College President: Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Gay Marriage’ May Lead to Christian School Closings

Patrick_Henry II Credit Patrick McKayPURCELLVILLE, Va. — The president of a nationally-recognized Christian college is warning that Christian schools may have to eventually close their doors due to tax exemption revocation for “discrimination” if the U.S. Supreme Court rules next month that states must recognize “gay marriage.”

Farris
Farris

Michael Farris is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College in Virginia, as well as the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). As a constitutional lawyer and leader of a Christian college, Farris recently issued a warning about what difficulties faith-based schools might face should the nation’s highest court require states to accept same-sex nuptials.

In an article for USA Today released on Tuesday, he noted that during the oral argument before the court last month, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. if a faith-based college or university could be stripped of its tax exempt status should the court rule in favor of such marital arrangements.

“In the (1983) Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked.

“It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verilli replied, stating he would need to look into the matter more. “I don’t deny that.”

“Christian colleges and churches need to get prepared,” Farris wrote. “We must decide which is more important to us—our tax exemption or our religious convictions.”

But he said that it is not taxation that worries him as much as the lack of funding that may then close the school.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[S]ince PHC refuses all government aid, all of our donations for scholarships and buildings come from tax deductible gifts. Cutting off that stream of revenue is effectively the end of such colleges absent a team of donors who simply don’t care if gifts are deductible,” Farris explained.

If this becomes the case for Christian colleges, he stated, it will likely become a threat to other religious institutions as well.

“No one should think that IRS implications will stop with colleges. Religious high schools, grade schools and any other religious institution will face the same outcome. And this includes churches,” Farris said. “All of these entities are exempt from taxation under the same section of the IRS code. And even though churches can be exempt without application, their exemption can nonetheless be revoked.”

“Even if it takes the IRS years to begin the enforcement proceedings against such institutions, we can expect other fallout from this decision to begin shortly after the release of the Supreme Court’s opinion,” he warned.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to release its decision next month. While it expressed hesitancy during the recent oral arguments to declare that all states must recognize such arrangements, it is not yet known how the court will rule.


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
  • Paul Hiett

    Yep, the era of discrimination is slowly coming to a close. This is a good thing.,

    • bowie1

      Christians are also discriminated against based on their religion. Perhaps the era of discrimination is just getting started in a big way…

      • Paul Hiett

        How, exactly, are Christians being discriminated against? Are you trying to equate laws that prevent you from discriminating against others as somehow discriminating against you?

        • Oboehner

          Forcing people to accept a perversion that they don’t believe in is discrimination.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one has forced anyone to accept anything. If two men get married, it affects no one but those two men.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Your head is in the sand if you believe that. Time will tell though, won’t it? Let’s just wait and see the wonderful effect this ruling will have on our society….on children being raised without an opposite sex parent, on increased health costs in our nation, on the stability of families, on rate of pedophilia nationwide, on further devaluing of marriage and family as others (poly’s, man/boy, incest partners, polygamists) all fight for their imagined ‘right’ to marry…and yes, the effect on those who disagree with the ruling due to religious convictions.

            Time will tell… soon we shall see… and I wonder how many will have the stomach for it.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Or maybe, like in every state that has given gay people the right to marry, nothing will happen at all. Then in ten years our kids will read about the ruling in history class and wonder what the big deal was in the first place.

          • Angel Jabbins

            There is no ‘right’ to marry. Can a brother marry his sister? If marriage is a ‘right’, why not? Can a man marry as many women as he wants to? What can keep him now (in this current climate and mindset) from fighting for his ‘right’ to marry whomever he wants? Can groups of people marry…say three women or two men and one woman? Why not…if marriage is a ‘right’….then I guess a man can marry a little boy, or a woman can be married to her cat. Marriage has been turned into a sham, a mockery…far from the God-ordained union it truly is meant to be, limited to one man and one woman who have the correct anatomical parts to truly complete each other and make a true union…two becoming one.

            You cannot mess with God’s design and expect no consequences. They will come and they will be devastating.

            All the arguments I read on here are purely emotion based…not based on rational, critical thought. We just want what we want because we want it (like little kids) and don’t talk to me about facts, scientific evidence, or reason.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Marriage is absolutely a right. The supreme court said so when interracial marriage was still controversial. You need a real, pragmatic reason to deny giving it to someone and “the bible says so” doesn’t count.

            Also, I think you just implied that people with injuries or deformations to their reproductive organs shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

          • Phipps Mike

            1. Gays are not pedophiles. Pedophiles are pedophiles. 99% of gay men like ADULT partners.
            2. Same sex parents are successful in their parenting.
            3. health costs will be no different
            4. a same sex marriage does NOT open the door for polygamy.
            I can see you have all rhetoric talking points from idiots that call themselves Christians.

          • Conservative seer

            That’s not true, gay men have been known to prey on young boys, there is a strong link between homosexuality and pedophilia, I’ve met young men that were sexually abused by men , and this nasty men are all gay

          • Phipps Mike

            wrong, you need to do your homework. There is NOT a strong link and the vast majority of child sex offenses is between stepfathers with their stepdaughters. My wife has her own Corp that is a 501c4 that lobbies to make stiffer sentences for sex offenders. Its my responsibility to know this stuff. You also need to educate yourself enough to know that true “classic” male pedophiles are not “gay” just because they have male victims. Pedophiles are attracted to innocence and youth and it doesn’t matter WHAT sex.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Except, Mr. Heitt, two men can’t get “married.” It’s a complete impossibility.
            They’re only pretending to be married. It’s really a counterfeit marriage.

          • Conservative seer

            That’s a fallacy, there is a domino effect in gay marriage, they will start suing every religious institution to accept them

          • Oboehner

            Sure, the caterers, the photographers, employers, etc. none of them have to deal with the sodomites or the crazy lady down the street who want’s to marry her cats.

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, your post makes no sense. Since both gay and straight people engage in sodomy – as you have been repeatedly told – why should caterers, photographers, etc. refuse them service?

          • Oboehner

            Sorry but do the hetero sodomites celebrate it publicly and sue business owners out of existence for not joining in? No.

          • MisterPine

            A private consensual act between two people which hurts no one and is nobody else’s business in no way “forces” you to accept anything. Calling it “perversion” is only your opinion, albeit an obnoxious one.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yep…hurts no one…just a healthy, average, ordinary, wonderful lifestyle…

            Yet even the liberal CDC reports: “STD’s have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.

            HPV (Human Papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for MSM. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancer. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.

            Gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, B and C, which are contagious liver diseases. Approximately 10% of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among men who have sex with men.”

            And that is just the stats for men with men.

            Good luck with your consensual rush to an early grave.

          • Phipps Mike

            and who are the victims? only those who CHOOSE to participate. Your argument is non valid. It doesn’t harm anybody that isn’t participating. But you should have had the brains to understand that to begin with.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Increased disease and higher health costs will affect all of society and that is only one aspect of it all. Again, you folks talk from emotions not from reason and always get personal with statements like….if I ‘had brains to understand to begin with’. Does that make you feel better? You offered nothing to prove your point.

          • Phipps Mike

            Increased disease to ONLY the participants, That part doesn’t affect YOU. Health costs are only applicable for those who are on medicaid. So your solution is to make it so medicaid doesn’t pay for STD’s that results from homosexuality.
            So its ok for cheating men that pick up hookers to have THEIR std’s paid for because its from heterosexuality. HMMMM gotcha.
            I am not getting personal, I am making a statement that seems obvious. You SHOULD have known already that none of their activities affect YOU.

          • MisterPine

            I think you will find that a monogamous couple, gay OR straight, has nothing to fear from an STD.

            I think you will also find a fun range of sexually transmitted diseases which can, and do, strike straight couples who are not monogamous.

            You have proven nothing, except that you seem to feel that all gay men are irresponsible partner-swapping swingers, and that all straight couples are monogamous, therefore the homosexuals are the evil, diseased ones. I think you need a little more experience in the real world.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Except, Mr. Pine, there is NO SUCH THING as a monogamous homosexual “couple.” You should know that.

          • MisterPine

            I can effortlessly name many. I know a lesbian couple who have been together for 25 years.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            They may have been “together,” Mr. Pine, but that doesn’t prove that they’ve been monogamous the whole time. Unless, you follow them around as you troll Christian websites?

          • MisterPine

            Maybe if you hadn’t steadfastly refused to allow them to get married for so long, they might have been monogamous longer?

            Got any proof that LGBT people are less committed to monogamous relationships than us “normal people”?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I didn’t deny them anything, Mr. Pine. The definition of marriage denied it…for THOUSANDS of years. Deal with it.

          • MisterPine

            Marriage predates Christianity, Nick from Detroit. You deal with THAT. Christianity does not own marriage.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Another of your many straw men, Mr. Pine. Can’t you get through a day without using logical fallacies? Where did I mention Christianity in my last reply?

          • MisterPine

            You fight daily for same gender couples to be denied the right to marriage, Nick from Detroit. True or false, Nick from Detroit?

            You still need to prove your statement that there is no such thing as a monogamous homosexual couple. I don’t suppose examples disproving your claim found on the Internet would count, would they? Because, you know, actual data and facts.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            There is no “right” to marriage, Mr. Pine. Why do you continue to forget this?

          • MisterPine

            Because it’s false, Nick from Detroit. You can walk right into the justice of the peace with your boyfriend right now and get married if you want to. No holy men or holy books necessary. How can you not be aware of this?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That doesn’t make marriage a right, brainiac.

          • MisterPine

            Do you have another word for it, brainiac?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes. SS counterfeit so-called “marriage,” remember?

          • MisterPine

            That’s what you call it. That’s not what any other civilized human being calls it. Your opinions and bigotries do not dictate law to us…thank God.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You don’t know any civilized human beings, Mr. Pine.
            Tell me again how marriage predates Christianity? Why did you bring that up, again?

          • MisterPine

            Right. And you associate exclusively with royalty. Tell me again why you are NOT a troll?

            You are trying to tie marriage to your Christian rules and regulations, and marriage predates Christianity.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Actually there is. It was decided back when interracial marriage was still being debated.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Sorry, but, rights aren’t decided or voted on. That’s not the way it works.

          • amostpolitedebate

            It wasn’t a law. It was a supreme court decision back in 1967.

          • MisterPine

            Are you actually serious with this statement, or are you trolling, Nick from Detroit? Is it not reasonable to suggest that all the thousands of gay and lesbian couples who are attempting to get married (if people like you would let them) are entering into a monogamous arrangement?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, it’s not reasonable, Mr. Pine.

          • MisterPine

            Well then, it is up to you to back up your bigotry with facts, Nick from Detroit. Actual facts and data. Which we both know you cannot provide. Another loss for you.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It’s not bigotry, it’s tough love, Mr. Pine.
            My data are “gay bars” and “bath houses.”

          • MisterPine

            Which proves what, Nick from Detroit? That there are homosexuals who use gay bars and bath houses? Is that ALL homosexuals, Nick from Detroit? Does the existence of straight bars and massage parlours prove all straight people use them and are incapable of monogamous relationships?

            Your common sense is being blinded by faith-based hate, Nick from Detroit.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Umm…are you serious, Mr. Pine?

          • MisterPine

            Yes, Nick from Detroit, and maybe to save time you can assume that I am ALWAYS serious, so you can put away your false incredulity and maybe focus on your OWN unbelievable statement which we are all still waiting for you to not only prove, but show you have the slightest bit of understanding on your subject.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, Mr. Pine, I’m sure bath houses are very family-friendly. Do they play Scrabble in them?

          • MisterPine

            And what point do you THINK you are making now, Nick from Detroit? Even if people did play Scrabble in them, it doesn’t mean all LGBT people utilize bath houses. That’s absurd in the extreme.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Promiscuity is well documented among homosexuals, Mr. Pine. They are slaves to their lustful desires. Except for those who are living chaste lives, of course.

          • MisterPine

            Horse manure, Nick from Detroit.

            Men are promiscuous. Men are chaste. Women are promiscuous. Women are chaste. One’s sexuality doesn’t determine this. The number of swinging singles out at the bar has clearly eluded you.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, it eludes me because I don’t go to those bars. Homosexuals are so enslaved to their lusts, they practice their perversion in public parks and bathrooms.

          • MisterPine

            Yup, nothing like a tired, rancid old stereotype to prove a point. You may as well have said all Jews are cheap and all blacks have a natural sense of rhythm. All the usual hallmarks, by the way, of bigotry. You are such an expert on homosexuality that you not only say they can’t be monogamous, but you know the exact places they ALL go for public sexual gratification.

            Are you even for real? On any other forum you’d have been exposed as a troll and driven off by now.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Gee, you had those ethnic prejudices right at the tip of you fingers, didn’t you, Mr. Pine? What a shock. NOT!
            Hey, I’m Polish and English. What other ethnic slurs you got under your Molson-stained Canadiens’ hat?

          • MisterPine

            Lame. Tell me where I used an ethnic prejudice. I said YOU were likely the practitioner of rancid old stereotypes, not me.

            Meanwhile it’s perfectly OK for you to say all homosexuals “practice their perversion in public parks and bathrooms”.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Nobody uses bath houses anymore Nick. The internet all but killed them.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Sorry, I wouldn’t know.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Sorry, but you are the one who has no facts nor data to back up what you say. I have been providing it and you just pooh pooh it all since it does not support your beliefs. You have not shown you are capable of a rational discussion because of your emotional attachment to this issue. Then you use sarcasm in an effort to completely shut down the discussion.

          • MisterPine

            Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no emotional investment in this discussion. I am concerned only with honesty, and you have not been honest. I defy you to explain to me how a gay monogamous couple can suddenly contract a disease like AIDS. Assuming they are 100% committed to only each other.

          • Angel Jabbins

            You are emotionally invested and don’t even realize it. The problem is gay people rarely are 100% committed sexually to each other. Many will have multiple relationships before marriage to one person and probably some afterwards. Promiscuity is rampant in the gay community. Ever go to a gay pride parade? What do you see? Gays flaunting their sexuality…walking around half nude in sexually suggestive poses…in your face stuff, showing it is all about SEX not about fidelity and commitment to one person. Your head is in the sand, sir.

          • MisterPine

            I think I am in a better position than you are to state whether I am emotionally invested, thanks. If anyone has an emotional investment in this, it’s you, because you are so set in your ways about wanting to discriminate against people who you don’t like. Gay relationships have been proven to be just as committed in every respect as straight ones, and even if they were not it would still be none of your business or anyone else’s. No I have never been to a gay pride parade. But neither have many gay or lesbian people who prefer to avoid the limelight and just live quiet private lives. I know how much you want to lump them all together, but just as straight people are all different, so too are gay people. I know how political and flamboyant they can be. Let them. Doesn’t bother me. They feel they have a statement to make, and if they are angry over the treatment they’ve gotten from so many Christians, who could blame them?

            I think your biggest problem is you have to stop pigeonholing everyone who is different from yourself.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Actually, if you research it, you will find that after gay marriage is legalized in a country…only a small percentage of gays actually get married and stay married. And the effect on the institution of marriage itself has been been devastating.

            From the Weekly Standard: MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA.

            “A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

            More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

            So you see gay marriage does affect society negatively.

          • MisterPine

            Well, an interesting thing about the article you posted from The Weekly Standard is the date of it. 2004. So if marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia, it’s certainly taking a long time to die. It often helps to get your information from newer and less biased sources.

            A few more web searches show that they’re doing just fine with it.

            So you see gay marriages do not affect society negatively.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I don’t know what happens to my replies to you. They aren’t appearing here. i just posted another article from Time Mag July 2012 that shows nothing has changed. In fact, it is getting worse.

            “As the world’s leading AIDS researchers gather for the

            International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared —gay men.

            In a series of papers in the Lancet dedicated to the dynamics of HIV among gay men — a group epidemiologists define as men who have sex with men (MSM) — scientists say that the continued burden of AIDS in this group is due to a combination of lifestyle and biological factors that put these men at higher
            risk. Rates are rising in all countries around the world.”

            So…..Rates are rising all over the world at a time when gay marriage has already been legal in many countries and also in many states in the USA. If more gays are staying in these monogamous relationships, then why the increase?

          • Angel Jabbins

            From the National Review: Will Gay Couples Divorce More than Straight Ones? (And Will We Even Be Allowed to Study It?)

            “Studies have been done on same-sex divorce in northern Europe, where gay unions have been legally recognized for much longer than here in the U.S. Although the research is preliminary, the general finding is that, yes, same-sex couples are more likely to divorce than opposite-sex couples.

            In Scandinavia, where same-sex civil unions —
            essentially marriages in everything but name — have been legal for about two decades. The authors had access to population-level administrative data that generated a sample size of over 1,500 same-sex unions. After controlling for age, region, country of birth, education, and duration of the partnership, male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and lesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. Whether the couples had children made little difference in the relative rates.

            A small study of British cohabiters found that, compared to married heterosexuals, opposite-sex cohabiters were 2.75 times as likely to break up within five years, whereas same-sex cohabiters were 5.25 times as likely as to end their relationship in that time.

            A small study of British cohabiters found that, compared to married heterosexuals, opposite-sex cohabiters were 2.75 times as likely to break up within five years, whereas same-sex cohabiters were 5.25 times as likely as to end their relationship in that time.”

            Of course you will object that this is not a credible source because it is comes from a conservative outlet.

          • MisterPine

            Belgium straight divorce rate: 71%

            Lesbian: 21% Gay: 14%

            Denmark straight divorce rate: 46%

            Lesbian: 23% Gay: 14%

            Netherlands straight divorce rate: 43%

            Lesbian: 14% Gay: 7%

            United Kingdom straight divorce rate: 47%
            Lesbian and Gay: Less than 1%

            Norway and Sweden: A study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are
            considerably less stable, or more subject to serious change, than unions of gay men. The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples “non-involvement in joint parenthood”, “lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions” as well as differing
            motivations for getting married.

            Source: Wikipedia

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yeah, I read that…Wikipedia….research from an obvious supporter of gay marriage and naturally they had to put their spin on it. Bottom line is that gays will not stay married for long because the nature of the relationship is mainly sexual. Time will tell. What I see happening is a moral breakdown in our society and marriage will eventually be a thing of the past…like the dinosaur. People no longer think marriage is anything special and that is a sad state of affairs for children who need a two parent (opposite sex) home.
            In fact, I think pretty soon words like mother and father, husband, wife will no longer be used…maybe he and she will be eliminated from our vocab as well….marching to a sexless society.

          • MisterPine

            Yep, so some conservative source is not biased but Wikipedia is? I see.

            I really don’t know where you were going with the stats anyway…even if gay divorce stars were higher, marriage is still consensual and I fail to see where any harm is being done. Gays stay married as long as straight people, you guys don’t seem to understand that there is real love in these relationships, it isn’t all sexual as you say.

            As for your last statement, well, that is a typical slippery slope argument with no basis in fact. Someone else’s gay marriage isn’t going to affect anyone except the two married parties. My advice to you if you disapprove of gay marriage is, don’t get gay married. There. See how simple that was?

          • Angel Jabbins

            And here is part of the slippery slope…some schools will soon be teaching children there is no such thing as boys or girls. It is called ‘gender fluidity’. Why do we need ‘gender fluidity’ if it is just all about love and commitment? It is really all about changing our society. So now we can just change back and forth from one sex to another. But, oh no, a gay person never changes to a straight person. Impossible…yet many have changed.

            “One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.

            Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12. The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week.”

            When a parent requested to view the text books and scientific data upon which the courses will be based, he was told by the school that there was only proposed objectives. Basically, it is an ‘ideological concept’ (not a scientific one) that they will be spoon feeding children which will create even more confusion in their minds about sexual identity.

