Legal Group Seeks Recusal of Justices as Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Case

Supreme CourtWASHINGTON — A Christian legal organization in Alabama has filed a motion urging the recusal of two U.S. Supreme Court justices who have officiated same-sex “weddings” as the high court hears oral argument today surrounding states’ rights regarding the definition of marriage.

As previously reported, liberal Justice Elena Kagan, nominated to the bench by Barack Obama, officiated her first same-sex “wedding” last September, participating in a ceremony for her former law clerk Mitchell Reich and his partner Patrick Pearsall. The event was held in Chevy Chase, Maryland, a suburb just outside of the nation’s capital.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton, officiated a ceremony in 2013, where she presided over an event for Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and his partner John Roberts.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” she said prior to the occasion, according to the Washington Post.

The Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Alabama, led by the wife of “Ten Commandments judge” Roy Moore, believes that this disqualifies Kagan and Ginsberg from participating in today’s Obergefell v. Hodges case.

In a press release issued today, the foundation noted that Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges outlines that “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) also requires that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

“Common sense dictates that one who has performed same-sex marriages cannot objectively rule on their legality,” President Kayla Moore stated. “If these justices participate in this case, the court’s decision will forever be questioned as being based on their personal feelings rather than on the Constitution itself.”

  • Connect with Christian News

She noted that even her husband, who serves as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, declined to participate in recent orders surrounding a federal ruling because of his personal speech and activity pertaining to the matter.

“With far less evidence of bias, Chief Justice Roy Moore voluntarily did not vote on the recent Alabama Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriag,” Moore stated. “Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should follow his example.”

“[Ginsberg’s statements] not only tip the court’s hand as to how she will vote, but they also constitute a warning to lower courts that they had better rule in favor of same-sex marriage or the court will step in and reverse them,” Moore had stated last September.

The foundation had also filed an amicus brief with the court asserting that previous Supreme Court decisions declare that issues surrounding marriage are to be left up to the states.

While the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument today following an appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a decision is not expected to be reached in the case until June.


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
  • weasel1886

    I would expect the next time a prayer case before the court anyone that has prayed should be reclused and this group would support that effort

    • Rebecca Spellmeyer

      Just because you pray does not create a conflict of interest. If however you ruled on the case at a lower level or made very public statements regarding which side you were on that is a conflict. There are justices that have attended a gay wedding and there is no conflict.

      • weasel1886

        The Supreme Court was never nor ever be unbiased that is just not possible

      • Names_Stan

        Scalia and Thomas are very well documented in their support of every single tenet of both social conservative and oligarchy talking points.

        Based on your post, should those two recuse themselves from every decision dealing in any way with these issues? Here’s a hint: it would be every single case.

  • Maria Wilson

    I hope that supreme court will have some wisdom and not accept deviated marriage into law as something normal .God have mercy on us !!!

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      Why?

      • Balerion

        Because she is a bigot.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          Oh.

    • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

      Amen!

    • Silver

      Let them have something that the church won’t touch. Like Domestic Partnerships or just a Common Partnership. It will not have marriage in it.

  • Paul Hiett

    Writing’s on the wall folks.

    • William Keeler

      It is on the wall – everywhere we look we can see the writing, and it’s not good. Paul, do you the the United States is the first nation to turn it’s back on God?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Can you try that again, this time working on your subject-verb agreement? (And you may want to check out the proper uses of it’s/its while you’re at it.)

        • William Keeler

          Oh thank you!!! You’re just so, so smart! Thank you for sharing your brilliance with me!! My day has been made right as rain! I’m just so overwhelmed with your grammatical brilliance. Here is an award for you!!!
          …………/´¯/)……….. (¯`
          …………/….//……….. …\….
          ………../….//………… ….\….
          …../´¯/…./´¯………../¯ `….¯`
          .././…/…./…./.|_……_| ……………
          (.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. ….)….)….).)
          ……………../…/….. ../……………./
          ………………. /……………………../
          ………………(………. ..)……………./

          ………………………. ../…………./

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re welcome. Glad I could help.

          • William Keeler

            We should build you a statue to honor your brillance!

            …………………./´¯/)
            ………………..,/¯../
            ………………./…./
            …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
            ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯
            ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
            ……………………..’…../
            ……….”…………. _.·´
            ……………………..(
            …………………………

  • JEmlay

    The laws of this nation have nothing to do with the laws of your god. YOUR god only accepts 1 man + 1 woman as a marriage, not our country.

    • William Keeler

      This is what it looks like when someone turns their back on God, their creator. Unfortunately, there are many, many people just like JEmlay living here in the US, a nation under God.

      • Paul Hiett

        Where, exactly, do you get this notion that the US is “under God”?

        • The Last Trump

          Please. I thought you said you were here for serious debate.
          Debating known facts with fools is just an unnecessary time waster.
          Stupidity like your last question just reveals to all that you really are just another attention starved atheist LGBT troll. Desperate to argue about virtually ANYTHING!
          Keep it up. Show ’em all what you’re all about. Saves me the time!

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ll ask you the same question. Where do you get the idea that this nation is “Under God”?

          • The Last Trump

            “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS”

            Thank You
            Christian News Network Management

          • Paul Hiett

            So, you just insult people rather than actually talk about anything. I do see a disturbing pattern with you.

          • MisterPine

            That’s right, Rumpy, when you get flustered, just revert to your usual behavior and call everyone an attention starved atheist LGBT troll. Much easier than answering the questions put before you.

      • Balerion

        Though I can’t speak for anyone else, how can I have “turned my back on God” when I was never facing him to begin with?

        • William Keeler

          Are we actively seeking out God?
          Are we actively, consciously seeking a living relationship with Jesus Christ?
          Are we fearing God?
          Are we praying to God?
          If the answer is no, then we have “turned our back on God.”

    • william shiver

      I am not gonna fight any point with you. But all in all whether you claim Him or not He is you God too. Everyone including me will stand in front of him and give an account of our lives. Seek Him while He can still be found please.

      • JEmlay

        Me and my god are just fine, thank you. You and your crap American Christian god are nothing but made up garbage because you can’t read or understand English. My god doesn’t sanction same sex marriage however at the same time my god doesn’t care if the US government sanctions same sex marriage. My god realizes that Christianity doesn’t own marriage and accepts other cultures.

        Of course you’re not going to fight William that’s because there’s nothing to fight about. American Christians are going to hell for their actions. Meanwhile Christians all around the globe have learned to love everyone around them and will find themselves in heaven.

        Enjoy hell William.

        • William Keeler

          Where can I read about this “god” of yours? Or do you just make “him” up as you go along?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sounds like what most religions do when they create their deity.

          • JEmlay

            How cute, the CN doesn’t like external links….

            It’s called the Holy Bible. You should check it out sometime!

            You can also talk to any Christian outside the US. There’s also a
            select few Christians inside US borders that haven’t been brain raped by their parent who can properly read English who are also aware of the American Christian problem.

            You’ll find these Christians fighting
            for civil rights for gay people just like they did for black people when they were also fighting for their civil rights. You remember that, right? Remember white only Christian churches? I bet you don’t.

          • William Keeler

            Not so fast about your “Enjoy hell William” comment, JEmlay.

            I read in my 1611 KJV Holy Bible “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

            So, JEmlay and anyone else who reads this comment. I, William Keeler, confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is the Lord and that He paid the price for my sins on the cross. I confess that I believe in my heart that after Jesus paid for my sins, God raised him from the dead on the third day.

            Now I am saved from hell.

          • JEmlay

            Yup, you sure are. You are now free to commit whatever crimes you want. You are also free to go against god and his choice to give people free will. Just keep confessing and you will forever be saved.

          • William Keeler

            That’s not how it works. Check Hebrews 10:26.

          • JEmlay

            How it works and how most Christians act are two different things. That’s pretty much my entire point from the very beginning.

            Thanks for playing!

          • Silver

            You have civil rights and can get married just like me. Man and Woman…why are u griping.

          • JEmlay

            Clearly you’re lost.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, he made his “god” in his own image, like all unrepentant sinners do.

        • Leslie

          Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah and Roman burning, it sounds like your “Christian religion” and it has not done well in Gods eyes in the past. That whole leveling the city thing and all. But to Progress you mean God changed his mind and it’s not an abomination anymore? (that’s in your Bible.) So where are you from and what Christian sect are you?

          • JEmlay

            “God changed his mind and it’s not an abomination anymore?”

            That
            is not what I said. Try quoting my actual words. In fact, try reading
            what is actually written and not what you expect to see.

            Let me help you out a little:

            “My god doesn’t sanction same sex marriage…”

          • Paul Hiett

            Your choice of a deity also doesn’t support divorce, but that doesn’t stop 50% of your marriages ending…

          • Mark A Bradburn

            God hates divorce. You are correct. However, it is allowed.

            The real problem though is that with “no fault” divorce. It only takes on person to destroy a marriage and there is no reason required. It can happen in a moment of weakness.

            I would have gone through hell to avoid a divorce. That didn’t matter.

          • Silver

            Must be from Trailer Park Church of the Devil

    • Jim Deferio

      Define “marriage”. Define “your god”. LOL

      • JEmlay

        Here you go Jim:

        The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

        As for the former, keep reading this thread.

        LOL

        • Jim Deferio

          As I wrote to another commentator below:

          Just two??? So, you want to discriminate against the polyamorous? Where are THEIR “equal rights”. Some men claim that they were born “polygynous”. Researchers are now searching for a polygamous gene. No, they haven’t found one yet but neither have they found anything that would show that someone is “born gay”.

          What about a mother and her adult daughter? Can they marry? Since no children could ever be produced from such a union the incest objection is rendered moot.

          How about an uncle and three of his adult nephews? Where are their “equal rights” to form a loving relationship as a family and one that is officially recognized legally? Would you dare discriminate against them?

          How about a temporary relationship? Who says it has to be “till death do you part”?

          Can two brothers “marry”? No children so no incest objection?

          Do you know the difference between a “covenant” and a “contract”? Do even have an inkling as to why marriage is important and why it can only possibly be between ONE Man and ONE Woman?

          • JEmlay

            They can’t find a straight gene either. Seriously? Is that your
            argument? You look older than 12 but I couldn’t prove it using this
            response of yours.

            Time to open your eyes to the world Jim. News flash, you don’t know it all:

            EDIT – forgot, CN doesn’t like external links so…
            In general, polygamy is legal in about 25% of countries[Note 1] in the form of polygyny, the practice of one husband having two or more concurrent wives. Legal polyandry, the practice of one wife having two or more concurrent husbands, is much less common. Legal group marriage, the practice of concurrent marriages amongst multiple participants often with multiple participants of each gender,[Note 2] is also extremely uncommon. Some countries only legally allow polygyny in their Muslim population. A majority of the world’s countries and nearly all of the world’s developed nations do not permit polygamy, and there have been calls for the abolition of polygyny in many developing countries.

            “Since no children could ever be produced from such a union”

            Another news flash for you…unions are not dependent on having children. There are plenty of people on the planet willing to have children. In fact, this planet is in great need of people NOT having children due to forced relationships.

            Same sex marriages are “possible” and legal in over 30 states and counting. You lose.

          • Jim Deferio

            I’m critiquing and questioning YOUR response to my question, genius. Stick to that!

            You have NO IDEA what marriage is. If marriage has no clear definition then it becomes an infinition and that means it becomes MEANINGLESS as it is whatever one wants it to be. That seems to be your agenda – to destroy real marriage.

            Two men, or two women can never be married no matter what any court or legislature, or people group say differently. It is naturally impossible. It is illogical, irrational to use sexual reproductive organs in a way they were not designed for. All of humanity is divided into males and females and marriage is the coming together of those two halves to form one flesh unions that also have the potential to create new life (reproduction through the generative act).

            When two men or two women come together it is merely two of the same half that can NEVER become a whole – NEVER. There is NO marital act involved and therefore no way to consummate the “marriage” because it never was a real marriage.

            Polygamy fails because children, which marriage is geared toward (regardless if children are born from the union – no one has will poer over gametes – NO ONE), can only have ONE biological mother and ONE biological father.

            YOU fail as do all God-haters and all haters of truth.

          • JEmlay

            “I’m critiquing and questioning YOUR response to my question, genius. Stick to that!”

            Very good genius! I did stick to that.

            “You have NO IDEA what marriage is.”

            I cut pasted the exact definition. Seems to me you live in alternate reality where words mean what you want them to mean.

            “Two men, or two women can never be married no matter what any court or legislature, or people group say differently.”

            Yes they can. Hundreds of thousands of same sex couples are married. They are together in a union.

            “irrational to use sexual reproductive organs in a way they were not designed for”

            For reproduction? Correct. Which is exactly why I told you, “unions are not dependent on having children”. It would do you well to learn how to read.

            “because children, which marriage is geared toward”

            100% WRONG!!!!

            “YOU fail as do all God-haters and all haters of truth.”

            Over 60% of the US says you fail. Also, I do not hate god. I dislike American Christians who can’t read.

          • Jim Deferio

            So, if by judicial fiat, or legislative action, and if by public opinion, ALL THE WORLD defines marriage as One Man + One Woman for life, is THAT what it is? You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between quantitative vs qualitative distinctions.

            Are you still in Jr. High?

          • Jim Deferio

            @ JEmlay

            If all people were asexual would there be a need for marriage? Answer the question, hater.

          • JEmlay

            The fact that you keep calling me a hater only goes to show you aren’t mature enough for this conversation.

            Grow up Jim and some day, try again.

            But to answer your question anyway…marriage has nothing to do with sex. That’s the third time I’ve had to repeat myself. You have a lot to learn Jim.

          • Jim Deferio

            Marriage has nothing to do with sex? So, why can’t people marry simply on the basis of being fans of the same sports team? Why should the government discriminate against them? How about several people who like a certain music group – can they marry on that basis? If it is not on the basis of sex is it then on the basis of romantic feelings? So, can a marriage be desolved (annulled) because one of the partners is romantically linked to someone else?

            I would absolutely eat you up and spit you out in a face to face debate because you have given not a single hint that you understand what logic is and what ontological-teleological basis of marriage is. You are a hater of truth and devoid of logic and I’m sick of trolls like you.

          • JEmlay

            “So, why can’t people marry simply on the basis of being fans of the same sports team?”

            They can if they so wish. People can get married for whatever reason they wish. In many cultures it’s still nothing more than a family contract. Here’s something else for your uneducated mind to chew on….people who are incapable of having children…..get married all the time. For the fourth time, marriage is not based on sex or reproduction.

            You still have a lot to learn.

            “I would absolutely eat you up and spit you out in a face to face debate”

            Seeing as how I’ve blown you out the water on this board with factual links (er information) this statement of yours is false right along with everything else you’ve typed.

            Sick of me eh? Let your actions speak for you.

          • Jim Deferio

            See my comments below for the answer to your irrational comments and straw man arguments.

            I travel extensively, so how about a face to face debate in front of your queer alliance club?

          • JEmlay

            I see you replied twice to me. Didn’t read them. I’m just here to remind you Jim….over 60%! You lose. Enjoy hell Jim!

            The reason I’m done with you is because after reading your other comments to other people I can now see you are a very disgusting human being. You’re an absolute piece of crap. I counted at least 32 people including myself that have put you in your place yet you continue to act like a child. You continue to act like a piece of garbage.

            You are an absolute waste of time. I have this cut and pasted into a text document that is open on my desktop. I will remind you of this every time you reply to me.

            Grow up Jim.

          • Jim Deferio

            So, you resort to baseless ad hominem because you are afraid to publicly debate me face to face?

            You have FEELINGS, and feelings are not reliable indicators of truth, morality, or what direction one should take in life. You have been brought under the control of the tyranny of your irrational feelings, appetites, impulses and inclinations and it has dehumanized you and made you into an animal. You can be set free and be born again if you humble yourself and repent. The choice is yours.

            Say what you want but I and many students at the college campuses I visit say the opposite and they often raise their hands to ask me questions and professors have asked me to address their classes.

          • JEmlay

            I see you replied twice to me. Didn’t read them. I’m just here to remind you Jim….over 60%! You lose. Enjoy hell Jim!

            The reason I’m done with you is because after reading your other comments to other people I can now see you are a very disgusting human being. You’re an absolute piece of crap. I counted at least 32 people including myself that have put you in your place yet you continue to act like a child. You continue to act like a piece of garbage.

            You are an absolute waste of time. I have this cut and pasted into a text document that is open on my desktop. I will remind you of this every time you reply to me.

            Grow up Jim.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Jim, you are way too smart for these a-theist trolls. Let me give you their “intellectual” argument: “SSM should be legal because … FEELINGS!”

          • Phipps Mike

            romance IS feelings genius, and that’s what marriage is about. Procreation has NOTHING to do with marriage. You can procreate OUTSIDE of marriage, genius. God doesn’t own the copyrights to the term marriage…get over it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “God doesn’t own the copyrights to the term marriage…get over it.”

            You just might be surprised when you meet Him – and you might not “get over it” either! 🙂

          • Phipps Mike

            I really don’t think God is so worried about the definition of a term or who owns it.
            Just humoring those who think marriage is for procreation: Back when God said “go forth and multiply”, there were few people on the earth. Today, he would say “I didn’t say to OVERPOPULATE the earth as if reproduction is a clown car, use some restraint, will ya? (then he would point at the Catholics…lol,)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I really don’t think God is so worried about the definition of a term or who owns it.”

            But, Sir, it does not matter what you think: it matters what is true. You can have sincere beliefs and they can be sincerely wrong. God bless!

          • Phipps Mike

            thats the best you can do? I know you are trying to be diplomatic but you put yourself into the position of a “blind” sheep. God wishes us to use some common sense and that includes the act of being fair. I notice you didn’t address my overpopulation statement. Could be that you KNOW I am right but don’t wish to acknowledge it. We are running out of natural resources because of overpopulation so multiplying goes against common sense and reason. You keep on just thinking what you are TOLD to think (by sheeples) and I will use MY common sense.

          • MamaBear

            I kind of think being Creator of the entire Universe ranks much higher than copyright laws. Especially when He will be our Judge, too.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Um, no, that’s not the argument. It should be legal because it serves no purpose to make it ILLEGAL. That’s how a free country works. The people advocating for more freedom don’t have to justify why more freedom is good. Freedom is the default position.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You confuse freedom with autonomy. Based on your poor logic, I should be free to murder. Oh wait, we are free to murder: if we are having an abortion!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s ludicrous. One party in a murder doesn’t consent! Both parties to a same sex marriage do. What is so difficult about that?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You wrote: “The people advocating for more freedom don’t have to justify why more freedom is good.”

            That means that your immoral side should not have to argue FOR owning black people or gassing Jews or any other behavior which allows more “freedom,” by which you actually mean “autonomy.”

          • Balerion

            Anyone with more than a few functioning brain cells can easily see how allowing one the “right” to own black people or gas Jews infringes on the rights of others (specifically one’s rights to life and to not be kept as a slave).

