Religious Freedom Proposal Shelved After Rep. Requires Businesses to Post Refusal Notice

Oklahoma Capitol Building pdOKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — A religious freedom proposal that was meant to protect business owners who have faith-based objections to fulfilling particular orders has been shelved after a Democratic representative put forth an amendment that would require such businesses to post notices about their objections.

The Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, HB 1371, was introduced earlier this year by state Rep. Chuck Strohm (R-Tulsa) to provide protections for those whose religious beliefs forbid them from being “partakers in other men’s sins” (1 Timothy 5:22).

“In any action brought under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, neither the State of Oklahoma nor any subdivision thereof shall be entitled to claim a governmental interest which purports to require any person to participate in any marriage ceremony, celebration, or other related activity or to provide items or services for such purposes against the person’s religious beliefs,” the bill read.

But Rep. Emily Virgin (D-Norman), an opponent of the bill, submitted an amendment to the Act this week that would require such businesses to post notices stating which persons they would not serve.

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites,” the amendment read. “The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.”

A number of business owners across the country who have been involved in civil rights complaints have stated that they don’t refuse to serve homosexuals—that they have regular customers and employees who are involved in such relationships—but must draw the line when it comes to personal involvement in a ceremony.

“I was pretty flabbergasted [about the Religious Freedom Act] because it hearkens back to a time when we were legalizing discrimination on the basis of race, basis of gender—many other things that now just seem silly,” Virgin told local television station KFOR. “If you want to discriminate under this law if it passes, then you’re legally allowed to do that, but you need to own it. You need to fess up to it.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, now that Virgin added the amendment to the Act, the Religious Freedom Act has stalled and has been shelved for discussion.

As previously reported, in recent years, a number of states have been seeking to pass local laws similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by then-President Bill Clinton. The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill in December that some interpreted as providing protections for faith-based businesses, as well as conscience-based objections for employees of secular businesses.

Some opposed that bill as well.

“This bill moves us in a new and uncharted direction. It requires me and others to practice the faith of our employers, grocers and pharmacists,” Rep. Vicki Barnett (D-Farmington Hills) told those gathered. “I should not be forced to follow the religion of my pharmacist.”

“Do you think that Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were extremists?” Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall, a Roman Catholic, told MSNBC. “We modeled [this bill] directly after what they did. I’m baffled to hear that what we’re doing is out of line.”

“I support individual liberty and I support religious freedom,” he also declared to the state Judiciary Committee. “I have been horrified as some have claimed that a person’s faith should only be practiced while hiding in their home or in their church.”


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
  • The Last Trump

    “If you want to “discriminate” (“disagree” haters. Nice try. Again.) under this law if it passes, then you’re legally allowed to do that, but you need to own it. You need to fess up to it.”
    Gladly.

    • ROFLMAOAY

      Thankfully, there is no such thing as a god. Man creates gods, not the other way around.

      • Logic&Emotion

        You have a lot to learn young man. Who told you that man creates God (notice I didn’t say God’s like Zeus, Thor, or Oden) I said God – The creator. There is only one true God, and I welcome you to be smart enough to look into it. Otherwise, as you face your mortality you may be shocked at what you find. If you work hard enough at it your conclusion will change. I believe what you really want to say is there is no God for you. If that’s the case, then state it that way. Otherwise your statement would have to show some type of evidence that includes everyone, which you cannot do. Thus your statement does not represent everyone, only yourself.

        • ROFLMAOAY

          Actually, it’s YOU that needs to learn. At almost 60, I’ve got enough experience, learning and knowledge to understand that you don’t have a clue about which you speak..

          You see, I’ve already been dead. Clinically dead for over 20 minutes. I know for a fact what happens when we die. You don’t have a clue.

          I couldn’t help but laugh when you tried to insert “your” god as the “true” god and any different than other gods like Zeus, Thor, or Oden (actually spelled Odin), which just like yours, were created by man.

          In fact, Zeus, Thor and Odin are proof that gods are created by man and don’t actually exist.

          They, like the Aztec god, Huitzilopochtli, the Egyptian god Osiris, the Roman god Apollo, the Mayan god Kinih Ahous…I could go on and name gods for all of the civilizations that have come before us and have faded into history…ALONG WITH THEIR GODS proving that they were created by man!

          Unless you believe that there really is an Odin or a Zeus or Thor or an Apollo or Osiris….etc. Yea, didn’t think so. Your man made god is no different.

          Sorry to have to break it to you, but the fact is there are no such thing as gods. You’ll figure this out once you die and have that moment of realization that everyting you’ve been indocrtinated to believe in…was all a big lie.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Join the crowd. Three weeks ago I almost died over diabetic shock. It changed me forever. I know that God is real. I hate to break this to you, I care about you and believe with all my heart that God saved me from certain death. God resides within me, and all those that believe in God. That is as real as it gets and I hope you find God in your life. I now have more joy and peace in my life than ever before. But its of course your choice. There is so much more to this story of mine, but I feel bad in a way I can’t convince you that God will never leave you lonely, or alone. I would not do that either. I’m very sorry to hear about your situation and Thanks for allowing me into your life briefly,.

          • ROFLMAOAY

            Come on now!! There is HUGE difference between being declared “clinically dead” by a wold renowned heart trauma surgeon for over 20 minutes after being stabbed through the left ventricle my heart and “almost” dying over diabetic shock.

            You still have no clue. A god had noting to do with “saving” you. That was science, medicine and the doctors and/or nurses that treated you.

            Again there is no such thing as a god, just as there is no such thing as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

            I feel sorry for those who choose to believe in myths and fairy tales instead of believing in themselves and reality. Such a wasted life.

            PS = You should change your handle. If you truly had any “logic”, you’d be able to understand that gods are an impossibility and not real.

          • Gary

            How did the universe come to exist?

          • ROFLMAOAY

            Most of the worlds scientists today generally consider it “proven” that the universe began about 14 billion years ago with the “big bang”. Obviously much is still to be learned and questions to be answered, but just as it always has, science will eventually be able to answer that question specifically.

          • Gary

            What exploded at the big bang? Where did that material come from? And what caused the explosion?

          • ROFLMAOAY

            Do you have reading comprehension issues? Did you miss the part about “much is still to be learned and questions to be answered, but
            just as it always has, science will eventually be able to answer that
            question specifically.”

            Can you grasp just how far science has come in just the last 100 years? Do you understand how many questions we’ve been able to answer because of the new scientific discoveries that are happening every day! It’s just a matter of time before science provides answers to all of your questions about our world.

            But if you’re really that interested then I’d suggest Googling.

          • Gary

            Since you have no answers to the cause of the existence of things, how can you be certain someone didn’t make it?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Now here Gary, I’m with you 100%. Atheism and the agenda should be stopped.

          • ROFLMAOAY

            You do realize that as science has progressed and answered questions that were previously unanswerable “the number of “believers” has shrunk and today the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.

            One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

            In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults.

            Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

            Religion and the belief in fables is slowly dying and taking a back seat to science, facts and reality.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I realize many things. I understand the statistics as well. But your very wrong about Christianity dying slowly. What is interesting is that those that answer with no affiliation does not equal less belief in God. It means actually that people don’t want labels attached to their belief systems. In other words they are more likely not to be affiliated with a church, but meet in smaller groups to share in their faith. You’ll never remove God no matter how hard you try. Atheist’s don’t have any more of a relationship with science than any person that believes in God. That is an unrealistic proposal. Science doesn’t present facts in most situations depending on the particular science acumen we are discussing. That is far too general a statement. Today 40% of all scientists do believe in God, and still do science. That has grown at a staggering rate since we have new tools. An example of this is the Public School District of Texas who has chosen to implement text books with Intelligent Design principles along side Evolution principles, and South Carolina putting an emphasis on Evolution as Theory. That is reality and facts.

          • ROFLMAOAY

            See Gary, that’s your problem. You can’t imagine something not having an answer. Just like a primitive man who felt the ground shake under his feet and could only reason that “someone” must have done it.

            We tend to believe that there is an answer to everything, but mankind has yet to find/uncover every single one of those answers. Not that they can’t or won’t….just that they haven’t “yet”. New discoveries occur every single day.

            But to answer your question, as I’ve stated…I’ve been dead. I know what happens when we die. I know for a fact the process and result.

            With that factual knowledge, along with decades of study about history, the worlds religions and gods, I know for a fat that there is no such thing as a god and that gods are created by man.

          • Gary

            There is an answer. You might be ignorant of what it is, but the answer does exist. We know the universe is not eternal. We know that the universe did not make itself because it would have had to exist before it existed, and that is not possible. We know that the universe did not come to exist without being caused (by chance) because nothing comes to exist without being caused. That would seem to leave only one possible answer and that is that someone created it.

          • JamieHaman

            Here’s the problem with “someone created it.” Where did the ‘someone’ come from, and who created him/her?
            That’s in essence a big circle.
            For religious folks to announce that “God did it.’ and to stop human exploration is to deny human abilities.
            It was considered for who knows how long that birth defects were “proof” that parents “sinned’. Disease was also proof of sin.
            Human ability with human learning and doing proves that this bs is not the case.

          • ROFLMAOAY

            Wrong.

            But, if that’s all your childlike thinking and feeble mind can conjure, then you have your answer. Hopefully as you grow up you can developer the ability to think critically.

            In doing so, you’ll find that logically, there are three possibilities for the cause of the big bang:

            1. something caused it to begin;

            2. nothing caused it but it began anyway; or

            3. the universe never began because it has always existed.

            Option 1 seems to be the most obvious choice. For most people, this implies a god of some sort, but some believe our universe could have resulted from a previous universe. However this simply pushes back the problem, and we still have to find an explanation for the entire chain of universes.

            Option 2 seems to go against common sense, but is nevertheless accepted by many people, especially scientists who avoid “supernatural” explanations. In recent times, cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss have argued that a flat
            zero-energy universe amd quantum physics show that it is not only possible, but quite likely, that a universe could come into existence from nothing. If God can exist without an explanation, then why can’t the universe?

            Option 3, with the corollary that something that has always existed doesn’t need a cause, was once a popular choice.

            Some people combine options 1 & 3, and suggest that there have been an infinite series of universes, leading eventually to our present universe. Also, we know scientifically that physical processes gradually “run down” according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in infinite time, all physical process would have run their course and everything would be in a static homogenous state. Since this isn’t the case in the universe, matter and physical process could not be infinite.

            Stay tuned. These are questions that are all currently being investigated by the brightest mind on earth. Science will provide the answer.

          • Gary

            The answer has been known for thousands of years, but is rejected by many. The answer will never be found by modern science. But, I expect science will put forth some idea and claim it is true, even though it cannot be proven scientifically.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Oh I understand, I’ve spoken with 133 people making those claims. God is not impossible, there is no such evidence of that. I have a clue sir. I know exactly what happened to me. Now sir, your using the same ole arguments that any Atheist uses. Physicians and nurses saved me, and they are all Christians because of the Hospital I went to. There may be a difference in what happened to each of us, however, that was the brief word about everything that is currently going on with me. I’m still close to death, I injured my liver, kidney, and Pancrea’s. But that is not my point, I’m not trying to compete there. My life is definitely not a waste. Ex: I work to help young people that are lost and homeless to find jobs, get housing, and the amazement I see when these young people start knowing Jesus. It helps them know there is hope for a better life here and after. People that need God receive God. Those that don’t, don’t. As Spock says: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, nor the one. In this case you can use all the arguments against God, but Atheism has never worked, and it’s not working now. However if you don’t want to believe in God, you would have to account for consciousness, what love is, fine tuning of the Universe, and a beginning with the big bang. That is only a small representation of the things to contemplate when thinking about what God really is. I know this will go in one eye (lol) and through the other, but that is ok.

    • Yvonne Celeste Lee

      Me, either, but putting that sign on your window will make you a sitting duck for the gaystapo, and if you don’t believe it, you should listen to the stories I have heard about death threats, rocks and other things thrown at businesses, etc. Just as the gays should not be flaunting their sexuality, neither should people of true biblical faith be required to flaunt their opposition to it. Those who do, in fact, have been roundly ridiculed and called “haters.”

      • Logic&Emotion

        Amen! Great comment

        • MisterPine

          You’re saying “Amen, great comment” to someone who actually used the epithet “gaystapo”?

      • Better AndBetter

        Your choice.

  • bowie1

    Can a barber turn down a request for a hairdressing service?

    • JamieHaman

      Sure, if the law passes. So can a doctor, a nurse, an EMT, a daycare, you name it, and they can refuse service.
      It’s not just bakeries.

  • Better AndBetter

    Posting who you refuse to serve makes perfect sense. You make the decision, stand with it and give notice. What is wrong with simply stating your view and decision?

    • Gary

      For once, I agree with you.

      • Better AndBetter

        I knew you would,sweetie.

    • Paul Hiett

      What this says to me is that they are ashamed of their bigotry.

      • Yvonne Celeste Lee

        So now it is bigotry to obey the laws God has put in place since the beginning of human history. How quaint.

        • Kim Roberts

          Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

          Please note that your neighbors do not have to be Christian, straight, white, conservative, or Republican. Your Jesus didn’t include qualitative statements for a reason.

          • Pablo U Hunni

            He also said GO and SIN NO MORE. We cannot condone sin either.

          • Better AndBetter

            Yet businesses serve sinners every second.

          • John_33

            Indeed they do. These Christian businesses don’t have any problems serving sinners – they do it all the time; they have a problem catering to sinful functions. That’s why they gladly serve homosexuals but refuse to serve same-sex weddings.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So do you think that when an opposite-gender couple inquires about a wedding cake, that the bakers ask them if either has been divorced for reasons other than infidelity and then refuse the order?

            Do you think when an engagement party cake is ordered that they ask if the couple is having sexual relations and then turn down the order?

            Do you think when asked to do a cake for a baby shower, that they inquire to ensure that the mother-to-be is married, and refuse the order if not?

            Because if they are not, then they are not applying their faith consistently and are hypocrites.

          • John_33

            Your examples aren’t even close, and some of them are downright offensive. A baby shower for the mother-to-be is not a sinful act. Why shouldn’t there be a baby shower? Neither is an engagement party for an immoral couple sinful. They are doing the right thing in getting married. Compare that to same-sex marriage which cannot be blessed in any way since God has decreed that marriage is between men and women only and has forbidden all same-sex relations. There’s no comparison, and the fact that you see these examples as similar shows that there’s something really wrong with your sense of morality. It’s honestly frightening.

            Besides, none of these Christians queried their customers about their relationships before serving them. They were going to make the product until it came out that it was for a same-sex wedding. Only after they knew what it was for did they refuse to comply because it violated their consciences – not because their customers were gay but because they did not want to participate in supporting a sinful activity. Making this into anything else is disingenuous and wrong.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Honestly, I find the fact that you don’t see these examples as similar to be depressing. You have to do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to not see them as analogous.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Your examples aren’t even close”

            It is a biblical sin for a person to get divorced for a reason other than adultery. Such a person is living in sin. To make a cake for a such a person who is getting married again is just as much endorsing that sin as making a cake for a same-gender wedding. Or are you saying that divorce except in cases of adultery is NOT a sin?

            It is a biblical sin to have sexual relations outside of marriage. If a woman is pregnant but not married, the child is a product of a sin. Therefore, making a cake to celebrate the birth of a child that was conceived through a sinful act is just as much endorsing that act of sin as making a cake for a same-gender wedding.Or are you saying that having sexual relations outside of marriage is NOT a sin?

            In that same vein, if a couple are having sexual relations outside of marriage, celebrating that couple’s relationship is just as much an act of endorsing their sexual sin as making a cake for a same-gender marriage. Or are you saying that since a couple is getting married, they are no longer sinning by having sexual relations prior to the wedding?

            No where does the Bible decree that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Further, the bible says nothing about homosexuality being a sin. It says that sexual relations with someone of the same gender is a sin. Therefore, if two people of the same gender were NOT having sexual relations, there is no specific sin according to the Bible in their celebrating their commitment to each other. Since a wedding involves the commitment of the two people to each other, and does not involve sexual activities, there is no specific biblical prohibition against it.

            They aren’t endorsing a sinful activity. The bible does not say that two people of the same gender making a commitment to each other is sinful. On the other hand, it most clearly says that a person who is divorced for reasons other than adultery is living in sin, and that sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin.