            And you folks want to say that gay marriage becoming legal in our country will have no effect whatsoever on anyone else. Well you are wrong. It will affect everyone who has to send their children to public schools where they will be indoctrinated…not thought to think for themselves (critical thinking so lacking in our country today), but will be taught what to think

            What have Christians ever done to gay people except stand on what the bible says. No one is forcing them to accept anything. It is words only. Go to an Islamic country and see how gays are treated. They are thrown to their deaths from tall buildings, stoned to death, have their hands chopped off and other very horrible things. Now there is some real discrimination. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin against God. But the message we have to share is that He loves gay people so much He died to save them, if they repent, turn, and trust in Christ alone. Real hate, huh. I love gay people….have close family and friends who are gay. I tell them what I am telling you. I have to if I truly love them and they know I truly do love them. Telling someone the truth is a loving thing to do.

            Guess it is time to move on. Enjoyed the discussion. Take care.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I have been thinking more about this issue of gays staying married long term. Though I think it doubtful, even if gay men and lesbian women would stay monogamous long term, what about bi-sexual people who are sexually attracted to both sexes? They cannot enter into a ‘monogamous marriage relationship unless it is a ‘truple’….right? Otherwise, they will be going back and forth between partners. So… no monogamy with them. Will we have to sanction ‘truple’ marriages just for them soon? (Slope getting slippery!)

            And what about transgenders?…should we really be affirming them in their desire to ‘transition’ into another sex (if that is really even possible)….to undergo mutilation of their bodies and subject themselves to taking hormones the rest of their lives? Is that a good option health wise for them? Or is the price they will suffer too high?

            Dr. Paul McHugh who was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital for many years has written and researched extensively on this issue. He explains why Johns Hopkins stopped doing sex change operations in his article at firstthings (google it) …very eye-opening and should be read by anyone concerned about the welfare of transgender people. They need the truth based on science and research, not on fairy tales, political correctness, and emotions.

            “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

            Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

            He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

          • MisterPine

            Anyone who marries has to work at their marriage so they don’t stray, whether they are straight, gay/lesbian or bisexual. Why are you suggesting that bisexual people must have two partners? Bisexual people are the ones who can find either gender attractive, that’s all.

            Regarding transgenders, I don’t know much about the subject but if they are adults and want to make the transition, who am I to stand in their way?

          • Phipps Mike

            another load of you know what. You seriously need to read non biased and NON RELIGIOUS studies instead of what you are currently reading. Out of wedlock births were the MOST prevalent with the baby boomers. Shacking up started in the late 60s and has continued up until now and is still going on. It has NOTHING to do with orientation. You are making me wonder if you are just a 17 year old clueless sheeple.

          • Angel Jabbins

            This is true. I just did some research on that and few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

            In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]

            Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:

            Homosexuals…are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good “marital” relationship.[20]

            While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

            They do know it…but they won’t accept it because their arguments are always emotion based

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Thanks, Angel, for the info. I appreciate it, very much.

          • MisterPine

            Too bad it was completely wrong, but that isn’t normally an issue for you.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Paul Van de Ven”
            The man has NO credentials. I searched and found NOTHING to back up his credibility.
            I cant take a few of his findings as anything but biased BS:
            “Homosexuals…are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature”

            that’s a load of you know what. I notice he didn’t give numbers for “negligible lifetime fidelity rate” for the homosexual couples. I smell a rat. he didn’t include that because it probably is not far from the hetero couples numbers.
            I also have to mention that your reply is the second time I see you naysaying emotions.
            Emotions are the foundation of empathy. Since YOU lack emotion, I am not surprised that you are gullible enough to believe the hatred that unqualified researchers display.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Sadly, with the gay issue it is ALL about emotions ALL the time. There is no logic, no reasoning, so science to back up the gay is permanent argument. Emotions have their place, but we start with reason so our emotions do not deceive us and lead us into error. The gay issue has always been only about emotions… that is why there is such an uproar anytime someone disagrees with it. They have no other means of defending it than to yell ‘biggot’ and ‘hater’ and play on emotions to get what they want. That is how they have made all the recent advances in promoting the lifestyle. We live in a society that is no longer able to reason. We are taught what to think not how to think…a dumbed down society that will fall prey to anything.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Paul Van de Ven is listed as a researcher for the National Center in HIV Social Research, School of Behavioral Sciences, Marquette University along with three other researches who published an article in the Journal of Sex Research entitled: A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men.

          • Angel Jabbins

            At the end of this research article, Mr. Van de Ven states: “We gratefully acknowledge those who made this study possible: the participants, staff, and volunteers of the AIDS councils and organizations; and those who promoted, recruited, and interviewed for the survey.” He then gives his address at Marquette U. in Australia, if people wish to contact him regarding the study. Doesn’t sound like hatred to me nor does it sound as though he is unqualified. He was only one of several who took part in the study, all coming to the same conclusions.

            I have as much emotions as the next person, but try to use reason to guide and temper them.

          • Angel Jabbins

            OK, I am trying this reply for a third time. I think putting in the links made it go to ‘pending’.

            I want to answer you because what you have stated regarding no difference in health risk/disease rate between non-monogamous heterosexual couples and gay couples is completely inaccurate….has not basis in fact. Go search the web for yourself as I just did and you will find statistics proving otherwise….website after website. You are simply arguing from your emotions and not doing your research. ‘A little more experience in the real world’ is not what is needed here. We need the facts. But today people are ruled by their emotions and what they want to be true. Gay sexual relationships are not healthy and it is a dangerous game of roulette for those to persist in the lifestyle.

          • MisterPine

            I did look, and there is nothing inaccurate in what I said. In the 1980s, AIDS was the “gay disease” and it ravaged the gay community. These days it is not. The largest demographic with it now is straight black women.

            The simple fact is you are not going to get an STD if you are in a monogamous relationship, whether you are gay or straight. Promiscuity and lack of protection are what causes disease. It has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

          • Angel Jabbins

            If I try to post the link to the articles I am referencing, it will just go to ‘pending’.

            I don’t know where you are getting your info because it is blatantly wrong and giving many people a false sense of security. Monogamous gay relationships are not and never have been the the norm and gay marriages often do not last long. Most gays and lesbians, though fighting for the legitimacy of gay marriage will not seek to marry and, if they do, will not stay in the marriage long term. The reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. So even if monogamous relationships would help cut the disease rate, it will not work because they will not stay in those relationships for long.

            “At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many ‘divorces.’

            At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years — both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.”

            Bottom line…gays, even if they enter into gay marriages, are much less likely to stay with only one partner for life. There’s the rub.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Time Mag had an article July, 2012:

            “As the world’s leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared — gay men.

            In a series of papers in the Lancet dedicated to the dynamics of HIV among gay men — a group epidemiologists define as men who have sex with men (MSM) — scientists say that the continued burden of AIDS in this group is due to a combination of lifestyle and biological factors that put these men at higher risk. Rates are rising in all countries around the world.”

            Rates are rising all over the world at a time when gay marriage has already been legal in many countries and also in many states in the USA. If more gays are staying in these monogamous relationships, then why the increase?

          • MisterPine

            That is a dishonest way of presenting the facts. First of all, gay marriage is on the rise. You cannot accurately measure things like longevity in a gay marriage when so many are still waiting for the chance to GET married. You can read yourself right in the article in Time that AIDS in this group is a combination of lifestyle and biological factors – lifestyle referring to number of partners and whether protection is used. Note there is no mention whatsoever about monogamous couples contracting the disease. AIDS is spread via unprotected sexual intercourse and is more likely to strike those who are promiscuous. I defy you to find me one single incidence of AIDS striking two people who are monogamous (who were found to be free of disease to begin with). You won’t find any.

          • Angel Jabbins

            OK, I am trying this reply for a third time. I think putting in the links made it go to ‘pending’.

            I want to answer you because what you have stated regarding no difference in health risk/disease rate between non-monogamous heterosexual couples and gay couples is completely inaccurate….has not basis in fact. Go search the web for yourself as I just did and you will find statistics proving otherwise….website after website. You are simply arguing from your emotions and not doing your research. ‘A little more experience in the real world’ is not what is needed here. We need the facts. But today people are ruled by their emotions and what they want to be true. Gay sexual relationships are not healthy and it is a dangerous game of roulette for those to persist in the lifestyle.

          • MisterPine

            “what you have stated regarding no difference in health risk/disease rate between non-monogamous heterosexual couples and gay couples is completely inaccurate….has not basis in fact.”

            Yes it does. This has nothing to do with emotions. It is a purely factual statement that if you are in a monogamous relationship with a partner who has no pre-existing STDs, there is absolutely no way you are going to contract any.

            I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. STDs come from multiple partners who are unprotected. Period. It has nothing to do with whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual. Go ahead and check all the resources you like, that’s what they will tell you.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I never said straight people are not at risk of getting an STD or AIDS. Anyone who engages in anything but a monogamous relationship is at higher risks….straight or gay. Gays are at even higher risk though because of they type of sexual practices they engage in and because their idea of monogamy is not the same as what it has been traditionally understand for centuries in marriage.

            The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.

            The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples.

            “All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating.” Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as “cheating” as long as it was “compartmentaliz[ed], which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants’ ability to manage sex outside the relationship.”

          • amostpolitedebate

            *shrugs* At least we don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies.

            What are the stats for women anyway? Are they lower? I’ll bet they’re lower (because men really are pigs). If they were lower, does that mean that you’d support female same-sex relationships as a public health measure? Would that not be evidence that God supports same sex unions?

            Also, what do you think this “lifestyle” actually entails exactly? I know quite a few gay people and I can assure you that for most it’s just like any given “straight” lifestyle except the gender of one of the partners is swapped.

          • Angel Jabbins

            How can ‘lifestyle’ between two men be just like a straight lifestyle? The very unnatural act they engage in is not healthy…not in the least.

            From Health Risks of Gay Sex:
            “The rectum is not physiologically suitable for penetration.
            The intestine has only one cell layer separating it from highly vascular tissues making it vulnerable both to injury and to infection. This thin tissue cannot withstand friction, resulting in trauma that allows a mixing of thepartners’ bodily fluids.
            Ejaculate contains immunosuppressive agents and may impair the immune responses of the recipient; this efect, along with the fragility of the anus and rectum, make anal intercourse more efective in transmitting HIV and other infections. § Anal intercourse can result in the following health issues: anal cancers; Chlamydia; Cryptosporidium; Giardia lamblia; Herpes Simplex virus (HSV); HIV; Human Papilloma virus (HPV); Isospora belli; Microsporidia; Gonorrhea; viral
            Hepatitis B and C; Syphilis.”

            There are health risks for lesbians also, mainly infections, because of behaviors they engage into try to simulate true intercourse.

          • Angel Jabbins

            When health care costs go up for one segment of society, they go up for us all, regardless of whether Medicaid is paying for it for private insurances (which are no longer really private anymore since Obamacare). We will all be paying more for the unwise healthy choices of others. Sex between same sex people is risky, even if they could remain monogamous.

          • Oboehner

            It’s not private anymore is it? Calling perversion what it is, is only obnoxious to other perverts.

          • MisterPine

            Unless the homosexuals you know are putting on live intercourse shows, then it’s private. “Perversion” is just your fun little firebrand word…a game you learned from the Westboro Baptist loonies, I’m guessing.

          • Oboehner

            Gay pride parades. “Westboro Baptist loonies” is just your fun little firebrand word…a game you learned from sexual deviants, I’m guessing.

          • MisterPine

            Gay Pride Parades are legal. And they are not attended or even supported by nearly all LGBT people. They are not live intercourse shows, which would be illegal.

            So you’re a Webtboro fan…no surprise there.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Pride parades are often much tamer these days than they used to be in order to allow people to bring their families. So Oboehner’s argument is doubly wrong.

          • MisterPine

            Oboehner doesn’t generally make it a habit of being right about most things.

          • Oboehner

            No I’m not a “Webtboro” fan. Is that the spelling you learned in school? It must be correct then or they wouldn’t teach it.

          • MisterPine

            My autocorrect didn’t pick it up. It makes mistakes often – must have been designed by a fundamentalist.

          • Oboehner

            Perhaps the word is still “evolving”.

        • darkchaos

          You really are ignorant to say Christians aren’t being discriminated.

          • RRiggs

            Not really, but believe me when I say that I hope that you feel totally threatened! It’s stupidly delusional for you to feel that way, but I really, really hope you feel that Christians are threatened.

            Here’s why. Christians say the BEST things when they feel threatened! They become sources of comedy gold! Blame Hurricane Katrina on gay marriage? We got that! Baltimore riots on gay marriage? We got that too! Claiming religious “persecution” over baking gay wedding cakes? Oh, boy do we have that too!

            So, by all means, feel threatened! And let the rest of us sit back and laugh!

          • sgfan

            We will have the last laugh. You have your gay president in the white house but God’s word hasn’t changed. We have a bill of rights that begins with freedom of speech and we have freedom of religion. That means we have the right to say what we want without fear of intimidation. Those who scream “tolerance” are the most intolerant of all.

          • Paul Hiett

            By all means, give an example.

          • darkchaos

            Students are suspended for their faith and failed in class for their faith.
            Employees face similar punishments.
            The fact that people like you are constantly stalking christian threads and posts to troll is another example.
            Kleins Family in Oregon.
            Florist
            Photographer
            Churches even.
            Everywhere if one announces they are christian people dismiss them.
            The deaths of christians globally already proves the persecution and discrimination is happening.
            Churches in canada forced to compromise by law.
            The list goes on.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You really are ignorant if you believe that “You really are ignorant to say Christians aren’t being discriminated.” is a complete sentence.

        • Bobby Mae

          Theyre not. “Christian persecution” is just their buzzword at the moment

    • darkchaos

      typical ignorance of the left and athiests

      They preach about equality and tolerance at the expense of others.

      Your equality is fake and so is your love and tolerance.

      Your equality and love and acceptance is stretched only to certain group(s) but not all.

      • amostpolitedebate

        “Why does the world refuse to tolerate my intolerance!?”

        • darkchaos

          Just like the rising intolerance towards Christians. Yes. You are spot on.

  • Jade

    Most churches are about control and income. A local church leader told me that his small country church was a business. Money always talks and if a church has to choose between tax exemption (money!) and religious conviction, most will choose money every time.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      No all churches will choose money, but you are most correct that the chaff is about to be separated from the wheat.

    • bowie1

      A business is about making a profit, a church is often short of money, so if it was a business, in that sense, it would be a lousy investment!

      • Jade

        A lot of people are making a good living from the salaries that they receive from the churches.

        • bowie1

          Would you consider $10,000 a year a good living?

          • Jade

            You must be an exception because ministers in my area are making over $100,000 for small churhes (~125 people at a normal service). Ministers of megachurches are millionaires.

          • bowie1

            That was actually for the part time secretary, part time music
            director and part time janitor, each get approximately that. Our former pastor got a base pay of around $55K cdn. + up to
            $40,000 Cdn. to cover income taxes, unemployment insurance and canada pension plan, housing allowance to cover mortgage, taxes, heat and hydro, book allowance and car allowance. Our congregation has perhaps 200+ members. Most of our pastors spent up to 8 years in college and seminary which is quite costly. As of this week we are vacant so we will need to depend on guest pastors or speakers who usually are paid much more modestly to cover transportation, etc. to get here. (Tomorrow we will discuss our budget at an bi-annual congregational meeting and people can give their feedback. concerns, etc.)

  • smbelow

    Of course! This makes perfect sense. Immorality cannot flourish if institutions with moral principles are still recognized.

    Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

    • Paul Hiett

      I find it sad that you folks think discrimination is moral and ethical.

      • Teri

        I find it sad that we can be discriminated against, our institutions and beliefs blackmailed, for a small group who claims to be in the same category and people discriminated for their color, and people actually believe that marriage, our institution created by God Himself, is something they have a right to take over & define.

        The same argument raises questions – Why attack us when Islam want to murder homosexuals? Why are they not attacking the real enemy? Because Jesus has called them sinners and told them the only way into heaven is repentance and following Him. That must be more difficult to accept then having a head hacked off. Therefore it is easier attacking us, we don’t kill sinners, we love on them. We are the worst of humans for loving and speaking truth.

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          Marriage was not “created by God”, it has been around since before Christianity and is practiced by just about every culture on the planet in some form or another. It isn’t a requirement to be religious to get married, Atheists do it all the time.

          As for Islam — I regard it the same way I regard Christianity. Extreme versions of all religions are a bad idea.

          • smbelow

            “it has been around since before Christianity…”

            You’re right. But you’re failing to properly reason the situation. Our worldview doesn’t start at ~4BC. It starts at Genesis 1:1.

            “Extreme versions of all religions are a bad idea.”

            False!

            Ohh…the most dangerous form of religion is atheism.

          • Jade

            Atheism is the least danagerous of any religion (I don’t think they are resposible for any deaths). Look at Islam (ISIS) and their killings. Also Christianity has blood on their hands as innocent young people have committed suicide because of Christian ignorance.

          • smbelow

            Atheism is void of any objective moral standards (I’m not saying an atheist can’t be moral); thus, what is deemed moral is based on the culture of that time. When man is able to be arbiter of moral dispositions, genocide tends to be the apex of its presence. Just study history.

            Comparing Islam and Christianity is just way off in left field and is a different topic all together.

            Blaming Christianity for someone’s suicide is just plain ignorant rationality.

          • Jade

            Study the Bible and you will see that religion is responsible for genocide. Samuel was told by God to have King Saul kill every man, woman, child, and infant of the Amalekites for attacking the Israelites when they left Egypt. This was for something that happened 420 years earlier. Religion is directly responsible for some innocent young people taking their lives. We will look back one day with the same sadness for religion that we have tody for churches that supported American slavery.

          • smbelow

            I’m sorry…who told Samuel? At least try to be rational with your inaccurate understanding of old testament theology.

          • Jade

            1 Samuel 15; one day Samuel said to Saul, listen to this message from the Lord “I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposng Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amelekite nation – men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys. Are you trying to appologize for what is written in the Bible?

          • smbelow

            You don’t have to recite scripture; I know it. However, my question was: who told Samual? Just the WHO!

          • Jade

            According to the Bible, Samuel was a prophet and GOD told him! What is your point?

          • smbelow

            How logical is it to accuse the Creator of…well…absolutely everything, of genocide? We’re not talking about some Hellenistic deity that is part of our dimensional understanding. When you stop thinking of God as a god, then you might start to understand how ridiculous you people sound when you call him names and actually lay judgment on Him.

          • darkchaos

            Athiesm is the least dangerous? Tell that to holocaust survivors.

            Athiesm has caused Christian families to break up and close businesses. Christianity doesn’t do that.

            Even a family of 10 children got their children taken away for teaching their kids their beliefs.

          • Jade

            Hitler died a Roman Catholic although I certainly would not blame Christianity for what he did. He was nothing more than a madman. Having businesses close down doesn’t compare to innocent young people taking their lives. Besides I would bet that many of the people showing disapproval of these businesses were Christians without hate.

          • amostpolitedebate

            No they got taken away for not putting their kids in school.

          • Phipps Mike

            “:

            “Extreme versions of all religions are a bad idea.”

            False!”

            he was 100% right. The majority of all deaths is caused by extremist religions fighting over their religious differences. You want it both ways by being bigots against Muslims and accuse them of murder by the thousands but now you deny that extremism is dangerous. FACE PALM!!

          • smbelow

            “False!”
            FALSE!

