Over 300 Prominent Republicans Come Out of Closet in Support of Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Supreme CourtWASHINGTON — Over 300 prominent Republicans have signed a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court calling for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, was led by former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman, who also served as manager of George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign.

“One of the points that I hope people appreciate when they read the brief is that supporting marriage equality is, in fact, the conservative position,” Mehlman told the Boston Globe.

The brief argues that the 14th Amendment requires equal protection, which means that homosexuals should be permitted then to marry each other.

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” it reads.

Besides Mehlman, others who signed the brief include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, two aides to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and his daughter Meghan, and several aides who served  Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who ran for office in 2012.

Dan Blum, the 2011-2012 campaign manager for Scott Walker, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio of New York, former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and political commentator C.E. Cupp were also among the over 300 signees.

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, in 2013, approximately 130 Republican leaders signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court expressing their support for same-sex “marriage” as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was being deliberated by the nine justices on the bench.

Those signing at that time included include Stephen Hadley, former security adviser to George W. Bushormer justice department official James Coney, former commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and former Reagan budget director David Stockman. Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, former Massachusetts governors William Weld and Jane Wift, and former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

The list of signees grew to over 300 with this week’s submitted brief.

As previously reported, possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the American Family Association (AFA) in October that if Republicans continue to give in on same-sex “marriage”, he—and other Christians—will leave the party.

“[I]f the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone,” he declared. “I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

A full list of signees may be viewed below.

List of Amici


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • JCIL

    How can a person be God-fearing, yet condone sin? Normalize it?

    • Oboehner

      They’re not.

      • JCIL

        I’d have to agree.

      • dark477

        good. I’d rather have leaders that care for the rights of the citizens than ones that are obsessed with appeasing some god

        • eh…

          The “rights” of others? Homosexuality is an act you fool.

        • madgrandma

          Sodomites are citizens?…

          • Taussig

            just like you sugar britches!!

          • madgrandma

            Uh, no… not at all like me.

          • dark477

            um yeah they are. law abiding tax paying citizens

          • madgrandma

            um, no they’re not if they’re breaking GOD’S LAW.

          • dark477

            god’s law has no authority in America or any other first world nation

          • madgrandma

            Ok… Believe what ever you want, and be responsible for your consequence.

          • madgrandma

            Oh and BTW, this nation won’t be a “first world nation”… It will be a One World Gov’t, One World Religion, and you will be a slave to all of it.

          • dark477

            and the confirms that you’re crazy

          • Taussig

            are faux xtians like yourself citizens?

        • Oboehner

          Who wants to “appease” God when you can hang with the sexual deviants.

          • dark477

            well they are more fun

          • Oboehner

            Spare me the sorted details.

        • Gary

          There is no right to ssm, or to homosexuality.

          • Aaron Springer

            //There is no right to ssm, or to homosexuality.//

            Actually, there is.

            Equal treatment under the law.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Why would someone choose to believe in a god they fear?

  • Oboehner

    Why don’t the two parties stop the charade and just merge already.

    • Adam Abramowitz

      That would put a whole new meaning to “Greek Weddings”…

  • Gary

    God damns Republicans just as He does Democrats. God damns everyone who supports homosexuality.

    • Better AndBetter

      You’re still losing.

      • Gary

        You and your side are the losers. All of you are going to Hell forever. Now THAT is losing.

        • Better AndBetter

          Yeah, I know what your mythology says.

          • Oboehner

            It says we evolved from apes?

        • Better AndBetter

          So says a mythology just like Islam.

        • Taussig

          doubtful

    • VeteranOF911

      These people are blind, they need to read Romans 1, God has given them over to a reprobate mind.

      • Better AndBetter

        Why? Our law is not your mythology.

        • madgrandma

          No, your “law” is man’s… Not GOD’S. Good luck with that.

          • Taussig

            Man’s laws are the only ones to be considered, the rest is just rubbish

          • madgrandma

            Honey, you are a lot dumber that you appear.

          • Kara Connor

            Great ad hominem, revealing a complete lack of valid objections. Well done.

          • Oboehner

            Compared to God’s laws, man’s are unfit for bathroom duty.

          • Aaron Springer

            //Compared to God’s laws, man’s are unfit for bathroom duty.//

            Leviticus 25:44-46
            44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          • Rhonda Renee Albrecht

            And if you knew who God considered ‘temporary residents’, then you would have an entirely different mindset. They’re NOT who you think they are.

          • anthonykeyes

            Who do you think they are? I’m really curious.

          • Aaron Springer

            So, there are certain cases where it is okay to own another human being?

          • Rhonda Renee Albrecht

            You’re presuming He’s speaking about ‘human beings’. He’s not.

          • Aaron Springer

            That has to be one of the silliest things I have read today.

            Are you saying the Hebrews were giving birth to non-humans? Because the laws include them.

          • Oboehner

            “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1Corinthians 2:14
            As welfare didn’t exist, what would you’re plan be to help those who could not afford to eat? Many entered into servitude voluntarily to feed and clothe themselves and their families.

          • Aaron Springer

            Old Testament
            Leviticus 23:22
            “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'”

            It is combined with the “Gleaning Law”:
            If you enter your neighbor’s grain field, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain (Deuteronomy 23:24-25).

            So, there was a form of welfare.

            And don’t forget this:

            Ezekiel 16:49
            “‘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.

          • Oboehner

            That’s fine and dandy if the poor live in the fields of year-round grain naked and other people have enough to feed their families as well as the poor families.

          • Aaron Springer

            So, God’s plan for the poor was insufficient? He made a mistake?

          • Oboehner

            You apparently think so with the first post you made.

          • Aaron Springer

            Ah, so you support slavery as well.

          • Oboehner

            Seems you’re just trolling, move along.

          • Aaron Springer

            So, any time someone disagrees with you, you insult them and then write them off.

          • Oboehner

            5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. – From your post, part of God’s plan for the poor, now move along.

          • Aaron Springer

            So, you support slavery. Thank you for proving my point.

          • Oboehner

            So you’re still trolling. Thank you for proving my point.

          • Aaron Springer

            I urge you to look up the term “troll”. You are misusing it.

          • JMurman

            You conveniently left out the rest of the passage : Ezekiel 16:50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.

            God judges sin. Don’t play with His Word.

          • Aaron Springer

            Where did it say homosexuality?

          • JMurman

            Abomination is one of the harshest words God uses. God said a man lying with another man is an abomination. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it. If you are honest with yourself and read the Genesis account, you could see for yourself. If not then I hope at some point your eyes are opened to how God views homosexuality.

          • Aaron Springer

            That’s right. Skip over everything but what supports your prejudice.

          • Aaron Springer

            Shellfish. Also called an abomination in the Bible.

            Leviticus 11:12

          • Aaron Springer

            Shrimp: Also an abomination.

            Leviticus 11:12

          • JMurman

            You are blinded by your sin. You will not change any Christians belief that God’s Word is right and true. The sad part is that one day we will ALL stand before God to give an account. To blindly and arrogantly claim that this sin is normal and celebratory is damning for your soul.

          • Aaron Springer

            You do of course realize that you are sinning by judging me. First and foremost, of course, you are taking the Lord’s name in vain. Most people think that means only cursing, but that is only one aspect; another is presenting yourself as someone who speaks for God.

            Second, Jesus warned against standing in judgement of others. Luke 6:37, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 7:1-5, John 8:7 for example. Paul did as well: James 4:11-12, Romans 2:1-3, Romans 14:1-13, 1 Corinthians 13:1-8

          • JMurman

            Fine then, let’s apply your standard of judgement…I’ll stand in front of God for my words and actions, and so will you. My words to you are a warning against your sin of homosexuality, and the absolute need to repent and be cleaned by the blood of Jesus so you wont face an eternal hell. Yours to me are of what ? Shrimp eating? Or saying that you are in sin?

          • Aaron Springer

            My sin of homosexuality?

            I’m a happily married straight man with two children.

            The man in the picture is my father.

          • JMurman

            And you are wasting your time promoting sin?

          • Aaron Springer

            No. Like Jesus, I promote love and acceptance. You should try it sometime. A lot better than hate and judgement.

          • JMurman

            Promoting love? If you call what you are doing promoting love then I have some swamp land to sell you. Jesus preached repentance and forgiveness.

            Homosexuals need to repent of their sexual immorality. Certainly we the body of Christ will express love to these folks, but to say we condone their sin is completely wrong.

          • Aaron Springer

            Luke 10:27
            He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

            What you are doing is judging, not loving.

            Mark 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

            What makes you think that your perceived ban on homosexuality trumps Jesus saying “There is not other commandment greater than these”?

          • JMurman

            My perceived ban? Get real…God destroyed Sodom for this sin. He excludes sexual immorality from heaven…so the alternate is what? Hell?

            If you don’t like people quoting scripture, that sexual sin is immorality and against God’s norms, then move on.

            The Bible is clear enough, over and over. You are trying to soft peddle it and give sin a lovey dovey naughty person look. God is clear, crystal clear…repent from your sin. Turn and be healed.

          • Susan

            Half right. Jesus promotes LOVE THE SINNER BUT HATE THE SIN. Acceptance…he did not preach we should accept sin, but that we should repent from sin. Repent means…change of mind, walk away from, turn away from. Boy, you need to reread the word and ask the Holy Spirit to open up the truth to you.

          • Susan

            We are not allowed to judge who will be in heaven or hell. But we can judge you by your words and actions. Words and actions are called fruit in the bible. And if you actually would read your bible you would see that Christians are to judge people by their fruit.

          • Aaron Springer

            James 4:11-12

            Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

            Romans 2:1-3

            Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

            Romans 14:1-13

            As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

            John 8:7

            And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

          • Susan

            LOL..I am sorry but you have me laughing. Go look into the NT instead of the OT for the scripture after Jesus started his ministry. You are so blind…..may Jesus open your eyes and your heart to HIS truths. I do have to give you a thank you though. Cause I have not laughed so hard at your struggle to come back with some knowledge and wisdom of the word. You cannot just pull out a verse without looking at it with the whole context of Gods word.

          • Rhonda Renee Albrecht

            Tell that to the Founding Fathers who are rolling over in their graves in anger at what these idiots have done.

          • Aaron Springer

            Which founding fathers? The ones who were deists, or maybe the one who rewrote the Bible, removing all supernatural references?

          • usmcmailman

            Enjoy the “Lake of Fire” reprobate !

          • Aaron Springer

            Does that turn you on?

          • usmcmailman

            AMEN !

      • Barista Queen

        When President Obama recently completed his “evolution” on homosexual marriage, he ambushed not only some of his friends, but the majority of Americans who still hold to the truth of heterosexual marriage.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “but the majority of Americans who still hold to the truth of heterosexual marriage.”

          What majority would that be, dear?

        • Aaron Springer

          Who said heterosexual marriage was going anywhere? The only people who think homosexual marriage will affect their heterosexual marriage are the ones who suspect that they or their spouse are gay.

          • Vic Christian

            But – if Americans refuse to have their business contribute to the gay/homosexual marriage with cakes, flowers, pictures etc. they are deemed criminal and face fines or even have their business taken away.

          • Aaron Springer

            Oh, you mean discrimination?

          • bumbutcha

            Of course; discrimination against right and wrong. Any problem?

          • Aaron Springer

            Nope. As long as I can stop serving Christians, because I consider their lifestyle wrong.

          • bumbutcha

            Up to you – that’s certainly your choice and prerogative. Can’t say the same for the Oregon Christian baker who has been sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple and is facing over 100K in fines. Tolerance works both ways but homosexuals who at one time pleaded for tolerance from others, are now the most intorant bunch out there demanding that others agree with them – or else!

          • Aaron Springer

            Well, after the 1960s, the US instituted a lot of laws about discrimination. As long as someone is doing business legally in the states, they are subject to such laws.

            Would we be having the same discussion if someone refused to serve Christians and was being fined for not doing so?

          • bumbutcha

            Your response remarkably evades the tolerance issue doesn’t it? But never mind, your reply is a shallow one in terms of intellectual honesty. It is on no uncertain terms a matter of refusing to serve someone as you mistakenly claim. The Christian baker certainly allowed anyone to purchase baked goods in the bakery irrespective of race, gender, religion, sexual preference etc. So your argument of refusing service is irrelevant and moot. However when asked to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding against her religious beliefs, she refused. So now she is being targeted for her religious beliefs by a vindictive homosexual couple who are intolerant of her religious beliefs. If the law were fair as you think it is, it would go a step further and provide equal protections for individual Christians as well as institutions and churches. And to answer you hypothetical about a Christian being refused service…no discussion there – a Christian would simply turn the other cheek as Jesus instructed. Any more questions?

          • Aaron Springer

            I don’t believe that is true at all. Based on this thread, the simple whiff of Christians not getting their way gets many hot under the collar enough to act aggressively.

          • bumbutcha

            Not true; how so? Why don’t you respond directly to my replies instead of citing others which have no bearing on our discussion. Is that too much to ask of you?

          • Aaron Springer

            I answer vagueness with vagueness. What Christian baker are we talking about? Would the baker have refused service to other gay couples had the baker known they were gay? Why should the Christian baker’s religiously based prejudices against homosexuals be protected when similar prejudices against, say, Jews, would not be?

            Churches are already treated differently that businesses. They are given 100% tax breaks, given special treatment under the law in a variety of ways, and can certify people to conduct marriages when similar secular rights in many states require a massive investment from the individual. A pastor can refuse to marry couples based even on race without facing legal challenge; it has happened recently.

            As far as intolerant of religious beliefs, her beliefs are not the issue, it is her actions. A person can be s bigoted as they want to be, even stand on the street corner declaring how each and every type of person who is not them is horrible, but, until they act on it, they are protected under the first amendment.

          • bumbutcha

            My replies are direct unlike yours which skirt the issue. If you had not kept up with the news, a simple internet search would have informed you of the Oregon baker lawsuit which made national headlines. Why should religious beliefs be protected – they have been protected throughout history. I could just as easily make the same argument as you propose – that the homosexual couple is bigoted against the baker’s religious beliefs. You forget that bigotry can work both ways just as tolerance does. Instead of homosexuals being content with their new found marriage rights which they claimed was the only goal that they wanted, they now want to coerce others in giving up their long held religious beliefs. So much for homosexual tolerance and the diversity slogan….the mantra is now intolerance and conformity.

          • Aaron Springer

            You are still confusing beliefs and actions.

            Beliefs are protected, actions are protected only to the point where they begin to influence others. For example, ritualistic marijuana use is not legal, even for those for whom it is part of their religion. The same for human sacrifice, marrying multiple people, marrying minors, or a host of other things.

            No one is trying to force anyone to give up beliefs, only for their actions to conform to the same laws everyone else abides by.

            I can believe that the world is flat and carried upon the backs of four elephants, and the sun will be eaten by a monkey god unless I appease said god, but the moment I claim I must throw mangoes at passing motorists to appease said monkey god, that activity is not protected.

          • bumbutcha

            I think you draw an artificial distinction between belief and practice.
            Belief and practice go hand in hand. One practices what one believes. So
            for the homosexual couple, they practice what they believe is an
            acceptable lifestyle. Conversely the Christian believes and practices
            the opposite. Therefore in going to court the homosexual couple has
            sought to coerce the Christian baker in violating her standard of
            belief. Don’t you see anything wrong with that? As I wrote earlier, the
            baker does not discriminate against anyone as she sells her goods to
            anyone who enters her business. However, it is another thing altogether
            to force the baker into participating or providing a service to
            something she considers morally wrong.The law in this case is unequally applied. If you refuse to allow a religious exemption in this case, then to be logically consistent, you would also not allow doctors to refuse to do abortions based on their religious conviction wouldn’t you? Using your logic, you would consider the doctor’s refusal an unprotected activity.

          • Aaron Springer

            You seem to be confusing homosexuality with a choice. I’ve heard the argument before. By calling it a “lifestyle,” you are trying to effectively diminish what it is.

            I could no more choose to be homosexual that I could choose to be physically attracted to major appliances. It is not a matter of belief any more than being African American is a matter of belief. Even if it was a matter of belief, if a Islamic couple walked into her bakery and asked for a cake and she refused, they would also have a case against her for discrimination.

            No one is forcing the baker to act; they are merely holding her legally responsible for her choices.

            You analogy does not hold unless the doctor normally performs abortions but refuses to perform abortions for Asians on religious grounds.

          • bumbutcha

            Your reply is not accurate because if an Islamic couple came into the Christian bakery, the baker would oblige them with a wedding cake because it is not a sin to practice one’s faith whether one is Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, etc. However it is a sin to practice homosexuality and therein lies the difference.

            Your second example is also nonsensical because the Christian doctor wouldn’t even be “normally” performing abortions in the first place!

            As for homosexual choice; homosexuals deceive themselves when they say they don’t have a choice. If that were the case, there would not exist a single case throughout all of recorded history where a gay person would have switched to being straight. Moreover, have you ever researched studies done on identical twins, one of whom is homosexual? If homosexual behavior was determined by genetics then one would certainly expect the other twin to be homosexual too but longitudinal studies show such is not the case. Secondly, even if there was a gene toward a propensity for homosexuality, you still have a choice in the same way that an alcoholic with a family history and a genetic disposition toward alcohol would still have the choice whether to drink or not.

            Lastly, if you are still convinced that gays cannot change their orientation, do an internet search on Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, a tenured English and Women’s Studies professor at Syracuse University. She went from a committed lesbian relationship to becoming a Christian to marrying man and becoming a mother. She is an articulate writer and speaker. She changed her “lifestyle” and her book is worth the read.

          • Aaron Springer

            //Your reply is not accurate because if an Islamic couple came into the Christian bakery, the baker would oblige them with a wedding cake because it is not a sin to practice one’s faith whether one is Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, etc. However it is a sin to practice homosexuality and therein lies the difference.//

            Remind me again what the first commandment is?

            //Your second example is also nonsensical because the Christian doctor wouldn’t even be “normally” performing abortions in the first place!//

            Even though the Bible discusses abortion and even gives instructions on how to perform them?

            //As for homosexual choice; homosexuals deceive themselves when they say they don’t have a choice.//

            Ah, I see. So you could choose to be sexually aroused by your same gender if you wanted to.

            Several of your examples ignore statistics.

            Also, genetics are only part of what makes up human behavior. You might want to look up the term “epigenetics.”

            //Secondly, even if there was a gene toward a propensity for homosexuality, you still have a choice in the same way that an alcoholic with a family history and a genetic disposition toward alcohol would still have the choice whether to drink or not.//

            Guess what? Christianity has no genetic component. Why should it trump biology?

            //Lastly, if you are still convinced that gays cannot change their orientation, do an internet search on Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, a tenured English and Women’s Studies professor at Syracuse University. She went from a committed lesbian relationship to becoming a Christian to marrying man and becoming a mother. She is an articulate writer and speaker. She changed her “lifestyle” and her book is worth the read.//

            Sexuality is a spectrum. It is not a Boolean, or even a three state thing. Should I also point at the multiple studies that show the massive damage conversion therapy can cause?

            My wife, ex-wife, and mother are all bisexual, and all lean more towards heterosexuality. That does not mean all people are bisexual, or even that all bisexuals can live as exclusively heterosexual.

          • bumbutcha

            1. Do you really mean to tell me that a Christian baker who provides a wedding cake for a couple of another faith amounts to an act or worshiping another God? That’s quite a stretch of your imagination! If that’s the case all Christians shouldn’t even attend any weddings and funeral of other faiths using your misapplied standard, lest they violate the First Commandment.
            2. Go ahead and cite book, chapter and verse where the Bible gives instruction on how to perform an abortion.
            3. Absolutely – I could choose to be aroused by someone of same gender if I wanted to. That would be my choice but I choose not to. Thank you very much for making my point.

            4. Why statistics are you referring to? There are no studies that conclusively prove that homosexuality has a genetic component including epigenetics.

            5. “Guess what? Christianity has no genetic component. Why should it
            trump biology?” Answer: because it has the moral component – is that so
            hard to understand? Also no study has linked biology with homosexuality – so fail on both counts.
            6. First you make the unsubstantiated claim that homosexuality is genetic. Now you make the claim that homosexuality is a “spectrum” citing your family members as bisexual and leaning toward heterosexuality. Don’t you realize that you unwittingly reinforce my point that sexual orientation is a CHOICE?

          • Aaron Springer

            //1. Do you really mean to tell me that a Christian baker who provides a wedding cake for a couple of another faith amounts to an act or worshiping another God? That’s quite a stretch of your imagination! If that’s the case all Christians shouldn’t even attend any weddings and funeral of other faiths using your misapplied standard, lest they violate the First Commandment.//

            Not what I said at all. The reason given for not making a cake for the gay coupe was to not support sin, yes? Are nit followers of other faiths sinning?

            //2. Go ahead and cite book, chapter and verse where the Bible gives instruction on how to perform an abortion.//

            Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

            //3. Absolutely – I could choose to be aroused by someone of same gender if I wanted to. That would be my choice but I choose not to. Thank you very much for making my point.//

            I don’t believe you.

            4. Why statistics are you referring to? There are no studies that conclusively prove that homosexuality has a genetic component including epigenetics.

            //5. “Guess what? Christianity has no genetic component. Why should it
            trump biology?” Answer: because it has the moral component – is that so
            hard to understand? Also no study has linked biology with homosexuality – so fail on both counts.//

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

            //6. First you make the unsubstantiated claim that homosexuality is genetic.//

            I made no such claim.

            //Now you make the claim that homosexuality is a “spectrum” citing your family members as bisexual and leaning toward heterosexuality. Don’t you realize that you unwittingly reinforce my point that sexual orientation is a CHOICE?//

            Only when you take into account the strawman argument you created.

          • bumbutcha

            1. Of course to follow other gods is to sin however; to bake a wedding cake for a couple who is of a different faith doesn’t constitute an endorsement of their religion or participating in sin. They have the freedom to believe whatever they want and a Christian should respect that. However since the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman and if a homosexual couple asks to bake a wedding cake, that’s where the line is drawn. If a Buddhist gay couple asked to bake a wedding cake – the same line exists.

            2. If you’re going to cite the Bible, do me a favor and at least do so accurately. You have made the mistake of eisegeting the text instead of exegeting it. Show me anywhere in the text where it says that the woman is pregnant. You have read something into the text that is simply not there. You either did not read or overlooked verse 28. The passage refers to barrenness or the inability of the woman to conceive – not abortion! In the Old Testament the inability of a woman to bear children was considered a curse and brought shame upon her which is exactly what the text refers to.

            3. Your prerogative not to believe – but it nullifies your argument doesn’t it?

            4/5. Oh great…now we’re citing wikipedia as authoritative source. Nevetheless the article does state: “Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in
            sexuality in so many sets of identical twins, sexual orientation cannot
            be attributed solely to genetic factors.” All along, the homosexual activists have wanted the general public to believe that their behavior was genetically predetermined and they had no choice but to follow their genetic makeup which turns out to be nothing but lies and propaganda.

            6. “I could no more choose to be homosexual that I could choose to be physically attracted to major appliances.”
            You seem to be confused. Behaviors ALWAYS involve choices. One cannot choose their gender of birth or the color of their skin as those attributes are genetically determined. But behaviors such as homosexuality, alcoholism, etc. always involve individuals choosing or preferring certain behavior(s) over others. To blur these distinctions is intellectually dishonest. So may I ask what exactly you are claiming and how does my argument constitute a straw man?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Therefore in going to court the homosexual couple has sought to coerce the Christian baker in violating her standard of belief. ”

            No, the homosexual couple has sought to hold the baker accountable to the law. If you don’t agree with anti-discrimination laws, then you should work to get them changed. It is unreasonable, however, to place blame upon people for wanting the law to be enforced. It would be like saying that an interracial couple who were turned away because they owner’s religious beliefs were that the races should not mix, and then the customer filed a complaint, that the customer is attempt to “coerce the Christian baker in violating her beliefs”.

            “However, it is another thing altogether to force the baker into participating or providing a service to something she considers morally wrong.”

            There is no “forcing”. It is a person’s choice to open a business and a choice as to what products will be offered. if a person does not wish to operate within the confines of the law, then they are free to not operate a business or to choose their products offerings so that they will not have to be concerned with doing something that violates their religious beliefs. There is no “forcing”.

            “If you refuse to allow a religious exemption in this case”

            Your logic is flawed. The question before us isn’t one of allowing religious exemptions. The question before us is turning away customers based upon their being included in a covered category. Women desiring an abortion are not a covered category. Further, the doctor is not required to offer abortions. The law would only be violated if the doctor provided abortions for some women, but not others.

            Since the baker’s religious beliefs are so important in their decision to provide service – do you think the baker inquires of heterosexual couples as to whether either has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, and turn them away if so? Do you think that when a person orders a cake for an engagement party, that the baker inquires if the couple is having sexual relations, and turn them away if so? If a cake is ordered for a baby shower, do you think the baker inquires if the mother-to-be is married, and refuses the order if not?

            If not baking a cake for an event that involves biblical sin is so very important to the baker, then it would make sense that such inquires were made and such orders refused. Otherwise, the application of religious belief is being done in a hypocritical way.

          • bumbutcha

            “No, the homosexual couple has sought to hold the baker accountable to the law.”
            So which side of the coin do you wish to gaze at ? Are you denying that in going to court is not the homosexual couple in effect forcing the baker to violate her morals and religious beliefs? There is “no forcing” is obviously a false claim as the force of law initiated by the homosexual couple has resulted in the baker facing a huge fine solely and specifically attributable to her religious convictions.

            As far as the baker’s religious views in baking a wedding cake for the divorced, adulterers, fornicators, etc.; it is up to her how she wants to run her business based on her religious convictions. If she refuses based on her beliefs that is her prerogative to do so. But do you really suppose that the baker asks such questions? What you have attempted to do to support your argument is to propose an artificial construct with no basis in reality. The fact of the matter is you and I would likely be correct in guessing that the baker asks no such questions. And why not? Because it is rude, invasive of others’ privacy and even if she did interrogate the prospective couples , who knows whether they would respond or even if they did, how would she judge the veracity of their responses. Such a practice would obviously be impractical. However when a homosexual couple appears to request a wedding cake it is obvious that a man is marrying a man or a woman is marrying a woman. The baker need not ask such questions and therefore she is not discriminating and hypocritical therefore making your argument moot.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Are you denying that in going to court is not the homosexual couple in effect forcing the baker to violate her morals and religious beliefs? ”

            The baker is free to no longer offer wedding cakes as a part of her business offerings. She cannot be “forced” to provide a wedding cake. It is her choice to offer wedding cakes.

            “has resulted in the baker facing a huge fine solely and specifically attributable to her religious convictions.”

            Yes, when you break the law, regardless of the reasons, you are held accountable. Do you have an issue with people being held accountable to the law?

            “it is up to her how she wants to run her business based on her religious convictions.”

            Exactly. She is not “forced”.

            “Because it is rude, invasive of others’ privacy”

            So? You seem to be suggesting that potentially violating one’s religious convictions is less important than being rude. If so, then the importance she places on her religious convictions must be pretty low…..well except in the case of a same-gender marriage. If violating her religious beliefs is so very, very, important to her, then why not ask those questions? I think we both know the answer to that question: It would drive away too many customers, resulting in her business potentially failing, not to mention developing an undesirable reputation in the community. So she has placed limits on ensuring that her religious convictions are not violated. Citing them in certain cases, but choosing not to pursue answers regarding others.

            Do you think that, if in the process of ordering a wedding cake, the bride to be says: “I don’t want anything too elaborate. This is the second wedding for both of us, so we are keeping it simple.” that the baker then refuses the order? If someone is ordering a cake for a baby shower and says: “Well, as a single mom, we really want to make this cake special.” that the baker then turns the order down?

            “The baker need not ask such questions”

            if she wants to make sure she doesn’t participate in an event that would be against Biblical teachings, she does.

            If you say: I can’t do this because the Bible says it’s wrong, but you apply Biblical principles regarding what is wrong, selectively, then you are being a hypocrite.

          • Oshtur

            The law tells how the business must treat citizens, not any particular person. It is the business that mustn’t illegally discriminate. If some employee of the business doesn’t want to do the job let another, hire a temp, contract the job out to a 3rd party, don’t offer it at all, or choose to operate the business as a private club or non-profit and it can religiously discriminate as it sees fit.

            But when given these choices that’s when the owners make it clear this isn’t about what they are doing, this is about their demanding a right to disrespect another citizen’s beliefs, to be able to make an invitation to do business and then tell the customer they have failed their test of faith, and so they can’t be served.