            Of course that three thousand year old fairy tale that your side uses to justify denying certain couples the right to marry (and a generation ago it was interracial marriage that conservatives tried to stop) not only condones slavery but contains numerous accounts of genocide as well.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here are a few people with brain cells on your side who disagree 100% with you:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” — a-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            Perhaps you would like to debate them? Under Darwinism, rape and murder happen all the time in the animal kingdom and are perfectly acceptable. You seem to think that slave owners were stupid, but they were not. They were reasonably intelligent, but they suffered from a poor moral compass, because they were Demon-crats. 🙂

            The bottom line is that, as an a-theist, you cannot ground objective moral values and duties. When you make objective moral claims, you are (unwittingly) stealing them from God, for which I thank you for acknowledging Him!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh, and “consent” is an arbitrary value, which has no objective basis whatsoever in secularism. You are discriminating against those people who desire to have a loving relationship with someone else who does not consent, or even a child who does! And any age limitation on consent is arbitrary under your view as well.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why does “consent” not have an objective basis?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            There is no grounding for objective moral laws and duties, including consent, under naturalistic a-theism. (This is well attested by a-theistic scholars, and I can provide a few pertinent quotes if you like.) Under such a view, it really is survival of the fittest and anything goes. Do you see any objective grounding for consent in the animal kingdom? Rape happens all the time and is perfectly “moral” in such a setting. Murder? Ever see a lion take out a gazelle? No penalty whatsoever for the lion.

            This is why our founding fathers spoke so much from a Judeo-Christian worldview. A secular society cannot actually succeed without an objective grounding (in God), because the positive benefits of secularism are not objective under a-theism.

            It is a great question you ask, though. In summary, the Constitution has no objective moral value without unalienable rights (in the DoI) and a Judeo-Christian grounding. (A God Who is the Objective Moral Law Giver) That, BTW, is why the Ten Commandments make up a particularly excellent document to have displayed in every courtroom, and is so in many. Super question, and God bless you, Sir!

          • Chris Palmer

            Are you defending rape? Seriously?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Just the opposite, Chris. I am pointing out that a-theists cannot condemn rape, murder, slavery, or Jew gassing, because under a-theism, there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. This is also true for consent.

            The only way we can condemn those things objectively is if there is an Objective Moral Law Giver Who is transcendent, in a moral sense. Rape happens all the time in the animal kingdom, as does murder. Under Darwinism, these things are perfectly acceptable. And, it is not just I who affirms that:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

          • Balerion

            The inability of a lot of conservative Christians to comprehend the meaning of the word “consent”?

          • Jim Deferio

            Yes, you are 100% correct. I have been dealing with atheists and homosexualists and cultists for years (I’m an open air evangelist). I comment to give them the correct answer and then it’s in God’s hands (I used to be an atheist and God and people were patient with me).

            The other reason why I comment is because I hope other Christians read the comments and learn how to answer those bound in the religion of homosexualism. So far I have used some natural law arguments and have not talked about the Bible. However, I use Natural Law and the Bible for those who claim they are a “gay Christian”. Eventually I bring everything back to the Bible but I don’t lead with that if some one has flat out rejected the Bible. Again, as a former atheist and as someone who purposely destroyed a Bible when I was an atheist, I see no productive way of using the Bible if their armor is still up and they are flat out rejecting the Bible.

          • Paul Hiett

            Former atheist my butt.

          • Jim Deferio

            Keep your butt, it’s so YOU.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Probably also helpful since the teachings of the Bible are not a deciding basis for our laws.

          • Jim Deferio

            Actually, many of the Bible’s teachings on morality ARE a basis for our laws, especially in the past.
            Do we have laws against theft? That’s the 8th commandment.
            Do we have laws against murder? That’s the 6th commandment.
            Do we have laws against perjury and false testimony? That’s the 9th commandment.

            We used to have laws against sodomy, adultery.

            Would people want other religions, like atheism/secular humanism be the basis of our laws. In Humanist Manifesto 2 it says that people should have a “right to suicide”, a “right to abortion”, and a “right to euthanasia”. What is loving about THAT? The atheists actually have NO basis for their own doctrines and that is why we have seen that by far most atrocities throughout the world have been by atheistic regimes.

            See these scholarly works:
            1) Encyclopedia of Wars” by Alan Axelrod & Charles Phillips
            2) “Death By Government” by RJ Rummel
            3) “The Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900” by RJ Rummel

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            The concepts of theft, murder, and perjury are certainly not unique to Christianity.

            Our Constitution provides protections which directly conflict with 7 of the 10 Commandments. To suggest that our laws are based upon Biblical teachings is simply without merit.

          • Jim Deferio

            Name them!!! With the exception of a few Deists, all of America’s founding fathers were Christian Theists!
            Have you even read the Constitution???

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            First commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of religious belief Second commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of speech
            Third commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of speech
            Fourth commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of religion Fifth commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of association Seventh commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of association Tenth commandment is in direct conflict with freedom of thought

            “With the exception of a few Deists, all of America’s founding fathers were Christian Theists! ”

            It makes no sense to say “with the exception of” and “all” in the same sentence. Most of the Founders were believers in the Christian faith, although with varying beliefs within that overall framework. Several were Deists. All of them, wisely, saw fit, despite their personal religious beliefs, to omit religion from the Constitution.

            Yes, I have read the constitution. Have you?

          • Jim Deferio

            LOL. That was funny. Do you know what you are? A hater! You HATE the Bible, you hate Christians, and you hate truth.

            Do you really think you can associate with just anyone in this nation or say what ever pops into your head or practice whatever religion you want to in this nation under the Constitution?

            Ever hear of “fighting words” or “threatening speech” or “obscene speech”, etc.

            Associate with a known terror cell and see how that goes for you. You just lost your right to privacy at the very least.

            I can go on but really, you should read more. In any case, you can choose to break all of the commandments of God in the Bible but know this, you will reap what you sow.

            Also, it is perfectly OK to say “all” with an exception qualifier.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “That was funny.”

            How so?

            “Do you know what you are?”

            Yes

            “A hater! You HATE the Bible, you hate Christians, and you hate truth.”

            Not those things. What have I said that would cause you to conclude that I HATE the Bible, Christians, and truth?

            “Do you really think you can associate with just anyone in this nation or say what ever pops into your head or practice whatever religion you want to in this nation under the Constitution?”

            Within legal boundaries, yes. That is unrelated, however, to the truth (which you seem to be not so fond of when it displeases you) that the protections provided by the constitution are in direct conflict with 7 of the 10 commandments.

            “you should read more.”

            Suggested readings?

            “Also, it is perfectly OK to say “all” with an exception qualifier.”

            Actually, no, it’s not. “all the others” would be the correct way to state it.

          • Tim

            Hello sir, I have a suggestion when talking to Umust…. His tactic usually is in the form of questions as an attack method, although it’s doubtful he will ever admit it. He understands the concept and yet will use the tactic of “literal”, ex. “That was funny” His Answer in the form of a question, “how so?” If you were to have said, You’re statement is funny because as you said

            “It makes no sense to say “with the exception of” and “all” in the same sentence. Most of the Founders were believers in the Christian faith, although with varying beliefs within that overall framework. Several were Deists. All of them, wisely, saw fit, despite their personal religious beliefs, to omit religion from the Constitution.”

            Of course his statement is incorrect. He stated that “All of them” which would mean every participating founder omitted religion from the Constitution. Since he could not possibly know that all of them “saw fit”, his statement is conceptual, not literal. He often makes mistakes of this nature, and with a little discussion can easily be pointed out to him. He doesn’t seem to like that too much. Just be patient, and he will slip up. Ask him if he understands conceptual thinking, or must every statement be a literal statement and see where he goes. The only reason I know his tactics is because of his constant pattern of them. Watch how he discusses issues with others. The pattern shows up over and over again. Take care, hope it helps.

          • Jim Deferio

            Thanks.

            The Umus guy or gal or confused sexual organism holds to, quite literally, nothing. He/she/it has no objective immutable standards and I think this person is kind of funny (in the weird sense). I’m just trying to get this person to admit that their foundation is sand. I also find it strange that he/she/it comes to a Christian website to hate on people.

            I understand why they don’t want to use their real name. I would be embarrassed too.

            I use these type of things to instruct others. I save the threads.

            The exception qualifiers when using “all” are frequently used in the Bible, btw. English idioms are frequently changing and I know this personally due to my great age (lol) of being nearly 65 years old.

          • Tim

            I’ve spoken with him many times. Believe it or not he is good in comparison to most. Here are some things that may be helpful. He claims to be a “Deist” so from that perspective consider the source. (He prays daily he states)

            I’ll better explain my procedure for research: There is a site called of all things “dogpile”. It incorporates all of the popular search engines such as; Google, Ask, Yahoo, Bing, YouTube, and one other. Depending on your browser you can change your default search engine to dogpile. By highlighting specific words, phrases, or terms, and right clicking you would go down on the list to dogpile as the search tool. Once the search is completed (extremely fast) the results will show up for each search engine in different columns with the most relevant first. If you ask for articles within the text, it will provide all articles prevalent to the topic being searched. Often times I will cut and paste relevant articles, and paste them in my “notebook” for later reference.

            I also use the “Biblehub” for biblical research. It provides roughly 13 different English Bibles, 26 Bibles in different languages, has commentary by scholars, and will comparatively show the original Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, and Greek with English. It provides clickable Dictionary, timelines of specific instances, Concordance, cross references of scripture and prophesy, search tools, measures, an Atlas and far more data.

            Hopefully that will assist you in finding the articles or data relevant to a particular discussion as evidence of a view or interpretation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you for your open air evangelism, Jim! I too was a strong a-theist for 42 years. Now, I do “open air pro-life apologetics” in front of the abortion mills.

            I agree with you on not using the Bible with them unless they specifically indicate they are open to it. Have you checked out Wintery Knight’s blog? There is a ton there on a-theism, and it is more intellectual than what we see here from the trolls.

            Keep up the great work – you are very talented, and God is using you well!

          • Jim Deferio

            Thank you for the kind words.
            Yes, I’ve heard of and have been to the Wintery Knight’s blog. It’s pretty good.
            Go to Apologetics 315 (they often post WK there and many others).

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’ve never seen that argument. Who is using “feelings” as a basis for the legality of same-gender marriage?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Most of the Gaystapo.

          • Phipps Mike

            “I would absolutely eat you up and spit you out in a face to face debate”

            you already ate YOURSELF up with your stupidity. Yes, romance is what marriage is about, it doesn’t have to “consummate” and you also forget that most states have a no fault divorce so you dont NEED a reason to annul or divorce.

          • Jim Deferio

            So, if “romance” is THE basis for marriage then why can’t a whole group of people who are romantically attracted to each other “marry”?
            Does the marriage end if the romantic attraction fades? Can an “interloper” come along, become romantically attracted to someone’s spouse and in time have it reciprocated and join the that marriage? Can it be dissolved, annulled, due to such interactions? Can someone steal away someone elses spouse through the romantic bond?

            Here’s YOUR problem. You have FEELINGS and your feelings are not being brought under the control of logic and rationality and moral law (which itself is based on rationality). Your feelings control and corrupt you because these feelings have an irrational basis and you have become enslaved by them. You have been brought under the control of the tyranny of your inclinations, appetites, and impulses and it has rendered you an emotional basket case.

          • Phipps Mike

            Mormons HAVE married multiple partners. The common lay person has troubles believing you can be in love with more than one person at a time because there are too many definitions for what “love” is. For that reason, legislation goes against it.

            “Does the marriage end if the romantic attraction fades?”
            marriage ends if either of the parties feels that without that romance, its not worth it. Many stay married out of “convenience” and the fact they don’t want to change their routines they have had for years. I don’t buy the “stealing away” theory where a third party comes along. Its my solid belief that you have to be in a weak romance before you even let yourself “fall in love” with somebody else. Without romance. yes, the marriage is DEAD IN THE WATER.
            I am NOT enslaved by my feelings but feelings are the BASIS for marriage. If you marry somebody you don’t love, then YOU are the basket case. Not me.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So, why can’t people marry simply on the basis of being fans of the same sports team?”

            They can. When two apply for a civil marriage license they are not required to state why they have chosen to get married.

            “If it is not on the basis of sex is it then on the basis of romantic feelings?”

            Several years after my father passed, my mother remarried. She was 85. I can assure you, sex was not the basis.

            “So, can a marriage be desolved (annulled) because one of the partners is romantically linked to someone else?”

            “Annulled” is a religious status. A legal marriage can be dissolved for any reason. it’s called “no-fault divorce”.

          • Jim Deferio

            So, you see “marriage” as simply a union of people based on whims, based on feelings, based on shifting definitions, based on temporary arrangements, based on whatever silly idea enters into an otherwise vacuous skull.

            Btw, you completely missed the point of sports fans “marrying”. I asked about the basis of marriage and legal recognition. Can two or three people enter into a “marriage” on the basis of merely being fans of the same sports team and have THAT factor alone be the basis of legal recognition? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

            Also, one certainly can have a civil annulment of a marriage. Look it up!

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “So, you see “marriage” as simply a union of people based on whims, based on feelings, based on shifting definitions, based on temporary arrangements, based on whatever silly idea enters into an otherwise vacuous skull.”

            No, Jim, that is not what I said nor how I see marriage. Why would you feel the need to misrepresent what I said? What I said was that civil marriage does not require that people provide a reason for why they have chosen get married. People are able to do so for whatever reasons they choose. With that said, I think it would be fair to say that most people enter into marriage because they have found a mate that they love and desire to enter into a committed relationship with. In that, they want the legal recognition that comes with civil marriage.

            What do you believe marriage is?

            “Btw, you completely missed the point of sports fans “marrying”.”

            No I didn’t. You attempted to make a point that something shouldn’t happen that already can happen. Nothing to miss because there was nothing there.

            “I asked about the basis of marriage and legal recognition.”

            The basis for civil marriage in the US is the desire of two qualified people to enter into civil marriage. Nothing more. The basis for legal recognition is that they are legally married.

            “Can two or three people enter into a “marriage” on the basis of merely being fans of the same sports team”

            Two can. Three cannot.

            “and have THAT factor alone be the basis of legal recognition?”

            The factor that determines legal recognition is that the couple is legally married. Nothing else is required. If the couple decided to enter into civil marriage for no other reason than their being fans of the same sports team, they would be legally recognized just the same as a couple who entered into marriage based upon love. Civil marriage does not require that the couple state a reason for deciding to get married.

            I stand corrected on legal annulment. The answer to your question, however, is “no”. A marriage cannot be annulled based upon one of the partners being romantically linked to someone else” Here is the basis for legal annulment:

            “Annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed. An annulment must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy.”

          • Jim Deferio

            If you remove the ontological- teleological natural basis for marriage than for you to limit marriage to only the union of TWO people is completely arbitrary. Who made you law giver and judge if people can marry for whatever reason.

            Do laws change? Of course laws change and if laws change then is the definition of marriage simply a social construct that is subject to the whims of judges, legislators, voters, and cultures? If so then there is really no such thing as “marriage”

            What about slavery? Do a reading of the history and present-day state of slavery in various nations. By your argument there are no inherent human rights because slavery is still alive and well throughout the world and was sourced and sanctioned in antiquity by civil governments and religious bodies.

            If man-made laws are the basis of human rights then executing homosexuals in certain nations is perfectly alright and former laws in this nation against sodomy, adultery. blue laws, etc. represented true morality. Right? Polygamy is OK in certain nations so what’s wrong with that. As tye USA appeals more and more to foreign law expect that here in the near future as well as incestuous marriages, child-bride marriages (perfectly legal in some Muslim nations), etc. etc.

            There has to be a firm basis for human rights, for marriage, for other forms of conduct that should be tolerated and protected.

            Your arguments fall apart once you appeal to the arbitrary whims and laws of people. You are only describing what “is”, not an “ought”. That’s the difference between sociology and ethics.

            People like you often appeal to quantitative data rather than making qualitative distinctions and using sound qualitative argumentation.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “If you remove the ontological- teleological natural basis for marriage”

            Who is suggesting those be removed?

            “for you to limit marriage to only the union of TWO people is completely arbitrary”

            I don’t have the ability to limit marriage. That is something legislators can do. I am not a legislator.

            “Who made you law giver and judge if people can marry for whatever reason.”

            No one.

            “is the definition of marriage simply a social construct that is subject to the whims of judges, legislators, voters, and cultures?”

            Yes

            “By your argument there are no inherent human rights”

            If there were inherent human rights, then there never would have been slavery.

            “If man-made laws are the basis of human rights then executing homosexuals in certain nations is perfectly alright”

            Perfectly legal. “Alright” would be relative to the culture and beliefs of each society.

            “former laws in this nation against sodomy, adultery. blue laws, etc. represented true morality.”

            They certainly represented some people’s views on morality. What would be considered “true” morality would depend on one’s views.

            “Polygamy is OK in certain nations so what’s wrong with that.”

            There are a number of considerations regarding polygamous marriage. Should the restrictions on that be challenged in court, the state would be required, as they are with all laws which restrict what citizens are allowed to do, to provide rational, compelling and legally valid reasons for the restriction. With that said, there is absolutely no legal validity to the argument: “Well since two people of the same gender are allowed to marry, more than two people should be allowed to marry”.

            ” As tye USA appeals more and more to foreign law”

            Some examples of the USA appealing more and more to foreign law?

            “incestuous marriages”

            Already allowed with certain limitations.

            “child-bride marriages”

            Would depend on your definition of “child” but several states allow marriage at the age of 14. However, as with polygamy, there is no legal validity to the argument: “Well two adult citizens of the same gender are allowed to marry, therefore it should be legal to marry a non-adult”.

            “Your arguments fall apart once you appeal to the arbitrary whims and laws of people.”

            Civil marriage laws are put into place by people. My case is buttressed by the realization that laws banning two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage are based upon arbitrary whims. Thanks for supporting my position.

            “not an “ought”.

            I believe that what “ought” to be in our country is that two consenting, adult, non-closely-related citizens of the same gender “ought” to be allowed to enter into civil marriage.

            “People like you”

            Who else is like me?

            “often appeal to quantitative data rather than making qualitative distinctions and using sound qualitative argumentation.”

            Such as?

          • Jim Deferio

            I don’t know your education level but apparently you are completely clueless by what I meant when I said “the ontological and teleological basis of marriage”. Do I have to spoon feed you???

            You do admit that in your warped views, “marriage” is an arbitrary social construct. If so then “might makes right” and just wait for the political climate to change (for if history has taught us anything it is that the political climate WILL change). Perhaps in twenty years “marriage” will be defined by legislatures and judges as between One Man + Four Women (the Islamic definition).

            I’m not sure how much further I should spend on this subject with you because you do not appear to have the ability to grasp basic concepts. How old are you and what is your education level? What are you hiding behind a loser name (“user name”). I use my real name!

          • JEmlay

            When talking about the laws of the US…the “world” doesn’t matter.

            Again, you lose Jim. 60% and rising.

          • Jim Deferio

            In the long run it won’t matter who buys into counterfeit marriage. Everyone in those perverse relationships are reminded on a daily basis that what they are doing is unworkable, irrational and hilariously stupid.