            First, the word “ALL” was used. Doctrinally, Christianity doesn’t condone killing. So, these so called murders you are talking about are instigated by people who try to falsely use the name of Christianity to serve a humanistic purpose. Heck the word Christian is a reference to be Christ like.

            And the majority of murders have been committed by secularist institutions, which are more aligned to the ideologies of atheistic principles.

          • Phipps Mike

            are you serious? have you forgotten that God had David slay Goliath to keep Israel as the holy land? have you forgotten about the thousands who died during the Protestant Reformation? Just by the example of David and Goliath, it is the message that “might” is right. aka….kill those who are weaker to get what you want. Also, shall we start talking about how many Native Americans died because they wouldn’t convert to Christianity? You seriously have your head in the sand or don’t know the first thing about History.

          • smbelow

            First, clearly you don’t understand the distinction between the time of Israels covenant and Christianity. Second, you just didn’t understand anything I wrote.

            Can’t believe you used the reformation. That’s funny. You would’ve been better off using the crusades example. However, both only show your inability to reason and your quick-draw method of falsely blaming Christianity.

            Now, remember! You have to scripturally show me how we can rationalize murder. And to say Native Americans were killed because they didn’t convert. Now who is absent of historical understanding.

          • Phipps Mike

            The reformation is where the Catholic (Christians) killed the Protestants.
            I don’t accuse anybody of anything without supportive facts.
            God ALLOWED war and it IS in the scriptures.
            God is a hateful, wrathful entity. Jesus was the loving one. Funny that they are both in the Holy Trinity but one wants to kill out of wrath and the other doesn’t.

            Now about the Native Americans. I also should have included the Trail Of Tears incident but to back up my claim about the attempt at conversion:

            Then in 1769, a Franciscan missionary named Father Junipero Serra led a Spanish army up from Mexico and reached present-day San Diego.

            It was he who built the first of 21 missions that would extend up north to San Francisco. When he encountered the Chumash, Fr. Serra failed to recognize a centuries-old religious tradition. “Believe me,” he wrote, “when I saw their general behavior, their pleasing ways and engaging
            manners, my heart was broken to think that they were still deprived of the light of the Holy Gospel.” He promptly set out to convert all the Indians he encountered to Christianity.

            He also set out to make the native populations slaves to the
            farms supporting the missions. Spanish soldiers kidnapped Indians by the thousands. They were given Spanish names, dressed in blue uniforms and became farm workers — something they had never done. They also were
            forced to care for livestock, tanned hides, and produced candles, bricks, tiles, shoes, saddles, soap and other necessities.
            If they misbehaved, they were whipped, branded, mutilated or
            even executed. Hundreds and thousands of Indians — both in the missions and in surrounding areas — died of malaria, smallpox or other new diseases imported by the Spanish for which there was no native immunity.
            Beginning in 1775, many of the mission Indians began to revolt. Some 800 Ipai and Tipai Indians burned down the San Diego mission that year. The revolt was brutally put down by the Spanish soldiers, as were all of the revolts.

            The years of warfare and mistreatment took their toll. At the
            Santa Barbara mission alone, more than 4,600 Chumash names fill the burial registry. Indians were put in mass graves near the church, and were denied either traditional or Christian burials.”

          • smbelow

            “The reformation is where the Catholic …”
            I like how you labeled the Catholics as Christian, but you didn’t afford the same courtesy to the protestants. Can you please outline your understanding of how the Roman Catholic Church started, in regards to Roman history?

            “Then in 1769,..”

            The trail of tears. Forgot about that one. But can you show me how, scripturally, Christianity was the foundation for the evil that was set on the Indians? Because, for me, it is just misguided individuals or groups that improperly used Christianity to push their own agenda.

            Plus, most of the problems between Native Americans and the settlers where just the general idea of occupying territory. Something that has been happening for thousands of years in all walks of life. So you can’t say it’s a Christian thing. It’s a human thing

            Again, you have to show that the doctrines that outline Christianity support these types of actions. Because in the end, it’s not about what man has done in the name of something; it’s if the actions of the individuals properly exemplify the system from it’s Author.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” it is just misguided individuals or groups that improperly used Christianity to push their own agenda.”

            ok, that’s good enough for me. Just to give you an FYI, I am a ex Protestant Baptist that converted to Protestant Lutheran. I see a LOT of “improperly” used Christianity going on in here and in the world. Such as the notion that Christians have the right to persecute those people who dont conform to their ideas or religions. Now the catch 22 of what you just claimed is that there are MANY different sects of Christianity but yet Fundamentalists and Evangelists claim that only THEIR version is correct, That would place them guilty of “improper use” to push their own agenda. Thanks for your honesty.

        • amostpolitedebate

          *Christian school throws a tantrum and closes permanently because they won’t be allowed to expel gay kids*

          Yup. Really feeling that Christian love here.

          • smbelow

            “…and closes permanently …”
            Maybe because they’re being asked to compromise God’s word and natural order.

          • darkchaos

            Christians are being suspended and silenced in Schools. The athiests are the butthurt here.

          • Paul Hiett

            Care to cite an actual example?

        • Paul Hiett

          How, exactly, have you been discriminated against?

          • smbelow

            “How, exactly, have you been discriminated against?”

            By being forced to provide services that are clearly against God’s will for humanity by threat of fines, personal attacks, angry demonstrations, name calling, forcing business closures, closing down websites, etc… All for standing against sexual perversion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did someone force someone else to open a business?

          • darkchaos

            Already in Canada religious institutions and churches have been forced to compromise. Anything related to promoting traditional marriage b/w one man and woman is subject to being illegal. Teachers and parents will be sent to re-education classes for saying male and female or he/she or mr/ms. Children are taken away from families already.

            You know so little about our persecution.

          • Paul Hiett

            You have NO clue what real persecution is. None. Furthermore, expecting a business to adhere to the laws governing commerce is not persecution, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

          • Bobby Mae

            You mean baking a cake or creating a bouquet? lol yeah I feel sooo bad for you

          • smbelow

            No you don’t.

          • Bobby Mae

            Correct, I dont. Imagine if all businesses ran based on their own personal feelings about their customers.

          • smbelow

            Irrational logic. We’re talking about a line in the sand as it relates to morality, not standard business practices. For example, if you read about some of these business (bakers), they clearly stated they had no problem doing business with anyone; it was only because of their specific request that stepped over said line.

          • Bobby Mae

            Right, because making a cake is practically being the person marrying someone of the same sex. Grow up

          • smbelow

            Marriage, to a Christian, is the natural joining of man and woman. To violate that is an unconscionable act against God.

            It’s not about making the cake, however, you refuse to rationalize the situation because you are fighting what you know is morally permissible in society. And gay weddings aren’t.

          • Bobby Mae

            Not everyone is a Christian, do you get that? You’re no different than Muslims wanting to impose sharia law.

          • smbelow

            Wow! comparing Christians with Muslims and Sharia law. Do you people even try to understand what people write in their post?

          • Bobby Mae

            Tell me how the principle is any different. You want laws to fulfill your Christian beliefs , they want laws to fulfill their Islamic beliefs.

          • smbelow

            Umm…actually, the LGBT community wants laws to protect and enforce their sexual proclivities.

          • Bobby Mae

            Thanks for avoiding my question. 🙂

          • smbelow

            No, I was pointing out that it is the LGBT community pushing for laws. The only laws that I’ve seen being introduced by Christians (Illinois) is meant to strengthen the already present 1st amendment which is under attack. However, I’m unaware of any laws, from the Christian circle, that can be aligned with Sharia law. That’s just a ridiculous statement.

          • Bobby Mae

            Religious freedom…

          • Bobby Mae

            What are referring to?

          • MisterPine

            I had to read that a few times over to make sure I could believe my own eyes.

            Why is it when comparing straight and gay couples, you guys always go for the gutter? All you look at is the sexual component and never for a moment consider the love in the relationship. You think with LGBT people it’s all a mechanical exercise and nothing more?

          • smbelow

            Because, like all words, there are certain boundaries as to what they cover. So, we have to use terminology that is inherent to the spectacle in our discourse…which is the unnatural sexual and relational connection of a LGBT person.

            Plus, again, we have to consider what we are talking about. We are talking about a generation that is reveling in their behavior and forcing others to take part (entertainment, parades, marriages, etc…). Now, if you don’t believe God made a mistake when He established mankind, that’s your argument with God in the end,

            Man can try to redefine the morals in this world, some of us are here to keep warning you that you’ll have to answer to God some day. Could be tomorrow.

          • MisterPine

            What an utterly insulting and condescending thing to say.

            It’s already been pointed out to you that there is NOTHING that gay/lesbian couples do in the bedroom that are not also done by their straight counterparts. If you think that sodomy is an activity confined to gay males, boy are you living a sheltered life.

            Of course, none of what goes on in the bedroom matters at all, because it’s secondary to the fact that two people are in love. Would YOU want to be judged specifically and solely because of your bedroom activities? Then why do the same to LGBT people?

            No LGBT people are “reveling” in their “behavior”, either. If they’re reveling in anything, it’s being alive and loving another person. They aren’t celebrating what makes them different from the others, they are celebrating what makes us all the same. You won’t be happy until all the gay and lesbian people in this world are hanging their heads in shame over what they are, repenting to the very God who made them as they are.

            I do not, would not, and could not worship a God that hated the very people he created over something they have no control over.

          • smbelow

            “What an utterly insulting…”

            Sorry about that, but I’m multitasking over here, so my posts are somewhat brash.

            “It’s already been pointed…”

            It’s about the worldview and Who’s standards matter.

            “If they’re reveling in anything,…”

            Sorry, but even in the height of my party days I always found the LGBT parades to be a LOT over the top and too sexually animated.

            “I do not, would not, and could not worship a God that hated the very people..”

            I’m sorry to hear that, but you are not understanding the complete nature of God’s love. I admit, I’m not the right person to impart that knowledge, but you should really seek the truth of this matter.

          • MisterPine

            “Sorry, but even in the height of my party days I always found the LGBT
            parades to be a LOT over the top and too sexually animated.”

            And a lot of LGBT people would agree with you, so why are you tarring them all with the same brush? You think all LGBT people are into the outrageous costumes, the sexual undertones, etc.? For every LGBT person who wants to be out, loud, and political, there are at LEAST two who would prefer to shun the limelight. And I see lots of those in my social work.

          • amostpolitedebate

            The gay pride parades began for a very specific purpose. Namely increasing visibility and understanding by showing that even at it’s most shocking gay sexuality is pretty harmless. Hence the phrase “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” Now that visibility is no longer an issue the pride parades have actually started becoming much more family-friendly events.

          • RRiggs

            Consider this cake baking community service for calling gay people all the vile names your religion has called them for eons. You know the ones. Calling gay people abominations, perverts, child-molesters, corruptors, etc. etc. etc.

            You scream persecution and don’t take an ounce of responsibility for the horrific discrimination, beatings and killings caused by your religion’s treatment of gays as inhuman.

          • smbelow

            Spoken like a true individual without any idea of what morals are.

          • RRiggs

            Dude, I wouldn’t want your “morals” for all the world.

          • smbelow

            I know. But just step back and look at what your postmodern archetype has produced in the world.

          • RRiggs

            You actually believe that you belong a class of people that will be “saved” by some celestial being that will simultaneously condemn to eternal pain and suffering all those that disagree with your point of view.

            To actually believe that takes an unfathomable amount of arrogance and passive hatred for the rest of humanity. And it’s not a question of whether your celestial being exists. It’s a question of who would be so cowardly or corrupt as to worship such a heinous being if it DID exist.

            I’ll take my “postmodern archetype” any day over your supplication to infinite cruelty and death.

          • smbelow

            “You actually believe that you belong a…”

            Well…it’s kind of an elementary way of putting it, but…yes.

            “To actually believe that takes an…”

            False conclusion and not the least accurate. I like how Pen jillette puts it. How it would be more hateful to not mention Jesus Christ and the possibility of salvation (paraphrased).

            “I’ll take my “postmodern archetype” any day over your supplication to infinite cruelty and death.”

            You do understand that you’re only supplicating yourself to the current culture and that when it gets worse (morally), you’ll have to follow.

          • RRiggs

            “Well…it’s kind of an elementary way of putting it, but…yes.”

            Well, guess what? That’s kind of appalling. And you worship the horror that you believe will make that destiny come to pass. You take your “morality” from a being that demands allegiance under penalty of unimaginable terror.

            No thanks. I’d sooner take cooking tips from Hannibal Lecter.

            Also, you claim that I’ve come to the “wrong conclusion” and then you go right into proving my point! You say that “you’re only supplicating to current culture and that when it gets worse (morally), you’ll have to follow.”

            (a) You evince your arrogance by implicitly presenting a false choice between your beliefs and “the culture,” like you’re the only real game in town. You’re not. Get over yourself.

            (b) Your passive hatred of humanity shines through by predicting that the “current culture … [will] get worse (morally).” Piss off, man. Seriously. This world is comprised with countless amazing men, women and children that don’t subscribe to your beliefs. To think that your “morality” is somehow the end-all-be-all is to necessarily reduce every continent, every culture, every person to yes/no entries in the simplistic, binary paradigm you have in your head. You think you are just that grand and the rest of us are just that detestable.

          • smbelow

            “…that demands allegiance under penalty of unimaginable terror.”

            And yet, your inclination is to reject him and follow after your own desires. Interesting how that works. God will not force you to be in His presence.

            “Also, you claim that I’ve come to the “wrong conclusion…proving my point…”

            Please clarify my supposed claim and your point being proven. I would like to clearly understand your statements to properly respond.

          • RRiggs

            So you’re making a distinction between the thug that twists your arm into doing what he wants on the spot versus the one that says he’ll break your arm later if you don’t do what he tells you?

            You’re really missing the point of how sick this all is.

          • smbelow

            How about you pause, take a deep breath and try again. I know you’re all over this board, but you can at least try to respond in a succinct manner.

            Please, properly, define:

            1. Please clarify how I claimed you came to the wrong conclusion.
            2. What point you made that I confirmed.

          • RRiggs

            First of all, just read the posts. It’s all there. Though you used the word “false” and not “wrong,” which was misquote on my part.

            Second, in what world would your comment of “take a deep breath and try again” not be wholly condescending and arrogant? You’re talking to me like a child, and yet you’re the one that believes in angels, devils and serpents that talk… and zombies… and transmutation… to name a few things. Oh, and that “god” guy.

            And here’s the thing. You have your own set of rules. At your choosing, you can retreat to the end-conclusion “Cuz God says.” That means you can never be reasoned with. If ever you’re logically cornered, you pull out your “Get out with God” card, and the debate is effectively over.

            Which means that discussing with you the damage religious people do is a bit upsetting. You don’t acknowledge the harm religion does cuz, to you, it’s all justified. Even worse, it doesn’t even compute in your mind what a monster your deity is, even as you believe in it.

            So that leaves the people who are harmed by you little recourse but to use other means to get you out of their lives. Court action, bad publicity, business boycotts… all these things a result of being left no other option with religious people. Now that some religious people feel they have lost the high ground… NOW you all want to be “reasonable” (as if you all have any grasp of what that is). And this seems like “persecution” to you. It’s pretty laughable.

          • smbelow

            Yeah…I went back and yes, false conclusion and even some topical ad-homonyms.

            “Second, in what world would your comment…”

            What!? You don’t think I’ve been gleaning any other comments of yours? Try looking in the mirror quick-draw.

            “and yet you’re the one that believes in angels, devils…”

            Yet, when I start challenging atheists on their naturalistic origins they cower away and deny having an ontological belief system. Because doing so would reveal the supernatural presuppositions in their religion.

            “Cuz God says.””

            That’s right. A place where moral absolutes exist. Not mine, but a God who placed these in our heart. The same morals that convict me, convict you. Unless, of course, you’ve gone past Romans 1:24.

            “damage religious people do”

            Really?! Are you not aware of how many millions of people were put to death for there defiance to their secularized government? And yes! People do evil things. But from your vantage point, you have no absolute foundation to condemn them as good or evil. It’s just YOUR opinion.

            “If ever you’re logically cornered, you pull out your “Get out with God”

            Provide an example, please. I would like to know exactly what you mean here.

            “NOW you all want to be “reasonable”

            No, I’m not here to be reasonable with something I believe is totally wrong. I’m just here to make a little noise.

            Just remember, on judgment day, you’ll end up convicting yourself. Knowing that the word of God has been proposed to you and your sinful nature rejected it.

            we want people to try and recognize what morals are. And that

          • MisterPine

            If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a “Christian” baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean a “Christian” gun store owner participated in the murder?

          • smbelow

            Did the Christian know he was selling to a murderer?

          • MisterPine

            He knew he was selling to someone who planned to use the gun.

          • smbelow

            Wow! That’s a really broad brush you have there. Are you planning on painting a barn with it?

          • MisterPine

            Really? There’s one thing you do with a gun – shoot it.
            There’s one thing you do with a cake – eat it.

            What else is there for the vendor to be concerned with?

          • smbelow

            Are you smoking pot right now? Because your points seem to be all over the place. You were talking about gay wedding cake; transformed it to an illogical statement on selling guns–I kept to that point; then you are mixing the two now.

            Oh! By the way. Both points are off topic to the actual article.

          • MisterPine

            No, YOU were talking about “gay wedding cake”. I maintain there is no such thing as “gay wedding cake”, there is only cake. If the customer plans to consume the cake then the vendor has nothing else to be concerned with.

          • smbelow

            Yes…but you diverted to guns for some reason. Then, you jumped back to cakes. Ohhh….wait a minute…now I understand, you’re trolling.

          • MisterPine

            Trolling, right. The very thing you accuse people of when you haven’t got a leg to stand on. The gun comparison was to help you understand the absurdity of your own position, but clearly it sailed right over your head.

          • smbelow

            Haven’t got a leg to stand on? You’re right. It’s hard to maintain textual discipline when dealing with irrational arguments like yours. You don’t even try to clarify anything. You’re all over the place. Troll!

          • MisterPine

            Funny, other people seemed to have no trouble understanding, in fact it got thumbed up. Maybe because I made logical points and you just name-called.

          • smbelow

            People thumbed up because you support their own position. You couldn’t logically argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

          • MisterPine

            To make that statement, you would need to recognize the argument being put forth, and you have shown no signs of having the ability to do so. Turn to stone and call me troll instead like you always do.

          • smbelow

            Okay troll!

            Let me post where you went off track:

            ME: “Did the Christian know he was selling to a murderer?”
            YOU: “He knew he was selling to someone who planned to use the gun.”
            ME: “Wow! That’s a really broad brush you have there. Are you planning on painting a barn with it?”

            All the above follow a sequential conversational rhythm (the gun topic).

            Here is where you go off script:

            “Really? There’s one thing you do with a gun – shoot it.There’s one thing you do with a cake – eat it.”

            You are now comparing cakes and guns. There is no contextual logic in this slingshot move. I could understand if you asked me to clarify or to try and show that you weren’t over generalizing your gun statement, but to go back to a comparison?

            That’s why I’ve brought the troll statement in because you’re either too young to be in this back and fourth dialog or you’re trolling.

          • MisterPine

            “You are now comparing cakes and guns.”

            No, I’m stating that in the case of both cakes AND guns, they have both precisely one function. A vendor of guns knows he is selling a firearm and concerns himself with nothing more than that, i.e. whether the gun is going to kill someone. A vendor of a cake knows the cake will be consumed, and should concern himself with nothing more than that. The problem is, you want to have your cake and discriminate with it, too.

            “There is no contextual logic in this slingshot move”

            Which you will most likely continue to state even though I’ve made the comparison very clear above.