            So it would make no sense for a person to suggest that making a cake for a same gender wedding violates their religious beliefs, but then not also refuse cakes that involve things that are also biblical sins – like the instances I mentioned.

            “There’s no comparison, and the fact that you see these examples as similar shows that there’s something really wrong with your sense of morality.”

            So the sin of homosexuality is not the same as the sin of divorce for reasons other than adultery or having sexual relations outside of marriage? How so? What sense of morality do you have that you see that those things are not the same from a standpoint of biblical sin?

            “t’s honestly frightening.”

            You scare pretty easily. What do you find “frightening” about it? Are you frightened that it exposes hypocrisy? Are you frightened that it shows how some people apply their “religious conscience” selectively?

          • John_33

            It is a biblical sin for a person to get divorced for a reason other than adultery. Such a person is living in sin. To make a cake for a such a person who is getting married again is just as much endorsing that sin as making a cake for a same-gender wedding. Or are you saying that divorce except in cases of adultery is NOT a sin?

            Your example doesn’t make sense. Christians aren’t refusing to make cakes for their customers because they are living in sin. As I said before, Christians gladly serve openly gay customers and others even though they are living in sin. Christians are not turning down making cakes because their customers are sinning; they are turning down serving gay marriages because the function itself is sinful.

            It’s also not the same thing. After David repented of his adultery with Bathsheeba, he was not living in sin. His adultery was wicked, and his murder was evil, but he wasn’t required to divorce her. With same-sex marriage, people in that type of relationship are living in sin as long as they are together.

            It is a biblical sin to have sexual relations outside of marriage. If a woman is pregnant but not married, the child is a product of a sin. Therefore, making a cake to celebrate the birth of a child that was conceived through a sinful act is just as much endorsing that act of sin as making a cake for a same-gender wedding.Or are you saying that having sexual relations outside of marriage is NOT a sin?

            Why judge the mother-to-be for a baby shower?

            Fornication is the sin, not the baby shower. Nobody is endorsing fornication when they celebrate baby showers – even of ones with illegitimate children. Again, Christians serve gays, fornicators, adulterers, and all sorts of people who ascribe to all kinds of moral beliefs that are different from their own. It’s not who their customers are or what they’ve done that determines whether a Christian will serve them; it’s sinful functions that they cannot support. They cannot and will not serve same-sex marriages because it’s always sinful under all circumstances.

            In that same vein, if a couple are having sexual relations outside of marriage, celebrating that couple’s relationship is just as much an act of endorsing their sexual sin as making a cake for a same-gender marriage. Or are you saying that since a couple is getting married, they are no longer sinning by having sexual relations prior to the wedding?

            If a couple is guilty of fornication and they decide to get married, then that’s a good thing (as it says in the Bible). If they continued living together unmarried, then they would be living in sin.

            No where does the Bible decree that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Further, the bible says nothing about homosexuality being a sin. It says that sexual relations with someone of the same gender is a sin. Therefore, if two people of the same gender were NOT having sexual relations, there is no specific sin according to the Bible in their celebrating their commitment to each other. Since a wedding involves the commitment of the two people to each other, and does not involve sexual activities, there is no specific biblical prohibition against it.

            Yes it does say that marriage is only for men and women. It says so in Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:4-5. Let’s break it down since it’s absolutely clear:

            “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” ~ Matthew 19:4-5

            Jesus chose His words very carefully. Note the phrase “For this cause.” There must be a cause in the preceding passages. What’s the cause? There’s only one possible answer from Jesus’ words: “he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” What does the cause imply? It implies that marriage was given because God made us male and female. The following is quite clear so there’s no explanation needed: “a man [shall] leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.” – That’s marriage.

            In other words, if there were only men or only women on this earth, then marriage would not have been given to us; therefore, there can be no gay marriage. It’s not in the Bible. God ordained marriage only because we were made male and female. Even non-sexual same-sex marriage cannot be justified since the Bible condemns same-sex affections – Romans 1:26-27.

            You scare pretty easily. What do you find “frightening” about it? Are you frightened that it exposes hypocrisy? Are you frightened that it shows how some people apply their “religious conscience” selectively?

            I’m frightened because you are so blinded in this matter.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They are refusing to serve gay marriages because the function itself is sinful.”

            That’s not what those business owners have said. They have said that participating by providing a service would be condoning sin. Therefore, all of my examples stand on that basis.

            Please show me where in the Bible it says that two people of same gender getting married is a sin.

            It is a sin for someone who got divorced for reasons other than adultery to remarry. Jesus makes it quite clear in the bible.

            “With same-sex marriage, people in that type of relationship are living in sin as long as they are together.”

            But you said it wasn’t about living in sin. So which is it?

            “Why judge the mother-to-be for a baby shower?”

            it’s celebrating her sin. The same reason these folks give for turning down providing services for a same-gender wedding. Why judge the two people who are getting married?

            Matthew 19:4-5 deals with divorce, not marriage. Nor does the word “only” appear anywhere in that passage.

            “there can be no gay marriage. It’s not in the Bible.”

            Agreed. Gay marriage is not in the Bible. Therefore, to state that the bible says that gay marriage is a sin, is false.

            The simple fact is this: These folks SAY they won’t provide services for a same-gender marriage because it is against their biblical beliefs to participate in an event celebrating something they view as sin. Yet nothing in the bible says that same-gender marriage is a sin. Further, they participate in events which celebrate other types of sin, without prejudice.

            Their stance is hypocritical. No amount of parsing on your point changes that reality.

          • Yvonne Celeste Lee

            So, we just keep adding sin to sin, condoning more and more ungodliness until one day we have fathers marrying daughters, humans marrying animials, and anything goes. Tweny years ago the idea of homosexuals marrying would have been unthinkable, but the world has lost its way, and therefore judgment is around the corner. I hope to be in God’s corner when it comes, as it did in the days of Noah, and be one of those who ride the ark to safety. Check out Habakuk and you will see God’s judgment often comes when He sends a fierce nation to judge reprobate nations. Isis and Shariah law will make anything else look very mild indeed.

          • Miriam Parker

            How do business owners find customers who don’t sin?

          • JamieHaman

            Good to see you here on Disqus Miriam. I’ve enjoyed many of your FB comments on other locations, and intend to do the same here.

          • Willem

            They Email Jezus to find out if she approves.

          • Yvonne Celeste Lee

            Actually, my neighbors are mostly dark, Mexican, and what most Americans would consider impoverished. We have left the States to give our lives for these people. Most of them don’t even know what a Republican is. You are quoting a verse that is very precious to us, but you don’t seem to understand the basis of God’s heart, which is one man, one wife, obedient to God, together for life.

          • Miriam Parker

            When exactly did god reveal to you what is in his heart?

          • Yvonne Celeste Lee

            In His Word. You ought to read it sometime. I assure you if you had studied it for over 50 years, as I have, and done so with a heart open to Him who has shared his heart so that “whosoever will, may come,” you would understand that truth.

          • JamieHaman

            You are giving your lives for these dark Mexican, and impoverished people?
            Did you want a ribbon for that, or will you settle for a pat on the back?

          • Willem

            He will settle for one taco.

        • Rebecca Anne Inkster

          So I suppose you advocate killing disobedient children, or killing someone for eating shellfish, or wearing 2 different kinds of fabric? Those are RIGHT next to the anti-gay parts, you’d know that if you did more than just cherry-pick the parts you feel like following.

          • Yvonne Celeste Lee

            Obviously you know little about Christianity. Christians base our faith on Jesus Christ, his sacrifice for us on the cross, and the New Testament teachings. We are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus, not by works of the law from the OT. Regarding homosexuality, God’s opposition of it and favor of marriage between a man and woman is supported in the New Testament all the way through Revelation.

        • Miriam Parker

          Human history existed long before the Bible, which was written by men, not god.

        • MisterPine

          Or maybe God never put those laws in place at all.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          There was human history long before there was a Bible. But anyway, yes, it is bigotry.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          No, Yvonne, that is not bigotry. You are free to obey whatever religious laws you care to. As a citizen, however, there are limitations on the time, place, and method by which you do that.

          What turns someone from a person with an opinion to a bigot, is when they ascribe certain traits to all individuals in a group and are willing to harm every individual in a group merely because they are part of a group that the other person doesn’t like or agree with.

        • Psygn

          Yes, religion is all about discrimination, People on this very site are continually trying to justify inequality and lesser treatment by claiming its “God’s Law”.

      • Maria Wilson

        You are saying it wrong ,should be ashamed of homosexual acts not ashamed of respecting God’s laws and commands

        • Miriam Parker

          Despite much brainwashing, god did not write the bible; the 10 commandments, “god’s law” says nothing about homosexuality, nor did Jesus.

      • Oboehner

        Bigotry against an activity choice? How about your bigotry calling others bigots?

        • Miriam Parker

          None of us had a choice in what we were born to be by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

          • Oboehner

            Wrong, Race & gender, yes- sexual orientation is a learned behavior like Pavlov’s dog and is a choice whether to act upon it or not.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Your evidence, please.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            He doesn’t have any. Just like he doesn’t have any arguments, so he tries to use that one, as if it is even relevant to begin with, which it’s not.

          • MisterPine

            He denies evolution as well, and says that Catholics are not Christians. Just so you know what you’re dealing with.

          • Oboehner

            Your group is the one claiming gay is by birth, burden of proof is on you.

          • MisterPine

            That’s a lie. No one is claiming that.

          • Oboehner

            Then do explain the repenting of my eye color remark, or just go away.

          • MisterPine

            I did. You are rather bizarrely suggesting that homosexuality which no one has any control over (whether they were “born that way” or not) should be repented of, so I asked whether you should repent of the color of your eyes which likewise you cannot control. So now it is on you to explain your bigotry.

          • Willem

            Ok you guys this man is speaking from experience.

          • Deina

            Are you saying that people shouldn’t have an automatic right to anything that they do strictly from “choice”?

        • Paul Hiett

          Ironically, only religion is a choice. Race, gender, orientation…nothing that anyone has a choice over.

          • Oboehner

            I was born with my beliefs every bit as much as gays are born with their perversion.
            Do answer the age old question, why would gays be born that way and not pedophiles, necrophilia’s, or any other form of deviance? Is merely because you accept one and not the others? How “scientific” is that?

          • scola251

            You were born with your beliefs?

            You had read the bible before you could read?

            Are you for real?

          • Oboehner

            I stand by my statement. And you, since you choose to reply, didn’t answer the question.

          • scola251

            Because I don’t speak about things where I don’t actually know the answer. I prefer not to make idiotic statements. With your “I was born with my beliefs” statement, you clearly do not share this aversion to idiocy.

            I actually don’t care in the least if homosexuality is nature, nurture or pure choice. It makes no difference to me. If two consenting adults want to be in a relationship, who am I to stand in their way? It’s a free country.

          • Oboehner

            Yet you choose to post and insinuate that gays are born that way, and brother and sister being in a relationship is ok with you. So where do you draw the line? Sheep?

          • scola251

            I don’t claim or insinuate any such thing.

            What I do claim are the following:

            1. You are are either very stupid, willing to make absurd statements to supposedly prove a point, or both. Hence my laughing at your absurd “I was born with my beliefs.”

            2. I have friends who are gay and lesbian and happily married. I don’t know if they were born that way, if it was the result of upbringing or it was the result of choice and frankly I don’t care. They are good and decent people, something you will never be.

            3. I am not the only one. Many Americans have gay and lesbian friends. While different people have different religious beliefs, most people do not want to see good and decent people denied the pursuit of happiness. To do so is both repugnant and against our most sacred and cherished values as Americans.

            4. A business cannot survive without customers. That’s what this is about. If a business had to put up a sign “we don’t serve gays here” they would lose not only their gay and lesbian customers, but also many straight customers, me amongst them.

            5. That’s what this is all about.

            So go ahead you little toad and continue to knock down your little strawman. I simply don’t care if my friends were born gay or not. It doesn’t matter. People like you who totally lack in any compassion or care for your fellow man are not just traitors to the idea of the American republic, you are also today’s Pharisees while many of our gay neighbors are the good Samaritans–sometimes hated but filled with a compassion you will never know. They are blessed.

          • MisterPine

            That was the most amazing thing I have read here yet. Thank you for standing up to this horrible bigot.

          • Oboehner

            “What I do claim are the following:
            You are are either very stupid, willing to make absurd statements to supposedly prove a point, or both.They are good and decent people, something you will never be….you little toad…”
            You have everything your accuse me of in spades.

            “Hence my laughing at your absurd” “sometimes hated but filled with a compassion”
            they are blessed? One of the most depressed suicidal groups on the planet, yup they’re blessed. I do know they were not born that way, it is a disgusting sexual deviance, but you go on championing it if you like. Ignoring the fact that in 99% of all gay relationships one plays the male role and the other the female showing the true nature of the relationship.

          • scola251

            Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

            When people put aside hatred and open themselves to compassion, it is quite a blessing. Hate leads to destruction. It is the dark side of humanity.

            I hope one day you learn to live by the golden rule and put your vitriol and hatred for your fellow man behind you.

          • Oboehner

            Heal thyself physician wannabe.

          • MisterPine

            I wonder if they’d be one of the most depressed suicidal groups on the planet if they didn’t get harassed constantly by hate filled fundie bigots.

          • MisterPine

            You often claim that your opponents claim homosexuals are “born that way” and yet I have never seen one of them say that. There is a word for people who put words in their opponents’ mouths, but I think you know what it is.

          • Oboehner

            No, nobody ever claims gays are born that way…. Are you hiding under the rock you “evolved” from?

          • MisterPine

            Nobody HERE ever claims gays are born that way but you continually accuse people here of saying it, Mr. Strawman.

            Also you have a much bigger audience on this discussion than you do on the other one, going to call evolution a religion so all the good folks can laugh at you?

          • Oboehner

            “Nobody HERE ever claims gays are born that way…” Yet somehow they got that way without choosing it and somehow that’s science? So is science your pat little answer when you have nothing? “Don’t argue with me it’s science, don’t ask how because somewhere I told you” Uhhh… yeah.

          • MisterPine

            How stupid are you? In the real workd as we know it, you have a sexual attraction. Either you are like most people and you are heterosexual, or you are homosexual. No one knows what makes you lean one way or the other and it doesn’t matter. Choice doesn’t enter the picture. You seem to be suggesting that everyone is born the same way and a few people decide to be different, although God knows why they would. That’s stupid.

          • Oboehner

            “You seem to be suggesting that everyone is born the same way” You keep suggesting that gays are born that way while denying you are doing so – speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

          • MisterPine

            Either they are born that way or it happens in early life. Fact. And I never contradicted myself once.

          • Oboehner

            “Nobody HERE ever claims gays are born that way” “Either they are born that way or it happens in early life.” I have much better things to do than listen to any more of this crap.

          • MisterPine

            I would expect nothing less from you. Facts? Turn off brain. Blinders on at all times.

          • Oboehner

            “going to call evolution a religion so all the good folks can laugh at you?” Sure, on a Christian site, why don’t you tell the evolutionism is science joke, but wait until after lunch, we don’t want people to be blowing their beverages out of their noses.

          • MisterPine

            Nope, not calling “evolutionism” anything except a word you made up. Evolution, on the other hand, IS science, and even though this is a Christian board, most Christians including Catholics have no problem with evolution. So yes, let’s let the gales of laughter commence, Mr. Evolution-is-a-religion.

          • Willem

            You is one stupid muthafucje.

          • JamieHaman

            Where the line should always be drawn, enthusiastic consenting adults.
            Not sheep, kids, dogs, or horses. The horses happen to be legal in a number of states, and so are cousins.

          • Oboehner

            How about consenting adult brother and sister? Father and daughter? Mother and son? Anything goes as long as it’s adult consent? There’s a long list of sick crap they can engage in.

          • MisterPine

            Right, because everyone knows there is a huge contingent of mothers and sons out there just clamouring to get married.

          • Oboehner
          • MisterPine

            Zzzzzzzzz….

          • Oboehner

            And you’d tell me they’re born that way.

          • MisterPine

            No, I’d tell you they were one random crazy person not representing any group.

