Planned Parenthood Downplays Video of Top Director Describing Sale of Baby Body Parts

NucatolaWASHINGTON — The abortion giant Planned Parenthood is downplaying a video released this week by a pro-life group that shows a top Planned Parenthood director describing the organization’s harvesting and sale of fetal body parts and organs for medical research.

As previously reported, the Center for Medical Progress released the video on Tuesday as the next in its “Human Capital” investigative series, as it researches the organization’s illegal sales of fetal body parts in America. It features abortionist Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, who oversees the practices of all the 700-plus Planned Parenthood locations nationwide.

Nucatola thinks she’s having a business dinner with representatives of a fetal tissue procurement company, but what she doesn’t know is that the man and woman that she is speaking with are undercover investigators and are recording her conversation.

NUCATOLA: $30 TO $100 PER PRESERVED SPECIMEN

During the discussion, as she munches nonchalantly on salad, Nucatola explains that certain mothers who obtain abortions want the child’s parts to be donated to science, and that the abortion facilities wish to accommodate them, but “in a way that is not perceived as ‘This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”

She then describes in detail how the organs and extremities of the aborted babies are decidedly removed intact so that they can be sold to buyers. She outlines that the organization is paid between $30 to $100 per “specimen.”

“How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?” the male investigator asks Nucatola, wanting to find out if Planned Parenthood can set aside certain organs for sale.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It makes a huge difference,” she replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”

“It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate the other parts intact,” Nucatola explains.

“To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?” the man asks.

“Exactly,” she replies. “So then you’re just kind of cognizant where you put your graspers. You try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that—-you know. We’ve been very good at getting the heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so ‘I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.’”

She mentions a “list” that she refers to in supplying the body parts that are in demand.

“For example, I had eight cases yesterday. And I knew exactly what we needed, and I kinda looked at this list and said, ‘Alright, this 17-weeker has 8 LAMs and this one—so I knew which were the cases that were probably more likely to yield what we needed, and I made my decisions according to that, too. So, it’s worth having a huddle at the beginning of the day, and that’s what I do.”

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: WE’RE HELPING ‘LIFESAVING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH’

But Planned Parenthood released a statement on Tuesday following public disgust over the video, downplaying the matter by stating that the organization gives women the option of having their baby’s bodies donated to medical research.

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” it wrote. “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Contrary to Nucatola’s outline in the video that the organization is paid between $30 to $100 “per specimen,” Planned Parenthood asserted that the organization does not make money from the organs or body parts of the babies.

“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” the abortion giant contended. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

Planned Parenthood asserted that the video was created with malice as it believes that its involvement in “tissue donation programs”—or supplying aborted baby organs such as the child’s heart and liver—is actually doing the world an honorable service by supporting “lifesaving scientific research.”

“A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research,” it wrote.

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: PLANNED PARENTHOOD TELLING PART TRUTH, PART LIES

The Center for Medical Progress likewise released a statement after Planned Parenthood downplayed the undercover video footage.

“Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this,” it wrote. “They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.”

Nucatola, the Planned Parenthood director featured in the video, deactivated her Twitter account following release of the footage.

The Center for Medical Progress had released the full nearly three-hour video with Nucatola in addition to the eight-minute version so as to counteract concerns about the first video being edited.


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
  • robertzaccour

    When you redefine marriage everyone is gonna want in.

  • All In

    Remember the slippery slope the gay activists said we were exaggerating about?

    Since the court ruling had nothing to do with the law, anything is now fair game. There is no valid reason to deny anyone’s request to marry whoever, whatever, or how many they like. They can all say they have an ‘orientation’ that can’t be denied.

    Such is the nature of man’s sinfulness. There’s no end.

    • Tara

      I’ve been told I know nothing about which I speak, when predicting the future now that they ‘got what they wanted’. Though, we all know, it’s not what they wanted at all. They want people to have no minds of their own and agree with them, no matter what. They don’t understand God, nor what it means to be a believer. It’s sad more than anything.

      • All In

        Tragic! Since they don’t know God, they have no idea what’s really in store for them even though they have been warned over and over again.

        Christ came to save us out of the goodness of His heart. Yet, He was killed. Man truly is evil and unworthy of His love, mercy, and grace.

        • Jim H

          “Christ came to save us out of the goodness of His heart. Yet, He was killed. Man truly is evil and unworthy of His love, mercy, and grace.”
          Your theology is very confusing. The Bible clearly states that Jesus came to die. For example, he said, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28) and, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’” (Luke 24:26-27, 46).

