, whether you consider it a right, which it isn’t, or not – homosexuality is immoral and sodomites engage in immoral behavior and that’s why you attack tradition, culture, and morality – none of which you subscribe to. eyes of the law is ridiculous. the eyes of the law should not be in our bedrooms where they put tthe heterosexuals in the closet and the homosexuals on our front porch. disgusting and perversiive.

        • Mic T.

          That makes no sense, dear. Just because you may think it’s immoral, that doesn’t mean you have the right to ban who we love, especially since it involves consenting, loving relationships between two competent adults.

          And the LGBT community doesn’t attack culture. In fact, we have contributed to it quite a bit. Oscar Wilde, Elton John, Tennessee Williams, the list goes on and on.

          And isn’t banning gay marriage keeping the eyes of the law into the bedroom? Once gay marriage becomes legalized, nothing will change. Nothing.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Oscar Wilde, one of my favorites, and I will simply add Stefan George, one of my favorite obscure fin-de-siècle German poets. Oh, and Winckelmann…the list is endless

            “Once gay marriage becomes legalized, nothing will change. Nothing.”

            Except of course that millions of people who have been deprived of their civil rights will be able to lead their lives the way they want to. Just sayin’…

          • Mic T.

            True. But you know what I mean. The lives of the conservatives who get their panties in a bunch over gay marriage will not change one bit.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          Being illegal does not make it immoral, either.

          Plus, what is immoral about homosexuality? It does not seems to violate the golden rule.

    • Michael Hampton

      And years ago you could beat your wife in public and no one would say a word. Now they get the police involved! Are you saying things were better then?

      And since when is one crazy person’s ranting a representative of everyone who is like them?

      • marlene

        no one said things were better then, but that there is information out there you may be choosing to ignore because you don’t like it. which side are you stradding – bi?

        • Mic T.

          I think the better question is which side you are “straddling”?

        • Michael Hampton

          You don’t deserve to know anything about me. I’m not the one choosing to ignore information. That’s all you, Honey.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          How puerile you are…

    • marlene

      along with massive pedophilia, promiscuity and adultery.

      • Mic T.

        Nope, pedophilia is not part of the gay rights movement. Try again, honey.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          To be fair, there are quite a few gay pedophile priests, but I always thought that was more a problem with Catholicism than being gay…;-)

      • skinnercitycyclist

        Excuse me, I did not realize we were discussing the Roman Catholic Church…?

    • Gareth Willis

      A) The homosexual ‘agenda’ does not extend to polygamy (see MIc. T below).

      B) Polygamy doesn’t appeal to me personally, but if everyone in a polygamous relationship consented to it, and they weren’t harming anyone else, what business would it be of yours or mine to tell them what they can and cannot do?

      • thisoldspouse

        Should they be allowed to “marry” if they want to?

        • Gareth Willis

          No skin off my nose if they could.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          Why not? And I do not mean that rhetorically. State real reasons why polygamy should not be legally recognized, and I may agree. But, although there may well be such reasons, I doubt your capacity to give any, seeing how feeble your arguments against marriage equality are.

          If you do not understand the difference between the rights of gay people to marry whom they love and polygamy, I would not trust you to feed my cat while I am away.

          Read a book, a DIFFERENT book, I mean.

    • skinnercitycyclist

      Re: polygamy, come up with a rational basis against it, and I may agree with you. I do not think about polygamy much myself (seems a daft idea, personally, so I would never choose it), but you could make rational arguments for and against. And I would think, from your perspective, that it is at least a form of “biblical marriage.”

  • Devon

    Is there a difference between actions that an individual engages in that hurt no one and “real” liberty? Gays don’t have the right to use force to compel others to serve them, and neither do religious people. The conflict arises when each side uses the force of law to control the behavior of their neighbors. If there is blame for this state of existence, it resides with both sides for giving government the power to force the agenda of whatever faction is in power. If the federal government didn’t control education, it couldn’t be used to push an agenda. If the government wasn’t subsidizing lifestyles, people wouldn’t be fighting for it to include a variety. The voter has created this monster and looking for the monster to fix these issues is folly.

    • tomd

      Do you think black people have the “right to use force to compel others to serve them”?

      • Michex

        The homosexual agenda includes polygamy. See my proof at the top.

      • Matthew T. Mason

        Mason’s Second Law. Done.

        • jimcastro65

          what a joke

          • Matthew T. Mason

            What’s the joke?

      • Devon

        No “right” exists that compels the action of another free individual.

        • Michex

          Unfortunately the 1964 Civil Rights act does. A barber must cut the hair of any person who has minority status.

          • pearl87

            That is law, but it is NOT “right” under the Constitution.

          • tomd

            It’s been ruled constitutional numerous times.

          • pearl87

            It is NOT Constitutional by the plain language of the Constitution. However, the federal govt and the SCOTUS make little pretense anymore about following that outdated parchment.

          • Michex

            Judges are simply out of control.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Judges are out of control for enforcing the Civil Rights Act ?

      • pearl87

        First, that is a straw man argument, because being black is not the same as being a sexual pervert.
        Second, if we still had govt under the Constitution, instead of govt by edict, No one would be forced to serve ANYONE. The market would prevail and freedom would reign.

        • thisoldspouse

          Even so, the implications of the “civil rights act” has worked out to elevating one right over another. What was passed with good intentions has metastasized into vicious fascism.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Absent the CRA, it would have taken another two or three decades for market forces to have ended the Jim Crow laws in the south. What exactly would have compelled the state to let black students attend public schools and universities ?

            BE SPECIFIC. Market forces only work with individual businesses, not state-sanctioned discrimination. Absent any federal intervention, in a system where poll taxes and tests exist before allowing blacks to vote, how PRECISELY does one fix state-sponsored racism ? Hmm ?

          • pearl87

            Wrong, as usual. And BTW, the party of Jim Crow was the Democrat party. That also happened to be the party defending slavery.
            Blacks today understand the value of associating with each other in preference of state imposed integration. They should be free, as should we all, to associate with whom they please, in school as well as everywhere else.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Nice comment, but not exactly an answer. How exactly would blacks be attending local public schools and universities in the south absent the CRA ? Still waiting …

          • Mic T.