            “That’s why I’ve brought the troll statement in because you’re either too young to be in this back and fourth dialog or you’re trolling.”

            So now you call me both troll AND child. How easy would it have been for me to call you a bigoted KKK wannabe, hatemonger? Keep taking the high road.

          • smbelow

            “How easy would it have been for me to call you a bigoted”

            It wouldn’t bother me, one bit. Because LOGICALLY there are no statements, remarks or posts that can be referenced to your tirade.

            “Which you will most likely continue to state…”

            Yes, because you’re still not following standard parlance.

          • MisterPine

            Standard enough but beyond your comprehension. I get it.

          • Phipps Mike

            he was right about his gun statement. The person that would kill is the one ultimately responsible. Baking a cake is NOT “participation”. Those bakers were not even asked to attend. you have to ATTEND to be considered a “participant”. You lose.

          • smbelow

            He didn’t argumentatively follow through with his gun statement. As soon as he recognized the direction of the analogy, he convoluted his arguments by graphing in stuff.

          • Phipps Mike

            nonetheless, his original statement WAS correct.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So, Mr. Pine, the homosexuals can just buy a cake from the display counter and use it in their SS counterfeit so-called “wedding,” correct? Since, “there is only cake,” as you’ve written.
            I’m so glad you finally see it our way, the right way. God Bless!

          • MisterPine

            No, Nick from Detroit. If they want a cake for their legitimate and legal SS wedding and you are a baker and refuse to sell them one because of your superstition, you have broken the law and will be fined or jailed. Don’t like it? What a shame.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That’s what I said, Mr. Pine. They can buy a cake (because “there is only cake,” remember?) and do with it what they want. NO baker has refused to sell their goods to any homosexual.
            The SS has no right to force the baker to make and decorate a “special” cake for their phony, counterfeit so-called “wedding.”

            I will continue to refuse to provide my expertise to whomever I please, for whatever reason I want, thank you.

          • MisterPine

            “The SS has no right to force the baker to make and decorate a “special” cake for their phony, counterfeit so-called “wedding.”

            By “SS” I’m going to assume same-gender couples, unless it’s another one of your loving, kind firebrands. But yes, if they are bakers, and they bake cakes, and a customer wants to buy one for their legitimate, legal, same-gender WEDDING, then they have no grounds to deny it for them. If they try to do so based on their superstitions, they should be (and are) fined or jailed.

            Boy, a Christian theocracy must be sounding better and better to you all the time, huh? What a shame we have to extend all these human rights to human beings.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            But, if there is no such thing as a “gay wedding cake,” according to you, Mr. Pine, there is no such thing as “same-gender WEDDING” cake, correct? So, again, the SS can buy a cake in the display window and do with what they want. We’ve solved this dilemma, give yourself a cookie.
            No one has been jailed, brainiac.

          • MisterPine

            Yep, and they can also provide all their other usual services too, such as decorations and cake writing. And if they refuse, they will be fined. Everyone wins.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What are their “usual services,” Mr. Pine? You don’t get to dictate them, like, well…a dictator. But, the default position of you lefties is always tyranny, isn’t it?
            You stated that a cake is a cake. Now, stand by your claim. Or, own your intellectual dishonesty, okay?

          • MisterPine

            A baker bakes cakes, standard procedure is also to decorate them. Yes or no?

            A cake is a cake. Is a decorated cake no longer a cake, Nick from Detroit? Please help me understand what part of this your clouded brain is having difficulty processing.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            If you consider icing a decoration, I guess. But, there is not right to a decorated cake, is there, Mr. Pine? You said that there is only a cake, remember? If the baker offers one of the cakes in his store, how is that discrimination?

          • MisterPine

            A cake is a cake. And service is service, Nick from Detroit. A baker provides both.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, a baker along with many others, does provide both. And you, me, or the SS DO NOT have a right to that service. It’s called the freedom of contract, remember?

          • MisterPine

            And yet bakers denying service continue to be fined. Hmmmm. Is it just possible, Nick from Detroit, that you’re full of fertilizer on this matter?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, it’s not possible, at all, Mr. Pine. People who violated the fugitive slave laws were also sanctioned by government authorities. Did that make it okay?

          • Phipps Mike

            “All for standing against sexual perversion.”
            wrong, it was for OPPRESSING gay couples.
            You cannot discriminate while you are on the clock of a business that caters to the general public. You are NOT seen as having religious freedom while on the clock. Also, religious freedom does not trump n on discrimination.

          • smbelow

            However, gayness is not a discriminatory argument. A postmodernist tries to make it so, but it’s not. I don’t expect you to understand this because you have more than likely crossed over the Romans 1:24 threshold.

          • Phipps Mike

            not YET. It WILL become a protected class though. Watch and see. My point really is that you may NOT be recognized with freedom of religion while on the clock when you serve the general public.Basically this means that we as Americans are not ALL Christians and so you cannot expect everybody to be one by conforming to your oppressive standards/practices.

        • Jade

          The OT tells us God wants blood and death to homosexuals. I know of several Christians churches that use these scriptures (signs and in their constitutions). Also please don’t try to use Jesus against the homosexuals because he is not quoted as saying anything about them.

          • smbelow

            “…please don’t try to use Jesus against the homosexuals because…”

            Can you show me, scripturally, where Jesus supported same sex marriage because I do know he reaffirmed the natural state of a relationship.

            Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

          • Jade

            I don’t have to show you where Jesus supported same sex marriage; the fact is that he is not quoted as saying anything? The people who wrote the quotes from Jesus wrote them 30-70 years after Jesus would have spoken them. What quotes did they leave out and how accurate are the quotes they made?

          • smbelow

            Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

            John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

            “The people who wrote the quotes from Jesus wrote them 30-70 years after Jesus would have spoken them…”

            hypothetical conjecture based on an illogical postmodern viewpoint.

          • Jade

            The consensus among Biblical scholars is that the Gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus was on this earth. A recorder wasn’t available at the time to know what Jesus really said.

          • RRiggs

            Jesus says exactly what the voice in this guy’s head says. Aren’t you listening?

          • Jade

            The introduction to Luke tells us that he has investigated the accounts of Jesus and has decided to write a summary for Theophilus. What in the world are you trying to say?

          • RRiggs

            That you’re crazy if you believe in the Bible as an accurate record of what Jesus said.

            Then again, the problem isn’t that you believe that he said something. The problem is that you BELIEVE that HE said SOMETHING. It’s not good enough for Jesus to be an ancient philosopher that had some good ideas. Oh no. HE has to be the “Son of GOD”! Which tells me that if he had been the son of a baker but had the same (or better philosophy), you wouldn’t have listened to him.

          • smbelow

            Conjecture isn’t about when scholars place the written texts. Conjecture is:
            “What quotes did they leave out and how accurate are the quotes they made?”

          • Names_Stan

            Interesting that you quote the jot and tittle verse.

            And I’m betting you aren’t practicing the traditional Judaism of 1st century Palestine, as Jesus certainly did.

            If you’re wearing poly/cotton clothing, eating shellfish or pork, and knowingly breaking one of the other 600+ laws, you should probably drop the gay fixation and get the plank out of your eye.

            Except…you’ve followed Christianity in letting Paul override this edict of Jesus, because Paul’s religion is way easier.

            So Christians can evolve and go against Jesus, but gay people can’t go against Paul.

            Interesting paradigm.

          • smbelow

            “Interesting that you quote…”

            What you’re throwing out there is a common atheistic ploy. The nature of your comment would require way too much of my time to explain. And for what and to whom? Someone that is not even interested in hearing why their understanding of the Levitical law and the salvation through Jesus Christ is ignorantly thought out. And to top it off you reject the letters of Paul. Your post is just a convoluted attack from ignorance.

            John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

            John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

            John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

            Romans 10:9 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.

            These Versus just started popping in my head after reading your ignorant post. But like I indicated, you’re not really interested in understanding scripture, so I’m not going to waste too much time on you. You’re just trolling.

          • Names_Stan

            A) I’m not an atheist.

            B) If you don’t want to respond, just don’t. You don’t have to go all emotional saying you don’t want to.

            C) Using John to knock down a very straightforward Matthew quote, attributed to Jesus, exposes fundamentalist apologetics for what it is. So for all the times folks like you call folks like me “cherry-pickers”, it’s quite satisfying to know that nobody’s claims of exegesis are entirely sincere. Many times they are parlor tricks.

            D) I don’t reject Paul (although some of the purported texts are obviously pseudepigrapha). I simply find it impossible to believe that revelation to him was meant to override Jesus in building the “real” theology. That’s what has happened of course…but at least Christians should admit it’s out of convenience rather than reason and exegesis.

            E) You assume negative intent and ignorance on my part, and your superiority over me, with only pride for your evidence. Your belief that providing circular prooftexts is somehow an advanced academic pursuit, out of the reach of the great unwashed, is ridiculous. Anybody with a smartphone can do it to “prove” absolutely any position under the sun.
            Lighten up on the gay folks and de-plank your own eye.

            Feel free to avoid a response altogether. The whining isn’t required in order to do that.

          • smbelow

            “Feel free to avoid a response altogether. ”
            No…I’ll comment.
            A) Then what are you?

            B) I’m not getting all emotional. Maybe a gentle shaking of my head with your ignorance, but not emotional as in over excited in some way.

            C) I just used scripture. Don’t understand your point; seeing you’re on a Christian website. Although, I didn’t put them in any type of study format. I just through them up there; mainly to indicate that scripture, indeed, can be used as an argumentative tool.
            Not “cherry-picking.” I use the whole Bible.

            D) wrong. speculative. Which….tells me you are attacking Paul’s writings from ignorance. You don’t even see the purpose of his writings, apparently.

            E) False conjectures and misleading statements. Just think a little bit. What type of website is this? What am I claiming to be? Now! Who are you and why are you instigating irrelevant topics on the original article. Troll? Atheist? Muslim? I don’t. But it would seem that the words you are using to describe me can be more aptly used for yourself.

            Just an unemotional thought 🙂

          • Names_Stan

            You’re a funny guy, I’ll give you that. It beats the humorlessness of most fundamentalists.

            You used the word “speculative”, as you call everyone who disagrees with you “ignorant”. I don’t think you know what ignorant means.

            Because surely you would never practice dishonesty in claiming certainty of another person’s level of knowledge and scholarship from one post.

            The rush to name-calling and self-righteousness is sadly par for the course for fundamentalists…so it best to stick with the humor, even if it’s unintentional.

            You’re also good with irony. Calling me ignorant at the same time as you give no indication whatsoever to knowledge of the available scholarship on pseudepigrapha or the authorship of Pauline-credited writings.

            You probably think Peter wrote I & II Peter. Or that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels.

            But you have no idea, I’ll wager, of why you think that, and whether that thinking is valid.

            Since you are so much more knowledgeable and educated than me in the canon, try telling me without help from a search engine why you think Matthew wrote Matthew.

            As you’re guiltily slinking to Google, think about all the other names you can call me. And in your Pharisaical way, you can then try to explain how it’s impressive of educated in any way to dismiss postmodern scholarship as “illogical”, rather than attempting to dispute the first ever honest examination of canon.

          • smbelow

            I’m going to let go of most of your other points because generally I move off a topic, usually, after the first day. And you’re also falsely inferring. However, I will clarify the following:

            “I don’t think you know what ignorant means.”

            You…and…well…anyone who starts spouting off Levitical law as if they are presenting some sort of “gotcha” paradigm clearly hasn’t studied the Bible. Read? Possibly. But not studied. Otherwise, they would comprehend the nature of those laws in regards to Gods perfect judgment.

            Now, do I think you’re ignorant in ALL things? Why, no! That would be completely and ridiculously presumptuous. But your charge against not following Levitical law was definitely ignorant.

            Oh…I did chuckle a little when I recognized the old “pot calling the kettle black” thing.

          • Names_Stan

            Interesting that you mention comprehension.

            The Levitical points had very little to do with “studying the bible”. They had everything to do with the verse you posted, and that I commented on.

            A verse in which Jesus says that not one jot or tittle of the law changes as long as heaven and earth are existent.

            So you either believe that Jesus wore poly/cotton and enjoyed the shrimp buffet, or you don’t. Chances are, you are fairly certain he did not…but you don’t mind grasping at some excuse that he didn’t really expect his movement to be inside of Judaism.

            As I also stated, people don’t ignore the OT law (except for the whole hating gay people thing) because of Jesus. They ignore the law because of Paul.

            Because Paul’s rules are mucho easier. They nullify the words of Jesus. All it takes is some magical apologetics to make those words of Jesus “really mean” something else, when they are absolutely clear.

            But figurative language in Revelation…oh y’all certainty pharisaical types have that down pat, down to the last Obama-as-Antichrist pronouncement. But a plain proclamation by Jesus gets the “figurative, what he really meant” treatment.

            We could locate hundreds of comments throwing rocks at liberal christians every day, by the holy of holies fundamentalists who condemn us to eternal hell.

            So I’ll continue to point out the blatant dishonesty of making the bible out to be whatever a particular denomination needs it to be. Hired gun apologists and all.

          • MisterPine

            Can you show me, scripturally, where Jesus said ANYTHING about homosexuality?

            No?

            How very interesting.

          • smbelow

            Read my reply below…

      • smbelow

        I find it sad that you folks actually think sexual perversion belongs on the same table as discrimination of a person’s ethnic dispensations.

        • Paul Hiett

          What you call “sexual perversion” is only your opinion and nothing more. Sorry bub, but you don’t to tell others how to live, period. I know you have no clue what I’m talking about, but the fact remains that your ability to discriminate is coming to an end, and rightfully so.

          • darkchaos

            Wrong. Since when was it our ‘opinion’? Where is your proof? Christians reference God’s words, not their own opinion.

          • RRiggs

            LOL… and if you don’t like what “God’s words” are in one church, you move your butt to another church across the street. And if you still don’t like it, you find yourself another “God” altogether.

            Your “God’s words” are only your opinion with your own delusional stamp of credibility.

          • MisterPine

            It is your opinion and nothing more. If you’re going to toss out words like “perversion” regarding private and consensual acts between two people, what else would you call it but an opinion?

          • Phipps Mike

            “words like “perversion” regarding private and consensual acts between two people, what else would you call it but an opinion?” exactly…to “pervert” means to take something against its original intent. So who invented rules for sex and why? does it make them the AUTHORITY? no, not any more than telling somebody its perverted to like spinach.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…if you can’t prove something, then claiming it’s true is only your opinion.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh look everybody! Paul’s telling him how to live by telling him he’s not allowed to tell anyone how to live. (!?)
            Um….yeah.
            This m0ron really doesn’t see the hypocrisy here. Go figure.

          • MisterPine

            Oh look everybody! Rumpy’s making another ridiculous analogy that doesn’t work at all!

            Paul’s simply saying that you don’t tell other people how to live. No need to add the additional twist. Mind your own business as a Christian and worry about your own life. Your God, if he exists, will sort out the others on His own.

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            What are you babbling incoherently about now? Your inability to comprehend your own hate and hypocrisy? No worries, Intolerant One. We know.

            Two “birds” of a feather. DO Stalk Christian websites together!
            Thanks for the unnecessary and kind of creepy translation of “Paul speak” though (?), we!rdo. Do you finish each other’s sentences as well?

            And the reiteration of “mind your own business and worry about your own life”!!? FROM PAUL’S FELLOW STALKER!
            OF CHRISTIAN WEBSITES!

            Boy do you two loonies deserve each other. Your common hate and intolerance for Christians has really brought you two closer together, huh? Just a couple of proud peacocks here to school all the nasty little Christians on “morality” (blech).
            GOOD LUCK little trolls! 🙂

            So now what? Paul responds to my response to you?
            Hee, hee! You two are adorable!
            Go get ’em, peacocks!

          • MisterPine

            It’s entirely coherent, what I said, Rumpy. The gist was clear before and it’s clear now. You don’t get to dictate from your Christian ivory tower how other people live their lives. Full stop.

            I don’t speak for Paul and he doesn’t speak for me. We just happen to have the same opinion of how your religion controls your life and has turned you into a hate machine.

          • The Last Trump

            “You don’t get to dictate from your Christian ivory tower how other people live their lives. Full stop.”

            SAYS THE MILITANT LGBT TROLL ON THE CHRISTIAN WEBSITE! DAILY!
            No hypocrisy there at all, MisterMagoo!
            (Oh and, tough. Just try to stop me, hater! 😉

            “We just happen to have the same opinion of how your religion controls your life and has turned you into a hate machine”

            !!
            Um…FSTDT dot com anyone? I’m afraid your own big mouth has betrayed you, charlatan. Not too bright there Pinester, constantly advocating for a hate site while accusing others of hate! Well, nobody ever accused you of being a genius, now did they! “A fool and his folly” and all of that eh!

            Way too late for that game now, foolish troll. Everybody here knows where the hate is REALLY coming from. Just had to get you talking! Please give my regards to your fellow fascist bigots back at headquarters. And tell Paul I say Hi the next time you swoop in to defend him! Be loud and be proud, you little crazy peacock, you!

            And don’t forget to keep responding! It in no way makes you look desperate or attention starved. Specially all of that FSTDT stuff! That’s solid gold, Pinemeister! Doesn’t make you look crazy at all!
            Certainly NOT hateful! IT’S THE CHRISTIANS! Hee, hee!
            : )

          • Phipps Mike

            Trump, I am going to trump YOUR trump. Religion is OPPRESSION. Forcing oppression is 100% hatred. Nothing more needs to be said.

          • MisterPine

            Hee, hee!
            Do you pause to wipe the flecks of foam from your mouth as you type, Rumpy?
            Do you stop to check your fan mail at FSTDT? Fascinating read, really. Your smugness has easily become your trademark.
            Oh Rumpy. You really are the biggest load on two feet.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Jeez Pine I think you broke him.

          • Phipps Mike

            lets put it this way, Trump, Its none of GODS business, either….in THIS country. Establishment clause still exists no matter how much you don’t want it to.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Sorry, Mr. Pine. But, Christ commanded His disciples to proclaim His Good News to the world (Mk.16:15).
            You would know this, if you’d ever bothered to read the Bible. If you’re going to hector Christians, at least learn what we believe, okay?

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, Nick from Detroit, you lose again. Christ’s “good news” cannot and does not include bigotry against gay marriage. Want to test your OWN Bible knowledge, Nick from Detroit? Find me one single word Jesus said in the Bible regarding homosexuality, period. Do this and you get to prove me wrong. Fail, and you add it to your already enormous string of fails.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Haven’t you learned by now, Mr. Pine, that the biblical illiterate shouldn’t prognosticate on a subject with which they have no knowledge?

            The answer to your query is rather easy. Christ forbade homosexual relationships in Matthew 19:

            He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5* and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? * 6 So they are no longer two but one. * What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

            Later, when Christ appeared to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus (when He blinded Paul), and taught him His Gospel, Paul would admonish the Gentiles against homosexual activity in quite clear terms. The Jews didn’t have a homosexual problem like the Gentiles did, so, Christ didn’t have to preach against it. The Jews all agreed that homosexual acts were an abomination.
            So, you fail, yet again. Sorry.

          • MisterPine

            “The answer to your query is rather easy. Christ forbade homosexual relationships in Matthew 19:”

            No he didn’t, Nick from Detroit. You are lying. No mention of same gender couples in that whole verse. Rather pathetic attempt.

            “so, Christ didn’t have to preach against it.”