          • JamieHaman

            Personally, I don’t care, again, as long as they are consenting adults. I’d also prefer they not have any kids.
            Understand this, it isn’t my job to run another adults life. It isn’t your job to decide what religion is in charge of how adults run their lives.
            It is the job of the adult in question. That isn’t you or me.

          • Oboehner

            Then when all of that sicko crap becomes mainstream, they can move on to the children (which is already in the works B4UACT, MBLA, etc.) then who knows? Chimpanzees, dead deer carcasses – the possibilities are endless.

          • MisterPine

            I’d sure like to know why every time the subject is homosexuality you blatantly change it to pedophilia and hope no one will notice.

          • Oboehner
          • MisterPine

            Haha. Yes, well she’s really representative of homosexuals. Or even pedophiles for that matter. Congratulations on your brilliant argument.

          • JamieHaman

            You sure do spend a lot of time wondering what other people get up to in their bedrooms.
            Maybe you should spend more time in your own.

          • Oboehner

            No need to wonder when it’s shoved in our face non-stop.

          • JamieHaman

            lol, Not so, you are using your imagination to create these horrific acts and if you have seen them online, or in person, or in your imagination dude that makes YOU the Perv you are worried about. ,

          • Oboehner

            One doesn’t have to see the actual act to have gay shoved in our face.

          • MisterPine

            WHY do you stand by your statement?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The exact basis of sexuality is unknown, although there is significant evidence which points to a biological basis for sexuality.

            There has been NO study that has concluded that there is even a remote chance that people make an active choice of which gender to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to.

            Further, the basis for sexuality is not relevant to the issue of same-gender marriage. Regardless of why someone is homosexual, access to rights it not based upon a trait being proven to be genetic. Access to rights requires only that a person be a citizen.

          • Willem

            Religion has poisoned your brains, you need to see a shrink at once.

          • MisterPine

            How funny, I said the same thing to him earlier elsewhere.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Or don’t want to lose money from people who wouldn’t support hateful bigoted jerks… It’s greed, bigotry and hatred being defended by claims of religious freedom.

    • Yvonne Celeste Lee

      What is wrong is that these groups are often militant and will target, boycott, threaten with death, and do much more to any business that dares stand refuse to participate in their ungoldy lifestyle,

      • Better AndBetter

        Your choice.

      • JamieHaman

        Just like the so called Xtians do to Planned Parenthood and other clinics you mean?
        Fighting fire with fire.

        • Yvonne Celeste Lee

          Oh, that’s right, I forgot that God told His people to encourage mothers to kill their babies. Not that people who stand in front of Planned Parenthood and try to convince people not to harm their precious child can be compared legitimately with militant homosexuals, but folks who are spiritually bankrupt are bound to try.

          • JamieHaman

            People who have bombed clinics? People who killed a doctor in church? People who killed a receptionist?
            Dr. Tiller had his clinic torched, was shot 5 times by Shelley Shannon, (1993) killed by Scott Roeder (2009) The murder of Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett (2003), Army of God member. Robert Sanderson, police officer, security guard killed in the bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and lets not forget Shannon Lowery, and Lee Ann Nichols. The shooter here? Army of God member.
            This is the short list. Most, if not all of these people have been praised, or promoted by other Christian(s) Organizations.
            So far, the total number of killings by Christians in this country against people they don’t admit are also children of God, is a whole lot higher than the number of Christians killed by gays, for refusing service.
            If you are afraid of the so called Gaystapo, it may be you’ve been hanging around Christian Fundies too long.

          • Miriam Parker

            I remember the last time I went to PP in Boston. I was pushed, shoved, hit with rotten fruit, called a murderer, and had a picture of a fetus held in my face until I could get through the clinic doors in order to keep my appointment for a PAP smear. Not militant? Not spiritually bankrupt? Apparently you believe it is a reasonable thing to prevent people from getting health care, and you have the nerve to call others names.

          • Willem

            Yes those bible thumpers are disgusting,i had 3 abortions at that clinic and they had a army of religious nuts accosting me, a holes.

          • scola251

            There is no such thing as “God” but you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine.

            I’m a straight, married man but if I saw an establishment that said they discriminate against anyone: blacks, gays, Christians, anyone, I’d take my business elsewhere.

            This isn’t about “militant” anything. I’m a businessman. I know that a business needs customers. If you refuse your gay customers, and are repugnant to straight customers like myself because you do so, you won’t be in business for long.

          • Gary

            Everyone should be allowed to do business with who they want without the interference of the government.

          • Krauss Allie

            Exactly right Gary. I should be allowed to to refuse to serve African Americans in my store if I choose. The black store owner may choose not to serve white women and the atheist across the street will refuse to serve evangelical Christians. Very well thought out comment on your part Gary, very well done.

            If you choose to operating a business that serves the public, you are bound by law, like it or not, to serve everybody. Sure, you can do the ‘No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” bit, but you CANNOT discriminate against people based on their race, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. These are protected classes under the Constitution and unless you are running a private club or church, you’ve got to serve the general public, and as much as I don’t want government telling me what I can and can’t do, I’m damned grateful the government is there to force those among us who are, let’s say, less enlightened than the rest of us, that they need to treat everybody fairly, with dignity and respect… whether you like it or not!

          • JBM4229

            I do understand the public accommodation laws and their intent. I am also opposed to them from a personal freedom standpoint. I think a business owner should be free to discriminate, but is also responsible for any consequences of doing so. If they lose business, are hit with protests, a boycott, so be it. If they ultimately go bankrupt, that is the ‘cost’ of their discrimination.

            A business exists to make a profit by providing a service or good. If the owner deems their ‘moral/religious beliefs’ more important than the success of the business, they won’t excel in their endeavor.

          • Willem

            I hate homophobic mormons and most christian nut cases but when i run a business i serve all even twice divorced heterosexuals.

          • JBM4229

            And accept the consequences of doing so, positive or negative outcome.

          • JBM4229

            Your post sums exactly why I think a business should be free to discriminate against anyone for any reason the owner deems fit.

            Along with that freedom to discriminate comes the duty to accept the consequences of that action. Loss of business, protests, boycotts and potential bankruptcy, all brought on by turning away business on ‘moral’ grounds.

            I do not have a business, but well understand that a business survives (or not) on how the public is accommodated and served. Personally, I think a (Xtian) baker with moral/religious opposition to same-sex marriage is a fool for turning down a request for a wedding cake. I do not see providing the requested service or goods as an endorsement of the customer’s actions, it is just business. It is analogous to a baker providing, on a continual basis, all manner of fattening goods to a morbidly obese person for their own consumption. If it is not immoral or unethical to do that, why would it offend the sensibilities to cater to a gay couple to be wed?

      • Miriam Parker

        How does a business owner participate in anyone’s “lifestyle?” Doesn’t every sinner have an “ungodly lifestyle?”

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        So then it is also wrong for “Christian” organizations to target and boycott businesses that support same-gender marriage, correct?

        • JamieHaman

          lol, of course, but as soon as you tell the wing nuts that fairness applies, they will claim you are “prosecuting” them for their “traditions.” smh

  • Gary

    I would happily post who I wanted to refuse to serve. Anyone who would not is a hypocrite. Those “Christians” who do business with sodomites and have them as employees are hypocrites.

    • Yvonne Celeste Lee

      They do business with sodomites to show tolerance and they hire them because the law requires it. Forcing them to celebrate their lifestyles is further than most Christians (without the quotations marks) feel comfortable with.

      • Gary

        They probably do business with sodomites in order to make money. They are probably not required to hire homosexuals.

      • Miriam Parker

        How are business owners “forced to celebrate” anything? By making a cake? Making a floral arrangement? Since when is loving someone and wanting to marry considered a “lifestyle?”

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “they hire them because the law requires it.”

        No law requires that businesses hire sodomites.

    • Logic&Emotion

      What I remember Gary, is the days when Racism in Missouri had the same comments. Are you stating to me that your representing Christianity? Have you already judged? I am a Christian and I find your comment a gross representation of following Christ. The words you use are beyond reproach. We are all sinners, and I believe this may be a sin that you need to repent from.

      • Gary

        If you can prove, from the Bible, that I am sinning by not wanting to associate with perverts, then I will consider it. Can you?

        • Logic&Emotion

          Who did Jesus associate with? Ask yourself that question and you’ll answer your own question.

          • Gary

            I can’t find ANY evidence in the New Testament that Jesus, or any other Christian or Jew, voluntarily associated with any sodomite.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Have you ever looked at a woman with desire for her? Ever? If you have what did Jesus say about that? Do you realize what Mary Magdelene was involved in? Did you know that Matthew was a thief, did you know that Paul murdered Stephen with his order to stone him. My point is, it isn’t up to you to decide. When you make statements like the one you did, does that convince people of your Christianity? The phrase you use according to Jesus will be used against you as Jesus told us. We are not the judge nor the jury of others. You understand that don’t you?

          • Gary

            God has ALREADY judged homosexuals. And based on Romans chapter one, it appears that God wants no fellowship with them either.

          • Better AndBetter

            I love you, Gary.

          • Gary

            No, you don’t. You are not capable of love. You are only capable of perversion.

          • Better AndBetter

            No, you hold a very special place in my heart, Gary. I love you SO much.

          • Logic&Emotion

            47“If
            anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that
            person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
            48There
            is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the
            very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.
            49For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
            50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

            I love you too Gary but Jesus has given everyone the opportunity to be forgiven. This is what Jesus said about Judgement. Follow Jesus.

          • Gary

            Are you saying that God has not yet determined that homosexuality is immoral?

          • Logic&Emotion

            What you have said in Roman’s One is based on Sodom and Gommorah. God gave them over to their own perversions, however Roman’s two states explicitly within the context of his message: 1You,
            therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for
            at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself,
            because you who pass judgment do the same things.
            2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
            3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
            4Or
            do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and
            patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to
            repentance?

          • Gary

            There is no reference to Sodom in Romans one. And I have not decided that homosexuality is immoral. God has determined that. I am not judging sodomites. I reprove them based on what God has already decided about what they do.

          • Logic&Emotion

            If you have a Bible, there usually are references to go back to. Look at that in Romans One. I have to disagree with your statement. It seems that you have an uncontrollable anger about this issue. Do you believe that you will ever be able to convert someone based on how you responded to this issue?

          • Gary

            It isn’t my job to convert anyone. Only God can convert people. God saves those He chooses to save. My anger over is issue is not uncontrolled.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I see. So that gives you special favor to make statements of anger. It’s your job to represent Christ. That is the very purpose of what I said to begin with. You have to be an example of Christian presence, just as I do, and any other Christian. Otherwise, its just feeding ego’s and being arrogant. That is one of my biggest problems to see. I am discussing this only that you consider what Jesus says before posting something damaging to others.

          • Gary

            Telling homosexuals the truth about their perversion, and shunning them is not damaging to them. Though it would not bother me if it were. You cannot prove that God demands of me that I be nice to perverts.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Your comment speaks for itself which is unfortunate.

          • Gary

            The affection you seem to have for perverts is not shared by any of the Biblical writers. But the sodomites probably appreciate you.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Your cruel even to me. Your a great example. (Not)

          • Miriam Parker

            When exactly did god tell you this?

          • Gary

            I read it in the Bible.

          • Miriam Parker

            The bible was written by men. It has been translated hundreds of times with many edits. How do you know that what you read was the original bible (which was mostly an oral history)?

          • Gary

            The Bible was inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) I believe God wanted an accurate English translation of the Bible, and that is why He made sure King James ordered scholars to translate it from the original languages.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I’m saying judgement will not come until Christ comes to Judge, since God gave him authority to do so. Only Christ.

          • Gary

            Bringing sinners in front of God for sentencing has not happened yet, but defining sins has already happened.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Which leads me once again to the question, Have you sinned? If you have, then your throwing a stone against a person or people you have never met. I’m just saying comments like your giving hardly represents love for another. That is the greatest of all. Love for another, even if you consider a person an enemy of yours.

          • Gary

            I do not love homosexuals, or their supporters. It is ok with me if you think that is a fault of mine.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I do not support the Gay agenda. If its ok for you to believe its a fault based on the statement, please by all means quote Romans1. Make them pay. Be that angry person. That is entirely up to you. Just don’t represent yourself as being Christ-like. It’s impossible if you don’t understand how to love.

          • Gary

            I do represent myself as a Christian. It is your choice to disagree. As it is my choice to accept whether you are.

          • Maria Wilson

            Romans 1:18-32King James Version (KJV)

            18 For
            the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
            unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

            19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

            20 For
            the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
            seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
            power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

            21 Because
            that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
            thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
            was darkened.

            22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

            23 And
            changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
            corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
            things.

            24 Wherefore
            God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
            hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

            25 Who
            changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
            creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

            26 For
            this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
            did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

            27 And
            likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
            their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
            unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
            which was meet.

            28 And
            even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
            them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
            convenient;

            29 Being
            filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
            maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
            whisperers,

            30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

            31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

            32 Who
            knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are
            worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do
            them.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I do enjoy Paul the apostle’s perspective on things. Paul was defining the church’s and worded things in a powerful way. Thank you for your post. God knows our sin, and yet Jesus when he became flesh, also understood the temptation of the people he was with, and was tempted by Satan as well, more than what is actually recorded. That is why Jesus had so much compassion for sinners. As was said, God hates the sin, not the sinner. Jesus followed up on that by his statement of those who put him to death. “Forgive them Father, they know not what they do”. Also addressing the man next to him on the cross when the man made a confession and asked “Please remember me”. Jesus response was immediate. “You will be with me in paradise this very day”. That is why it’s difficult for me to place blame or think I would know someone’s heart. Again I don’t support the Gay lifestyle but I personally am in no position as a follower of Jesus to make cruel statements. I can say that it isn’t my choice but to make insensitive comments is not what I want to do as a Christian. I suppose I should put it in that context.

          • BarkingDawg

            You sound like you are eager to do that. Does the thought of bringing gay people for “judgement” give you a chubby?

            You are one sick dude.

          • Gary

            I’m not going to bring them up for judgment before God. God will take care of that.

          • lynn

            1st Corinthians 6:11Paul says “and such were some of you, but ye are washed,but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
            He was speaking to sinners including homosexuals who had received Christ as their Lord and Savior. Obviously someone had delivered the gospel to those folks, and they had received it and had been saved. What makes you think that there is no hope that God might save any of the folks you are ranting on? Jesus can and will save anybody who comes to Him in repentance and faith.

          • Miriam Parker

            God did not write the Bible- men did, and in their writings they included their own biases and personal beliefs.

          • Gary

            Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God and reveals God’s instructions for humans to follow.

          • Miriam Parker

            “Inspired by” does not mean without bias. The Jews needed people, hence the “go forth and multiply” of the bible.

            Not all Christians believe as you do. There are many members of the LGBTQ community who are Christians.

          • Gary

            There are no homosexual Christians. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

          • Maria Wilson

            Well Lord Jesus told her I forgive you but sin no more ,so is with homosexual people if they come to God and repent their sin God will forgive them but also tells them sin no more .The problem here is homosexuals do not want to change ,and I am not talking about the ones that don’t know Jesus I am talking about the ones that they know ,they go to church they call themselves christian but in reality there is no change in their life style .they are expecting God to change not them to change .Lord Jesus said ,verily I say to you if you are not born again you will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven ,To be born again,born in Christ we need to be dead for the world and alive for Christ ,what you have done in the past you will never do in the future ,I live but Christ lives in me .

          • Logic&Emotion

            Fair enough, yet the purpose of the message was for all who were about to stone her, not her directly. She had a new lease on life and Jesus used that situation to show everyone that we all have sins. And, that he is a forgiver of sins.

          • Oboehner

            When Christ was associating with those you mentioned were they still engaged in those activities or did they quit and follow him?

          • Logic&Emotion

            You have a valid point. Christ came to save sinners and he asked of them to change their ways. I would still say that it’s Christ that has the power to overcome sin, and as he showed an example when he forgave sin, Is it easier to heal this man or forgive him. He was referring to the questions by the Pharacees. The answer was clear because not only did he forgive the man, he healed him. When asked how often we should forgive someone, Jesus said 7 x 70. In other words it’s a continuous process.

          • Oboehner

            You are leaving out one huge step: repentance, without that we have no salvation.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I agree. Thanks.

          • Oboehner

            Indeed.

          • MisterPine

            Do you repent for the color of your eyes?