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            I guess hes trying to say that man is not worthy of salvation. Yet God still sent his son toe die for us on the cross.

          • Jim H

            I don’t feel like he thinks these things through before he says them or that he actually has much of a developed theology, but he doesn’t let that get in the way of him being preachy.

        • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

          Why do you care? how does this affect your own personal relationship with Jesus? Why do you obsess about the sins others do? have you looked at yourself lately?

      • Jim H

        I don’t know that anyone effected really cares what people who hold your opinion think. That requires a degree of respect for your opinion that they simply don’t have. They have wisely given up on reaching you. They just want to be recognized and be treated like you would treat anyone else.

        To them you are like the white people in the South back in the segregation days, whining about uppity blacks infringing on your right to “white only” everything from drinking fountains to front of the bus seats and how they didn’t understand racial differences that required whites and blacks to be separate. Undoubtedly, they too found it sad.

        • Ken Campbell

          I’m sad that she is sad. Its also sad that her sadness is from being unable to hurt other people

          • Jim H

            Sad, indeed.

          • Ken Campbell

            Now I’m sad that you are sad. We can have a group hug later

          • Disqusdmnj

            I’m in!

        • Tara

          lol..if you guys didn’t care about what we said or thought, you wouldn’t spend so much time posturing otherwise. You protest too much for anyone to believe you guys offer the same tolerance and respect you expect. You’d think you’re old enough to realize that the world doesn’t work that way. We are adults, are we not?

          • Jim H

            You misunderstood what I said. I said “those effected”. I am not personally effected by the courts decision. I’m not gay and I have no close relatives or friends that are. I’m like a Northerner who wasn’t a slave and didn’t own any, but supported abolition just because he thought it was the right thing to do.

            However, I am not a moral relativist who sees all ideas and moral values as equal. I believe some ideas are better than others and some ideas are just plain bad and wrong. I don’t respect bad ideas and I don’t believe it is a matter of tolerance and/ or intolerance. Tolerance becomes an absurd concept if it requires the acceptance of intolerance.

            I think you personally should be able to believe whatever you want to believe and I have every right to think it is stupid. If you have the right to present your ideas into the public square, I have the right to call you stupid in public. If you keep your opinion private, I’ll do the same.

            I personally am old enough to understand some ideas are bad and not worthy of respect. I remember when the National Guard had to force Governor Wallace to let some black kids through public school doors. So, the world does and should work that way.

            You really seem to think that just because you consider something a “deeply held religious belief” it should get special treatment in the marketplace of ideas. I don’t believe that. Ideas rise or fall on their own merits, which is how it should be.

            Some of us are adults and some of us are just children having tantrums because things didn’t go our way. You decide which you want to be.

    • DNelson

      “There is no valid reason to deny anyone’s request to marry whoever, whatever, or how many they like.”

      You are simply incorrect. There are plenty of rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for not allowing marriage between “whoever, whatever, or how many they like”.

      • Oboehner

        Polygamy, incest, bestiality, name some reasons.

        • Tahatch Bearwolf

          If you are a believer you need to stop grouping polygamy with those sins, it is not a sin.

          • Oboehner

            “…and the TWO will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer TWO, but one flesh.” Mark 10:8

            “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (singular), and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

            NOT three or four as one.

          • Cyril Tangham

            Sarcastically, the two that became one flesh can marry another to become one flesh again…and the process is repeated ad infinitum..

          • Oboehner

            Do post that passage.

        • DNelson

          Polygamy – see below
          Incest – potential for genetic malformation in offspring
          Bestiality – inability to provide consent

          • Oboehner

            “see below” isn’t a reason.
            Incest – two consenting adults that “love” each other.
            Bestiality – no one cares about animal consent while having a hamburger, doesn’t matter here either especially given the animal isn’t slaughtered.

          • DNelson

            “”see below” isn’t a reason.”

            I stated reasons below in another post. If you don’t want to look for it, then don’t.

            “Bestiality – no one cares about animal consent while having a hamburger,”

            Truly one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen. Civil marriage is a legal contract. Entering into a legal contract requires consent.

          • Oboehner

            I’m not going to search through pages of crap because you can’t repost.
            A mere technicality, what I’d like to know is why it’s illegal when sodomy gets a pass.
            Incest – two consenting adults that “love” each other.