          • JEmlay

            In the long run your hate will land you in hell. Enjoy being wrong….in hell.

          • Jim Deferio

            It is obvious that truth is hate to those who hate the truth. You have proven by your comments that you have an intense hatred for decency, cleanliness, natural law, God, people, and truth.

            You have a fetish of indecent acts which in your darkened state of mind you call “love”.

            People with a same-sex attraction are already free to marry and have a REAL marriage: a man with a same-sex feeling are free to marry woman, and a woman with a feeling for the same-sex are free to marry a man. Equality already exists.

            Same goes for those who have polyamorous feelings: they can marry one of the opposite sex and be faithful to that ONE spouse. Equality already exists to have a REAL marriage.

          • Paul Hiett

            So as long as we all abide by the rules of your Bible, everything is ok, but the minute someone wants to live their life free of your choice of a religion, then you have a problem.

            Do you really not see the issue with this?

          • JEmlay

            I see you replied twice to me. Didn’t read them. I’m just here to remind you Jim….over 60%! You lose. Enjoy hell Jim!

            The reason I’m done with you is because after reading your other comments to other people I can now see you are a very disgusting human being. You’re an absolute piece of crap. I counted at least 32 people including myself that have put you in your place yet you continue to act like a child. You continue to act like a piece of garbage.

            You are an absolute waste of time. I have this cut and pasted into a text document that is open on my desktop. I will remind you of this every time you reply to me.

            Grow up Jim!

          • Phipps Mike

            whats perverse is that you think marriage is only about reproduction. By your ludicrous ideas, you are saying that two sterile people shouldn’t marry. You are one of those Christians that think having a hundred babies is cool. How SICK!!

          • Jim Deferio

            Reproduction is the BASIS for marriage but not the only reason. Sex means to differentiate and divide (one of the original meanings). All of humanity is divided into males and females. The basis for marriage is the union of male with female that always carries the possibility of reproduction. Even people who once thought they were infertile have had children and women as old as 64 years old have given birth.

            Marriage is also suppose to ensure the education of the rational being brought into this world. Parents are to instill moral values, rationality, and humanity” into the growing child because that child, unlike almost all animals, is capable of reasoning abilities and at least two levels of consciousness (1st being aware in an intelligent way of things around them and the 2nd being aware that they are aware).

            The consummating (sealing) act in a marriage is the generative conjugal act. Nothing more concerning reproduction is expected as no one has will power over their gametes (sperm and egg). The marriage bond is continually renewed by generative act whether or not reproduction results (again, no one has will power of their gametes).

            I personally know a number of people who thought they were “sterile” but became pregnant and had children.

            The rational use of reproductive organs is NOT “anal sex”, or “oral sex” or any other perverted activity. I know medical workers who have to care for those who use their body in an irrational way and they have told me that it’s not a pretty sight what these people contract. One medical worker told me that once they had to double-glove and double-gown it was so bad and so contagious. You will reap what you sow.

          • Paul Hiett

            You really need to Google “history of marriage” and understand the real truth about marriage, and what it’s purpose has been for, and how it’s changed over time.

          • Jim Deferio

            Right back at you!
            You really need to Google the history of laws against homosexuality and learn how these perverts were subject to the death penalty and therefore homosexuals should be executed and probably will in the future even in this nation (as history does repeat itself, doesn’t it?).

            You need to Google the history of slavery and learn that it is an ancient custom that was practiced by all people groups (even by black Africans) and how it corresponds nicely with evolutionary theory. Slavery is still practiced by Muslims in Africa so slavery is “A” OK, right?

            I just used two parity arguments against you Paul to answer your folly accordingly. I don’t hold to these arguments but they demonstrate how irrational you are. One could justify practically anything because as the Bible says, “there is nothing new under the sun”.

            What you are citing is what “is” and “was”, not what “ought to be”. That’s the difference between sociology and ethics, between an “is” and an “ought”. I fear you can’t even grasp such rudimentary arguments, though.

          • Paul Hiett

            Your base insults aside, and your obvious bias against homosexual people as a whole, I find your lack of knowledge about marriage quite humorous, especially when you try to debate this issue.

            Marriage has not been about procreation and reproduction…it’s been primarily used as means of securing futures, land, alliances. Reproduction is a side affect of marriage, but is not the primary reason for it. Furthermore, even though the definitions of marriage have changed over the years (interracial marriage coming in 1967 here in the US), reproduction is not a factor. Were it, sterile couples would not be allowed to marry.

            The only irrational people are those who want to keep gay people as second class citizens. They’re not asking for special privilege…they’re asking for equality. A special privilege would be not paying taxes…like churches.

          • Jim Deferio

            I’m prevented by DISQUS from going into certain clinical details but in a face to face debate with you, Paul, you wouldn’t stand a chance.

            Homosexualists have dehumanized themselves and they have reduced themselves to unreasoning animals who act and react according to the tyranny of their impulses, appetites, inclinations, and irrational feelings. They have thrown decency, cleanliness, and morals aside in order to pursue animalistic impulses.

            All humanity is divided into “males” and “females” just as it is stated in the Bible in Genesis 1:27 and the purpose of marriage is the bringing together of these two halves in ONE FLESH UNIONS called MARRIAGE. When two of the same half come together they can never become a WHOLE, a ONE FLESH UNION, for they are merely two of the SAME half!

            The Bible stated from the beginning what marriage is in Genesis 2:24 and Jesus Christ restated this in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 and Paul the apostle affirmed this in Ephesians 5:31 and 1 Corinthians 7:2.

            Just because some cults have practiced polygamy, or because some have used marriage for financial or social ranking means, or because some in the Old Testament sinned against Deuteronomy 17:17 and Genesis 2:24, in no way diminishes what REAL MARRIAGE is. Homosexualsts can only have FAKE marriages and COUNTERFEIT marriages, nothing more.

            Get the feces off of your member and read the Bible and a book on biology. LOL

            But I do agree with you concerning churches paying property taxes. I think ALL colleges and universities, all churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and all hospitals, nursing homes, etc. etc. should pay property taxes.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Reproduction is the BASIS for marriage but not the only reason.”
            I TOTALLY disagree that its the “basis”.
            First things first. GOD didn’t INVENT marriage…MAN did. We don’t have to go by Gods rules to marry.
            2. Reproduction is NOT necessary in a terribly OVERCROWDED world.
            3. Wanting to be with another person for the rest of your life IS the BASIS for marriage.
            Marriage is about COMPANIONSHIP, NOT having kids. Many people marry and dont WANT kids. My best friend is one of those. He has been married 26 years and has no kids at all. People do tend to focus more on their professional careers and like to travel the world. Kids are parasites in that situation.

            Also, there ARE millions of DIAGNOSED fertile people who wish to marry. They DO have that right WITHOUT Gods permission. Once again, marriage is NOT gods.

            “Marriage is also suppose to ensure the education of the rational being
            brought into this world. Parents are to instill moral values,
            rationality, and humanity” into the growing child because that child,
            unlike almost all animals, is capable of reasoning abilities and at
            least two levels of consciousness (1st being aware in an intelligent way
            of things around them and the 2nd being aware that they are aware).”

            agreed but same sex couples have those same morals to teach. The ten commandments align perfectly with “quality of life” and has NOTHING to do with who you sleep with except “thy neighbors wife”.

            “The marriage bond is continually renewed by generative act whether or
            not reproduction results (again, no one has will power of their
            gametes).”

            not true and if it were, there would be MILLIONS less divorces. Women think with the head that sits on top of their shoulders, unlike men.

            “The rational use of reproductive organs is NOT “anal sex”, or “oral sex” or any other perverted activity.”

            oral is NOT perverted, Are you living in the 1400’s?
            Sex is not JUST FOR REPRODUCTION. The Bible has NO rules for couples who are married as to what type of activity they do. Oral is NOT against Gods idea of marriage consummation.

            I am perfectly aware of the damage that anal activities causes.
            I think it was designed for exiting material waste and nothing more because the muscle pushes OUT, not in. However, those who partake in that risk are no more guilty of self danger than mountain climbers or other high risk sports/occupation participants.

            In closing, I say live and let live, stop judging, stop doing Gods work FOR HIM, (he is perfectly capable without mere mortal mans help). Understand that people will do what they want NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR WANT. Once again…free will. Meanwhile, my HETERO marriage has NOT been affected in any way, shape, or form by Gay marriages occurring.

          • Jim Deferio

            EVERYONE judges and you have done nothing but judge. Jesus said to judge but to “judge what is right” (Luke 12:57) and to “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). He also said not to judge as a hypocrite (Matthew 7:1-5).

            Homosexualists have denied the basics of morals and they have nothing to teach anyone for when they attempt to teach on morals they in effect declare themselves to be hypocrites.

            Jesus gave the definition of marriage as One Man + One Woman in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 by quoting from what marriage was intended to be right from the very beginning in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Paul the apostle also said it was One Man + One Woman in Ephesians 5:31 and 1 Corinthians 7:2.

            Just because some cults allow multiple wives or because God allowed divorce in the Old Testament because the hardness of men’s hearts and just because some Israeli kings violated Deuteronomy 17:17 doesn’t change the FACT that from the very beginning God made the human race into “males” and “females” and instituted marriage as One Man + One Woman for the purpose of reproduction and completeness (ONE FLESH).

            Two men together or three men together or two women together are only part of the same half and there can NEVER be a WHOLE, a COMPLETION a ONE FLESH UNION.

            There is NO such thing as “gay marriage” – it is a fake marriage, a counterfeit. You may as well get together with a dog (as some do) and call THAT a “marriage”.

            Feelings come and go and as I suspected you have NO idea what love is. Love is not reducible to a romantic feeling or a sex act or a feeling of any kind. GOD IS LOVE and how dare you to blaspheme Him by perverting what LOVE is.

            So, how does God love? Look at the life of Jesus Christ and you will see exactly how God loves. Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) and Jesus said, “He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me” (John 12:45). In Colossians 1:15 it says, “He is the image of the invisible God”.

            So HOW did Jesus love?

            John 13:14-15
            “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
            For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.”

            John 13:34-35,
            “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
            By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

            John 15:12-13,
            “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
            Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”

            Romans 5:8,
            “But God demonstrated His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

            Romans 12:9,
            “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.”

            1 Corinthians 13:4-8 are the attributes of true love.

            In none of the passages quoted above do we see FEELINGS! None! And I can quote many more.

            feelings come and go and no stable God-honoring relationship can ever be built upon feelings. Often there is absolutely no rational basis for feelings but God created us as rational beings and He says,

            “Come, let us REASON together…” (Isaiah 1:18).

            Homosexualists have dehumaized themselves and have become unreasoning brute beasts who are subject to irrational feelings and illogical conclusions.

          • lorac odraned

            Not to mention immoral and detestable= sinful.

          • Phipps Mike

            once again, you are DEAD wrong. Marriage is NOT geared toward reproduction…you just lost your entire argument by stating you think so. ” If marriage has no clear definition” whether you like it or not, the LAW has jurisdiction over the definition…NOT GOD. Get over yourself.

          • lorac odraned

            True, ever hear a plumber say, “I’ll just put this male end into this other male end and that should fix the problem.” Or when an electrician tries to fit a female end of a cord into another female end, will they fit?????

          • Paul Hiett

            Your entire argument against SSM is because plumbers and electricians can’t use pieces that that don’t fit together?

            Just…wow…

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            Amen! You said it very well. It is sad they refuse to see the truth.What Created for one Man and one Woman is BEAUTIFUL. And can not really be changed no matter how hard they try. Even when they make it legal for SSM. It is only legal in the eyes of sinful Man/Woman. It will never be legal in the eyes of God.

          • Paul Hiett

            Which is fine…that’s all that is being asked for. If your choice of a deity has an issue with it, he can pop on down here and explain it. Until then, legal in the eyes of our government is what counts.

          • Crono478

            If the government compels you to drop to your knee and bow to 90 feet high gold statue. This would be legal in the eye of our government, will you obey this?

          • Paul Hiett

            Irrational hypothetical is still irrational hypothetical. Your choice of a deity is not mine, and therefore I should not have to bow down to something no one can prove exists or does not exist. No one should. One’s religion is a choice, nothing more, and personal choices should never be a catalyst for telling others how to live their lives.

          • Crono478

            This did happen in the history. Every classroom in schools in Germany had a portrait of Adolf Hilter at the front. Students were required to salute with “Heil Hilter”.

            Ergo, the hypothetical question I asked you is not irrational because it happened in history. Now, can you answer my question, will you be willing to drop to your knee and bow down to a very tall gold statue?

          • Paul Hiett

            We don’t do that here in the US. Sorry, but irrational hypothetical is still irrational hypothetical. Germany in the 30’s didn’t have the laws that we have in place to prevent such things. Our constitution guarantees it can’t happen here.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            In America one day Americans will be given a choice just like the rest of the world. To live you will have to take the mark and bow down to the antichrist. Or to die if you choose not to. Without Christ it will not matter what you choose.
            And one day even if you die in your Rejection you will fall to your Knees when you face the one one you rejected.You will than say that Christ is Lord.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s just an opinion, nothing more. You have no more basis for that claim than believing unicorns will prance across the moon someday.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            I guess time will tell. If you live long enough to see a world leader take control You most likely still not believe. And when you take your last breath you will see it was not just an opinion. <

          • Paul Hiett

            And until then, can you give me a justification for allowing a single religion to dictate how we all live?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            Islam will be the final last world False Religion. It has been trying to take over a little at a time. It will win but only for a short time. When Yeshua Retures He will put an end to it. And set up a Kingdom that will never end. I do not have to give you Justification.That is not my Job. That is the Work of the Holy Spirit.God will try to reach you through Christians. But only the Holy Spirit can help you to understand. Although you can still Reject through your Free will. I will Stand in the Gap for you .
            Shalom <

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me ask you something, seriously…can you prove the existence or non existence of any deity, including yours?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            I am only Human like you . I can not prove that to you. The Holy Spirit can help you to understand .It is the work of the holy Spirit. God left us proof that He exist. He left evidence through His Creation. But Satan does what he can to prevent us from receiving the truth.
            God loves you and He through His Holy Spirit is trying to reach you. God can not violate the gift He gave you. He will never force Himself on you. That is above and beyond LOVE. He will continue to try to reach you through His Eternal Love. YOU have freedom to Reject His Love . I will continue to Stand in the Gap for you until the day I die. I will Pray for to give God a chance. Shalom
            <

          • Paul Hiett

            Let’s simply address this from the perspective of “I can not prove that to you”. If you can’t prove the existence of something, then belief in that something becomes nothing more than your opinion.

            Do you think it just to force someone other than yourself to live life based on your opinion?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            I can not force anything on you. I can only speak what God will have me say. Again it is you Free will that has the final say. Even God will not Force . As to prove that God exist has already been proved. And again free will to reject. Shalom <

          • Paul Hiett

            You just contradicted yourself. First you say that you can’t prove your deity exists, now you say you can? Which is it?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            No I did not . You are trying to bait me. God prove Himself already. I did not say I proved His Existence . I said……………..
            I can not force anything on you.I can only speak what *God* will have me say.Again it is *your free will* that has the final say . (Through your will you will choose)Even God will not Force. As to prove that God exist Has already been proved. (By God Himself) (Through His Creation) Again your free will to Reject. I left some things out sorry. Shalom <

          • Crono478

            It can happen in several ways:

            1) A person in power to completely defy our constitution. (It already happened many times)
            2) New constitutional amendment or to do away with constitution.

            Nothing is stopping us from doing this. Also, it would be impossible to fathom that a nation can invade and conquer U.S. but what if it will really happen?

            After WW1, Constitution of the German Reich (from 1919 to 1933) granted the citizens their freedom of belief and conscience. This obviously did not last long. Nazi government took over in 1933 and people really did not have this freedom anymore.

            It would be seriously naive for you to think that it will not happen in U.S. Our freedom of religion is increasingly limited and possibly removed in the future.

          • Paul Hiett

            The checks and balances of our government prevents that from happening. Could it happen? I’m sure we could invent all kinds of hypothetical’s to suggest it could, but hypothetically speaking aliens could also land on earth tomorrow and declare us their property. It’s obviously highly unlikely, but if you’re going to bring up such hypothetical’s, we have to include these as well.

            Freedom of religion does not, nor ever has, nor ever will, give you the “freedom” to enforce your religious beliefs on others. It does not give you the right to discriminate against others. It simply means you are free, in the US, to believe what you want, and worship as you see fit as long as it does not infringe upon the same rights of others.

            And for the record, IF a “gold statue” were erected and all laws in the US thrown out the window, no, I wouldn’t kneel before it. I’d fight alongside everyone else against it.

          • Crono478

            I am not asking you these questions that has no basis in the history. I am simply asking you ones because it did happen in the past.

            “And for the record, IF a “gold statue” were erected and all laws in the US thrown out the window, no, I wouldn’t kneel before it. I’d fight alongside everyone else against it.”

            Exactly, because it is against your conscience. If you own a store and a customer asks you to do business with this person in the way it will violate your conscience, you are not enforcing your belief on this person. Rather, you would decline to do business with this person. You can because you have freedom of religion.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            You will one day be face to face with one you have Rejected.That you will have understanding. Only than it will be too late. Even though you now reject God .There is something you need to know . God Loves you . He even sent His Son for you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then that’s on me, isn’t it? Until then, your religion, your choice of a belief system, does not get to rule my life. If I’m wrong, in the end, then that’s my problem, and no one else’s. While we are here on earth though, you should not have the right to dictate how others live.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            Yes it is on you. I do not have the right to force you to believe anything. God loved you so much that He gave you a free will to choose anything you want to choose. You can choose to love God , hate God, Receive God or to reject God.
            But . We as Christians are to reach out to the lost through the truth. But you have the freedom to reject. I know why God will wipe our tears away and there will be no more tears. If He did not do that we would be forever in tears for the ones who got away and refused to come to God.

          • Paul Hiett

            And like everyone else here on earth, my choice in religious beliefs is just that, my own choice. Your belief does not give you the right to rule, just as mine, or anyone’s, does not grant that same right. So, when you attempt to use your religion to justify the denial of equality to others, people in the US will, and rightfully so, stand up and say “no”.

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            In the end God wins and His Son Yeshua will rule forever. You can’t stop Him through your rejection. You will not be able to Justify to God your Rejection of His Son who died for you. Because He loved you that much . <

          • Paul Hiett

            Again…that’s fine. That’s not your problem though, is it?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            If I were like you and others who think as you do . I should not care one way or another for you are others like you.
            In Israel God put watchmen on the wall to warn the people of Danger.
            In to days time Christians are like the Watch men . We are to warn others. And to try to reach out to the lost. You do not understand we do care for the lost. Why dwe subject ourselves to all this hate. We care because God cares.
            Like the watchmed . If they warn others and try to reach them. If the lost reject.the blood is upon their own head. But if the watchmen refuse to warn or try to reach the the lost. The blood will be upon the watchmen head.. Shalom <

          • Paul Hiett

            And yet, the rest of us are constantly telling you to stay out of our personal lives. Why is it so hard for you to respect our beliefs?

          • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

            God say for us to try to reach the lost . it is only through His love for the Lost that we try. Shalom <

          • Leslie

            Only because the courts over ruled the people of the state. I forgot the govt is now our royalty why bother voting? The courts will decide what the nation will be… forget We The People.

          • JEmlay

            People in states vote for same sex marriage. People have voted it in.

            Here’s one example:

            Prop 8 (2008) in California

            Care to try again?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What if we turn it around on them? If we ban gay marriage, what’s next? There’s a dude in California trying to pass a referendum making it mandatory to kill people for being gay. Banning gay marriage is only the beginning! First we ban gay marriage, then people will want to start killing gays!

          • JEmlay

            Sadly people DO kill people because they’re gay. “Gay bashing” has been around since…..people.

          • Jim Deferio

            People with a same-sex attraction are already free to marry and have a REAL marriage: a man with a same-sex feeling are free to marry woman, and a woman with a feeling for the same-sex are free to marry a man. Equality already exists.

            Same goes for those who have polyamorous feelings: they can marry one of the opposite sex and be faithful to that ONE spouse. Equality already exists to have a REAL marriage.

          • JEmlay

            I see you replied twice to me. Didn’t read them. I’m just here to remind you Jim….over 60%! You lose. Enjoy hell Jim!

            The reason I’m done with you is because after reading your other comments to other people I can now see you are a very disgusting human being. You’re an absolute piece of crap. I counted at least 32 people including myself that have put you in your place yet you continue to act like a child. You continue to act like a piece of garbage.

            You are an absolute waste of time. I have this cut and pasted into a text document that is open on my desktop. I will remind you of this every time you reply to me.

            Grow up Jim.

          • Leslie

            There were three Asian men that married recently. And pedophiles are petitioning because they were born that way. So a can of worms has been opened for sure.

          • Bill

            people can petition all they want but that doesn’t mean they’re gonna get anything

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “There were three Asian men that married recently. ”

            They were not legally married.

            “And pedophiles are petitioning because they were born that way”

            And? The arguments regarding the legality of same-gender marriage are not based upon whether are not sexuality is innate.

            Pedophiles are already allowed to marry.

    • lorac odraned

      There is only one God, the heavenly Father of all of us. He’s watching!

      • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

        Amen.

  • Dr. Sorb Yesudhas

    All the gays go to hell

    • Paul Hiett

      “Love”, eh?

    • William Keeler

      We all go to hell. Only Jesus Christ can save us from that fate…

    • Ambulance Chaser

      That’s nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Are they also asking that any Justice that has officiated at an opposite-gender marriage or who has been, or is, married to also be recused?

    • Silver

      No we have always had marriage so why would they. The domestic partnership weddings as many say they will be called are between the same sex and is outlawed in many states. I am sure they will up hold the bans due to the perverts who were outside of the court.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “so why would they.”

        Because they are obviously biased toward opposite-gender marriage.

        “I am sure they will up hold the bans”

        We shall see.

  • Angel Marrero

    If the state court is stating that they will agree on making same sex marriage legal, then by all means let it be. It’s not like the state court is stating that they want to make same sex marriage legal via church, then that’s a no-no. A civil marriage for same sex couples sounds ok to me. FINE. But, don’t tell me that it’s going to be ok for the churches to allow it in the house of God. That’s an abomination.

    • Paul Hiett

      I would agree, churches should not be forced to perform the ceremonies. That would certainly fly in the face of our 1st amendment rights. Why everyone is up in arms over allowing SSM from a government standpoint is beyond me.

      • SFBruce

        I’m with you and Angel. Catholics have all sorts of rules about who can and can’t marry; for example, divorced people can’t remarry in the church. Some churches only marry their own members, some ministers only marry couples who have participated in counseling sessions. I could go on. No one has ever filed a lawsuit against a church or minister for any of these reasons. And if they did, it would go no where.

        • Angel Marrero

          That is why I am no longer a catholic. I had converted into being a christian instead. But still in all, what’s right by the bible is right as it is written. Even in the bible a man cannot divorce his wife and remarry. He can only do that if death do them ‘part. Yet still, millions of divorced people do remarry whether it’s by church or by county office and not one iota of a discussion is mentioned. I once got married via county office and then by church. I am now divorced and I’m ready to remarry to start my life all over again with the woman that was always under my nose.

      • Angel Marrero

        Exactly Paul. This is only a legal matter and legal issue for what’s “right” in society for equality. This should not be for religious purposes because if it was, the churches hierarchy from the Pope and so on would have made the changes and petition in order to make it legal through church. When that happens then we’ll all know that the end of days is front of our doorsteps. I’m ok with this being a civil matter in making same sex marriage legal through the courts performed by the county.

        • Mark A Bradburn

          “Equality” does not require a redefinition of marriage. A civil union maybe.

          • Silver

            or a COMMON Union.

          • Balerion

            Apples and pears.

            In all 50 states, a couple consisting of one man and one woman can have their union officially recognized by the state, which affords numerous rights and benefits to the couple. (Relating to taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, as well as numerous other areas).

            There are still states in the union where a couple consisting of two men or two women is NOT entitled to these same rights. (And more states where such rights were only recently won and that religious conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to get stripped away from them).

            This isn’t simply about terminology.

      • Balerion

        If it was just this, then the issue of same-sex marriage/unions would have been decided long ago. A sex couple would have the right to have the right to legal recognition of their union by the state, with all the rights and responsibilities pertaining to it in any state in the country, while no church would be forced to recognize any union that went against its teachings (Although I should think that a couple would not be a member of a church that considered their marriage/union an abomination.)

        There are far too many people in this country who think that the laws of the land should conform to the laws in the Bible.

  • Machiavellian

    Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

    • Jim Deferio

      Please define “marriage”. Don’t wimp out now – DEFINE MARRIAGE.

      • Paul Hiett

        From what time period?

      • Machiavellian

        I see it as the union of two consenting adults to form a familial bond that is recognized legally.

        • Jim Deferio

          Just two??? So, you want to discriminate against the polyamorous? Where are THEIR “equal rights”. Some men claim that they were born “polygynous”. Researchers are now searching for a polygamous gene. No, they haven’t found one yet but neither have they found anything that would show that someone is “born gay”.

          What about a mother and her adult daughter? Can they marry? Since no children could ever be produced from such a union the incest objection is rendered moot.

          How about an uncle and three of his adult nephews? Where are their “equal rights” to form a loving relationship as a family and one that is officially recognized legally? Would you dare discriminate against them?

          How about a temporary relationship? Who says it has to be “till death do you part”?

          Can two brothers “marry”? No children so no incest objection?

          Do you know the difference between a “covenant” and a “contract”? Do even have an inkling as to why marriage is important and why it can only possibly be between ONE Man and ONE Woman?

          • MisterPine

            How many “polyamorous” couples are lining up to get married?
            How many mothers/daughters?
            How many of the other bizarre permutations you’ve listed?

            Whether you like it or not, Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage, it existed before Christianity and it deosn’t REQUIRE Christianity, you can go to the justice of the peace anytime you like. Or do you consider atheists weddings to be shams as well?

          • Jim Deferio

            You are totally incapable of grasping what MARRIAGE is! Did I mention “Christianity”? Did I? What is wrong with your reasoning?

          • MisterPine

            Are you going to tell me that your definition of marriage differs with the Christian definition?

          • Jim Deferio

            I am arguing from an ontological-teleological Natural Law basis. How do you know if I’m a Christian or an atheist? I have know many who hold to the marriage as One Man + One Woman who are atheists, Christians, etc.
            This is a question about rationality and what is truly natural and what isn’t. Got that?

          • MisterPine

            You are a Christian.

            And if you want to discuss rationality, explain why divorce is so rampant in your perfect one man/one woman model.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I know for a fact that you are Christian, Jim, and probably Catholic. How do I know? You are WAY too intelligent for the a-theists you are debating! 🙂 They are all going to have to set aside their video games in their parents’ basements and go look up “ontological,” “teleological,” and “natural law.” You have upset their night, Jim – but fortunately, they can sleep in on welfare. Very nice apologetics, BTW – God bless!

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t think you know much about the history of marriage, to tell the truth. It’s only recently that it’s become about love in the first place.

          • lorac odraned

            We said that about homosexuals just a few years ago too mp.

          • MisterPine

            Yep. There was a time when it was such a shameful thing to be gay that a lot of people simply kept quiet about it.

          • Phipps Mike

            just so you know, marriage is NOT about children. End of story.

          • Paul Hiett

            FYI, “one man, one woman” is a pagan custom, which Christianity merely inherited when made the official of Rome in 313.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t see your point. The question before the court is only whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to get married. That’s ALL we’re discussing here and all the court is called upon to rule on.

            Any of those other issues are irrelevant. Some may be worthy of debate, but it’s a SEPARATE debate.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Civil marriage is defined as the legal status of two, consenting, non-closely-related adults. Where you not aware of that?

        • Jim Deferio

          Again, WHAT is the definition of marriage? If a community defines marriage as two men + one woman and they eventually get the whole nation to agree with them, does THAT make marriage as they defined it? Does it?

          WHAT is marriage? WHAT is the basis of marriage? If all people were asexual would there be marriage or a need for it? What role does ontology & teleology play in defining marriage.

          Suppose, for sake of argument, a nation of Aryan supremacist declare that to be “human” is to have an IQ over 110, have a certain genealogy, and have other criterion based on Charles Darwin’s writings (he did think Caucasions were more evolved than others), does THAT make them right because they were able to have a whole nation agree with them. Is there a natural basis for being “human”? Do we use degreed properties or is their a distinct and fundamental property?

          • weasel1886

            Marriage is a contract registered by the state nothing more in the eyes of the law

          • Phipps Mike

            “If all people were asexual would there be marriage or a need for it?”
            marriage isnt about that either. A marriage is just a sacrificial bond between people in love that want to be with each other indefinitely. Marriage is about companionship in general and its healthy when each party learns from each other. Stop playing games. It is NOT about continuing the human race, so get over yourself.

          • Goldbeard

            So you would like to make your own rules. It is a little bit tough having to obey your heavenly dad. Your earthly dad should have taken you out to the wood-shed and reddened your rear.

          • Phipps Mike

            my dad was an authoritarian so I had REGULAR corporal punishment and his belt was used most of those times. My mom is a traditional country girl who was raised to go by the Bible (and sent me to a Baptist Church until I was in 7th grade). In my 18 years of listening to their morals and values (as well as my churche’s Pastors or parishioners). not ONCE did I EVER hear that marriage was invented for the sole purpose of procreation. They were smart enough to know that MILLIONS of people cannot have babies because of sterility, injuries early in childhood…etc/. Anybody that thinks that these people who cant procreate dont have a right to get married is a SICKO and needs mental help/.

          • lorac odraned

            Boy do you need help. They don’t have the right to “marry” because God didn’t give it to them. Only heathens don’t believe in God. Name calling and bullying tactics are not adequate defenses in an argument. He who shouts loudest or has the most money doesn’t win with God.

          • Phipps Mike

            show me a Bible passage that says that people who are infertile aren’t allowed to marry by Gods rules. I KNOW I will be hearing the crickets sing first, because that verse doesn’t exist. That makes YOU A SICKO. Thanks for being the first to admit you are one.

          • uzza

            Perfect. A guy who claims to be moral, calling for us to abuse children. Is it any wonder christianity is losing ground.

          • Jim Deferio

            What were the sexual reproductive organs designed for (hint for geniuses like you – I used the word “reproduction in my question)? Your DNA ordered the construction of these biological organs for WHAT reason? If you used these biological organs for other purposes then what is likely to happen (hint for geniuses like you: HIV-AIDS, anal warts, anal cancer, skin sarcomas, syphilis, herpes of the lungs, etc. etc.).

            Do you stuff hamburgers into your ears or anus? Do you try to pick up a pen with your butt cheeks. LOL

          • Phipps Mike

            you are assuming that you cant have reproduction outside of marriage. Well…you can. God is NOT the boss. MAN IS. We do WHAT WE WANT. (aka free will). You are on a totally different wavelength with your reply to me. You don’t HAVE to consummate just because you are married, You can stay celibate.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Again, WHAT is the definition of marriage? ”

            I provided you with the definition of civil marriage in the US.

            “If a community defines marriage as two men + one woman and they eventually get the whole nation to agree with them, does THAT make marriage as they defined it? Does it?”

            Yes. As it did for centuries and still is in several countries today.

            “WHAT is the basis of marriage?”

            That depends on where you live. In Western countries the basis for civil marriage is the desire of the couple to be married. In some other countries it is based upon caste. For centuries it had nothing to do with the desire of two people to be married, but rather was based upon money and power.

            “If all people were asexual would there be marriage or a need for it?”

            There is no “need” now. People do not “need” to be married. They choose to be married. Given the current laws surrounding being legally married, yes, there would still be a desire for it.

            “does THAT make them right”

            What is considered “right” and “wrong”, versus legal, are different things. I would certainly not view your example as being right as I believe in freedom, liberty, and equality for all citizens.

            “Is there a natural basis for being “human”? Do we use degreed properties or is their a distinct and fundamental property?”

            Yes, there is a natural basis for being human. And, yes, there are degreed properties. Humans come from humans. Humans do not come from plants or non-human animals.

          • uzza

            It’s hilarious that Jim D is all self-righteous about there being some natural basis for being human, and how it doesn’t depend on some authority’s decree, seeing as how Native Americans only became “human” with the Pope’s decree in 1537.

          • Jim Deferio

            And your point?
            Can a decree from another person make you anything different than what you already are in terms of being human? You have in one sense benefited my argument.

          • uzza

            Sort of. Your “argument” is a jumbled up mess, but you’re pushing the same ideas, long since debunked by modern science, that Confucius pushed 2500 years ago.
            Words mean whatever the community of speakers agree they mean, nothing more and nothing less. You confuse “being something” with “being called something”.

          • Jim Deferio

            WHAT has “modern science” debunked? Please give some details because I do have two science degrees and I study all the time to this day.

            If you are going to cite “geocentricity” then please realize that the doctrine of geocenticity was the science of the day from the time it was first proposed by the Greeks to the infamous treatise on it by Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD until the time of Galileo Galilei (17th century), who was a Christian, gave solid evidence against it and incurred the wrath of some in the Roman Catholic church who had finally accepted the false science of the day.

            Please give me this modern science evidence against the Bible. LOL

          • uzza

            Why on EARTh are you talking about geocentricity? Or the bible for that matter. What does any of this have to do with Confucius? You could google “Rectification of Names”, although it’s not likely you can understand any of it.

          • Jim Deferio

            Sorry for your difficulty in grasping implications and your reading comprehension problems.
            YOU brought up “modern science”. I just gave one example of how “science” can get things very wrong (e.g. “modern science” through the centuries taught geocentricity). A churchman set the world straight.

          • uzza

            It took you twelve days to come up with that lame response? Wow, dude, just slink away.

          • Jim Deferio

            Soooooo, you have been counting the days? LOL
            I just saw your comment today.

            Glad that you missed me as it makes me feel wanted and cherished. LOL

          • Jim Deferio

            You have again missed the whole point. If people can define and redefine and again redefine something then there is no firm basis for that “something”, like marriage.

            If all the world miraculously agreed on marriage being between two men and three women with one male dog, does THAT mean that marriage is THAT? There has to be a firm ontological and teleological basis for marriage or the definition will be open to the whims of all sorts of people and it would, in the long term, mean nothing.

            If the USA enacted a law that “gays” should be subject to the death penalty, would that make it a just law even if the Supreme Court agreed with the law? That begs the question of what is a “just law”, does it not? So, we would need to seek what the basis of “just law” is.

            In Nazi Germany, the Germans celebrated butch homosexuality and put to death the effeminate homosexuals. Since all of that society agreed, is that a just system?

            Please look up the definitions of ontological and teleological. What is your education level and background?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “You have again missed the whole point.”

            I completely get your point. You are attempting to put forth the argument that one man/one woman is the only definition of marriage (despite that not being true) and that if any other form of marriage is allowed then every form of marriage will be, as a result, allowed (false slippery slope argument) therefore, same-gender should not be allowed.

            Your point is quite clear. It is not, however, valid. The allowance of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage – still within the parameters of two consenting, non-closely related adults – does not provide any legal argument for other types of marriage.

            “If all the world miraculously agreed on marriage being between two men and three women with one male dog, does THAT mean that marriage is THAT?”

            Obviously.

            ” There has to be a firm ontological and teleological basis for marriage”

            There is.

            “If the USA enacted a law that “gays” should be subject to the death penalty, would that make it a just law even if the Supreme Court agreed with the law?”

            Oh, you mean like the US did have? I do not believe it would be “just”, nor would it be legal under our constitution.

            “That begs the question of what is a “just law”, does it not?”

            And that is why we have a constitution.

            “In Nazi Germany, the Germans celebrated butch homosexuality and put to death the effeminate homosexuals. Since all of that society agreed, is that a just system?”

            It is highly unlikely that “all of society agreed” with that action. It was, however, slightly better than what used to exist in the US where homosexuals – both effeminate and butch – were subject to the death penalty. Was that “just”?

            “Please look up the definitions of ontological and teleological.”

            I am aware of their meaning.

            “What is your education level and background?”

            Born and raised in a small town in Oklahoma. Raised Christian. Stable family. Father a doctor. Mother a stay-at-home mom. Five siblings. College educated at a Christian affiliated school. Degrees in both Business and Psychology. Published author. 37 years of employment. You?

          • Jim Deferio

            I went to my e-mail and I had many notifications of comments in reply to what I have written. For some reason DISQUS is not allowing me to see all the comments together on the thread so I have had to tackle them one at a time and I responded to something you had written later. In this comment you have answered a few of my questions. Sorry for the confusion.

            OK, you claim to know what “ontological” means. Now, please state the eleven biological systems within the human body, what they do and what primary organs and structures are associated with them. Name the one and only one that needs another person for its completion (and not just any ol’ person but one of a complementary sex – opposite sex).

            Next please explain the DESIGN of these systems (in simple terms as this is not a biology course).

            Psychology is mostly a pseudo-science although some claim that no part of psychology is science. If science is objective and psychology subjective (mostly) then I can see the point that scientists make it relegating psychology to s pseudo-science (of course there is more to their arguments against psychology).

            According to atheists I encountered on the campus of the University at Buffalo, Hitler and Nazi Germany was absolutely morally right to put to death the Jews and those Christians who helped the Jews. Their premise was that society (a majority, wise guy, not 100%) define the morals and establish moral codes and standards. They were consistent atheists, I’ll give them that…

            All of humanity is divided into “males” and “females” and this is also stated in Genesis 1:27. When two men come together or two women come together they are merely two of the SAME half and they can NEVER form an organic WHOLE, they can NEVER form a ONE FLESH UNION and have COMPLETION. They offer what the other already has!!!