            If you want to prove that Christ spoke against homosexuality, yes he did. But he didn’t. So you lose.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Christ only mentions a man and woman. If He was okay with homosexual relationships, or SS “marriages,” this would have been the perfect time to bring it up, don’t you think, Mr. Pine?
            Your defense is what is pathetic. Admit it, you didn’t even know that Christ said that, did you?

            I did prove that Christ was against it. You can’t seem to understand His plain language. Just like to understand anything in the Sacred Scriptures. Because, you’re biblically illiterate.
            If you want to get technical, since Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the Word of God, He spoke against homosexuality back in Leviticus. You lose…again.

          • MisterPine

            You are using the logical fallacy Argument from Silence, Nick from Detroit. It’s popular with people like you who enjoy weaselling out of the truth. You cannot use the Bible’s silence to say what isn’t there. You were directly challenged to provide Christ’s words where he specifically forbids same gender unions, and you failed. Yet again you failed.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Except, Mr. Pine, it’s not an argument from silence. Just because you put your hands over your eyes and ears, like the chimp in the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil” caricature, doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there.
            Christ clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Again, if He was okay with SS “marriage,” why didn’t He mention it in Matthew 19? It was the perfect opportunity, was it not?
            Also, Christ was a devout Jew. He followed the Torah perfectly. Which includes the prohibitions against homosexuality.
            I’ve met your silly challenge, and you refuse to deal with it. Epic fail!

          • MisterPine

            “Christ clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Again, if He was okay with SS “marriage,” why didn’t He mention it in Matthew 19?”

            That’s your problem to figure out, isn’t it, Nick from Detroit? I can tell you that a hamburger contains ketchup. But a hamburger can also contain mustard and still be a hamburger, even though my original statement doesn’t specify that. See how it works, Nick from Detroit? In an attempt to be dishonest, you have only exposed your desire to hoodwink people.

            “Also, Christ was a devout Jew. He followed the Torah perfectly. Which includes the prohibitions against homosexuality.”

            Christ was silent on the subject. That is what you are being challenged with. You lose.

            “Epic fail!”

            That is PRECISELY what it is.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, Mr. Pine, I’ve exposed you as the one who is making the argumentum ex silentio fallacy. I’m so clever!

            Christ didn’t specifically mention homosexuality. He also didn’t mention stealing, kidnapping, wife-beating, abortion, or arson. Are we to assume that He was okay with all of those sins, as well? Just because Christ didn’t provide an exhaustive list of sins, doesn’t mean they aren’t sins. Get it now?

          • MisterPine

            “No, Mr. Pine, I’ve exposed you as the one who is making the argumentum ex silentio fallacy. I’m so clever!”
            Except that you haven’t, Nick from Detroit. I was the one who caught you making it. Your memory is short and your honesty is nil.
            “Christ didn’t specifically mention homosexuality. He also didn’t mention stealing, kidnapping, wife-beating, abortion, or arson. Are we to assume that He was okay with all of those sins, as well? Just because Christ didn’t provide an exhaustive list of sins, doesn’t mean they aren’t sins. Get it now?”
            Nice try. In making this statement you’re trying to equate gay marriage with stealing, kidnapping, wife-beating, etc. There’s no reason for Christ to mention those things, that much is true, because they are abusive acts. Gay marriage is however consensual therefore there is no reason for Christ to include it.

            Keep trying, you’ll make something resembling a coherent statement one day.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Now you are resorting to non sequitur fallacies, Mr. Pine. Or, is it moving the goal posts. I get them confused sometimes.
            Arson can be consensual. So can human sacrifice. Your arbitrary “abusive acts” criteria does not follow. Sorry, but you fail again.

          • MisterPine

            Consensual arson, eh? Consensual ritual sacrifice?

            I think I will just let those two patent absurdities sit on their own, Nick from Detroit. It must be obvious to all now that your mouth is working for the prosecution.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Umm…yeah. A person can burn down his own house. Many victims of human sacrifice were willing participants.
            That you don’t know these simple facts does not surprise me one bit, Mr. Pine. Have graduated from high school yet? Or, are you a freshman in college?

          • MisterPine

            Yup, PRETTY sure that a consensual act of arson is a rare thing considering that pesky word “consensual” meaning that all parties would be in agreement. Ditto ritual sacrifices.

            You don’t seem to GET it regarding same-gender marriages. They love each other and want to get married and have companionship. That’s nice, and not something you typically compare to ritual sacrifice or arson.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yep, about as rare as SS counterfeit so-called “marriages.”
            Anyway, rarity does not define sin. Christ does.
            And, Christ clearly stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. As God intended from the beginning. So, you were completely WRONG about what the Bible says. As usual, Mr. Pine.
            Have you ever held a Bible?

          • MisterPine

            Have you ever held a science text?

            Christ said nothing about homosexuals, homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Thanks for admitting it finally.

          • Phipps Mike

            he stated a fact. Nobody DOES have that right to tell others what kind of bedroom habits they can have. Stop playing games.

          • amostpolitedebate

            No you don’t understand it’s ICKY! Not like MY sex which is pristine and classy.

        • Bobby Mae

          Do you see gay people having sex in front of you? If not why are you thinking about what they do sexually? Do you think about your friends having sex with their spouses? Pretty weird…

      • darkchaos

        God says no. And we have to follow it.

        If you wanna make every taboo a new basic human right then so be it.

        More sex rights!
        More drug rights!
        More gun/violence/blasphemy rights!

        That’s totally your utopia there.

        • RRiggs

          “God says no. And we have to follow it.”

          It’s this kind of statement that makes your type of belief a joke in this country (ala Pat Robertson) and terrifying in others (ala ISIS).

  • Mr. Avatar

    No doubt the sodomites and their supporters will continue to target Christians and any religion who preaches against their life style! I wonder how that will play out against Islam? Obviously they won’t win!

    • amostpolitedebate

      I’m very sorry that you’re no longer allowed to pick on a vulnerable class of people. My heart goes out to you.

      • Oboehner

        By “vulnerable minority” you mean sexual deviants?

        • MisterPine

          By “sexual deviants” do you mean people who practice different sexual acts than the ones Kent Hovind permits?

          • The Last Trump

            No.
            He means the sexual deviants.
            Hello? Duh.

          • MisterPine

            As defined by you, Rumpy? Or by a normal person?

          • Oboehner

            Scraping?

        • amostpolitedebate

          You sure seem to harbor a lot of negativity towards a group of people that has literally no impact on your life. What’s up with that?

          • Oboehner

            “literally no impact on your life.” BS.

      • softengine

        Taking steps to avoid a person or group of persons is not ‘picking on them’. When I go on walks in the afternoon, there is a house in our neighborhood with two big pit bulls chained up out front. I make it a point to avoid walking anywhere close to it. That is not picking the ‘family’ that lives there nor the dogs.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Internet commenter softengine is afraid of gay people biting him. Got it.

    • Paul Hiett

      ROFL…no one has targeted anyone. The only issue is allowing gay people to marry. If you actually think that you’ve been targeted, you’re as ignorant as the worst of them. Did giving blacks equal rights “target” white people?

      Get a clue people.

      • Oboehner

        Being black or white is not a perverted lifestyle choice, you get a clue.

        • MisterPine

          Being against gay marriage because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.

          • The Last Trump

            QUOTE SUBMITTED!!

            Ooops. Thought I was you for a second.
            But then I remembered that I’m not a hateful fascist m0ron.
            As you were, “Hamburger” (!) lover.
            😉

          • MisterPine

            LOL!!!
            It’s not even my quote, but it’s a good one so submit it anywhere you like! It was clearly written with people like you in mind, after all!

          • John_33

            Being against gay marriage because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.

            Replace ‘gay marriage’ with ‘slavery’ and you’d have a great argument for slave owners in the 19th century.

          • MisterPine

            That doesn’t even make sense.

          • John_33

            This is basic logic. The quote compares opposing gay marriage for religious reasons to throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet. Logically, it means that interfering with someone else’s personal beliefs because of your religion is wrong. Now apply that beyond gay marriage since that’s the intent of the quote. A 19th-century slave owner would agree with the logic on the topic of slavery. He would have argued that a religious person’s religious beliefs should not affect his personal ‘right’ to own slaves. If you want to be logically consistent and absolutely believe that this quote applies to religious people on gay marriage, then you must believe that the religious efforts to end slavery in the 19th century were also wrong since it would be akin to throwing away their hamburger (aka, right to own slaves) because you were on a diet (opposed slaves due to your religious beliefs). It’s the same flawed logic.

          • MisterPine

            What you are asking me to do is replace “gay marriage” with “slavery”. That puts you on the hot seat right off the bat because your intention is obviously to draw a comparison between the two, and because gay marriage is a consensual and desired arrangement and slavery is not (unless you want to try to tell me the slave is cool with it).

            Based on that and nothing else, this is a flawed and deceptive (and possibly cruel, depending on your intention) comparison. A Christian does not have the right to take away someone else’s marriage. Hence the hamburger comparison, you don’t help yourself to something someone else is eating and throw it away, it’s not your place to do so.

          • John_33

            There’s nothing deceptive here. This is basic logic. I’m not comparing gay marriage to slavery. Read it again slowly. You can even replace the issue with practically anything. Watch:

            – “Being against abortion because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.”

            – “Being against slavery because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.”

            – “Being against cute, pink, fluffy bunnies because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.”

            See? Even with cute, pink, fluffy bunnies, the logic behind the argument stays the same. That’s because changing the issue from gay marriage to slavery, abortion, and even bunnies doesn’t affect the argument. The conclusion behind all of these statements is the same: people’s religious beliefs should not be forced on onto others who don’t believe the same way because that would be like throwing away someone else’s hamburger when you are on a diet. The analogy is the reason why the conclusion is the same regardless of the issue being discussed.

            That’s why it applies to the topic of slavery in the 19th century (among other issues). A slave owner would agree with the logic behind it since he would argue the same thing: religious people should not be allowed to force their beliefs on him – i.e. to enact laws that would free his slaves. Of course we know that Christian abolitionist did exactly that, and they were right for doing so — even though they acted because the 19th century race-based slavery was against their religion. That’s why the argument is flawed.

          • MisterPine

            The argument in each case is the same, that is true, but the argument cannot be applied equally, because the slave owner would be wrong to make the statement whereas the gay marriage or fluffy bunny argued would be correct. There is nothing abusive taking place in the gay marriage/bunny argument, so anyone’s religion trying to prohibit them crosses a line and is unacceptable. It’s simply none of your religion’s business and does not break the law. However in the argument you are quite amazingly trying to equate, slavery IS abusive to another human being and anyone would be quite justified to step in and put a stop to it even if it’s none of their business.

            The fact that you place your argument in the 19th century appears to be your get out of jail free card. Slavery was legal then, I hear you say. That doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t negate the fact that it is still the abuse of another human being.

          • John_33

            The argument in each case is the same, that is true, but the argument cannot be applied equally, because the slave owner would be wrong to make the statement whereas the gay marriage or fluffy bunny argued would be correct. There is nothing abusive taking place in the gay marriage/bunny argument, so anyone’s religion trying to prohibit them crosses a line and is unacceptable. It’s simply none of your religion’s business and does not break the law. However in the argument you are quite amazingly trying to equate, slavery IS abusive to another human being and anyone would be quite justified to step in and put a stop to it even if it’s none of their business.

            Look, you can make the argument that one scenario is valid and the other is not, but show me where these exceptions can be found in the original quote. It can’t be done since the quote makes the same condemnation across the board against people acting on their religious beliefs. That’s why it’s logically flawed. It doesn’t judge each case separately. Hence my first post to you:

            “Replace ‘gay marriage’ with ‘slavery’ and you’d have a great argument for slave owners in the 19th century.”

            The fact that you place your argument in the 19th century appears to be your get out of jail free card. Slavery was legal then, I hear you say. That doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t negate the fact that it is still the abuse of another human being.

            With all due respect, you’re arguing the wrong issue. Any hot-button issue will apply. The reason why I chose slavery was because it’s a positive example where people acted on their religious beliefs and succeeded in restricting slave owners. They effectively forced their beliefs onto the slave owners that all people, regardless of race, were equal and should not be treated differently. We both agree that the Christian abolitionists did the right thing in taking down a bad institution. It also demonstrates that the logic behind the quote is not consistent since there is no room for exceptions. It condemns acting on religious beliefs. The history of Christian abolitionism proves that to be wrong. That’s why I objected.

          • MisterPine

            “It can’t be done since the quote makes the same condemnation across the board against people acting on their religious beliefs. That’s why it’s logically flawed.”

            “Acting on their religious beliefs” is the key here. You can act on your religious beliefs all you want until you infringe on the rights of those who DO NOT FOLLOW your religion. That is the only thing that matters here. We do not live in a Christian theocracy.

            “The reason why I chose slavery was because it’s a positive example where groups acted on their religious beliefs and succeeded in restricting slave owners.”

            You need not be a Christian to see that owning slaves is wrong and should be illegal. But let’s take your statement and put “gay marriage” in – just as YOU did in your original example – and see what we get:

            “The reason why I chose gay marriage was because it’s a positive example where groups acted on their religious beliefs and succeeded in restricting gay marriage.”

            And that is the key here. You are attempting to state that Christians should have the ability to quash gay marriage because it is contrary to their religious beliefs. And I think you’d be very hard pressed to make that fly in any legal situation. Christian beliefs do not always equal good, moral beliefs.

          • John_33

            “Acting on their religious beliefs” is the key here. You can act on your religious beliefs all you want until you infringe on the rights of those who DO NOT FOLLOW your religion. That is the only thing that matters here. We do not live in a Christian theocracy.

            Ah, but are you then condemning how slavery was overturned in the USA? Christian abolitionists legally infringed on the rights of slave owners when they helped their slaves escape from their owners. Do you not agree that the Christian abolitionists did right in disbanding slavery? If you do, then you cannot believe the above paragraph that you wrote. Where do you stand on the topic?

            You need not be a Christian to see that owning slaves is wrong and should be illegal.

            True, but we know that slavery was overturned largely by Christian abolitionists, which makes your point moot. The views in society were changed because of work that these Christians did to change them.

            And that is the key here. You are attempting to state that Christians should have the ability to quash gay marriage because it is contrary to their religious beliefs. And I think you’d be very hard pressed to make that fly in any legal situation. Christian beliefs do not always equal good, moral beliefs.

            I’m stating that we have historical examples where Christians were motivated by religion and created positive outcomes. Since we know that they created positive outcomes, then they cannot be condemned for acting because of their religious beliefs. As you said yourself, they must be treated on a case-by-case basis. If you believe in religious liberty, then you believe that they should have a voice in the public even if you disagree with them. I personally disagree with gay marriage and believe that it’s harmful to society, but that’s a separate discussion.

          • Phipps Mike

            slavery WAS a bad example because there was nothing promoting black slavery in the Bible. Its INHERENT to KNOW that black slavery was wrong, hence the reason that Lincoln was no longer allowed to be a Whig and moved on to his own political party with his ideas of freedom/humanity.

          • Deina

            Why do you pretend to be so dim witted? Do you think it will make people pity you, & cut you slack?

            How can you equate two consenting adults committing their lives to each other, with holding someone in bondage against their will?

            Apparently you think that those who were once held as slaves are some inferior life form, and not “people”, therefore their consent was irrelevant.

            And you dare to call yourself a “Christian”? No! I reserve that term for those who follow the teachings of Christ. Your relationship with God is between the two of you, but to me you’re nothing but one more hypocritical “xtian”, not worthy to represent Christ.

          • John_33

            I didn’t compare gay marriage to slavery. I merely demonstrated that the argument would be consistent with someone defending slavery.

          • Deina

            “Really Officer, I didn’t rob that bank! I was just holding my gun and the teller started handing me money!”

            The argument is not “consistent with someone defending slavery.”

            Slavery has victims. Marriage does not!

            Do you consider your marriage “consistent with” slavery?

            If not, why not? Why would you think that anyone else’s marriage would be different from yours?

          • John_33

            I didn’t even comment for or against gay marriage in my post now – only on the logic of his quote. You don’t even know what you’re arguing. I broke it down it for MisterPine. You can read that to know what I’m saying.

          • Deina

            I’m sorry to hear that you’re having trouble remembering what you said just a few short hours ago.

            Allow me to refresh your memory:

            Being against gay marriage because it’s against your religion is like throwing away someone else’s hamburger because you are on a diet.

            Replace ‘gay marriage’ with ‘slavery’ and you’d have a great argument for slave owners in the 19th century.

            Are you still going to deny that you were equating the two?

          • John_33

            Yes, I deny that I was equating the two. To be honest, this conversation has run its course. I don’t see a point in continuing when no progress has been made. Because of that, I politely bow out.

          • Oboehner

            If it’s private my being against it doesn’t make any difference now does it? I would only throw the burger away if they kept shoving in my face and trying to tell my children in school that it is ok to eat that rotten meat.

          • MisterPine

            So you’re inundated by homosexuals trying to force you to marry them? What a unique problem.

        • Paul Hiett

          Sexual orientation is not a choice either. Unless you’re ready to admit you have sexual desires for both genders?

          No?

          Didn’t think so. Ergo, orientation is not a choice.

          • FoJC_Forever

            There is no such thing as sexual orientation, Homosexuality is a lust, one “nurtured” into people by surroundings and by demons. It is a fruit of a corrupt tree.

          • amostpolitedebate

            OK I’ll bite. How exactly does one have homosexuality “nurtured” into them?

          • FoJC_Forever

            You can read my comments and find that information, although what I have written doesn’t cover all the ways it can be taught to a child.

          • Paulette Stanek

            Easy… Anything forbidden seems enticing.

          • Phipps Mike

            I do believe he means that orientation means ATTRACTION which IS inborn. You dont CHOOSE what attracts you, its no different than choosing what tastes good.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The term “sexual orientation” was invented so that those who want to pursue their lusts can do so with the acceptance and affirmation of society around them.

            Some people have a lust to kill others, but to do so is a sin. Some people have a lust to murder the baby inside their body, they have it murdered and it is called “healthcare”.

            Just because someone feels a temptation to sin, doesn’t mean they then have the ‘identity’ committing that sin brings. Homosexuals are those who have embraced the lust as permissible and acceptable and good, even though it is not.

            Tastes change. It is possible teach yourself to like a particular food by simply consuming it on a regular basis. Those who are tempted by homosexual lusts, like any sexual lust (fornication, adultery, etc.), can learn to have a “taste” for what God designed, rather than what their carnal nature dictates. To do this, one must first acknowledged that homosexuality is bad for them and is to be rejected, while God’s design of heterosexuality is good for them and is to be accepted.

            If a person will follow Jesus and receive His baptism with the Holy Spirit, they will become a partaker of the Divine Nature. Then, the carnal nature will begin the process of being put to death by the power of the Holy Spirit.

          • Phipps Mike

            “sexual orientation” means the persons or types of persons you are actually attracted to sexually, it does not even connotate a derogatory nature whatsoever.
            Homosexuals are BORN that way (they are BORN with the attraction to the same sex).
            “It is possible teach yourself to like a particular food by simply consuming it on a regular basis.”
            maybe with food, but NOT attraction. Attraction is a pituitary gland action as it reacts with your hormones. 100% NATURAL. You can NOT condition yourself to be attracted to something else than what you are already attracted, to.
            Lets put it in an easy way: A homosexual can decide to not ACT on his attractions, but that isn’t going to change the fact that he will ALWAYS have those attractions for the same sex. Asking a homosexual to not partake in homosexuality is like asking the common man to stop partaking in eating pizza.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I know what it means, and I know why it was invented and applied to the acceptance of sexually perverted behavior.