            There is nothing Christian about these business owners.

          • bumbutcha

            So let me get this straight. The Christian can’t disrespect the homosexual couple but the homosexual couple is allowed to disrespect the Christian baker’s belief which by the way, were in place before the legalization of homosexual marriage? Explain to me how that works in the area of mutual respect and “tolerance” which is supposedly the gay mantra? One can fall back on the excuse that the law doesn’t allow for that but laws can certainly be challenged and appealed can’t they? The fact is, the law is supposed to allow for EQUAL protection so I believe your analysis to be incorrect.

          • Oshtur

            Well you aren’t looking at the whole picture. The business by advertising to the public is inviting them to do business with them. The customer is walking in the door because they were invited with the business knowing full well they weren’t allowed to religiously discriminate against customers and that the customers have a right expect to be able to buy the advertised product regardless of their beliefs and its associated legal practices, even if they include same-sex weddings.

            The Christian baker wouldn’t be offering things to the public they knew they couldn’t sell as the law requires. They would either not sell them at all, or sell them as a private club or non-profit. They would not be making offers to the general public.

            The business is the one who made the invitation of sale, its up to them to make good on that invitation legally and respecting the civil rights of the customer as the law requires. This is particularly important in this case since the Washington state constitution specifically says that religious conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others, in this case the customer’s.

          • bumbutcha

            On the contrary, I am looking at the whole picture while your view is superficial and myopic. Like I said, the law is supposed to provide equal protection to all citizens which you prefer to just ignore. Why is that? Moreover, just where exactly in the Washington State Constitution is the religious conscience clause not excused as you claim; article and section please? Ironic isn’t it that the Washington Constitution declares in its preamble that “We, the people of the State of
            Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our
            liberties, do ordain this constitution. ”

            In essence, the problem boils down to a matter of competing rights which could be resolved in the manner proposed below submitted in the Washington Law Review:
            https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1291/88wlr1119.pdf?sequence=1
            That would be a fair and equitable resolution.

          • Oshtur

            No, you are overlooking that the business invited the public to do business with them, knowing full well that each and every member has a right to their own religious freedom. If they couldn’t respect that they wouldn’t have made the offer.

            Article 1 Section 11 “but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
            licentiousness
            And ‘licentiousness’ is 19th century legalese for “doing as one wills without regards for the rights of others”, it is the opposite of liberty which is “doing as one wills with regard for the rights of others” hence the poetic juxtaposition of the terms. The common meaning has drifted in the past 150 years but an example from a 19th century law text of a licentious act is knocking the hat off another man’s head.

            And there are no competing rights – the business freely and of its own will offered the sale of wedding floral arrangements to the general public knowing the regulations on such transactions. This is not a case of a customer wandering into a private club and asking for service, this is a customer responding to an open invitation by the business.

            Dolan’s solution is unconstitutional – that would be the government giving preferential consideration to the business to make and rescind invitations of sale depending on the customer passing a religious litmus test even though same-sex weddings might be completely in keeping with their beliefs. Both the federal and state constitutions make such preferential treatment impossible.

            Again don’t make an invitation of sale if you can’t complete it legally is the obvious solution.

          • bumbutcha

            I find it quite peculiar that you chose to omit the rest of the sentence in article 1 sect 11. Why did you do that? The finished sentence reads: “but the liberty of conscience
            hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
            licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and
            safety of the state.” It is certainly arguable just what constitutes “peace and safety.” Are you really telling me that a customer who gets turned down for a wedding cake constitutes a threat to the peace and safety of the state? I hardly think so.

            Your argument is hypocritical. It is an intellectually dishonest argument because you argue for the rights of one side giving preferential treatment while discriminating against the other. The baker does not discriminate. She sells her donuts etc. to whoever enters her establishment. It is another matter altogether however if the customer forces her into partnering in an event she considers immoral. If you can’t see this and discern the problem of how to balance competing rights, then this discussion is going nowhere and we will agree to disagree.

          • Oshtur

            I find it odd that you think that a list of 2 different things is anything more than two different things:

            Religious conscience is not:
            1) an excuse for acts of licentiousness or
            2) a justification for practices inconsistent with peace or safety.

            Neither prohibition is dependent on the other.

            And no you don’t understand the issue. The business initiated the relationship with the invitation of sale to the general public, and the customer accepted. A moral business owner wouldn’t have made the offer if fulfilling it required illegal discrimination against a customer’s civil rights.

            You are acting like the customer wasn’t invited to do business – that won’t work in any court since the invitation of sale is considered the start of the business relationship, consumer protection laws depend on it and that relationship is regulated just as those with potential employees are.

            But since you are arguing for the answer you want rather than just following the constitutional principles and law as it exists, we will just have to agree to disagree.

          • bumbutcha

            You avoided my question didn’t you? Why did you omit the rest of the sentence? You quote things out of context, yet you supposedly based your answer on the principles of the Washington State constitution??
            I find that to be quite disingenuous and destroys any of your credibility and the substance of your argument as well.

          • Oshtur

            Actually I answered both of your questions this is about the first reason that acting on religious conscience is not absolute not the second. You asked about the second my answer is it’s about the first reason.

            That you were pretending that you don’t understand that just goes to show that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on. In Washington state religious conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others.

          • Susan

            I believe the Christian would not sue. I believe they would walk out of your place of business and happily go somewhere else to spend their money.

          • Aaron Springer

            That’s what I do as well.

            Unless, of course, someone said they would not serve me because I am white, or male, or straight.

          • Susan

            I am a Christian. If you would not want to serve me because I am a Christian. That is fine with me. I would not sue you over it or try and put you out of business. And I would love to give my business to someone else in order to honor your request.

          • Aaron Springer

            Susan? No. I’m not going to serve you because you are a woman and I do not agree with your lifestyle choice.

          • Taussig

            contribute? These are business’ that serve the PUBLIC. GO private or serve the public. I hope every last person who attempts to discriminate is sued. This is the 21st century. Go back to the 50s if you want but dont take the rest of us with you.

          • usmcmailman

            I will go to the 50’s while you go to HELL !

          • Aaron Springer

            Appeal to force.

            If you discriminate against homosexuals, Big Foot is going to punch you in your aura.

          • usmcmailman

            “Real” Christians will be ridiculed and chastised for their belief.

          • Aaron Springer

            Actions, not beliefs.

          • bumbutcha

            A foolish red herring argument. No one said heterosexual marriage was “going anywhere” except you. Homosexual marriage affects the values and norms of society in which Republicans have previously had the traditional conservative view.

          • Aaron Springer

            A similar argument that was used to try and justify not allowing biracial couples to marry.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Homosexual marriage affects the values and norms of society”

            And? Allowing interracial marriage affected the values and norms of society as well. Should those bans have been kept in place? How is recognizing that citizens have certain rights under our constitution that cannot be restricted based solely upon religious beliefs affecting the values and norms of society in a negative way?

      • Aaron Springer

        Luke 10:27

    • John

      How we treat one another was so important to Jesus. He made it his second
      greatest commandment and equal in importance to his first. I am sure you know
      someone who is gay. Did you speak with that person? If you did you would find
      out that they did not choose to be homosexual anymore than you and I chose to
      be heterosexual. We were made the way God wanted us to be made. It is easy to
      read and recite scriptures to make ourselves feel proud and superior to others.
      But it takes humility and compassion to understand the pain of others. The
      sheep were separated from the goats for a very good reason. The Pharisees would certainly have been the goats. I believe we have modern day Pharisees. Do you believe you are with the sheep or the goats?

      • Gary

        I already answered your stupid, unbiblical post a couple of days ago. I am a sheep, and you are a goat.

        • John

          Gary I am still praying for peace and understanding for you but it doesn’t seem to be working.

          • Gary

            I have peace with God already, and I understand plenty. For instance, I understand that you are a fake Christian who is a pervert pimp.

          • Better AndBetter

            Poor thing.

            So much anger… Hostility.

            You turn people away from your God. I like you for that.

          • madgrandma

            You are silly and sarcastic, but you still have no respect for your creator? It’s OK… One day you will know the truth.

          • John

            Gary I don’t think Jesus likes you talking like this.

          • Gary

            I’m being nice. You deserve to have a lot worse said to you. There is nothing lower than a pervert, or a pervert pimp pretending to be a Christian.

          • Taussig

            just another internet warrior who would fold in person….LOL!

          • Kara Connor

            A “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You get the prize for being first.

          • Oboehner

            You can accept two guys sodomizing each other, but you have a problem with Gary?

          • Aaron Springer

            Why is it that people who are against homosexuality always default to male sodomy?

          • Oboehner

            Why is it gay men default to that? Or do you prefer oral? Plastic “toys”? Hamsters?

          • MisterPine

            You have a rather unnatural obsession with what male homosexuals do in bed.

          • Oboehner

            You seem to be celebrating it.

          • MisterPine

            No, it just doesn’t affect me. And it doesn’t affect you either which leads to the question about why you’re giving it so much headspace.

          • Oboehner

            Having it shoved in my face constantly doesn’t affect me? Being forced to accept it doesn’t affect me? Uh… yeah.

          • MisterPine

            Well, are you frequenting gay porn sites? Can’t imagine where else what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom would be so brutally inflicted on you.

          • Oboehner

            How about why it has to be broadcast repeatedly with bogus “discrimination” lawsuits abounding. There would be no chance of “discrimination” if their deviancy was kept in their bedrooms (and not waysides or airport restrooms).

          • MisterPine

            I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t know or care what gay men get up to in private and I certainly don’t have anyone broadcasting it to me.

          • Oboehner

            You’re posting on a story about public officials celebrating it, and you don’t know what I’m talking about.
            The key phrase “in private”

          • MisterPine

            Make up your mind, are you talking about gay sexual acts or are you talking about gay marriage? You do know the difference?

          • Oboehner

            The whole deviant, perverted gay package.

          • MisterPine

            Your faith has made you hateful. You should abandon it.

          • Oboehner

            Your faith has made you hateful. You should abandon it.

          • MisterPine

            Ah yes, your favorite game, parroting back what was said to you verbatim in the hopes it will make sense. And it doesn’t, because I do not have faith.

          • Oboehner

            You most certainly have faith, you don’t have a time machine so you have faith,

          • MisterPine

            No, it would be faith if the scientists were guessing. They aren’t. They know.

          • Oboehner

            How do they know something that happened “millions of years” ago? How do they know the starting amount of radiation for age testing? They must be guessing.

          • MisterPine

            How long do you want to play this? They have proof.

          • Oboehner

            How long are you going to dance around simple questions?

          • MisterPine

            What is your problem, exactly? What are you looking for from me, a scientific explanation? I told you before, get that from a scientist, not me. They have peer-reviewed proof and no one ever takes them to task about it apart from a few Christian fundamentalists.

          • Oboehner

            Appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks, the only weapon in the evolutionist arsenal.
            If you can’t show me anything or answer a simple common sense question that doesn’t require some “scientific” explanation, how can you sit there and tell me your religion is true?

          • MisterPine

            All right, one thing at at time.

            Dismissal of evidence

            The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form

            B has provided evidence for position T. A says position T is incorrect.Therefore, B’s evidence is false.
            This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes that there is disagreement with it. This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B

            Ad hominems? I wonder why that would be a problem for someone who calls homosexuals “turd burglars” on this forum.

            Your question isn’t common sense, it’s absurd. You are demanding something be presented to you that hasn’t existed for millions of years. And your question, whether you like it or not, DOES require a scientific explanation. So I have to ask you again, what are you not getting? What are you NOT understanding? What are you demanding I present to you?

            I haven’t told you my religion is true because I have no religion. You do. You are a fundamentalist Christian, and you are in the vast minority, and you mock what you do not understand.

          • Oboehner

            Correction: not dismissal, but questioning, questions which you cannot answer, which is grounds for dismissal. I asked a simple question that should be able get an answer in a grade school science class. As far as your accusations of fallacious statements, you claimed that genetic similarities are evidence of evolutionism. I merely pointed out that is also evidence of a creator, while you said that is incorrect, therefore, “B’s evidence is false.”

            Butt pirates have no relevance to this topic of evolutionism and its total lack of proof, nor does using that term attempt to prove or disprove evolutionism.

            You claim I don’t understand your religious beliefs, yet when I ask you to clarify, again you cannot. Makes one wonder who actually doesn’t understand evolutionism.

          • MisterPine

            I can answer them, and I do answer them, and you know perfectly well that evolution is a process that takes millions of years, and you want me to present something to your face that proves it. That is how I know that YOU know zero about evolution.

            “Butt pirates.” The hate just oozes from everything you type.

            I never made the claim that you don’t understand my religious beliefs. I wouldn’t have said that because I don’t have any religion. I clarify over and over, you want the nitty gritty and I say I’m not a scientist, go talk to a scientist. And that’s not good enough for you. Well, nothing WILL be good enough for you. But the good news is, it doesn’t HAVE to be. Peer reviews are good enough for me, scientists providing one another with a checks and balances system, and coming to a consensus. That’s good enough for me. It’s good enough for almost all of the modern world. Who are the holdouts? The talking snake people.

          • Oboehner

            “I can answer them, and I do answer them” BS, telling me I have a problem with scientists is hardly an answer, and you know perfectly well that “millions of years cannot be proven and you want me to take it on faith yet call it science. That is how I know that YOU know zero about evolution.

            “The hate just oozes from everything you type.” Stop it, I can’t choose that any more than they can – deal with that.

            You don’t clarify over and over, you deny over and over. “Peer reviews are good enough for me” Because you have faith in your religion, the same religion practiced by many “scientists”.
            “Who are the holdouts?” Those who have actually taken the time to study evolutionism and see it is nothing more than a religion, the rest like you blindly follow as sheep.

            “In contrast to reason, a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.” – Austin L. Hughes, “The Folly of Scientism,”

          • MisterPine

            “BS, telling me I have a problem with scientists is hardly an answer, and you know perfectly well that “millions of years cannot be proven and you want me to take it on faith yet call it science. That is how I know that YOU know zero about evolution.”

            Firstly, you DO have a problem with science/scientists (hence your use of pseudo-words like “evolutionism” and “scientism”), and I know perfectly well that millions of years CAN be, had HAS been, proven. If you don’t believe that, as I’ve told your over and over now, then your problem is not with me. It’s with science, and they are the ones you need to take it up with. Why are you asking a layman for a complicated scientific explanation? But even though I’m a layman, I know that what science says is the truth, because they’ve proven their studies. Over and over and over. That’s something you have a real issue with, and that’s the reason no one should ever embrace fundamentalist religion of any kind.

            And you can call my belief in science “faith” all you like, there are entire websites dedicated to laughing at people who make statements like that (and I’m still working on making you a star). Your willful ignorance and hate removes you from the realm of reasonable human being. You are a scourge on the world, wishing to keep us mired in 2000 year old books of ridiculous, untested superstition and asking us to deny what we see with our own eyes.

          • Oboehner

            “I know perfectly well that millions of years CAN be, had HAS been, proven. ” How has it been proven? With some BS that can’t be verified? How can anyone tell the amount of radioactive decay when the beginning amount or any influences are not known? A simple question you just refuse to answer as you know the answer would render your “proof” null and void.
            “complicated scientific explanation” = BS. If you can’t answer a simple question on your religion, why are you trolling on a Christian site? You “know” that what science says is the truth, because you have faith.
            “there are entire websites dedicated to laughing at people who make statements like that” There are entire websites laughing at those websites, how does that prove your religion? It doesn’t.

            You are a scourge on the world, wishing to keep us mired in a pseudo-science of ridiculous, untested superstition and asking us to deny what we see with our own eyes.

          • MisterPine

            All right, this ends here. Everything you do here is a childish game, just turn the tables each time, blow the same text back in people’s faces, sixteen bazillion people who accept what science says are not good enough for you so you counter with calling it unproven and unverified, and most hilarious of all, “religion”.

            How many more times do I have to answer your questions and be told that I didn’t answer them or danced around them or whatever? This isn’t like arguing over a political candidate. You are arguing something that cannot be argued, we have the proof, we have the knowledge, we use it and live by it daily.

            “How can anyone tell the amount of radioactive decay when the beginning amount or any influences are not known?”

            ASK.
            A.
            SCIENTIST.

            Why am I on this site? To see the limits that Christian supremacists and fundamentalist lunatics will try to push with their narrow minds and hatred. You top them all with your semantics games, bafflegab and desire to hate.

          • Oboehner

            “sixteen bazillion people” Again with the flat earth blood-letting popular opinion argument. Popular opinion doesn’t prove anything at all, least of all your religion.

            “How many more times do I have to answer your questions” Once, you and I both know you have the answer to the question, but you prefer to sit on your high-horse waving your little “science” flag and show YOUR hatred of the beliefs of people on this site. Not answering the simple question – “How can anyone tell the amount of radioactive decay when the beginning amount or any influences are not known?” demonstrates what a fraud you and your religion really are. If you actually don’t know the answer to that question it further demonstrates the fraud you are, telling me I don’t understand evolutionism when your too clueless to answer.

          • MisterPine

            YOU are the flat earther, not me. You are the one clinging to stone age superstitions. WHY do you do this, just WHY? Take the very things your guilty of and accuse others of them?

            For the last freaking time, I have no religion, you absolute colossal fathead. Science is not a religion All your ridiculous little games, taking this respected scientific research and mocking it if it happens to include a single instance of the word “possibly” or “might” or “perhaps”as though there is any logic in doing so.

            I know the answers. Science provides them. They peer review them and fact check them, which means it’s not necessary for me to be a scientist to believe it. They believe it, they study it. Are you seriously demanding every person on earth be a Ph.D. in rocket science in order to believe this? Do you just completely dismiss and discount all the volumes and volumes of scientific research and study, just toss it all in the garbage because no one’s presenting you with a millions-of-years-old common ancestor? Do you also not believe in air, simply because no one’s ever seen it?

            You are the kind of person that makes me wish being stupid were painful.

          • Oboehner

            “YOU are the flat earther, not me.” Sorry, I’m not the one pushing popular opinion as science, which is where flat earth blood-letting comes in.

            “Science is not a religion…” Right, however evolutionism is a religion and not science – assumption, speculation, and faith is not science.
            “the word “possibly” or “might” or “perhaps”as though there is any logic in doing so.” Shows the faith part of your religion.
            “I know the answers. Science provides them.” Yet you can’t answer one simple foundational question, how sad.
            “They peer review them and fact check them..” There’s that popular opinion, flat earth and blood-letting was peer reviewed and fact checked once upon a time.

            “Do you just completely dismiss and discount all the volumes and volumes of scientific research and study, just toss it all in the garbage because no one’s presenting you with a millions-of-years-old common ancestor?” Volumes and volumes of BS that like a house of cards falls flat when the speculation card is pulled out. Scientific fact is NEVER based on assumptions, never.
            ” Do you also not believe in air, simply because no one’s ever seen it?” Analogy fail, air is observable, and testable – it does not rely on assumption or a time machine.

            You are the kind of person that makes me wish being stupid were painful.

          • MisterPine

            It would be popular opinion if it were something being voted on. It’s not something being voted on. It’s facts.

            http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

            It’s not evolutionism. There’s no debating it. The debate ended long ago, and you lost. It’s evolution.

            “Shows the faith part of your religion.” I have no religion, dope. You do.

            “Yet you can’t answer one simple foundational question, how sad.” I answered all your stupid questions.

            Peer reviews and facts checks. Note the wording there. FACT checks. Not popular opinion checks, Mr. Flat Earth.

            Why don’t you stand before a crowd of people of any reasonable size (outside of your fundie church that is) and tell them that all the volumes of scientific knowledge and facts are BS and a house of cards? Please do. And please film it, I would like to watch the result.

            Analogy success. You can measure time. There are many methods and radiometric dating is only one. And they’ve been tested. And found to be correct. You lose. You are the kind of person that makes me wish being stupid was painful.

          • Oboehner

            “Noun1.popular opinion – a belief or sentiment shared by most people;” No facts or voting.
            Your little “top ten stupid crap evolutionists say” website is just as pathetic as the rest of your argument. It’s true because it can be falsified? Seriously? What can’t be falsified? Perhaps actual verifiable fact, which evolutionism is not.

            It’s evolutionism. There’s no debating it. The debate ended long ago, and you lost. It’s evolutionism.

            “I answered all your stupid questions.” “Ask a scientist” is not an answer, sorry.

            “Peer reviews (popular opinion) and facts checks. Note the wording there. FACT checks. Not popular opinion checks, Mr. Flat Earth. Too bad there are no facts in the foundational beliefs of your religion.

            “Why don’t you stand before a crowd of people of any reasonable size…” And ask their popular opinion? Ever watch “Lie Witness News”? That sums up your “crowd of people”.

            “You can measure time.” Only if you know the beginning, assuming will never be accurate, never. Brings us back to the simple question you can’t answer.

          • MisterPine

            “A belief or sentiment shared by most people”? Evolution isn’t a belief. It’s a fact. You lose.

            The top ten website I posted is exactly what you need to read. If evolution was a religion they wouldn’t teach it in science class. You lose. And once again, it’s “evolution”. Not “evolutionism”. It isn’t an opinion or a movement. It is a fact.

            “Ask a scientist” is what you do when you’re looking for specifics, which you clearly are. Are you afraid to? I mean you must know by now you’ve lost this war, shouldn’t you at least find out why?

            Again with the “Flat earth.” Our earliest records of scientists and mathematicians from the ancient era had already approximated the earths circumference. The flat earthers were people like you. You lose.

            Peer reviews are not popular opinion reviews, sorry. You lose. They are people cross checking one another’s work. Also you are falsely equating science consensus with popular opinion.

            You are fond of saying these are logical fallacies, specifically appeal to authority. But it is not a fallacy to use science sources because they are considered globally to be facts. Not some authority figure with an opinion. You lose.

            Your problem is you shouldn’t even be talking evolution when you haven’t yet mastered science and logic 101.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/ – another site that is yoru friend.

            Why don’t you tell me what you DO believe in, and why.

          • Oboehner

            Evolution is a belief. It isn’t a fact. You lose.
            http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/DOCS/100ScientistsAd.pdf

            I asked a simple question with a simple answer, it’s not rocket science. You know as well as I that the answer is no, you can’t determine the amount of decay without knowing the starting amount or any situation that may have affected the amount of radiation in any given object.
            I haven’t lost anything, your faith in un-provable religious beliefs doesn’t give you the win, you have pathetically failed to show one shred of proof.

            You are fond of saying these illogical fallacies: “because they are considered globally to be facts” That is nothing more than popular opinion, the majority of the religious evolutionists (like yourself) have probably never critically looked at their religion, they merely regurgitate what they’ve been conditioned to believe.

            Your problem is you shouldn’t even be talking evolution when you haven’t yet mastered science and logic 101. Your religious website not withstanding.
            What I believe in is irrelevant, my belief is not being taught in schools at taxpayer expense.

          • MisterPine

            Cute, a list of dissenting scientists that probably account for 0.01% of all the scientists in the world. All they are saying is what you are saying, that they disagree what the rest of us know. And why, why, WHY do you never state what you believe instead? If you’re a Christian, that shouldn’t be hard. It’s almost like you’re ashamed of your beliefs so you never put them on the table for examination. And I would be ashamed too if I said things like the world is 6000 years old, evolution is false, Catholics aren’t Christians,all homosexuals partake in sodomy, etc. So let’s have it, what are your beliefs?

            “You know as well as I that you can’t determine the amount of decay without knowing the starting amount or any situation that may have affected the amount of radiation in any given object.” Everything you need to know can be found here in this convenient little package for the Kent Hovind groupies: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

            So…you lose.

            “Your faith in un-provable religious beliefs…” Religious beliefs don’t get taught in science class. You lose.

            “The majority of the religious evolutionists (like yourself) have probably never critically looked at their religion…” Religious beliefs don’t get taught in science class. You lose.

            Do you SERIOUSLY want to keep calling it a religion? I mean it’s like watching a moth flying into a flame over and over and over.

          • Oboehner

            “probably” Sums up your religion. ” All they are saying is what you are saying, that they disagree what the rest of us know.” You know more than they do? LOL, you don’t even know enough to answer simple questions without hiding behind some evolutionism website – and lame ones at that.

            “And why, why, WHY do you never state what you believe instead?” What I believe has absolutely no relevance to proving evolutionism what so ever, that’s why. It really wouldn’t solve anything, you would say: “that’s your faith” and I would say: “yup”.

            “Everything you need to know can be found here” in this little website you hide behind because you yourself don’t understand your religion and have to have someone else attempt to defend it for you. Nice try, but I already know about the evolutionism circular reasoning: How do we know the age of the earth? Because of the ____aging process. How do we know the ____ aging process works? Because of the age of the earth.

            “Religious beliefs don’t get taught in science class. You lose.” Another fallacy of evolutionism, repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
            “Do you SERIOUSLY want to keep calling it a religion?” It is.
            “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” – Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

          • MisterPine

            “probably” sums up your religion.”

            Not a religion. It is taught in science class. It is illegal to teach your fundie horse crap in science class. There’s the difference.

            “you don’t even know enough to answer simple questions without hiding behind some evolutionism website – and lame ones at that.”

            Hiding? Do you want proof or don’t you? There it is. Don’t like it? Then either shut up or choose a belief system that makes more sense.

            “What I believe has absolutely no relevance…” Yes it does, if only for comparative reasons.

            “How do we know the age of the earth? Because of the ____aging process. How do we know the ____ aging process works? Because of the age of the earth.”

            That IS circular reasoning. It’s also a strawman because no scientist believes that.

            “Religious beliefs don’t get taught in science class. You lose.” Another fallacy of evolutionism, repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
            In this case, it does. Religious beliefs don’t get taught in science class. You lose. Just like you’re losing over gay marriage because your fundamentalist beliefs are so offensive and contrary to basic human rights, likewise your fundamentalist beliefs are offensive and fly in the face of modern science. By the way, I looked it up, it’s not evolutionism, it’s evolution. In no science class is it called “evolutionism,” That is your word and you are fruitlessly trying to inflict it on a world that is laughing at you.

            “Do you SERIOUSLY w ant to keep calling it a religion?” It is.
            No, evolution is a science, it is factual and it is taught in science classes in schools, not in religion classes. You lose.

            “The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them.” – Henry Louis Mencken

          • Oboehner

            Your religion is taught in “science” class at the behest of the evolutionary, humanistic, atheistic, religious zealots who determine the curriculum. There’s the difference.

            “There it is.” More crap based on assumption, still no proof. Keep hiding.
            “choose a belief system that makes more sense.” At least your admitting it is a belief system.

            “That IS circular reasoning. It’s also a strawman because no scientist believes that.” But they use it all the time, it was in the website you were hiding behind, do you actually read the crap in the sites you post? I don’t think so.
            “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”
            J. E. O’Rourks, “Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy”. American Journal of Science, vol. 276

            “No, evolution is a science, it is factual and it is taught in science classes in schools, not in religion classes.” Zzzzz…..

            “The evolutionist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them.” – Me

            “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.”
            Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University),

          • MisterPine

            So you’re saying evolution is taught in “science” class, not science class? I didn’t see one single example of that in my searches, in every case it was a science class. You also say it’s being taught at the behest of “religious zealots.” Considering it’s science, I would suggest you need to invest in a new dictionary – I know this is all a semantics game to you, but come on. How many more people need to point out to you that you can’t simply turn everything around and throw it back at them and expect it to make any damn sense? But keep playing the game by all means.

            “More crap based on assumption, still no proof. Keep hiding.”

            No, it’s proof. What would it take to convince you that it’s not? Does Kent Hovind have to make an announcement? Does Ken Ham have to do a TV show? Does Jack Chick have to draw a comic book? This is what’s most ridiculous about everything you say. I mean you seriously don’t know when you’ve been beaten. This dead horse’s corpse just keeps rotting away, the subject is done like dinner and you keep barking for proof. Frankly I don’t think you know what you’re asking, you’re presented with proof and play piss poor semantics games to make it look like you have a leg to stand on. You don’t.

            “choose a belief system that makes more sense.” At least your admitting it is a belief system.” No I’m not. You don’t want science, you want belief systems, so I’m telling you choose another one. Clearly grammar’s not your long suit, either.

            “But they use (circular reasoning) all the time, it was in the website you were hiding behind, do you actually read the crap in the sites you post? I don’t think so.”
            I have so little confidence in your grasp of the English language and the games you play with it that I can honestly say you don’t know what you’re talking about, but please feel free to point out what YOU believe to be the “circular reasoning” on that page. No semantics tricks or fundie BS, please.