  • Dave_L

    Break out the popcorn and set back and watch. There is no end to this comedy.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Except it is a tragedy.

      • Dave_L

        Yes, but I’m watching how God takes the “wise” in their own craftiness…

  • MarkT.

    Next up, two sisters, or two brothers, or a sister and a brother, will want to get married.

    • Emmanuel

      If they are in love, why not! How about cousins? uncle and niece? how about former step mom and step son? The love is endless.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Don’t forget the livestock.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I love animals too. Just maybe not in THAT way. 🙂

          • Matilde Tavares

            Please put them behind bars, no longer safe for animals either..,

          • Jim H

            I always marvel at the hubris of a human thinking a large mammal like a cow or a horse would find a human male much more than a minor annoyance.
            I also imagine most people who tried to force themselves on anything friskier, would be lucky to live to tell about it, particularly with their parts intact.
            The whole discussion is rather absurd.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            It is absurd. But we should have a laugh once in a while.

            “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of
            Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.”

            ― Martin Luther

          • Jim H

            Luther said some interesting things. He was quite a strange character.

        • Jim H

          Didn’t God offer all the livestock to Adam first?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Genesis 2 says that even after Adam named all the animals there was still not a suitable mate for him. I can imagine his frustration. “…yak, zebra. ?? Darn, I must have missed one. Once more from the top: aardvark, albatross, antelope…

      • Jim H

        How about half siblings like Abraham and Sarah? Or Jacob who married both of his Uncle’s daughters (his cousins) Rachel and Leah.

        • Angel Jabbins

          Here is your answer from http://www.gotquestions. org/incest-in-the-Bible.html

          Question: “Why did God allow incest in the Bible?”

          Answer:There are numerous examples of incest in the Bible. The most commonly thought-of examples are the sons/daughters of Adam and Eve (Genesis 4), Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12), Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19), Moses’ father Amram who married his aunt Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), and David’s son Amnon with his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13). It is important to note, however, that in two of the above instances (Tamar and Lot) one of the parties involved was an unwilling participant in the incest.

          It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed incest in the early centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were indeed the only two human beings God created, their sons and daughters would have had no other choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation would have had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah would have had to intermarry amongst their cousins. The reason incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.

          It seems, then, that by the time of Moses, the human genetic code had become polluted enough that close intermarriage was no longer safe. So, God commanded against sexual relations with siblings, half-siblings, parents, and aunts/uncles (Genesis 2:24seems to indicate that marriage and sexual relations between parents and children were never allowed by God). It was not until many centuries later that humanity discovered the genetic reason that incest is unsafe and unwise. While the idea of incest is disgusting and abhorrent to us today, as it should be, we have to remember why it is sinful, that is, the genetic problems. Since this was not an issue in the early centuries of humanity, what occurred between Adam and Eve’s children, Abraham and Sarah, and Amram and Jochebed, should not be viewed as incest. Again, the key point is that sexual relations between close relatives must be viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not become “incest” until God commanded against it.

          • Jim H

            The fact that the act became undesirable because of its possible results would only make it immoral under a consequential ethical system. Deontological ethical systems, such as divine command assumes an objective, or intrinsic, moral wrongness of an act.

            If God originally allowed sexual relations between close relatives it could not be intrinsically, or objectively wrong later, because the nature of the act did not change, it merely became unadvisable because of the consequences.

            Saying that sexual relations between close relatives must be viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law conflicts with any idea of the kind of objective or intrinsic morality Christianity claims to adhere to.

            Saying it did not become “incest” until God commanded against it is playing semantic games.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Ridiculous. There would be no human race today had Adam and Eve’s offspring not reproduced with each other. The human race had to procreate and it was not considered by God to be incest (or sin) at the start since He made only two people and told them to multiply and populate the earth. It was not morally wrong until God declared it to be so in Leviticus….at a time when it began to cause problems genetically. He alone is the Lawgiver and He doesn’t have to answer to anyone…especially not to you.

          • Jim H

            I don’t think you realize it, but you just agreed that the act itself was not intrinsically, or objectively wrong. It only became wrong because of the consequences.

            So what are you, a deontologist or consequentialist? Is an act good or bad based on eternal unchanging objective moral values or on the consequences of the action which can very and changes over time?