          • Phipps Mike

            it may have been APPLIED to it but it is NOT its meaning or the REASON for its meaning. To orient means to point at. There is NOTHING derogatory in that phrase whatsoever.

          • Bobby Mae

            You have proof of that?

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            You are the proof. Apart from this oddity, you are not qualified to ask for proof.

          • Bobby Mae

            And who are you?

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            I’m the guy who made the point you didn’t answer.

          • Bobby Mae

            Because you made no sense. How am I not qualified to ask for proof?

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            You appear qualified to ask unqualified questions. Either you pretend stupidity or is it the real thing. (My money’s on pretend though.)

          • Bobby Mae

            And you look like a Nazi, so what’s your point? This is a *public* forum

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            The only law of discussion that you conform to is Godwin’s law. (Well done.)

          • Bobby Mae

            Could maybe stop translating from dutch to.English? I dont understand.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Usually “do not” is contracted with the insertion of an apostrophe.

          • Bobby Mae

            That’s the best you got? Lol sorry my cell phone doesn’t always autocorrect. I didn’t know christian news network forum was a professional arena.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Here, have some more trollbait.

          • Bobby Mae

            Whatever, Nazi man.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Here, have even more trollbait.

          • Bobby Mae

            You ARE cute.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            So my wife tells me.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Yes, but you have rejected the Truth.

          • Bobby Mae

            So you were obviously once a homosexual and then changed?

          • FoJC_Forever

            No.

          • Bobby Mae

            Then you can tell us it’s not an orientation how?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’ve answered that inquiry a few times now. You’ll just have to read past comments. If you can’t understand what you’re reading, there’s nothing I can do for you.

          • Bobby Mae

            Sorry hun, I don’t browse forums just to read all your comments.

          • Oboehner

            It is most certainly a choice, just as much a choice as any other mental disorder. Why is it that in gay couples one always plays the male role and one always plays the female role? Ergo it is a deviation, and yes a choice.

          • MisterPine

            No medical organization on earth would ever call homosexuality a mental disorder because it isn’t. You cannot cure what is not an illness. And unless you want to admit that you feel sexual attraction to both men and women, then you are forced to admit it isn’t a choice.

          • Oboehner

            The medical organizations called it a mental disorder until the mentally challenged them selves coerced them to change it. That still doesn’t change the fact that gay is a mental disorder, and no, one doesn’t have to admit any deviant sexual attraction for that to be the case, (unless you care to admit your attraction to children).

          • MisterPine

            Nope, your paranoid schizophrenia is obviously still in high gear. It was removed because of new data they had to suggest it was not an illness. Science based organizations do not give in to pressure from lobbyists. Facts are facts.

          • Oboehner

            Wrong, it is a fact that the gay lobby protested and fought to have it removed facts are facts. “Science” based organizations are used to promote one agenda or another all the time – welcome to reality.

          • MisterPine

            I know there was a protest. But that is not why the APA changed it. The APA and many other similar organizations had newer and better data to show homosexuality isn’t a disorder. How long will you use ancient data to prop up your bigotry?

          • Oboehner

            There is no real data showing it is not a mental disorder.

          • MisterPine

            There is “no real data” which you can understand. However, there is plenty of real data. As is the case with evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Agenda driven “data” is not real.

          • MisterPine

            There is no such thing.

          • Oboehner

            In your reality perhaps, but in the real world things are quite different.

          • MisterPine

            In the real world which I live in, evolution is taught in science classes with all the other facts. Now what about your world? I have no time for paranoid schizophrenia and hate.

          • Oboehner

            The old “taught in science class” crap, so was flat earth look where that is.

          • MisterPine

            The passage of time clearly means nothing to you. So we should stick with old theories long disproven? Why?

          • Oboehner

            Because you keep claiming it’s science if it is being taught as such.

          • MisterPine

            The fact every school in the country teaches it in science class should be a hint to you. Hardened Christian Fundamentalists can’t pray away facts, no matter how hard you try.

          • Oboehner

            Popular opinion means nothing, I’ve covered that already.

          • MisterPine

            Agreed. But it would help if you defined it properly. Facts are not opinions, and no Christian supremacist can pray it otherwise.

          • Oboehner

            Facts are not opinions, and no evolutionist supremacist can brainwash children it otherwise.

          • MisterPine

            Of course facts are not opinions. What you keep tap dancing around, Boner, is the fact that you can’t tell the difference. Scientists have facts. Religions have opinions. That’s why evolution is taught in SCIENCE class, not religion class. Is that the “opinion” of the school boards? Are they appealing to “popular opinion”? Or are they simply accepting what you have absolutely no excuse for not accepting?

        • Bobby Mae

          Being attracted to the same sex is not a lifestyle choice. Answer this, how would you label a man attracted only to men that doesn’t act on his desires? I hear people say you’re only gay if you act on it, but if you’re not attracted to girls you’re clearly not heterosexual.

          • Oboehner

            A: Mentally challenged.

          • Bobby Mae

            So this is how you treat mentally challenged people?

          • Oboehner

            Only the ones who seek to pass it on.

      • darkchaos

        Considering the vandalism and looting and targeting of whites and police by blacks all over the country?

        Yeah.

        • Paul Hiett

          Oh, so never mind the inequality that blacks deal with, and the disproportionate treatment by police of blacks…yeah, you’re fitting the mold of the good, white, Christian perfectly.

        • amostpolitedebate

          And the context of that violence is…?

          Come on you’re so close.

    • Deina

      “I wonder how that will play out against Islam?”

      Funny you should mention that.

      The results of a poll taken by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) were released on 22 April, showing that 42% of Muslims polled were in favor of marriage equality when asked.

      The actual question was: “Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?”

  • amostpolitedebate

    What exactly is happening in these schools that’s so bad that they’d loose a lawsuit? 0_o’

  • Paulette Stanek

    I’ve been told by a gay man that its not about sex! Really? Then why get married? Be best friends. Be room mates. Fight for benefits, if thats what you want. Most marriages end in divorce anyway. It just makes money for lawyers.

    • Paul Hiett

      Why did you get married if it wasn’t about sex?

      • darkchaos

        Are you for real?

        • Paul Hiett

          Read Paulette’s ridiculous claim.

      • amostpolitedebate

        It might well have been. Christians are very weird about sex.

    • darkchaos

      People confuse brotherhood and sisterhood with sexuality

    • Bobby Mae

      So you got married just to have sex? Lol

    • amostpolitedebate

      I can have sex without getting married. However there are countless other legal benefits the institution provides that are necessary in a long term relationship. For example if I get sick my partner needs the ability to make sensitive medical decisions in my stead.

  • Paulette Stanek

    How can anyone call this discrimination? Who knows you are gay unless you tell them? Marriage was instituted by God. It doesn’t matter if you are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist or other…there is only one God if you believe or not.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What are you talking about? The issue is whether universities that refuse acceptance to gay students can remain tax exempt. Alito and Farris seem to think, for reasons known only to them, that this has something to do with whether gay marriage is legal or not.

      • Bobby Mae

        They see the word gay, quit reading and let their emotions run wild.

    • Paul Hiett

      In other words, “everyone else is wrong and I’m right”. Yeah, like no follower of every other religion has ever said that…

      • Oboehner

        In other words, “everyone else is wrong and I’m right”.

        • Paul Hiett

          I don’t profess to “know” if any deity exists. Never have, never will, barring proof. You folks, on the other hand…

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            You claim ignorance, and all the while you continue to say how clever you are. How you must love the sound of your own (trollbait) voice.

          • Oboehner

            Why are you continually trolling here? Desperate attempt to somehow feel intellectually superior to someone because your own life is a miserable failure?

      • darkchaos

        In other words, “everyone else following God or religion and everything in it is wrong and I’m right”. Yeah, like no liberal speaking against religious folk ever said that

        Fixed*

    • RRiggs

      With any luck, these same bakers might have their “WHITES ONLY!” signs that they inherited from their grandfathers. lol

    • amostpolitedebate

      Out of curiosity, does this logic extend to matters of religion? Should I have the right to deny you a good or service because you’re Christian?

    • Phipps Mike

      “Marriage was instituted by God.”

      wronggggggg!!!!! marriage is MAN MADE. End of story.

  • Ambulance Chaser

    What does gay marriage being legal have to do with whether tax exemptions are granted? Bob Jones v. United States was about the legality of an IRS regulation, and wasn’t based on whether racial discrimination was legal or not.

    You can’t just lump every issue into “gay marriage legal” or “gay marriage illegal.” That’s ridiculous and simplistic, and totally ignores the way actual law is practiced.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Refusing to honor and accept homosexual marriage isn’t discrimination. The lie that homosexuality should be treated as race has been shoved into the unsuspecting public’s face for a long time. If what homosexuals actually do and what the homosexual culture, as it really is, was known by the general public, they would have been far less accepting. Just like the reality that the majority of all HIV/AIDS cases are among the male homosexual population has been buried by the news media and popular culture, so they bury the real horrors of homosexuality and what it does to the soul.

    Christians sites will continue to get inundated by the Wicked, as they argue and harass Christians about following Jesus (the) Christ and His Word.

    Judgement is coming.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “Refusing to honor and accept homosexual marriage isn’t discrimination.”

      No one is asking that a person “honor and accept” homosexual marriage. Each person is free to honor and accept, or not honor or accept, whatever they care to.

      “Just like the reality that the majority of all HIV/AIDS cases are among the male homosexual population has been buried by the news media and popular culture”

      That information is readily available.

      “Judgement is coming.”

      Do you have a date? I’d like to plan something. Maybe a nice brunch. I do love a good brunch.

      • Deina

        If you like, I can make a great Fuzzy Navel! For the more daring, we can go with a Pierced Fuzzy Navel

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          That sounds de-lish! I was also thinking Brioche French Toast with maple-bourbon syrup.

    • RRiggs

      Yes, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in a few weeks. LOL

    • Deina

      Just what is it that “homosexuals actually do” that straight people don’t do?

      Can you name any act that is exclusive to gays or lesbians?

      • FoJC_Forever

        Have sex with the same gender. It’s the definition of being homosexual.

        • Deina

          That is not “what”, that is “who”.

          Care to guess again?

          Can you name any act that is exclusive to gays or lesbians?

          • FoJC_Forever

            I did. Having sex with the same gender and embracing the sin as if it is okay with God. Those who are not homosexuals, or their advocates, do not embrace homosexuality as being okay with God.

            Your question is irrelevant. It has no bearing on knowing the Truth of homosexuality. As well, homosexuality isn’t the only sinful thing homosexuals are committing.

            Jesus will save from all Sin, if you will but lay down your life, take up the cross He has for you and follow Him.

          • Deina

            Unable to answer without moving the goal posts, I see.

            And you’re quite right: there is absolutely nothing not one single thing that gays or lesbians do that straight people don’t do! And apparently on a pretty regular basis, at that.

            Based upon information taken from CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2008 www DOT cdc DOT gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036 DOT pdf, (report released 2011), for women aged 25-44 years old, 89% engage in oral sex (opposite sex), 36% in anal sex (opposite sex), and 12% in any type of same sex activity. For men in the same age range, the numbers are 90%, 44%, and 6% respectively. (Figure 1 & Tables 5 & 6 of above report)

            I’m going to guess that you know ten people of each gender in the appropriate age range, so I’ll let you work out the numbers (10% = 1 person out of 10). If that information gives you a bit of wonky tummy, then do not look at the statistics for 15-24 year-olds!

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your comment doesn’t change the reality that homosexuals are driven by a lust categorized by God as an abomination.

            Your statistics only mimic what Christians already know – everyone is under Sin and needs to be saved by Jesus (the) Christ.

            Your condescending attitude is merely evidence of your arrogance and pride, a sin which Lucifer first committed and led him to try a futile overthrow of God’s Throne.

            A reality that most miss is that all your arguing isn’t going to stop you from appearing before God in Judgement. The Judgement you receive will be irrefutable and there will be no group nor authority to override it. The only way to pass through Judgement is to have already been saved from your Sin by the Power of Jesus (the) Christ prior to you standing before God on that Day.

          • Deina

            And your comments prove that you only comprehend that which coincides with your own beliefs & prejudices.

            Nowhere does the bible, either new or old, condemn homosexuality as we know it today. The biblical prohibitions are against it only in terms of rape, idolatry, and other nonconsensual formats.

            Read and understand what Jesus tries to teach you. When you show me that you can truly follow the teachings of Jesus, then I might consider you a “Christian”. Until then, you’re nothing more than another one of these “xtian” hypocrites. I know, that & $5 will get you a cup of joe, but I can’t give you anything I don’t have.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The Word of God categorizes all homosexual behavior as an abomination. The “exceptions” you are trying to point out were introduced a long time ago by homosexual advocates in order to fool people into believing the Lie. Homosexual behavior is not any different today than in was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

            Your consideration of me being a Christian isn’t relevant. It’s obvious you’re delusional and believe Satan’s lies. Your requirement to be shown by me, as if I have to prove myself to you, is simply arrogance and self-importance on your part. You will be in for a big surprise, and not a good one, if you face Jesus in your current condition. Repent.

            Judgement is coming.

          • Deina

            The Word of God categorizes all homosexual behavior as an abomination.

            Homosexual behavior is not any different today than in was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

            Sure enough?

            In that case, thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you haven’t got a clue about the subject at hand.

        • Phipps Mike

          you cant answer Deina’s question cause you know she wins. Heteros do all of the same things that homosexuals do. and out of wedlock. Yet none of you have a problem with that.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I do not affirm that sex outside of Marriage (one man and one woman) is good and God’s Will.

          • Phipps Mike

            once again, anal between man and woman is NO different than it is between man and man. Comprende?

          • FoJC_Forever

            That is also not God’s design. Correct.

            Capisce?

      • amostpolitedebate

        Well… once when drunk I took my *Is banned from commenting forever*

      • Bobby Mae

        Of course he stopped answering! Lol!

      • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

        You might have a point: Homosexual acts are not special: they do not entitle the do-er to any special status, exclusivity or rights. Though they commit themselves wholly in body and soul to depravity, nobody applauds their defiled sacrifice.

    • Phipps Mike

      “Refusing to honor and accept homosexual marriage isn’t discrimination”
      BUT, refusing to bake a wedding cake IS when that person doing the baking is serving the general public and thereby removing themselves as religious at the time they are on the clock.

      • FoJC_Forever

        It is not. A baker or florist or any other wedding service or product provider is not hindering homosexuals from becoming legally “married”. The cake, the flowers, the clothing, the food, the decorations, and other such things are part of the celebration. Forcing someone to participate in a celebration that is distinctly against their religious beliefs should be against the law, not enforced by it.

        • Phipps Mike

          “The cake, the flowers, the clothing, the food, the decorations, and other such things are part of the celebration”
          WRONG!!!!!!
          None of those things are part of the celebration. Celebration means you have to BE THERE at the wedding. The only way that cake would have been part of the celebration is if the baker paid for the cake out of his own pocket (donating TO the wedding is celebrating). I don’t get this mental illness coming from you people who think baking a cake is “participation”.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Knowingly participating in a sinful celebration directly related to something that is specified in the Word of God as sinful is also participating in the sin.

            Of course you don’t understand, the Light is not in you.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Jesus said specifically that Marriage is between a man and a woman, as it was intended from the Beginning. Don’t let homosexuals and their advocates fool you into believing the Lie that Jesus didn’t teach on Marriage, which made no place for homosexuality. They are simply lying to you. Gay “marriage” is an abomination to God and those who promote and embrace it will be Judged.

    • darkchaos

      What’s worse is that people don’t even understand the phrase “don’t judge or you will be judged” and “love they neighbor”

      The bible never said christians aren’t allowed to judge. It tells christians to challenge( judge) all morals and standards so that we can get the good not the bad out of them only.

      The bible never meant “love thy neighbor” to mean “love the sinner AND THEIR SIN”

      That’s like saying love the criminal for being human AND encourage and promote their acts of crime like rape/theft/kidnapping/murder/etc.

      It doesn’t work that way and it doesn’t make any sense.

      • MisterPine

        “It tells christians to challenge( judge) all morals and standards so that we can get the good not the bad out of them only.”

        Where does it say anywhere that you are called as Christians to not only determine what good “morals and standards” are, but to mold others into what you consider good or bad? How about leaving them alone, as you would want to be left alone, to make up their own minds for themselves? After all, they were given their own minds to make up, just as you were.

        “The bible never meant “love thy neighbor” to mean “love the sinner AND THEIR SIN”

        The problem is what you are defining as sin. Others may not agree with you that it IS sin.

        • FoJC_Forever

          God defines homosexuality as sinful, not people, not Christians.

          • MisterPine

            “People writing on behalf of God define homosexuality as sinful”

            Fixed it up for you.

          • Phipps Mike

            “After all, they were given their own minds to make up, just as you were.”

            EXACTLY right!!! God gave us FREE WILL for that reason, they seem to forget that.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Correct. People who agree with God are textually recognizing and communicating that homosexuality is sinful.

          • MisterPine

            That’s not what I said. I said people writing as God with no authority to do so.

          • amostpolitedebate

            God’s not here. All we have to understand his intent is the Bible. A book that’s actually a collection of various oral stories from multiple sources that were deemed by a committee of priests to be more “true” than all the other stories floating around at the time. Where are you getting this absolute confidence in your understanding of God’s will from?

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re wrong about the Scriptures. They were not “oral stories”, they have been passed down via writing for generations.

            I know God, better than person can know their parents.

            The problem with you rests within the Truth that you are in willing rebellion against God, like the father of your nature, Lucifer.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The Holy Spirit is God. He is in the earth, omnipresent, and drawing people to Jesus (the) Christ for Salvation. God is everywhere, all at once, unaffected by space and time.

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      What do the teachings of Jesus have to do with laws regarding civil marriage?

      • FoJC_Forever

        Civil “marriage” which is redefined to allow for same gender “marriage” isn’t Marriage. The goal of the homosexual agenda and its proponents is to attack the Word of God and teach people lies about Marriage.

        If all homosexuals wanted was legal union status, then they would be satisfied with civil unions. They aren’t, because they’re not acceptable to the demons pushing the agenda. The demonic agenda is to attack the Word of God and those who know and love Jesus Christ.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Actually gay people just want to be able to live normal lives in peace without Christian psychopaths firing them for being gay or assaulting them for walking out of the wrong bar.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I don’t agree with firing anyone for their personal, sinful habits, unless they are in an organization which is strictly Christian. If people are being dismissed from secular jobs over their sin, specifically any sin which is not directly effecting their performance, then it should be corrected.

            Of course, physical assaults are not right. You will never read anything I have written being permissive of such crimes.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “Civil “marriage” which is redefined to allow for same gender “marriage” isn’t Marriage.”

          Well if it isn’t marriage, then there’s nothing to be concerned about, is there?

          “The goal of the homosexual agenda and its proponents is to attack the Word of God and teach people lies about Marriage.”

          Actually, no, that is not the goal. The goals are to be treated equally under the law and not be subject to discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation based upon sexuality.

          “If all homosexuals wanted was legal union status, then they would be satisfied with civil unions.”

          Civil unions do not provide even close to the same legal protections, benefits, and rights, as civil marriage.

          “The demonic agenda is to attack the Word of God and those who know and love Jesus Christ.”

          Your faith must be pretty weak if you are concerned about the opinions of a tiny minority of people.

          • FoJC_Forever

            It is the goal, and it is being carried out every day, as it has been for years and years. Civil unions could easily be made to offer the same legal protections and benefits that Marriage as offered, but the homosexual agenda is such that it wants to redefine the word Marriage so as to confuse people about the Word of God and His Will.