            “No, evolution is a science, it is factual and it is taught in science classes in schools, not in religion classes.” Zzzzz… ..

            No, evolution is a science, it is factual and it is taught in science classes in schools, not in religion classes. Fact. You lose.

            “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
            ― Anne Lamott

            “There are few things more dangerous than inbred religious certainty.”
            ― Bart D. Ehrman

            “I bet you’ve seen the fundamentalist bumper sticker that says, “God said it! I believe it! That settles it!” It must be a typo because what the driver really means is, “I said it! God believes it! That settles it!”
            ― Robert M. Price

          • Oboehner

            Didn’t I say that government school curriculum is decided by humanistic atheists? What else to you expect them to say? Any fool can see evolutionism is a religion if they actually look at it.
            “No, it’s proof.” That seems to be your only proof, saying that it is. Sorry, repeating it over and over ad nauseam still does not prove evolution ever happened.
            You can’t produce the common ancestor, I have to take it on faith – but it’s not a religion, LOL .

            “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” – Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

            “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University)

            “God said it! I believe it! That settles it!”
            But when some evolutionist says “Darwin said it! I believe it! That settles it!!” That’s ok.

            “The German Fuhrer … has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” Arthur Keith: Evolution and Ethics (New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1949), p. 230.

          • MisterPine

            Yes, I know all about your conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat brigade. The school system is run by humanistic atheistic aliens who mean to overrun the world with secular humanism and thus weakened, the planet will be invaded by Satan’s spaceships who will then take over the world.

            But hey, maybe you can persuade one of them to take you on their spaceship back in time to show you one of the common ancestors you are so sure doesn’t exist.

            “How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape.”
            ― Christopher Hitchens

            “A fundamentalist is someone who wants to substitute what he believes for what you believe,” Max said. “And someone who thinks he knows the will of God better than anyone else.”
            ― Robin Wasserman

          • Oboehner

            The old “tinfoil hat brigade” nonsense, then we add aliens to further the fallacy. I suppose I should expect that from someone who believes he “evolved” from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, and expects me to believe is some “common ancestor” that can only be seen with a time machine or a spaceship – but he has faith it exists somehow.

            An evolutionist is someone who wants to substitute what he believes for science, and someone who thinks he knows better than anyone else.

          • MisterPine

            Never said I evolved from a rock. You are a liar.
            Never said the common ancestor exists. Never said I had faith in it either. I said it existed, and oh yeah, they have PROOF about that, they teach it in school. In science class, not religion class, just to be clear, since evolution isn’t a religion they must teach it in science class. With all the other, you know, FACTUAL stuff.

            Ask yourself, is your absurd belief system worth all the hate you generate?

          • Oboehner

            “Never said the common ancestor exists.” ” I said it existed”
            “they have PROOF about that” LOL, then post it evolutionism boy, and make sure that your “proof” is exclusive and can’t be used to prove anything else.
            “they teach it in school. In science class” Zzzzz…. “With all the other, you know, FACTUAL stuff.” Too bad they mix science with religion.
            Ask yourself, is your absurd belief system worth all the hate you generate? Racism and evolutionism go hand in hand.

          • MisterPine

            I’m tired of playing games with you. Why don’t you respond to the first time I posted it, fundie zealot? Still waiting. That is an awful lot of evidence you’re just pretending wasn’t there.

            Zzzzz….

            Zzzzz….

            Zzzzz…

            Wake me up when you don’t lose.

            “Too bad they mix science with religion,” No, they can’t actually do that legally, you see, evolution is taught in science class, not in religion class. I looked this up. Nowhere in the country is evolution taught as a religion. Only in your fevered mind.

            Ask yourself, is your absurd belief system worth all the hate you generate? PS. You lose.

          • Oboehner

            All you ever do is go on about some evidence that doesn’t exist, “you need a time machine” and some quality hallucinogenics.

            “No, they can’t actually do that legally” But they do anyway.

            Ask yourself, is your absurd belief system worth all the hate you generate?
            PS. zzzzz…

          • MisterPine

            This evidence that you keep claiming doesn’t exist is readily available online with the simple click of a mouse, or by going to my local library. You’ve been directly linked to it, but you’re like a stubborn child who refuses to swallow his medicine. There’s not much I can do about that. Not much can be done for someone who was spawned in the shallow end of the gene pool.

            Yes, evolution’s taught in school. In science class. Not in comparative religion class, and by the way you lose.

          • Oboehner

            The only thing readily available for evolutionism on line is assumption, speculation, and blind faith – no proof.
            “Not much can be done for someone who was spawned in the shallow end of the gene pool.” Like someone who “evolved” from a rock.
            “Yes, evolution’s taught in school. In science class.” How many times are you going to repeat this pathetic non-proof?

          • MisterPine

            “assumption, speculation, and blind faith” – the three ingredients of your fundamentalist brand of Christianity (which is to say, not Christianity at all) but absolutely nothing to do with evolution. By the way, it’s “evolution,” not evolutionism – there was not a single instance of the word “evolutionism” used in the context of school instruction. You made the word up. You’re making up your own rules. You lose.

            How long are you going to fight reality, the dictionary, the school curriculum, common sense, evidence, and the vast majority of all the REAL Christians who accept evolution?

          • Oboehner

            I am not “fighting” the dictionary, common sense, or evidence – only government school curriculum and popular opinion.

            “the vast majority of all the REAL Christians who accept evolution” There’s a contradiction of terms in your tid bit of BS, REAL Christians wouldn’t accept an atheistic religion, the Bible clearly states one cannot serve two masters. You “vast majority” fallacy holds no water.

          • MisterPine

            What you are fighting, sir, is reality. And you give me a brand new turd to throw on the heap by saying that real Christians wouldn’t accept evolution, even though there is absolutely no reason why they can’t believe in a God and also believe that we evolved from a common ancestor to the ape. Why, then, is it that so many DO? Popular opinion again I suppose? What’s it like living your live in such a way that the law, the school system. the dictionary, everything we take as authoritative, is only “popular opinion” with you?

          • Oboehner

            What you are fighting, sir, is reality. You keep going on about some mythological “common ancestor” that you cannot prove ever existed, but you just take it on faith.

            The reasons a true Christian wouldn’t believe in evolutionism is 1) it is a false religion whose purpose is to explain life on earth WITHOUT any influence of God; 2)God’s word clearly states 6 days, not “billions of years” – man was created in his image, not a speck in some primordial ooze coming from a rock.

            “What’s it like living your live[sic] in such a way that the law, the school system. the dictionary, everything we take as authoritative, is only “popular opinion” with you?” The law? LOLOL!
            I don’t have faith in your version of “authoritative” like you do, it has been found to be wrong time and again, with more and more people realizing evolutionism doesn’t hold water every day.
            What’s it like living your life in such a way that all you have is blind faith in people who take an un-provable fairytale and stand pointing at it claiming “science” when there is NO proof?

          • MisterPine

            LOL! Yes, I’m fighting reality. That’s the reason I live in the real world where people are allowed to be homosexuals without Christian bigots being allowed to kill them, where Catholics are Christians because they are the original people to be CALLED Christians, and where evolution is taught in science classes worldwide. But of course you’re NOT the one with his head in the sand. This is why it’s SO rich when you try to take my words and turn them around verbatim and why it always ends up making you look like an utter fool.

            So the “common ancestor” is a myth, now. Even though it’s been proven. You lose. You HAVE to know you lose.

            “The reasons a true Christian wouldn’t believe in evolutionism is 1) it is a false religion…”

            BZZZT.

            Stopping you right there.
            Evolution is not a religion, you know this. The dictionary confirms it and it would not be taught in science classes if it were.

            ” 2)God’s word clearly states…”

            BZZZT.

            Wrong. Not God’s word. Man’s word. Guess who wrote the Bible?

            “not a speck in some primordial ooze coming from a
            rock…”

            BZZT.

            Strawman – not a belief of evolutionists.

            “The law? LOLOL!”

            Yep. The law. LOLOL. Is it popular opinion for you to run red lights in traffic? Or do you respect the law in place, even though it was just written by silly human beings? It must be interesting driving with you.

            “It has been found to be wrong time and again, with more and more people realizing evolutionism doesn’t hold water every day.”

            No. More and more people realize every day that fighting against it is as useless as fighting against gravity (which is just another “theory”, by the way).

            What’s it like living your life trying to parrot back to people the charges they make about the idiocy in what you believe when it doesn’t apply to them in any sense of the word?
            .

          • Oboehner

            “Catholics are Christians because they are the original people to be CALLED Christians” So says the RCC which hijacked the name “catholic” which means universal. Sorry, but the early church was “fundie”. The RCC started with Constantine as an offshoot of the Alexandrians.
            It is not possible to be “bigoted” against a perverted lifestyle choice. Are you “bigoted against pedophiles? You should know that your religion teaches survival of the fittest right? Gays can’t procreate, they should have been extinct years ago according to evolutionism.
            “So the ‘common ancestor’ is a myth, now. Even though it’s been proven.” Only in your deluded little mind.
            “Yep. The law.” What on earth does the law have to do with your religion?
            Gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable – evolution is not, analogy fail. I already mentioned how we could compare theories…
            What’s it like living your life trying to parrot back to people the charges they make about the idiocy in what you believe when it doesn’t apply to them in any sense of the word?

          • MisterPine

            “Sorry, but the early church was “fundie”. The RCC started
            with Constantine as an offshoot of the Alexandrians.”

            Wrong, oh overzealous one. Once again the dictionary will help you. My dictionary says Catholics are Christians. Is it wrong? Is it me appealing to authority, or is it you evading reality again?

            Who cares if gays can procreate? That’s your excuse for hating and persecuting them? Are you also going to go after infertile couples who can’t procreate? And pedophiles – are you seriously comparing child abusers with consenting adults? What planet do you live on?

            No, the common ancestor’s a known, proven thing. You lose.

            “What on earth does the law have to do with your religion?”

            Whatever do you mean? I have no religion, and have told you so numerous times.

            “Gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable – evolution is not, analogy fail.”

            Wrong. Gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable. So is evolution. And we know this. No opinions involved.

            “What’s it like living your life trying to parrot back to people the charges they make about the idiocy in what you believe when it doesn’t apply to them in any sense of the word?”

            TOO funny, this parroting game is all yours, Charlie. You do it to everyone here, presumably as a means of playing some childish “I know you are but what am I” type game. And consider this message to be Exhibit #3454 about why it always makes no sense and blows up in your face.

          • Oboehner

            “My dictionary says Catholics are Christians. Is it wrong?” My Bible says RCCers are not, I’ll take the Bible on this one.

            “That’s your excuse for hating and persecuting them?” No, oh super-genius, if they were in fact born that way and evolutionism were true, they would have ceased to exist years ago.

            “And pedophiles – are you seriously comparing child abusers with consenting adults?” Their object of desire may differ, but the deviance remains the same, if one is born that way, they’re ALL born that way. But they are not.

            “No, the common ancestor’s a known, proven thing.” Still only in your deluded little mind.

            “I have no religion, and have told you so numerous times.” I can’t hear you, your faith screams too loudly.

            “Gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable.” Yes. “So is evolution.” No, or you could demonstrate it, which you cannot – or do you have video of something “evolving”? I could always post a video of something falling.

            “And consider this message to be Exhibit #3454 about why it always makes no sense and blows up in your face.” I think we’re way passed that on your “it’s true, without any proof at all, it’s still true”.

          • MisterPine

            “My Bible says RCCers are not, I’ll take the Bible on this one.”

            Is your Bible a Jack Chick translation? If not, then I’m going to suggest you are lying, unless you’d like to provide chapter and verse that says Catholics aren’t Christians. Keeping in mind I’m an atheist and I have no horse in this race. And since when is the Bible used for definitions? I think you are using the wrong tool for this.

            “No, oh super-genius, if they were in fact born that way and evolutionism were true, they would have ceased to exist years ago.”

            LOL. Right, because homosexuals which comprise about ten percent of the population are actively trying to turn the other 90% gay for the express purpose of making the human race extinct. By the way I have no idea if they were “born that way”. It doesn’t matter. They’re human beings.

            “Their object of desire may differ, but the deviance remains the same, if
            one is born that way, they’re ALL born that way. But they are not.” Just a silly, ignorant fundie opinion. I think evolution deniers are far more “deviant” than anyone else.

            “No, the common ancestor’s a known, proven thing.” Still only in your deluded little mind.” And in the minds and textbooks of scientists, educators, and experts worldwide. Not popular opinion. Fact, and people adhering to facts. Something fundies don’t understand…at their own peril.

            “I can’t hear you, your faith screams too loudly.” I have no faith, I have told you so numerous times. Evolution, which is taught in science class in schools, is done so because it is a science. Not a faith, not a religion. You lose.

            “No, or you could demonstrate it, which you cannot.” I can. And have. You lose.

            ” I think we’re way passed that on your “it’s true, without any proof at all, it’s still true”. Which says absolutely nothing about why you’d take my observation about you parroting people’s words back to them and trying to bizarrely make it about me, when I don’t play the parrot game. That game belongs to you, Polly. Want a cracker?

          • Oboehner

            “Keeping in mind I’m an atheist and I have no horse in this race.” Then you most certainly wouldn’t understand.
            “ten percent of the population are actively trying to turn the other 90% gay for the express purpose of making the human race extinct.” Did I say that or are you in fantasyland again? You also have no reading comprehension I see.
            “Just a silly, ignorant fundie opinion. I think evolution deniers are far more “deviant” than anyone else.” Asinine non-answer, no surprise there, how one deny something that never happened?
            “And in the minds and textbooks of scientists, educators, and experts worldwide.” More appeal to authority popular opinion nonsense. If there were ANY proof at all, you would be able to post it instead of repeating the same old crap over and over.
            “Evolution, which is taught in science class in schools, is done so because it is a science.” You can’t even prove that it’s a science.
            “I can. And have.” Sorry, assumption, speculation, and faith are not proof, just more religion.
            Zzzzz….
            Post some proof, not some lame link or some cut and paste crap, proof in your own words – or just go away and enjoy your religion and your boyfriend.

          • MisterPine

            “Keeping in mind I’m an atheist and I have no horse in this race.” Then you most certainly wouldn’t understand.” I understand matters of science and logic and reason perfectly well. You on the other hand are a fundie.

            “Did I say that or are you in fantasyland again?”

            What you said was, and I quote: “If they were in fact born that way and evolutionism (sic) were true, they would have ceased to exist years ago.” Please explain this rather unusual and bizarre statement.

            “Asinine non-answer, no surprise there, how one deny something that never happened?”

            It happened. Fact. Provable fact. You lose.

            “More appeal to authority popular opinion nonsense.”

            Once again, facts are not opinions, it’s not disputable. Yet you continue to dispute it.

            “Sorry, assumption, speculation, and faith are not proof, just more religion.”

            Do you take this same argument up with your local school board, do you actively campaign and argue with them about why they are teaching evolution in science class? You know as well as I do that if you did that, they would tell you all the same exact things I am telling you. Which is to say that you are denying facts, you are denying reality, and you are WRONG.

            “Post some proof, not some lame link or some cut and paste crap, proof in your own words – or just go away and enjoy your religion and your boyfriend.”

            You mean post MORE proof? Nope, that ship has sailed – you are impervious to facts, your fundie-ism has shut your brain off, you are capable of believing only lies, hatred, and Jack Chick-isms. Sucks to be you.

          • Oboehner

            “I understand matters of science and logic” Then why keep proving otherwise? My statement was as simple as it can get, those with at least an IQ of 50 should have no trouble with it.
            “It happened. Fact. Provable fact.” You keep making that statement with nothing to back it up. It’s just a lie you keep repeating, wasn’t true the first time, still isn’t.

            “You mean post MORE proof?” Cop-out, you never posted any. Get back to me when you have some or go away.

          • MisterPine

            “I understand matters of science and logic” Then why keep proving otherwise?”
            Says the man who calls evolution a “religion”.

            “It happened. Fact. Provable fact.” You keep making that statement with nothing to back it up. It’s just a lie you keep repeating, wasn’t true the first time, still isn’t.”

            It’s been pointed out to you many times that if your issue is with what science has proven, then you need to take it up with those scientists. They, after all, are the ones that proved it. Doesn’t do you any good running around with your tinfoil hat fighting reality. Go talk to the science faculty at your local university. But bring earplugs because when they laugh your sorry butt out of the office it’s going to be loud.

            I’ve seen what you do with proof. You sneer at it and throw it away. Which, I should point out, doesn’t make it any less true. You may as well sneer at the grass for being green. It’s still going to be green.

          • MisterPine

            Evolutionary biologist and atheist author Richard Dawkins has revealed in an interview why he doesn’t debate people who believe in the Young Earth creation theory, stating that simply engaging them on a platform allows them to get what they want.

            “When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they’ve won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability,” Dawkins told Seth Andrews of “The Thinking Atheist” in a recently-published interview about his latest book, An Appetite for Wonder.

            “They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists,” Dawkins continued. “They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.”

            “Just as I wouldn’t expect a gynecologist to have a debate with somebody who believes in the Stork-theory of reproduction, I won’t do debates with Young Earth creationists,” he said.

          • Oboehner

            Dawkins ad hominem statement just demonstrates the desperation of evolutionism. It would really be sad for someone on his high horse claiming to be a “real scientist” to be made the fool by a lowly creationist. “Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.” – Richard Dawkins
            “Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.” Scott, Eugenie, “Fighting Talk,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47.

          • MisterPine

            Dawkins is not guilty of an ad hominem. But if you’re offended by what he said then you deserve to be. All he is saying is what I have been saying to you all along – you do not understand evolution, and so you muddy the waters by playing semantics games, demand impossible explanations for bizarre questions and stubbornly refuse to accept what the rest of the world accepted ages ago.

          • Oboehner

            “Dawkins is not guilty of an ad hominem.” Wow, your reading comprehension is extremely low.

            “They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist” That’s the kind of crap you spew when you have nothing except to attempt and marginalize the views of someone who can make you look the fool when they pull the assumptions and speculation out from under you.
            Then of course what would one of your religious posts be with out the ever-handy popular opinion.

          • MisterPine

            Read very carefully: DAWKINS IS NOT GUILTY OF AN AD HOMINEM. He simply understands the difference between science and faith, which you do not. Not hard to see in the real world we live in either, you see. This is why evolution is taught in science class and creationism is not, because it’s a BELIEF. Essentially what I’ve been saying all along and you refuse to believe because you’re sticking to your silly games of semantics. So next time you cry and whine about “ad hominems” and call evolution a “religion”, ask yourself why the entire world, including our education systems, do not.

          • Oboehner

            If Dawkins is not guilty od an ad hominem, then such a thing does not exist. “He simply understands the difference between science and faith” Lame attempt to excuse it; that would be like me calling you a tard, then saying I didn’t call you a name, it’s because I understand mental incompetence.

            The reason evolutionism is taught in government schools is due to the fact that religious humanists control the curriculum, not because it is science.

            Evolution NEVER happened, throwing out a couple of fossilized remains of extinct animals doesn’t prove it, some bacteria that adapted but still remain bacteria doesn’t prove it, using some “dating” system that can’t be verified by actually testing the starting point or even a known object to gauge the process doesn’t prove it, I could go on and on. Assumption, speculation and faith is ALL you have. You really need to face reality. And you can keep your popular opinions, they have a history of being dead wrong.
            Evolutionary religious believers have an “evolutionism box” with a preconceived belief of what it is, everything that the “science” world finds either gets shoved in that box or discarded. All of their assumptions are based on that box.
            “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” – Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

          • MisterPine

            What seems to be offending you is that Dawkins knows the difference between facts and faith and you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t keep calling evolution a religion. It deeply offends you that he’s got facts and science – well what do you want me to say? Guess you chose the wrong team. Sucks to be you. At any rate it isn’t an ad hominem to say that fundamentalist Christians are trying to stand on the same platform as scientists and they can’t. Where’s the insult? Where’s the ad hominem? Evolution isn’t a belief system.

            The reason evolution (not evolutionism, I checked thoroughly and no school refers to it as that) is because it’s factual, we observe it, we know it is there. Even if “religious humanists” had that kind of control it wouldn’t matter because if you can read a dictionary you know that evolution’s science and not faith. You seem to have everything stacked against you. Again, too bad you can’t simply do what the rest of us do and go along with real life and facts.

            “Evolution NEVER happened…fossils prove nothing…bacteria proves nothing…radiometric dating isn’t proven….speculation and faith…you really need to face reality…popular opinions…evolution is a religion…”

            Zzzzzzzzzzzzz…

            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html (PS. You lose)
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html (PS. You lose)

            And still no attempt to explain the fact you have no evidence for an interventionist God. Just gum flapping about the stuff you don’t comprehend.

            “Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it.” – Richard Dawkins

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, repeating “facts and science” don’t make it so, neither does popular opinion. If you were to remove that from your posts, they would basically be blank.

            “However, this ASSUMES that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also ASSUMES that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)” (PS. FAITH)

            “And still no attempt to explain the fact you have no evidence for an interventionist God.” I have all the evidence you do, genetic similarities, etc. Another fallacy of evolutionism: pointing fingers at someone else’s beliefs somehow prove yours.

            “Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
            “No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.”

            Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error”. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29

          • MisterPine

            “Like I said, repeating “facts and science” don’t make it so, neither does popular opinion. If you were to remove that from your posts, they would basically be blank.” That’s some BS right there. I’m not interested in popular opinion, you’re the one who keeps bringing it up. When you have facts on your side, as I do, opinions are worthless. Including yours.

            “However, this ASSUMES that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also ASSUMES that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)” (PS. FAITH)”
            Those assumptions are only backing up the statement being made. They are not conditional. Your problem here is a grammatical one. It doesn’t mean that without them the entire argument goes crumbling down. (PS. NOT FAITH)

            On an interventionist God.” I have all the evidence you do, genetic similarities, etc.” No you don’t. If you did you’d have stated them. Play the same game that you insist others play with you.

            “Certainly, for scientists that want errors below 1%, the precision and accuracy of any analytical result (whether it’s a radiometric date or a benzene analysis of polluted groundwater) may not always comply with these strict requirements. Nevertheless, the revealed errors of less than 1-7% are far too trivial to serve the needs of young-Earth creationism.” – Dr. Kevin R. Henke, “Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating”

          • Oboehner

            I should cut and paste every time you said, the majority of this or global that in your popular opinion arguments, but I’m sure there is a limit to how much text I can post.
            How can an assumption back up anything? The assumption only discredits the statement as having basis in fact. One has to have faith to believe it.

            “On an interventionist God.” Again, not relevant to your religion being “science”.

          • MisterPine

            Maybe that’s because the majority of this or global that is quoting from factual information and it has nothing to do with popular opinion? Considered that angle? Of course you haven’t.

            We aren’t dealing with assumptions. That’s Bible territory, your department.

            Of course your interventionist God is relevant. You just haven’t been intellectually honest enough to talk about it.

          • Oboehner

            You have no facts, you apparently don’t understand what popular opion is either.

            “We aren’t dealing with assumptions.” Despite your website saying that it does and Bill Nye the religious guy saying somehow PROBABLY, or the ever common “scientists believe”.

            “Of course your interventionist God is relevant.” Do tell how that is relevant to proving your religion.

          • MisterPine

            “Bill Nye the religious guy” LOL. It’s great watching you put your rather bizarre set of conspiracy theories to work in this little language that only makes sense to you and only you can understand. Were you confused as a child, going to science class when you couldn’t find RELIGION posted on the door? Did you wonder why all your little friends learned it properly and you didn’t, all because of your stubborn insistence on fighting the dictionary?

            As if Bill Nye is up there trying to sell something like your buddy Ken Ham is. Bill Nye doesn’t have to build a multi-million dollar shrine to something he desperately WANTS to be true. Bill Nye is just explaining the facts.

            I won’t answer questions of yours from this point on until you learn to call things by their proper names.

          • Oboehner

            No, Bill Nye was explaining his religion. Evolution never happened, there is ZERO proof that it did. Calling your mythological fantasies science doesn’t change that. I learned that from studying your religion.
            “I won’t answer questions of yours from this point on…” So then nothing will change.

          • MisterPine

            Too bad practically everyone in the solar system disagrees with you. You lose. On a spectacular level, too. Or is that just “public opinion”? Your overwhelming wrongness is lost on you, isn’t it? Why don’t you search for more evolution-denying, young earth, gay-bashing fundies who say Catholics aren’t Christians and see if you can have a membership drive or something? Meanwhile, the rest of us non-crazy people can go on with our lives.

          • Oboehner

            “Too bad practically everyone in the solar system disagrees with you.” The old popular opinion (not public opinion) fallacy never dies with you does it?
            “Evolution denying” Said by a reality denying religious believer, evolution NEVER HAPPENED, and no one can prove otherwise – no proof denier.
            “gay-bashing” Not supporting special rights for mentally challenged perverts is logical, not “bashing” mr. “fundie basher”.
            “Catholics aren’t Christians” True Christians don’t serve three masters, evolutionism, paganism, and Christianity.
            You believe you evolved from a rock, but you’re “non-crazy”, ROFL!

          • MisterPine

            Well, let’s be clear – there’s “popular opinion,” and there”s “popular opinion.” When you have a small pack of uneducated, superstitious, fundie screwheads who make ridiculous assertions like the ones you have, then you have a group inclined to opinion. When you have the great majority of the thinking world with libraries of data, proof, evidence, scientific findings – when they CONSULT their data, it is obviously NOT a matter of opinion, but a matter of using facts and evidence.

            When I consult the dictionary, I am not appealing to popular opinion. OK? Clear on that now? It is authoritative. Which means you lose.

            You can dress it up all you like:
            – You can call mountains of evidence “opinions”.
            – You can call evolution a “religion”.
            – You can call Catholics “pagans”.

            The simple fact of the matter is you have zero understanding of all the subjects you mentioned. And what you’re doing is walking around playing word games to refute what can’t be refuted. Mr. Dictionary is your friend, I wish you’d realize that.

            And I do wish you’d stop misrepresenting my position, I never said I evolved from a rock, and I don’t believe anything of the sort. One other correction, evolution isn’t a religion, it’s a science – they are not permitted to teach religion in science classes. Did I mention you lose? If I didn’t, let’s just put that on the table yet again – you lose.

            So when you’re on your streetcorner with your bullhorn and your little tinfoil hat screaming hatred at Catholics and homosexuals while you ruminate about a young earth and no evolution and snake waving and the rapture and how everyone on earth is headed straight for hell, I hope you’ll keep in mind how you look to the whole of civilized humankind.

            You lose. Bye.

          • Oboehner

            When you have a bunch of evolutionist followers with nothing but “uneducated, superstitious, fundie screwheads” who make ridiculous assertions with no proof what-so-ever, you have your religion.

            When you have the great majority of the thinking world with libraries of data, proof, evidence, scientific findings all based on speculation and assumptions, you’ve got evolutionism being fraudulently passed off as real science.

            “When I consult the dictionary…” The old appeal to authority argument, which goes nicely with your ad hominem attack, the evolutionists best friend.
            You can dress it up all you like:
            – You can call mountains of Speculation “evidence”.
            – You can call evolutionism a “science”.
            – You can call Catholics “christians”.
            The simple fact of the matter is you have zero understanding of all the subjects you mentioned. And what you’re doing is walking around playing word games claiming proof of what can’t be proven.
            “- they are not permitted to teach religion in science classes.” Unless it’s their religion.

            “I never said I evolved from a rock” That’s what evolutionism states, it rained on a rock 4.6 billion years ago creating primordial ooze out of which life spontaneously popped up.
            “Did I mention you lose?” Did I mention zzzzz…

            So when you’re on your streetcorner with your bullhorn and your little tinfoil hat screaming hatred at “fundies” and heterosexuals while you ruminate about a common ancestor that nobody has ever seen but just has to exist and evolutionism and exploding dots and apes you think you came from and how everyone on earth is “evolved” from ooze, I hope you’ll keep in mind how you look to the whole of civilized humankind that at one time believed a lot of different things that have since been proven as false. Happy blood-letting.

          • MisterPine

            “When you have a bunch of evolutionist followers with nothing but “uneducated, superstitious, fundie screwheads” who make ridiculous assertions with no proof what-so-ever, you have your religion.” Another attempt to turn my language around on me has failed, because evolution
            is taught in science class, not in religion class (which is illegal in this country). So you see, legally, and in every single respect that makes any difference at all, you lose.

            “Evolutionism fraudulently passed off as real science.” Correction, it’s evolution – nowhere in the country is it taught as evolutionism, you made that word up, it’s evolution, and it is taught in the science curriculum in all schools, not
            as a religion, which means you lose hard. Real hard.