          • Oboehner

            “You often claim that your opponents claim homosexuals are “born that way” and yet I have never seen one of them say that.”
            I was born with the color of my eyes, what are you trying to say? Don’t contradict yourself now and look like a bigger fool.

          • MisterPine

            I contradict nothing, Mr, Fundie. You have no control over the color of your eyes therefore it is foolish to repent for it. Homosexuals (whether “born that way” or not) do not choose their sexuality therefore it is foolish to repent for it. See how it works now?

          • Oboehner

            If they don’t choose it, how did they get? The gay fairy stop by? If you had a lick of sense you would see the stupidity of your own words.

          • MisterPine

            How did you get your heterosexuality (assuming you don’t have a secret boyfriend)? Did you choose it? See the stupidity of your own words?

          • Oboehner

            It’s nature, continuation of the species. You are avoiding the question: If they don’t choose it, how did they get? The gay fairy stop by?

          • MisterPine

            Sexual relations does not exist purely for the purpose of procreation. It is a pleasurable act. No one knows how your sexuality is formed. But not everyone is the same.

          • Rebecca Anne Inkster

            Nor do you find the verses against homosexuality there, either.

          • Gary

            There are several verses in the New Testament that condemn homosexuality.

          • Miriam Parker

            Please cite chapter and verse.

          • Gary

            Romans 1: 26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Jude 7

          • Rebecca Anne Inkster

            Plus, the Bible has been changed countless times throughout the years, by kings and clergy, to suit their agendas. There is NO way to know what, if ANYTHING, of the original Word made it to the book.

          • Gary

            Then you don’t know who Jesus “hung out” with. Neither do you know if homosexuality is condemned by God. Neither can you make any argument from the Bible.

          • Pablo U Hunni

            Associate may not be the correct word but close. Jesus chose to go to the sick, the sinners. Why would a physician go to the well who do not need him? Jesus went to them to show them their sin and to tell them of his love and forgiveness. He always said Go and Sin no more. He never left them in their sinful state. Our real job as Christians is to share that good news. Nothing more. We cannot associate with the world in the sense we condone the sinful behavior, but we can share the gospel with them.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I agree with what our mission is, but then again, the question is valid. Who did Jesus come to save? Not the righteous, they have their reward.

        • Kim Roberts

          Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
          heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first
          and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

          • Gary

            And how does that prove any Christian is obligated to have anything to do with any sodomite?

          • Rebecca Anne Inkster

            Jesus hung out with sinners, he didn’t look down on them, nor did he shun them. He loved them and forgave them. Funny how many “good Christians” are the first people to throw forgiveness and love out the window when they get a chance to look down on others. *Your* sins are arrogance and being so very eager to judge. You are a lousy excuse for a human being, let alone a Christian.

          • Gary

            Why are you judging me? There is no evidence at all in the Bible that Jesus, or any other Christian, “hung out” with any homosexual.

          • MisterPine

            Most Christians are sodomites.

          • Oboehner

            You missed the passage in which it states that we are to help them celebrate their sin.

          • MisterPine

            There is no such passage. Sarcasm fail.

          • Oboehner

            “There is no such passage.” No kidding genius.

          • MisterPine

            You sarcasm has failed. It is not sin to be homosexual.

          • Oboehner

            An “atheist” giving lessons on the Bible, how laughable. Troll fail.

          • MisterPine

            Not lessons on the Bible, lessons on science. Going to call science a religion next I suppose? And I’m not an “atheist”, I am an atheist.

          • Oboehner

            What science are you talking about exactly? Be specific.

          • MisterPine

            Basic human sexuality 101.

          • Oboehner

            What does that have to do with gays not choosing their lifestyle? Basic sexuality is something we’re born with, are you “not insinuating” they are born that way?

          • MisterPine

            Basic human sexuality 101 says no one chooses their sexuality. It’s possible homosexuals are born that way, but also possible their sexuality forms early in life. No one knows that yet. You are one or the other and in rare cases bisexual. But it is not a choice. It is the hand you were dealt.

        • Rebecca Anne Inkster

          How about “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

          • Gary

            I am not judging whether homosexuals are wrong in what they do. God has already decided that they are.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Those “Christians” who do business with sodomites and have them as employees are hypocrites.”

      Just like the Christians who do business with people who got divorced for reasons other than adultery, or who are having sexual relations outside of marriage, or who consume alcohol, or dance, or don’t accept Jesus as their savior. All hypocrites, right?

      • JamieHaman

        Yes, all hypocrites, and so is doing business with tattooed people, or gluttons,(overweight people) or pedophiles, or those in polygamous marriages, men without beards, or those who wear mixed fabrics, or women who adorn themselves with anything other than their hair, which should be covered up, so as to be “modest.’
        These religious freedom people should also be supporting slavery, the marriage of a woman who is raped to her attacker, and a whole lot of other barbaric things.
        Isn’t it amazing that these people will make a wedding cake for the man or woman who is not a virgin on their wedding night, or one who is on the 3rd or 4th wedding too?
        But they don’t say much about those sins do they?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Selective application of Biblical teachings seems rampant.

      • Gary

        To do regular business with homosexuals, and hire them as employees, but draw a line at ssm seems to me to be hypocritical.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          I agree. Now, back to my question:

          Just like the Christians who do business with people who got divorced for reasons other than adultery, or who are having sexual relations outside of marriage, or who consume alcohol, or dance, or don’t accept Jesus as their savior. All hypocrites, right?

  • BravesFan

    These whiners are acting like there is only one place to go for a cake, or to have a prescription filled, or get flowers, or whatever. Competition, guys! If someone treats you “badly,” happily take your business elsewhere!

    TBH, I wouldn’t really care if a wedding business, for instance, wouldn’t serve Christians. I can take my business to someone who deserves it, with no whining or lawsuits.

    • ROFLMAOAY

      So what you’re saying is that you do not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and support racism, discrimination and bigotry..

      Your parents must be proud.

      • BravesFan

        My parents actually don’t give a crap about me, but thanks anyway.

        • JamieHaman

          That’s sucks. Sorry for you.

      • Gary

        The Constitution does not prevent freedom of association of private citizens.

    • Yvonne Celeste Lee

      In most cases, the gays are not even being treated badly. People are simply asking to be have their religious beliefs respected. Whatever happened to tolerance? Oh, that is right, it only works for the gays, the ones who used to be against intolerance. Until they got in power. Then, watch out, world!

      • Democrap

        Tolerance? You’re talking about tolerance and yet you can’t tolerate serving two gay people some ice cream in your shop? What if my religion states I shouldn’t associate with Christians? Would it be fair to exclude you from my ice cream shop? What kind of society would we live in? You don’t understand freedom of religion and you don’t understand the constitution and I would bet you have never met a homosexual.

        • Gary

          You have the same right to freedom of association that everyone else has. If you want to exclude Christians from your life, have at it. But everyone else has the same right to choose who they want to associate with.

          • Democrap

            Not true. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 compels you to serve all races and ethnicities that walk into your establishment. LGBT will be added to this list in the coming years. And it will be applied to you as well, whether you will get on the right side of history voluntarily or whether you have to be dragged into this century kicking and screaming, it is coming.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Yeah, like when some business owners said they didn’t want to serve blacks and wanted interracial marriage to be illegal, because it was their view that Bible said that the races shouldn’t mix. Why couldn’t we just be tolerant of them and respect their religious beliefs?

  • TheBBP

    I see nothing wrong with the addendum that businesses be open about not serving gay weddings if they choose to abstain from doing so.

    • JamieHaman

      Really? What about other businesses? You know as well as I that if the bakers can do this, so can every other type of business.
      So, what about doctors refusing to help? Nurses? EMTs? Firemen who refuse to put out the neighbors house, then your house catches fire?
      What if any of those people think you are gay, and refuse services to you? What then when they are wrong?
      Will you still see nothing wrong with it?

      • TheBBP

        Your hyperbolic tears aside, you are talking about emergency services that are essential and are provided by the government. I am talking about one of MANY private business where one can get some cake.

        • JamieHaman

          Hello???? If we grant these “religious rights” to bakers, we must grant them to other businesses as well.
          Or are you claiming that others don’t deserve the same religious freedoms as bakers?

          • TheBBP

            Police, fire and other emergency services are government run services.

          • JamieHaman

            Religious rights are rights. They are for everyone, not just a select few.
            That means police officers, and other emergency services workers should also have the right to refuse services to LGBT people.
            If those government employees don’t also get the same right to refuse services, then the Constitution’s 14th Amendment would not apply, and we would be throwing out the Constitution in effect. “All men are created equal…”
            See how that works?

  • Nhdriver

    Gary,,,,, Has anybody told you that what you fear is in your own mind. Not out here with the rest of us.

    • Gary

      I think you just told me. But you are wrong.

      • Nhdriver

        So you think the rest of us run around with your level of fearful obsession ? Tell me how this is so. I want you to tell me in your own words how the laws of the State of New Hampshire where marriage equality has been a fact of life since 2009 has negatively impacted you. I am all ears….. I live here and will gladly start spreading the alarm once you tell me how you have been harmed.

        • Gary

          I refuse to accept a change in the definition of marriage. To the extent that the government tries to force that change on me, I am harmed.

          • Miriam Parker

            You don’t have to “accept it” any more than you have to accept anything. There is nothing about anyone’s marriage that harms you.

          • Dan P

            There are many social ills that result gay relationships.

          • JamieHaman

            How does a gay relationship affect your marriage? Are they keeping you up too late at night?

          • JamieHaman

            lol, so in other words, You Got Nothing…

        • Harry Oh!

          If you are completely devoid of a moral compass and have no clue about what is right and what is wrong, then of course you can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

          • Miriam Parker

            Everyone has a moral compass- these may not be the same as yours.

          • Harry Oh!

            Moral guidelines when justified by fallible human reasoning can condone almost anything and makes truth subjective. But truth will always be out there no matter what the latest fad is.

          • Nhdriver

            Ahhh yes Harry. The same argument that was made 50 years ago to defend laws that would make it illegal for my wife and I to be married. Because you know people who support interracial marriage have no moral compass either. You mistakenly believe that unless people see things the way you do their morality is wrong. Fascinating to say the least, Scary to say the worst.

          • Harry Oh!

            Your comparison is nonsensical as interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman and denying people access to an existing institution was indeed wrong. Gay marriage however, is not in the same universe as interracial marriage as it involves completely inventing a new form of marriage that happens to fly in the face of the existing one. Not to mention the fact that interracial marriage involves two races, whereas gay marriage only involves two people with lewd lifestyle choices. Hope this clears that up for ya.

          • John_33

            Absolutely correct, not to mention that the Bible presents numerous examples of interracial marriage in a positive light while marriage is defined as between men and women only and homosexual behavior is condemned.

          • MisterPine

            Just because your religion calls it wrong doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and doesn’t give you the right to cram your hate and bigotry down our throats. Freedom of religion also guarantees us freedom FROM your religion. Sure would like to know why you can’t practice your faith without judging and oppressing others.

    • Miriam Parker

      It will alert the rest of us to the bigotry so that we do not support their businesses.

  • Kim Roberts

    Did you know that this state is now being referred to Oklahomophobia? Rep. Emily Virgin, you rock!

    • Benita Kimberly Bylicki-Marzio

      I wonder what she is going to do when the OK law goes into effect that marriage licenses will no long be issued by county clerks and Judges, the state has in effect passed a law returning the right of marriage to the clergy of OK. They and they alone will issue marriage licenses and be responsible for signing them..

      “The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” said state Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, the bill’s House author. “Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy.” Rep Todd Russ
      http://newsok.com/house-passes-bill-to-abolish-oklahoma-marriage-licenses/article/5400240

  • Logic&Emotion

    This reminds me of a law suit filed against Denny’s for denying to serve 4 black men because of their color. As a business I think it’s important to know that people are people afforded certain Civil Rights in America. Depending on the state in which you live Gay marriage is legal, or not legal. There is no federal law other than being civil to people that are citizens of the United States. That doesn’t mean we as Christians don’t understand what the Bible says. It means that we need to stop spending so much time pointing out the sins of others, and recognize that we are sinners as well. That is the reason for Christ dying and being resurrected. He paid the price so that we could be free of sin. We all were purchased at the ultimate price and recall what Jesus said when a woman was to be stoned to death. “He who has not sinned throw the first stone” Our responsibility to Christ is to live as Christ did. Ultimately Christ will look at everyone’s heart, mind, and life and we all will have to account for our actions. Believe in Jesus. Lets try to be more loving while standing for our principles without so much criticism. It isn’t helping, its just hurting people.

  • BarkingDawg

    I like that. If they are going to be bigots based on religion, make them own up to it.

  • yellowdoggie

    Why would any business object to stating clearly whom they are not willing to serve? If these businesses want to discriminate, let them own it proudly. If they want to discriminate in secret, then shame on them.

  • Maria Wilson

    Colossians 3:5-6 So
    put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have
    nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires.
    Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the
    things of this world. Because of these sins, the anger of God is
    coming.

    Galatians 5:19-21 When
    you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very
    clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry,
    sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish
    ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and
    other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that
    anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

  • Maria Wilson

    HOW TO RECEIVE & KNOW YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE

    Admit – that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior (Rom 6:23)repent before the Lord for all your sin

    Abandon – self-effort and realize that you can not be saved by your works or your own efforts (Acts 16:31)
    Accept freely Christ’s payment for your sins, required of the Father (John 3:16)
    Acknowledge Jesus Christ as your personal lord and Savior (Acts 4:12)

  • Rebecca Anne Inkster

    My question to anyone opposing the required notification: So what’s the problem, don’t want to have to be open about your bigotry? You want it kept it nice and quiet so you can be as ignorantly bigoted as you want to people but not scare away business from those who know damn well that it’s wrong and don’t want to support hateful jerks? Oh how I feel for you, you poor wittle things. I feel so bad for you, for realsies!

    • Gary

      Why is it wrong to oppose ssm?

      • Miriam Parker

        It’s wrong to oppress anyone.

        • Gary

          Why?

          • Miriam Parker

            The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Psalms 9:9

          • Gary

            The Bible also says “Thou shalt no lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination,” Lev. 18:22 Why do you believe Psalm 9:9 but reject Leviticus 18:22?

            And, since God limits marriage to a man and a woman, I don’t think it is oppression to oppose alternate arrangements.

        • Dan P

          No one is oppressing you, but pointing out immoral behavior. There is a big difference between race and behavior. This difference has gotten lost in the discussion about gay rights. A Christian’s view is that no one has the ‘right’ to legally engage in immoral behavior.

      • Ariatan Avae

        If it’s so right, then hang up a sign in the shop window and announce your beliefs to the world!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Acknowledgement of gay “marriage” is a violation against the Word of God and against the human conscience. Sodomy can NEVER be a marriage. Period. The secular West is turning into a Sodom this century.

    • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

      .
      What exactly do you think “sodomy” is?

      … aside from being a majority heterosexual practice?
      .

  • Gary

    It seems to be that homosexuals, and their allies, are only interested in having the support of Christians for homosexuality and ssm. But when Christians voice their opposition, then they are called “haters”, “bigots”, etc..

  • Harry Oh!

    Christians by nature accept everyone, Jesus told us to love our neighbours as ourselves. It’s only over the issue of marriage that we draw the line as this is a clear violation of a sacred institution and we cannot condone it by participating in it.. But the rabid, crazed gays and their supporters have no respect or consideration for our centuries long held convictions and seek to punish and villainize anyone who opposes them. Then they have to gall to accuse us of being intolerant, unreasonable and out of line. They also wonder why they have no credibility in our eyes.

  • Dan P

    Christ never said to condone or ‘normalize’ immoral behavior. He said to love the sinner, but not the sin.

    • JamieHaman

      Jesus doesn’t say one word about homosexuality. Neither do the 10 commandments. Guess it wasn’t important enough to mention.
      Luke 17:34, “I tell you, two men will be in one bed, The one shall be taken, the other shall be left.” You don’t think those two men are playing patticake do you?

      Jesus does say to love your neighbor as yourself. You know, your Black neighbor, your Muslim, and Catholic neighbors. Your addicted neighbor, your drunk neighbor, and guess what, your gay neighbor. Love all your neighbors.