            Genesis 2:24 agress and the first definition of marriage as One Man + One Woman is repeated by Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 and Paul the apostle agrees in Ephesians 5:31 and 1 Corinthians 7:2. It is IMPOSSIBLE for marriage to be anything else regardless of polygamy practiced by certain cults or by some kings and a few others in the Old Testament who sinned against Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 17:17. It doesn’t matter to REAL marriage if some used marriage merely for financial gain, elevation in social status, to make peace between warring factions or whatever. People are SINFUL and pervert the perfect design and purposes of God.

            Homosexualists can NEVER have a REAL marriage by joining members of the same kind together – what they have is FAKE marriages and COUNTERFEIT marriages. Something doesn’t change from its ontological & teleological basis because a group of irrational people says it does.

            God created us as RATIONAL free moral agents. God says in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us REASON togther…”. The problem is that homosexualists (i.e. people identifying themselves as “homosexual” and their allies) have cast off logic and reason and have put themselves under the tyranny of their FEELINGS – their inclinations, impulses, appetites, desires for fulfillment of the lusts of the flesh.

            Feelings are ephemeral and they can not be the basis of solid, good, and God-honoring relationships. FEELINGS often have an irrational basis and are not reliable indicators of truth, morality, or what direction one should take in life.

            LOVE is. But what is LOVE? The Bible says that GOD IS LOVE (see 1 John 4). God is not reducible to lewd sexual unions, nor to romantic attachments, nor to feelings. WHAT does the Bible say about love? Do you even have a clue?

            I have been married almost 40 years. I’ll be 65 years old in two months although most people who meet me think I’m in my forties. Do I always have “feelings” for my wife? Can feelings sustain a marriage? Feelings come and go!!!

            Btw, I have two science degrees and I have completed about 230 semester hours of college coursework both at the undergraduate and graduate level. But big deal. Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met have not been to college or have never finished college. I study all of the time and I have a house filled with technical books and thousands of articles. I crave knowledge and wisdom (wisdom being the appropriate and correct use of knowledge in any given situation or problem).

            My Facebook is open. However, if you try to post something you will sorely regret it. You may read only.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Now, please state the eleven biological systems within the human body, what they do and what primary organs and structures are associated with them”

            Toward what end? Civil marriage is not based upon biological functioning. There is no requirement that couples have sexual relations. There is no requirement that couples have children. Until sexual relations and/or reproduction are a requirement for receiving a civil marriage license, the biological functioning of humans is irrelevant to the legal issue. After my father’s death, my mother remarried at age 82. I can assure you, the functioning of their organs as relates to sexual encounters was not part of the equation. Yet, they still were approved for, and received, a marriage license.

            How are verses from the Bible relevant to civil law regarding marriage?
            “Homosexualists can NEVER have a REAL marriage by joining members of the same kind together – what they have is FAKE marriages and COUNTERFEIT marriages”

            You certainly free to view it however you care to. The marriage license is being sought to create legal standing for the couple. How you view that is up to you and of no consequence to the couple.

            “I have been married almost 40 years.”

            That’s marvelous. Congratulations. Rare these days.

            “Do I always have “feelings” for my wife?”

            I would assume, and certainly hope, so, but only you can answer that question.

            “Can feelings sustain a marriage?”

            Depends on the feelings.

            “Feelings come and go!!!”

            Varies based upon the individual and the feeling.

            “Btw, I have two science degrees and I have completed about 230 semester hours of college coursework both at the undergraduate and graduate level. ”
            Good for you!

            “I crave knowledge and wisdom”

            As do I.

            “wisdom being the appropriate and correct use of knowledge in any given situation or problem”

            Of course, what would be considered “appropriate and correct” can vary from one person to the next.

            “However, if you try to post something you will sorely regret it.”

            Why would I regret that?

          • Jim Deferio

            Your mother does not set the standard for anyone. That was purely anecdotal and irrelevant. I think that people have a desire to “play house” even after they look foolish in trying to do so. That doesn’t make it right.

            If marriage is open to just what anyone wants it to be then it becomes an infinition and lacks a definition. It becomes meaningless.

            What I am attempting to get out of you people is a basic definition of marriage that comports with what it means to be human (ontology) and that has basic meaning toward an end that is rational (teleology).

            Simply calling something “marriage” doesn’t it make it so even if numerous people agree on it. Marriage has an OBJECTIVE meaning and all of your subjective musings are just that – SUBJECTIVE and therefore without “oughtness”.

            So, WHAT makes marriage? Are you going to discriminate because of age? Why can’t two or three nine year olds marry? How about a six year old and a 50 year old man (Muhammad the false prophet and his child bride Aisha – consummated when she was nine and he was 53)?

            Should you restrict the number involved in marriage? Can it be interspecies (if you believe the religion of evolutionism we are all animals anyway).

            Would you have objected if your mom wanted to “marry” her sister? Or you?

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Your mother does not set the standard for anyone. ”

            Agreed.

            “That was purely anecdotal and irrelevant.”

            You brought up that the sexual functioning of human organs was somehow related to the legal status of marriage. I provided one, personal, example of that not being true. Since the example I provided – and there are thousands like it – directly refutes what you stated, how is it “irrelevant”?

            “If marriage is open to just what anyone wants it to be then it becomes an infinition and lacks a definition.”

            Who is suggesting that marriage be “open to just what anyone wants it to be”?

            “It becomes meaningless.”

            The meaning that a couple attaches to marriage would depend on the couple. Nothing can make it have meaning to them that it does not have, nor can anything reduce the meaning it has to them. The meaning is personal.

            “What I am attempting to get out of you people…”

            Who is “you people”?

            “is a basic definition of marriage that comports with what it means to be human (ontology) and that has basic meaning toward an end that is rational (teleology).”

            Civil marriage establishing legal standing for the couple. Nothing more. Nothing less. It does not involve a requirement that it “comports with what it means to be human (ontology) and that has basic meaning toward an end that is rational (teleology).” You are certainly free to believe that it should, and work to put such requirements in place, but they do not exist at this time and therefore are not a rationale for excluding two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage.

            “Simply calling something “marriage” doesn’t it make it so even if numerous people agree on it.”

            If that’s the case, what’s your issue?

            “all of your subjective musings are just that – SUBJECTIVE and therefore without “oughtness”.”

            What musings of mine are “subjective”? You are the one who is attempting to put subjective requirements on something that does not currently involve those requirements.

            “So, WHAT makes marriage?”

            From a legal standpoint, two consenting adults who meet the requirements put forth by the state.

            “Are you going to discriminate because of age?”

            I don’t make marriage laws, therefore I am not able to discriminate in regards to who is allowed to enter into civil marriage.

            “Why can’t two or three nine year olds marry?”

            The state has rationally put forth that people of that age are not in a position to enter into legally binding contracts as they are unable to provide informed consent.

            “How about a six year old and a 50 year old man”

            See previous explanation.

            “Should you restrict the number involved in marriage?”

            Again, I don’t restrict or allow anything. That is not within my power. I do believe that the state can provide rational and compelling reasons for not allowing polygamous legal marriage.

            “Can it be interspecies?”

            Again, informed consent is necessary for entering into a legal contract. That requirement is rational and compelling.

            “Would you have objected if your mom wanted to “marry” her sister?”

            No. But I can understand why it wouldn’t be legal for her to do so.

            “Or you?”

            Yes.

          • Jim Deferio

            You do not see how arbitrary your standards are? Are you blind?

            You fail to recognize that what is “legal” changes all the time so what is mutable is not an objective standard. Now, provide me with a definition of marriage that is based on human ontology and teleology that is objective and immutable.

            Who says informed consent has to be a stipulation of marriage. Although I can successfully argue why it should be that way I do know from what you have commented thus far that there is no way you can argue for why it should be informed consent.

            Would you deny Muhammad? Would you deny arranged marriages? Would you call them “fake marriages”?

            Does marriage exist in the animal kingdom? Why should there be a human institution of marriage? Why not just mate and hook up with whoever you feel like hooking up with?

            If the religion of evolutionism is true then marriage is a farce and we are just animals and should stop acting like laws of logic exist and rationality is something needed for human flourishing.

            You would make a great Nazi. I’m serious, you seem to be a good little stooge of the state.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “You do not see how arbitrary your standards are?”

            No, I don’t. Neither, apparently, do you since you have been unable to cite which standards you believe are arbitrary. That, however, was not the question. The question was: What musings of mine are “subjective”?. A question you have failed to answer.

            You also failed to answer these questions:

            how is it “irrelevant”?

            Who is suggesting that marriage be “open to just what anyone wants it to be”?

            Who is “you people”?

            If that’s the case, what’s your issue?

            “Now, provide me with a definition of marriage that is based on human ontology and teleology that is objective and immutable.”

            I’m not aware of one. Are you?

            “Who says informed consent has to be a stipulation of marriage.”

            The State.

            ” that there is no way you can argue for why it should be informed consent.”

            Of course I can.

            “Would you deny Muhammad?”

            He’s dead.

            “Would you deny arranged marriages?”

            I believe that mutual consent is something that should be required prior to a couple entering into the legal contract of marriage. So, unless both parties consented, I do not believe that they should be forced to enter into civil marriage.

            “Would you call them “fake marriages”?”

            No.

            “Does marriage exist in the animal kingdom?”

            Not legally.

            “Why should there be a human institution of marriage?”

            It provides legal protections, rights, and benefits to the individuals who are married. Whether it “should” or not would depend on one’s view. As of now, and for many years, society has determined that there should be a legal status available for those who desire it.

            “Why not just mate and hook up with whoever you feel like hooking up with?”

            That’s certainly an option. Civil marriage is not a requirement. It is optional.

            “If the religion of evolutionism is true”

            The theory of evolution is not a religion.

            “then marriage is a farce and we are just animals and should stop acting like laws of logic exist and rationality is something needed for human flourishing.”

            You are certainly free to believe that if you care to. Civil marriage is not needed for human flourishing. Civil marriage does not require reproduction nor does reproducing require civil marriage.

            “You would make a great Nazi”

            Oh….Godwin’s Law. How adorable….and sad at the same time.

            “I’m serious, you seem to be a good little stooge of the state.”

            How so?

          • Jim Deferio

            Really? You are not aware of one? LOL Of course you’re not aware of one and that is why trolls like you are so much fun.

            Please name me ONE thing natural about the homosexual sex act – JUST ONE.

            Is it rational and healthy to be inserting your penis into the anus-rectum of another man? LOL

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Of course you’re not aware of one”

            It appears that you are not, as well, since you have not provided one.

            “Please name me ONE thing natural about the homosexual sex act – JUST ONE.”

            There is not “the” homosexual sexual act. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals engage in a number of sexual acts. Did you have one in mind that you would like an explanation of?

            “Is it rational….. to be inserting your penis into the anus-rectum of another man?”

            Very rational if you enjoy that and there is mutual consent.

            “and healthy”

            It isn’t unhealthy. But it’s not like eating vegetables, which is healthy. Is inserting a penis into a vagina “healthy”?

            Again, the questions you have failed to answer:

            how is it “irrelevant”?

            Who is suggesting that marriage be “open to just what anyone wants it to be”?

            Who is “you people”?

            If that’s the case, what’s your issue?

            Are you afraid to answer those questions or are you just not able to?

          • Jim Deferio

            “Healthy”?

            Go to the CDC and see what they say about whether it is healthy or not!

            Also, this professional medical association has a very good article on non-coital sex called, “Addressing Health Risks of Noncoital Sexual Activity” by the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. (Apparently DISQUS is not allowing me to post the link so you’ll have to look it up yourself.)

            So, it’s only about consent and FEELINGS? Do FEELINGS have a rational basis? Should you always “be true to your feelings”? Were the two homosexualists in Germany rational and justified by their FEELINGS when they consented to have relations and that one should kill and eat the other? It was all done according to mutual consent and according to their mutual feelings.

            You have exposed yourself as a person who hates logic and rationality, one who hates truth, one who hates the Bible and one who trolls on a Christian website because of your hatred for Christians. You, are a HATER.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            There is some level of risk inherent in any behavior. The risk is minimized or maximized based upon the precautions taken. Over 90% of the HIV infections worldwide are the result of heterosexual encounters. It is not the sexuality or the act which carries risk – it is the way in which the act is done that determines the relative risk.

            “So, it’s only about consent and FEELINGS?”

            What do you think it’s about?

            “Were the two homosexualists in Germany rational and justified by their FEELINGS when they consented to have relations and that one should kill and eat the other?”

            Certainly an extreme example, which can be found for any statement that applies to the vast majority. I question whether a person who desires to be killed and eaten is operating from a position of informed consent.

            “You have exposed yourself as a person who hates logic and rationality”

            What, specifically, have I said that indicates I am a person who “hates logic and rationality”? It seems that you are projecting in that statement. It is YOU who have failed to answer questions regarding the logic and rationality of YOUR statements.

            “one who hates the Bible and one who trolls on a Christian website because of your hatred for Christians.”

            What have I said that would cause you to believe that I hate the Bible and hate Christians? I can assure you, neither is true. I don’t “hate” anyone or anything.

          • Jim Deferio

            According to the CDC it is at least 78% of HIV by same-sex activity. The remainder is from the COMBINED behavior of same-sex relations and intravenous drug use and the rest by men who come out of prison after having engaged in “situational homosexuality” and then while infected have sex with women.

            In Africa infected men spread the disease to women thinking that having sex with a virgin will cure them.

            I tried posting links but I was barred from doing so on this website. Look them up yourself.

            Regardless of medical consequences, I asked you about the biological systems in the human body and about the one that needs another person for completion – one of a complimentary sex. You have yet to answer that.

            When you deny logic then you in essence become uncivilized and have dehumanized yourself. That is what homosexualists do, they dehumanize themselves. Civil rights should never be extended to behavior that is irrational, unnatural and therefore perverse and which dehumanizes a person.

            Haters, like you, hate the truth. So, you argue, and argue, and argue, and argue and try to wiggle your way through life and rail against those who do espouse logic and truth.

            If you embrace rationality and truth you would cease arguing.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Again, the questions you have failed to answer:

            how is it “irrelevant”?

            Who is suggesting that marriage be “open to just what anyone wants it to be”?

            Who is “you people”?

            If that’s the case, what’s your issue?

            What, specifically, have I said that indicates I am a person who “hates logic and rationality”?

            What have I said that would cause you to believe that I hate the Bible and hate Christians?

            You seem long on accusations but short on answers. That is typically a sign of a person who has weak or invalid arguments.

            “According to the CDC it is at least 78% of HIV by same-sex activity.”

            That is the US. World-wide, over 90% of cases are the result of heterosexual encounters, with a significant number of those being children born to mothers with HIV. So, perhaps you’ll give some thought to these 100s of thousands of babies who are sick and dying as you sling your vile accusations that HIV/AIDS is somehow a gay disease. Talk about hate.

            “I asked you about the biological systems in the human body and about the one that needs another person for completion – one of a complimentary sex. You have yet to answer that.”

            You never posed any question to that effect. What you asked me was to provide you with “a basic definition of marriage that comports with what it means to be human (ontology) and that has basic meaning toward an end that is rational (teleology).” I told you that I was not aware of one nor have you provided one.

            Given the significant number of questions I have asked you that you continue to dodge, you really should look at the hypocrisy of saying to me “You have yet to answer that”.

            “When you deny logic”

            What logic do you believe I am denying?

            “Civil rights should never be extended to behavior that is irrational, unnatural and therefore perverse and which dehumanizes a person.”

            Civil rights are not extended to behavior. Civil rights are extended to citizens.

            “Haters, like you, hate the truth.”

            More accusations that you fail to provide proof of. In the Christian faith, that is called “bearing false witness”. I’m curious, how do you reconcile that behavior with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “If you embrace rationality and truth”

            What rationality and truth do you believe I should be embracing?

          • Jim Deferio

            You are not aware of a definition of marriage based on ontology & teleology because you refuse to do a bit of thinking and searching. I will not spoon feed you.

            Lose that loser name and come out of the closet and lets have a face to face debate in front of an audience. Are you afraid of disclosing who and what you are? Why?

            Cite your sources for that 90% figure!

            Civil rights are extended to persons but homos want special rights based on BEHAVIOR. A man who suffers from some degree of same-sex attraction is free to marry a woman and a woman who suffers from some degree of same-sex attraction is free to marry a man.

            Of course, REAL marriage always comes with restrictions based on age and present marital status.

            Calling something “marriage” doesn’t make it so. There has to be a basic rational foundation or the term becomes meaningless.

            Define marriage. Define love? I’ll ask again, give me the eleven biological systems in the human body and the ONE that needs another person of a complementary sex for its fulfillment?

            By arguing against REAL marriage that has its basis in rationality you have shown yourself to be a hater of truth, a hater of people (because you advocate that which is ultimately bad for them), and a hater of God (because our design and purpose comes from Him, not from “chance” which has no causal powers whatsoever).

            Now, lose the loser name and come out of your closet.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I will not spoon feed you.”

            Oooo….that’s one of my favorites for when people can’t explain themselves. Too funny.

            “lets have a face to face debate”

            I’d be happy to. I live in Orlando. Are you nearby?

            “Are you afraid of disclosing who and what you are?”

            Not at all. Is that a question you pose to everyone who doesn’t have a picture and name as their Disqus profile? What does it matter?

            “Cite your sources for that 90% figure!”

            I’ll make ya a deal. You are WAY behind on answering my questions. So, you answer the questions I have posed to you about various statements you have made and provide me with your definition of marriage based on ontology & teleology, and I’ll provide you with a link to the data which backs up my figures.

            “Civil rights are extended to persons but homos want special rights”

            What special rights are you referring to?

            “based on BEHAVIOR”

            What behavior?

            Inherent in the right to marry, is the right to marry the otherwise qualifying person of one’s choice. So to suggest that a homosexual has the right to marry a heterosexual means that people are treated equally under the law is without merit.

            “Calling something “marriage” doesn’t make it so.”

            If that’s the case, then what do you care of two people of the same gender are legally allowed to enter into civil marriage?

            “I’ll ask again, give me the eleven biological systems in the human body and the ONE that needs another person of a complementary sex for its fulfillment?”

            And I’ll answer again. Those systems are irrelevant to the issue of who is allowed to enter into civil marriage. The biological capabilities of a person are not a determining factor in marriage laws.

            “By arguing against REAL marriage”

            I’m not arguing against “real” marriage – if by “real” you mean marriage between a man and a woman. I am all for men and women getting married. I think it’s great. Being in favor of allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage does not mean that I am against two citizens of opposite gender entering into marriage.

            “shown yourself to be a hater of truth”

            What truth do you believe I hate?

            “a hater of people (because you advocate that which is ultimately bad for them)”

            How is allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage “bad for them”?

            “and a hater of God”

            I do not hate God. I love God. We just have different views on God.

            Let me know when you are able/willing to answer the various questions I have posed to you, that you have thus far failed to answer, then we can take it from there.

            Enjoy your day.