            When I consult the dictionary, it’s not an appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to reality. Still liking your semantics games?

            You can dress it up all you like:
            – You can call mountains of evidence “opinions”.
            – You can call evolution a “religion”.
            – You can call Catholics “pagans”.

            The simple fact of the matter is you have zero understanding of all the subjects you mentioned. And what you’re doing is walking around playing word games claiming proof of what can’t be proven.

            “- they are not permitted to teach religion in science classes.” Unless it’s their religion.”

            Nope, not even then, Bonehead, because evolution is taught in science class, not in religion class (which is illegal in this country).

            “That’s what evolutionism states, it rained on a rock 4.6 billion years ago creating primordial ooze out of which life spontaneously popped up.” No, Bonehead. Common ancestor. I’ve said it many times.

            “Did I mention zzzzz…” Did I mention you lose?

            So when you’re on your streetcorner with your bullhorn and your little tinfoil hat screaming hatred at Catholics and homosexuals while you ruminate about a young earth and no evolution and snake waving and the rapture and how everyone on earth is headed straight for hell, I hope
            you’ll keep in mind how you look to the whole of civilized humankind.

            You lose again. Bye.

          • Oboehner

            Your evidence is that your religion is taught in science class? Sad.
            You can yammer on for hours, but the truth remains – evolution NEVER happened, never has, never will and you can’t prove otherwise. All you have is your faith in your atheist, humanistic religion.

          • MisterPine

            I find you mostly baffling – you seem to need more than anything else a dictionary. You appar not to know or understand what evidence is. The world accepts evolution without needing to understand the nitty gritty of it, which scientists tell us they have proven and give us all the evidence they need to show it. That is good enough for everyone but not good enough for you because you have chosen instead to adopt a belief system with absolutely no basis in facts, written ages ag by men who didn’t even know the earth was round.

            And you find ME sad. Amazing. Utterly amazing.

          • Oboehner

            “The world accepts evolution without needing to understand the nitty gritty of it” Therein lies the problem, most people have blind faith, the hear the word “science” and while sitting drooling on themselves just reply, “duh, ok”.
            And you can stop with the lame attempts at proving your religion by casting dispersions upon my belief, the one that has states: “the circle of the earth”, not a flat earth as was “scientific” popular opinion.

          • MisterPine

            Blind faith is what you have, not me. In my case nothing is a belief. I don’t BELIEVE in evolution, I accept it because it’s been shown to be factual.

            Facts are facts. Your Bible was written by bronze age goat herders. And also I don’t have any religion. Evolution is not a religion because it is taught in science class in school. Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it come true.

          • Oboehner

            “I accept it because it’s been shown to be factual.” LOL, it’s been shown to be based on assumptions, speculation, and faith.

            Every time you choose to hack on the beliefs of others I can see the desperation in trying to cling to your faith. I don’t know how many times it has to be said, hacking on someone else’s beliefs don’t prove your religion. That and “it is taught in science class in school” LOL, ROFL.
            “Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it come true.” Take heed to your own words.

          • MisterPine

            “LOL, it’s been shown to be based on assumptions, speculation, and faith.” Not by anyone who matters. Or who understands it.

            “Every time you choose to hack on the beliefs of others I can see the desperation in trying to cling to your faith.” No faith here. None whatsoever. I have no beliefs, only acceptance. I have every confidence in the accuracy of scientific facts. It’s hilarious to me that that should seem desperate to you. If I’m desperate, how come I’ve got the world on my side? The law, the school system, the dictionary, all of it? And you don’t?

            Which leads me to ask the question, if practically everyone in the world is telling you that you have your head up your butt, DON’T YOU have your head up your butt? Or is that just more pesky public opinion? LOL. ROFL.. You lose.

            And the simple, comfortable fact that it’s taught in science class in school (LOL, ROFL) only makes you go into full-on conspiracy theorist mode, how dare those GODLESS, HUMANISTIC ATHEISTS. Never mind that half of them are probably Christians.

          • Oboehner

            “Not by anyone who matters. Or who understands it.” And yet another appeal to authority argument. more sad non-proof.
            “I have every confidence” Belief, faith.
            “practically everyone in the world is telling you that you have your head up your butt, DON’T YOU have your head up your butt?” And yet another popular opinion non-proof of anything – booooriing.
            “it’s taught in science class in school” The appeal to authority arguments roll on to even more non-proof of evolutionism.
            “full-on conspiracy theorist mode” Now we’re on to the ad hominem – good job sticking to the evolutionist playbook, if you can’t dazzle them with proof, repeatedly hit them with appeal to authority and ad hominem! Darwin’s probably “evolving” as we speak he’s so proud of you.

          • MisterPine

            You’ve been told before that using authoritative sources is not using an appeal to authority argument. It’s what you do when you want to have a factual answer.

            “I have every confidence” is not a statement of faith.

            Since most of the world has no problem believing in things proven to be true, opinion doesn’t even enter the picture. So you can call it popular opinion all you want, you’re just wrong. You lose.

            You are free to disagree with evolution, but don’t expect the schools to since they know evolution is faultless and authoritative. And because it’s taught in schools in science class it can’t be called a religion no matter how you slice it. You lose. And all the people who wrongly call this an appeal to popular opinion lose too, although I doubt very much that would include very many besides the ones in your cult.

            Oh yeah. You are absolutely a conspiracy theorist. And if you want to call that an ad hominem, go ahead, but like everything else you say, you’re wrong, and you’ll be proven wrong. Your statements are so off the rails I think “conspiracy theorist” is about the kindest thing I could call you. Darwin is dead, but it was a nice bit of evidence and fact he left the world with, wouldn’t you say?

          • Oboehner

            “You’ve been told before that using authoritative sources is not using an appeal to authority argument.” You can seriously type that without feeling like a complete and total moron?
            “Since most of the world has no problem believing in things proven to be true…” Evolutionism has NEVER been “proven to be true” Evolution never happened.

            “…they know evolution is faultless and authoritative.” No, it is what they’ve been told to teach. “faultless and authoritative” ROTFL, that’s a good one, LOL!!

            “And because it’s taught in schools in science class it can’t be called a religion no matter how you slice it.” Baseless claim, your specialty.

            “Darwin is dead, but it was a nice bit of evidence and fact he left the world with, wouldn’t you say?” What evidence? That some finches adapted like they were created to do by their beaks growing out during hard times, and reverting back when the need no longer exists?

          • MisterPine

            “You can seriously type that without feeling like a complete and total moron?”

            Thanks, that means SO much coming from someone with as little understanding of basic definitions as you do. “Appeal to authority” deals with pointing at people with strong opinions (even though they might have good data).
            But the dictionary doesn’t count because the dictionary isn’t someone with an opinion, it’s a book of facts. So if someone quotes the dictionary and you try to use “appeal to authority” against them, you’re a MORON because they’re not quoting some authority figure, they’re quoting facts.

            And while we are on logical fallacies, learn what a strawman is, and learn what No True Scotsman is, because you are
            abusing them left and right.

            ” No, it is what they’ve been told to teach. “faultless and authoritative” ROTFL, that’s a good one, LOL!!”

            Guess why they’ve been taught to teach it? Because it’s fact. ROTFL. LOL. You lose.

            “And because it’s taught in schools in science class it can’t be called a religion no matter how you slice it.” Baseless claim, your specialty.”

            Nope, not at all baseless otherwise it’s wouldn’t be the case in every school you’d care to name. Like to find me a case where it’s not taught in science class/ Please do, because if you manage to, they’re breaking the law.

            This is actually getting quite comical now, because in no
            place you could name would you see a religion being taught in a science classroom ANYWHERE and while most normal people would have the good sense to call that a fact, you call it the ONE THING it cannot logically be called at all, a “baseless claim”. Look. Read up above there again. That’s a base. Therefore not baseless.

            “What evidence?”

            Oh, I think you know perfectly well what evidence, Mr. Flat Earth. The very same ones science uses with no issues every single day and no one questions except for you.

          • Oboehner

            “You’ve been told before that using authoritative sources is not using an appeal to authority argument.” Seriously?I can always tell when your getting desperate, you yammer on and on about irrelevancies. If you spent half as much time typing out some type of proof you might be getting somewhere, but I guess you don’t have any. All I see is bla, bla, bla, dictionary, bla, bla, teach it in school, bla, bla, – but no proof ever.I don’t know why you keep calling me Mr. Flat Earth, I’m not the one citing popular opinions over and over.

          • MisterPine

            Read your message back and see if you can spot the place where it makes no sense. I’ll give you a hint – you are looking for proof and then in the very same sentence complain about the proof you’re given (the dictionary, etc.) The dictionary is pretty good proof for most people, why not you? And evolution being taught in science class disproving your constant burbling about it being a religion – once again, you’re fighting reality.

            Let’s cut to the chase, your entire mind has been damaged by your rather bizarre brand of fundamentalist Christianity. No other Christian faith asks people to deny science or the things they see with their own eyes.

          • Oboehner

            The dictionary somehow proves evolutionism? So what does gay mean exactly, happy or deviant sexual behavior?

            “No other Christian faith asks people to deny science or the things they see with their own eyes.” I don’t deny science, just false religions like evolutionism. See it with my own eyes? You find those glossies of the elusive “common ancestor”? Or the video of something “evolving”?

            Let’s cut to the chase, your entire mind has been damaged by your rather bizarre brand of un-provable religious belief.

          • MisterPine

            No, the dictionary doesn’t prove evolutionism, whatever that is. It does however talk about evolution. Oh, and this is interesting, it says it’s a science. Not a religion.

            Gay means happy as well as homosexual. You can try to find a dictionary that says it means deviant, but I don’t know of too many dictionaries edited by Fred Phelps or the KKK.

            You won’t see a video of something evolving, dum dum. It takes far too long, which is why it’s measured using other means. And is observed to be factual. And the common ancestor is millions of years ago. Human chromosome 2 is clearly related to chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 9 fused together and has two centromeres (all other chromosomes have 1) and stray telomeres in the middle (they’re only on the ends of all other chromosomes). Please explain the difference you see between pigeon (or dog or cattle or horse) breeding and evolution.

            “Let’s cut to the chase, your entire mind has been damaged by your rather bizarre brand of un-provable religious belief.”

            SQUAWWWK! Fundie want a cracker! Let’s play the parrot game! SQWAWWWK!

          • Oboehner

            “You won’t see a video of something evolving… is observed to be factual” LOL, what BS.
            “And the common ancestor is millions of years ago.” Did you meet it or just taking that on faith again?
            “Human chromosome 2 is clearly related to…” Look, evidence of a common designer.

          • MisterPine

            “You won’t see a video of something evolving… is observed to be factual” LOL, what BS.”

            Well, you wouldn’t understand, clearly, since you reject science, facts and evidence at every turn.

            “And the common ancestor is millions of years ago.” Did you meet it or just taking that on faith again?”

            Talking facts, as usual….again, not something you have ever shown an ability to wrap your head around.

            “Human chromosome 2 is clearly related to…” Look, evidence of a common designer.”

            Look, evidence of a fundie reality denier.

          • Oboehner

            Accusing me of rejecting “science” STILL doesn’t prove your religion. When you have some proof post it or go away.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t have any religion, and you discard any proof you are confronted with.

          • Aaron Springer

            Sounds like people who are not Christian should be upset about how often Christianity is shoved in their face.

          • Oboehner

            Not to worry, they aren’t teaching that in the schools.

          • Aaron Springer

            You can accept people getting divorced, by homosexuals piss you off? Because, Jesus specifically talked only about one of those two in the Bible.

          • Oboehner

            Did I say I accept divorce or are you grasping?

          • Aaron Springer

            I just wondered how far you were going to take judging others.

            *munches bacon wrapped shrimp8 Gotta love an abomination wrapped in an unclean animal.

          • Oboehner

            Grasping.

          • Aaron Springer

            Justifying and evading.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • Aaron Springer

            Typical.

          • Oboehner

            More grasping.

        • Taussig

          you are nothning more than pure entertainment!! Love you funny posts…keep up the good work…..LOL!

      • Oboehner

        I heard that about murderers and child molesters, when you talk to them they say they didn’t choose that either.

        • madgrandma

          Something awful within them chooses it…

          • Oboehner

            How can you say that about some and not about others?

          • madgrandma

            I say that about all that make choices against GOD’S Laws.

          • anthonykeyes

            Something primitive within you chooses to live in a god fog.

        • Aaron Springer

          If you cannot tell the difference between someone killing someone else or an adult raping a child and two people expressing love publicly, you have some serious issues.

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, they didn’t choose that any more than gays – that’s the point.

        • MisterPine

          The concept of consenting adults who harm no one is still a completely foreign concept to you, I see.

          • Oboehner

            Incest is best. Recruiting children into their deviant lifestyle isn’t exactly harming no one.

          • MisterPine

            But that’s BS. Just because you read about it in Jack Chick Comix doesn’t mean it has anything to do with, you know, reality. As in, the real world we live in.

          • Oboehner

            I suppose the LA times, the Washington Post, CBS news are all Jack Chick Comix? Whatever.

          • MisterPine

            I suppose providing an actual link is too much trouble.

          • Oboehner

            Google is a wonderful thing, many articles on schools teaching homosexuality to grade schoolers as young as kindergarten age. Let your fingers do the walking.

          • MisterPine

            Changing your claim? I thought you were talking about “recruiting”? Teaching children that homosexuals exist is wrong? Why? I mean I know you would like to pretend they don’t exist, but they do.

          • Oboehner

            Teaching “it’s ok to be gay” to kindergarteners is recruitment.

          • MisterPine

            No, saying “Hi kids, please be gay” would be recruitment.

    • MisterPine

      You sure love to speak on behalf of God. Too bad you aren’t God.

  • jcrosby35

    God help us. What a sad, sick society we live in when people like this are elected to run our country.
    This is no more than Sodom and Gomorrah in the 21 century. Why have we allowed such filth to rule over us? (That is right (rule) and they will rule if they are not stopped and ejected).
    You are bringing God’s judgement upon the country and yourselves by allowing this perversion.

    • MisterPine

      This is a great triumph for human rights.

      • Gary

        That is an absurd lie.

        • MisterPine

          No, it’s very true.

          • Gary

            ssm and homosexuality ARE NOT human rights.

          • MisterPine

            You are a fundamentalist.

          • Gary

            And YOU are evil. Just like everyone who supports homosexuality.

          • Michael Eade

            Pot calling the kettle black?

          • MisterPine

            You want to kill homosexuals. I don’t. That is all anyone needs to know.

          • madgrandma

            You want the human race to die… That is all anyone needs to know.

          • Taussig

            Honey, gays and lesbians have been around since the beginning of time….not going anywhere and the human race will continue to exist with or without you

          • madgrandma

            Honey,.. I know that… They can’t procreate. That is the end.

          • Taussig

            sure they do….you’re just living in the 19th century. We have in-vitro fertilization, surrogates, and adoption. Gays and lesbians make great parents. no end in sight sugar

          • madgrandma

            No,… wrong again lovey. Invitro doesn’t cut it when there is just the two and no designer… Gays and Lesbians confuse children and make their kids bear the brunt of their selfish lusts. May GOD forgive you.

          • jcrosby35

            Taussig
            (The beginning of time)?
            Why sure they have. And since the beginning of time God has judged them and destroyed them.
            (Not going anywhere)? Yea they are. They are going before the judgement seat of God eventually and they will be judged for their perversion and cast into the lake of fire.
            (Human race to continue)? Yes it will, but not because of them but despite of them.
            You want to study history well them study it in depth and cut the BS. No one is interested in your self justification at the expense of the whole truth.

            Jesus Christ is Lord.

          • Taussig

            Nah….your fire and brimstone stories are just fairy tales used to make xtians behave. your god has no place in reality….only man made stories

          • jcrosby35

            Tell that little story when you are on your death bed and realize you have made no preparation for death and what may be on the other side. Your foolishness will come out and you will cry like a baby.
            You think you are cute while being ignorant? Ignorant is not bless.
            Jesus is Lord

          • Taussig

            jesus is your lord…not mine. I have zero belief in the supernatural

          • jcrosby35

            Then you are 100% ignorant.
            Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God.
            Like it or not the time will come when you do believe.
            Jesus Christ is Lord

          • MisterPine

            Allowing human beings to fall in love and be happy means I want the human race to die? On what planet?

          • madgrandma

            Falling in love? Falling off the cliff? Being happy?… Is that all you are concerned with? That is not what GOD promises. Read the manual. It will instruct you on where those ‘feelings’ come from and how far they’ll take you… Not very far without the rest of the instructions. Babes in Toyland is not what was promised.

          • MisterPine

            And you think all this means that I want the human race to die?

          • madgrandma

            I do not claim to know what you want. I am only telling you what GOD says.

          • MisterPine

            Then why did you say I want the human race to die? You don’t even know me.

          • madgrandma

            The mystery of life and procreation comes from GOD. There is a ‘natural way’ and an un-natural way. You don’t seem to recognize GOD or Science. Without the miracle of life and procreation, the people will die… All the people on this earth… through war, disease, famine or just natural causes WILL DIE… So, procreation is necessary to keep life going… Correct?

          • River Lizard

            Have you even spent a few minutes of time to study the current population growth of humans Madgrandma or are you living in a bubble?
            Popping babies is going to kill the human race. There needs to be a balance in the population, but you wouldn’t know that inside the bubble of the bible.

          • madgrandma

            …say’s the man that has already been born… and could care less if anyone else is…

          • Better AndBetter

            Poor Gary… His political party won’t bow to his mythology.

            So sad.

          • Gary

            I am not a Republican.

      • Taussig

        ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

  • Jeffery Kinkead

    What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?
    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html

    • Taussig

      none…next??

  • Crono478

    I am not even surprised by this. This will get worse and leads to eventual appearance of Antichrist during Great Tribulation.

    • Barista Queen

      On one train, Islamists are violently demanding that the West bow to them as they seek to take the world back to the Arabian dark ages of the 7th century. On the other, humanists, atheists, greens, and extreme liberals are pushing the West to abandon its historic morals and Judeo-Christian ethics. They demand that the West embrace a world of homosexual marriages, nature worship, environmental extremism, and godlessness.

    • Better AndBetter

      Oh, that’s funny!

  • vdomkr

    Equal protection has nothing to do with marriage. Does a pedophile deserve equal protection? The GOP is dead to me. I will never support them again. They may as well all join the democratic party. Marriage is ordained by God, not man. They didn’t pass civil union laws because their intent is to destroy Christianity, not give “civil rights” to a bunch of immoral Godless Sodomites.

    • Better AndBetter

      Comparing consenting adults to those who prey on children marks you with the brand of ID10T.

    • Taussig

      you’re supporting marriage equality just by using your computer…..when will you get rid of it?

  • TheBottomline4This

    gay “marriage”

    • dark477

      gay marriage. considered legally valid in 37 states soon to be 50

      • Gary

        It isn’t considered legal by millions of Americans.

        • dark477

          it doesn’t matter. if the government recognizes it as valid then it is

          • Gary

            The government is invalid.

          • dark477

            Ooookay

          • Better AndBetter

            Welcome to Gary’s world, where he affects nothing, but thinks he matters.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well then it shouldn’t matter if they allow same-gender marriage, should it?

          • eh…

            Yea, the people were forced to do this. It’s not consent of the governed. It’s just bureaucracy. Furthermore, it’s all because of one Justice Anthony Kennedy that scum bag. He was appointed by Raegan, but has voted with democrats far to many times.

          • dark477

            his job is to side with the legally valid argument not toe party lines

          • eh…

            Ok, look at my comment I just made. Just sort you’re comments by newest made and it explains exactly why all of the sudden it’s “unconstitutional”. The courts were stacked.

          • dark477

            whatever,the point is that gay soon be legal in every state and there’s nothing you or any other god fearing bigot can do about it

          • eh…

            Bigot? Do you even know what bigot means? It’s a description to describe a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Lol, I could just very well call you the same thing.

          • dark477

            no.you’re the bigot seeking to deny criticizes their rights. I have no reason to show any respect or tolerance to scum like you

        • Better AndBetter

          And they affect nothing. You know this.

        • madgrandma

          It will never be recognized by my family.

          • Taussig

            it doesnt matter one iota whether you recognize their marriages or not…..who do you think you are?

          • madgrandma

            Daughter of the Almighty Creator of the Universe. ELOHIM, Yehweh, GOD, The Father. And you?

          • Taussig

            LOL! Off your meds again?

          • madgrandma

            Serious question. Because you don’t believe does not mean it isn’t truth. You need to expand your thinking son. Who created you?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Serious question. Because you choose to believe does that mean it IS truth?

            You need to not be so egocentric and arrogant, grandma.

          • madgrandma

            Yes, because it is GOD’S WORD, GOD’S LAW… And you appear not to believe and that is fine. So why are you here? BTW, GOD’S Word is neither egocentric or arrogant.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So because you have chosen to believe that the Bible contains God’s word, it therefore is true. Quite the hubris there, granny.

            I never suggested that God’s word is egocentric or arrogant. I said that your professing that based on nothing other than your choosing to believe something, that your belief makes it true. That is egocentric and arrogant.

          • madgrandma

            And from my perspective, that of a believer, I believe you are placing yourself and your decisions about life above those LAWS of GOD. So who is being egocentric? Knowing better than GOD?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “above those LAWS of GOD.”

            Your BELIEF as to what the laws of God are. Again, egocentric and arrogant of you to state because you have chosen to belief that the Bible contains the laws of God that they therefore ARE the laws of God.

            Unlike you, granny, I have never said that my spiritual beliefs are definitively true.

            “So who is being egocentric?”

            You.

          • madgrandma

            It is Written. What is your spiritual basis?

          • madgrandma

            It is written… Where do your ‘spiritual beliefs’ come from?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is written”

            So is the Koran. So are the writings of Buddha. So is the Torah. All true? All the word of God?

            “Where do your ‘spiritual beliefs’ come from?”

            Study and personal experience.

          • madgrandma

            The Bible predates the Quran.. I believe the Torah as it is the first five books of the Bible.. Both the word of GOD… Buddha is not a GOD nor does he claim to be one.. and Allah is the exact opposite of Yahweh… he is the Father of all lies… Study and personal experience?… One personal experience with GOD and you’ll know the rest is all a fabrication.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So because the Bible predates the Quran, that makes the Bible true and Quran not? “Allah” is the Arabic word for God. If there is only one God, then Allah cannot be the opposite of Yahweh, for they are the same.

            I have had many experiences with God. They all tell me that much of what is in the Bible is fabrication.

            Oh, I’m sure you’ll agree everything in the Book of Mormon is true as well, right? it predates the New Testament.

            What about Zoroaster, he was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

            Or Horus, Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

            Glycon, etc.?

            They all predate Jesus, were born of virgins, came to save man.

            All true because their believers chose to believe they were true?

          • madgrandma

            ” “Allah” is the Arabic word for God. If there is only one God, then Allah cannot be the opposite of Yahweh, for they are the same.”
            WRONG… More study is obviously necessary on your part. They are opposites… ONE is the TRUE GOD… the other Satan…
            If you have had “many experiences with GOD” and still deny him… I would say you have had many experiences with satanic spirits.
            I never read the Book of Mormon… and I have no idea what a Zoroaster is, none the less, I can see from you wider arguments that you are a LIAR and a FRAUD and I really don’t feel I should waste another breath on discussions with you.
            GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN… Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “ONE is the TRUE GOD… the other Satan.”

            Oh, right, I forgot. Since you have decided to believe something, that makes it true and everything else false. How arrogant.

            “and still deny him.”

            I don’t deny God, as evidenced by my saying that I have had many experiences with God.

            “I can see from you wider arguments that you are a LIAR and a FRAUD”

            How so? If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, then you should explain what I have lied about. Otherwise, you are bearing false witness.

          • madgrandma

            Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them”(Ephesians 5:8-17).

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you can’t cite what I have lied about and your accusation is an example of bearing false witness. Tsk, tsk, granny.

          • madgrandma

            I won’t cite what you have lied about. That will be for others to read and decide. You are banished. Get behind me Satan. Jesus Christ is MY LORD.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I won’t cite what you have lied about.”

            Bearing false witness, granny. Tsk. Tsk. It appears you are going to have to figure out how to get behind yourself.

            As long as you continue to lie about me, you cannot claim Christ as your lord.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh, I’m crushed.

          • madgrandma

            My remark was no meant to ‘crush’ but to inform. Homosexual ‘marriage’ will also not be recognized by GOD.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            While you are certainly free to your beliefs about what God will accept and what he will not, unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty. Are you God? Or are you, as you name implies, simply mad?

          • madgrandma

            I agree… We ALL have ‘free will’. Have you read his instructions? And if not, why are you here commenting on a Christian site? Unless you are trying to convince someone that GOD’s Word is not enough?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Have you read his instructions? ”

            I have read the Bible. I do not believe that the Bible contains God’s instructions. I do, however, respect that you have chosen to believe it does, which is a matter of faith, not fact.

          • madgrandma

            And indeed you are ‘free to not believe’ and therefore it is indeed about faith or lack thereof.. Again, I ask you, why are you here? If you do not believe the Bible, but you believe in “republicans or gays”.. yet you read a Christian article? So again, is it your secularism? or is it real interest?

          • madgrandma

            I assume you are trying to convince someone of something. Am I wrong?…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Again, I ask you, why are you here? ”

            I am here to counter some of the misconceptions regarding civil rights in our great nation.

            “yet you read a Christian article?”

            What, specifically, makes the article above a “Christian” article?

          • madgrandma

            Marriage is not a ‘civil right’… Marriage was created by GOD and you seem to dismiss that. I’m reading this article in Christian News Network… What are you reading?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Marriage is not a ‘civil right’.”

            Civil marriage is indeed a civil right.

            “Marriage was created by GOD”

            Civil marriage was created by man. Marriage existed long before Christians decided they had the only truth about God.

            “What are you reading?”

            The same article you are. I’ll ask again: “What, specifically, makes the article above a “Christian” article?” Are you suggesting that because the article exists on a site that questionably calls itself “Christian News Network” that the article itself is therefore Christian?

          • madgrandma

            Show me where man created marriage… Show me books or passages that called man/woman relationships ‘marriage’. and the ‘Christian News Network’ tends to make me believe the know who they are…

          • madgrandma

            I have to make breakfast for my father in law now… You are really grasping at straws.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people. Legal contracts are based upon civil law. Man writes civil law.

            “and the ‘Christian News Network’ tends to make me believe the know who they are…”

            No doubt it does.

          • madgrandma

            Okay so, you probably believe ISIS isn’t Islamic too… There is no reasoning with one who refuses all logic. Good bye. GOD also write LAW and it is written in Stone.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ISIS is no more representative of the Muslim faith, than the members of the Westboro Baptist Church or the “christians” in the CAR who are murdering Muslims are representative of the Christian faith.

            People saying they are acting based upon their faith does not mean that they are. The Bible, like the Quran, says to murder unbelievers. If Christians started doing that (as they have in the past) and citing the Bible as the justification for their actions, would you still label them as Christians?

          • madgrandma

            Still you did not show me where ‘man’ created marriage…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Do you believe that God wrote our civil legal code?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Marriage” is an English word, granny. It’s not going to appear in ancient texts, just as it did not appear in the early versions of the Bible. It appears in translations of the Bible.

      • Oboehner

        To be followed by pedophilia. If you doubt that do some research. Start with B4U-ACT. You open the perversion box to gays and all others will follow.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          What evidence do you provide that allowing same-gender marriage between two consenting, non-closely related adults is soon followed by legalized pedophilia?

          • Oboehner

            Do some research like I said. You can’t let one group of deviants run amuck without the others wanting the same things. Why must consenting adults not be closely related?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You made the claim – the burden of proof is on you. If you can’t provide any, then your statement has no validity.

          • Oboehner

            If you can’t pull your head out, my posting anything would solve your problem.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            it’s always fun to see what excuse you’ll come up with for why you can’t prove what you say. Always blaming others. Pathetic.

          • Oboehner

            Your perception, one could hit you over the head with it and you would come back with more stupid questions.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Still can’t provide an explanation of your own statement. No surprise there.

          • MisterPine

            What evidence do you have that allowing same-gender marriage between two consenting, non-closely related adults is soon followed by legalized pedophilia?

          • Oboehner

            B4UACT is already riding the wake of the gays, it’s inevitable.

          • MisterPine

            What evidence do you have that allowing same-gender marriage between two consenting, non-closely related adults is soon followed by legalized pedophilia?