            The Faith I have received from the Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ, isn’t showing weakness over telling people about the lies, and the source of the lies, as well as the goals and processes of those who do not know Jesus and want to twist the Word of God to suit their sinful lusts. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

          • amostpolitedebate

            It’s a “separate but equal” problem. Yes, you can in theory create a second category of union with all the same rights and label it “not-marriage”. However this solution comes with two major issues:

            1) The separation by it’s very nature is a pretty nasty insult. It’s like when black people had to use their own water fountains. The implicit message was “you savages are gross and I don’t want your black people germs”, even if that wasn’t the intent when they were installed.

            2) In the real world the “equal” things in question are rarely actually equal. Going back to the water fountain example there are several famous photos of them where the white fountain was huge and pristine and the black fountain was tiny and barely worked. The same applies to Civil unions. The intent behind them is good and they’re a step up from nothing. However if you really dig into the details you find that there are several glaring holes in the perks and protections they provide. For example a company may be required to insure “marriages” but no similar requirement may exist for civil unions.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Civil unions could easily be made to offer the same legal protections and benefits that Marriage as offered”

            No, it would not be simple at all. First, every state would have to put in place civil unions. Then thousands of state and federal laws would have to be changed – requiring legislative action – to accommodate civil unions. It would be a lengthy and expensive process. Also unnecessary. Civil marriage fits the bill just fine.

          • FoJC_Forever

            It would be just as easy or hard as pushing for laws to redefine the legal meaning of Marriage. The reality is that the homosexuality advocates are attacking God’s Word and Will in pushing the legal definition of Marriage to be changed from one man and one woman. This reality has already been established, years ago, and people continue to believe the contorted facts and outright lies pertaining to the nature of homosexuality and the agenda behind making it appear normal.

            Judgement is coming.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “It would be just as easy or hard as pushing for laws to redefine the legal meaning of Marriage.”

            Not even close, as evidenced by recent events. The process of challenging laws which prohibit two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage is much simpler than attempting to get each state legislature to pass laws creating civil unions and then getting each state legislature to amend, literally, hundreds of laws, and then getting Congress to do the same with federal laws.

            “The reality is that the homosexuality advocates are attacking God’s Word and Will in pushing the legal definition of Marriage to be changed from one man and one woman.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your views, civil marriage is not based upon religious belief.

            I’m curious – are you also as verbal regarding making divorce illegal except in cases of adultery? How about making it illegal for people to have sexual relations prior to marriage? How about making it illegal to not honor your mother and father? How about making it illegal to have no Gods other than the Christian god? How about limiting freedom of speech so that it would be illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain?

            If your position is that our laws should be based upon the Christian faith, then you should be all in. Are you?

            “and the agenda behind making it appear normal.”

            Homosexuality is not normal, nor will it ever be. In “normalcy” is irrelevant to the legal issue.

            “Judgement is coming.”

            Do you have a date? I’d like to plan something. Perhaps a nice brunch. I do love brunch.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your repetitive error is expected.

            It’ll come at a time when you least expect it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “Your repetitive error is expected.”

            What error are you referring to?

            “It’ll come at a time when you least expect it.”

            I don’t expect it at all, therefore it can’t come at a time when I least expect it.

          • FoJC_Forever

            When you least expect it, then the End will come.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            So you don’t know what error you are referring to. Got it. Thanks.

            “When you least expect it, then the End will come.”

            Well that makes it kinda hard to plan brunch. I guess I’ll just keep some Eggos in the freezer. You can make them at the spur of the moment.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You are much like the people who constantly berated Jesus with continued questions, although they didn’t really care about the answers. You simply are groping in Darkness and railing against me, as if I’m responsible for you being stuck in it.

            You can leave the Darkness, if you will call upon Jesus, the Light, to save you from your Sin.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You are nothing like Jesus, since he answered those questions.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Yes, I have a “date”, but it’s with all the others who have been born of the Spirit and are following Jesus (the) Christ. If you want to attend, you’ll have to receive Salvation from Jesus.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’ll ask again:

            are you also as verbal regarding making divorce illegal except in cases of adultery? How about making it illegal for people to have sexual relations prior to marriage? How about making it illegal to not honor your mother and father? How about making it illegal to have no Gods other than the Christian god? How about limiting freedom of speech so that it would be illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain?

            If your position is that our laws should be based upon the Christian faith, then you should be all in. Are you?

          • FoJC_Forever

            These used to be against the law in America, but people like yourself wanted “freedom” and the laws were changed. There were different times in history when morality wasn’t as uncommonly practiced as it is today.

            The Constitution made it clear that government could not establish a religion to which everyone had to adhere and accept, or be legally punished.

            Two people of the same gender living together as though they’re “married” is not punishable under any law of which I am aware.

            Sodomy is a health hazard, as well as a sin.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “These used to be against the law in America”

            You are mistaken. It was never illegal to not honor your mother and father. It was never illegal to take the Christian god’s name in vain. It has never been illegal to have a god other than the Christian god.

            “but people like yourself wanted “freedom” and the laws were changed.”

            So you DON’T want freedom?

            “The Constitution made it clear that government could not establish a religion to which everyone had to adhere and accept”

            So? The constitution also says that citizens must be treated equally under the law. You don’t agree with that. Why should you agree with not establishing a national religion?

            “Sodomy is a health hazard, as well as a sin.”

            So then you want to make it illegal – for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, correct? And further, to make all things that Christians view as sin illegal, correct?

            I’ll ask yet again:

            are you also as verbal regarding making divorce illegal except in cases of adultery? How about making it illegal for people to have sexual relations prior to marriage? How about making it illegal to not honor your mother and father? How about making it illegal to have no Gods other than the Christian god? How about limiting freedom of speech so that it would be illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain?

            If your position is that our laws should be based upon the Christian faith, then you should be all in. Are you?

            You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you think are paramount in deciding law and which aren’t. Either you believe the Bible should be a determining factor in our laws, or you don’t. Anything else is hypocritical.

            So which is it?

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re convoluted and need to research more about the laws which have been enacted and repealed in this nation over the decades, both state and local.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            So there have been laws in our nation that made it illegal to take the Christian god’s name in vain, no honor your mother and father, and believe in a god other than Christian god?

            Since you obviously know more about that than I do, would you please cite these laws?

          • Pithy Me

            When? When is the big judgement coming? Hundreds of religious fanatics have been predicting this thing for thousands of years, and guess what? They have always been wrong! In this day and age you should realize that your dire prediction will not only be wrong, but it will be rightly ridiculed. Go for it – pick a date. Put yourself on the lengthy list of fools who have shown such delight in the destruction of non-Christians.

          • FoJC_Forever

            God has been doling out judgements for thousands of years. Like most, you ignore them. You have been told, you do not care. Thus, you are in danger of being cast away into Eternal Damnation. This is when Judgement comes.

            It’s lonely there, and dark, and very hot. No one will hear you there and you will find no comfort for the agony the absence of all Good creates around you. You will also know that it is your fault entirely for getting put there, for you sought an existence completely separate from God. You seek, you find.

            You can turn now, an call upon Jesus (the) Christ and be saved from your Sin. You can let Him fill you with His Spirit and receive His Life and Light. He stands waiting to show you that the existence apart from Him isn’t worth all the effort you put into maintaining it.

        • Sheadian Whilby Cantu

          thank you…..Jesus mentioned the depths of Satan in revelation……this is part of it……remember it convinced 1/3 of heaven to rebel….humans are lower than angels so sadly many will follow it

      • Sheadian Whilby Cantu

        hey I have an idea why call it marriage call it what it is sodomy and lesbian whatever…leave marriage to those who can adhere to its function…I.e. reproduction….I am. disgusted by a
        small group of people causing such turmoil for so many….Christian institutions that does good work will have to close because a perversion is opposed by them……Still we’ll tell you to repent because the is a court date made for those transgress.

        • Paul Hiett

          Ah, so anyone who can’t reproduce can’t marry? You sure do hate a lot of people.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          “leave marriage to those who can adhere to its function…I.e. reproduction”

          Civil marriage does not require reproduction nor does reproduction require civil marriage. Therefore, the function of civil marriage is not reproduction.

          “I am. disgusted by a small group of people causing such turmoil for so many”

          The only reason there is turmoil is because some people are unable to accept that the legal status of civil marriage should not be restricted based upon those people’s religious beliefs. The “turmoil” comes because they are upset that they can’t impose their religious beliefs on the population as a whole. If they weren’t so selfish and self-centered, there wouldn’t be turmoil.

          “Christian institutions that does good work will have to close because a perversion is opposed by them”

          Hyperbole. Have you seen that happen in any of the countries where same-gender marriage has been legal for years?

      • Sheadian Whilby Cantu

        only a blind person would ask that question…you ask the wrong question…the question you should ask. is. Lord Jesus like the blind man in the bible who you gave sight…..please give me eyes to see

        • Paul Hiett

          You didn’t answer the question.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          So you don’t know how the words of Jesus regarding marriage are relevant to our civil laws. Got it. Thanks.

    • RRiggs

      Yeah, you call gay people “abominations” and then cry like little babies when they fight back.

      What wusses!

      • FoJC_Forever

        Homosexuality is an abomination to God, not homosexuals. Homosexuals are people giving in to lusts present in their carnal nature – sinners. They can be saved from the Sin which is present in their carnal nature through and by Jesus Christ. The problem is that many won’t agree with God about their sinfulness and call upon Jesus to save them from it.

        • RRiggs

          Oh, friggin’ please! Have you EVER read any of the comments made on (pick a forum) where gay marriage is discussed? If you had, you would see that your pretty little distinctions never quite pan out like that in practice. Have you EVER been to an evangelical church when the sermon is about gay marriage? Again, you would find no such fine distinctions made.

          I’m all happy for you that you have this compartmentalized, Chinese Wall rationale that you’ve erected in your brain. But if you think that it reflects the reality of what gays experience in real life, you are dumb as a post. You ever see those signs “GOD HATES F*GS!!” That’s all you and your religious nonsense slithering out into the real world.

          • FoJC_Forever

            God doesn’t hate homosexuals. Homosexual behavior is just one of the many sins committed by those who have willingly donned the title of homosexual. God hates the Sin that’s destroying them, as well as everyone else. This is why God sent Jesus, His Word made flesh to become a Son. He sent Jesus to separate people from their Sin by paying the price for Sin. God’s Love is true Love, not the pseudo-feeling based emotional kind sold in most religious institutions in America.

            I realize you want to label me as one filled with hate, but you’re wrong. I’m not a part of the group to which you are referring, nor would I be if I lived in close proximity to them.

            You’re simply a condescending, arrogant person who believes he or she possesses intelligence and insight. I don’t think you want to, but you can still escape Eternal Damnation by calling on Jesus to save you from your Sin.

          • MisterPine

            I’m sorry, but you gave up your right to be taken seriously when you said that Catholics are not Christians. I mean that’s the most insane thing I’ve ever heard.

          • Phipps Mike

            got that right. Catholics are the ORIGINAL Christians. hence why anybody that goes against them are Protestant Christians.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Truth doesn’t stop being Truth because it isn’t taken seriously.

          • MisterPine

            It is a lie, and a very obvious lie, to say that Catholics are not Christians. Surprised you haven’t outraged more Catholics on this forum with an obnoxious statement like that one.

          • RRiggs

            If I’m condescending it’s because I do not suffer fools gladly. And for you to say “Oh, it ain’t me” is BS. Every time you go on about how “it’s the sin, not the sinner,” it’s a distinction without a difference that feeds into the general condemnation of gay people. It may make you feel cozy at night, but it’s cold comfort to the many gay men and women that have been beaten, humiliated and killed in the name of “God.”

            Not that any of that would bother you. It’s not like you’d ever say, “Ya know, maybe this message IS hurting people, even unintentionally. Maybe it’s really something that’s too harmful to preach.” No, cuz it’s the “word of God” to you. The damages to gay people could stack to the moon and you wouldn’t stop.

            And stuff your save-your-soul crap. You’re a snake-oil salesmen of the lowest type. You are trying to convert me using fear. Fear. That’s all you’ve got. Your most holy “God” is so wondrous and powerful, he has to threaten people into allegiance. In the real world, that’s called being a thug.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’m sorry you’re on your way to Hell. You can turn from that direction and be saved from your Sin by Jesus (the) Christ. Call upon Him and He will save you.

          • Phipps Mike

            ” Homosexual behavior is just one of the many sins committed by those who have willingly donned the title of homosexual.”

            hmmmm well heterosexuality is a sin too, when its fornication…yettttt, I have NOT seen ANY of you pious Christians crying about all of the fornication going on in the world. That PROVES its just bigotry on your part.

          • FoJC_Forever

            If you haven’t seen it, it’s simply because you’re not looking in the right places.

          • Paul Hiett

            What people do in their bedroom, legally, is no one’s issue but theirs. Grow up and stop worrying about the sex lives of others.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Well, the agenda isn’t just about horrors they commit with one another in private, it’s also about putting in front of others and to make others accept it as normal.

          • Paulette Stanek

            My point exactly! I dont want to know.OK. Go back in the closet. I don’t want to know!

          • Phipps Mike

            the media covers the gripes of Christians always fighting against homosexuality, yet never do you see or hear anything by the media that Christians are against that same kind of bed activities being used by hetero couples. Even right here in CNN. NEVER see it here, either. So its ok for a married hetero couple to have anal? hmmmmm

          • FoJC_Forever

            Already answered.

          • Phipps Mike

            than SHOW me any url that contains any such griping.

          • smbelow

            “That’s all you and your religious…”
            And what does that say about the LGBT side of things; where they take it further than signs with hateful writing on it?

          • RRiggs

            Oh, I’m sorry. Are you concerned that a minority that has been oppressed and humiliated by religious folk for eons might offend your sensibilities a bit when they finally are allowed to have a voice?

            I don’t think you appreciate how much anger you’ve earned among the ranks of the LGBT. Ya know, the lynchings, the beatings, the shaming… that sort of thing tends to gnaw at people after a while. And now that religious folk are being called on their bigotry, a lot of that anger is coming out.

            I don’t condone violence against you, of course. But frankly, you guys have totally earned some payback if it happens. The lucky thing for you is that even if LGBT supporters cross the line sometimes… even frequently! you will never know the true fear and hostility they had to live with in this country. At best, you’d get a taste. But hey, keep condemning them, their marriages, their families, and you might get lucky and have a fraction of your paranoia vindicated!

          • smbelow

            “Are you concerned that a minority …”

            Umm…no.

            “I don’t think you appreciate how much anger you’ve earned…”

            I passed this to you before. Please point to the scriptures that validate ANY violence towards LGBT people from Christians.

            “the lynchings, the beatings,”

            Scripture please.

            “shaming”

            They should be ashamed!

            ” on their bigotry,”

            the bigotry is coming from your camps.

            “I don’t condone violence against you”

            Yes you do. Don’t be a coward. Your posts indicate that if my type (Christians) were being jailed and killed, you’d have no problem with it. Heck! I would expect you’d find a job to help. I’m sure you’ve been smiling at all those Christians losing their heads in the Middle East, too.

          • RRiggs

            Go ahead and believe that I could or would be as malicious as you imagine. It would be just another lie that you can believe religiously.

          • smbelow

            Have you not read the Stanford University prison experiment? Remove a Christian foundation and that’s your outcome. And from the posts I read by you, you’d be a prime candidate to fall in line lock stock and barrel.

            ” just another lie”

            But from your worldview, what’s wrong with lying if it serves the collective.

          • amostpolitedebate

            The issue isn’t really scripture. People ignore horrible things in the bible all the time. The larger issue is the attitudes and exaggerated claims nurtured in religious institutions.

            True, very few people outright advocate violence and murder. However when you make claims like allowing gay marriage will cause hurricanes or that all gay people are secretly pedophiles you bear some of the responsibility when members of your congregation take these ideas to their logical conclusions.

        • amostpolitedebate

          I’m sorry you’ve been forced to live in a multicultural society where people are allowed to peacefully hold beliefs that differ from your own. That must be hard.

          • FoJC_Forever

            If homosexuals held them peacefully, they wouldn’t be ranting and raving and attacking people who don’t agree with them. They wouldn’t be filing law suits over stupid things like cakes and flowers and photos.

          • amostpolitedebate

            The attacks in question aren’t happening and Christians are loosing lawsuits because being a jerk to somebody over something beyond their control is wrong both morally and legally.

            Honestly Christians, just take the money and move on with your life.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Not being forced to participate in someone else’s celebration of sin is the Right of every Christian given to them from God. The law should reflect this, but it has been and is being changed to force Christians to do so.

          • Phipps Mike

            “Not being forced to participate in someone else’s celebration of sin”
            baking a cake is NOT celebrating.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Answered already.

          • Phipps Mike

            sorry but you didn’t. You didn’t even articulate HOW you can consider it participation.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I did on another comment. Click my profile and review all my comments and you’ll find your answer.

          • Phipps Mike

            I saw your answers in my email, You didnt state HOW you consider baking a cake is participation. Its obvious that you KNOW that it ISNT. You have to donate to the cause or be there physically AT the venue of the wedding to be considered a participant, That is an undisputable fact.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’ve already commented in detail about it, maybe not you directly. Clicking on my profile and looking at my comments isn’t hard and will take you to the information you’re asking from me.

          • Bobby Mae

            Again, you simply aren’t important enough to say things like that. Someone asks in person your view on something would you say go look at my disquus account? Lol grow up

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            So is it celebrating adultery if you bake a wedding cake for a couple where either of them have been divorced for reasons other than adultery?

            How about baking an engagement party cake for a couple who is having sexual relations prior to marriage? Is that celebrating their fornication?

            How about baking a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother? Is that celebrating her fornication?

            How about refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage because your strongly held religious beliefs are that the races should not mix. That would be OK?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Yes.

            Yes.

            No. It’s “celebrating” (providing necessities for) the baby, who has not committed a sin.

            Interracial marriage is not a sin.

          • amostpolitedebate

            You say this, but I get the feeling that if you were ever booted from a Denny’s because you were Protestant instead of Catholic you’d be pretty upset and would probably consider legal action.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I would not. I’d be a bit surprised, but I’d just praise God and go somewhere else.

          • MisterPine

            If you are a Christian who is not Catholic or Orthodox, then you are by definition a Protestant. There is no other option.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You are wrong. You have no understanding of God, nor of Christianity. You can keep running around in circles trying to make some sense, but you will still be confused until you lay down your life and follow Jesus.

          • MisterPine

            It is inexcusable that you claim to be a Christian and have so little knowledge of Christian history. This has nothing to do with whether or not I follow your messiah, this is about understanding the definition of the word Protestant, which you clearly do not. You have already made a fool of yourself by stating that Catholics are not Christians. Now you’re starting to appear rather pathetic. Fundamentalism kills brain cells.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I have not made a fool of myself. I’ve simply stated a Truth, as revealed by the Holy Spirit. Christian “history” isn’t as relevant as you think, because history gets written and rewritten as society changes, in so many ways.

            The Christian is someone who knows God now, not one who uses mankind’s historical accounts from which to live by Faith. In fact, it’s impossible to have Faith by trusting in history.

            God is now. Jesus is now. The Holy Spirit is now.

            What you need to be concerned about is your current lost condition and seeking the LORD to be saved from your Sin. All this feigned support of Catholicism is expected, since both you and Catholics are Unbelievers, but it’s really a bit silly, since you don’t claim to be Catholic either. You’ve proven yourself to be a fool.

          • MisterPine

            Your Holy Spirit has not “revealed” anything to anyone, and it certainly would not “reveal” something as patently ridiculous and demonstrably false as your statement that Catholics are not Christians.