      Do so called Christians also want to discriminate against people with tattoos? That’s in Leviticus, just a few verses away from the verse about men. The people with tattoos are clearly showing “a violation of God’s laws” aren’t they?
      How about all those people who don’t grow a beard, or those who eat shellfish? Don’t discriminate against them do these so called Christians?
      And that’s what makes this whole anti homosexuality BS.

      • Dan P

        Jesus is God, and He has plenty to say about homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example.

        Jesus does say to love all people as yourself, but not condone or ‘normalize’ sin.

        Tattoos? Why?

        The civil and ceremonial laws were there to protect the Israelite society from corruption. But those laws were fulfilled in Christ. They no longer apply.

        The moral laws, however, remain…which is why homosexuality is still a sin: an immoral behavior.

        • Paul Hiett

          Which laws no longer apply and can you tell me the verse in which those laws were abolished?

          • Dan P

            The civil and ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ: Galatians 3:19-25

            Moral laws still apply: Matthew 5:17-20

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, I’ve seen those…unfortunately it does not support your stance. It does not, in any way, specify which laws are abolished and which are not.

            Any inference about which laws are valid or not, is what is called “cherry picking”.

          • Dan P

            Not really. The moral laws remain, which is why no one can be reconciled to God without Christ, which is why Christ said what He did.

            The civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ, because He was the ultimate sacrifice.

            It seems you are ‘cherry picking’ what you choose to believe, not that the scriptures were cherry picked.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where does it specify which laws are abolished? No where have you cited that information from the Bible.

          • Dan P

            I’ve already indicated that. Christ talked about the moral laws, and Paul talked about the civil and ceremonial laws. You would most likely need to read the Bible to see the entire context, especially the purpose of the OT and NT. The two covenants should be sufficient to clarify this.

        • JamieHaman

          If those laws in Leviticus are fulfilled, and no longer apply, neither do the ones about homosexuality.
          Sodom’s sin isn’t homosexuality, its the failure to feed and care for the poor. Ezekiel 16:40, Now this is Sodom’s sin, arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, she did not help the poor and the needy.
          Amazing, there isn’t a word about homosexuality.

          • Dan P

            “If those laws in Leviticus are fulfilled, and no longer apply, neither do the ones about homosexuality. ”

            The moral laws still apply: Matthew 5:17-20

            “Sodom’s sin isn’t homosexuality, its the failure to feed and care for the poor.”

            Have you read Genesis 18 – 19? Especially 19:4-11

          • JamieHaman

            See, this is exactly the problem with the Bible, which is it? The threat of violence, not enacted violence, or the failure to feed and care for the poor? Are you saying Ezekiel is worth less than Genesis?
            Ezekiel is considered a prophet, and Genesis is the opening book of the Bible.

          • Dan P

            There is nothing wrong with the Bible. The error lies with people who don’t know how to read it with the intent the writers meant.

            There were many sins that condemned S&G. The depravity, which included rampant homosexuality, was so significant it required completely wiping out. Jude 1:7 confirms the sexual perversion cause.

          • JamieHaman

            I read Jude, and am no doubt not reading this with the intent the writers meant.
            Seems like Jude,(like so many) focuses on one “sin”, to the exclusion of numerous others.
            Bottom line for me is this: I will not be answering to God for your sins, any more than you will for mine.
            Enjoyed the convo.

          • Dan P

            Christians won’t be answering for sin. Their genuine trust in Christ removes all condemnation.

            Non believers will be held accountable for their personal sins, which include leading others to sin.

            Thank you as well.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    It seems odd that this amendment would result in the bill being shelved. By publicly stating their position, it would save the business owners from having to spend time working with people on orders that they are going to turn away, and it would also serve as a means for them to share the gospel, something which their faith encourages.

    Sounds like a win-win to me.

    • Dan P

      No one should be forced to condone immoral behavior.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        No one is.

        • Dan P

          Supporting gay marriage is condoning immoral behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one says you have to support it. As a private citizen, you can hate it..you can hold up signs on a street corner stating how much you hate it.

            Gay marriage has absolutely no affect on you other than something is now legal that you don’t like.

            Laws don’t care about what you like or dislike.

          • Dan P

            I don’t support it…neither would Christ…which is why all have sinned and fallen short of Christ. Without Christ, all sinners are doomed no matter how much those who support it believe otherwise.

            Gay marriage has a tremendous negative impact on society. Saying it doesn’t is naive, in my opinion.

          • JamieHaman

            Gay marriage has a tremendous negative impact on society. Peer reviewed citations please.

          • Dan P

            Homosexuals experience a higher level of psychological and emotional problems, as well as substance abuse, than heterosexuals.

            “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.” – James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).

          • JamieHaman

            Thanks. I’ll check it out.
            Do you suppose some of that pathology comes from being told they are going to burn in Hell, are unfit to live, and tossed out of family homes? Seems probable to me.

          • Dan P

            Actually, no. The emotional problems come from their inner turmoil. This inner turmoil also is at the root of the high rate of domestic violence among gay partners.

            Did you know that almost half of gays report being sexually abused at an early age? Clinicians know that child abuse is a common cause of psychological and emotional problems.

          • JamieHaman

            I believe that reporting. I cannot believe that you don’t think being told horrible things is also cause for “inner turmoil.”
            We know that injustice engenders considerable amounts of pain, and people in pain lash out, creating more pain.

          • Dan P

            Are you suggesting they suffer more than others when confronted with sin? I don’t believe so. Research has shown the inner conflict is the main cause.

          • JamieHaman

            The last three times I went to church, (3 different churches) I heard about the horrors of being homosexual. That they are damaged, they are going to burn, if they aren’t celibate, that they should be tossed out of a home because they will attack and of course rape other children. That they are an abomination, broken, possessed by demons, and assorted other BS.
            I am convinced that any kid, (raped or not) who trusts his/her parents and pastor, would, upon figuring out they are gay, would be just about emotionally devastated to hear this come out of a deeply trusted peoples’ mouths. Do you really think that would have no effect? Create no damage to a kid’s psyche? I can’t figure out how a kid in those circumstances could avoid major damage. Since I do believe God made us all, and that we are all God’s children, I also think that he made gay people. He certainly made gay animals. No reason he can’t make human beings gay too. He also makes kids with any number of “other” birth defects, which also used to be regarded as proof of sins. I think to hear this, on top of being raped, only makes that child’s situation much much worse, especially since rapists often blame the person who is raped.
            Yes, I do suspect that gay people in this society do suffer much more than straight people, in terms of their sexuality, and the pressures of society.
            Do you also think that divorce also removes personal responsibility from people? Do you think the legalized gambling casinos also removes it? If so, please explain how.

          • Dan P

            “I also think that he made gay people.”

            I understand you might think this, but that isn’t true. God doesn’t create anyone to sin. Sin is something we do when we choose disobedience. A better understanding of gay behavior would help explain why gays struggle.

            It’s unfortunate that some churches are heavy-handed with homosexuality. All of us are sinners. That is a fact. All of us have to confront that in our own lives.

            We also have to make a distinction with what is legal, and what is sin. Man has a strong desire to sin so it’s not surprising we legalize sinful behavior. But that doesn’t mean God is good with it. Sin always carries a price, and that price comes due when God says time is up.

            The issue I have is condoning immoral behavior. That is directly in opposition with God’s will for us. I will obey God, not man.

          • SashaC

            A “study” by a discredited, anti-gay organization? Lol! Try again, with credible sources.

          • Dan P

            The pro-homosexual Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges the study at the time agreed with its findings.

          • SashaC

            Citation on the supposed agreement of the GLMA, please. Even you word it by saying, “at the time.” Even if they did agree, which I question, I seriously doubt they still do.

            Nice cherry picking on the Chakraborty quote. Below is a link to the actual study. He’s not saying gay people are inherently mentally ill because they are gay. He’s saying there are more instances of them having mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION. That means the problem is intolerant people like you, not their sexuality.

            Thanks for making the argument against your own ridiculous claims, though. 🙂

            http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/2/143

          • Dan P

            “Health problems of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) youth are reported as differing from those of heterosexual youth. Increased depression, suicide, substance use, homelessness, and school dropout have been reported. Most studies of GLB youth use clinical or convenience samples.” – J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Mar;38(3):297-304, Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth risks for emotional, physical, and social problems: results from a community-based survey.

          • SashaC

            Even if that wasnt a 16 year old study, you’re conveniently ignoring the reason why, which is what they are getting at. Once people like you die out, and gays are treated equally in all ways by future generations, so will the increased incidences of these issues decrease. They are caused by the effect intolerance has on the psyche, not because they are gay. YOU are the problem, not them. I’m sorry if that is too complex for you to grasp, but you have yet to support your claim. In fact, you’ve done quite the opposite.

          • Dan P

            You can disagree, others, including myself, will disagree with you. The prevalence of child sexual abuse is a major factor:

            A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sexual crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children.” – Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

            Noted child sexual abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.” – Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.

          • SashaC

            Now you’re reaching even further back to a 20 year old study, lol. You going to keep going back? There was a time gays were subjected to shock therapy and lobotomies, you know. Dig up some of those studies, as “proof” of your claims.

            Yes, I disagree. The difference is that you have nothing to back you up but outdated studies and anti-gay/fundy propaganda. You’ve proven that with your repeated failed attempts to support your opinions. Thank you for making that clear.

            If you had anything substantial you’d have come forward with it by now, so this is nothing but a waste of time. Consider yourself dismissed. 😉

          • Dan P

            “Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth. Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men. Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners. Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.” – APA, New data on lesbian, gay and bisexual mental health, 2002

          • SashaC

            You’re going in circles. We’ve already been through this. Clearly, you aren’t comprehending what I’m saying or you just don’t want to. I pity you. We’re done.

          • Dan P

            I understand what you’ve been alluding to. I responded to it as a new comment.

          • SashaC

            It won’t post my original reply to this, so I’ll try again.

            You completely edited your original comment to the one above.

            Now we’re back in the 80’s, I see, lol!! So in other words, you’ve got nothing. Duly noted. 🙂

          • Dan P

            His quote supports what I said, “Homosexuals have the highest incidence of psychological and emotional problems, which also costs society in many ways.”

            Many don’t agree with what he thinks the reason is.

          • SashaC

            No it doesn’t. You are taking it out of context, sorry.

            It doesn’t matter whether you agree with his reasoning. If you’re going to cite him as a source, it’s all about his reasoning. Clearly reason is not your strong point.

            I see you conveniently ignored my request for proof of your GLMA claim. I wonder why that could be? Lol!

          • Dan P

            “Health problems of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) youth are reported as differing from those of heterosexual youth. Increased depression, suicide, substance use, homelessness, and school dropout have been reported. Most studies of GLB youth use clinical or convenience samples.” – J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Mar;38(3):297-304, Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth risks for emotional, physical, and social problems: results from a community-based survey.

          • SashaC

            You’ve already posted this comment and I’ve already replied.

          • Paul Hiett

            NARTH? You cited NARTH?

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA….dude, seriously…

          • Dan P

            You should have read further.

          • Paul Hiett

            Name one valid negative impact on society. Just one.

          • Dan P

            Here are only four:
            1. Approximately 64 percent of gay couples split up. That cost is passed on to society (as opposed to 41 percent of heterosexual couples). The cost to society is greater than that of heterosexual couples. This doesn’t even account for the toll on children.

            2. Gay couples have the highest incidence of domestic violence. This also has a cost to society.

            3. Homosexuals have the highest incidence of psychological and emotional problems, which also costs society in many ways.

            4. Homosexuals have the highest incidence of sexually transmitted disease, which also negatively impacts society.

          • Paul Hiett

            Funny, that’s not what I’m finding regarding gay couples.

            http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/12/13/report-same-sex-couples-less-likely-divorce

            How do you explain that?

            Items 2 and 3are horsecrap.

            Item 4…men have a higher rate of catching STD’s than women. Also, over half of all people will have had some type of STD by the time they’re 25. You included. Would you care to try again?

          • Dan P

            “How do you explain that?”

            Getting your information from a gay biased website is hardly fact.

            “Items 2 and 3are horsecrap.”

            You will need to disprove them, not just disagree with them.

            Item 4, I’ve already provided a cite for that.

          • Dan P

            “How do you explain that?”

            Getting your information from a gay biased website is hardly fact.

            “Items 2 and 3are horsecrap.”

            You will need to disprove them, not just disagree with them. I’ve already provided a cite for these.
            Here is another:

            Gay youths 148% more likely to be physically abused in relationships: DOJ-funded report BY DUSTIN SIGGINS, Fri Dec 06, 2013 19:12 ESTTags: Homosexuality, Transgender, Violence

            Item 4:
            Gonorrhea, Syphilis Regain Traction in U.S., CDC Reports JAN 8, 2014

            “”…Gonorrhea and syphilis are on the rise in the U.S., mostly in men with men, a trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia and limited access to health care….””

            A few weeks ago the CDC put out the stats, that last year in America 2% of America’s population [homosexual males] were responsible for 74% of the New Hiv infections in men aged 14-34 in America!

          • MisterPine

            Regarding point 4, please explain to me how two monogamous people in a homosexual relationship could possible spread sexually transmitted diseases, to themselves or to anyone else?

          • Willem

            The only negative impact are your stupid homophobic remarks, grow up.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            No one is forced to support gay marriage.

          • Dan P

            All of the Christian justices of the peace who lost their jobs would disagree. So would the bakers who had to close their business.

          • Paul Hiett

            Religion is not allowed to play a part in teh conduction of government proceedings, which includes our courts and school. No one religion can tell anyone else how to live, and religion cannot be a part of the decision making process of our judges. Our judicial system is not made up of Christian laws, and therefore Christianity does not decide what is and what is not “legal”.

            If a judge cannot do his job because it conflicts with his religious choice, then he can either quit, or go against his religion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Which Christian justices who “lost their jobs”?

            No baker “had” to close their business. They chose to. Just as they chose to open a business. Just as they chose to offer certain products. Just as they chose to violate the law. They were not “forced”.

          • Dan P

            Many Canadian Christian justices of the peace were forced to quit their careers because they were forced to either marry homosexuals or quit. That’s been forced.

            The bakers closed their doors because of a court ruling against them because they refused to support gay marriage. That is also being forced.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Their leaving was a choice. Any person, if they do not like the requirements of their job, are free to quit. To suggest that because a person doesn’t want to do what they were hired to do and then leaves, is being “forced” to quit with without merit.

            The bakers closed their doors because of a lack of business.

          • Dan P

            “Their leaving was a choice.”

            Suggesting they weren’t forced is denying the facts.

            “The bakers closed their doors because of a lack of business.”

            The bakers closed because of the court ruling. Suggesting they had no business is lying.

            Sad that you would try and distort the truth to support your position. That in itself speaks volumes about gay proponents.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If one is “forced” to leave a job, that means they were fired. They were not. Attempting to say that a person who made a choice was forced, is denying the facts.

            Please cite where the court ruling required the bakers to close their business. It would need to be in court ruling in order for the closure to be one that was “forced” upon them.

          • Dan P

            Obfuscating doesn’t change the reasons for being forced to leave their jobs and closing the bakery.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you choose to open a business, you agree to conduct your business under the laws that govern commerce. Those laws might contradict your personal choice of a religion. However, that’s the risk you take when you choose to open that business.

            No one put a gun to their head and forced them to open a business. Either obey the laws, or suffer the consequences. Pretty simple.

          • Dan P

            “Either obey the laws, or suffer the consequences. Pretty simple.”

            Thoughts said, “No one is forced to support gay marriage.”

            I listed two. These are facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t think you get it. Religion is not law. Furthermore, YOUR own particular choice of a religion is not law. The laws of this country trump any religion, period. Always will.

            In the US, anyone who opens a business makes a conscientious choice to operate that business under the laws governing commerce. If a business owner does not wish to follow those laws, they can close shop or be subjected to the law. No one is exempt, regardless of which religion they have chosen to subject themselves too.

          • Dan P

            I listed two examples of people who have lost their jobs due to being forced to support gay marriage. Laws don’t enter into this conversation.

          • Paul Hiett

            They were not forced to support gay marriage. They broke a that says a business cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

          • Dan P

            The owners were forced to do something against their beliefs. That is being forced.