  • staad

    same-sex marriage is not just the issue, its when this become legalize, they (gays with the government) starts suing christian churches and force ministers to wed this fackedups, much like they do christian bakers make their cakes. this faggots will rule the govt much like the time of rome and persecute those who disagree otherwise, all for the sake of ‘human rights’ disguising immorality and evil.

  • The Last Trump

    “If the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone,” he declared. “I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”
    Ditto.

    • D Sims

      Agree

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      I checked out the list. No real big names and nothing but RINOS. The GOP never should allow former Demon-crats (slave owners, baby killers, and KKK members all) to repent and join the party. The repentance of a Demon-crat is never sincere.

      • Aaron Springer

        Slavery was supported using the Bible.

        The KKK was and still is a heavily Christian organization.

        The Bible gives clear instructions of how to perform abortions. It also says children are not to be counted as people until they are five years old.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          You left a few things out, Aaron:

          1. “Slavery was supported using the Bible.” – by the Demon-crats!

          2. “The KKK was and still is a heavily Christian organization.” founded by Demon-crats and interpreting the Bible as Demon-crats do!

          3. “The Bible gives clear instructions of how to perform abortions. It also says children are not to be counted as people until they are five years old.” only in the minds of Demon-crats as interpreted by liberal Demon-crats.

          Can’t forget those important qualifiers. 🙂

          Besides, Aaron, as an a-theist, you cannot even begin to say that slavery and the KKK are wrong in an objective moral sense. You have to steal from God to do so. So says your “pope” Dawkins and “cardinals” Provine and Ruse: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

          Anything goes in your world, because you are just “dancing to your DNA.” If you are going to steal objective moral values and duties from God, you should at least thank Him for it. God bless you, Aaron!

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      They are, no doubt, quivering at the thought of losing Huckabee, and you.

  • TheBBP

    The party system is a joke anyways. They are just different flavors of the same problems. Christians should pull away from both parties. Either way, It’s still good to know who shares my values. Thank you AFA.

    • John

      You use the word “Christians” too broadly. You belong to the extreme group of Christians that are obsessed with the issue of homosexuality. There are many less extreme Christians who are understanding of the truths of our brothers and sisters and are proud to be on the right side of history.

      • Gary

        No Christian supports homosexuality. Which is why you support it.

        • Better AndBetter

          You don’t speak for all followers of Christ you arrogant little losing man.

          • Gary

            Sure I do.

          • Better AndBetter

            BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA! Oh, the pride! The arrogance!

            BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA,

          • Taussig

            a legend in your own mind…….

      • TheBBP

        If believing that the Holy Bible is the infallible Word of God is “extreme” and that is something that you do not want to follow, then you are on the wrong side of God. Being accepting of sin does not suddenly make the sin OK.

  • Jonathan Rudd

    Giuliani must be getting ready to run for Prez again.

  • Mary Taylor

    This whole thing is getting sick. With no morals a country becomes rotten to the core.

    • Taussig

      Move……

    • Aaron Springer

      There are a few theocracies out there. Try Iran. They have no “homosexual problem”

  • Better AndBetter

    Awesome! Good guys win again!

  • dark477

    they know a lost battle when they see one

  • John

    The 300+ Republicans wanted to have their names listed on the right side of history like those who wanted to end slavery and allow woman to vote.

    • Gary

      But their names are not written in the Book Of Life, which means they will go to Hell.

      • Better AndBetter

        I’ve been to Michigan. It ain’t so bad.

        • Gary

          If you knew what is ahead of you, you would not make jokes about it.

          • Better AndBetter

            Uh huh…

            ALLUAH AKBAR!

      • Better AndBetter

        Alluah Akbar!

    • eh…

      They are sellout scum bags. Just like the democrats who used to be against homosexual “marriage” not to long ago.

    • JCIL

      There’s a vast difference between slavery, women, and immoral behavior. Laws should not condone sinful and immoral behavior. America has lost its way.

      • Aaron Springer

        So, you support banning divorce, seafood, and think slavery should be re-instituted.

  • eh…

    The only reason homosexual “marriage” is getting anywhere is because of judicial tyranny. The reason all of this is happening now is because of two things:

    1) In 2013, Harry Reid and the democrats in the senate passed the “nuclear option”. Which limited the filibuster and required only a simple majority to pass judicial nominees.

    2)Since the democrats controlled the senate at that time they were able to stack the courts and appoint as many judicial nominees as they could before they lost the senate. And as a result they stacked the circuit courts in favor of the democrats. There are 13 circuit courts of the 13 democrats now control 9 of the 13 courts,
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/05/29/obama-judges-tip-appeals-courts-to-democrats/, that is why ever since 2013 the courts have declared bans on homosexual anything “unconstitutional”.

  • madgrandma

    They might be republicans… but they are NOT Christians.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      They are RINOS – ex-Demon-crats (the party of slavery, abortion, and the KKK).

    • Gary

      Never think that Republican = Christian.

      • Better AndBetter

        Poor Gary. Nobody wants to help him in his hate. How sad.

        • JCIL

          Having a different belief system isn’t hate…unless you think everyone who disagrees with you is hateful.

          • Better AndBetter

            He calls for death for gay citizens. He admits his hate.

          • JCIL

            I wasn’t following your conversation with him. Where did he say he wanted gays dead?

          • Better AndBetter

            Not in this thread. I’ve a screen shot of it on my laptop. I’ll post it when I’m on that laptop.

          • JCIL

            Can you point me to the conversation where he said this? What article? I can read it in context there.

      • madgrandma

        amen

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Never think that Gary = Christian

        • Oboehner

          What would you know about anyone being Christian?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Lots.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, riiiight.

          • Gary

            I invite you. Challenge you, to prove that homosexuality is endorsed anywhere in the Bible.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It is not. Why do you ask?

          • MisterPine

            And what would YOU know about it?

  • Jacques

    They keep passing game these laws……… and then because Islam is taking over America, those islámicos just come and kill all guys because the have zero tolerance or live for others but themselves, so why worry about the laws, worry more about Islam invasion of the US thanks to guy Muslim Obama.

  • JCIL

    Contrary to what gay activists claim, no one is born gay. Sexuality is fluid. This is evidenced by:
    1. Identical twin studies show a low percentage of co-twins are actually gay (11 percent when it should be 100 percent).
    2. Many gays start out hetero, then move to bi, then move gay, with many returning to hetero later in life.
    3. Many also become gay later in life after many years in a successful hetero relationship.
    4. Prison studies show an upswing in gay activity in prison, with many remaining gay after prison.
    5. Many gays have come out and said they weren’t born that way, but made a choice to engage in the gay lifestyle.
    6. There are many people who have overcome the gay lifestyle and returned to successful hetero relationships.

    Being gay is a behavior. As such, gays are accountable for their decisions.

    Everyone is born with the equipment they are intended to be. After that, it comes down to nurture, environment, and wilful behavior.

    • Better AndBetter

      No one is born christian you raging hypocrite.

      • JCIL

        That’s true. People make a decision to follow Christ. How is that being a hypocrite?

        Are you going to stick with Better andBetter today, Badkey, or both (or many others)?

        • Better AndBetter

          You talk about as a choice so it’s not worthy of marriage. Not worthy of the same treatment as the choice of following a given mythology.

          Hypocrisy.

          I’ll stick with it til banned, and do what is necessary to celebrate your losses in this culture war.

          • JCIL

            Determining the difference between moral behavior and immoral behavior is not being hypocritical.

          • Better AndBetter

            Moral is nothing but your mythologically brainwashed opinion. It has no bearing on law and will not help you.

          • JCIL

            What are you basing your morals on? Your opinion?

            I believe God knows what’s best. Man has repeatedly proven he doesn’t.

          • Better AndBetter

            Your angry sky monster does not matter.

          • JCIL

            You first have to prove God doesn’t exist. Do you have any evidence to that effect?

          • Better AndBetter

            Nope. You have to prove it does. If you do not, courts will rightfully ignore you.

          • JCIL

            Actually not. If you believe God doesn’t exist, you will need to have some evidence to support your belief. Do you have anything at all? Otherwise, your belief is illogical.

          • Better AndBetter

            Prove in court or lose.

          • JCIL

            That’s not proof. Do you have any to support your belief?

          • Better AndBetter

            Prove your sky monster exists or lose in court. Your choice.

          • JCIL

            That is still not evidence that supports your faith. Do you have any or not? Yes or no will do.

          • Better AndBetter

            Prove your sky monster exists in court or lose. I need prove nothing (even though the demand to prove a negative is a sign of a childish mind).

            Good luck!

          • JCIL

            I was an ex-atheist. I know there isn’t any evidence to support that belief, which is why you keep deflecting.

            Atheists believe God doesn’t exist. Since no one can travel the universe or beyond to definitively rule God out, there isn’t any proof or evidence that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, all atheists have is a subjective opinion. This is called blind faith.

          • Better AndBetter

            Prove the sky monster exists. If you cannot, you will lose in a court of law using that as the basis for your argument.

            My sincere hope is that you continue to use such arguments.

          • JCIL

            First, no one can prove to you God exists unless He reveals Himself to you personally.
            Second, Christians do have an abundance of evidence to make an informed decision.
            Third, no one can be convinced of something he doesn’t want to be convinced of.

            If you are truly interested in evaluating the evidence, I’ve got plenty. If your mind is made up already, this will be a waste of both of our times.

            I no longer need evidence because God has revealed Himself to me on countless occasions (as He has throughout history to billions of people). But He did use evidence initially to draw me close. Are you interested in evaluating the evidence, or are you just going to dismiss it out-of-hand?

            BTW, no one can prove to you tomorrow exists. Neither can they prove to you how gravity works. But based on the evidence, observations, and past experience, it’s logical to conclude there will be another tomorrow and gravity will continue to work.

          • Better AndBetter

            Ahhhh… Stopped reading at “No one can prove to you god exists”.

            Then you can’t prove it in court.

            Good luck. Keep up the good work!

          • JCIL

            Actually, the legal system already believes God exists. So does the US government. That’s already been settled.

            As an atheist, which I’m assuming you are, you will need to prove these established facts wrong. Can you?

          • Better AndBetter

            Then why are you losing?

            Prove your buybull is fact or lose.

          • JCIL

            Take out a coin, and look at what it says.

          • Better AndBetter

            That proves Visnu is part of our culture.

          • JCIL

            No, it says the US government believes in the reality of God. As well,
            – There are 68 references to God in USA Code.
            – 50 states mention God in their constitutions.
            – Many countries mention God in their constitutions.

            God has already been established as fact. To believe God doesn’t exist requires you disprove the established fact.

          • Better AndBetter

            Good luck. Your points thus far are losing positions.

          • JCIL

            I noticed you have not provided one reasoned rebuttal. That says you don’t have any.

            As an ex-atheist, I found myself in that position many times – lots of opinion but no reasoned arguments. That is what prompted me to look for the truth.

            I carefully evaluated all religions and beliefs. All fell apart under close scrutiny. Only the Christian God proved true…and still does today after many years.

            Non believers are forced to use illogical and unreasonable ‘arguments’ because they have nothing tangible. That should be a tip to look elsewhere.

            I’m not condemning what you believe. That is up to you. I’m merely suggesting that there is more to belief than unfounded opinion. Simply believing something doesn’t make it true. It also doesn’t negate what is true. I thought it best to find the actual truth and it does exist in Christ.

          • Oshtur

            You realize that is a ceremonial reference to whatever diety the citizen may or may not have even conceptual as in “Logic is my god”, right? Diest, Christian, Atheist, Satanist all get to use that term as they see fit.

            What you don’t realize is that usage like this is idolatry to the Judeo-Christian God.

          • JCIL

            I’m saying God is already established as fact. It’s the non believer’s burden to disprove this fact. Trying to disprove God by comparing Him to an imaginary figure is an error in logic.

          • Oshtur

            Which God is an established fact? There are thousands… Or are you saying, as the government is, that they all are just as real?

          • JCIL

            In North America, especially the USA, it is the Christian God. The Christian God is the only one that solid evidence.

          • Oshtur

            Actually no – the SCOTUS said the only reason that the term can be used is because it refers to no specific religion. If you were right it wouldn’t be on our coins, or money.

          • JCIL

            America was primarily Christian, upon which many of the constructs were set up.

          • Gary

            Everyone knows God is real. Even you know that. The judges all know it.

    • SFBruce

      If you have any actual evidence to support any of the assertions you’ve made, now would be an excellent time to indicate what they are. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, among many other professional organizations representing scientists, disagree with every single point you make.

      • JCIL

        These organizations changed their opinion, not because of truth, but because of pressure from gay activists. These organizations do sway their opinions based on public pressure.

        ” in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.”

        There is an abundance of studies that attest to the points I’ve made.

        • SFBruce

          You still haven’t provided documentation for claims most scientists discredit. If there are, indeed, an “abundance” of credible studies, name a few.

          So far, I’ve found the unattributed quote you cite on three websites, all of which attribute it to different individuals. Do you have any idea who made the claim in the first place, and exactly what evidence they based it on?

          • JCIL

            First, here is the latest official statement from the Psychologists Association:

            “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” – APA

            Second, the mental health and medical systems have been notoriously wrong on other aspects. Take for example, from 1985 to 2011, they said anxiety disorder and depression were caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Independents didn’t agree, but these organizations didn’t change their stance on this issue..until 2011. Due to numerous independent studies, they changed their position. The pharmaceutical companies said that the chemical imbalance concept was intended as more of a metaphor than reality. So for 16 years, they lied to the pubic.

            The gay lifestyle is similar. Independents know it is a chosen lifestyle, but the mental health and medical sectors are submitting to gay pressure.

            If you check gay behavior in prison, you’ll see my comments are true. If you check gay studies done prior to gay activism, you’ll see true studies, and which weren’t suppressed.

          • SFBruce

            I’m puzzled why you quote the APA, since they bolster my position rather than yours, “…most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” The fact that theories change is characteristic of science. As new data emerges, old theories are discarded or modified in light of that new data. It’s just the way science works.

            It’s true that heterosexual men who are in prison sometimes engage in homosexual behavior, but it’s not a matter of their sexual orientation having changed, it’s a matter of a change in behavior, resulting from the unavailability of women. For the third time, if you want credibility when you dispute an accepted scientific idea, it’s incumbent on you to provide data to support your claim.

          • JCIL

            “”…most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.””

            This is misinformed. All behaviors are choices. It is true many gays don’t know why they are making those choices, but they are choices nonetheless. You will see this updated as more of the truth comes out.

            What guidelines are you using to determine what is mere behavior and orientation?

            You might find this link interesting:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html#ixzz3TdIDt1jk

            This as well:

            http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2006-07/article-pdfs/Dec06_Garnets_Peplau.pdf

          • SFBruce

            Orientation and behavior are different things; sexual orientation refers to our sexual fantasies and desires; sexual behavior refers to actual behavior.

            Obviously, you have every right to your opinion, but unless and until you stop dodging my request for evidence to support your original claims, I’m not really interested in what you have to say.

          • JCIL

            “Orientation and behavior are different things; sexual orientation refers to our sexual fantasies and desires; sexual behavior refers to actual behavior.”

            Psychology teaches that behaviors are motivated by thinking styles. Thinking styles are learned. They aren’t innate.

            To behave (act), one first thinks.

            Dr. David Burns, a renown psychologist coined the phrase, “We feel how we think.” Which means our thoughts trigger our feelings. Feelings aren’t innate.

            While behaviors may not seem like choices, they actually are. You can talk with most CBT therapists for more information. They use these strategies to help people overcome mental health disorders. It’s common practice today.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Perhaps I missed it. Where in the APA statement did the APA say that definitively sexuality is a chosen state and that definitively it is not an innate trait?

          • JCIL

            They didn’t. Yet! The statement says that gays aren’t born that way. Research says it’s fluid…which agrees with child development on sexuality.

            Here is another example:

            Professor Graham Willett who is himself a homosexual and author of ‘Living out Loud – A short history of US’ – a history of homosexual activism in Australia has said,

            “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, “it’s not our fault”, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality.. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort [to recruit]?”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The statement says that gays aren’t born that way.”

            Where does it say that? Please cut and paste from the statement from the APA that says that definitively, gays are not born that way.

            “Professor Graham Willett”

            While Professor Willett is certainly entitled to his opinion, he does not back it up with any research. It is nothing more than his opinion, as he clearly states in the quote you provide.

          • JCIL

            Why wouldn’t you take a professor’s word for his personal experience? There are many others who have said this.

            “We examined reports of sexual orientation identity stability and change over a 10-year period drawing on data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS I and II) and tested for three patterns: (1) het- erosexual stability, (2) female sexual fluidity, and (3) bisexual fluidity.

            “Fifty-four percent of the 2,560 participants were female and the average age was approximately 47 years. At Wave 1, 2,494 (97.42%) reported a heterosexual identity, 32 (1.25%) a homosexual identity, and 34 (1.33%) a bisexual identity and somewhat more than 2% reported a different sexual orientation identity at Wave 2.” – Steven E. Mock • Richard P. Eibach, Stability and Change in Sexual Orientation Identity Over a 10-Year Period in Adulthood

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The professor doesn’t say that he wasn’t born gay. He doesn’t say that sexuality is a choice. He doesn’t say that he chose to be homosexual or that is sexuality was fluid.

            Why would you attempt to use his statement as proof that sexuality is not innate when he said nothing of the sort?

            “(1) het- erosexual stability, (2) female sexual fluidity, and (3) bisexual fluidity.”

            Anything in there about homosexuality? Nope, didn’t think so.

            “somewhat more than 2% reported a different sexual orientation identity at Wave 2”

            Which points to support for bisexuals. Provides ZERO support that sexuality is a choice. Only that people at one point SAY they are one sexuality and later SAY they are another. That does not mean that sexuality has changed.

            Had you asked me in college if I was gay or straight, I would have say straight. Why? Because of the strong stigma regarding being gay. I dated women and was engaged to be married. That was not a function of my sexuality but, rather, a function of societal pressure.

          • JCIL

            “He doesn’t say that sexuality is a choice.”

            If it wasn’t a choice, why recruit? Which is why he made the point. Of course it’s a choice. Even he knows that.

            Dismissing the research with a blanket statement does nothing to negate it.

            You still made a choice. I understand why you may not know why you were drawn to a gay partner. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons. It just means you don’t know what they are.

            This is like any behavior. Most people don’t know why they behave the way the do. But there are reasons, and some people do know.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If it wasn’t a choice, why recruit?”

            His saying that doesn’t mean it’s possible.

            “Of course it’s a choice.”

            What proof of that do you offer? Tell me – why would someone choose to be homosexual? So they can be bullied and ridiculed in school? So that they can be told that they will spend eternity in hell? So that they can be fired, shunned, denied housing, denied service, denied equal rights under the law? What would be the purpose of simply “choosing” to be homosexual. Further, if it is, as you state, a choice, then you should be able to simply choose to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. Could you simply make that choice?

            “Dismissing the research with a blanket statement does nothing to negate it.”

            What research? There is no research which concludes that sexuality is a choice.

            “I understand you may not know why you were drawn to a gay partner.”

            I completely understand why. I’m gay. Do you understand why you were attracted to someone of the opposite gender? Or was it just something that came to you naturally?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “no one is born gay”

      That statement would indicate that you have proof of the basis for sexuality and proof for sexuality existing at birth. What proof do you have of these things?

      “2. Many gays start out hetero, then move to bi, then move gay, with many returning to hetero later in life.”

      Where did you come up with that?

      “3. Many also become gay later in life after many years in a successful hetero relationship.”

      Basis?

      “4. Prison studies show an upswing in gay activity in prison, with many remaining gay after prison.”

      Basis?

      “5. Many gays have come out and said they weren’t born that way, but made a choice to engage in the gay lifestyle.”

      Examples?

      “As such, gays are accountable for their decisions.”

      As we all are. What does any of this have to do with the legality of same-gender marriage?

      • JCIL

        I’ve replied but the monitor system has my reply. You may have to wait until it is approved.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          I can hardly wait.

          • Oshtur

            Contain your anticipation.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s hard to….but I’ll try.

      • JCIL

        1. “That statement would indicate that you have proof of the basis for sexuality and proof for sexuality existing at birth. What proof do you have of these things?”

        Yes. “This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing h sexuality,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “because … in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent.” Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that “identical twins reared together share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together,” and that narcissism, a key component of h sexuality, is more likely among identical twins who “grow up with mirror images of themselves.”

        2. “Where did you come up with that?”

        Research over the last 20 years. It was common knowledge until it was suppressed by gay activism.

        3. “Basis?”

        Research over the last 20 years.

        4. “Basis?”

        There are numerous studies online. For example:

        Official prison records now identify 19% of inmates as gay. Yet, surveys of prison staff would suggest that, “…between 30 and 70% of inmates have affairs while in prison” (Ward, Kassebaum 166).

        5. Books written by ex-gay authors:

        – Beyond Gay, by David Morrison

        – Born That Way? By Erin Eldridge

        – Closing the Closet: Testimonies of Deliverance from H sexuality, Talbert Swan

        – Free Indeed, by Barbara Swallow

        – Growth Into Manhood: Resuming the Journey, by Alan Medinger

        – Healing H sexuality: Case Studies of Reparative Therapy, by Joseph Nicolosi

        – Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind, by Jeanette Howard

        – A Place in the Kingdom, by Garrick and Ginger Hyde

        – Portraits of Freedom: 14 People Who Came Out of H-sexuality, by Bob Davies

        – Voices of Hope, 22 Personal Essays, Compiled by Ty Mansfield

        – You Don’t Have to be Gay, by Jeff Konrad

        “What does any of this have to do with the legality of same-gender marriage?”

        Gay activists gained acceptance because people were told they were born this way. But the reality is that, people choose to be gay…it is a lifestyle choice not something they were born into, like color or ethnicity. This decision should have been made on moral grounds, not because of discrimination.

        • Oshtur

          And see, since any Dr should know that there are many biological features, e.g. fingerprints, that aren’t genetic yet aren’t choice either exist makes you wonder if his opinion is merely that and not based on actual fact.

          Could it be the Doctor has an agenda rather than just being a seeker of truth?

          • JCIL

            If you look at older research (60s – 80s), you’ll notice that the majority of gays admit to wilful behavior. That message has only changed because of activism pressure to tow the community line.

            There are more people coming out about choice and who are willing to be chastised for telling the truth. Stay tuned the rest of this year.

          • Oshtur

            Most heterosexuals admit to wilful behavior? So, that doesn’t mean its a choice.

          • JCIL

            Of course it’s a choice. A matter of the will is decision-making.

          • Oshtur

            Ah you are confusing sexual orientation, which is about attraction, with behavior.

            Anyone can have sexual behavior with anyone or anything pretty much. Sexual attraction exists regardless of behavior.

    • Oshtur

      All distractions, it isn’t a choice by any means anymore than handiness is.

      There are people of both séxes attracted to either séx, both sexes, no sexes, or have séx for reasons other than innate attraction. That’s just the facts and the government is here to serve its citizens they way they are, not the way someone wishes they were.

      If one citizen can register as a spouse with a husband than they all should be able to, ditto a wife. Simple Marriage equality.

      • JCIL

        “All distractions, it isn’t a choice by any means anymore than handiness is.

        Using one hand or the other isn’t innate. It’s learned also. I taught myself to use both hands.

        • Oshtur

          Actually no it isn’t, handiness is exhibited in the womb and associated with statistically significant different levels of sundry psychological qualities. And these differences survive even in cultures where those born left-handed are forced to learn to use their right hand, such as Japanese and middle Eastern cultures.

          Which again shows that even those with an innate quality can be trained to go against their natures, but that is just masking the innate quality, not actually changing it.

          • JCIL

            “handiness is exhibited in the womb and associated with statistically significant different levels of sundry psychological qualities.”

            No it isn’t. While we may have preference for a particular hand, it’s not predetermined.

            All of us know right from wrong. We can also choose to go against that conscience.

            No one is born gay. It’s a behaviour.

          • Oshtur

            You can’t just say ‘no it isn’t’. Simple Google search shows that the brain scans of naturally left handed people differ from right handers, and those who were left and forced to be right have a different brain scan than either.

            You can deny it all you want but neurological handiness is biological in origins, not choice. And since there is no behavior gay people engage in that straight people don’t also your last sentence is nonsensical.

          • JCIL

            “Simple Google search shows that the brain scans of naturally left handed people differ from right handers, and those who were left and forced to be right have a different brain scan than either.”

            The brain scans aren’t showing cause, but effect – when you behave in certain ways, different parts of the brain become active.

          • Oshtur

            You obviously missed the part where people trained since an early age to use the right hand against their natural inclination have a brain that doesn’t look like other right handers.

            Its not a choice any more than height or eye color.

          • JCIL

            “You obviously missed the part where people trained since an early age to use the right hand against their natural inclination have a brain that doesn’t look like other right handers.”

            Of course there are going to be differences. If you scan the brains of people who are physically active, you’ll also see pattern differences. People who meditate have pattern differences.

            As I said, scans can only show what the brain is doing, not why.

            “Its not a choice any more than height or eye colour.”

            People aren’t born gay. They may not see it as a decision, but they make one. Read for yourself:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/queer-by-choice-not-by-chance-against-being-born-this-way/244898/

          • Oshtur

            So a bisexual woman has a rant. You do realize there are more bisexuals than homosexuals? Picking one šęx by a bisexusl is very different than a homosexual becoming heterosexual.

            Don’t confuse the notion that some have a choice with everyone does.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          I don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss your sexual life.

          • JCIL

            I wasn’t. I taught myself to be ambidextrous.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            if you had to teach yourself, then using either your right hand or your left hand did not come naturally to you, thus indicating that you had a natural inclination toward using one hand or the other.

            Do you think people make a conscience decision at some point as to which hand they are going to use for writing, etc.? That it is simply up in the air until then?

            Tell me – when was it in your life that you were saying: “Hmmmm….gay or straight….gay or straight? I could go either way, but I’ll choose straight”?

      • Gary

        A husband is a man who has a wife. A wife is always a woman.

        • Oshtur

          Ah you have the definitions wrong – a husband is a male spouse, a wife is a female spouse.

          • Gary

            A spouse is either the husband or the wife in a marriage. A marriage is only one thing: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. If there is no husband, then there is no marriage. If there is no wife, then there is no marriage.

          • Oshtur

            Sure there is – you aren’t confusing your sect’s religious rite of marriage with the 100% secular civil contract again, are you?

            Two people of any sexes license the civil contract of marriage just fine in the majority of North America.

          • Gary

            No. Only a man can marry a woman, and only a woman can marry a man. We are not going to allow you, and other perverts to redefine marriage.

          • Oshtur

            I don’t even know what that means – the ‘Marriage’ under discussion is the civil contract titled ‘Marriage’ that isn’t defined other than by its promises, same as any other contract. If you are talking about the licensing restrictions on being able to use that civil contract then that’s a different issue and the one under contention. If one citizen can license with a husband constitutionally so can all citizens, ditto a wife. And it is because of the constitutional restrictions on how the government can treat people and how they must deal with contracts that this will be decided towards marriage equality.

            As usually side is worrying about the wrong things if they want to have a hope of winning which always makes me wonder – is the failure being deliberately planned?

          • Gary

            Then don’t call it a marriage because a marriage has only one definition.

          • Oshtur

            AGain, I have no caring about the title of the contract, call it ‘George’ if you like, but if you do then everyone will still have access to ‘George’ regardless of if their spouse is a male or a female. Changing the name of the contract doesn’t change the constitutional principles that govern it.

          • Gary

            If someone is a spouse, then they are either a husband or a wife. A marriage consists of a man and a woman. If you want an arrangement between women, or between men, then you should not all it a marriage and the participants should not be called spouse, husband or wife.

          • Oshtur

            That choice isn’t ours as far as the religious rite of marriage – every religion has a right to not share your considerations on this. Mine is Christianity and couples marry in the eyes of God regardless of their sexes.

            Again, you can’t own the words and tell other people how they have to use them in their own beliefs. Neither can the government without massive basic constitutional changes on the federal and state levels.

            You want the civil contract to be named something else, I don’t care what its name is personally. But whatever that name might be, that contract will be available to every citizen who wants to register with their spouse, male or female.

          • Gary

            Your religion is not Christianity. If it were, you would not be an apologist for homosexuals. I don’t care if two men have a contract with each other. I do care if they call it marriage because I will not accept a marriage between men, or between women. You can define anything however you want, but do not expect Christians to agree with your definitions. And don’t try to force us to accept your definitions.