            Wow…
            First of all, the political views of the modern Democratic and Republican parties are completely different from how they were in the CIvil War. The Democrats used to be the conservative party, while the Republican was the more liberal one. In fact, until halfway through the 20th century, much of the Bible Belt used to vote Democrat. It wasn’t until St. Reagan arrived that the South started voting Republican.

            Also, the generalization of all black people is racism, no matter what you call it.

          • tomd

            And presumably white people would be better off if they weren’t forced to integrate – like serving black customers at lunch counters and such? Is that where you’re going with this?

          • TBP100

            There is no Democrat Party.

            And after the civil rights laws in the 60s, all those evil Democratic racists either renounced their wicked ways, or joined the GOP, which welcomed them with open arms.

          • pearl87

            I mean, the DemonRat Party,you know, yours and Barry’s. But the racists are all still there. Everything liberals do puts blacks a little further back to being slaves. Only now the “Massah” is the federal govt.

          • thisoldspouse

            If market forces work only with individual business and not with state-sponsored discrimination, then why did the crafters of the Act feel compelled to make the incursion into the operations of private business?

            You seem to deem the two the same thing. I doubt you will find a constitutional conservative who wants to make it harder for blacks to vote through tests or outright poll taxes. That’s not the issue, and that kind of discrimination would have been easy to deal with. But private enterprise is an entirely different issue.

            You seem ignorant of what Jim Crow laws actually did. They imposed on private businesses regulations on whom to serve and not serve EXACTLY the same as modern “anti-discrimination” laws impose regulations on businesses, ironically. Under Jim Crow, even if a business owner wanted to treat blacks the same as whites in his establishment, he couldn’t under the force of law.

          • Progressive Patriot

            The CRA was necessary because market forces were NOT working for decades.

          • Michex

            I agree. Many groups who have never been repressed have been included in these laws. Now homosexuals have been included too under “sexual orientation”. If a drag queen wants to babysit your kids, you have to hire her/him/it.

          • tomd

            Interesting. Who is forcing people to hire specific baby sitters? What law does this fall under?

        • tomd

          Nope. Hate is a stronger motive than economics. People in the 60s were more than happy to forgo additional revenue in their shops if it meant they didn’t need to serve black people.

          • pearl87

            I’m sure you were there and you know all. Who can argue with that?
            But I still have the right to disagree with you, at least for now.

          • tomd

            Well, you have to explain why the free market completely failed to address the civil rights abuses in the South. I’m interested in your explanation on this one.

          • JPT

            I was there, Sister. The abject hatred so readily rendered without compunction from the mouths of “good Christian people” stays with you.

            And being called a N****r-Lover has the same feel as some of the anti-gay comments I see here and other “true conservative” venues.

            Yes, you still have the right to shout anti-gay slogans, just as you and Southern preachers and politicians retain the right to declare “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

            However, if you insist on it, like your forebears, you will be effectively pushed to the fringe margins of society and finance until you see the light and just shut up on your own.

    • Michex

      No, Christians are not forcing anyone to do anything.
      Marriage started before any major religion was even formed.
      It is essentially a secular institution basic to humanity that religions believe in but it is not religious per se.
      Only homosexuals are trying to substantially force their views on society and in schools.

      • Devon

        Which is why I limited my comment to the subsidization of preferred lifestyles. No government should ever subsidize or provide fiscal incentive for any behavior.

        • Gareth Willis

          Isn’t the tax exempt status of religious institutions an example of the government subsidising or providing fiscal incentives for a specific behaviour?

          • thisoldspouse

            Letting a group/person keep their own money isn’t “subsidizing” them any more than I’m subsidizing you by not robbing you.

          • Gareth Willis

            Yes, I thought that might be a red rag to some rabid Friedmanite.

            Sadly for you, the OP mentioned both subsidies AND fiscal incentives. Giving someone a tax exemption is, by definition, a fiscal incentive. That’s what it means.

            So whether you consider a tax exemption to be a subsidy or not, doesn’t matter for this argument. The OP said that neither should be given.

          • Devon

            Exempting an entity or person of a tax burden doesn’t cost the government anything. The government doesn’t own all income.

          • Gareth Willis

            Indeed. But if you read the OP I was responding to, it said the government should not subsidise OR give fiscal incentives (tax exemptions) to any group. I was not making a comment on the right or wrong of tax exemptions per se, simply pointing out that if the OP doesn’t believe in them then that should be extended to religious groups.

          • Devon

            Not taking things from people is not subsidizing a behavior.

          • Gareth Willis

            The point is not whether it as a subsidy or not (I don’t see it as subsidy, it’s an exemption). In a world with central government and general taxation (such as the one we live in), giving certain groups, companies or individuals special tax status, and others not, gives them an advantage over those which have to pay the tax. Implicit in that is that the government is tacitly endorsing those groups, companies or individuals, otherwise why give them that advantage?

            Now, I have no problem at all with the government investing in and encouraging things by subsidising them, giving out grants, or giving tax exemptions. Some things need to be encouraged and invested in, and in a system where we have government taxes that’s one way to do it. The argument to be had is about what those things should be – and I’m sure you and I would have different views on that. There’s also an argument that central government taxation in itself is not a good thing, and could be replaced by voluntary local contributions for services, or some other system. But again, that’s not currently the world we live in and not the point under discussion.

            I have no problem with religious institutions or charities enjoying tax exempt status. My observation was in response to the OP saying the government should not subsidise or provide fiscal incentives for anything – and I merely pointed that if he/she believes that then he/she should logically extend that to religious groups.

            Please feel free to ignore all the above however, and instead respond with another random soundbite from Friedman, Hayek or Stefan Molyneux.

          • Devon

            Did you not ask if a tax exempt status is subsidizing behavior? I’m sure I read that. So at issue is what constitutes a subsidy. The government not confiscating income from an entity could only be called a subsidy if all income belongs to the state.

            I was clear that the state shouldn’t be subsidizing or providing incentive for behaviors. The state not taxing churches isn’t subsidizing the church nor does it provide the incentive for the creation of churches.

          • Gareth Willis

            “The state not taxing churches … (does not) provide the incentive for the creation of churches.”

            Of course it does! Just as not taxing charities provides an incentive to set up charities. Just as giving a tax break to an oil company incentives it to set up a refinery in a specific state. Just as giving individuals a tax reduction incentivises them to spend or save.