          • Paul Hiett

            No they weren’t. They weren’t forced at all. No one forced them to open that business. They chose to do so of their own free will, knowing full well that the laws governing commerce trump religious beliefs.

            They chose to close their doors rather than abide by the law. They have that option, and so chose to take it.

            If the laws that govern commerce in this country contain a clause that says you cannot discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, that goes against your religion, then you can choose to open your business or not. That choice was theirs, and they chose money.

          • Dan P

            They were forced out of business by gay activists. Period. This point stands as well..no matter how you try and rationalize it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Continuing to say there were forced, does not change the fact that they were not forced. Nor can you prove otherwise.

          • Dan P

            They were forced. Saying they weren’t doesn’t negate the facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, they were not forced. They had a choice. Follow the law as you agreed to when taking the position or opening the business, or be subjected to the consequences.

            Each person “affected” made a conscientious choice.

          • Dan P

            This conversation has nothing to do with the law. thoughts said no one was forced to support gay marriage, and I provided two examples.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            When you are able to provide proof of what you said, then you can accurately call it fact. Until then, it is not, as I have clearly shown.

          • Dan P
          • Paul Hiett

            You, and most of the people on here, fail to understand that this country is not run based on your religion. We have laws in this country, and many of them trump religious beliefs of all faiths. None of you are special…deal with it.

            Yes, in the world of education, the justice system, and even in business and politics and the medical field, there will be situations where the law disagrees with a religious “rule”. The law in this country will always supersede religious opinion.

            Why you think Christians should get some kind of special pass over everyone else is beyond me.

          • Gary

            I refuse to obey any law that violates my religious beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            Open a business and try that, and let’s see how long that lasts.

          • Gary

            Which proves that there really is no freedom of religion in amerika.

          • JamieHaman

            There’s freedom of religion in America, there isn’t the freedom to cram your religion down anyone’s throat.
            You get to worship as you please, with whom you please. You don’t get to drag people with you, over their objections.

          • Dan P

            As I’ve said, this conversation isn’t about law. My comment was about people being forced to condone immoral behavior. My point stands.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, no one has forced anyone to condone behavior they don’t agree with.

            Everything regarding this issue is a choice, with the exception of sexual orientation. Opening a business is a choice. Following a religion is a choice. You can choose to either obey the laws, or choose not to. Either way, that’s your choice, and if you choose the latter, be prepared to answer to the law.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            He CHOSE to resign. No one forced him to do so.

          • Dan P

            He didn’t have a choice. That is not a choice.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Of course he had a choice. Unless he was fired, which he was not, he had a choice. Just as in a pharmacist can choose to work for, or not work for, a pharmacy chain that sells birth control pills and requires those who work there to fill prescriptions for it. If the pharmacist doesn’t want to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, he is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. He is not “forced” to quit.

          • Dan P

            “He is not “forced” to quit.”

            He was forced to quit because he didn’t agree with gay marriage…which is my point. Spin it whichever way you want, you are still wrong. Not having an option to work according to his beliefs is not a choice.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            His decision to disagree with gay marriage is a choice. His decision to leave his employment was a choice. Regardless of how you spin it and want so badly to make him a victim, the fact remains that he CHOSE to resign. No one forced him to.

            “Not having an option to work according to his beliefs is not a choice.”

            He can work. Lots of jobs out there. You seem to think there is some inherent right to be employed and then dictate to your employer what parts of your job you will do and what you won’t do based upon your religious views. That is incorrect.

            The way employment works is this: Here are the job requirements. Are you willing to them or are you not? If not, then don’t take the job.” There is no: “Well, I want to do those things but I don’t want to do those other things, and if you don’t let me pick and those, you are “forcing” me to turn down this job”.

            Ridiculous. Drop the victim mentality.

          • Dan P

            Say what you want. He, and many others, were forced to quit due to not wanting to condone immoral behavior.

            Regurgitating your opinion doesn’t make it true.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Unless you can show where he was fired – and thus “forced” to resign – your statement is simply false.

          • Dan P

            “your statement is simply false.”

            He had no choice to remain in his job. The adoption of gay marriage laws forced him to leave.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Of course he had a choice. He CHOSE to put his belief in his faith before the duties of his job. That was a CHOICE he made. He was not “forced”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They have to do their jobs, which, as agents of the state, are to uphold the law. They’re legally required to perform marriages. They can’t refuse to work just because they disapprove of the genders of the people getting married any more than they can refuse to marry a couple for being interracial, rude, or in some other way displeasing to the judge.

          • JamieHaman

            Got a link for Canadian Christian justices? Provinces of Canada has had ssm since 2003, and it became law across the country in 2005.
            I can’t find a link supporting your assertion, but I can say this, that when laws change, and provide more freedom to more people, then the people who refuse to obey the law need to lose their position. Very simply, all are required to follow the law. That includes Christians.
            Pay the price of your own conscience, don’t make someone else pay for it.

    • Willem

      I just Emailed your comments to Jezus ,she wrote back that you deserve 5 ***** !

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Whooo Hooo!

  • Dan P

    The greatest social harm of gay marriage is the impact homosexuality has on children. Homosexuals have the highest incidence of perpetrating sexual abuse against children. Studies have also shown child sexual abuse victims have a high incidence of becoming gay.

    Homosexuality isn’t harmless. God deemed it a sin for good reason.

    • SFBruce

      Please name the studies which support the claims you make.

      • Dan P

        “In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had intercourse with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.” – Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275

        ———-

        “A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen.” – Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” p.73.

        • Kara Connor

          As with most people desperately attempting to justify their bigotry, the research contradicts you, and you make the classic mistake of confusing same-sex molestation with homosexuality. Your ridiculous attempting to link equality for LGBT people to child molestation is right out of Goebbels playbook.

          Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation – UC Davis Summary of research,
          with 9 citations of relevance
          “Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation”
          http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          Your point about heterosexual marriage is farcical. You deny that institution to gay and lesbian people then trumpet how stable heterosexual marriage is. Unbelievable.

          Note also that

          Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference – Kurt Freund M.D., D.Sc.a, Robin Watson B.Sc.b & Douglas Rienzo B.Sc.
          “Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children”
          http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224498909551494#.VErVVHl0yUk

          Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals? – Carole Jenny, Thomas A. Roesler, Kimberly L. Poyer
          “In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community”
          http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/94/1/41.abstract

          The APA also has a summary of the research on this, citing over 100 papers in “Reviews of Empirical Studies Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents” http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx?item=12 and concluding that “Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support” http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

          and indeed a 24-year long study on families with lesbian parents, Gartrell et al., 2005, finding that not one of the 78 adolescents in the study had reported being sexually or physically abused by their parents. This compares to 26% of American adolescents overall who report parent or caregiver physical abuse. 8.3% report sexual abuse. Whilst the sample size gives a margin of error, a 24 year study like this suggests that lesbians are the least likely of any group to commit child abuse.

          So if we adopt your position that if some members of a group abuse children, therefore no members of that group should be allowed to marry or have children, this suggests that only lesbians should be allowed to get married and be parents.

          • Dan P

            Gay activism has worked hard to suppress research that suggests anything other than what they want society to believe. Of course the APA will post favorable studies…because they are essentially forced to. I’ve read the research you linked to. The same holds true for Pediatrics.

            Independent research, however, tells a very different story…and more is coming out daily to the dismay of gay activists.

            Studies prior to gay activism concur with today’s independent research. The days of gay suppression are over. Now the truth will be allowed to come forward.

          • Kara Connor

            You are not a bigot because you have an opinion, you are a bigot because you attempt to deny legal equality to a whole group of people based on your ill-informed opinions. As for the “truth will come forward”, it is doing. That is why you lose in Federal court after court, why Pop. 8 was struck down, why DOMA was struck down, and why in June there will be marriage equality nationally, as there now is in England, Scotland, France and many other countries. Your anti-LGBT animus and lies have been exposed for what they are, and few people, including the courts, believe you are remotely credible.

          • Dan P

            You are entitled to your beliefs. I’m entitled to mine. Facts are facts. God will have final say.

          • Kara Connor

            I very much doubt it, since there is no evidence he or she exists. But then you’ve shown yourself unable evaluate evidence, or refute a single thing I’ve posted.

          • Dan P

            “But then you’ve shown yourself unable evaluate evidence”

            I evaluate evidence just fine. And I provided a response to yours, even though you find it less than satisfactory.

            There is an abundance of evidence that supports a belief in God.
            There isn’t any to suggest otherwise.

            To place all of your faith in your unproven opinion, is risky..especially since billions of people have found God…and that he is real.

            Is it worth hedging your bets on something you can’t prove or have any evidence to prove? Isn’t that blind faith?

          • Kara Connor

            Pascal’s Wager? Now you reach a new low in logic.

          • Dan P

            Not really. Are you an atheist or agnostic?

          • Dan P

            The major problem for atheism and agnosticism is that they don’t have any evidence to disprove God. None! To believe God doesn’t exist without any evidence is illogical. It requires complete faith in an unprovable belief.

            Christianity, however, has all of the evidence. Including billions of personal experiences that attest to God’s reality. To say there isn’t any evidence to substantiate a belief in God is untrue. It merely means you are rejecting it. That is not disproving it. Big difference.

          • Kara Connor

            The major problem for you is that you are laboring under the misapprehension that we need to (or can) prove the negative. Extraordinary claims, such as the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity require extraordinary evidence of a very convincing nature. A book which claims it is true and that anyone who doesn’t believe it is a fool does not constitute such evidence. Look up “Russell’s Teapot” and you’ll see why.

          • Richard

            That is a common illogical error by atheists. God is already a matter of the historical record. To equate God to a made up imaginary thing is illogical and flat out wrong.

            There is supernatural evidence for God. But I agree with the initial commenter. Most atheists just dismiss the evidence rather than really looking at it, even though they say they do.

            To claim God doesn’t exist is a mistake, and unsupported by anything other than nonsensical mistakes in reasoning, which is very telling.

          • Kara Connor

            Saying there is no evidence for your god (and specifically the god of your bible) is not the same as proving he doesn’t exist. You keep sidestepping the fact that the onus of proof is on those claiming that something exists. Prove that invisible unicorns don’t exist. You can’t. However, the overwhelming balance of probability is that they don’t.

          • Richard

            “Saying there is no evidence for your god (and specifically the god of your bible) is not the same as proving he doesn’t exist.”

            They are two different things. The former means you’ve dismissed the existing evidence and the latter means you don’t have any to support your belief.

            Since there is no such thing as an invisible unicorn, it’s safe to conclude it’s an imaginary construct. Most rational people would agree.

            But to equate an imaginary construct with the historical evidence for God is a mistake, as I said. To even use such an irrational comparison shows to me your critical thinking skills require some work.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Do you consider it a “major problem” for yourself that you can’t disprove things that you don’t believe exist? If not, then I hope you can see how logically defective your comment is.

            If that didn’t sink in, try this little exerise-

            1. Think of something that doesn’t ( in your opinion) exist.

            2. Now, think about how much of a “problem” it is for you, that you don’t have any evidence to prove that thing doesn’t exist.

          • Richard

            Imagining anything means you can’t prove it exists. I think most children realize that.

            What does imagining something have to do with real historical evidence for God?

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Nope. I can imagine a piece of chicken that’s in my fridge right now, and I can prove it exists in a second. Any child could understand that.

            Your last question is too strange to answer. You’re asking me what imagining something has to do with another imaginary thing?

          • Richard

            To your first comment. That’s obvious.

            “You’re asking me what imagining something has to do with another imaginary thing?’

            But God isn’t imaginary. That is the mistake you are making. God has already been shown to be true by Jewish history. You can say you don’t believe it, but God is a matter of the historical record, unlike anything you can make up.

            To disprove God, you would need some evidence to prove the historical record wrong. Do you have any evidence to do that?

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Thank you. I appreciate that moment of honesty in your admitting that you were wrong.

            There’s no proof of God. If there was, there wouldn’t be a non-religious person on the planet. It’s an irrational belief, not based on any evidence, that’s why they call it “faith”.

            Did you do that little two-part exercise I recommended?

          • Richard

            I didn’t admit I was wrong. I agreed that if you told someone you had a piece of chicken in your fridge, you could prove it. But only if they were able to look in your fridge. Could you prove it to me?

            Just as you can’t prove to me you have a piece of chicken in your fridge without me physically seeing and touching it, I can’t prove to you God is real without you physically seeing and touching him. But you could draw a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

            “Did you do that little two-part exercise I recommended?”

            What for, it’s an illogical example. You are comparing apples to oranges.

            On one hand you are making something up. On the other, God is a matter of the Jewish historical record. Christian, too. To equate God to an imaginary figure, you would need to disprove all of the historical evidence. Can you do that? Do you have proof Jesus never lived? Wasn’t God?

          • Andy_Kreiss

            You said that imagining something means you can’t prove it exists. I explained why that was wrong, and you admitted it was obvious.

            Yes, I could prove to you that the piece of chicken exists. Easily. Your statement that I couldn’t is false.

            You admit that you can’t prove that God exists, but somehow expect me to come to a reasonable conclusion and believe He does based on evidence. There is no evidence, so that wouldn’t be a reasonable conclusion.

            No, the exerise was a perfectly logical illustration of why it’s not a “problem” for anybody to not be able to prove a negative. Apples to apples.

            I’ve been around for 52 years, and millions of people have been trying for thousands of years to find evidence of God. If there was any, it would be pretty big news.

            If you’re keeping it to yourself, I’m open minded.

          • Richard

            “You said that imagining something means you can’t prove it exists”

            Imagining something means it’s not real. The chicken example was real. I think you might be confused.

            “There is no evidence, so that wouldn’t be a reasonable conclusion.”

            You keep saying that and I keep saying there is. There is so much evidence, the only logical conclusion is to believe God is real. I take it by your comments you haven’t really looked.

            “No, the exerise was a perfectly logical illustration of why it’s not a “problem” for anybody to not be able to prove a negative.”

            That’s again where you are making a mistake. You are equating your imagination with reality. God demonstrated himself as real throughout Jewish history. If you don’t believe it, you would need to disprove it. Not just dismiss it.

            “I’ve been around for 52 years, and millions of people have been trying for thousands of years to find evidence of God.”

            Billions of people have already found God and experience him daily. Are you saying they are all wrong and you a right?

          • Andy_Kreiss

            What I originally asked was for you to think of something that you don’t believe exists. You changed that to “imagine”, then said that imagining something means it’s not real. I think that’s where you originally got confused.

            If you’re not completely against tackling that two-part thing I offered, what’s the first thing that pops into your head as an example of something that you believe doesn’t exist?

            Yes, you keep saying there’s evidence, and I’ve asked you to share it. But you just keep saying it, not showing it. Any conclusion you’ve reached isn’t logical, it’s faith-based.

            No mistake on my part. I have no obligation to disprove something that there’s no evidence for. I think you realize this, that’s why you’re shying away from that nice little exercise.

            True, billions of people believe in God. Throughout history, hundreds, probably thousands of different gods, with only small minorities agreeing on the details. Only two obvious logical possibilities here;

            A) Most of them are wrong.

            B) All of them are wrong.

            I respect everybody’s right to believe anything they want, and I don’t expect a rational conversation with religious people about religion. My initial comment was only meant to point out the logical flaw in your idea of a “major problem” for the non-religiousand you’ve made my point pretty well.

          • Richard

            I wasn’t confused at all. You got things mixed up. Imagining is thinking of something that doesn’t exist.

            Non believers often get confused when they try to equate imagination with reality.

            “Yes, you keep saying there’s evidence, and I’ve asked you to share it.”

            You’ve never asked me to share it. You might want to reread your comments so you know what you are talking about. It seems you are confused a lot.

            “I have no obligation to disprove something that there’s no evidence for.”

            Sure you do. Shouldn’t you have some evidence to support your belief that God doesn’t exist? Do you often believe in things with no evidence?

            Christianity isn’t a small minority. Last time I checked, it was the most common belief on earth. Atheism rates as a small minority.

            I’ve talked with many atheists with differing beliefs as well. That’s how it is with most beliefs.

            Your possibilities are based on a error in assumption.

            “and I don’t expect a rational conversation with religious people about religion.”

            Atheists are the least rational: to firmly believe there isn’t any God with no actual evidence. Atheism is the most illogical of all beliefs.