          • Jim Deferio

            You have no authoritative source for that 90% figure and I know that for a fact. I have a 300 plus page report on the global AIDS epidemic and you have flat out LIED about it. Like I said, you hate truth.

            Get the feces off of your penis and read the Bible and some legitimate and factual articles and books.

            Stop pretending to be anything but what you see in your mirror, a sinner who loves lies and indecency.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            It’s always sad to see a person spiral into a hole of derogatory communication as they try to deflect from their own inadequacies. Very unfortunate. I will say a prayer for you.

            “You have no authoritative source for that 90% figure and I know that for a fact.”

            I do have a source for that figure and I’ll be more than happy to provide it to you once you have had the courtesy of answering the questions I posed to you that you have continually dodged.

            “I have a 300 plus page report on the global AIDS epidemic”

            That sounds quite extensive. I’d like to read that. What’s the name of the report you have?

            “Stop pretending to be anything but what you see in your mirror, a sinner”

            I’ve never pretended that I wasn’t a sinner.

            “who loves lies”

            Again with the accusations. What lies do you believe I love?

            “and indecency”

            I don’t love indecency. With that said, what would be considered indecent and what would not, would be a matter of personal opinion.

            For example, I found your constant accusations without provision of proof, your vile language, your inability to provide what you ask of me, and your constant deflection, to be indecent. You, obviously, do not.

          • Jim Deferio

            You have been a troll on this website and you are derogatory toward real marriage. If I tell the truth about your character then so be it – character is of utmost importance in Christianity and Jesus told people at times that they were “evil”, “hypocrites”, the “offspring of snakes”, and “liars”.

            “Civil marriage”? WHAT is “civil” about what homosexualists do? Name me ONE thing natural or civil about the homosexual sex act – JUST ONE.

            The fact that you can’t see how important ontology and teleolgy are in defining what it is to be human tells me that you are either uneducated or just deflecting because the truth will capsize your position.

            Cite your source for the 90% figure! YOU are the one who brought it up so back it up.

            I would absolutely make you look dumb in a face to face debate in front of an audience. Lose your loser name and I’m not kidding you.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “you are derogatory toward real marriage.”

            Please cite any derogatory comment I have made toward “real” marriage.

            “If I tell the truth about your character”

            The operative word being “if”, and so far you haven’t.

            Sexual relations between homosexuals are natural between homosexuals. What would be unnatural for a homosexual is to engage in sexual acts with someone of the opposite gender. Just as it would unnatural for a heterosexual to engage in sexual acts with someone of the same gender.

            “WHAT is “civil” about what homosexualists do?”

            Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do a lot of things. Give to charity; care for the sick; teach; volunteer. Those would be some examples of “civil” things that homosexuals do.

            “Cite your source for the 90% figure! YOU are the one who brought it up so back it up.”

            As I have said several times, I am more than happy to provide you with the backup for that number once you have answered the numerous questions I have asked you that you have continued to dodge. The ball is in your court.

            “I would absolutely make you look dumb in a face to face debate in front of an audience.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless your method of debate is markedly different in person than it is online, that seems highly unlikely. You can’t even respond to basic questions about the statements you make. That, in and of itself, makes you quite incompetent in debate.

          • Jim Deferio

            The basic lifestyle of a homosexualist is corrupt and no amount of “good deeds” can reverse that. They are corrupt and uncivil to the core.

            It’s OK, I didn’t expect you to provide any sources to validate a lie, lol. I would be beneficial to yourself if you just would admit that you lied about the 90% figure. Besides HIV-AIDS, there is a whole long list of infections and diseases inherent in the homosexual deathstyle. The CDC has documented all of these and so has ACOG (who are very liberal, btw).

            “Homosexuals” dehumanize themselves and claim a sexual identity contrary to human sexual identity of either male and female and being designed for the opposite sex. No civil or human rights should be extended for such dehumanizing activity and for such an immoral inhuman psychology.

            If you want human rights, if you want natural rights, if you want civil rights, THEN act human, act natural (abide by natural law), and be civil.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “They are corrupt and uncivil to the core.”

            How so?

            “It would be beneficial to yourself if you just would admit that you lied about the 90% figure.”

            it’s not a lie – it is the truth. As I have said several times now, I will be happy to provide you with the source of that number should you ever be able to man-up and answer the questions I posed to you.

            “No civil or human rights should be extended for such dehumanizing activity”

            Civil and human rights are not granted to activity. They are granted to people.

            “If you want human rights, if you want natural rights, if you want civil rights, THEN act human, act natural (abide by natural law), and be civil.”

            I do act human. I do act natural. I am civil. More importantly, I am a citizen, and that is sufficient in the US for civil rights.

            Now, are you going to be man enough to answer my questions or will you continue with your cowardly ways?

          • Jim Deferio

            At least you know that I’m a man! YOU, no one knows because you hide behind a loser name.

            Testimony by former homosexualist Brad Grammer.

            Brad Grammer
            “Seventeen years ago, my life came to a crossroad. In my mind, I could either commit suicide or give God one more chance to change my life and bring it meaning. Prior to coming to this crossroad, I had struggled with my sexual identity as well as depression and anxiety.

            My earliest recollections of being attracted to men is when I was six years old. I remember fantasizing about growing up to be a woman and marrying a man. Specific males came to my mind as I considered the kind of man I would marry. They were all muscular, handsome and confident.

            Later in life, I learned that these same-sex attractions were manifestations from unresolved emotional and spiritual issues in my life. The decision I came to, at the crossroad, was that I would commit my life to Christ and follow Him. I had grown up in the Church but only at the age of twenty did I really understand that Christ died for my sins and that only through His sacrifice could I receive eternal life. In addition, I began to understand the sanctification process, whereby sins could dissipate and weaknesses could be transformed into strengths.

            However, when it came to my sexuality, I had no idea how this was going to change. In fact, I didn’t really think there was a possibility of changing my sexual desires. I made a commitment to celibacy, choosing to live with these same-sex desires the rest of my life. I was not connected with ministries helping individuals transition out of homosexuality, and going to counseling was a scary prospect. So I focused my energies on growing in my relationship with Christ. God had specific plans for me. He brought men into my life that loved me and modeled for me what it meant to be both godly and intimate, without any hint of homosexuality. Through my close relationships with these men over a period of ten years, God brought up the unresolved issues in me that needed to be addressed. Although there was no ministry around at that time to aid me in my journey, God did the same work in my life through relationships, a process analogous to many ex-gay ministries today. The Body of Christ became the instrument for healing in my life. The result was a complete change in my sexual desires from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Today I am married and have two sons.

            For the Church to make a decision to bless same-sex unions or ordain practicing homosexuals is to communicate to me, and individuals like me, that the transformation in my life did not happen and that I am obviously in an unhealthy state of denial. As I mentioned above, I did not even know that it would be possible to change my sexual orientation, but God transformed even this area of my life!

            To allow for same-sex unions and ordination of practicing homosexuals in the Church is to prevent the opportunity for individuals to even consider that a change is possible. I was an outcast once because I had homosexual desires. If the church changes its standards, I would return to being an outcast in the Church again because my experience would be invalidated. We need to turn to the truth of Scripture and believe that “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Let us keep our hope in God alone and remain faithful to what He has made clear in Scripture in regards to sexuality.”

            Go to one by one dot org.

            Brad Grammer is director of an Exodus referral ministry in Indianapolis and a member of the OneByOne Speakers Bureau.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            If you’re name and picture are actually you, then it is clear you are male. Your responses, however, fall way short of being a man, IMO, as a REAL man does not run from questions and a REAL man has the integrity to speak honestly. You have not shown yourself to be a real man. Male, perhaps. A man, not based upon what I have seen.

            If you are curious about my gender, you need only to ask.

            Was there a point to your posting regarding Brad Grammar?

            Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious based marriage ceremonies.

            So still not man enough to answer my questions, I see. Well, at least you are consistent in your cowardice.

          • Jim Deferio

            No such difference between “relkigious based marriage” and “civil marriage”. Real marriage is always civil and it is always religious (in the sense that it supposed to be a covenant – an exchange of persons and not a mere contract – an exchange of services, property, goods). Therefore REAL marriage is always One Man + One Woman for life, no divorce, till death do you part. It’s a covenant between sexual compliments.

            From PEOPLE CAN CHANGE dot com

            DAVID MATHESON

            breaking free

            David is the co-creator, with Rich Wyler, of People Can Change’s powerful Journey Into Manhood weekend experience. A Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice, he is married and the father of a daughter and two sons.

            “I aspired to manliness, but I was certain that was impossible. I didn’t look like a man. I didn’t feel like a man. And I didn’t behave like a man. Furthermore, I didn’t fit in with men. I was scared of men. I was suspicious of men. And I couldn’t stop looking at men!

            On the other hand, I liked girls, and I’d even been “turned on” by them on a few occasions. But if the girl was attractive, I felt weak and inadequate. And if she wasn’t attractive, I liked her friendship but discounted her romantic interest in me. All of this was such a conundrum to me. I wondered about myself, knowing something was wrong.

            In the spring of 1984, I resolved the conflict. I finally confessed to myself that my attractions to other men were sexual – something I had denied for years. I was 22 years old. Solemnly and grimly, I explained to myself that — if I permitted myself to — I could be homosexual.

            My values and beliefs ran completely counter to homosexuality.

            But I remained physically — though not mentally — faithful to my marriage. My first line of defense against homosexual behavior was fear and ignorance. (Imagine those two traits as a blessing!) I didn’t know how to find a homosexual partner, and I was too scared to find out. But my second line of defense was probably more significant. My values and beliefs ran completely counter to homosexuality. I believed in God. I believed in the sanctity of my marriage. I loved my wife and our child. How could homosexuality fit into that?

            Even so, I was pretty close to the edge when I met Dan Gray, a clinical social worker who had made a specialty of working with homosexual men. Dan was manly but also gentle, which meant he was attractive but not scary. I could tolerate being open with him. Within a few weeks, my whole vision of myself changed completely.

            We worked together for two years, focusing on my building relationships with other men, getting past my incapacitating shame over my body, and developing a strong masculine identity. My first male friendships were with other men I met in “Evergreen,” a support group for men who wanted to resolve homosexual feelings in a way that was consistent with their religious faith. There were men at work also. A dozen engineers. And to my utter astonishment, they were tolerable, even likeable. And they liked me too. The “great divide” in my life between me and other men began to close.

            I took up the three cardinal sports of American boys: basketball, baseball and football. I’d missed these on my first through adolescence. I began weight lifting with greater earnestness. And I talked almost incessantly with my friends from Evergreen about our lives, our feelings and our relationships. I talked with my wife also quite honestly about what I was doing, thinking and feeling. I began to change.

            fear had crippled my life

            Yet erasing the distance between me and the rest of the male world was only part of what I needed to complete my transition into mature heterosexuality. I also had to face my fear of things like anger, intimacy, self-disclosure — and bombing down-hill on a mountain bike! I had not realized how fear had crippled my life. Years after my “reparative therapy” was complete, I entered “intensive psychotherapy” to resolve this.

            When I think carefully about the therapeutic work I did in those years, I see clearly that it wasn’t about switching the gender of my sexual preference. It was about escaping the bondage of some deeper problems — anxiety, shame and fear. For most of my life, I had been overwhelmed by anxiety when I was in the presence of strong and intelligent men. I had been oppressed by intense shame because I felt my body was so inadequate. And I had been crippled by a fear of exposing my deepest emotions.

            My struggle…has been about getting free.

            The work I did in those seven years was to make choices that gradually freed me from the bondage of these deeper problems. Tremendous rewards followed – fulfilling friendships with other men, better health and greater confidence with my body and emotional freedom and power. Yes, my sexual orientation changed too. But in my life today, heterosexuality is like salt in the cookie dough — it’s an important element, but it’s not the main ingredient. You see, my struggle hasn’t really been about going “straight.” It has been about getting free.”

            – David Matheson, 2000

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “No such difference between “relkigious based marriage” and “civil marriage””

            Of course there is. The former creates no legal standing for the couple. The latter creates legal standing for the couple regardless of whether a religious ceremony was performed. Did you not know this?

            “Real marriage is always civil and it is always religious”

            You are certainly free to define “real” marriage in any way you care to, but from a legal standpoint, marriage is determined based upon the issuance of a marriage certificate and witnessed by an empowered authority. Nothing else is required.

            Are atheists not in a “real” marriage?

            Was there some point to your inclusion of the information from David Matheson?

            Get back to me if, and when, you grow a pair.

          • Jim Deferio

            You are so ridiculous that it is funny. What do atheists have to do with this? How do they affect real marriage. Explain THAT! LOL
            What is “legal” now may be “illegal” in a few years. You are on shaky ground and you will never rise above your own pathetic sinful nature.

            Testimony time from PEOPLE CAN CHANGE dot com.

            FLOYD GODFREY
            becoming the man I was attracted to

            Floyd and his wife have been married since 1992. They have 3 children and reside in Gilbert, Arizona. He is a Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice in the Phoenix area.

            Hope At Last

            I was 22 years old in 1990 when yet another fruitless counseling session with yet another therapist came to its weekly close. For four years, I had sought help from parents, three therapists and numerous spiritual advisors in a largely unsuccessful and frustrating effort to find a way free from the compulsive homosexual longings that tormented me.

            Now, almost as an afterthought, this therapist told me something that would change the course of my life: A group of men who were supporting each other in overcoming homosexuality had recently formed an organization calledEvergreen in Salt Lake City, and they were about to host their first conference.

            I soon found myself driving 400 miles to attend the first Evergreen conference, full of hope that at last I might be on the brink of discovering the truth about my homosexual feelings. Starved for answers, I prayed for understanding and spiritual nourishment.

            What I found in Salt Lake City was a banquet of new information and insight that rang true for me in a way that nothing had before. Here at last were the answers I had been praying for!

            One of the most inspiring moments at the conference for me came when keynote speaker Jeff Konrad, author of “You Don’t Have to be Gay,” related the story of his own recovery. He was a man who once had been caught up in the gay lifestyle but, through years of hard spiritual and emotional work, had finally found healing.

            I was also introduced for the first time to reparative therapy, a therapeutic model that emphasized the need for a conflicted homosexual to “repair” his male self-image and broken male relationships of his childhood and youth.

            Until I felt fully masculine, I would never feel “man enough” for a woman.

            I learned that I hadn’t been able to pray away my homosexual attractions because they were not, at their roots, a spiritual problem. The unwanted attractions were symptoms of emotional problems that I needed to resolve, not be relieved of. I hadn’t been able to force opposite-sex attractions because my more basic, core need for male identity and masculine affirmation had not yet been met adequately. Until I felt fully masculine, I would never feel “man enough” for a woman.

            Alive with hope at last, I returned from the conference and immediately began working with a new therapist I had met there who was experienced with reparative therapy. He helped me work through gender insecurity issues and correct my many misperceptions of maleness and the male world – everything from the meaning of spontaneous erections to my unrequited longing for normal male friendships, both of which I had grossly misinterpreted as indications that I was probably “born gay.” These misunderstandings had in turn become somewhat of a self-fulfilling fixation on homosexual thoughts, feelings and culture.

            Overcoming Gender Insecurity

            With my therapy clearly focused now on my masculine development as a boy and my sense of gender inadequacy, I began to reinterpret my history in a whole new light — a light that illuminated my present turmoil. I recalled a childhood of emotional turmoil and confusion. The boys who were in my class played rough-and-tumble games during recess. I never joined in. I didn’t know how to play the games and was afraid of getting hurt. I felt so uncoordinated.

            Since I didn’t play with other boys during recess, I found a group of girls to spend time with. We played jump rope and “house” and climbed on the monkey bars. We played “Star Wars,” and I always got to be Luke Skywalker. He was strong and courageous and a hero everyone liked. This was the kind of play that was comfortable and “safe” for me; I avoided the humiliation that inevitably came with playing with the boys.

            Even while I avoided boys, I desperately wanted to have other boys as friends. I wanted to hang out with them, join in their games and feel like I fit in. I wanted to belong. In P.E., all the other boys were so much better at the activities than I. While their bodies were developing and starting the path toward manhood, I was skinny and undeveloped. I was embarrassed with my body and tried to be very modest so the other boys wouldn’t notice how thin I was.

            The Opposite Sex?

            One of the boys in P.E. had started lifting weights, and one day in the locker room, he flexed his biceps for us. We all stood around and admired. At that moment I was aware of an attraction to him that seemed to go beyond the admiration that I thought the other boys felt. In my eyes, he was confident and admired; and I was his opposite. I believed if I were more like him, other boys would want to be my friends. I wanted to be confident and admired.

            I wanted to be confident and admired.

            Now it is amazingly clear to me that the moment I first felt something like an erotic attraction to another guy was the very moment that I first identified myself as the emotional and physical opposite to that guy. Unknowingly, I was seeing myself as being the opposite sex from him. No wonder my psycho-sexual subconscious told me to be attracted to him and not to the girls with whom I identified!

            Over time, I became more and more preoccupied with these longings to be like the more masculine boys as I watched them play sports and envied their abilities and their bodies. I would often sit in class and day-dream about having the perfect body, pitching on a baseball team, and having a lot of male friends who admired me. I watched other boys and idolized the way they interacted together. In my mind I had a perfect picture of what a “cool guy” should be like was outgoing, popular, sports-oriented, good looking and physically developed – all the things I was not.

            My day dreams became more and more sensual in nature, which led me to discover masturbation. The high of the orgasm rewarded and reinforced my same-sex preoccupation. Admiration combined with self-ridicule had turned to envy, and envy was now turned to lust.

            Reconnecting to Masculinity

            Under the tutelage of a skilled reparative therapist, I found it wasn’t too late to turn the pattern of my life around by correcting the gender insecurity and envy that had caused my lust for maleness to begin with. Determined not to spend the rest of my life running from masculine environments out of fear, I decided it was time to grow up and face my fears instead.

            One of the first things I thought I would try was softball. Church softball. It sounds benign enough now, but I was so terrified that I pulled over on my way to my first game and threw up by the side of the road. Throughout the game, I fought the shakes and a numbed-over feeling. I struck out and did absolutely everything wrong. I learned from this that I needed to step back and get some basic coaching and have some private practice before I took what for me was such a huge step.

            I even got a job at a Chevron gas station so I could be around guys and learn mechanics.

            I did that, and then went on to take beginning softball, basketball, weight lifting and gymnastics at the junior college I was attending. This was terrifying, but by taking small, measured steps in environments where I could maximize my chances of success, I became more competent and confident. I even got a job at a Chevron gas station so I could be around guys and learn mechanics. Little by little, I felt myself growing as a man. No longer sitting on the sidelines longing to be “one of the guys,” I was becoming what I was attracted to in others.

            It’s not that learning to play sports or fix cars made me more heterosexual; that gross over-simplification is ludicrous. Rather, these were external methods to effect much-needed internal healing: facing my fear of activities and environments — my fear of men, really — that had so crippled me my whole life; internalizing deep feelings of finally feeling “man enough”; and dramatically increasing my sense of “gender esteem” and connection to the male world.