            It is clearly not the primary motive which drives the setting up of churches, but it is an incentive.

            In not taxing churches the government is clearly providing an incentive to encourage a type of behaviour. If you don’t believe that to be true, then you should have no problem with the government providing tax breaks to, say, a renewable energy project or a gay rights charity, as clearly that wouldn’t be considered an incentive either.

    • pearl87

      No one wants govt to “fix” this problem, because govt IS the problem. It is the govt that is violating the rights of religious citizens as well as violating the Constitution. You can’t split the baby here. You can’t blame the oppressed for being oppressed.

      • Devon

        That is what I argued.

  • tomd

    So the sky is falling. I’m glad Lee pointed this out.

    None of this will happen, of course. Lee can still search out and find a little bigoted church that may save him from having to sit next to gay people. (Maybe.). But life will go on pretty much as usual, just as it has in those places that have gay marriage now.

    • marlene

      morally disdaining a perversion is not bigotry. but a gay person in church is an act of apostasy by the church who allowed it in. trying bending over next to a muslim in a mosque — oh please do.

      • Mic T.

        ALL forms of sexuality are forbidden in mosques. Next.

      • jillybean

        Does this mean that a gay person who is trying to be celibate but who sometimes fails would be unwelcome in your church?

      • tomd

        If one visits a church or a mosque one usually tries to follow the practices used by the folks who worship there. It’s the polite thing to do.

        But something tells me you were trying to be rude in some way.

  • JC

    Lee Duigon needs to lay off the Vodka and get a grasp on reality. He is a magician who conjures things up from thin air. How much money, Lee? The bible does not apply to modernity.

    • marlene

      neither do you. and don’t misquote the bible with such nonsense. you’re indecent cliches don’t apply to modernity, but to a pagan era.

      • NavyBlues05

        Easter and Christmas don’t apply to modernity, but to a pagan era.

  • Pingback: Updating the rhetoric | Civil Commotion

  • ShepherdsLamb

    Don’t be too sure about them not being able to jail all the Christians in America. Terrorists either ran off or destroyed half of the Christian population in just one town in Iraq within months, from 120,000 to 60,000. Radical homosexuality is becoming extremely vicious. Don’t think for one moment that there is no way they would ever go to such an extreme. They are becoming louder, bolder, and more in-your-face with each victory they’ve received over common sense and decency.
    What kind of mindset causes anyone to march down the city streets naked, perform lewd acts in front of children, drag a mockery of Jesus through the streets on Easter Sunday, assault small children walking into Sunday School, throw feces and urine on pro-family legislators, and aids-tainted blood on church congregations? Sure, there are a few decent and good people who have been caught up in the temptation and lifestyle of homosexuality that must be appalled at these actions. But do we hear them publicly condemning them?

    • Progressive Patriot

      There are countless members of the LGBT community who are not fans of some of the excesses that occur at pride parades. Frequently, though, it is more benign neglect and a “boys will be boys” sort of thing.

      As for “condemning” them, not sure that word is appropriate.

      As for bad behavior, has the Unitarian church that was disrupted by a group of socially conservative evangelicals yet gotten an apology for disrupting their services just because they disagree on religious grounds ?

      (crickets) Still waiting. Guess this outrage thing only goes ONE way, eh ? Typical.

      • RCQ_92130

        EVERY ISSUE!

        On EVERY ISSUE you defend evil the same way:

        LOOK! OVER THERE! SOMEONE OVER THERE IS DOING SOMETHING BAD!!!
        SEE – THE BAD THING I DID ISN’T REALLY BAD AFTER ALL!

        Grow up.

        • Rob T

          Sorry, but which of his own actions did Progressive Patriot describe as a “bad thing”?

          On the other hand, it’s a very bad thing to distort someone else’s words like that.

          • pearl87

            You are too dense for words. The tactic is called “diversion” and, yes, he DID do that.

          • Rob T

            Pearl, in that case, can you please specify which of his own actions Progressive Patriot described as a “bad thing”?

            Because otherwise you’re just tossing out insults without any regard for truth.

          • pearl87

            RCQ was referring to the tactic of diverting attention FROM oneself, by condemning OTHERS.
            As in:

            “As for bad behavior, has the Unitarian church that was disrupted by a
            group of socially conservative evangelicals yet gotten an apology for
            disrupting their services just because they disagree on religious
            grounds ?”

            The incident referred to was a misguided attempt to sway hearts, not an effort to offend. But, when you own the megaphone, i.e. the leftist media, you can magically transform an outreach into a “hateful” invasion.

          • Rob T

            Sorry, no, I was very specific. RCQ characterized Progressive Patriot like this: “THE BAD THING I DID ISN’T REALLY BAD AFTER ALL!”

            That implies PP had copped to doing some bad thing, so I asked what PP had done that he himself considers bad. You insulted me without answering the question. And then in your follow-up comment, you still failed to specify which of his own actions Progressive Patriot described as a “bad thing.”

          • Greg

            Just a suggestion. Stay focused on the words and do not let your mind distort what you are seeing while re-reading pp’s and rcq’s original comments. It really does make sense.

          • Rob T

            I am focused on the words. That’s why I have a problem with RCQ’s mischaracterization of PP’s statement.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Oh, curious that one has the power to see what other’s motives were. To have that capacity to see inside the hearts and minds of the protesters, NONE of whom were trying to offend …

            Right.

          • RCQ_92130

            Pearl – just FYI, I have given up trying to have a conversation with Rob T. As i just said to him, it’s as if we are speaking two different languages (as you just saw). I don’t know if his misunderstanding is intentional – to get someone to pay a little attention to him – or actually an inability to grasp simple thoughts. Either way – carrying on an adult chat doesn’t seem possible.

            But good luck if you elect to continue to try ….

          • Rob T

            Sorry, no.

            You characterized Progressive Patriot as having described something he did as a “bad thing.” (“SEE – THE BAD THING I DID ISN’T REALLY BAD AFTER ALL!”)

            Correct or incorrect? (hint: correct)

            Yet you have been unable to point to where Progressive Patriot describing something he did as a bad thing.

            Correct or incorrect? (hint: correct)

            So there is no misunderstanding my part, intentional or otherwise. I may not be interpreting what you wrote the way you want me to, but I’m interpreting it as you wrote it.