            I wasn’t asking God for an answer. I was asking for an answer from folks like yourself who apparently feel like they can speak for him.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I do not speak for God. God has already spoken in the Bible. Only God gets to decide when something is or is not morally wrong. He is the Judge of all of things. If there is no all powerful, all knowing God who decides, then we all just do what we feel is right in our own eyes. (Isn’t that what Hitler did and millions followed him.) The world will not last very long when that happens. It is happening now…evil called good and good called evil…. and we are truly moving closer to Judgment Day and Christ’s return.

          • Jim H

            Angel:

            If God decides when something is or is not morally wrong and that can change over time, then acts are not intrinsically or objectively wrong but based on God’s whim. Wasn’t that my point?

            If you read Mein Kampf, you will realize Hitler did merely do what he thought was right. He did what he thought God saw as right. Hitler was a creationist who believed that God created the races separately and that the Aryan race was His chosen people, not unlike the Jews felt they were. He saw maintaining of the purity of the Aryan race as God’s will.

            Evil being called good and good being called evil seems to be a matter of perspective. The Old Testament is full of the genocidal slaughter of men, women and children (even infants) and the taking of virgins girls by those who conquered on God’s command. God himself destroys almost ever living thing on Earth.
            A Christian somehow manages to see all that as good, when those of us who don’t identify as such see it as unspeakably evil.
            I personally think if we are judged, things may not turn out the way you think they will.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Oh good grief, Jim. You cannot compare God to men…especially not to an evil man like Hitler!

            God did not change His mind ‘on a whim’ that incest was wrong. There was no such thing as incest until God, the Maker and Creator of everything, decided there was and that it was sin. As I already tried to tell you, He only created two people and ordained they would reproduce and their children would also reproduce. He told them to ‘multiply and fill the earth’. After several generations, as people began to forget God and turn from Him (thinking they could be their own gods, much like today) and involve themselves in more sin and especially sins of a sexual nature (and birth defects began to occur), He said no more intermarrying and forbid the practice in the laws He gave to His people the Jews (Leviticus), from whom the Messiah would come. They were to be a holy people. At the time He called them, the rest of the nations were worshiping other gods and engaging in all kinds of unspeakable evil. much of it sexual. (They were even sacrificing their children to false gods…burning them alive.) God’s goal was to set apart a people for Himself to be an example to the other nations and from whom He would send the Savior of the world. They were given many commands on how to live to set them apart from the sinful people around them and to prepare a people from whom He would send His Son into the world.

            Hitler was an atheist. Yes, he said all kinds of things to get himself into power…cozied up to the churches…tried to sound like he was a believer in God until he came to power. Then he actually shut down churches which did not go along with his policies. He was no believer in God! He was an atheist whom Satan used to try to wipe out God’s people, The Jews. But he failed, didn’t he? It was a perversion of God’s plan in setting aside the Jewish nation as special. Hitler (under Satan’s inspiration) was trying to set apart the Aryans as special…Satan trying to mock God’s plan. He will do it again soon in the Last Days. He (as the Anti-christ) will try again to wipe out Israel, but he will fail when Christ returns to judge the whole world.

            Your arguments against the God of the O.T. are tired old arguments that have been answered thoroughly over and over again. I don’t have time to explain it all right now, but here is a link with an excellent explanation. God is not a monster. He is a just God. No one can tell Him what is right or wrong….He tells us! There is no morality outside of God. None. He is the creator of it.

            https://carm. org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

            (Enter this link and then eliminate the space in front of org.)

            I hope you will read this extensive article covering your concerns. I usually find though that people like yourself often have their minds made up and will not investigate these matters with an open mind.

            Another resource (IF you are really open to learning) is The Case for Faith, a book by Lee Strobel who was a hard core atheist for many years. He covers 8 objections atheists have to faith in God and refutes each one. Initially, he set out, as an investigative journalist, to prove that Christ never existed and that Christianity was false. Out of that quest, came his first book, A Case for Christ. It was during that investigation, he surprised himself, turning from atheist to believer. Two good books…get ’em cheap on Amazon. What have you to got to lose? You might learn some things you never knew…if you can put your bias aside long enough to open your mind.

            Moving on now. Praying for you. Take care.

          • Jim H

            “Oh good grief, Jim. You cannot compare God to men…especially not to an evil man like Hitler!”

            I don’t think I actually compared God to anyone. I believe the comparison was between the Jews and Nazis. I did mention God killing almost every living thing, but I didn’t compare it to anything or anyone, because (so far) we humans have not managed to be destructive on a scale anywhere close to that.