            The road to healing was a difficult one filled with ups and downs. Along the way, I faced feelings of rejection from my peers and father. 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.

            Marriage and Recommitment

            As heterosexual feelings began to take root, marriage seemed more of a reality. My circle of friends grew with my confidence and new skills. Dating and socializing became fun and exciting. It was at this point that a long-standing, close friendship with a girl named Kae — a girl whom I had once “come out” to as a gay man — became more intimate. I shared my breakthrough experiences in therapy with her, and we began dating with new inclinations. My new feelings drew me closer to her than I had felt in the past. Wanting our growing emotional intimacy also to become a physical one, I asked her to marry me. She said yes, and we were married in 1992.

            Unfortunately, I became overconfident in many of the changes I had made in my life. Focused on my marriage and my busy new life as a newlywed, I let some of the things go that had been so integral to my healing: my new friendships with heterosexual men, sports activities, platonic heart-to-heart connections with men that had given me so much masculine affirmation. I had abandoned the very things that had healed my masculine soul to begin with. And I soon paid the price.

            A year into my marriage, I went down a road that resulted in me having sex with another man for the first time in my life. It felt so terrific in the moment — and so devastating as soon as it was over. This was not what I wanted in my life! This was in direct opposition to everything I had worked for for years.

            Devastated at the pain and insecurity I had caused my new wife, and terrified of losing her, I “hit bottom” fast. I confessed to her and we went into marriage counseling. I sought and received spiritual counseling from my church. I got back into the friendship-building and “guy time” that had been so healing before. I saw that I had approached those relationships and activities as a transient therapy, after which I would be “done” and could go back to my old self. No, I now realized, I needed to effect an actual personality transformation where constantly nourishing my myself with masculinity, constantly participating with guys the way that most healthy straight guys do, is engrained in who I am.

            I returned to those activities, and the internal transformation did take place. But I no longer consider myself “done” nourishing myself as a man, any more than I can ever be done nourishing myself with healthy food and drink. And as long as I have done this, homosexual lust has never again been a serious problem in my life.

            People Can Change!

            All of this self-examination and therapy led me quite naturally to undergraduate and graduate degrees in psychology and counseling. Part of my work is in private practice, counseling other men who are seeking to understand and change unwanted homosexual desires, or men working to strengthen their masculine identities generally. I find it immensely satisfying.

            I know from first-hand experience that CHANGE IS POSSIBLE! I never thought I would get married. I never thought I could find a woman I would be attracted to and could spend the rest of my life with. I never thought I would be freed from compulsive homosexual thoughts and feelings. I never thought I could step out on a sports field with heterosexual men and feel okay about myself.

            Now I’m happily married with three terrific kids. I love my wife and my new orientation. Together, Kae and I have even written a book based in part on our experiences, called Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency. That was a challenging but very bonding experience for us as a couple. I enjoy softball and basketball as hobbies that help me stay in shape and enjoy healthy physical activity with other men.

            it was their confidence in themselves as men that was broken

            When I’ve read stories or seen TV reports from men who say they tried to change but were not able to, I am struck that according to their own accounts they just didn’t seem to have any authentic “healing experiences” that could really be expected to effect deep internal change. They talk about learning to cross their legs correctly, pray and read scriptures. They talk about attempts at spiritual healing when they weren’t spiritually broken to begin with; it was their confidence in themselves as men that was broken. It was their fear of heterosexual men that needs to be healed. CHANGE IS INDEED POSSIBLE for those who are willing to do the tough internal reconstruction on their emotional (not sexual or spiritual, usually) issues. I believe there are indeed thousands of us who have quietly done it.

            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 and Kae Godfrey’s book, Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency, is available online or by calling Cedar Fort Publishing at (800)759-2665.

            – Floyd Godfrey, 2000

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “What do atheists have to do with this?”

            You: “Real marriage is always civil and it is always religious”

            Since Atheists do not enter into marriage with a religious ceremony and religious beliefs are not a part of their marriage, I asked the question: “Are atheists not in a “real” marriage?”

            Were you really not able to see the connection? Or is this just another of your deflection tactics?

            As I said, if, and when, you grow a pair and are able to answer questions about statements you made, let me know.

            “You are on shaky ground and you will never rise above your own pathetic sinful nature.”

            You are on quicksand and, it seems, will never rise above your unfounded accusations and puerile behavior. You run from your own statements faster than a 5-year old girl from a spider.

          • Jim Deferio

            There’s hope for you. Read this testimony. It may help if you get off your high horse and acknowledge your sin and then turn from it. Stop being a hater.

            Testimony from One By One,

            Testimony – MariaMaria Cardenas-Baez

            “I thought I was born to be a lesbian, so there was no question about changing my sexual orientation. I had had attractions toward the same sex from an early age which eventually led into two significant, long-lasting lesbian relationships. However, during this time, my parents diligently prayed for me. God heard and answered their prayers.

            I began to examine the lesbian lifestyle. Realizing it was a paper chase, I decided I didn’t want to be a part of lesbianism anymore. This revelation became clear while on a retreat. During a quiet time of prayer, I realized I didn’t want to return home and re-enter the lesbian lifestyle. I was strongly impressed by the emptiness of seeking fulfillment in another person rather than God. I no longer wanted to desire sexual intimacy with a woman. I wanted to desire God to fill my life. It was at this point I made a deal with God. I asked Him either to end my life or change it. He began to change it.

            I immediately dropped all association with my gay and lesbian friends. Something very deep inside me no longer wanted to be a part of the homosexual community, so it was easy to do. I began pursuing this new relationship with God.
            For six months I spent an hour each day in a Catholic chapel, meditating on God and considering this new, deep attraction for Him. At the same time, I began attending my parents’ PC(USA) church. I was welcomed there and I trusted the youth pastor enough to tell him about my background. He was very caring and sought resources that could support me. He didn’t find any in the Presbyterian Church, but did locate an interdenominational discipleship class that I joined. The greatest benefit of this class was my relationship with a female leader. She took time with me, allowing me to discuss my questions about the Bible, my relationship with God and my sexual struggles. She always pointed me to Jesus as my redeemer and source of transformation.

            The next step in my walk with God was meeting with a licensed Christian counselor for a year. We worked on how I saw God and how He sees me. As more sexual issues began to arise, the counselor referred me to a ministry that specializes in helping men and women work through sexual struggles. I began getting in touch with the core needs and issues that had resulted in my lesbian attractions and relationship—needs that require affirmation and nurture as a female, needs for unconditional love, needs for security that restored my trust in others and God’s loving protection of me. Here I learned that only God, not other women, could truly protect me.

            This process of transformation was not an easy one, but as I let people in my Presbyterian church know about my involvement in this ministry, I received prayer, acceptance, and encouragement not to give up. That acceptance encouraged me to continue, even when it got tough. They always reminded me that my hope was in God. They were there for me, but they didn’t try to take God’s place in my life. They did all of this without compromising Scripture’s standard for sexual purity or its mandate to love one another, and all the while they pointed to the truth, Jesus Christ.

            It has been a number of years now since this process began. Today I am secure in the love I have found in God and His people, people who have helped me take the extra step toward God through their tough love. Instead of condemning me or compromising God’s standards for me, they helped convince me of God’s commitment to restore me.”

            Maria Cardenas-Baez is an ordained elder in the San Gabriel Presbytery and a member of the OneByOne Board of Directors. She resides in Los Angeles.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            There does not seem to be any hope for you. You continue to show that you lack integrity and have a fondness for bearing false witness. How do you reconcile such behavior with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • Jim Deferio

            Anyone reading your comments and my comments can see that it is the opposite of what you claim. You need help and deliverance. Your mind needs to be renewed and the stinking thinking that now plagues your mind must be replaced with rational thinking.

            Testimony time. I hope this helps you.

            Ministry in ActionChad’s Story

            “I was only in fourth grade when I realized that I was attracted to men and, at the time, I thought it was just a sexual problem. But as I began to explore the roots of my homosexuality I discovered that my sexual attractions were actually the result of an emotional need. When I reached adolescence my body started telling me I wanted sex from a man, but in my heart I knew it wasn’t really about sex. Even before adolescence I didn’t fantasize about sex. My fantasy was that a man would just wrap his arms around me, look me in the eye, and tell me that I meant something to him.

            That’s what I was Missing.

            It wasn’t a desire for sex, it was a desire for genuine love and affirmation from someone of my own gender. In fact, the most healing experience I’ve had since realizing that I didn’t have to be gay was meeting a man named Lenny Carluzzi who walked away from homosexuality 28 years ago.

            When I first met Lenny at an Italian restaurant in Chicago, he instantly wrapped his arms around me, looked me in the eye, and told me that he loved me. That moment was the beginning of my healing process and, since then, God has put dozens of men in my life to provide the non-sexual love and affirmation that I need in order to heal the wounds of my past and grow into heterosexuality. These relationships have meant the world to me. They nurture my soul. Like a light in an underground tunnel, they provide a path of escape from the prison of disconnection and abandonment. It’s a prison that I still remember, although the memory fades a little more each time one of these guys opens his arms, and I walk right in.

            Many of the men that I counsel are desperate for this kind of healthy male intimacy. They will not share their homosexual struggle with the men in their church because they fear rejection. These men dream of being held in the arms of another man and hearing the words “I love you.” Indeed, some them will literally cry into the phone when I tell them that I love them because they have never heard these words from another man before. One man put it well when he said, “As a gay man, I’ve found it’s easier for me to get sex on the streets than to get a hug in church.”

            If you’re not sure how to hug someone who is struggling with homosexuality, just open your arms. If they need your touch, they’ll walk right in. Allowing someone who has struggled with homosexuality to get close to you is the greatest gift you can give them. Whether this takes the form of touch, talk, or even something as cliché as going to a movie, learn their love language, and then speak it!

            Randy Newman of Campus Crusade for Christ wrote: “For far too many [homosexual strugglers], a crucial missing ingredient in the healing process is friendship with a heterosexual Christian who will accept them, pray with them, and embrace them…”
            When we learn to do this, we can rest assured that God can use us to set the captives free. I know because I was one of the captives, but God set me free. And it all started because one man loved me enough to open his arms.

            And I walked right in.”

            Chad Thompson is the author of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would, published by Brazos Press. He has also
            produced a DVD called Bringing Christian Love Out of the Closet. For more information on his ministry to the
            gay community, visit Loving Homosexuals dot com.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Anyone reading our conversation will very clearly see that you have failed to answer questions about your positions and have failed to provide any backup for your accusations. It will be clear to them that you are long on accusations and short on proof. It will be clear that you have no integrity as you are not man enough address questions about what you say. It will be clear that you guilty of bearing false witness by making accusations against me that you have failed to back up.

            It will be clear that my assessment is correct, and that you continue to prove how shallow you are.

          • Jim Deferio

            LOL, yeah right. NOT! I would absolutely drown your lies and nonsense in a tsunami of facts and logic in a face-to-face debate.

            You’re hurting. Perhaps this will help. I once counseled a man like Luis.

            Testimony – LuisLuis DeJesus

            Luis’s Story

            “My name is Luis. I grew up in New York City. I came from a dysfunctional, broken family. I was the youngest of five children and the only boy. As a child I always said I would never be like my father. I saw the way he hurt my mother as a result of having many women on the side. He was a womanizer. This really put a spirit of anger within me. I did not know that by professing that statement: “I will never be like my father” that my life would be changed and more damaged than I expected.

            I grew up in the ghetto with my Junior High School friends. I felt safe around them, even though they did drugs and got into trouble. In spite of their bad decisions, they protected me. I had a friend die on top of me as a result of gun shots as we hung out in the city-parks. This was the scariest part of my childhood, but I believe it made me strong to the bad things of life.

            I had a pretty good life considering I had one parent who did the job of two. I never did drugs, robbed anyone or was abused sexually. I was a pretty good kid with anger issues. I had a lot of hate, and I was trying to figure out who I was.

            At 13, I had my first girl friend in Junior High School. I was with her all the way through the end of high school. This was serious. I was in love. Unfortunately, she broke off our relationship. I felt the pain, and such a broken heart. I was angry, and hurt by her action and her lack of trust. The next day she came over to see me and asked me to forgive her and forget what she said, but pride had settled in my spirit. My heart wanted to say yes, but my pride said no. I vowed I would never be put in that position of vulnerability again.

            I went on to High School and dated many girls, but only thought of the one true love I had lost due to my selfish pride. I had girls falling in love with me, but I kept thinking about my first love. Therefore, my relationships did not last.

            As a result of all that happened, I was still vulnerable. At the age of 18, I had my first homosexual experience. I did not understand why I had done this and sought help from the Catholic Church I attended. I went to confess to the priest and he told me to say three “our fathers” and four “hail Marys” and never come into this church again.

            I became angry at God and the Church. I was hurt and scared. I ended up falling more into homosexual activity in addition to medicating myself with drugs. I did $300 worth of cocaine a day. I did that up through the age of 29. I got it free as I had friends who sold it. I medicated myself because I was ashamed of what I was doing, and I did not know how to escape. I wanted to go back to my old girlfriend but felt so dirty that I thought she would hate me if I told her about the homosexual sin I fell into. So I buried myself more in the sin and never told her.

            I was in a long term relationship with a man, which was a nightmare. It was a relationship filled with perversion, drugs and drinking. I was a time bomb waiting to go off. At the age of 29, I cried out to God and said, “If you are real please help me. Either you are going to kill me or allow me to live.” I cursed God, screamed and yelled, and was on my knees crying. I told him he had five minutes to respond and give me a sign; otherwise, I would never pray to him again. He took three minutes.

            I got a phone call from an estranged sister in Florida. She did not know what I was going through. She said that she was sitting and thinking and that I came into her mind and she wanted to know if I wanted to quit my job and move to Florida and start a new life. She knew nothing about me. I was at the end of my last unemployment check. I asked if I could call her back. I then got on my knees and asked God to forgive me for doubting him. I called her back and took her offer. At that time my life began to change. God became a tangible presence in my time of need. He showed up.

            Prior to moving to Florida, I had never been in a Christian church. One day I was driving and pulled into a church off of Seminola Blvd. It was like they were expecting me. I was late and the service was already in progress. They showed me a seat and were very loving to me. As the pastor was speaking he stopped and said, “I have to interrupt my message as I just received a word of knowledge, and I have to be obedient to the Lord.” He said, “There is someone in this church that has recently come from hundreds of miles away and God showed up. He became real to you.” He continued, “You cried out to God as you were dealing with sexual perversion and you were involved in drugs. God heard your cry and brought you here. He wants you to testify to the congregation to tell them what he did, so please get up and testify now.”

            I was scared. I thought, “This church is nuts.” I looked around and started to shake and was hoping someone would stand up. No one did. There was this sweet old lady next to me and she nudged me and said, “Sonny boy, is that you? You must be obedient to the Lord.” I looked at her and thought she must be crazy. The pastor was persistent and so was the lady next to me. By the time she nudged me a third time, I was drenched in sweat because of my nerves. “Get up and testify!” she said again.

            Finally, I responded, and got up. The pastor asked me to go to where he was standing in front of the congregation and tell my story. I did. It was the most amazing yet scariest thing that happened to me. Talk about fearing the Lord!

            A week later I began to go to Calvary Assembly in Orlando in July of 1995. I began a relationship with Christ. I also attended an Exodus group there called “Exchange Ministry” many years later. Through that group, other care groups, and through healthy relationships with men and women my transformation began to happen. I began to get connected with the church. I took part in Bible studies. I began to serve. I joined the jail ministry, and alter ministry. I took the care pastor training. I basically allowed God to use me in any way he wanted to use me, and I trusted him for my victory.

            I learned that in his presence God can do anything. For me, I did not need a 12-step program. I allowed God’s anointing to come into my life and change me. He took off my rags and crowned me with his glory. He filled those empty places in my life and gave me purpose. I was set apart for his use that he may be glorified through me and all that he has brought me through. God Loves Me! For that I am forever grateful.”

            Luis DeJesus is a former New Yorker who came to Florida in 1995. He has been a member of Calvary Assembly for 12 years. He serves in ministry at Calvary and also serves in a local jail ministry. Luis has also been involved in Exchange Ministries, offering hope and healing for the sexually wounded.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “I would absolutely drown your lies and nonsense in a tsunami of facts and logic in a face-to-face debate.”

            Well that would be the complete opposite of what you do online. Why the difference?

            What lies have I told?

            Why are you not willing to answer the questions I asked you about the statements and accusations you have made?

          • Jim Deferio

            When you answer my questions I’ll answer yours. Also, I’m pretty sure I mentioned that a book can be written on certain aspects of these issues and I’m not about to write one in the comment section. Much can be covered in a face-to face debate.

            I have a 300 plus page report on the global spread of AIDS and by whom. I have a very detailed science book on homosexuality. I have many resources and I have also written much on this topic which I have on my computer and also some on paper copies.

            I have personally spoken to many who have privately told me that being sexually abused when a child caused them to be “homosexual”. An ex-gay friend of mine told me it’s about 95% but I told him that there was no way in the world he could prove that by rigorous scientific polling because most people would lie. He assured me that after 14 years in that deathstyle and being in many meetings that about 95% of those claiming to be “homosexual” were sexually molested as children and it was THAT sort of history which caused them to seek same-sex relationships.

            You need help. I hope this helps:

            Testimony – MisaMisa’s Story – Presbyterian National Assembly Testimony – June, 2008

            “Good morning!

            My name is Misa Leonessa Garavaglia and I’d like to thank you for extending this invitation to share my story with you today.

            I was born in 1960 in an ambulance right here in San Jose. Because it was considered an “unclean birth”, the hospital separated me from my mother when we arrived and I was not allowed to see her for the first seven days of my life. After that, my mother and I were unable to bond, as was the case with all of her five children, due to a mental disorder on her part. My grandmother did bond with me at a young age, but, for some reason, detached from me at about three.

            For the first two years of my life, my father treated me like his princess. After that, alcoholism took over and he became emotionally and physically abusive. At the age of three, my grandfather involved me in a ritual ceremony where I was abused sexually, spiritually and emotionally. From the age of four to 12, I continued to be abused sexually and emotionally by three other males in the family.

            At 14, I left the Catholic Church I had been raised in and began attending Trinity Presbyterian Church in San Jose. There I opened my heart to relationship with a Creator who, I was told, loved me completely. I wanted this love; in fact, I was desperate for it. A couple from Trinity took me in as a college student and attempted to reach out to me, but I was horribly wounded inside and unable to receive love from anyone, including God. At 15, I went to Girl Scout camp and was exposed to lesbian relationships there. Desperately needy for female love, I was drawn to big-busted women who reminded me of my gramma’s physique.

            After five years of lesbian involvement, I heard God calling me to walk away from the lifestyle, saying that He had something better for me ahead. No shame, no rejection—just asked me to trust His love for me and let go of my control to meet my need for love. I said “yes.”

            Four years later, at the age of 24, I married. I had two lovely little girls, (one of which is here today), and proceeded to spend the next 20 years parenting and homeschooling.