          • Oshtur

            I don’t care what you think about Christianity, I have never seen a whit of the Spirit in your postings. As to your accepting ‘definitions’ I don’t care about that either. This is only about the legal recognition of a valid civil contract and the familial relationship it legally recognizes.

            You don’t think the government should be able to tell the difference between spouses and two people off the street then don’t offer civil contracts that make them different. But if the government does, it will license them to all citizens equally, so if one can with a male spouse so can any of them, ditto female.

          • Gary

            I disagree with everything you say and believe.

          • Oshtur

            And this would concern me why? Again, if you can’t present your case in a manner the courts will consider in making their decision its just wasted talk.

          • JCIL

            Courts are run by people. People will say and do whatever they choose. Without one moral compass, it’s just a matter of time until the people with the most power win.

            America was founded on Christian principles, which is why it became the most powerful nation on earth. As these principles become eroded, you can expect that status to change, until it will be subject to someone else’s morals, to which it will have to submit.

            Jewish history is a good example. When they followed God, they prospered. When they stopped and rebelled, they failed.

            God is the same today. The same rules apply.

          • Oshtur

            Yes, but the thing that needs to be changed is the very constitution those courts spawn from, and the people have enacted, that’s a pretty long climb.

            And if the Christian principles of charity, humility, mercy, equality, kindness and such were being respected this topic wouldn’t even be being discussed – no one would be opposing marriage equality.

          • Gary

            You are a liar. And as damned as obama and Biden.

          • Oshtur

            So you mean far less damned than you I take it?

          • Gary

            When you arrive in Hell, you remember what I have told you today.

          • Oshtur

            And when God sends you to where He sends those that think they can usurp His authority don’t forget to write.

          • JCIL

            Christianity is much more than being ‘nice.’ It’s also about truth and upholding God’s wishes.

            Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of God’s patience running out with man’s immorality. God doesn’t change. Don’t mistake His mercy and patience with acceptance.

          • Oshtur

            Indeed, I think of those in this nation that echo the leaders of those towns often:

            They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of [our] earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land,

          • Gary

            The courts are immoral. They refuse to consider right and wrong as arguments. They don’t care about the US Constitution either. If they did they would know that heterosexual only marriage laws are not unconstitutional.

          • Oshtur

            Our rights and wrongs are set forth in our Constitution and its resultant laws.

            Sounds like you want to live in a country other than the US. What one would meet your criteria?

          • Gary

            Morality is defined by God alone. All men can do is either abide by God’s moral laws, or break them. And that is true in any country.

          • Oshtur

            And since most of the 10 commandments would be found unconstitutional if enacted into law I again wonder “what’s keeping you?”

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    In about 3 months this will no longer be a legal issue in the US. I wonder what the Fundies will be focused on then. Perhaps they will turn their attention to things that actually DO affect marriage and children – like divorce and single women having children.

    Nah. Probably not. I’m predicting Muslims will be their next target.

    • BarkingDawg

      Muslims are already a target for Christian hate.

      • JCIL

        I don’t recall seeing Christian terrorists today beheading anyone that disagrees with them. Do you?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          You might want to get caught up on events in the CAR where tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing Christian militias.

          • JCIL

            Christians do have a right to defend themselves against tyranny.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            As do all people.

            So you believe it is OK to behead people if you are standing up to tyranny, correct?

        • BarkingDawg

          No, they just shoot them, like Wade Michael Page or Jim David Adkisson. Sometimes they blow them up, like Timothy McVeigh.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        I predict they will become more so once the legal issue of same-gender marriage is settled.

    • Gary

      If the SC does the wrong thing, then Christians will keep opposing homosexuality and ssm.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        You are free to oppose whatever you care to, Gary.

  • JMurman

    Keep in mind that Republicans are no better than the bottom dwelling socialist Democrats. When you go against God and His law, you open yourself up to judgement.

    Do you think that opening Cuba up is a good thing? read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150212122217.htm This article says a new strain of HIV, which goes to AIDS in 3 years is ravaging the homosexual community.

    The Bible declares that homosexuality is an abomination. Dont fall for the sin, God will not be mocked; a man reaps what he sows. God offers forgiveness and healing, but you must turn to Him.

    • Better AndBetter

      Your sky monster does not matter.

      • JCIL

        Better, we’ve already determined you have no evidence to support your assertion.

        • Better AndBetter

          You cannot prove fact in court.

          Mythology is not admissible in court.

          • JCIL

            As I said below, the legal system already acknowledges God is real. So does the US government. Unless you can prove them wrong. Can you?

          • Better AndBetter

            If what you say is true, our law would be much different.

            June will show you how much your myths are accepted in court.

            See you then!

          • JCIL

            Not really. God allows free will…for a time. People make the laws ad not always in agreement with what God wants.

            But, God’s will is sovereign. He has the last say no matter what man has to say.

      • JMurman

        God does matter, just because you say He doesn’t will not alter the fact that God is a Holy and Righteous God. Your sin has been judged in times past, unfortunately it will be again. God isn’t wiling that you perish in your sins, and has offered you grace and forgiveness, if you repent and believe.

  • Aaron Springer

    Luke 10:27
    And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

    I see a lot of Christians who put the words of the Old Testament or of Paul ahead of these words of Christ.

    • Gary

      Do you believe Jesus is for homosexuality and ssm?

      • Aaron Springer

        Well, here is what Jesus said about homosexuality:
        “”

        So, not much help there.

        • Gary

          Then you DO believe Jesus supports those things. What did Jesus say about marriage and s-x outside of marriage?

          • Aaron Springer

            When did I say that? Now you are bearing false witness.

          • Gary

            I asked you an honest question, but you won’t give an honest answer.

          • Aaron Springer

            Matthew 5:31-32New International Version (NIV)
            31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

      • Aaron Springer

        He also talked at length and repeatedly about not judging others and being concerned with one’s own behavior.

    • JCIL

      God doesn’t ever suggest to love sin.

      • Aaron Springer

        You do know the difference between sin and the sinner, yes?

        • JCIL

          Yes, I do. Love the sinner but hate the sin. This also means not to overlook sin or condone it.

          • Aaron Springer

            Ah, so you are going to start pushing to make divorces illegal, since Jesus actually did speak out about that.

          • JCIL

            All divorces aren’t wrong. There are some with good reasons.

          • Aaron Springer

            The only reason cited by Jesus is immorality.

          • Aaron Springer

            Also, why should the secular country of the United States bow to Christian law?

          • Gary

            You want all the laws to be immoral? That is what they would be if they go against the Bible.

          • Aaron Springer

            Again, why should the Bible be considered in a secular country?

            Should we avoid passing laws which go against the Qur’an, the Veddas, and every other holy text? What about the Satanic Bible?

          • Gary

            If you want all the laws to be immoral, then you should not consider the Bible. The God of the Bible defines morality. Not the god of Islam or Hinduism, or any other religion.

          • Aaron Springer

            Actually, they do. That’s the point of religion. They all have moral laws that proscribe what is and is not moral.

            For example, in Islam, consuming pork is immoral (As it is in Judaism).

            Every single religion has sets of rules, even Wicca, which has only one. Why should Christianity be given special privileges or status?

          • Gary

            Because Christianity is true, and all other religions are false.

          • Aaron Springer

            That’s exactly what they say about their religions.

            And, how is that relevant in a secular country?

          • Gary

            Why is secularism right and Christianity wrong?

          • Aaron Springer

            Who said anything about right and wrong?

            The United States is a secular nation, not a Christian nation. Christianity does not get special rights or privileges. It gets the same treatment as every other religion, or even lack of religion.

            According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all citizens are allowed to follow the religion of their choice, or not, as they see fit.

            Why should Christianity be allowed to dictate law?

          • Gary

            Christianity should dictate law because if it does not, then the laws will be immoral. Which is what I think you want.

          • Aaron Springer

            That’s a huge claim.

            You do realize that laws are not about morality, yes?

          • Gary

            Some laws can be morally neutral, but many cannot. Laws about sexuality and marriage cannot be morally neutral.

          • Aaron Springer

            So, again, why should Christianity be given special rights to dictate secular law in a secular country?

          • Gary

            You seem to be mentally slow. I have answered that question at least twice.

          • Aaron Springer

            //You seem to be mentally slow. I have answered that question at least twice.//

            I’m sorry. I assumed I was speaking with a Christian.

            James 1:26

            If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.

            Ephesians 4:31-32

            Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

            And, now, to respond to the rest of your comment.

            You haven’t. All you have done is made claims about Christianity being truth and that God defines morality in the Bible, when other religions have equal claims and equal evidence. And equal rights under the law. So why does Christianity deserve special rights?

          • JCIL

            Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to use text from a source you disagree with?

          • Aaron Springer

            No. The meaning of the word hypocritical is to betray a moral or factual state in action that one supports in words.

            In other words, to push Biblical values and then ignore parts of it in one’s behavior would be hypocritical.

            Pointing out hypocrisy is not hypocritical.

          • JCIL

            Yes, it is – to use a source you disagree with is hypocritical, especially as a means to chastise someone you disagree with.

            “Pointing out hypocrisy is not hypocritical.”

            He wasn’t being hypocritical. Even Jesus called out the Pharisees.

          • Aaron Springer

            You are misusing the word hypocritical.

            From Mirriam Webster:

            hypocrisy

            noun hy·poc·ri·sy hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-

            : the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

            You are making assumptions about my beliefs and assuming claims I have not made.

            What I am doing is holding up the same document that he is claiming is moral and saying, “This is also in the document, yet you are not following it.”

            My beliefs are irrelevant. Bringing them into the discussion is also irrelevant. I am holding him to the moral code he claims to follow. Whether I follow it or not is irrelevant.

          • JCIL

            “My beliefs are irrelevant.

            Your beliefs are relevant. You don’t believe in the very text you want to chastise Gary with.

            hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pre tense.

          • Aaron Springer

            //Your beliefs are relevant. You don’t believe in the very text you want to chastise Gary with.//

            But he claims to. If he is not following the book he claims is the source of morality, then he is the hypocrite.

            And, you are still assuming I don’t. It’s not about me, my beliefs, or my behavior. I am holding him to his own standard, not my own.

          • Gary

            Other religions do not have equal claims and equal evidence. Christianity is either true, or it is false. If it is false, it should be opposed. If it is true, it should be followed. When lawmakers make laws, they have to decide whether they are going to legislate according to the Bible, or something else. There is no moral neutrality. What we have today is legislators who mostly have no respect for God and no morality. That is why we get immoral laws and immoral court decisions.

          • Aaron Springer

            Gary, this is a secular country, not a Christian country. If you wish to live in a country that is governed by the Bible, you will need to move to Vatican City, as it is the only Christian nation on Earth.

            Christianity does not own the US or its law. Yes, Christianity is either true or false; however, the only way to determine that is through means that Christianity actively avoids.

            US law is content to leave theological discussions to theologians. Why is it that some Christians feel the need to force their beliefs on to others through law? You would be screaming bloody murder if the same thing were happening to Christians. What if Muslims had pork banned? What if Hindus had beef banned? You would be up in arms! Yet their religions are no less valid than yours. To you personally they may be less valid, but this country is not Garystand. It is the *United States*. There are thousands of different faiths here. You have yet to tell me why Christianity gets special rights. Calling it “true” is not a reason. It is a claim, one that is unproven, as unproven as all the rest.

          • Gary

            Obviously, since the country and its laws are so wicked, Christianity is largely ignored.

          • Aaron Springer

            Since we don’t celebrate any Christian holidays publicly, Christian churches have to hide, there are never any Christian billboards anywhere, there are laws forbidding Christians from being elected to office, people protest when Christians build new places of worship, Christians can’t wear symbols of their faith in public, there are no Christian television stations, Christians have their children taken from them by the court for being Christian, and “In Allah We Trust” is on all of our money…

          • Gary

            But you said the US was a secular country .

          • JCIL

            Without one moral compass, the end result is dictatorship.

          • Aaron Springer

            When religion dabbles in politics, the results invariably end up much worse than dictatorship.

          • JCIL

            Your present freedom to speak your mind comes from the very principles you criticize. If you want an example of what it will be like without Christian principles, see ISIS, China, Egypt.

          • Aaron Springer

            //Your present freedom to speak your mind comes from the very principles you criticize. //

            Actually, they don’t.

            They come from a secular document called the Bill of Rights which is an extension of the Constitution. Neither of which are Christian documents.

            //If you want an example of what it will be like without Christian principles, see ISIS, China, Egypt.//

            Actually, ISIS is very similar to what Christians did to Europe for over a thousand years. Egypt as well. China, well, that’s an odd comparison.

            How about we look at Sweden, which has a high percentage of atheists?

          • JCIL

            “They come from a secular document called the Bill of Rights which is an extension of the Constitution. Neither of which are Christian documents.”

            The were heavily influenced by Christian principles.

            “Actually, ISIS is very similar to what Christians did to Europe for over a thousand years.”

            Not at all. Check history.

            “Egypt as well.”

            Not ever.

            “China, well, that’s an odd comparison.”

            The states I gave you demonstrate rigid laws based on the ruling power. Not democracy influenced by Christian values.

          • Aaron Springer

            //The were heavily influenced by Christian principles.//

            No, it wasn’t. Look into the history of the Magna Carta. Both sides abandoned the agreement and it was abolished by the church. Jefferson specifically put the protections into the Bill of Rights to protect the government from church control, and said so on multiple occasions. If most Christians had their way, there would be a cross of the American flag. Present conversation as evidence.

            //”Actually, ISIS is very similar to what Christians did to Europe for over a thousand years.”

            Not at all. Check history.//

            I beg you to do so. Their behavior is almost identical to the first thousand years of Christian rule in Europe.

            //Not democracy influenced by Christian values.//

            Democracy is a pagan Greek form of government, influenced by the secular Enlightenment as a response to the Christian Dark Ages. I suppose one could claim that Christianity got so bad that the educated finally had enough, seized power, and pushed the clergy out. So, one could make the case that Christianity was responsible for the American system by being so despicable that they pushed rational people to do something better.

          • JCIL

            Nineteenth-century Spanish statesman Emilio Castelar traced America’s source to one book: the Bible. In 1892, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded without qualification that “this is a Christian nation.”

            “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” —Declaration of Independence

            “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions … ” —Declaration of Independence (This was taken from Judges 11:27.)

            John Locke referred to a biblical account (Judg. 11) to support the proposition that only God could judge man when in the state of war. An appeal to God as judge could not have been made had America’s founders subscribed to deism.

            “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives…” —Declaration of Independence

            “Divine Providence” was one of the oldest cornerstones of Christian teaching—it represented the heart of their belief in God, namely, that God was the ever-active, moment-by-moment governor of the universe.

            God is Jehovah Jireh, meaning “the Lord shall provide” (Gen. 22:14).

            The Four Principles That Anchor the Declaration of Independence

            1. Rights come from God.

            2. The purpose of civil government is to secure those rights.

            3. The power of civil government is given by the consent of the governed, each of whom is fully entitled to rule.

            4. The right to govern is forfeited by a tyrant to lower civil magistrates in order to restore the rule of law.

            All four of these principles are Christian.

          • Aaron Springer

            The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document.

            It was a document written before the United States existed severing ties between the colonies and the British.

          • JCIL

            Even though Jefferson believed in a vague, distant deity, when his fellow delegates revised and approved the Declaration, virtually all of them understood “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Providence” to refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: a God who is active in the affairs of men and nations.

          • Aaron Springer

            “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
            ~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

          • Aaron Springer

            “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
            ~Founding FatherJohn Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

          • Aaron Springer

            “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
            ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

          • JCIL

            Yes, freedom of religion, which is what America has thanks to Christian values.

          • Aaron Springer

            Freedom of religion includes not imposing Christianity in any form, even its morality, on others.

          • Aaron Springer

            Even if it were true that the American system were based on Christian values, that is irrelevant. That does not give Christianity the right to dictate to others how they should conduct their lives.

          • Aaron Springer

            “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
            ~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

          • JCIL
          • Aaron Springer

            “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
            ~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

          • JCIL

            I posted a link to a good article below.

            That said, God’s laws still apply no matter what man decides and does. In the end, His will is sovereign and He will hold everyone to account of their behavior. There won’t be any excuses. That is a fact that no man can change.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, Gary, the old “My religion is the right one all others are wrong” argument.

            Can’t refute that point, can we?

  • Gary

    I wish the Republican Party, would officially endorse ssm, homosexuality and abortion. Most of the leaders do anyway. If they endorsed those things, it would remove their hypocrisy and show Christians that the Republicans are not really any different from Democrats.

  • JCIL

    I keep hearing people say, gays are born that way. But they aren’t. Here is more proof:

    In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing in the online publication Queerty: “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.”

    “Over the past 29 years of my life I have been an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues. I’ve organized and participated in countless marches and various lobbying efforts in the fight for equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. I have kept current on the issues and made financial contributions to those organizations doing work about which I was most passionate.

    As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.

    But now, I must come out of the closet again. I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us.” – ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran

    “I worked to overcome feelings of inadequacy and incompetence as a man. As I worked with my counselor to fill my emotional needs, extinguish harmful behaviors, and heal emotional wounds, I noticed my homosexual compulsions becoming less intense. With time, they began to subside. Then, subtly, I noticed heterosexual feelings starting to emerge. These new feelings grew slowly as I continued progressing through the recovery process.” – “Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency”, Floyd and Kae Godfrey

    “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,” says John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is a behavior, not a condition, and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.”

    • Paul Hiett

      That’s far from “proof”.

      The proof that sexual-orientation is not a choice is within yourself. I would wager that you do not find men attractive. In fact, I’d be wiling to bet that you’d be very adamant that men do not turn you on.

      Your orientation is straight. Now, as you find women attractive, so do some other women. As women mainly find men attractive, so do some men. They do not control that attraction…at all. They have no choice in it, as you do not have a choice either.

      Now, you can choose to engage in coitus or not, as that is a chosen behavior. But what turns you on is not a behavior, it’s your sexual-orientation.

      • JCIL

        Of course it’s proof:

        1. Many gays themselves say they aren’t born gay.

        2. Identical twin studies show gay behavior is not caused by genes. (Only 11 percent of co-twins become gay. If genes were the cause, it should be 100 percent.)

        3. Epigenetics tells us that behavior determines gene expression (which is why identical twins have different behavioral and health outcomes).

        4. Child develop shows sexual identity develops over time, and is fluid throughout life (this alone negates the ‘born this way’ notion).

        5. People change their sexual orientation / identity at will.

        6. Preferences are willful choices based on learned behavior that stem from our system of beliefs, which is learned. Choosing a gay partner is a preference.

        The above eliminates the ‘born this way’ notion.

        “They do not control that attraction…at all. They have no choice in it, as you do not have a choice either.”

        Actually they do. Just because you don’t understand the mechanisms behind behavior – the psychological and emotional reasons people choose behavior – doesn’t mean people are born that way. It just means you don’t understand behavior.

        You could read up on psychology, behavioral science, and social science for more information. Particularly, Systems of Beliefs. How they are formed, and how they influence behavior.

        • Oshtur

          1) some people are attracted to both sexes and some not inherently attracted to either in attraction and their behavior is variable accordingly. The term ‘sexual orientation’ is about attraction not behavior, anyone can have séx with any séx or not at all regardless of their sexual orientation.

          2) actually shows there is significant genetic component to sexual orientation, actually increasing in right-handed male children the more male children the mother has had previously.

          3) epigenetics is talking about womb and fetal development. Yes there are significant differences even between identical twins because of placental development and womb priorities, none of these are in anyway a ‘choice’ or are the differences resultant from them a ‘choice’.

          4) Yes, neurological development continues significantly post birth, being ‘born gay’ is a colloquialism for ‘been this way for as long as I can recall and never a conscious choice’, not science fact.

          5) No people don’t change their sexual orientation at will – they can change their sexual behavior but there is no indication they can change their feelings, even the bisexuals who have gone through the various conversion therapies admit their base attractions to their original partners hasn’t substantially changed, only their ability to suppress them.

          6) And not all preferences are willful choices, e.g. we know that humans naturally develop with lateralized specialization in the brain and that subsequent preferences are biological in nature, such as a right handed person ‘preferentially’ understanding language they hear in their right ear better than the left. Not a conscious preference or a choice by any useful definition of the terms.

          Similarly we know from extensive mammalian fetal development studies that the sexually dimorphic areas of the brain are first ‘wired’ for a typical female morphology and then late in gestation and even for a time after birth the there is extensive ‘overlaying’ of this base in males with the possibility of some in females. That this overlay process is affected by genetic, epigenetic and early environmental factors is well established and that there could be males and females with attraction to males and females across the entire spectrum dependent on when and what developmental variations eventually exist.

          Of course there are those who are attracted to just one séx, some with both, some with no real attraction to the individual’s séx at all but rather the rewards of sexual activity. There are many reasons why people have sexual activity other than just sexual orientation, not differentiating between these categories just clouds the issue. Remember, all studies show there are more bisexuals than homosexuals, all reasonable discussion has to take this into account when people change their self-identification which is not necessarily introspective or predictive.

          We are biological machines and we operate the way we are designed, some of our cognitive operations are no more choices than we could choose not to see colors when a black and white spinning wheel is before our eyes. Can we suppress or ignore some cognitive feelings and perceptions? yes, but actually change them in a substantive or conscious way? No.

          Which of course is irrelevant since it really doesn’t matter if sexual orientation were a choice – we let some citizens register with a male spouse then all should be able to, ditto a female one, why they want to is their own business in a government that exists to serve the people equally.

          • JCIL

            1. Attraction is based on preferences, not innate. Preferences are learned.

            2. Actually, genetics betrays your claim. It’s been proven countless times already. It’s a mistake to use the ‘left hand’ notion to support genetic influence.

            3. No, epigenetics is the study of gene expression throughout life.

            4. No basis for your assertion.

            5. Yes, they do. Sexual attraction and desire are fluid, not innate or set in stone. The statistics betray your assertion.

            6. ALL preferences are learned. No exception. This is why people can change them at will. Preferences are the easiest to change in belief systems.

            All of your comments are based on a lack of knowledge of human development and behaviour.

            “Can we suppress or ignore some cognitive feelings and perceptions? yes, but actually change them in a substantive or conscious way? No.”

            Yes to both. This is the foundation of CBT. Therapists help their clients do this all the time.

            It’s this same process that helps gays return to happy and satisfying hetero relationships, as many have.

          • Oshtur

            Thanks for making clear yours is just a form of dogma.

            1) obviously preferences can be innate, you are misusing the word.
            2) your mere denial about brain lateralization and resultant ‘preferences’ that are not choices is again just rejecting facts that don’t support your dogma.
            3) no, your usage of the term is wrong, read a book, shoot Wikipedia has it right!
            4) yes there is, if you are pedantically arguing against the phrase that agsins to this being about dogma.
            5) again a statement of dogma or personal experience not fact.
            6) if that is the definition you want to use then sexual orientation isn’t a preference, easy enough.

            CBT is about changing emotional states related with behaviors that are essentially neutral, CBT is used to make a dysphoric individual comfortable with their sexual orientation not change it.

            And again has nothing to do with this situation of universal access to the civil contract of marriage.

          • JCIL

            1. Preferences are learned. None are innate. Study psychology, behavioral science, and child development.

            2. It’s a mistake to medicalize the mind and behavior.

            3. http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/

            4. The data disproves the genetic and biological basis of gay attraction. Many times over.

            Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.”

            5 and 6. http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2006-07/article-pdfs/Dec06_Garnets_Peplau.pdf

            CBT is about addressing deep psychological and emotional issues that free a person from the bondage of unhealthy behavior.

            Being gay is a behavior. It stems from similar issues that CBT addresses.

            “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.” – Ex-Homosexual and ex-“gay rights” leader Michael Glatze

          • Oshtur

            1) That is not true. Preferences are based on innate qualities, we know there is wide variation on what each individual senses and how they process those sensations – common sense says that preferences are influenced by the biology.

            2) It is a mistake to ignore the neurological basis of our mind and our behavior and to think that structures with highly variable construction will allow the same level of operation regardless. Reminds me of the old claims that schizophrenia was a matter of will.

            3) That link just agreed with me.

            4) Ah, ‘gay attraction’ isn’t a thing. There is androphiles, gynophiles, and variations on that. We know there are biological mechanisms that make humans attracted to men and women and these have been identified in both males and females. There is no indication that attraction is based on choice in any useful term.

            5) & 6) I fully support that most women are bisexual in nature, as many surveys have indicated. There are many reasons to have séx, sexual attraction just one of them. Doesn’t say a thing about those who aren’t.

            CBT is specifically said to be ineffective in treating sexual orientation and sexual paraphilias.

            And Michael Glatze is who exactly?

          • JCIL

            1. Your common sense is wrong. If preferences are biological, why do we have to learn everything as newborns? What isn’t language inherited?

            2. With real mental illnesses, there can be biological problems. But biological doesn’t determine the will. Choices do. Just because a person is attracted to his neighbour’s wife, doesn’t mean he was born to have an affair.

            3. No it didn’t. Epigenetics is the study of gene expression, no matter the age.

            4. You are beating a dead horse. No matter how hard you try and rationalize it, research clearly disproves your assertions.

            5, 6. You missed the fluid part. Your assertions are baseless.

            “CBT is specifically said to be ineffective in treating sexual orientation and sexual paraphilias.”

            No it isn’t. Many people have been freed from the gay lifestyle through therapy. Micheal Glatze is an example.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Glatze

          • Oshtur

            1) right. If some preferences aren’t choices then they all aren’t choices. if some preferences are learned than all preferences are must be. Common sense says that’s just being evasive.

            2) “biological doesn’t determine ‘the will’. Sounds like that antique copy of the ‘Power of Will’ I have from the turn of the 20th century – one of the most popular self help book. Again, ‘will’ will not change how sensory input will be perceived merely how it is intellectually considered. No matter the person’s ‘will’ they will see false color from a spinning black and white will, all they can do is intellectually discount it.

            3) Epigenetics is relevant when it changes neurological structures and function.

            4) No, not at all – research shows structure difference between androphiles and gynophiles from items involving séx to how they process data while navigating. its one of the main things demonstrating that there is a qualitative difference between them. Not a dead horse, just information you want to ignore.

            5, 6. And you miss the report they are using in their thesis:

            “(a) Individual women will exhibit more variation across time than men in sexual behavior, (b) female sexuality will exhibit larger effects than male in response to most specific sociocultural variables, and (c) sexual attitude-behavior consistency will be lower for women than men.”

            Again, I agree women are more sexual fluid than men, just by the etiology of the neurological differences and the far lower levels of testostrogen make it more likely they will choose sexual partners by different criteria than just sexual attraction if their even is any at all. That again doesn’t say that biological androphilia and gynophilia don’t exist or aren’t present.

            “Freed”? Many more people have been “freed” from the straight lifestyle too, having entered it out of mere cultural inertia and bias rather than actual attraction.

            Again, there are many bisexuals, there are many asexuals who have séx for reasons other than sexual attraction, that says nothing about the people who are monosexual or the ability for them to ‘will’ their attraction away.

          • JCIL

            1. All preferences are learned, as stated a few times already. That is basic psychology. I can’t help if you don’t believe years and years of research.

            2. “will’ will not change how sensory input will be perceived merely how it is intellectually considered.”

            That is correct. The consideration part is what I’ve been talking about. The consideration part is done at a cognitive level, based on our systems of beliefs and decisions from them. Which is my point.

            3, I’m glad you now agree with my original statement. Gene expression is determined, for the most part, by behavior. So it’s not that our genes dictate what we do, but respond to what we do. Which again is what I’ve been saying. In other words, the biological responds to the behavioral, not the other way around.

            4. Structure differences don’t mean causal, but effect. A recent study showed differences in brain structure due between those who meditate and those who don’t. This isn’t to suggest the brain structure caused people to meditate, but responded to frequent meditation.

            5,6. Other studies have found men to be fluid as well. Just not as fluid as women. The causes remained the same: behavior.

            There are lots of variations, but that doesn’t mean ‘born that way.’ It means behavior, interests, preferences, circumstances, and so on.

  • http://textsincontext.wordpress.com Michael Snow
  • JCIL

    Aaron, I would like to keep discussing this issue with you, but I need to leave now. I’ll leave you with this:

    God’s laws still apply no matter what man decides and does. In the end, His will is sovereign and He will hold everyone to account of their behavior. There won’t be any excuses. That is a fact that no man can change no matter how much they deny God’s existence.

    Thank you for the civil conversation.