            You can have rational discussions with Christians. But to do so, you have to be rational. I find atheists to be irrational, which is why some continue to use the invisible FSM proposition instead of a rational argument to defend their faith.

            Your major problem remains (that wasn’t my initial comment). Since you can’t definitively prove God doesn’t exist, the possibility remains that he could. Believing that God doesn’t exist requires complete blind faith, which, to me, is highly illogical.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            Sometimes when people are confused, they’re the last ones to realize it. You’re still avoiding that exercise, still failing to offer a shred of evidence, and you seem to be ignoring everything I’ve written.

            Somebody else mentioned Russell’s Teapot, which might help you, if you’re not threatened by logic.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

            Unless you’re going to try to be more rational, and answer simple questions, I may not be too interested in taking this any further. Maybe I should have stopped at pointing out the fallacy of your “major problem” comment..

          • Richard

            I’m very familiar with the FSM foolishness. It’s illogical, but some people still think it is rational, such as yourself. That’s not my problem.

            I’ll try to clear this up for you:

            Imaginary: existing only in the imagination, such as Russell’s Teapot. Imagination is not reality.

            Jesus: a matter of the historical record . A matter of reality.

            To try and equate the two – imaginary things with reality – is both illogical and unreasonable. Do you have a reasonable argument to defend your faith that God doesn’t exist?

            My logic is fine. I believe yours is causing you some confusion.

            I believe in God. I have evaluated countless pieces of evidence to support that belief. I also have a personal relationship with God. I’ve had one for many years. God has revealed himself to me countless times over the years. Provided many miracles to me, too. To deny God is real would require me to lie.

            You, however, have not experienced the living God, which is why you don’t believe. Since you don’t believe God is real, you should have some evidence to support your belief. Yet, you haven’t provided anything other than an illogical analogy, which even wiki says is absurd. That should be a tip. As the commenter stated, you have a major problem that you haven’t solved.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            You didn’t prove that the teapot is imaginary. I think you have a major problem.

          • Richard

            Your logic seems to have run off. Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it any truer.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            That’s astounding, that you typed that out, directed at me. Not much self-awareness in you.

          • Andy_Kreiss

            I don’t believe I mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but since you brought it up, yes, it is foolish. And it always makes me laugh when religious people react to having their foolishness exposed by calling it foolish. That’s the entire point of the FSM.

            Then you shifted from God to Jesus. Are you confused, or being deliberately dishonest?

            No, I haven’t seen God. I’m sane.

            What did Wiki say was absurd?

            No, I don’t have a major problem. I’ve tried a few times now to explain that proving a negative is impossible. That was the point of my two-part exercise, the one you still are afraid to answer.

            Is any of this getting through to you?

          • Kara Connor

            I’m really interested if you have contemporaneous records for the biblical Jesus.

          • Richard

            All of the gospels were written within Christ’s generation. Some within 10 to 20 years. Some scholars believe many of Paul’s writings were within 4 – 5 years of Christ’s rising from the dead.

            Do you have any contemporaneous writings of Alexander the Great? How about of Herod the Great?

          • Kara Connor

            The earliest record is around 60 years later.

          • Richard

            That’s not true. Paul died at about 65 AD. Christ ascended to heaven around 30 AD. That’s 35 years, which is within Christ’s generation. As I said, Paul wrote many of his letters within 5 years of Christ ascending to heaven. These letters were well circulated shortly after. Most historical records don’t come anywhere near that close to the actual events. In fact, this is astounding from a historical point of view. Most other histories don’t have this attestation.

          • Kara Connor

            I asked for contemporaneous records. The Romans, who were very methodical record keepers, have mention of Pontius Pilate, for example, but did not record the biblical Jesus or any of the alleged deeds he did. Surely that is odd?

          • Richard

            The Romans were very methodological, especially Cornelius Tacitus. Tacitus, a renown Roman historian, wrote about Jesus. Weren’t you aware of that?

            Contemporaneous means occurring in the same time. That doesn’t mean non biblical.

          • Kara Connor

            Tacitus mentioned him in Annals, written around the year 116. And even the gospels aren’t contemporaneous.

          • Richard

            Tacitus wrote a large part of Roman history a hundred or so years after the events. Does that mean you don’t believe Roman history even though you said the Romans were methodical record keepers? Or is it just the part about Jesus you don’t believe?

            As I already said, all of the NT is contemporaneous written by eye witnesses during their lifetime (most prior to 68 AD). If you aren’t going believe these historical writings which are considered extremely close-dated, then you shouldn’t believe any history, since the vast majority is much later dated, and sometimes hundreds if not multiple hundreds of years after the events.

            To me, it seems you are being selective in what you choose to believe and disregard. That’s not doing a fair evaluation, in my opinion.

          • Kara Connor

            The gospel writers did not write anything contemporaneously. Does it really not strike you as at all odd that they knew someone who was allegedly performing miracles, and came back from the dead, but didn’t see it as important enough to write down at the time? Would you wait 30 or 40 years? Tacitus can be confirmed by other historians. No one source should, no pun intended, be taken as gospel.

          • Richard

            I have a family member who is writing his memoirs. He is 86 and writing about his teen years. Have you not heard of this? Would you say he is lying because he chose to write about his life at that age?

            “No one source should, no pun intended, be taken as gospel.”

            There are others, including Roman historians. I just mentioned one to you.

          • Kara Connor

            I keep asking for contemporaneous. Please point out just one.

          • Richard

            I’ve already done that twice. I doubt doing that a third time will convince you. You can continue to deny the contemporaneous writers, but that does nothing to deny them. It just means you don’t accept their record keeping as many historians do. I believe you aren’t knowledgeable about how to understand and accept history. That is your problem and not one of the historical record.

            Did you happen to find all of the other non biblical historians I mentioned?

          • Kara Connor

            You haven’t done it even once yet. Contemporaneous is Latin for “at the same time”. That isn’t the same as forty or sixty or eighty years later.

          • Richard

            You most likely don’t believe any history as most of it was written long after the events.

            That said, all of the NT was written by people who personally experienced Jesus or those that did…which is exactly contemporaneous.

            But I doubt this will be satisfactory to you because of your unreasonableness, not because the historical accounts aren’t credible and reliable…or extremely close-dated…unlike that of the majority of historical accounts at that time.

        • SFBruce

          You lifted all of this from the Family Research Council’s website, something you really should attribute to them, rather than making me figure it out for myself. Perhaps you don’t know the SPLC has designated the FRC a hate group as a result of their use of bad science and distortion of good science to further marginalize LGBT people. Something else that works against you is the fact that the three sources you cite are old: the most recent is 15 years old, while the other two are from 45 years ago.

    • Paul Hiett

      That’s a lie and nothing more. You really should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such pathetic lies to spread your hate.

      • Dan P

        My comments aren’t lies. That is what the research shows.

        • Paul Hiett

          A quick Google search just listed so many legitimate articles proving you wrong I don’t know where to begin to list them…

          http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          And this…

          http://stopabusecampaign.com/most-sex-abusers-are-heterosexual/

          The research is clear that the sexual orientation of an adult is not
          a factor in the analysis of child abuse. The American Psychological
          Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American
          Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America
          all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between
          homosexuality and child abuse.

          Yes, what you posted very obviously a lie.

          • Dan P

            “The research is clear that the sexual orientation of an adult is not a factor in the analysis of child abuse.”

            Not true.

            “. The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American
            Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America”

            Of course they do. That’s not based on science, but gay activist pressure.

            David Thorstad, homosexual activist and historian, a former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: “Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture.” – David Thorstad, “May/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement” Journal of Homosexuality 20 (1990): 253.

            “Yes, what you posted very obviously a lie.”

            Not at all. Research before gay activism shows the opposite. The recent suppression of accurate research is not because it doesn’t exist, but that it is suppressed through gay activism. This is in the process of changing. Those in the field know what the facts are.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “The greatest social harm of gay marriage is the impact homosexuality has on children. ”

      Since the allowance of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage is unrelated to the legality of gay people raising children, how is there harm to children by allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage? If anything, the legality of same-gender marriage HELPS the children who are being raised by gay couples as it provides them with better legal protections.

      “Homosexuals have the highest incidence of perpetrating sexual abuse against children.”

      Please cite your source for that statement.

      “Studies have also shown child sexual abuse victims have a high incidence of becoming gay.”

      Please cite your source for that statement.

      • Dan P

        Have have in earlier comments.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          I’ll ask again:

          Since the allowance of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage is unrelated to the legality of gay people raising children, how is there harm to children by allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage?

          “Have have in earlier comments.”

          Then it should be easy to cut and paste, shouldn’t it?

          • Dan P

            1. The mental health of parents greatly affect the mental health of their children. Gays have the highest incidence of mental health problems:

            “Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates.” – Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.; the study is published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

            2. The majority of child sexual abuse is at the hands of a parent. Homosexuals have the highest incidence of child sexual abuse. This is only one of many factors.

            A study in the Journal of Sexual Research found that “although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sexual offenses.”

            3. Child sexual abuse is a common cause of the development of homosexual behavior.

            Noted child sexual abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.” – Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.

            4. The high rate domestic violence among gay relationships. Domestic abuse takes its toll on children.

            “Nearly half of lesbian and heterosexual women (46.4% and 43.3%, respectively) and three-quarters of bisexual women (74.9%) reported experiencing sexual violence other than rape in their lifetime. Approximately, one-third of lesbian women (32.3%), more than half of bisexual women (58.0%), and one-quarter of heterosexual women (25.9%) experienced unwanted sexual contact, while 37.8% of lesbian, 62.9% of bisexual, and 32.4% of heterosexual women reported non-contact unwanted sexual experiences.” – Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding; The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation; January 2013; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia; 11,12

            5. The high rate gay relationship break-ups. This also takes its toll on affected children.

            “70 percent of heterosexual couples were married for 10 years or longer.” – Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

            The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this “snapshot in time” is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.” – 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

            These few points don’t even touch on many other of the ill effects on children.

          • Paul Hiett

            Once more spreading your lies I see…and from religious websites. Well, no bias there, eh? I mean, they wouldn’t stoop to posting misleading stats or articles slanted against homosexuality, right? Noooooo…nothing of the sort!

            The majority of child abuse victims are female. The majority of pedophiles are men. The math just doesn’t work out, but I know you’ll ignore such facts.

            I’ve posted from non-religious sites…can you do the same to support your claims?

            It’s a rhetorical question, btw…I’ve Googled it already, you can’t.

          • Dan P

            I’ve listed all of the cites. The research comes from a wide variety of sources. Those are the facts.

          • MisterPine

            Hardly factual. I’d like to know where you got the idea that a mental health organization like the APA could be lobbied by anybody, and even if they were, what about all the other organizations like the American Psychiatric Association who came to the same conclusions and findings. It’s because they have newer and better research and data.

          • Dan P

            Here are two examples of gay activism 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 California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

            Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.” – Dr. Trayce Hansen, psychologist, author

          • MisterPine

            I question the source of these articles, which are not given.

            I can, however give you an interesting link regarding Dr. Trayce Hansen:

            http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2012/03/open-email-to-dr-trayce-hansen.html

          • Dan P

            What were you expecting, a pro-gay activist?

          • MisterPine

            What I was expecting was non-biased sources.

          • Dan P

            The first was. If the truth was allowed to come forward, you’d see a lot more. Gay activism has worked hard to skew public opinion.

          • MisterPine

            Even if that were true, what about all the other mental health organizations who are in agreement? Can’t accuse them all of giving in to lobbying.

            As for gay activism, it’s probably a good thing to be an activist if you find you are being attacked, oppressed and murdered by Christian bigots.

          • Dan P

            “what about all the other mental health organizations who are in agreement?”

            You will see that change, as truth always comes out…in time. And God is on the side of truth. He allows things for a time. But consequences are always incurred. No one escapes them.

  • Dan P

    Jamiehaman, since you aren’t believing the cites I’ve posted, here are some examples from people who worked through their homosexuality:

    “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

    “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

    “It has been seventeen years since I resolved my homosexual problems. I use that word purposely. I am not suppressing the feelings. I have filled the underlying needs that created the homosexual attractions, and the problems are resolved. I am happy to say I no longer struggle with homosexuality. It no longer controls my life.” – Jason Park, author

    • Paul Hiett

      This link debunks any and all “stories” you think prove your point.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=2#__utma=149406063.1954735693.1424355556.1424355556.1426459724.2&__utmb=149406063.1.10.1426459724&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1426459724.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=229890460

      This isn’t some pro-gay website or some obscure author no one has ever heard of. When it comes to psychiatry, there isn’t anyone higher that you could cite to refute this.

      Game, set, match.

      • Dan P

        I didn’t know this was a game.

        Psychiatry, for many years, said anxiety disorder and depression were caused by a ‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain. So for many years, people believed them…until independent research said it wasn’t true…in 1998. But psychiatrists continued on with the unproven myth…until there was so much independent research that they were forced to confess there was no truth to the theory. In 2011, they officially said they were wrong.

        My point is, psychiatrists have been wrong countless times in the past. In fact many still believe the chemical imbalance myth to be true in spite of even the pharmaceutical companies denying it was ever true. Using one psychiatrist’s opinion is hardly game, set, and match.

        I’ll let a few personal stories give you the real goods on this issue:

        “I walked out of David’s office for the last time on August 25, 1999, 27 months after I had first walked in. I was a different man. Stronger. Happier. More grounded. Whole. I had been “sexually sober” and faithful to my wife for two years — and had found peace and joy in doing so.” – Rich Wyler

        “My struggle [being gay] hasn’t really been about going “straight.” It has been about getting free.” – David Matheson

        “I am even more grateful that he healed me and took those inappropriate things from me. I am left with a great attraction and appreciation for other men and their various attributes, including looks. My wife and I can now even admire the same men in a humorous kind of way! I know that any of my inappropriate desires or behaviors can come back if I am not doing my part in prayer, study, remaining submissive to his will, etc.” – Bob D.

        “Recovery has been more of a journey for me than an end result. It is clear that homosexuality was only the symptom of other underlying problems. As I resolved these other issues, I experienced a natural shift from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I was encouraged by men I met along the way who had gone before and showed me that it could be done. These men had implemented changes in their own lives that resulted in a shift of their sexual orientation. These men were standing on solid ground. Now I am too.” – Floyd Godfrey

        “The journey has been the hardest thing I’ve ever done, but it was worth it. Today, I am a different man — stronger, healthier, happier, more loving, more confident, more mature. I am a better father, a better husband, a better friend, and a more devoted son of God. I would never trade the peace, growth and healing I have experienced for anything in the world.” – Jason Park

        “I am at the point in my life now where homosexuality is no longer a struggle. I’d have to go through a lot of barricades — psychologically, spiritually and emotionally — to get to the point of acting on any temptation. I am very fulfilled in my life. I no longer want homosexuality in my life. I no longer need it. Today, I identify with other heterosexual men as my peers, my brothers and my equals. I am in love with my wife. I love being a husband and a daddy.” – Jerry Armelli

        “I have learned over the past twelve years of counseling hundreds of men, women, and adolescents, and working with thousands of people in healing seminars around the world, that no matter what issue or issues we are facing in our lives, our wounds all originate from the same sources. For, as Leanne Payne said, “To write about the healing of the homosexual is to write about the healing of all men and women.”2 We all fall short of our original design for greatness. When we heal ourselves, the world heals a little more. When we help others heal, we heal in the process.” – Richard Cohen

        Books written by ex-gay authors:
        – 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

    • Kara Connor

      Can you say “Exodus International”? Note also that your poster-boy never says that his attraction to men has gone away. He obfuscates with “resolved”.

  • Nhdriver

    Yeah okay Dan, Gary Et.al. I am still waiting for any of you to tell me in your own words how you have personally been harmed by marriage equality. Dan, you are the master of cut and paste I give you that. And Gary’s obsession with the word “Sodomite” in describing his fellow human being while claiming to have a direct hot line to the thoughts and feelings of Christ is really entertaining. So whenever you get the chance tell me how all the problems of modern America and the personal problems and failures in your lives directly relate to the two wonderful married women who live up the street from me, And who’s daughter is currently serving in the Air Force. I am sure it will be a good read.

    I am so happy I have stumbled across this forum. It is very nice to meet to all. Please fasten your seat belts it will be a fun ride !!!!