          • Progressive Patriot

            So, “outreach” involves yelling at children in a nursery or telling youth congregants that their form of worship is sinful and they are going to hell ? Outreach done IN THEIR OWN SANCTUARY, no less ?!?!? Unplanned and without their permission. Disrupting their service.

            Wow, gotta hand it to the Benham family and their “outreach.” Definitely shows the true colors of the crowd who never tire of whining about “religious liberty.”

        • Progressive Patriot

          (laughing) Isn’t it also a bad thing to misrepresent and use all capital letters ? Ha ha ha.

          The point was that many in the gay community are not in lock step support of some outrageous acts done at pride parades. Condemn is a far cry, but not every supports everything.

          And, in other news, not one Christian has apologized for the outrageous behavior at the Unitarian church.

          • Greg

            What did they do?

          • Progressive Patriot

            “On Sunday morning, July 20, the sacred time and space of a historic New Orleans congregation was violated. As congregants of First Unitarian Universalist Church, founded in 1833, held a moment of silent prayer to grieve a young woman of the church who had died the previous week, protestors from Operation Save America began to harangue the minister and spew words of hate to and at the congregation. In shock, but with increasing pain as these diatribes continued, the congregation listened quietly as protestors vilified and insulted them. Soon, though, the protestors were ushered out of the church.

            As this was happening in the sanctuary, other protesters, holding grotesque images, massed around the windows of the church nursery, screaming at the babies and toddlers. Youth were told they were “going to hell” and that their family members were suffering from illness due to their sins. The church members responded by singing words of love, justice and freedom to counteract this hateful rhetoric.”

          • Greg

            Well, on just the very limited search I did on the church and the protesters, and as myself a Christian, I would not support OSA period, nor the action they took at the Unitarian Universalist. Although I don’t agree with the beliefs of the UU, if I was in New Orleans, or came across any member of the UU, I would tell them sorry for what they faced that day, and tell them that the group OSA does not follow the principles that Jesus taught His followers. I don’t disagree with anything OSA protests, but the way they do it. It should be done peacefully, which is far from how they do it. OSA appears to be much like those nuts at Westboro.

          • RCQ_92130

            You are simply incapable of finishing even this comment without falling back to blame shifting, are you?

            Pathetic.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Ha ha ha. Was making a second point. Try to keep up next time.

          • marlene

            that depends on your definition of “outrageous”. most of us hetereosexuals find the public display of homosexual activity outrageous and we’re sure not in lock step with that.

          • jimcastro65

            I personally find public displays of any sex outrageous

      • marlene

        your cognitive dissonance is showing. homosexuality is not a religion. and “boys will be boys” is just the opposite of what these pride paraders are being – most of them are being “girls”.

    • Michex

      They are being prosecuted for hate speech. Imprisonment will soon happen if it has not happened yet.

      • Rob T

        Can you name anyone in the US who has been prosecuted for hate speech? (Tip: while direct incitement to violence and slander have long been crimes, simple “hate speech” is not a recognized concept in US law.)

        • Michex

          I know though at this has taken place in Canada and European countries. I quite sure it has happened here though I would have to research it more. It will happen. We are similar to those countries, which liberals adore.

          • Rob T

            Then please do research it here, just for your own credibility.

          • Michael Hampton

            In other words, you were unrepentantly lying.

          • jillybean

            I just reread the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of the Saskatchewan man who was fined for anti-gay hate speech. It is not inherently illegal for a Canadian to say that the Bible (or the beliefs of a particular religion) opposes homosexual activity as sinful. It is illegal to use language that encourages disgust, hatred, and violence towards gays.

          • tomd

            And the other people charged under that law in Canada are a Holocaust denier and some white supremacists. Truly great company to join to protect one’s “religious freedoms”.

            And I’ll save Michex the trouble. It hasn’t happened here. There is no concept of “hate speech” in the US.

          • jillybean

            I grew up Canadian, but I have lived here long enough that I’ve come to oppose laws against hate speech. I think they are well-intentioned but I don’t see them as compatible with a truly free society. What do you think?

          • tomd

            Ditto. There are very few cases of this sort in Canada because, (IMHO), it’s Canada and the culture is different.

            I also prefer the first amendment – I’m OK with the Westboro Baptists doing what they do, because I want the right to suggest very strongly what I think of them and what they should do with themselves afterwards.

            Similarly, if a baker or pastor want to exercise their religious freedoms and *say* things about gay people – go ahead. But they shouldn’t expect respect for those views just because they’re ‘religious’.

    • marlene

      SPOT ON!

      • Mic T.

        How? Considering that many LGBT people are Christian, that seems like a very unlikely prospect. And we have nothing against respectful, tolerant Christians.

  • Progressive Patriot

    Wow, the Hyperbole Express is not disappointing today.

    (laughing) The author’s point is so off-base that it is hard to imagine a more irrational argument.

    • RCQ_92130

      “Off bade” — when viewed by someone whose entire universe is the gutter — is a terrific compliment.

    • pearl87

      The only thing more irrational is EVERYTHING to do with leftist “progressives”. Still laughing? Thanks for sharing because, EVERYONE cares if you’re amused.

      • Progressive Patriot

        So glad to have helped.

      • 19gundog43

        Bright shiny objects amuse him to. He can stare at them for hours.

    • marlene

      when the base is spiritually and physically contaminated, it’s better to be off-base.

      • Mic T.

        “Spiritually and physically contaminated?” How so?

  • L.C. in Texas

    When I was being raised by respectable parents (plural), the
    “entertainment” industry was considered to be simply entertainment. In
    America you have the right to freedom of speech, most people knew the
    difference between Hollywood and facts and considered it on the same
    level as a salesman. Today young people look at the trash that Hollywood
    is putting out and taking it for the gospel truth. The truth is, we
    need to establish respect for humanity and Christianity.

  • nowaRINO

    “The federal government will force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” exercises.”

    Not going to happen any sooner than requiring the Roman Catholics to marry civilly divorced, legally single, heterosexual couples.

    • pearl87

      I have a grip, and so does this author…on reality, that is. Perhaps you are the one who’s slipping. The dictate to the churches is already happening in Holland. Why can’t it happen here? Are you really so smug, or just scornful of Christianity?

      • Michex

        Also in the UK.

      • tomd

        What dictate in Holland?