            I thought my same-sex drive had disappeared, but to my surprise, I experienced a strong attraction to another big-busted woman at 37. God used that time to help me walk through some deep healing from sexual abuse issues and mother wounds. The drive has been completely gone since then, for nearly nine years now.

            I currently write and speak and do inner-healing work with other abused women, as I continue to walk through healing from the severe abuse I grew up in. I am still learning to love and be loved, as we all will be this side of Heaven. My deep needs for acceptance and unconditional love are being met through a precious, intimate relationship with my Savior, who has known me and walked along side me since I was conceived. He has pursued me with perfect love and I have at last found the place of healing in His compassionate embrace. He has lifted me out of a sea of despair and set me down on a firm foundation, filled with peace and joy where, previously, there was only an all-consuming longing to be loved. To God be the glory!”

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “When you answer my questions I’ll answer yours.”

            That’s rich. You are so far in the hole on answering questions that to make such a statement is beyond ridiculous.

            “I’m not about to write one in the comment section.”

            Ahhh…..another excuse. The questions I have asked about the statements and false accusations you have made do not require that you write a book. They are relatively simply questions, yet they seem beyond your grasp.

            “Much can be covered in a face-to face debate.”

            More than happy to, as I previously indicated. You are welcome to come down to Orlando from Syracuse whenever you like.

            “I have a 300 plus page report on the global spread of AIDS and by whom.”

            So you have claimed, yet you did not respond to a question as to the name/source of the research.

            “I have a very detailed science book on homosexuality.”

            No doubt. Is Faith aware of it?

            If sexual molestation resulted in a person being homosexual, then significantly more than 4% of the population would be homosexual. They are not. Nor is there any proof that sexual abuse is a determining factor in sexuality.

            Get back to me when you decided to stop being a coward and are willing to answer basic questions about the statements and accusations you have made.

          • Jim Deferio

            Where did you get that figure of 4%? WHERE?
            Where did you get that figure of 90% of the global spread of AIDS being by heterosexuals? WHERE?

            What is CIVIL about anal-rectal sex or “oral sex” or “sex” with a dildo?

            What are the eleven biological systems within a human and which one is incomplete without someone of the OPPOSITE SEX?

            WHAT are your sources for claiming people are “born gay”. NAME THEM!

            WHAT is your real name? WHY do you hide behind a social media loser name?

            Were you sexually molested as a child? WHAT specifically torments and enslaves you?

            Does MARRIAGE have an objective definition or not? Why do you hate?

            Is Faith aware of it? Of course. I have two science degrees and she has one. I read science books and articles all of the time. Ignorance is a sin and you are drowning in that sin since you can’t seem to grasp facts and logic.

            You are out of your league so why don’t you troll somewhere else.

            Btw, I’m not a pacifist.

          • DNelson

            Wow, Umustbekiddinme is really taking you to task. Why won’t you answer his questions?

          • Jim Deferio

            No he isn’t. He’s a troll. He brought up a lying figure of 90% but won’t cite his sources. He won’t even try to answer the questions about natural law based on ontology & teleology. He won’t even try to name the eleven biological systems in the human body and the significance of that for marriage.

            He refuses to cite his sources for another lying figure of 4% of the population being homosexual.

            He won’t explain what is civil about lewd sexual practices by homosexualists.

            Equality in marriage already exists. A man who has a same-sex feeling is free to marry a woman and a woman who has an attraction for other women is free to marry a man. Also, A man who has feelings of being polyamorous is free to marry ONE woman and a woman who tends in her feelings toward polyandry is free to marry ONE man. Equality already exists.

            However, to call something what it isn’t is just plain foolishness and irrational.

          • DNelson

            I’ve been following the conversation from the beginning. He has asked you lots of questions about what you said that you never answered. They were way before your question about the 90%.

            When someone isn’t willing to answer questions about what they say, it usually is a sign that they know their statements aren’t valid. Why aren’t you willing to answer his questions?

            If a person can marry a consenting adult person of the opposite gender, but can’t marry a consenting adult person of the same gender, that is not equality. It would be like saying: “Every white person can marry another white person; Every black person can marry another black person. See? Equality!”

          • Jim Deferio

            Wrong.
            You can’t talk about “marriage” unless you know what it is. YOU clearly don’t have the foggiest idea what is real marriage. You just want to stuff foolishness into the mix and try to destroy marriage.

            Here in NY State there is a court case about animal rights. If the court rules that animals have the same rights as human then can a man or a woman “marry” an animal?

            Also, when you sneak in terms like “equality”, would you deny a mother and her two grown daughters the “right” to marry each other. WHO says in can only be two and who says that blood relatives should be discriminated against. If you want full “equality” then open “marriage” up to all including interspecies marriage.

            There is no way two men or three men or whatever your warped mind can think of, can perform the marital act of coitus. You are irrational and perverse. You need your mind renewed.

            You also seem incapable of answering questions. However, I am very well educated and I wouldn’t hesitate to debate you in front of an audience face to face on a college campus. Do you represent a sex club on a campus?

            I travel extensively and I should be going across the nation again soon. I don’t have time to go back and forth as pen pals. For one thing, you are just another troll, not my pal, and you are a sophist without a sound argument, just someone with no sense.

          • DNelson

            In what way do you believe I want to destroy marriage?

            Marriage is a legal contract. In order to enter into a legal contract, both parties must be able to provide informed consent. An animal is not able to provide informed consent. Your argument is without merit.

            I didn’t sneak in the term equality. You brought it up. I never said that I believed that civil marriage should not come with restrictions. Your suggestion to the contrary is simply a lie.

            The act of coitus is not a requirement for civil marriage. Your argument is without merit.

            What questions did you ask me that I did not answer? While you may be very well educated, you seem incapable of answering that guy’s questions. Clearly, education does not equate to the ability to debate, as a requirement of debate is the ability to answer questions about statements you have made.

            You clearly have some anger and entitlement issues. I hope you seek counseling for those.

          • Jim Deferio

            I saw your other comments under this article and others. You are a troll, not a seeker of truth. Like I said, you are a sophist without a sound argument.
            I don’t have time to waste on people who are just angry at life and want to argue constantly. You will reap what you sow.

            If you would like to debate me face-to-face in front of an audience, fine, I don’t have time to spend on these long threads. If you change your mind about debating me in person then send me a message on Facebook.

            Bye.

          • DNelson

            Well at least you are consistent in being unwilling to answer questions about your statements. Typically not a good sign of one’s ability to debate.

            I don’t have time to waste on people who want to make statements but are unwilling to answer questions about the statements they make.

            Bye.

          • MisterPine

            Are you ok with sodomy when straight couples engage in it, which they do?

          • Jim Deferio

            Absolutely not! It is irrational and perverted no matter who does it.

          • MisterPine

            Well then, your outrage should be directed at straight people too, and since practically no lesbians engage in it, you have no reason to be upset with them.

          • Jim Deferio

            It is! As far as lesbians go, they have their own set of health risks. See, “Health Risks of Gay Sex” by Dr. John Diggs. There are others but this should get you started.

            It is NOT JUST about health risks, though, it is about SIN, irrationality, and the unnaturalness of what homosexualists do.

            They are also haters to the nth degree who want to destroy marriage and who want to lie about their true agenda and lie about “being born that way”. NO ONE is “born gay”. I have personally spoken to thousands of homosexualists over the years and I have also read many testimonies by EX-homosexuals. Quite often it was sexual molestation when they were a child or rape when they were a teen or an adult that drove them into same-sex relationships.

          • MisterPine

            And that is why I elect not to follow your version of Christianity – because it is bizarre, offensive and cruel.

            In the first place you are seriously over complicating homosexuality. No homosexual person has the slightest bit of interest in destroying you or your family unit. They are not interested in offending God, either. In fact, all the homosexual has done is fall in love. The poles of attraction are reversed, but everything else is exactly the same. Religion and faith have nothing to do with it – yet.

            But what happens? A few people who have adopted religions tell homosexuals that it’s the wrong kind of love, and that in order to get right with your deity of choice they must change, they must do the impossible and form relationships with people they are not attracted to, or to live loveless lives. Does that sound fair to you? Is it a reasonable request, either from you or from your God? And so some homosexuals stand up to these religious folks and say they are not going to be bullied, that they have the right to live and love just like everyone else.

            And the response from the religious types is to say that it’s the RELIGIOUS who are being picked on and bullied, by the bad mean homosexuals. That is mean-spirited and false and unacceptable. So the battle rages on.

            But at NO point does any LGBT person set out to defy God, to attack someone else’s marriage, or do anything that doesn’t relate to their own situation. There is no agenda, except to be left alone.

          • Jim Deferio

            “My version of Christianity”? I follow the Bible and I follow rationality and evidence.

            Define “love”. Go ahead, DEFINE LOVE! Love doesn’t cause someone to go against what is rational and decent! GOD is love and GOD and Him alone defines love. So, HOW does God define love? Do you even have a clue?

            Did you ever take the time to look up at the CDC the many reports showing the medical consequences of homosexuality? Ever? Does “love” cause such devastating medical consequences?

            No one is “born gay”. I know what the science says and I also personally know numerous EX-homosexuals. One young man (28 years old) told me he was “born homosexual”. Three months later he was “born again” (see John 3:3-8) and it has now been since Dec. 28, 2010 since he became whole in Christ. He told me there is a certain woman he would like to marry. I personally know NUMEROUS EX-homosexuals.

            It is not about “love” it is about sexual perversion and irrationality and doing that which is lewd, unnatural and filthy. It is a SIN!

            I’m not allowed, apparently, to post links but go to exhomosexuals dot com.

            STOP BEING A HATER!

          • MisterPine

            “I follow the Bible and I follow rationality and evidence.”

            Clearly you don’t. You are willfully ignoring the evidence that has been provided by MANY organizations, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to name only TWO. You are taking your morals from a book that condones torture and slavery. I think that’s just awful.

            Define love? Let’s see what the dictionary has to say: Oh, what a shame, there isn’t enough SPACE here to define it because it has so many definitions. I know there is romantic love which is eros. There is brotherly love, there’s the love you might have for a pet. In general, love means affection. You say, “Love doesn’t cause someone to go against what is rational and decent!” No one ever said it did. Homosexuality doesn’t cause “devastating medical consequences,” those are caused by promiscuity and lack of protection. And guess what? That ALSO applies to the STRAIGHT community!

            Men, in general, tend to be more focused on the physical act. Not as much with women. So it only makes sense that when you get homosexual men who are more inclined towards sexual activity, the risks would be higher. And when AIDS was such a prevalent thing in the 1980s, that had a lot to do with it. That’s not the case these days.

            Whether people are born gay or whether it forms in early life, it can’t be changed. Period. Even Exodus International, the biggest ex-gay group of them all, shut their doors and admitted they were frauds. Anyone promising to stop you from being homosexual is a charlatan. They might stop you from engaging in sexual activity, period, but that’s hardly what I would call a claim of success.

            You do not know any ex-homosexuals. I don’t know whether you’re deceived or deliberately lying.

          • Jim Deferio

            My wife and I have been married for almost FORTY years and we don’t have to “protect ourselves”!!! We have NEVER had an STD and we will never have one.

            God never made sex to be dangerous because God made sex for marriage only – One Man + One Woman for life , no divorce. You worry and seek to protect yourself because you are having sex outside of God’s will.

            Eros, when it is the dominant driving factor, definitely causes people to do atrocious things and to act irrationally. Watch the Forensic Files!!! Just locally there are numerous cases of someone acting on eros and attempting to murder the spouse of the one he or she “loves”. You know nothing of this subject. How old are you?

            Torture and slavery? Do you even understand the context of the Old Testament and what the tiny piece of real estate called Israel had to deal with? Torture? Where. You are a slave to sin.

            The religions of atheism and evolutionism has caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. You need an education. Start by reading these scholarly works on war and democide and see just how wicked people like you are:

            1) Encyclopedia of Wars” by Alan Axelrod & Charles Phillips
            2) “Death By Government” by RJ Rummel
            3) “The Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900” by RJ Rummel

            Homosexuality can’t be changed? Says WHO? Says YOU? Are you calling me a liar? I personally know numerous EX-homosexuals. Researchers have also born this out:

            Savin-Williams RC, Ream GL. 2007. Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:385-394.

            Professor Savin-Williams of Cornell Univ. is pro-homosexual, btw, but he says that he must go by the research results.

            Here’s another:
            2) Spitzer RL. 2003. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:403-417.

            You do seem incapable of grasping simple concepts and you make wild accusations but can’t back anything up. Are you an eros person…

      • JEmlay

        I get it now, you’re nothing but a troll. You’re posting the same thing to everyone who comments. Nothing but name calling from you. As I stated earlier, I hope you’re not Christian because if you are, you’re going to your hell.

    • lorac odraned

      No such thing, never was, never will be because God created marriage. Man doesn’t know more than God. Man’s laws are temporary. They don’t trump the laws of God. The word of God is forever.

  • SFBruce

    Just because Ginsburg and Kagan performed same sex wedding doesn’t necessarily mean they think it’s a constitutional right. On the other hand, Scalia made clear in remarks made at Princeton in 2012 that his comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and murder were entirely appropriate. I don’t think he should recuse himself based on that, although it seems to be a much stronger case. And yet I hear no one calling for his recusal.

    • Peter Leh

      “Scalia made clear in remarks made at Princeton in 2012 that his
      comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and murder were entirely
      appropriate.”

      good point

    • Silver

      Well kagan was mad after the break so look for the left to lose.

  • Jim Deferio

    Liberal God-haters have absolutely no sense of morality and have no sense of shame. The two Justices, Kagan & Ginsburg, are typical of Jewish people who have turned their backs on God – they become champions for everything indecent, immoral, and mock things that would be God-honoring.
    However, when Jews become complete in Christ they become some of the most outstanding, upright, and zealous Christians around.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen! A Messianic Jew is a bold witness for Christ! So is a Muslim Background Believer.

      • Bill

        “Messianic Jew” you mean a christan?

      • MisterPine

        “Messianic Jew” = fundamentalist Christian.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Amen – the best kind! We Christians like to get our fundamentals down. Only in an a-theistic world do fundamentals not matter. That’s why we don’t like you folks designing planes and bridges or performing surgery. 🙂

          • MisterPine

            So when the Bible says a talking snake tempted Eve, it actually occurred then, right?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You should know – you were there, SnakeEyes. 🙂 Google ”
            Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell” to discover the fundamentals.

          • MisterPine

            So is that a yes, then?
            You believe in a talking snake, despite the physical impossibility?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Do you believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything – a physical impossibility? That life sprang forth from non-life, a physical impossibility? It seems to me that assigning a Cause to these two events is far more rational than believing in the metaphysical myths of a-theism.

          • MisterPine

            Happy to answer your questions after you’ve answered mine.

    • Phipps Mike

      newsflash, the US doesnt make its laws from religion.

  • FoJC_Forever

    I wouldn’t expect very many parts of the US government to vote for or support what is Right. The US government has let the pagans and unbelievers of the nation push the country further into Darkness. The Time is near and the Wicked shall be cast away into the God-less existence they desire.

    The SCOTUS doesn’t determine what is Right and Wrong, and they have already proven an enemy to individual freedoms and enemies to the innocent in the womb. Corruption and chaos continue their rampage into every part of society both here and abroad. The spirits of antichrist are gathering their armies and building their networks, while the foolish continue to follow their lead.

    The conflict of interest is apparent, but most likely will be dismissed by those who want this country to emulate Sodom and Gomorrah. Judgement is coming.

  • Paul Hiett

    The funny thing is, I’m willing to bet that at least 95% of the men posting on here claiming to be “Christian” have masturbated to lesbian porn.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Paul, can you get some mental health help where you are? You don’t have to tell us what you do in your off hours when you are not trolling the Christian sites.

      • Phipps Mike

        Paul is right.

    • Crono478

      Do you still masturbate to porn especially when you will be married soon?

    • Jim Deferio

      Look in the mirror, troll, when spouting nonsense like this. You are one despicable and incredibly wicked “man”. But, hey, so was I when I was an atheist and if God can save me, He can save you. However, you need to humble yourself for God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

      Turn from you sin while it’s still today for no one is guaranteed tomorrow.

      • weasel1886

        Since the majority of Christian men watch pron I’d say he is correct, maybe not 95% but close

        • Asemodeus

          The funny part is the area with the highest concentration of pron use is the conservative south.

          • Jim Deferio

            What is clear is that these “Christians” are among the biggest hypocrites in the world. Jesus said that if you even look after a woman to lust for her you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:28) and in numerous places in the Bible it says that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (for starters see 1 Cor.6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21). These so-called Christians are lost!

            However, since Jesus and the apostles warned about hypocrites what are you trying to say, that the Bible is right, lol. Your straw man fails.

    • Silver

      and I bet you do every night pervert.

  • Lisa

    I doubt the two justices will be recused and I would be surprised if they didn’t rule for same sex marriage.

    • SFBruce

      And I’ll be surprised if Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia don’t rule for the states. If that’s the bar for recusal, no one could judge much of anything. And no, Ginsburg and Kagan won’t recuse themselves; as I understand it, it’s entirely up to the Justices whether they hear a case or not.

      • Lisa

        Exactly, they choose which cases to hear, so I think they already know what they want to do.

  • Phipps Mike

    holding my heart…OMG!!! CNN finally posts a VALID point! Yep, the rapture is coming soon!

  • paulinestacy

    Marriage is between 1 women and1 man God made it that way because the women was to have children. He didn’t make women and women or man and man to be together , If God had did that there wouldn’t have been any one else because women,women,men,men couldn’t produce so that showes that marriage is between man and women just like God indented it to be. So no amount of talking can change the facts no law can change the facts ,only idiots want to make marriage between man, man, women, women ,it people that are evil that wants to destory a country like America ..But they should not be able to get away with there laws, So Christians get ur Bible and show the idiots why marriage is between a man and a women.

  • lorac odraned

    There are no blessings in a pretend “same-sex wedding” because this is not a wedding. God does not bless sinful behavior. These nine mortals in black robes should not be legislating morality. They already have the deaths of over sixty one million unborn babies on their backs. If they don’t want to add to their own eternal damnation, they should throw these cases out of court. I pray they do the right thing.

    • Bill

      their duty is to the law and the Constitution not your god

      • LeftCoast

        Their duty to the god of secular law and godless Constitution, they decided to serve that god and not the God of heaven.

        • Bill

          that’s kind of their job.

  • Tom Haynie

    There are arguments on
    both the liberal and conservative sides of the aisle that make sense only to
    those who belong to either respective group.
    Those arguments will always cause contention and bad feelings. There is no easy, black and white
    solution. On the one hand we must not
    discriminate against a protected class.
    On the other hand we cannot infringe on the right of people for the free
    exercise of their religion. There is a
    reason why the founding fathers put the first amendment to the constitution in
    first place. “Congress shall make
    no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: . . . .” Congress can pass a law that legalizes same gender
    marriage and the court can uphold it. But,
    the law must allow for the free exercise of religion or it is undeniably
    unconstitutional.