            “It’s impossible to have faith by trusting in history”. Those who rely on history are not LOOKING for faith. They are looking for historical facts and data. Which makes the fact that Catholics are Christians an indisputable truth.

            I think you need to focus more on yourself and less on other people. Your judgement isn’t righteous, it is a ridiculous house of cards. And the longer you deny recorded history and facts, the worse you appear.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re a liar and a pawn of the father of lies. You don’t know the meaning of Faith nor the place of its origin. You’re simply another person groping in Darkness, pretending to know things of which you are completely ignorant. Your wicked nature is apparent in your words.

            Catholics are not Christians, and they have never been Christians. You are a professed antichrist and your support of Catholicism is just more proof of its pagan origins. Those who look to history are looking through a pinhole from afar. You see very little.

            My appearance to you and your kind is not relevant. You have chosen Darkness and will receive Satan’s reward.

            The Holy Spirit is the One who reveals God, the Son, and imparts His Truth into the hearts, minds, and bodies of Believers.

          • MisterPine

            Hypocritical peacock! So typical of a fundamentalist Christian, when you’re proven wrong your only response is to say I’m deceived by Satan. You have been proven wrong by reliable sources such as history books and even the DICTIONARY which states clearly that Catholics are Christians. I’m not a Catholic OR a Christian and I know this, so it is COMPLETELY INEXCUSABLE that you do not.

            Fundamentalism is brain cancer, and you have it in spades.

          • FoJC_Forever

            If someone is covered in mud, stating they are dirty is simply an accurate observation.

            You are covered in the mud of unbelief and sin, and are antichrist.

            Catholics have never been Christians. Catholicism has always been a twisting together of Christianity and Paganism. Your unerring support of it is just more proof.

          • MisterPine

            You are simply lying. And lying for Jesus is still lying. You have not presented any facts to support your argument, only your faith, which is worthless. Catholics were Christians hundreds of years before your fly-by-night cult showed up to claim itself the real deal. That is frankly embarrassing. It’s like a Chevrolet telling a Ford that it isn’t a real car.

          • Pithy Me

            Gotta say Bud … you come off as a raving lunatic. You do, however, have all your little talking points neatly aligned in your concern for the sex lives of other people. If you could only see just how creepy you are to people that like to live in the real world, you might start minding your own freaking business. But we all know that when it comes to delusional pious types (like yourself), that is not going to happen any time soon. But rest assured – religious folks and your hold over people is coming to a swift end, and the world will be a better place for it.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Homosexuality is one of the creepiest things in the fallen world.

            The End is indeed coming. You need to lay down your life, receive the Life Jesus wants to give you, then take up the cross He has for you and follow Him. He will forgive your Sin and fill you with His Righteousness. You have but to call upon the LORD and ask.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Why do the LGBTQ+ want us to know their sex lives? If it’s not their sex lives they want us to accept, then what is it? And why can’t it be done without us all knowing AND TALKING about this person or that person has sex like this and that is why you have to call them “this”. We don’t want to hear about other people’s sex lives! But it’s being forced on us to be aware of it. I could care less about who is have this or that kind of sex, so stop telling me that, and tell me what kind of person you are; what good things can you do for this world? How do you treat others – do you treat them as you want them to treat you – which is by no means just a religious attitude – or do you get angry if someone won’t accept the you that you show to the world? Or do you treat them as cruelly as they are treating you? Those are the things that will make a difference to people who don’t want to know about your sex lives.

    • alrotundo

      You’re another idiot who’s never read the Bible you thump. Jesus never said one word about homosexuals – not one. Why don’t you know this?

      • FoJC_Forever

        I read it all the time. Yes, He spoke directly to Marriage being between male and female. Only Marriage incorporates sexual activity, since all sexual activity outside of Marriage is Sin. He spoke to this as well. Because the word ‘homosexuality’ isn’t in the Bible, doesn’t mean it isn’t covered. It is also listed in Romans 1, as a Sin.

        See, it’s foolish people like you who don’t know the Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ, who are lying to people about what the Scriptures contain. The abundance of opinion doesn’t make something Truth. Jesus is Truth, and He has spoken.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Watch for a ramping up of activity of Christian forums and other comment avenues from the homosexuals and their advocates. They seek to overwhelm others with their lies and inaccurate information in order to catch unsuspecting people off guard.

    Stay in the Word and continue to seek God’s Will, and the Holy Spirit will reveal their falsehoods.

    • RRiggs

      I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Keep it up! Keeping fighting against the inevitable and playing the victim!

      See, I’m an atheist and I support expression that will drive more people away from superstitious nonsense. One of the things that has surprised me the most about the gay marriage issue is how abominably religious folks have conducted themselves, fighting to the last man against something that will have little to no actual impact on them. Common sense, numerous court decisions, business pressure, crushing attorney fees… all those be damned! Your bigotry co-signed by “God” is all you need!

      And I couldn’t thank you enough for it! You guys could have left gay people alone, but noooooo…. And as a result, religious folks are driving people away from their pews. Young people think you’re a joke, and they believe this in part because of how religious people have conducted themselves in this debate.

      So keep it up! I can’t tell you how sincerely I mean this. If I had to craft the perfect messenger to expose religious ignorance, bigotry and paranoia, it wouldn’t be someone like Hitchens or Dawkins… it would be someone like you.

      • smbelow

        You fail to understand scripture. As with Jesus when he was ministering, many left because of his message. This is going to happen. Christians expect this. This world is getting more and more inhospitable towards true believers.

        John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

        1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

        Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

        Unfortunately, your current position on reality is not going to be too comforting in front of the judgment seat.

        • RRiggs

          Yes! Yes! More of that!

          It’s so delicious that I’ve lived long enough to see the tables turned on you hucksters. To see good, hard-working people be able to openly disagree with your nonsense (which simply was not the case even 20 years ago). To see more and more youth reject the intellectual laziness of religious belief. And it’s only going to get better.

          The Christian stranglehold on America is coming loose. Now, I’m optimistic that I will see churches torn down by the dozens in my lifetime. Not because they’ve been shut down by force, but because there’s no one going. These centers of ignorance will shut down as quietly as Blockbuster stores.

          I can’t thank you enough for your contribution!

          • smbelow

            “intellectual laziness of religious belief.”

            That’s interesting. Because since I’ve been seeing the foolishness of atheism’s, so called, reasoning, I’ve been studying more than ever. Everything from cosmology to biology and everything in-between. Whereas before, I was content in just my field of expertise.

            I really hope you have everything you want in this life. Because the instant after death, you’re going to understand the terrible mistake you’ve made.

            However, there’s still hope. I’ll pray for you Mr. RRiggs and hope the truth makes it into your heart.

          • RRiggs

            And I hope that the “Truth” doesn’t cause you to fly an airplane into a building.

          • smbelow

            Please, inform me of where in scripture I’m commanded to do physically attack unbelievers.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You have it turned around. It was the adulterous, sexually imbued culture which empowered the homosexuals to start coming together to attack Christianity. This was taking place as far back as the 1980’s, at the very least. Companies were hiring false religious teachers to lie to their employees about homosexuality in mandatory meetings.

        I’m not concerned about your personal opinions about me. I’m familiar with Hitchens and Dawkins. Unbelievers, entertaining, and filled with Darkness. They are following their natural course to Eternal Damnation.

        As far as your reference to “driving people away from their pews”, it is obvious you have no clue what constitutes a Christian and what it means to follow Jesus Christ.

        Opposing a sin is not bigotry. In fact, there is very little actual bigotry going on against homosexuals, but there is much going on towards Christians from people like yourself.

    • Bobby Mae

      Nice. Use words vague enough to not really say anything, but that will appeal to your group and gather support from blind followers. You a politician?

      • FoJC_Forever

        There’s nothing vague about what I wrote.

        • Bobby Mae

          Delusional.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Actually I just like arguing for the fun of it.

      • FoJC_Forever

        I know.

    • weasel1886

      Are you saying Christians are too stupid to think for themselves?

      • FoJC_Forever

        Are you implying people already know everything and don’t need more information?

        • Paul Hiett

          That would be the mindset of the religious.

        • weasel1886

          What I’m saying is that people shouldn’t just read one source in order to form an opinion. We should read many points of view and not just trust any of them for a complete answer

  • BarkingDawg

    So, the are using the Bob Jones inter-racial case as their guide.

    How many universities closed after that case was decided?

    • amostpolitedebate

      A few, probably. Do we really feel bad about that though?

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    And today’s award for hysterical hyperbole goes to…….[drumroll, please]………Michael Farris!!!!! Congratulations Michael!

    • BarkingDawg

      The total lack of self awareness vis-a-vis the case where Bob Jones college lost its ability to discriminate based on interracial marriages is stunning.

      The last time I checked, Bob Jones is still in opperation.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “And this includes churches,””

        Not to mention all the churches that are still up and running.

  • LeftCoast

    Mr. Farris, is this about money or ministry? If it’s about money, then ministry goes out the door. If it’s about ministry, continue to build young people to know God, find their ministry and their purpose regardless of the money or what the court says. God will provide. You can’t have them both, pick your master.

  • MIKE

    The only reason the school would close is due to the stupidity of this president of the college. No Christian is discriminated against because of their religion.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Be aware of one of the trolling strategies commonly employed online: people who will role play being a Christian, or antagonist to the Christian antagonist, in order to get conversations moving. They commonly copy and save comments for later use, merely tweaking them to fit the situation. One liners are frequently used to bait people to long threads which simply meander and supply entertainment for the trolls, almost always at the expense of unsuspecting and honest people.

    • weasel1886

      Very true. These boards are for entertainment so I don’t see a problem

      • FoJC_Forever

        Many don’t see comment sections and forums as entertainment. Those who do are insincere and are merely playing a game with words and beliefs. Words matter and using them in an entertaining fashion on a comment board or forum when discussing Christianity or claiming to be writing as a Christian is contrary to what Jesus taught. You have claimed to have read your Bible, so you should know that words are important and an indicator of what’s in your heart.

        One problem you have is doubling back on yourself. You say you don’t insult people, but I just read through many of your comments, on this site and others, and read several personal attack and insults. You should quit lying to people, simply to participate in “entertainment”.

        • weasel1886

          I should clarify. I never begin the insults.
          These boards are just wntertainment. People say things here they would never say to someones face. They really have no purpose other than to get people to look at the site and the site exists to make money. Just because it says Christian doesn’t mean it cares anything about faith

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, they do tend to slant the articles and omit pieces of vital information so it appears to have a Christian viewpoint.

          • weasel1886

            Agreed. They keep people stirred up to keep them coming back whichs drives sales

          • FoJC_Forever

            They’re not for my entertainment and I don’t use the words I type to entertain people.

            I don’t think making money is the sole purpose for the Christian News Network web site, although they obviously have to generate some sort of income to pay the bills for it.

          • weasel1886

            For prifit entertainment that is all

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your wrong, but you already know that. You like the game of bantering back and forth with people about things you don’t actually care about and don’t know much about.

          • weasel1886

            I don’t care what you think only that I can control your emotions and can get you to respond.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Nice trick. The assumption is that if I respond it “proves” you’re right. You claim to be Christian and think manipulating or attempting to manipulate people is okay with Jesus? In no way does God approve of people trying to emotionally and mentally manipulate people.

            People can effect other people’s emotions. This is not a new reality. But, you can’t control my emotions. If someone is currently under your manipulation, and it can be proven, you should be charged with abuse and receive appropriate punishment.

            What you’ve just said is enough, in my opinion, to launch an investigation into your personal life in order to make certain someone isn’t trapped by you under abusive control.

          • weasel1886

            All advertising is based on manipulating emotions. So you should be attacking business for soing it not me. You are manipulated every day. It’s part of the world

    • SpeakTruth

      How do you know people are pretending to be a Christian? Just because a Christian disagrees with you doesn’t make them any less Christian than you.

      • MisterPine

        FoJC does not believe Catholics are Christians.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Jesus said it, so it’s Truth. It isn’t about disagreeing with me.

  • Daniel M. Jenkins

    Sorry, you lost a little bit of credibility when you decried the precedent of Bob Jones University suffering discrimination because they don’t recognize interracial marriage…
    And if private religious Universities are tax exempt, why aren’t non-religious private Universities not also tax exempt?

  • amostpolitedebate

    It saddens me to see that so many Christians have been deceived by the forces of Satan into hating and harming those that have done them no wrong. To feel such animus as to inflict the pain of rejection and fear onto mere children must truly be the work of one who is possessed by evil. I will pray to the TRUE lord Jesus Christ to lift the deception from their eyes and see them as friends, neighbors and family instead of the shallow caricatures they’ve been fed by the devil and his agents.

    Amen.

  • Phipps Mike

    ““In the (1983) Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not
    entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or
    interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college
    if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked.”

    ok, so this means that colleges finally accepted inter-racial marriages, so why then cant they accept Gay marriages? hmmmmmmm

  • Bobby Mae

    Funny how it’s being glossed over that many Christian universities and Christians in general believed that interracial dating went against the Bible til 1983. Christians, hello? Care to explain this to me?

  • http://GREATSITE.COM/ John Lawton Jeffcoat III

    I continue to be amazed at how many anti-Christianity TROLLS post on this ChristianNews.Net website… and how the System Administrator allows it to continue.

    • Paul Hiett

      Maybe because he sees that it’s the Christians who resort to childish insults?

    • weasel1886

      If you disagee you are a troll if you agree then you are practicing free speech?

    • Bobby Mae

      We’re not anti Christianity, we’re anti homophobic, racist, xenophobic hypocritical “Christians”

  • Conservative seer

    Gay marriage is an abomination Period.

    • Bobby Mae

      Actually the bible says nothing about gay marriage so stop.blaspheming

  • Conservative seer

    There seems to be a lot of homosexuals commenting on this website

    • weasel1886

      How do you know if someone is gay ? Magic powers?

  • StevesWeb

    I’m already in a legal gay marriage here in California. I compiled a list of all of the living, deceased, and imaginary people who have been harmed by my marriage. There are no names on the list. Even Baby Jesus has not been harmed.

    The idea that my marriage could shut down schools where kids are taught I’m evil is, of course, preposterous, but it does have a certain appeal.

  • Peter Leh

    chrisitan schools are closing now. either fund it or close your doors.

  • Kena

    First, the body of U.S. Supreme Court are not our legislators, so they cannot impose laws which are non-existent nor can they make laws.

    Second, The U.S. Constitution constrains all of the Federal Government from dealing with marriage. Read the Constitution, it’s not a large document and every citizen should read and understand it.

    The U.S. Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land as many say. It is the
    Supreme law which is intended to both empower and constrain the Federal
    Government and in some cases the States and the people, period. The
    main purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to govern the Federal
    Government so that they do not trample on the rights of or oppress the
    citizens. For the most part we are to self govern.

    All things not empowered to the Federal Government are passed on to the powers of the people and their relative states.

    • Phipps Mike

      you need to update your education. The SCOTUS is the checks and balances component that weighs in all things that are written in the Constitution. Although, yes States have the rights to legislate what marriage IS, in their own States, if that legislation breaches the Constitution, THEN SCOTUS gets to intervene. In the case of banning same sex marriage, it is a breach of the 14th amendment (equal protection of the law). The “law” in this instance are those benefits that hetero married couples get. Gay couples should ALSO have the right to get those benefits (equal protection of the law). Because same sex law bans PREVENT that equal protection, it makes it a breach.

      • Kena

        I fully understand what the purpose of the SCOTUS is, go back and re-read my post, it is pretty plain.

        I assume this is the portion of the 14th amendment to which you refer:
        AMENDMENT XIV

        Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

        Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

        Section 1.

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
        the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
        State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
        shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
        States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
        property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
        jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Please note that the portion to which you refer actually says, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” Now which laws are you referring to which someone is being denied equal protection? Nobody is being denied justice from what I can see in this.

        • Phipps Mike

          to make a LAW AGAINST same sex marriages is denying the same sex couples the liberty to marry. So this law is not protecting them in the way it protects heteros. Oh and just so you know. Ginsburg also cites the 14th amendment on this issue.

          • Kena

            I have not seen any laws against same sex marriage but I don’t pay much attention to these things.

            The Constitution lays this at the feet of the people and the states.

            Marriage is defined by God and not men. God instituted it so it is his, period. You may call something marriage if you like all day long but that does not make it marriage. God’s laws trump all others, period so when there is a conflict I will side with God, always.

            So then, men may pontificate all the live long day but they only bloviate and it has no bearing in truth. They may as well be farting in the microphone when they try to make laws and rulings against God’s laws.

            Have a nice day. 🙂

          • Phipps Mike

            there have been over a dozen challenges to same sex marriage bans in the last 2 years that went to the United states Supreme Court. All bans were lifted. There are currently 36 States that recognize same sex marriage.
            Where we take opposition is that I don’t believe that God invented marriage and he CERTAINLY didn’t invent HOW the ceremony is to be.
            The other thing you seem to be missing is that in the United States, no ONE religion is seen as the supreme religion and no laws are to be made FROM religion.
            That’s why there are no laws making it mandatory that everybody attend church every Sunday and why prisons have to honor religious freedom and that includes Wicca.
            As long as you live in the US, you have to accept that it is NOT run by religion. You can take Gods side but the law is MANS side. So in that way, God does NOT trump man.

          • Kena

            Yeah well you seem to be missing that God’s law is the supreme law over all things created. Whenever there is a conflict God takes precedence, period. You may do whatever you want because God gives us choice. We can choose life or death, there are consequences to every choice.

            As far as ceremony is concerned, it has very little to do with marriage.

            “we hold these truths to be self evident…”
            Actually all of the early Constitutions, the states and the U.S. are based on the Bible. If you’re interested in the truth you will easily see this if you simply read them.

          • Phipps Mike

            I am not missing that at all, We are on a different wavelength here. I will have to articulate further. Yes, God is supreme, however, he does not have the power to do anything to stop gays from getting married, nor make it so the United States makes rules according to his plans., That’s where the free will comes in. the CONSEQUENCES in the AFTERLIFE is where God has that power. We will THEN be in his plane of existence. While we are on Earth though, MAN is the ruler.
            The United States was founded primarily for the purpose of all man being able to believe what they WANT to believe without persecution. It was founded to accept other ideas that may improve the system in which our country operates. Unlike a dictatorship or Monarchy.
            The pet peeve I have is when so many unenlightened Christians claim we are a “Christian nation”. That is not so. We are a country that contains MOSTLY Christians, we are NOT a “christian nation”, A christian nation means that EVERYBODY here is ruled by Christian laws. The establishment clause forbids that and so does freedom of religion, thereby proving the Constitution is NOT a christian document.

          • Kena

            Well, you’re wrong about a lot of things in your latest post but I’ll leave it at that.

            You might take the time to read the bible a few times, it might help your understanding of how God deals with people in this world as well as the next world.

            I hope you find the light, God bless you in your search sir.

  • Tricia Anthone

    What ever happened to the “live and let live” idea of “Liberalism” TODAY, so-called liberals go by “Live as I LIVE and pretend to be happy about it or I’ll take you to court”

  • SkyBluePM

    Actually jesus mentions NOTHING about homosexuality!

    Here is the verse of “relevance”:

    It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.

    There is NO MENTION of same sex marrying being a sin! Indeed it is an argument that he even endorses transgender!:

    “For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”

    So jesus SPECIFICALLY states :

    “There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven.”

    How is this NOT a reference to transgender? And NOT ONLY that, but it mentions the holy nation of heaven!

    No wonder the pope & the cardinals and the priests love to wear dresses! NOW we know!