      • Michael Hampton

        Um…no. Not ONCE has a church in America been forced to perform a ceremony that they didn’t want to perform. Please. Control yourself.

        • RCQ_92130

          wow again.

          Please ask a non-gay-gene individual (WITHOUT the resultant cognitive disability) to read things for you AND EXPLAIN THEM. Pearl clearly said “Holland”, not America.

          Geesh. Sad thinking how many voices you must be hearing.

          • Michael Hampton

            Did you miss where she said “Why can’t it happen here?” and I told her that not once has it even been a threat. Her fear is unfounded. See? Are you really that far into denial?

          • RCQ_92130

            Idiot liar dishonest wombat

            Pearl: “The dictate to the churches is already happening in Holland.”

            You: “Um…no. Not ONCE has a church in America been forced”

            Idiot liar.

      • marlene

        both smug and scornful of christianity. add to that: intolerant, sinful, and overcompensating. you pearl87 and i know the truth which sets us free from this sin and we both know that the homosexuals live subjected to their dire and portentious statistics.

        • NavyBlues05

          Did your brand of religion come with this degree of arrogance? If it did, then you can have it. I’ll stick with my self deprecating humor, humility, and atheistic tendency to help my neighbor regardless their beliefs.

          • thisoldspouse

            Humility? LOL!!!!!!!

            Thanks for the laugh. This, coming from someone who lives a life of perpetual, pathological “pride” in perversion.

          • Michael Hampton

            Um…you’re the one saying you are better than everyone else here. Not us.

          • NavyBlues05

            You’re assuming something about my life and you’re quite wrong.
            Yeah, I’m proud to be a disabled veteran and also proud that I can still physically help my neighbor. As I don’t NEED to collect “god points and strut my piety”, I refrain from condemning my neighbor and I sure as hell mind my own damn business when it comes to their bedroom behavior.
            As far as perversion goes… I’m sure you have plenty and that they involve passages in the bible that aren’t spoken in public… as someone could clutch their pearls too tightly and swoon.

      • nowaRINO

        In Holland the church is a national church supported by tax dollars and the salaries of clergy are paid with tax dollars. When everything is paid by a taxpayer you cannot discriminate against a taxpayer.

        Apples and oranges. We do not have a state church.

        • thisoldspouse

          The argued case by homo-activists is that the government does “subsidize” churches in America by exempting them from income taxation. That, specifically, will be the line used to force compliance to the homo-Geatapo’s will.

          • Michael Hampton

            If you don’t like the rules attached to the tax-free status, then pay taxes. It’s very simple. No force necessary. But then you will claim that even though you decided to give up that status, you were somehow FORCED to do it.

          • thisoldspouse

            You make my point for me perfectly.

          • nowaRINO

            Silly argument from you and the left.

          • TBP100

            Just like Catholic churches have long been required to perform marriage ceremonies for divorced people, or for mixed-faith couples, and churches that don’t believe it in have been forced to perform ceremonies for interracial marriages…oh, wait. None of that has happened.

    • marlene

      which opens the door for the feds to next force us to perform same-marriage sex! this whole diabolical issue with out of the closet and in your face people acting out their perversity in public and in front of children who are too young to be exposed to sexuality at all is pornographic and pedophiliac, both of which are being made legal by sodomites in the white house, in congress, in our schools, on the bench, and in every branch of government on all levels. i’m nauseous.

      • Progressive Patriot

        Well, respectfully, no one in America should ever, EVER have the expectation to not see a gay couple pushing a stroller, maybe holding hands, or giving each other a kiss. That era has LONG since passed and is not coming back.

        Gays and lesbians exist. They are patriotic citizens, pay taxes, serve in the military, and in many cases are pillars of their community. There is not a logical reason that can be trotted out why such citizens do not have the exact same rights as opposite-sex couples.

        So, yes, children will be exposed to same-sex couples kissing. Bringing their kids to daycare, preschool, kindergarten, 1st grade, etc. and on up. Sorta how it works. It’s called the public square.

        • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

          No, children should never be exposed. The radicals want to sexualize our children, even from the young ages of 5.

          • Progressive Patriot

            No one is talking about sex-ed classes for five year olds. Gays and lesbians exist. They are quite possibly the neighbors of many five year olds or are related by marriage or blood to many five year olds.

            Denying such a reality in 2014 is like trying to deny gravity. It exists. It has been existing for quite some time. It IS reality.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            They are talking about books for children as young as 5 that depict “alternative” families. (Two moms, Daddy Wears a Dress, etc.)

          • jimcastro65

            yea…let’s not expose them to reality

          • Progressive Patriot

            (laughing) Well, not sure that “Daddy Wears a Dress” is entirely appropriate. Will give you that one. And have always thought some of these books were just bizarre on a multitude of levels.

            But, the facts on the ground are that same-sex marriage is a reality in 2014. Reasonable persons can disagree on the best way of integrating that reality into various curricula.

            Perhaps as part of word problems: “If Joe is driving south on the freeway at 45 mph and his husband, Sam, is driving north at 30 mph and both leave at 0930 hours…” That sort of thing.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            I hope that if the schools start with the indoctrination – even if it is subtle brainwashing as in your math example – that people will start pulling their children out of the government schools, and either send them to private schools or home school them.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Meh. There will always be a group of folks who will choose to homeschool, either based on a religious or secular curriculum. In either case, there is very little likelihood that such concepts will diminish at any point in the future. The tipping point has been passed already.

            In twenty years, same-sex marriage will be more commonplace and little more than another factoid about someone’s life akin to their address. Just another demographic nugget. This hue and cry will seem completely ridiculous from an historical perspective.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            I disagree. Look at abortion; that is what the advocates said – over 40 years ago. And we have made gains in saving the innocent unborn, and the fight for them is even stronger.

            The same will happen here. The fight for decency, morality, and sanity will not end.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Well, I will respectfully disagree. Abortion is a far more difficult issue as even many liberals are against abortion in all cases, especially late-term abortions of healthy children.

            The continued denial of abortion, even late-term, for anencephalic fetuses is pretty much misogyny at the most fundamental level and completely inexcusable. But, that is another issue entirely.