            However, to respect a moral law giver, wouldn’t you need to believe that the law giver was more moral as than the people he was giving the law to?

            “God did not change His mind ‘on a whim’ that incest was wrong. There was no such thing as incest until God, the Maker and Creator of everything, decided there was and that it was sin.”

            A whim is a sudden idea or turn of the mind. So if God decides that, after a thousand or so years of being okay with it, he doesn’t like relationships between close relatives that is a whim. Also it is kind of silly to argue over the word “incest”, since that word appears no where in the Bible. God just went from allowing sex between close relatives to not allowing it.

            Incest is an modern English word that means sexual intercourse between people who are very closely related. Whether it is a sin or not is irrelevant to that definition.

            “Hitler was an atheist. Yes, he said all kinds of things to get himself into power…cozied up to the churches…tried to sound like he was a believer in God until he came to power. Then he actually shut down churches which did not go along with his policies. He was no believer in God!…”

            You only show that Hitler was not a Christian, not that he was an atheist. There is no reason to believe he was. You appear to define atheism strictly in terms of the God that Christians believe in, something Christians commonly do. That is misguided and incorrect.

            Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in gods. For example, if you worship Odin, you are a pagan, but you are not an atheist, because Odin is a god. Hitler professed a belief in God and SS officers had to swear to such a belief. The Nazi ranks were full of occultists and many leaned towards a neo-paganism based upon their Norse ancestry. Even today many Neo-Nazis, are part of a cult of Odin.

            “Your arguments against the God of the O.T. are tired old arguments that have been answered thoroughly over and over again. I don’t have time to explain it all right now.”

            They have never been answered in a way that is convincing to anyone other than Christians like yourself, who are already of that mindset. If you can’t take the time to explain it, it must not be a very straight forward or obvious. I think you know it is only convincing to believers, who didn’t need to be convinced to begin with.

            “He is a just God. No one can tell Him what is right or wrong….He tells us! There is no morality outside of God. None. He is the creator of it.”

            The fact that God can do whatever he wants, does not make him just. Nor does the fact that he is powerful enough to force that on lesser being.

            Actually, morality is dependent upon us, more than God. Outside of humans, or similarly intelligent life, there is no morality. Moral right and wrong are dependent moral agents that have intention and can choose between them. In a universe without intentional moral agents there are no moral or immoral acts. A black hole is not immoral as it gobbles up everything around it, not is the asteroid that strikes a planet. The second law of thermodynamics isn’t good or bad, it just is.

            Regarding the “god of the old testament a monster” website, I have read that, and other similar arguments by William Lane Craig, and I find them unconvincing. The only reason anyone would accept those arguments is on the presupposition that God is just. We would never find such behavior as justifiable if performed by anyone else for any reason.

            In fact, if killing infants in excusable because they are going to grow up in an environment that will eventually lead them to Hell, as the article and WLC contend, abortion and infanticide in any non-Christian culture would be not only permissible, but actually in the child’s best interests.

            “if you can put your bias aside long enough to open your mind.”
            I’m not an atheist, I don’t object to belief in God, nor do I think that Jesus was a myth. You seems to be the one who needs to put aside your biases against everyone you doesn’t share your very specific beliefs and open your mind to what people are actually saying and the diversity of beliefs in the world and the value of those other than your own.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I am not going to keep coming back at you, Jim. As I said, you have already made up your mind and I doubt very much I could say anything to convince you otherwise. No matter what information/argumentation I could provide, nothing will convince you. You are just as biased as you accuse me of being. You have your presuppositions and I have mine. Mine is that the Bible is the Word of God and I can trust what it says about God. He is loving and but also just and He does not change.

            People can have whatever beliefs they want, but in the end, there can be only One Truth. Jesus said: “I am the Way , the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but my Me.”

            Either He was a liar or a crazy man or the Son of God. Everyone has to decide what to do with Jesus and that decision has eternal consequences.

          • Jim H

            Angel:
            Thanks for the reply:
            Jesus may have said: “I am the Way , the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but my Me.” or at least whoever wrote John said that Jesus said it, since nothing like it shows up in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
            In fact, I don’t think he ever claims to be God in any gospel except John, which also happens to be the last gospel written and, from a scholarly perspective would, tend to reflect the highest level of development in its Christology. But, I imagine you have little interest in true Biblical scholarship.