  • Rhonda Renee Albrecht

    If these 300+ Republicans ever opened their Bibles, and read it, then they would know, without any doubt, that same-sex marriage is NOT the position of the conservative people… who are, for the majority, Bible-believing Christians. That’s why we’re CONSERVATIVES, fools!

    • Paul Hiett

      Since SSM does nothing to you, at all, nor harms anyone else, it would suffice to say that it should not be up to the majority to dictate whether or not 3-5% of the country should be allowed to marry.

      • Gary

        Everyone is free to marry in the USA. But you have to meet the requirements, which are the same for everyone.

      • JCIL

        There are many harms for SSM. I won’t list them here. You may want to check for yourself. The list is staggering.

        • Paul Hiett

          There isn’t a single thing that SSM does that harms you by any stretch of the imagination. It harms no one at all.

    • Gary

      I doubt they even have a Bible. And even if they do, they don’t believe it.

      • Paul Hiett

        The Bible is not the source of morality, Gary. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

        • Gary

          It is for Christians.

          • Paul Hiett

            Which is fine. But we are not a theocracy, and in this country we do not make our laws based on your Bible.

          • Gary

            What do you base them on? And why is that a better base than the Bible?

          • Paul Hiett

            We base them on what we feel is moral, and in the event there’s a disagreement, we have people in place to decide if a law is or is nor moral or ethical. Morality clearly changes through time and societies outlook on life.

            Slavery, once clearly considered moral (and supported by the Bible, mind you) is looked upon with scorn and disdain now, and I would gather even you would consider it immoral.

            So, if the Bible is incapable of changing, but what we consider to be moral does change, that definitively proves that morality does not come from your book.

          • Gary

            What you “feel” is moral? I don’t care about what you feel. And the people in place to decide have no more credibility concerning morals than do you. People don’t decide what is moral. Only God has that authority. I am not bound by what you, or any other human says is moral. And neither are you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then how do you explain the same “moral” laws in place in every society around the world…places where Christianity doesn’t exist, or places that existed long before Christianity was around?

            The Romans certainly had those laws in place long before Christianity was even heard of. They clearly did not get those laws from the Bible, so how do you explain this?

  • anthonykeyes

    Excellent! It’s good to see those who think their supposed “morality” should be legislated pushed farther and farther into an ever shrinking corner.

    • Gary

      You prefer immoral laws. And that is one reason the country is rotting.

      • MisterPine

        Really, it’s not rotting because of the crazed, hateful fundamentalist zealots pretending to be Christians trying to legislate their twisted morality on the rest of us?

        • Gary

          Why is it “twisted morality” to limit marriage to a man and a woman? On what do you base your statement?

          • MisterPine

            The fact that in the real world some people are homosexual. I know you don’t like it and would like to kill them but people are people and have the right to live loving lives.

          • Gary

            Sez who? You mean people have the right to do whatever they want? Prove it.

          • MisterPine

            The fact that the government doesn’t make it against the law isn’t proof enough for you?

          • Gary

            Any right the government gives, the government can take away. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow. And conversely, what is illegal today could be legal tomorrow. Since the government now has no moral standards, there are many changes coming.

          • MisterPine

            There is no logical reason the US would turn into a Christian theocracy.

          • Gary

            You don’t believe that heterosexual only marriage laws make the US a theocracy?

          • MisterPine

            Not since those laws are being overturned, no.

          • Gary

            Then you believe America has been a theocracy up until now?

          • Paul Hiett

            Christians have certainly tried to make it so.

          • Gary

            You have no idea what a theocracy means. If there was a theocracy you would have been executed long ago.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, I most certainly do…and I didn’t say you had created one, I said Christians have tried to make it so. You constantly claim that the Bible is the only source of morality, and our laws should be based on that morality.

            How are you NOT trying to create a theocracy?

          • Gary

            Having moral laws does not make a theocracy. Having laws prohibiting murder, theft, extortion, rape, etc. do not make a theocracy. If they did, then there has always been a theocracy here, and clearly that is not the case. Apparently the only way to please you is to have all the laws be immoral. And we are fast headed in that direction.

          • Paul Hiett

            Those are not laws isolated to religion though. Those are laws common in every society, and have been around a lot longer than Christianity to be sure.

            You are trying to create a theocracy Gay, you’ve admitted as such before. It won’t work. It won’t be allowed.

          • Gary

            A theocracy is coming. And there is nothing you, or anyone else can do to stop it. If you try, you will be destroyed.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, until that day comes, anyone wishing to live in the US must abide by the laws of this country, whether the laws agree with any particular religion or not.

          • Gary

            You are unwilling to abide by the laws on marriage.

          • Paul Hiett

            Laws can be changed when found to be unjust. If SCOTUS believes the laws are unjust, they will change it, as they have in the past. We’re not perfect…and we’ll probably never have a perfect system. But, we’re fortunate here in this country that we can be so flexible.

          • Gary

            The courts have no authority to change the marriage laws in any state, unless the law is unconstitutional, and heterosexual only marriage laws are not unconstitutional. The courts that have overturned the traditional marriage laws have all acted unconstitutionally.

          • MisterPine

            No, it can be wrong without the help of Christianity.

  • BarkingDawg

    Deal with it, people. it’s all over.

    • Gary

      I beg to differ.

  • gwaltluv

    LOL, Gary, God doesn’t damn anyone because he’s all in your mind. That means you are the one damning people.

    • JCIL

      No one is able to definitively prove God doesn’t exist. This means He could.
      This also means you can’t say He is imaginary, which also means He could very well be the God of the Bible who does condemn gay behavior.

      The best you can say is that YOU don’t believe God is real. Saying He’s imaginary is an error in logic.

      • Paul Hiett

        So is saying he’s real.

        • JCIL

          “So is saying he’s real.”

          You have no way to prove God isn’t real.
          I’ve personally experienced the real God.

          That said, I can’t prove God to you. But I can give you lots of evidence that points to Him so that you can make an informed decision.

          God reveals Himself to whoever He chooses. If you want to experience the real God, ask Him to reveal Himself to you…or that He would lead you in the way to get to know Him.

          Sincerity, however, is important.

          If you genuinely want to personally experience God, you can. There is a way to get to know Him. He already knows you and loves you.

          Did you know that there isn’t anything you can do to make God love you? Even in your rebellion against Him?

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s right, you can’t prove God exists, nor can anyone prove he doesn’t. You also can’t prove that Odin isn’t real though. Nor can you prove that any deity isn’t real.

            You can’t sit there and claim that your god is real because we can’t prove he’s not, and then turn around and claim that all other gods aren’t real because they can’t be proven to exist.

            You can claim you’ve experienced your deity, but such claims are common in all religions. Your claim has as much validity as that of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. All are equally valid.

          • JCIL

            Are you saying I’m lying about having a relationship with God?

            There are a lot of things no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt: tomorrow, love, gravity, how the mind works, and so on.

            But we can evaluate the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion.

            “You can’t sit there and claim that your god is real because we can’t prove he’s not, and then turn around and claim that all other gods aren’t real because they can’t be proven to exist.”

            Actually, I can. God said He is the only God. When I welcomed God into my life, He showed up and demonstrated He is real. Since the Christian God is real, and since He says there are no others, that alone disproves all other gods.

            Will that work for you, no. Because you haven’t experienced the real God. The only thing you can go on is evidence that either points to Him, or away from Him.

            Since you have no evidence that points away from Him, and since there is an abundance of evidence that points to Him, the logical conclusion is obvious.

  • Harry Oh!

    These RINO’s are simply trying to keep their jobs. It’s getting harder and harder for anyone who runs for public office to denounce homosexuality. The next Presidential election will NOT go to a candidate who opposes the gaystapo. They have too much influence and America is too weak and indifferent to fight them. The fall will go very fast now.

  • jmichael39

    they’re using the incorporation argument suggesting that the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states also…making them not merely restrictions on the Federal Government. It is an argument that has been increasingly popular and successful despite the fact that the original intent of the drafters of the Amendment was not to incorporate it into the BoR.

  • JCIL

    Paul Hiett. I sincerely apologize for falsely accusing you of being Better andBetter (Badkey). During the heat of our conversation I misinterpreted your comments for his. I also apologize for my aggressive comments toward you and ask for your forgiveness.

    It was a mistake on my part, for which I am sorry.

    • Gary

      They are birds of a feather. Both wicked as Hell.

    • Paul Hiett

      Thank you JCIL, I appreciate the apology.

      • JCIL

        Thank you, Paul. I appreciate your forgiveness. If you choose, I look forward to many civil discussions with you. Please let me know if I get too ‘crusty.’ 🙂

        • Gary

          Trying to be nice to perverts will not work.

          • Paul Hiett

            Gary, for the record, not that it matters, I’m not gay. I am an atheist though. Feel free to hate me for that.

          • Gary

            You are a pervert pimp. Your mind is perverted. You are morally as evil as any homosexual.

          • Paul Hiett

            Hard to believe I’m as bad, or worse, apparently, than a murderer or rapist.

            You really think gay people and atheists are evil?

          • Gary

            You are absolutely evil. According to the Bible.

          • Paul Hiett

            So even though I’ve never been arrested, never killed anyone, never assaulted anyone, never raped, never stolen…I”m “evil”?

            That’s what your Bible says?

          • Gary

            Yep. You don’t have to commit every sin there is in order to be wicked.

          • JCIL

            Gary, I understand your frustration. But we’re all wicked (sinful). None of us deserves God’s mercy or love…but He extends it because of who He is, not because of what we deserve or how we behave.

          • Gary

            I agree that no one is deserving of God’s mercy. If anyone deserved it, it would not be mercy. But I think you and I would disagree about the prospects of salvation for the queers and their supporters. I believe God has given them up and wants nothing to do with them.

          • JCIL

            Sin separates all of us from God. But anyone, including gays, can be saved if they put their genuine trust in Christ.

            But I also agree that God does turn His back on those with ongoing rebellion. This is why the only unforgivable sin is the wilful ongoing rejection of Christ.

          • Gary

            I don’t believe God will allow open, proud homosexuals, OR their promoters to have faith.

          • JCIL

            I disagree. Anyone can welcome Christ into their lives and at any state in their sinfulness. It’s the Holy Spirit that enables them to turn away from sin.

            Christ interacted with sinners. All of them were sinners when they were saved. Salvation is the first step in the sanctification process.

          • Gary

            Faith is a gift of God. And it is not given to everyone. You don’t repent of your sins and become a believer whenever you want. We are not in control of that.

          • JCIL

            We are in control of the choices we make. People choose to follow Christ. Christ can increase of faith after that.

          • Gary

            You only choose to follow Christ if God allows you to. God does not give faith to everyone. If He did, no one would be in Hell.

          • JCIL

            God gave us free will to choose for ourselves. God knocks at our hearts, but we can choose to let Him in or not.

            If God didn’t give us free will to decide, evangelism is a waste of time and so was Christ’s death.

          • JCIL

            I don’t perceive Paul to be any more perverted that us Christians. We’re still sinners too. Gay behavior is a sin, but that’s not different than cheating on taxes, viewing p orn, breaking the law, etc.

            We’re all sinners. The only difference is that Christians’ sins are covered by Christ.

          • Gary

            You don’t think Paul is any more perverted than us Christians? That is absurd. Insane. Christians do not promote homosexuality.

          • JCIL

            We’re all sinful in our own ways. So was Paul and he admitted it. The only thing that makes us Christian is that we trust in Christ and work at not sinning.

            I don’t agree with homosexuality either. Neither does God. Christians should fight against normalizing immoral behavior. But we live in a democratic country where people can choose to follows God’s moral laws or not. That’s the reality.

            God gave all of us free will. We can use it whichever way we choose. But that doesn’t suggest even for a moment that there aren’t going to be consequences. All sin is punished, except for those in Christ.

            While we may not like it right now, if Godly people aren’t standing up for Godly principles, this is what we get…trusting that God will have the final say in the end.

  • Gary

    I do appreciate those Republicans telling everyone which side they are on. I like to know who my enemies are. Better that they are open about what they are than to be hypocrites.

  • JCIL

    “We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences.” – Council for Responsible Genetics, BRIEF ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENETIC DETERMINISM

    • Paul Hiett

      But what your body responds to, sensually, is not something you control.

      This is easily proved by simply looking at what you consider to be a “turn on”. Are you at all aroused by the site of the same gender?

      I assume you feel no attraction to other men, which clearly proves that orientation is not a choice people make. Actually engage in same-sex coitus IS a choice, as that is behavior…but the feelings of arousal one has towards either the same gender or the opposite is not a feeling people get to choose.

      • JCIL

        “But what your body responds to, sensually, is not something you control.”

        Yes, it is. CBT therapists help their clients do this all the time. If you don’t have this training, or learned the skills from a therapist, it might seem like you can’t control them, but you actually can.

        The mistake you are making is not understanding how our preferences are shaped and how they influence behavior.

        I can explain if you like.

        • Paul Hiett

          Are you then suggesting that you feel attraction to men as well as women?

          The majority of people…probably 99%…don’t choose their orientation. Sure, maybe some do, but they are clearly in the minority. You, and many Christians, constantly make the mistake of believing that it can be controlled, yet fail to look inside yourself at what turns you on.

          Therapy, medication, tests, research…none of that makes any difference. If a person looks at a member of the same gender and finds no arousal, but does find it when they look at the opposite gender, that means they are straight.

          If they are aroused looking at the same gender, they’re either bi or gay. You really can’t relate because you’re prejudiced against believing that people can’t control their attractions. You, personally, have no idea what it’s like to be attracted to the same gender…and I concur I don’t either…so what puts us in a position to judge others that do? How can you possibly suggest that orientation is a choice when you don’t know what it’s like to be attracted to the same gender?

          • JCIL

            “Are you then suggesting that you feel attraction to men as well as women?”

            You don’t understand the mechanisms behind attraction. This is what is confusing you.

            “The majority of people…probably 99%…don’t choose their orientation.”

            Yes, they do. They may not know why they are attracted to a person, but it is a choice nonetheless.

  • JCIL

    We examined reports of sexual orientation identity stability and change over a 10-year period drawing on data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS I and II) and tested for three patterns: (1) het- erosexual stability, (2) female sexual fluidity, and (3) bisexual fluidity.

    Fifty-four percent of the 2,560 participants were female and the average age was approximately 47 years. At Wave 1, 2,494 (97.42%) reported a heterosexual identity, 32 (1.25%) a homosexual identity, and 34 (1.33%) a bisexual identity and somewhat more than 2% reported a different sexual orientation identity at Wave 2. – Steven E. Mock • Richard P. Eibach, Stability and Change in Sexual Orientation Identity Over a 10-Year Period in Adulthood

  • JCIL

    “Scientific research has refuted many common myths and offers a new view of women’s sexual orientations. A new view emphasizes several well- documented findings, which includes the following:

    – Women’s sexual orientation is potentially fluid, is shaped by life experi- ences, and can change over the life span.

    – intimate relationships are often more central to women’s sexual orientation than sexual behavior.

    – A lesbian sexual orientation does not result from biological abnormalities. Biological influences on sexual orientation are limited and indirect.

    – Women’s sexual orientation is shaped by such social and cultural factors as women’s education, social status and power, economic opportunities, and attitudes about women’s roles.

    – There is no single developmental pathway leading to a heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian outcome.”

    “Scholars from many disciplines have noted that women’s sexuality tends to be fluid, malleable, shaped by life experiences, and capable of change over time. female sexual development is a potentially continuous, lifelong process in which multiple changes in sexual orientation are possible.” – by Linda D. Garnets and Letitia Anne Peplau, A New Look at Women’s Sexuality & Sexual Orientation

  • Gary

    We are not robots. Sexual behavior is always a choice. Those looking for an excuse for their homosexuality are engaging in futility.

    • Paul Hiett

      Behavior is a choice, Gary. You’re right on that front.

      Orientation is what is not a choice.

      I hope you understand the difference.

      • Gary

        It does not matter. The only thing that matters is what we choose to do.

        • Paul Hiett

          Easy for you to say, since your “god” made you straight.

          • Gary

            God says if I want to have s-x, I must marry a woman, since I am a man, and only have s-x with her. And everyone is under the same rules.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, no…we’re not all under the same rules. You have your religion that you have chosen to follow the rules thereof. Other have chosen different religions, which have different rules. As an atheist, I have no such rules, other than the laws of the country I reside in.

            Your choice of a religion does not dictate what others may or may not do.

          • Gary

            If you break God’s rules, you will be punished. God makes the rules, and He enforces them.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not a Christian, so no, I won’t.

          • Gary

            You not being a Christian does not exempt you from God’s rules.

          • Paul Hiett

            It most certainly does. Those who follow their religions rules have their own deity to worry about, while us atheists don’t have to worry about any of them. That’s the nice thing about atheism…we don’t live in fear of breaking any religious rules.

            Well, not here in America at least.

          • Gary

            Your denials will do you no good. You cannot be exempted from God’s laws by denying that they apply to you. God will punish you, whether you believe He will or not. All you are doing is fooling yourself.

          • Paul Hiett

            As has been mentioned before, there are way too many possibilities…way too many religions…for any one to claim theirs is the “right one”.

            I’ll happily take my chances against such small odds.

          • Gary

            You might as well say that the law of gravity does not apply to you. You have no chance. You are in trouble with God, and you can’t get out of it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Your problem is that you think it’s black and white…that it’s either Christianity or nothing.

            All religions have the same small chance of being right. Believing in yours grants it no more credence than a believer of any other religion would with their religion…atheism included, by the way.

            So, all things being equal, I think I’m pretty safe.

      • JCIL

        “Orientation is what is not a choice.”

        All preferences are choices. Orientation is a preference.

        • Paul Hiett

          No, it’s not. You don’t get this because you’re straight…you can’t relate it appears.

          Think about your attraction to the opposite gender. That’s the same attraction feeling that a gay person has to their same gender.

          Now, if they choose to engage in coitus with that other person, THAT is the behavioral choice they have made. However, the attraction that they feel is not a choice.

          • JCIL

            “No, it’s not. You don’t get this because you’re straight…you can’t relate it appears.”

            It’s not about straight or gay. It’s about how humans develop their preferences. ALL of them.

            I can explain all of this if you like.

          • Paul Hiett

            Think about the foods that you don’t like. You don’t just choose to not like the taste of something. Either you do, or you don’t. It’s not a choice you are making…it’s not influenced by anything other than your taste buds, so you either like said food, or you don’t based on how the taste makes you feel.

            Sexual orientation works the same way.

          • JCIL

            “You don’t just choose to not like the taste of something.”

            Actually, you do. This is called a preference. We learn them as we encounter life and make decisions about it.

            Would you like me to explain this so you have a better understanding?

          • Paul Hiett

            But you don’t choose those preferences…you don’t choose what your body and mind respond to positively and negatively.

            A piece of art, for example…either you like it, or you don’t. The person next to you might love it, while you think it’s crap.

            Again, not a choice. Explain it all you want, but your explanation is not going to be an accepted viewpoint, except maybe by other Christians.

          • JCIL

            I’ve explained this above.

  • JCIL

    Paul, you are trying to understand behavior from an uneducated point of view. This is the reason you are having difficulty grasping the concepts.

    Our system of beliefs is made up of three main components:

    Values – concepts of right and wrong / good or bad

    Beliefs – concepts of true and false

    Preferences – concepts of like and dislike

    We develop our system of beliefs essentially from scratch the moment the brain is able to process.

    As we encounter life, we construct our system of beliefs based on our opinions about our life experience. For example, if your parents teach you that hitting someone is wrong, you internalize (believe) hitting someone is wrong…and that is recorded in your ‘values’ category.

    If you conclude your mom loves you, that conclusion is recorded in your ‘beliefs’ category as, “My mom loves me…it’s true.”

    If you prefer the taste of vanilla over strawberry, that conclusion is recorded in your ‘preferences’ category. And on it goes. We build our system of beliefs based on every conclusion we make.

    This is why child development and the environment we grow up in is key to a healthy system of beliefs.

    As we interact in life, our system of beliefs influences our behaviors – the ways we think and act.

    For example, if a child hits you, you may become upset because your ‘values’ says hitting is wrong. This value may prevent you from striking back.

    Or, if someone says your mom doesn’t love you, you would probably disagree because your ‘belief’ says it’s true, you mom does love you. You know that to be true. Based on that ‘belief,’ you’ll act accordingly.

    Or, if someone asks you would you like a vanilla or strawberry ice cream cone, your recorded ‘preference’ influences you to choose vanilla because you learned you liked it more than strawberry.

    There are many reasons why we conclude the things we do, but none of them is innate. They are learned.

    Humor is a good example. We learn what we think is funny. If someone tells you a joke you don’t think is funny, you won’t laugh.

    Attraction is the same way. We learn what we like and don’t like. If we see something that resonates with our learned ‘preferences,’ we’ll be attracted to it.

    This is how orientation is established – based on a series of learned beliefs.

    Based on the ingredients of our system of beliefs, we choose to behave.

    While untrained people may not know why they behave the way they do, it’s all learned patterns based on a series of learned conclusions.

    From them, we exercise our free will.

    • Paul Hiett

      I would disagree that I am approaching this subject from an uneducated point of view. I did not major in behavioral sciences, mind you, but the classes I did take on the subject have rendered me with at least a semblance of an educated position.

      Your claim that we choose our orientation is just…well, sorry, but it’s just wrong. Even the APA recognizes that orientation is not a choice people make.

      You even actually support my stance without knowing it. Take, for instance, your example of the strawberry vs vanilla ice cream. Assuming it was the first time I was tasting the two flavors, my body might react favorably to the vanilla, while considering the strawberry to be bland and less flavorful. The next time I am presented with the choices, I am going to choose vanilla.

      Now, here’s where your example supports my claim. The choice between vanilla and strawberry is exactly that…a choice that I am conscientiously making. However, the reason I have made that choice is because I simply don’t like strawberry….I like vanilla. I was not taught that strawberry is bad, or that vanilla was good. I was simply offered both of them, and decided, based on the involuntary reaction of pleasure from the vanilla and the distaste from the strawberry, that I only like vanilla.

      Again, the behavior is the choice, but the attraction is not. I can still choose to eat the strawberry, but I am not going to like it because the taste is not something I like, of which I have no control over.

      • JCIL

        “Your claim that we choose our orientation is just…well, sorry, but it’s just wrong. ”

        No, it’s not. The APA is pandering to gay activist pressure. One thing they do say is that no one is born gay.

        “Assuming it was the first time I was tasting the two flavors, my body might react favorably to the vanilla, while considering the strawberry to be bland and less flavourful.”

        Preferences are subjective. I learned to dislike a certain flavour because I tasted it with another flavour in my mouth and the two clashed. It had nothing to do with a biological response, but everything to do with the combination of flavours. I didn’t realize that when I was young. I just made the conclusion anyway. Years later I learned to like that flavour.

        There are many reasons why we arrive at our preferences, and none have to do with innate reasons.

        Behavior is a choice. Attraction is based on our learned preferences which influence our choices.

        • Paul Hiett

          The APA is quite unbiased. They neither gain nor lose anything from their stated findings. There is no “gay agenda” on their part…i think you just don’t like their findings.

          Regardless, going back to your example here, the fact that you found that taste, at that time, disgusting, was not a choice you made. Your body responded to the flavor with a chemical reaction in your brain that resulted in you not liking that flavor. That was not you making a choice…that was your body simply responding to the stimuli you gave it. The chemical reaction in your brain is what controlled whether or not you liked it.

          Furthermore, children have even less control over what they like and do not like, further bolstering my point here. I can pretend that something tastes great all I want…my daughter will either like it, or not like it. That’s not a choice she makes at all, it’s her brain creating a negative experience.

          For instance, she hates the taste of broccoli. I love it. I go on and on about how much I like it when we have it. In fact, for all I know, she’s never heard anyone proclaim a negative reaction to it…even her mother likes broccoli, so we know that she’s not being given a negative influence towards it.

          Yet, she says she simply does not like the taste. She’ll eat green beans, carrots, even brussel sprouts which I hate…but not broccoli. Clearly and definitively, her dislike of the taste is not something she chooses. Simply put, this is yet another proof that there are many things we have no control over in our bodies/minds. Sexual orientation is yet another one of those things.

          • JCIL

            Sorry, Paul. With all respect, you don’t understand what you are talking about. If you studied child development, you would quickly realize they learn a lot in a very short period of time. They are making conclusions even before they are born. They most certainly know what they like and don’t like. A tantrum is a good example of them knowing what they don’t like. Crying for a feeding is another. Crying because their diaper is full is another.

            Your assertions are in opposition to mounds of research.

            I have a question. Are you married?

          • Paul Hiett

            I am divorced, but happily engaged at this time.

            Children make no conclusions about anything before they are born. They don’t know right from wrong, they don’t know if they like broccoli or mushrooms or ice cream, until they’ve had a chance to experience them, and decide, based upon the chemical reactions in their brains, whether they like them or not.

            This is really simple behavioral studies.

          • JCIL

            “Children make no conclusions about anything before they are born.”

            Yes, they do. It’s surprising how much a newborn knows.

            “They don’t know right from wrong”

            Actually they do: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034798/Children-born-know-right-wrong-new-research-shows.html#ixzz3RpjgxhXP

  • JCIL

    Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.”

    • Paul Hiett

      Of out curiosity, when and where did he say this? I ask because the only place I can find it is the illinoisfamily.org article where you copied and pasted it from.

      • JCIL

        Thanks for the link. I didn’t get it from there, but it was included in a larger study I have.

        • Paul Hiett

          I have looked all over the internet and can find it only in one place. No offense, but this smells fishy.

          • JCIL

            It might be on others. What is wrong with the Illinois family website? It has some genuine research.

          • Paul Hiett

            Because it does not cite the source of the quote. Where did he make it? When? What was the context? Why did he make it?

            Just claiming someone said something without citing the source raises a red flag.

          • JCIL

            Most people don’t cite the sources of quotes in online articles. One way to see if the quote is untrue, or quoted incorrectly, is to see if there is a rebuttal online.

          • Paul Hiett

            I can’t find that quote anywhere else online. It exists only in one place, and it’s not an article that that person wrote.

            You don’t see the issue with that?

          • JCIL

            Not really. It’s fairly standard. With online articles. It’s most likely from one of his writings. Since he hasn’t disputed it, it doesn’t pose a problem.

            With all of the other quotes I’ve posted, why is this one so important?

  • JCIL

    Anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: “Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it’s impossible that that’s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.”

  • JCIL

    “Homosexuality is not an affliction like mental retardation or cancer; it is a group of problems, which together produce homosexual attractions and behavior.” – Alan Medinger, ex-gay

    • Paul Hiett

      You can’t point to one man’s experience as an experience for the whole!!!!

      • JCIL

        There are many many people who have done this. But even one breaks the ‘born this way’ notion.

  • JCIL

    “I worked to overcome feelings of inadequacy and incompetence as a man. As I worked with my counselor to fill my emotional needs, extinguish harmful behaviors, and heal emotional wounds, I noticed my homosexual compulsions becoming less intense. With time, they began to subside. Then, subtly, I noticed heterosexual feelings starting to emerge. These new feelings grew slowly as I continued progressing through the recovery process.” – “Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency”, Floyd and Kae Godfrey

  • JCIL
  • JCIL

    In the mid-1990’s, Dr. Diamond recruited a group of 90 women at gay pride parades, academic conferences on gender issues and other venues. About half of the women called themselves lesbians, a third identified as bisexual and the rest claimed no sexual orientation. In follow-up interviews over the last 10 years, Dr. Diamond has found that most of these women have had relationships both with men and women.

  • JCIL

    The American College of Pediatricians released fact-sheet for use, stating, “There is no Genetic cause to homosexuality. It’s caused by environmental, familial and temporal issues”.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Facts About Youth[edit]
      In response to the publication by AAP of Just the Facts, a handbook on teen sexual orientation aimed at a school audience, ACPeds published its own Facts About Youth in March 2010,[1]accompanied by a web site.[14] Facts About Youth, along with a cover letter,[15] was mailed to 14,800 school superintendents on behalf of Tom Benton, president of ACPeds. Facts About Youth was challenged as not acknowledging the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[16] The ACPeds letter to the superintendents primarily addressed same-sex attraction, and recommended that “well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel” who encourage students to “come out as gay” and affirm them as such may lead the students into “harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.” The ACPeds letter to the superintendents also stated that gender identity disorder will typically disappear by puberty “if the behavior is not reinforced.”[17]

      Copied and pasted from wikipedia.

      • JCIL

        Gay activism hard at work suppressing research.