            Gay rights is something completely different as it involves treating fellow Americans as second-class citizens. Not sure how that factual reality is ever going to look positive enough that someone is willing to vote to take their neighbor, friend, or family member’s rights away. Just do not see that happening. Even forty years from now.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            Nobody is treated as “second-class”; if you are going to be consistent, then you will have to include polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and on and on. It is only a matter of defining what marriage is.

          • Progressive Patriot

            At this stage, there is not a groundswell asking for rights for those groups like there is for same-sex couples. Everyday people know, are friends with, and are related to gays and lesbians. There is a familiarity to it. Not so much with the other groups.

            Perhaps at some future date, there might be clamoring for such rights. Hard to say. Again, does not really impact such large numbers of folks.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            I never said that there will be any “groundswell” of such support. I am merely point out how logically inconsistent and irrational the position of the radicals is.

          • NavyBlues05

            Children have been sexualized since recorded civilization!!! The creation of religion changed nothing in this area.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            No, the Left has made a concerted effort to sexualize our children, from young ages.

          • NavyBlues05

            No, you seem to be confusing that with religious fundamentalists. Who else demands their daughters publicly swear their chastity while turning a blind eye to their sons acting like neanderthals? Saw that out west in Mormon country and had to just shake my head in amazement, they were no different from the southern backwoods fundies from my own state.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            You saw it. I haven’t. Nobody I know has seen it, either.

            Sorry.

          • NavyBlues05

            Oh okay, since you and no one you know has seen it… it must not exist.
            You have just proved my point. What doesn’t conform to your narrow view must not be valid or even exist, correct?
            Amazing….

        • Greg

          Actually, it’s called un-restrained wickedness, evil, perversion, and is only detrimental to children and society.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Well, that is certainly one opinion. While not universal, it is shared by some.

            Not exactly relevant, however, as same-sex couples and their presence in the public square is not going away.

          • Greg

            Well, sadly, I agree with you that all this sexual perversion is not going anywhere, as society, particularly in the west, is quickly regressing and heading for collapse.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Meh. Not sure that such Cassandra-like prognostications are even remotely true. Seems more like petulant whining from a religionist class who are no longer the only game in town and who have NEVER liked the idea of pluralism.

            More like a buffet where there is only one choice in every steam table. More like a feeble competitor unable to compete with other choices and tries to rig the system or stack the deck.

          • Greg

            A whole lot of babbling going on there, but I did detect one piece of truth. You are correct, right and wrong, truth and lies, light and darkness, righteousness and evil, God and Satan, will NEVER get along.

          • NavyBlues05

            This unrestrained wickedness, evil, perversion and all the other phobias were imported with the Puritans. Try again, please.

      • jimcastro65

        you’re funny LOL!

      • nowaRINO

        It’s not going to happen, you are nuts

    • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

      It will. Radicals are already screaming to take away tax exemption to punish churches that do not capitulate to their narcissistic demands. Look at what they did to the Catholic adoption agencies. These self-centered brats are willing to have adoption agencies eliminated in order to force their demands on the Church. Nice choice they give the Church: Give up children to homosexuals, or do not care of abandoned children. Nice.

      • jimcastro65

        Love it!

      • nowaRINO

        Stop, just stop the paranoid delusions.

        • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

          They were, de facto, forced to close.

          • nowaRINO

            No, they could have continued to give gay couples children to adopt as before.

          • TBP100

            Also, when you take government money, you are bound by whatever restrictions come with it, just like every other organization taking government money.

  • DrunkEnough

    Jesus never tells his followers not to serve homosexuals. The idea that it is “religious liberty” to refuse to serve gay people is not Biblical. You may interpret the Bible as saying not to BE a homosexual, but that’s not the same thing. Even Jesus hung out with a prostitute! Don’t claim relgious freedom if you don’t want to serve a homosexual. It’s not part of any catechism. Claim hate, because that’s what it is.

    • Greg

      Christians have been serving non-Christians since the establishment of America.

    • Devon

      If a person cites their belief system as a reason to not serve someone at their business, that is their right. Don’t do business with them. The only place where free people should be concerned that all are treated equally is government.

      • Truth Offends

        “Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing ‘degrees of evil’ by our ruling in Tigner v.Texas, that ‘the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'” ~~SCOTUS (Skinner v. Oklahoma)

        Do you agree that “the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same”?

        • Michael Hampton

          Again! If you want to discriminate against gay people so badly, there are almost 20 states that do not have public accommodation laws and you can move your business to one of those states and then discriminate to your heart’s content.

          • marlene

            no -YOU move and keep moving…

          • Michael Hampton

            That’s not how it works. And, by the way, what an intelligent and witty retort! Did you think of that all by yourself? Or did a 3 year old wandering by come up with that one for you?

            If you break the law, then you have to face the penalty. I’m sorry you feel that you are above the law.

          • thisoldspouse

            So, you get to tell others to move to a different state, but deny that right to us.

            I see. Facsism is so difficult to decipher.

          • Michael Hampton

            Um…AGAIN we DO have to move to states that recognize our marriages. What part of that statement is so difficult for you to understand? You are not being persecuted. You are doing the persecuting.

            Now stop nailing yourself to that cross. Jesus doesn’t like it when you steal his gig.

        • marlene

          oh absolutely, but i’m not a homosexual so i have no axx to grind.

        • Devon

          The equal protection clause doesn’t provide the path for one person to be forced into servitude of other people.

    • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

      The Bible clearly condones sex only in marriage – heterosexual marriage.

      It is not an “interpretation.” The Bible uses the expression “abomination.” The only other place it uses this is concerning child sacrifice: That is placed at a level of depravity with homosexual sex.

      • Progressive Patriot

        Not exactly true. Eating shellfish is also an abomination.

        • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

          Yes. Unclean. Like homosexual sex.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Just rebutting your comment above that “the only other place [the Bible] uses this is concerning child sacrifice” which is demonstrably untrue. That statement is inaccurate. Not true. False.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            I stand corrected. Only eating what was considered poison and child sacrifice are considered “abominations,” along with homosexual sodomy.

          • Truth Offends

            According to the Bible, shellfish is an “abomination.”
            But I cannot find where it is written that “eating shellfish is an abomination.”

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            Take a look at Leviticus 11:12. I think other words, like “detestable” are also used.

          • Truth Offends

            Lev 11:10-12 calls animals like shellfish “abominations”.
            In Leviticus, Chapter 11, God calls some animals “unclean,” and He calls other animals “abominations.”