    ~Jim AKA Nhdriver

    • Dan P

      I’ve already listed many of my concerns.

      I have a question for you. Are you concerned about your eternal destination?

      • Nhdriver

        So basically in a nutshell what concerns you is that someone who you consider inferior is now being treated as an equal. That is clear Now that we have established that we will have many fun exchanges in the future. And while you have concerns I have yet to have you tell me how my neighbors have hurt you. I am still all ears..

        On the subject of my spirituality all I can say is my people have pondered these issues long before the Bronze Age superstition of the three Abrahamic religions decided to display their love of destruction upon mankind.

        Gary,,,, Gary,,, Gary,,,, Please include all of the other things God opposes when trying to justify your over the top obsession on the issue. Stop cherry picking, and I hope you have never eaten a cheeseburger.

        See you later on guys !

        NHD

    • Gary

      You are someone who does not care what God thinks or says about anything. For that reason, it is a waste of time to try to explain anything to you. Just know that Christians oppose homosexuality and ssm because we read in the Bible that God opposes them.

  • Dan P

    The main issue with homosexuality is that the result of condoning it will lead more people into eternal destruction. No matter what man rules, homosexuality is still a sin against God…where man’s laws don’t apply.

    Christians are reaching out to the gay community to alert them to the perils of gay behavior in the hopes that they will turn to Christ, repent, and be saved from eternal separation from God. We do this, not as an act of hate, but of love…as Jesus did.

  • Willem

    Homophobia=Racism.

    • Gary

      Opposition to homosexuality is a good thing. It is opposition to an immoral behavior.

      • MisterPine

        Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobia is.

        • Gary

          All behavior is a choice.

          • MisterPine

            Homosexuality is not a behavior either. You can be homosexual and never touch another person.

    • Richard

      I don’t think anyone is afraid of homosexuals. I’m not.
      Homosexuality is a behavior. That isn’t a race.

      • Paul Hiett

        Homosexuality is one’s sexual orientation. It’s not a choice.

        • Richard

          The research I’ve seen says it is a choice. I also have gay friends. They all say they know it’s a choice and when it happened for them. A few of them even know why. We’ve had long conversations about this. They don’t agree with what’s been said, that they were born that way.

          • Paul Hiett

            Religious websites are not exactly a good source for unbiased research.

          • Richard

            Neither are pro-gay websites. The research I’ve seen comes from therapists who work with homosexuals on a variety of issues. One of my friends is doing that now.

          • Paul Hiett

            Reparation therapy?

          • Richard

            No. For other issues. She’s in an abusive relationship and is wondering why she keeps picking people who are abusers. We’ve had some long talks about it so she’s finally getting help to figure it out.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s good…reparative therapy doesn’t work, long since established.

            Orientation has never been a choice. What someone is attracted to is not something we wake up each day and decide.

            Case in point…”you”. I would wager to say that you don’t find other men attractive. You don’t even get aroused at the sight of nude men, I bet…only women.

            You obviously don’t control that part of you. You haven’t just “decided” to like women and not men, it was simply part of you.

            If you possibly can, imagine those same feelings that you have for women being reversed in someone else. They look at men the same way you look at a woman. They can’t control that factor, it just is.

            So, clearly it’s not a choice.

            Unless you do find both men and women attractive, and are just making a choice?

          • Richard

            “Orientation has never been a choice. What someone is attracted to is not something we wake up each day and decide.”

            I and my friends disagree with you. They should know.

            “You obviously don’t control that part of you. You haven’t just “decided” to like women and not men, it was simply part of you.’

            I disagree again. I decided for myself after I experimented. It wasn’t for me.

            Do you have any gay friends? Did you ask them?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do I have gay friends. Let’s see…where do I begin?

            My fiance is bisexual, and is legally married right now to another woman as they await their divorce. She finds both men and women attractive.

            The CEO of my company is a lesbian, and has been with her wife for 30 years. 5 other employees (we’re not a large company) are gay. One of them considers himself bisexual, the other 4 do not.

            My daughter, now aged 20, is gay. She has no attraction to men at all.

            I have many other friends/acquaintances who are gay as well. None of them agree that the attractive they have to the same gender is at all a “choice” that they make.

          • Richard

            Interesting how people have different opinions on the matter. One of my friends liked men in the beginning then changed to women in her thirties. She’s not bisexual but wanted a change and someone more emotional. She’s had a few relationships, but keeps getting abused. She’s the one getting help to figure out why.

            Another friend of mine, a man, married a woman who beat the crap out of him. He switched to a relationship with a nice guy for about 2 years. They got along nicely, but he said he liked woman parts better so he is now looking for a nicer woman (he’s been doing that for awhile already).

            My cousin has been all over the map. He’s still trying to figure out what he likes.

            Another female friend experimented during her college years, settled with a steady girl friend, and just recently said she was tired of it and wanted to get married and settle down with a guy and have a family. She said she was so done with women that they turn her off now.

            None of my friends have had long lasting relationships and seem unsettled. So I’ve seen all kinds of flipping around for various reasons with all of them.

            We’ve all got a friend who is a therapist and we pick his brain all the time. He explained why so much upheaval and why people pick same-sex partners. It made sense to everyone, which is why my friend is getting help with her issues. The others are thinking of doing the same since they are so unhappy with how things have turned out so far.

            All of them want good and lasting relationships (like me and my wife). But haven’t found it. I keep telling them to hurry up, as time is slipping by. They tell me to shut up. Haha

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you believe anyone who says that they are only attracted to the same gender?

          • Richard

            Sure, why not? I am. That’s not to say other men can’t be good looking. I like sunsets too. But that doesn’t mean I find men attractive in a sexual or romantic way.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then how can you state it’s merely a choice? You are then accusing them of lying about what they feel is attractive.

            So, either millions of people are lying, or orientation is not a choice.

          • Richard

            It’s a choice for me and my friends. We’ve discussed this issue to death already (they are even p-off that some people are still saying it’s not a choice). They didn’t agree with it right from the beginning but are happy that homosexuality has gained acceptance to a degree.

            They don’t agree with your perspective because they say it demeans them and they are pitied instead of respected like everyone else. They want to be happy with their decisions and who they date just like everyone else.

            They also entirely disagree with being equated to a lowly animal. They have more reasons too, which aren’t coming to mind at the moment.

            It looks like we’re going to have to disagree. My experience is much different than yours.

            Were you intending on answering my other questions?

          • Paul Hiett

            I understand that your experience is different, but your experience is not their experience, or mine. Plain and simple, they don’t believe that they have a choice in the matter. Other than accusing them of lying, it clearly proves that orientation is not a choice that people can always make. Maybe to someone who is considered bisexual, but we cannot simply dismiss that orientation is a choice just because you or your friends feel differently.

            As for the other examples, they’re not relevant. Polygamy and pedophilia have nothing to do with one’s orientation. Gay or straight makes no difference in regards to taking many spouses or being interested in a minor child.

          • Richard

            “believe that they have a choice in the matter. ”

            My friends have a different perspective, as I’ve said a couple of times now.

            “Other than accusing them of lying, it clearly proves that orientation is not a choice that people can always make.”

            It sure sounds like you are saying all of my friends are lying. Why won’t you believe their personal experiences? Why do you think your opinion overrides their life experience?

            “Polygamy and pedophilia have nothing to do with one’s orientation.”

            On what grounds are you making that claim? How would you know? How does anyone know?

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not saying that your friends are lying. If they’re bisexual, then obviously they aren’t. However, just because your friends are bisexual does not mean everyone is. Your sample size is way too small. I’m not bragging when I say I simply know more gay people than you…it just is.

            Your friends being bisexual changes nothing for those out there who are gay. Ask them, and they will tell you that their attractions are for the same gender. It would be a fallacy to assume that just because your friends are bisexual and claim attraction to both genders that everyone else must be lying. I don’t think anyone could believe that, as it’s simply not logical.

            Finally, sexual orientation has only to do with the feelings of arousal one gets for either the opposite gender, or the same gender (or both). The very definition of “sexual orientation” removes it from the polygamy and pedophilia arguments.

          • Richard

            My friends don’t consider themselves bisexual.

            “I’m not bragging when I say I simply know more gay people than you…it just is.”

            What you are inferring is that my friends don’t know what they are talking about and you do.

            “sexual orientation has only to do with the feelings of arousal one gets for either the opposite gender, or the same gender (or both).

            According to my therapist friend, he said sexual attraction and arousal start in the mind by the way a person thinks. He also said that our thinking patterns are learned. I’ve read other comments saying the same thing. I tend to agree. I can see that in my own life.

            What is your definition of sexual orientation?

          • Paul Hiett

            With regards to your friends, if they feel attraction to both sexes, then they are simply considered bisexual. If they only feel attraction to the opposite gender, then they are hetero, while obviously if they only feel attraction to the same gender, they are homosexual.

            I’m not saying that they’re lying at all, I’m simply pointing out your small group of friends isn’t indicative of the overall group of homosexuals in the world. Most of them disagree that they have a choice in what gender turns them on. If the majority of that group is standing up and stating that they feel no attraction to the opposite gender, then either you are saying that they are lying, or you must admit that such orientation is not a choice for them.

            Finally, I invite you to look up the definition of “sexual orientation”. Please don’t put forth the opinion of your friend; I am referring to the accepted definition of the term. Once you have that, I would like to see how you believe it is related to polygamy and pedophilia.

          • Richard

            “With regards to your friends, if they feel attraction to both sexes, then they are simply considered bisexual”

            I said they didn’t. They just switched what they were attracted to.

            It sounds to me you are convinced your opinion is the only correct one. I would caution you that there is a diverse range of opinions on the subject for gays and non gays. My opinion and observations disagree with yours. I’m okay to leave it at that.

            But why is it so important for you to believe gays don’t have a choice? What would change if it did? What will you say to all of those who disagree with your perspective?

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve never heard of anyone just switching what turns them on. People just don’t wake up each day and think, “Today I’ll get aroused at the sight of another man”. Orientation doesn’t work that way, and if that’s what your friends are claiming, I’d suggest they get to a psychiatrist because that would be a new precedent never before seen.

            I understand that you and I have different subject, but facts are facts. Orientation is not something that is a choice for people. If you claim you can just switch that feeling, then you’re bisexual, and not hetero. Plain and simple. I suggest maybe you would benefit from talking to gay people outside of your circles…get a fresh perspective.

            Lastly, let’s say that hypothetically sexual orientation is a choice that people make. Does that give religion the right to discriminate against them for that choice? Religion is clearly a choice…so why are we not allowed to discriminate against someone’s religious choice, but we are against their choice of a lover?

          • Richard

            “I’ve never heard of anyone just switching what turns them on.”

            Maybe you need to get out more. Haha

            “Orientation doesn’t work that way, and if that’s what your friends are claiming, I’d suggest they get to a psychiatrist because that would be a new precedent never before seen.”

            Do you mean you’ve never heard of that before? What about the stuff that other commenter posted? Did you look at the article about the woman who went from gay to happily married to a man. I think the link is still on these comments. I’ve seen it happen, and so have my friends. I don’t think it’s the anomaly you think it is.

            What about all those people who did the reparation thing and have remained happily married to a heterosexual partner?

            “Orientation is not something that is a choice for people.”

            But I’m saying it is because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

            “I suggest maybe you would benefit from talking to gay people outside of your circles…get a fresh perspective.”

            I’ve already seen it, though. So it does happen.

            “Does that give religion the right to discriminate against them for that choice?”

            I don’t believe so. I’m a Christian and me and my friends get along fine. They live their lives and I live mine. I would like them to become Christian but that’s up to them. I don’t push the issue. We talk about it a lot because they have a lot of good questions.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, orientation is not a choice. Those people who claim to “switch” between their attraction to both genders…they are, by the very definition, “bisexual”. They may not want to believe it, but that’s exactly what they are. Maybe they’re embarrassed by it…many are (and can you blame them the way religious societies react to them?). They might be living lives in a heterosexual fashion, but they do still have those same attractions.

            Regardless, and I’ll even concede that they are switching between their orientations in some newfangled method never before heard of, they are not the majority. The majority of gay people are gay…they’re homosexual. They only feel attraction towards members of their same gender. You cannot discount what they are saying simply because your friends have told you something else.

            If we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, then we cannot say that those who claim to have no attraction to the opposite gender are lying. Therefore, regardless of what experience you or your friends have, the sexual orientation for those other people is not a choice. I’ll even go one further and suggest that maybe for some people, it IS a choice. Maybe they have that much control over when their brains release the chemicals that control sexual arousal…but that doesn’t detract from the fact that for most gay people, it is not a choice that they have in life.

            So, even if orientation is a choice for some, clearly it is not a choice for everyone. Based on that knowledge, is it really fair to discriminate against people for something that they have no control over?

          • Richard

            “Again, orientation is not a choice.”

            You keep saying that. I keep disagreeing with you. Can we agree to disagree?

            “the sexual orientation for those other people is not a choice.”

            My therapist buddy says a lot of people don’t know it’s a choice. It’s like someone who has anger issues doesn’t think he has a choice to not get angry. But once he spends some time with a therapist who can point out why he gets angry, he can change his anger issues by looking at things differently. I don’t have anger issues so I can’t relate. But my buddy says people make change all the time. He doesn’t see homosexuality as being any different.

            “Based on that knowledge, is it really fair to discriminate against people for something that they have no control over?”

            Is that why it is important for you to believe they have no choice? So they can’t be blamed for their behavior?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sounds like your therapist buddy knows more than everyone else out there on the subject, and I would reckon he’s not even gay, is he?

            Your therapist friend apparently knows something that most people in the world don’t. Has he published his findings? What were the peer reviews like in regards to him announcing that sexual orientation is now a choice everyone can make?

            I’m curious what your therapist friend thinks about this…http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=2#__utma=149406063.1954735693.1424355556.1426517262.1426528241.4&__utmb=149406063.1.10.1426528241&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1426528241.4.4.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=193319341

          • Richard

            “Your therapist friend apparently knows something that most people in the world don’t.”

            I don’t think so. He said this is basic therapy stuff. It happens everyday in therapist offices.

            Regarding your link, I read that yesterday. My buddy has a very dim view of psychiatrists and psychiatry. One day we were talking about it and he sent me a link:

            http://www.cchr.org

            I had a look and even I was appalled.

          • Paul Hiett

            One other thing…I’d like you to read the statements on this article from the professional organizations:

            http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

            American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry

            “Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual
            orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so
            may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can
            be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more
            gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for
            attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness.”

            American Academy of Pediatrics

            “Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence.
            Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their
            sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express
            their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification
            through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed
            specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it
            can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for
            achieving changes in orientation.”

            There are quite a few of them on there, btw.

          • Richard

            I’ve had a lot of experience in the medical system. I take most things that are published and recommended with a grain of salt. If a person just waits a few years, you can count on it changing. They really don’t know a lot about what they talk about. And a lot of stuff they publish is highly politically correct skewed to suit their funders and outside pressures. That’s my experience.

            You aren’t going to convince me. My experience tells me different.
            Thanks for the chat. Got to run.

          • Marvelatthis

            cough cough bull***** And you contradicted yourself. How would you know so much about being gay? Is that something attractive to you? I’m curious. I wouldn’t bash you if you were but reading all your posts is beginning to sound like your either gay or bi-sexual. If you are that’s fine, but everyone has their opinion about it. We won’t discriminate against you.

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpIo_0oemXc danielsangeo

            Why did they choose that way? Why didn’t you?

        • Gary

          But for homosexual behavior, no one would ever know that someone is homosexual. You try to use “orientation” to justify immoral behavior.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpIo_0oemXc danielsangeo

        What is the behavior of “homosexuality?

        • Richard

          Homosexuality is a behavior: a way in which a person acts.

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpIo_0oemXc danielsangeo

            Nice tautology. Now. What is the behavior of “homosexuality”?

          • Richard

            The behavior is making love to a same-sex partner. I thought that may have been obvious.

  • Richard

    The latest research shows homosexuals aren’t born that way. This should put an end to that nonsense:

    “Our findings suggest there may be genes at play — we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation. Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.” – Michael Bailey, Northwestern University psychology professor, Published online: 17 November 2014; Psychological Medicine

    • SashaC

      If that’s how you interpret that quote, your reading comprehension is exceedingly poor.