  • JCIL

    “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,” says John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is a behavior, not a condition, and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.

  • JCIL

    “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.” William H. Masters, codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute, Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Have you tried researching any of this with a non-biased source? Perhaps an organization other than the Christian Research Institute would be a good place to start.

      • JCIL

        I’ve provided a wide variety of research on this matter from many different sources.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          I see, and how many articles did you find that contradict the one’s that you’ve cherry picked for this forum?

          • JCIL

            Naturally, you’ll find lots of gay propaganda online. But the fact that studies, and multiple studies, refute the propaganda claims negates all of it.

            One exception to the rule negates the rule.

            There are thousands of ex gays. That alone should tell you what is true. Even many gays themselves don’t believe the ‘born that way’ marketing strategy. It was used to gain sympathy and acceptance. But it was a lie.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You’ll believe what you want to believe regardless. Luckily for the rest of us, we don’t have to live in a world dictated by your doctrine any more.

          • JCIL

            “You’ll believe what you want to believe regardless”

            I believe in what is true. Facts are facts!

            “Luckily for the rest of us, we don’t have to live in a world dictated by your doctrine any more”

            You live in a world dictated by your own desires. That is far worse than anything. Christ came to set us free from that bondage…if you are interested in being set free.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You must have a very loose definition of the word fact.

          • JCIL

            I use the standard definition.

  • JCIL

    “I am one of thousands of men and women who have come out of the gay lifestyle,” he said after recounting the turbulent history of his life. “But the media and other people, gay activists, don’t want you to hear that. You know why? Because the entire gay agenda is build on a faulty sinking foundation. Two pillars: Number one—that you are born gay. And number two—that you can’t change. I am living proof that both of those are faulty and wrong. – Stephen Bennett, a recovered homosexual now happily married to his wife for twelve years.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      For every one person who claims that they are proof that you can change your orientation, I’d wager that you can find 50+ who went back to being gay.

      • JCIL

        Many people return to smoking after quitting. Does that mean they were born to smoke?

        • Paul Hiett

          There are some people more prone to addiction…some to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

          • JCIL

            Born that way too?

          • Paul Hiett

            Well yes. Take a look at the Native American population. The stereotype that they have alcohol problems is a stereotype for a reason. There is something genetically encoded in them that reduces their ability to tolerate alcohol.

          • JCIL

            There are many reasons people are vulnerable to addictions. Almost all are behaviourally motivated.

            Using your example, should we legalize native alcoholism and drunkardness because their bodies don’t tolerate alcohol well? What forces them to drink?

          • Paul Hiett

            It is legal. I’m simply pointing out that some peoples chemical makeup in their bodies reacts differently than others. This leads such people to be far more susceptible to such addictions than others.

            No, no one forced that drink in their hand, but once they have had a drink, it affects them much differently than you or I. This is a genetic issue, and not one comprised of choice.

            Yes, it’s a choice for them to pick up that drink, but it’s not a choice that they get addicted to it. So yes, some people are “born that way” when it comes to drug/tobacco/alcohol addictions.

          • JCIL

            “I’m simply pointing out that some peoples chemical makeup in their bodies reacts differently than others.

            That is true from a chemical standpoint, but not behavioral. Biology doesn’t dictate behavior.

            “but it’s not a choice that they get addicted to it.’

            Of course it is. If he knows there could be a problem, he can merely make different decisions. Addictions are never started by themselves, but by behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re missing the point. The genetic predisposition to become addicted to a substance is not a behavior.

            It proves that there are things people are simply born with. Intolerance to certain substances are one of them.

            There are other things people are born with, such as sexual orientation. And while the “gay gene” has not been found, nor has anyone put forth any viable information that it is NOT a trait we have no control over.

            If you cannot prove that sexual orientation is a choice, then you must admit that there is a chance, however small you wish to concede, that it is a biological cause, and not a behavioral one.

          • JCIL

            “The genetic predisposition to become addicted to a substance is not a behavior.”

            All of us have predispositions. But that doesn’t mean destiny. All of us have genes that ‘could’ turn on or ‘brighten’ if we engage in certain types of behaviors. If we don’t, they remain ‘off’ or ‘dim.’

            Epigenetics is the study of gene expression. It has found that behavior is the primary motivated by gene expression. This means we have great say over what the body does other than heritable physical traits such as height, eye colour, bone structure, and so on. But genes don’t dictate behavior.

            “If you cannot prove that sexual orientation is a choice”

            But it has already been proven. Prison studies, child development studies, sexual development studies, and so on, already know the cause. It hasn’t been officially confirmed due to gay suppression and public acceptance. In other words, the reason is political, not scientific.

            As an example of this, from 1985 to 2011, the public was told mental health disorders (such as anxiety, depression, mood disorders) were caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Cognitive therapists knew this wasn’t true, but big pharma suppressed their information. But in 2011, an official statement was made by the American Psychiatric Association that the chemical imbalance was false. Shortly afterward, big pharma admitted that the chemical imbalance notion should have been used as a metaphor rather than actual. It was only when independent research became so abundant that they were forced to quit lying to the public.

            If you look online, you’ll most likely still find official organizations saying the chemical imbalance is real…even though it had been debunked 4 years ago.

            This is the state of research and science today. More political than factual.

            The fact that countless people have returned to a hetero lifestyle clearly shows no one is born gay. That’s what the research shows.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, it most certainly has not been proven, and no amount of “well it’s being covered up” nonsense will change that fact. There is no scientific study that proves, either for or against, people are not “born gay”.

            There is no “gay suppression” going on, that’s merely an opinion on your part, and nothing more. There are simply no studies that have been able to prove it exists, or doesn’t exist.

            However, the fact remains that orientation is not a choice people make for themselves. I again point to the fact that you don’t have any same-sex urges yourself. You’re straight. What you don’t seem to be able to understand is that how you feel about women is how some men feel about men. I know it’s hard to do…you can’t even fathom what that must feel like…to become aroused at the sight of another man. I concur, I don’t know either.

            But, I do know what it’s like to be aroused at the sight of a woman. Once you accept that your hetero feelings are the same as what a homosexual feels, it should finally start to make sense.

          • JCIL

            “There is no scientific study that proves, either for or against, people are not “born gay”.”

            Are you saying you don’t believe all of the quotes and statistics I’ve been posting?

            Regarding gay suppression:

            In 1970, gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            “the fact remains that orientation is not a choice people make for themselves.”

            Yes, it is. I’ve explained this. I posted links to many sources, including child sexual development. Your opinion doesn’t agree with research…or other gays.

            In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing in the online publication Queerty: “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.”

            http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/queer-by-choice-not-by-chance-against-being-born-this-way/244898/

            http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_What_Normal/

            “Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.”

            Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes:

            “Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.

            “She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females. Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have changed labels,” Stepp reports.”

  • JCIL

    The ‘born this way’ rationale can apply to any behavior:
    – Are criminals born to steal (they have an attraction to other people’s property)?
    – Are Ped o file born to abuse children (they have an attraction to children)?
    – Are adulterers born to cheat on their spouses (they have an attraction to other people’s spouses)?
    – Are people born to speed (they have a proclivity to drive fast)?
    – Are people born to cheat on their taxes (they have desire to save money)?
    – Are people born to murder (they have an affinity to kill)?
    – Are people born to do drugs (they have an attraction to getting high)?
    – Are people who make love to animals born that way (they are attracted to animals)?
    – Are people born to over eat (they desire food)?
    – Are people born to have multiple partners (they desire multiple mates)?
    – Are people who are addicted to p orn born that way (they desire to satiate their sexual appetites)?

    It doesn’t take very long to realize how unfounded the ‘born this way’ manta is.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      When your side tried, unsuccessfully, in court to use these same arguments it didn’t work. That’s because my being gay in no way affects the lives of the people around me. Most of these things are crimes making them ILLEGAL.The ones that aren’t (namely over eating, multiple partners, and porn addiction) are ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Also, I hope you’re at the all you can eat buffet every Sunday after church to count the number of gluttonous Christians. You clean up your house before you start worrying about mine.

      • JCIL

        “That’s because my being gay in no way affects the lives of the people around me. ”

        That’s another story that I won’t addres here.

        Social pressure can bring about change even though it isn’t supported by research (examples too numerous to mention).

        You can take any behavior and use the ‘born this way’ rationale. But common sense quickly illuminates what is really true.

        What is my business is when gay rights trump my rights. You can bet that many Christians are going to rise up and fight against such oppression. The good news is that we have God on our side and the percentage of people. What is missing is knowledge, and that is coming.

        You can do with your life and body whatever it is you want to do. But there will be consequences as God is the ultimate authority, not people’s opinions and personal preferences.

        So enjoy your time now. It is short.

        • Paul Hiett

          What “gay right” trumps any of your rights?

          • JCIL

            Gay straight alliances in Canada forcing their way into Catholic schools, is one.

            Justice’s of the Peace forced to resign because they didn’t agree with gay marriage, is another.

            There are many more.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t know about anything in Canada, or anything about a gay-straight alliance.

            However, a Justice of the Peace that refuses to obey the law based on his own religious beliefs IS breaking the law himself. Either uphold the laws of this country, even if they change, or get our of the justice system.

            This is a bad example of “gay rights” trumping other rights. The judge cannot use his own religious beliefs to rule, it’s illegal, but in no way have his rights been trumped. He’s simply trying to claim that his religious beliefs trump the laws of this country.

          • JCIL

            “a Justice of the Peace that refuses to obey the law based on his own religious beliefs IS breaking the law himself.”

            He had a job prior to gay marriage. Because of his beliefs, he lost his job, many others had that fate too. This is just one example.

            You asked for an example. This is one.

            How about the bakery that had to close because a gay couple decided to make an example?

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            His job wasn’t to impose Christian morality on his court, his job was to enforce the law. If he cannot do his job without infringing on the rights of others, then he does not belong there.

          • JCIL

            This is an example of gay rights oppressing some one else’s. You can try and justify it, but it is still an oppression of freedom of beliefs. If this would have happened to a gay person, the ruckus would have been heard around the world.

          • MisterPine

            I live in Canada and gay-straight alliances occur in the public school system, and possibly at some private schools, but not in Catholic schools.
            They are a very good thing, as they prevent kids from religious bullying.

          • JCIL

            Ontario and Alberta are in the process of forcing Catholic schools to have these alliances, even though it goes against Christian beliefs.

            They are a bad thing as it is condoning immoral behavior. These childrens’ eternity is at state…a fate far worse the bullying.

          • MisterPine

            No. No Catholic schools are enforcing this.

            Kids have a right to go to school and not be beaten up and bullied by violent Christian bigots and homophobes.

          • JCIL

            You better check for yourself. Have you seen the latest Sx education Ontario wants to force into schools?

          • MisterPine

            Yes I did, and I heard it was being challenged, quite rightly – but what does that have to do with kids forming alliances at school to keep themselves from betting beaten up by bigots?

          • MisterPine
          • NCOriolesFan

            When politicians around the country come up with these so-called ‘non-discrimination’ laws to give homos special ‘protection’ rights demanding the local community accept their deviant life styles or face legal action, violating the morality and faith values of the local community

          • Paul Hiett

            No one is forcing you to accept it. You can hate it, you can speak out against it…you can let the entire world see how much you hate homosexuality. But, you can’t actually do something that infringes on the rights of another human being for the sole reason being that you don’t like their sexual lifestyle.

            That’s what makes this country so great. You are free to hate, but you can’t act on that hate.

      • NCOriolesFan

        “my being gay in no way affects the lives of the people around me….”
        Really, have you ever bothered to ask anyone how they feel about you?

        • Paul Hiett

          It shouldn’t matter what someone else “feels” about you. Civil rights are not about whether someone makes you feel icky.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          It is none of my business how strangers “feel” about me. I’m still not affecting their lives by being gay.

          • NCOriolesFan

            “None of my business….” Well now that’s real selfish to think of others like that. As long as I get my way, to hell with anyone else.

          • Paul Hiett

            No it’s not. That has nothing to do with anything. Just because you think something is “icky” doesn’t make it wrong, and certainly not illegal.

          • MattFCharlestonSC

            You can’t live your life worried what people might think of you. I mentioned strangers because they’re the only people who might have an issue with me. My family loves and supports me.

  • JCIL

    An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, “Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays,” summarizes 11 studies and concludes: “My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others.”

    • Paul Hiett

      Warren Throckmorton? Really? You don’t think he’s just a wee tad biased?

      • JCIL

        All researchers are biased. I’ve tried to provide a wide range of opinions. The consensus is clear.

        • Paul Hiett

          You do realize I can also cite studies that suggest the opposite? All of them valid…

          • JCIL

            That is the nature of almost every topic, especially those about behavior. I can still find numerous studies showing the chemical imbalance cause for mental health issues is real…even though it was soundly debunked years ago. The Internet is full of old and misinformed information. Out-and-out lies, too.

            I believe, however, we are at the beginning stages of clearing all of this up. I look forward to the day when the truth is agreed upon.

          • Paul Hiett

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/choose_to_be_gay_no_you_don_t.html

            http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf

            http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation

            These are not “lies” by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they biased by people like Throckmorton or Whitehead who use religions beliefs to skew results towards what they want.

          • JCIL

            The first is an opinion piece who generalizes based on his opinion.

            The second has already been proven wrong (birth order has nothing to do with gay behavior). This was debunked about 10 years later.

            The third is from a generic medical webiste, which states, “it is becoming clear that many of these disorders [anxiety] are caused by a combination of factors, including changes in the brain and environmental stress.”

            There is no truth to these claims about anxiety. This is misinformation about something that is so widely understood today.

            This is what I mean by having to be discerning in reviewing research as you can find anything online today. But that doesn’t make it true.

  • JCIL

    Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

    Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

    “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

    Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

    • Paul Hiett

      Sorry, but anyone who is a member of NARTH is not to be taken seriously.

      They promote ridiculing gender variant children.

      • JCIL

        That is the problem today. If you disagree with a person or approach, the entire research is discredited…even though the research is sound.

        But, people will be people. Believe what they want. Do as they please no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary.

        • Paul Hiett

          I’m sorry, but again, anyone associated with NARTH is not to be taken seriously. They have no credibility, and any “study” done by such a member has to be taken with a pound of salt.

          They are biased, not to mention intolerant, and downright hateful against homosexuals.

          Furthermore, associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association all disagree.

          Quite frankly, I’ll take their findings over NARTH’s any day of the week.

          • JCIL

            Your bias is showing.

            These are organizations who have been forced to walk a fine line in fear of offending gay activists. Many have changed their official stance based on pressure, not science.

            But what do you say about gays themselves saying there weren’t born gay? How do you reconcile that?

          • Paul Hiett

            Conversion therapy is a joke…and those organizations, all of them far more reputable than NARHT, by the way, condemn conversion therapy.

            In fact, all of those respected organizations, and others…and all whom have much higher membership than NARTH, I might add…completely disagree with everything NARTH has reported.

            Clearly, if so many professional organizations and respected doctors/scientists are disagreeing with NARTH, there’s probably a pretty good reason why.

          • JCIL

            “Conversion therapy is a joke”

            Not really. Many people returned to hetero lifestyles after and remained happy. They, too, were shut down by gay activism, not by the facts.

            Here are some of their successes:
            – Beyond Gay, by David Morrison
            – Born That Way? By Erin Eldridge
            – Closing the Closet: Testimonies of Deliverance from Homosexuality, Talbert Swan
            – Free Indeed, by Barbara Swallow
            – Growth Into Manhood: Resuming the Journey, by Alan Medinger
            – Healing Homosexuality: Case Studies of Reparative Therapy, by Joseph Nicolosi
            – Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind, by Jeanette Howard
            – A Place in the Kingdom, by Garrick and Ginger Hyde
            – Portraits of Freedom: 14 People Who Came Out of Homosexuality, by Bob Davies
            – Voices of Hope, 22 Personal Essays, Compiled by Ty Mansfield
            – You Don’t Have to be Gay, by Jeff Konrad

          • Paul Hiett

            Meaning what? Make no mistake, if any of them really were/are “gay”, they still have the sexual attraction towards their own gender. I guarantee you that hasn’t changed.

            What may have changed for those people is that they have modified their behavior to better fit their religions beliefs. I trust you see the religious connection in each one?

            Their behavior may have changed, but their orientation most likely has not.

            There are also far more stories about people accepting who they are, embracing their orientation…do we consider their stories less valid because some people chose religion over their orientation? No, of course not.

            Finally, I would highly recommend that you watch some of the videos, on youtube, regarding “gay conversion” therapy. It might open your eyes.

          • JCIL

            “I guarantee you that hasn’t changed.”

            You’ve made some unfounded assertions. That doesn’t mean they are true. The authors are free from that, and they help others become free. They do that through talk therapy, not gene replacement therapy, hormone replacement therapy, or surgery.

            “There are also far more stories about people accepting who they are, embracing their orientation”

            That is the nature of sin. You’d see a mass ‘coming out’ if the laws were change to accept child sexual abuse as normal and natural behavior…because some animals do it.

            “Finally, I would highly recommend that you watch some of the videos, on youtube, regarding “gay conversion” therapy. It might open your eyes.”

            Not really. I know many therapists that spent years working with people making behavioral change. This is no different. What has happened is that now, because of acceptance, they will continue to have hardship because those deep issues don’t go away.

            Gay relationships have the highest incidence of domestic violence and abuse. There is a reason for that.

    • NCOriolesFan

      Sorry to sound blunt but Duh – secular studies not needed really. Read Genesis to see what type of humans God created.

      • JCIL

        I agree. This is more for those who don’t believe in God.

        One final, and definitive argument is that God doesn’t create people to sin. God gave us free will to choose. Sin is only actualized by a behavior, which is a choice.

        God creates us humans. He certainly doesn’t cause people to be born into a condition that causes them to sin. This closes the case on ‘born that way.’

        Now it’s up to each person to decide for themselves.

        • NCOriolesFan

          Sounds so complicated for a simple sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            Makes you wonder why God also included homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals too. They aren’t making any choices, just following their own behavioral instincts.

            How funny that if homosexuality is displayed in nature, it’s just part of nature. But if displayed by humans, it must be a disorder.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Of course homosexuality in humans is a disorder. God created us on a higher INTELLIGENCE level than animals – man to have dominion over animals. This too is in Genesis.

          • Paul Hiett

            Genesis also says the entire world was flooded, and that every man, woman and animal in this world today come from a small boat that landed on a mountain in Turkey.

            Please forgive me if I find much in Genesis to be authentic.

          • JCIL

            “Genesis also says the entire world was flooded, and that every man, woman and animal in this world today come from a small boat that landed on a mountain in Turkey.”

            No it doesn’t. The language used in the flood account is hyperbole…to convey the severity, not the science of the flood.

          • Paul Hiett

            No it’s not. That’s not what it says. No where does it say that it’s “hyperbole”. The Bible is very clear on this.

            You don’t get to cherry pick what is hyperbole/allegorical just because the facts prove it impossible.

          • JCIL

            No, the writer decides which literary device to use. The reader should use the device as intended else he’ll come away with something other than the writer intended.

          • Paul Hiett

            Exactly what makes you think the the flood was allegorical, whereas someone like Gary claims it to be factual?

          • JCIL

            A matter of study. Many Biblical writers use hyperbole to reinforce the severity.

            For example, when the writer said ‘everyone came to see Solomon’s wealth’ does that mean that all people on earth came to see Solomon?

            No, it means that Solomon was widely accepted as being wealthy, and many people came to see for themselves.

            I understand that a lot of Christians don’t take time to really understand the Bible and how it was written. This is a mistake of the church…spend too much time on superficial concepts and not enough on the basics of study.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Check your attitude to read Genesis.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t think one needs a specific attitude to read a book. I’ve read it, I understand it. It’s really not that hard of a “book” to read either.

            So, again, it’s hard to take Genesis seriously when so much claimed never happened.

          • NCOriolesFan

            Read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and find out for yourself.

          • Paul Hiett

            You want me to read a book by an evangelist and somehow believe he’s not going to be just a tad biased?

            There’s no proof of a global flood, as written in the Bible. I would agree with JCIL that the flood was most likely a regional, localized flood, but unfortunately the Bible makes it clear that it was not…the flood of the Bible states that it rained over the world for 40 days and nights and that one single little family landed a boat on a mountain in Turkey, and from that repopulated the entire earth with all animals and races of humans.

          • JCIL

            “but unfortunately the Bible makes it clear that it was not”

            Not true, Paul. When the Bible says Jesus is the bread of life, do you take that to mean He is made of whole wheat?

          • Paul Hiett

            You seem to think a man died and came back to life 3 days later is “real”, but somehow have a hard time believing in the Flood?

          • JCIL

            God can do anything. But one needs to read scripture in the way it was intended to be understood. This is the downfall of many critics: they don’t understand how to read scripture so they think its made up and foolish.

            But this is a problem of not knowing, not that the Bible has problems.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, I’m quite well aware of the problem the Bible has.

            The other problem are the people that cherry pick what is “truth” and what is “hyperbole”.

            There is nothing in Genesis that gives any credence to the idea that the stories are allegorical, other than logic and common sense. But, as you are well aware of, many of the 42,000 denominations of Christianity do believe it as it is written.

          • JCIL

            I hear these comments all the time.

            There are resources available that explain who the writer is, the style he uses, the intent of the verses, who he is writing to and why, and so on.

            This is no different than reading any writer. They all have styles that you learn.

            It’s not that hard when you work at it…much like any subject.

            Regarding many denominations, that applies to any subject. Each person has a unique system of beliefs and will use that in whatever way they choose. Atheism isn’t any different. There are many different beliefs associated with it. The only similar belief is that God doesn’t exist. The rest is up for grabs.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Gods”, not “God”. Atheists simply don’t believe in any deity. We don’t give any deity preference over another…none of them are real.

          • JCIL

            Without any definitive proof, atheism is complete blind faith. Christianity has the most evidence of any faith. Atheists have far greater faith than Christians.

          • Lark62

            Do you have proof that each of the 3000 other gods worshipped by man are false? Bigfoot, leprechauns, tooth fairy, bilbo baggins, etc?

            You need to prove that your special myth, out of all myths, is the true one without using your myth book. Good luck

          • NCOriolesFan

            Yup. Not only is he an evangelist, he was agnostic till he RESEARCHED Christianity and converted. So in short, he had an attitude change.

            You can read on him at http://www.josh.org/

          • Lark62

            Check your brain before you read genesis.

          • JCIL

            Humans are far and above base animals. Also, that number is grossly exaggerated. Much of that behavior has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is like saying a dog hump ing your leg was born to love humans.

            If you believe it’s okay for us to act like base animals, should we also condone other base animal behaviors:

            – eat our young

            – r ape others

            – eat our ex crement

            – lick ourselves clean

            – eat our vomit

            – kill our mates after intercourse

            – live in nests

            – live in rocks and eat bugs

            – kill anything when we are hungry

            – kill each other for territory

            – kill each other to win a mate

            – hibernate for the winter

          • Paul Hiett

            Do we share those behaviors with animals? Some we do, actually, such as killing when hungry, killing for territory, killing to win a mate. Believe it or not yeah, those are behaviors we do share with animals.

            The point is, we do share many traits with animals, and homosexuality is one of them. Also, it’s far more prevalent than your claim that it’s grossly exaggerated. We observe animals engaging in same-sex coitus for pleasure, and taking on same-sex mates for life.

            This same behavior is shared between us, so how can anyone rationally claim it’s not natural?

          • JCIL

            ” Believe it or not yeah, those are behaviors we do share with animals”

            Should we make those legal?

            “we do share many traits with animals, and homosexuality is one of them”

            Humans are far and above base animal behavior. But apparently some want to lower themselves.

            “Also, it’s far more prevalent than your claim that it’s grossly exaggerated.”

            Actually, it’s not. True homosexual paring is very small. Reason: if they remained homosexual, the species would die off after one generation. Nature has spoken and that is the reality.

            That is another fact that is indisputable.

          • Paul Hiett

            I can see you haven’t researched this issue much. There are many species…birds for example…that will take a same-sex mate as a partner for life. They will engage in coitus with opposite members of the gender for reproduction purposes though. Furthermore, we only see this is about 3-5% (the same in humans, amazingly enough) of the populations.

            Clearly, this trait is NOT a choice, but an inherent behavior that continues to exist in many species of animals and for millions of years.

            Had this been an abnormality, it would be eventually bred out, as you state. But, the fact that it has NOT been bred out and continues at the same percentage generation after generation should click on something in your brain that proves it’s not just a choice or a defect.

          • JCIL

            Do you want to legalize all animal behaviors then? Eating offspring if you are hungry? Killing your mate after intercourse?

            Resorting to ‘animals do it so it should be okay for humans’ is really stretching to support immoral behavior.

          • mgsc

            Animals also eat their young, and I would say that if humans did this, then yes, it would indeed be a disorder…just as homosexuality is.

          • JCIL

            People will go to great lengths to avoid owing the responsibility of sin. This discussion is a good example.

  • NCOriolesFan

    They are really 300 “prominent” Democrats in disguise.

  • sammy13

    Whatever it takes to get votes.

  • Gary

    Accepting homosexuality as something legitimate is an indication of a reprobate mind. If you want to learn what comes with a reprobate mind, read Romans 1:28-32. It is not good.

  • Better AndBetter

    This is SO cool! Almost as cool as what we’ll see in June!!!

    Life just KEEPS getting better and better!

    • Gary

      It is going to get worse and worse. For you.

  • henryknox

    A true Liberty position would be to support getting the gov’t out of marriage. Why is the gov’t involved in marriage when the federal gov’t should be protecting our borders and upholding the Constitution and leaving such issues not enumerated in the Constitution to the states?

  • usmcmailman

    PURE BOVINE EXCREMENT ! Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord
    PERIOD !

  • Cat Sower

    God loves all sinners, but hates the sin. May we know that many will come to know Jesus and those who think they know HIM will learn they just denied HIM by compromising over sin—a spiritual battle will ensue but repentance is necessary.

  • ANTHONY_THE_CHRISTIAN

    JESUS SAYS —-Mar 10:6“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.

  • isthisnameokay

    Is somebody holding a gun to their head ?

  • Alleged Comment

    All turn traitors against God who blessed America so much. This will not turn out well. Supporting something NOT Christian and even against nature (as even the Bible says to you secularist).

    And worse, there is no such thing as a gay “marriage”!

  • mgsc

    About the Oregon Christian baker who has been sued for refusing to bake a wedding
    cake for a homosexual couple and is facing over 100K in fines. Other Christian businesses have also been sued for refusing to participate in homosexual weddings. Christians should perhaps begin to view these situations as opportunities to share God’s Word.

    Jesus took advantage of all opportunities. As Christians, we can do the same. If for example, a homosexual couple wants a business to bake a cake for their wedding, the owners should first express to them why they would rather not participate, based on their Biblical convictions. But if the homosexual couple insists, then the bakers have a legal right to print Bible verses condemning homosexuality and to put those verses on top of the cake. I would not suggest doing this out of spite, but out of concern for the people involved, and as a way to deter homosexuals from attempting to manipulate Christian businesses in the future.

    As a wedding photographer myself, I have found a number of ways to deter homosexuals who insist upon hiring me after I have patiently explained to them that they would probably be happier with a photographer who really wanted to photograph their wedding. After all, no homosexuals want a photographer preaching and carrying signs with Bible verses which condemn homosexuality, at their wedding. So far, they have all “seen the light” in that respect. That is NOT something I would do out of spite, but if a couple were to ever insist on hiring me, I would simply take advantage of the opportunity to present the Word of God in respect to homosexuality. All businesses have the right to do the same.

  • Susan

    This is so sad. No matter what they think…Gods word is true. Yes, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Their minds have been given over to a reprobate mind. For Gods word NEVER changes, no matter what man may think or say. I would NEVER vote for any of the above people. We have to stand on Gods word, no matter what the popular vote is. God does not lie, EVER. But man sure can let his heart deceive him and start believing a lie. In this case…many men are being deceived. Homosexual life style is a sin, always has been, always will be. That is what the Bible says. Yes, the Bible, the word of God…I stand on it, even if I stand alone.

  • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

    HOMOS can only get homied. Never married. 🙂

  • timetorun

    the republican party ceased being an instrument for good years ago. look what they did by delegitimizing Ron Paul? Look what they did with dissing the Tea Party. and look what has occurred with the amazing opportunities the citizens of USA presented to them in the election of 2014. The R and Ds are the same party and the mask is completely off. the game is rigged as Carol Quigley stated in his famous book Hope and Tragedy.