            “Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.” (Deut 14:3)

            Considering that believers’ bodies are the temple for the Holy Spirit, I would certainly *think* that eating those animals would be an abomination. (Isa 66:17) So, if you ever find any verse that says the actual behavior of “eating” animals that are abominations IS an abomination (like other behaviors are called abominations), I would really appreciate it if you would please let me know. Thanks.

            PS: You might be interested in the posts in this thread b/w me and “Progressive Patriot” about this.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            You seem to be more well-versed in the Bible than I am. I will defer to you. My overall point is that the Bible made it clear that homosexuality is not tolerated, and referred to it in very strong language.

            One way to look at this is that it was the beginning of civilization: Sex was not something done randomly, with a male or female, but restricted to marriage. Civilization advanced, in significant part, from this.

          • Truth Offends

            I brought all this to your attention b/c you “stood corrected” by someone who I believe is wrong. I cringed when I read that b/c I believe that what you had previously said did not need any correction. :)

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I will defer to you. Please correct me if I am wrong: One of the strongest words used in the Bible is calling something an “abomination,” and homosexual sodomy is considered one of those “abominations.”

            The radicals will focus on any tiny flaw – a word, a phrase, a number after a decimal point – in order to try to discredit the main and obvious point. That is what I believe the radical was doing by saying that shellfish were also called “abominations.” The idea was that if he could find the tiniest flaw or any meaningless mistake in my statement, he could then feel justified to reject everything.

          • Jimbo2112

            No question the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, condemn homosexuality. Of course, the Bible also condones slavery; relates stories of divinely-ordered genocide; and describes the punishment for making fun of a prophet as being eaten by bears.

            Good thing we as a society are not governed by the Bible.

          • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

            Not exactly true with the Bible. In the ancient world, many people, including “professionals,” voluntarily became slaves. It was more of an economic status than anything. It most certainly was not based on race.

            Also, the buying and selling – and even hunting down for that purpose – of people was outlawed by the Bible. Ex 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

            And 1 Timothy 1, 8-10 refers to “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers…” Homosexuals and enslavers – wrapped together. Interesting….

          • Truth Offends

            I edited my original reply. You may need to refresh page to see edited version.

        • Truth Offends

          Where is it written that, according to you, “eating shellfish is an abomination.” I can’t find that.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Try Leviticus 11:12 ” Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the water, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

            Pretty much covers lobster, shrimp, clams, mussels.

          • Truth Offends

            The verse you provided (Lev 11:12) says that those animals are “abominations.” So where is it written that “eating” those animals is an abomination? I cannot find that.

          • Progressive Patriot

            The whole chapter lists out which foods may or may not be consumed. That is the context of that verse.

          • Truth Offends

            I understand the context. But, my understanding is that the animals themselves are abominations. I cannot find where it is written that “eating” them is an abomination.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Huh ? What else would the chapter be about if not about what can be eaten or not ?

            It is a list to Moses and Aaron.

            A list … of permissible foods to be … (wait for it) EATEN.

            How could the animal in and of itself be an abomination ? That is nonsensical on its face.

          • Truth Offends

            Of course the chapter talks about what may and may not be eaten! And, God calls some animals “unclean,” and He calls other animals “abominations.”

            Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. (Deut 14:3)

          • Progressive Patriot

            So … eating shellfish is an abomination. Thanks for making my point.

          • Truth Offends

            No. I cannot find where it is written that “eating” shellfish is an abomination and, evidently, neither can you.

          • Progressive Patriot

            What a Pharisaical reply. LOL. Ha ha ha ha. Legalistic to the last. Whatever.

          • Truth Offends

            What you call “legalistic,” I call “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)
            You’re an atheist. You know essentially nothing about God or the Bible. So, I’m not at all surprised that you know nothing about what it means to be “Pharisaical.”
            FYI: Like you, the Pharisees also found things written in the “word of truth” that are not there.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Ha ha ha.

          • Truth Offends

            “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isa 40:8)
            Praise God!

          • Progressive Patriot

            Yawn.

    • marlene

      a prostitute is not considered abominable by God… and you got the premise back a__wards. religious freedom is supposed to PROTECT your right not to serve homosexuals against your biblical faith. there is no religious freedom without laws to protect it. our leaders are allowing the gay agenda to steal, usurp and undermine the religious liberty of hetereosexuals for homosexual behavior that has nothing to do with religion. hypocritices.

    • thisoldspouse

      You are mistaken, and probably a biblical illiterate like most Leftists:

      “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” – Ephesians 5:11-12

      And before you object to this admonition as coming from Paul, know that Paul spoke from divine authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. These words are as good as from God, because they are.

  • pearl87

    Mr. Duigon, it seems that you need a more aggressive posting policy that permits real commenters to have a say. As it is, every homo-fascist descends on Barb-wire articles to flood them with abuse, ridicule, and insults as soon as they are up. They run a tag team and drown out the entire debate with their invective, because they have nothing else to do with their lives. Can’t someone monitor these comments and stop allowing this onslaught of negativity?

    • stage9

      They only prove his point.

    • Mic T.

      Don’t we have a right to give our opinion? Instead of editing us out?

      • marlene

        not for long. a law against hate speech, which includes any speech someone else doesn’t like, is coming very soon from a government that hypocritically determined that slander is not slander if it’s true then turns around on the other side of its mouth and says hate speech is whatever they want it to be. leftard hypocrites all of them.

        • Mic T.

          Uhh… hello? The freedom of speech is not going anywhere, dear. And I think you have a poor concept of what hate speech actually is.

    • Michael Hampton

      Um…disagreeing with your distorted world view is not abuse, according to religious leaders like Matt Barber. Why do you only want to see comments exactly like yours? Are you afraid that your arguments are being destroyed and soon you won’t have any reason other than your own personal prejudice to hate gay people?

      • marlene

        sorry michael there will always many more reasons to disdain gay people other than just personal prejudice. let me count the ways… if you don’t want to hear comments from heterosexuals then get back in the closet, take the porn magazines off the shelf and enjoy your sodomy in private.

        • Mic T.

          What are you going to do next? Burn us at the stake to cleanse us of our sins?

        • Michael Hampton

          If you are so blinded by your rage at gay people for whatever reasons you are unable to list, that you think that only gay people look at pornography, then I feel so sorry for you.

          I don’t care about hearing “comments from heterosexuals.” I merely care about lies that morons like you spread about my family in order to get the feeble minded to vote away the legal protection for my kids and my husband.

    • 19gundog43

      It does expose their fear and loathing of the Truth and all things
      Christian. Also their depravity. Kinda like watching monkeys at the zoo sling
      poo. LOL

    • marlene

      maybe if the morality of this country wasn’t so low and brought down lower by special interest minorities, this article itself wouldn’t have been written. so where do you start defining negativity? i’d start with your own comment.

    • http://www.liberaljungle.com/ Metanoia123

      Let them rant away. It helps to reveal how vicious, intolerant, and radical they are.

  • Michael Hampton

    Again. Why do you have to lie to people in order to get them to hate gay people as much as you do.

    “Case in point, and only one of many: the attorney general of the state of Washington has vowed to fine a florist $2,000 a day because she committed the crime of refusing to decorate a homosexual mock marriage event”

    The truth is that if she is found guilty, which she will be, she COULD be fined AS MUCH AS, $2,000 PER INFRACTION.

    “Mind you, this is happening before the Supreme Court discovers a “right to gay marriage” cleverly concealed within the Constitution”

    The Supreme Court has already said that marriage is a constitutional right (Loving v Virginia, as well as at least a dozen other times) and several of the judges overturning bans on same gender marriage have cited their finding as precedent.

    Ignoring facts to suit your own personal agenda is called lying. And how did Jesus feel about lying?

    • marlene

      He didn’t like it and called it a sin, along with judging someone else while the stone was in your own eye. raca.

      • Michael Hampton

        Women speaking out of turn is also a sin.

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

  • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

    I don’t do business with and company that flies these colors.

    • Progressive Patriot

      Totally your choice. News flash: hundreds and hundreds of corporations in the US support the LGBT community. Banks, credit card companies, oil and gas companies, restaurants, home repair companies. The list is pretty extensive.

      We are all thankful of your support for the LGBT community through your support of ALL THESE CORPORATIONS. Thanks ! More profits for them donated to help support gay rights. Thanks !

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

        • Progressive Patriot

          Yawn. Pretty much skipped all of that just as we all do with every one of your posts.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

            2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

            3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither ; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

            4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

            5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

            6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

          • Progressive Patriot

            Woo hoo. Loving that scroll bar.

    • Mic T.

      Well guess what? Both Microsoft and Apple support gay marriage. So I guess that means you’ll have to stop using computers soon?

    • jimcastro65

      you’re a hypocrite in using the computer you own…..funny actually….no follow through..just hot air

  • Truth Offends

    “Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing ‘degrees of evil’ by our ruling in Tigner v.Texas, that ‘the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'”
    ~~SCOTUS (Skinner v. Oklahoma)

    • tomd

      Sure, and since no one here is arguing about forced sterilization of prisoners I guess we’ll just sit here and stare at your comment.

      • Truth Offends

        “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man ["the right to have offspring"]. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” ~~SCOTUS (Skinner v. Oklahoma)

        Two homosexual men cannot procreate. And the “marriage” b/w two homosexual men absolutely NOT, “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

        • Mic T.

          So I suppose that means that mentally and physically handicapped people can’t get married either? Does that mean the lower class can’t get married, since they apparently don’t contribute to society, according to the right? If anything is a slippery slope, it’s what you are proposing.

        • tomd

          Just for fun, let’s complete your quote:

          “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.”

          Explain to me again why you brought up this case, unless you’ve adopted eugenics as a hobby?

        • jimcastro65

          procreation is not a necessity in marriage..never has been and never will be…MAJOR FAIL

  • Gareth Willis

    You’ll lose this one guys, on gay marriage. You won’t lose because the facts and the constitution aren’t on your side (which they aren’t), but because you’re increasingly out of step with the majority on this issue. That’s how it works in a free democracy. In 40 years your then leaders will claim to have been on the side of equality all along. That’s how it works too once an idea gets accepted.

    But change should never go unopposed. So even though I don’t agree with your arguments I will fight for your right to make them*. The day that we are unable to have a fierce public debate over the issues that matter is the day we will all have lost. I imagine most people you describe (deride) as liberal progressives believe the same thing. It’s what liberals stand for, same as you. We just disagree on almost everything else. And long may we continue to disagree, because a tyranny, whether it is of the left or of the right, is still a tyranny.

    *Having said that, I would add that the right to believe and say what they want does not give anyone the right to discriminate in the public sphere on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, or incite others to hate or violence. It’s a fine line to tread though, and an argument that could be used by either side to open a back door to tyranny, so we are right to be mindful.

    • thisoldspouse

      Oh please, stop deferring to the “majority” and then in the next breath crap on the majority with your one or two fascist judges. The only valid POLLS are those of the 31 states which have amended by majority vote their constitutions to affirm what marriage has always been in this nation.

      If you want to prove your false “majority” in favor of counterfeit marriage, then by all means pursue the legal means of amending state constitutions to reverse the established marriage amendments. Thus far, you have shown yourself unwilling, or unable, to do this.

      Therefore, your fake, contrived polls are crap.

      • Gareth Willis

        How many young voters get added to the electoral roll every year? And how many Boomers drop off it?

        • thisoldspouse

          Again, you are deferring to wishful thinking, what “might be.” The law is based on what is. And what is are the constitutional votes of citizens approving state amendments. That is that standing record.

          • Gareth Willis

            And the law today is that marriage equality does not exist in most places. My argument was that you will lose this one, for the reasons stated. I didn’t specify a timescale.

      • Reasonoverhate

        Keep looking at 10 year old data to make current day arguments and you’ll keep LOSING the battle!

  • micktravis

    “homosexual mock marriage event.”

    This idiot is nothing more than an irresponsible journalist. It’s positions like this that cause sensible people to distrust religious types. I know not everyone who’s religious is as intolerant and bigoted as this fool, but his types are so loud it sometimes gives me pause.

  • Christopher Leach

    Liberty : the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

    I don’t think the author knows what this word means ,

  • Matthew Berry

    The hard part of this argument is working out how it’s different to the arguments used by opponents of interracial marriage in the dying days of segregation.

  • Jimbo2112

    Pretty sure Jesus is doing a serious facepalm over this one.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!