            I don’t think it is as clear cut as “Either He was a liar or a crazy man or the Son of God.” Son of God had multiple and varied meanings in Jesus time. The Greeks and Romans had many demi-gods who were the offspring of gods and mortal long before Christians made that claim for Jesus. In fact, you almost had to be a demi-god. The emperor was considered a god or a demi god. Jesus almost had to be a son of a god to be taken seriously and it probably wasn’t much of a stretch for someone to believe they were, because the bar was set pretty low. You wouldn’t need to be crazy or a liar.

            Besides, Jesus was a Hebrew and in the Hebrew Bible the term was applied to men and refered to the righteous who become conscious of God’s fatherhood to his creation.

            The sons of god (bene elohim) are mentioned in Genesis and elsewhere and are often believed to be angels who mated with humans prior to the flood and that part of the purpose of the flood was to wipe out their offspring the Nephilim.

            Christians often saw the sons of god in the Bible as descendants of Seth, Adam and Eve’ third son. Saint Augustine subscribed to this view, based on the orations of Julius Africanus in his book City of God, which refer to the “sons of God” as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line of Adam. The “daughters of men” are viewed as the descendants of Cain (or Cainites). The genealogy of Jesus shows him to be a descendent of Seth.

            “Everyone has to decide what to do with Jesus and that decision has eternal consequences.”
            You know, you think believing in Jesus as the begotten son of God will get you to Heaven. A Muslim thinks it will get you a particularly nasty spot in Hell.
            Pascal’s Wager had a lot of problems when he first came up with it and it has gotten a lot more complicated since then. developed it.

    • Jim H

      Kind of like Abraham and Sarah being half siblings, or better yet all of Adam and Eve’s kids.

    • Jim H

      Didn’t Adam and Eve’s children marry their brothers or sisters?

      • bowie1

        Something like that until it was banned later on by the Creator.

        • Jim H

          I don’t think incest was specifically banned until Leviticus 18.

          • bowie1

            Correct.

          • Ken Campbell

            Actually it was part of the Lot Family party

          • Jim H

            I can’t imagine being so drunk that I didn’t know who I was doing it with and still be able to do it at all, like old Lot.

          • Ken Campbell

            It was those mischievous daughters. One night they were virgins about to be sent out into the crowd and the next night they are all in favor of going that extra mile with Papa. This is the crew that God decided to save.

          • Jim H

            And Lot fell for it twice.

          • Ken Campbell

            with alcohol as well. So we have an incestuous pimping alcoholic dad being chosen as a good person. This gets better and better

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Indeed, but marrying a first cousin is a properly bad idea now. In a few hundred years, marrying within your community might be as bad. Genetic errors were not as big a problem when the genes were new, and the information was fresh.

        • Jim H

          Yes, a bad idea, but obviously not objectively wrong.

        • Ken Campbell

          Inbreeding has always been a bad idea. There was no time when the genes were fresh. However, first cousins frequently dodged the bullet.
          An interesting side effect of Artificial Insemination is that you may not know who you have as a sibling. The solution for this would be genetic testing, but the potential for abuse is huge. Ethical decisions abound

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            No: first cousin marriages used to be entirely normal, with no bullet dodging involved. Why, you should ask, are they increasingly a problem? Even Saint Charlie Darwin married his first cousin! Why is it a problem? Because you’re wrong. Perhaps you don’t yet understand the genetic load of mutations, and the effect of having genes of both father and mother. Cain could marry his sister, but you shouldn’t. You’re made of inferior stuff. (Also, she’s dead.)

          • Ken Campbell

            First cousin marriages still have a greater than average potential to have genetic problems in their children. However there were certainly many of these throughout history.

    • Matilde Tavares

      I saw today yoj now have daughter wanting to marry father. !! Dont know how much sicker it could get?

    • Ken Campbell

      Are you advocating sibling marriage? If two sisters have lived together for 40 years and are in their 80’s, would you suggest they marry to ensure their security?

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    When all marriage is legal, then marriage ceases to exists. If this culture were honest, it would admit that.

    • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

      Well state sanctioned marriage will cease to exists. Marriage privatization under common law and with civil contracts,is preferred. People should just get off their lazy butts and do the work. We wont have half the problems we have now. Marriage will still hold its own personal meaning/value to what ever union its ascribed to.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        You are absolutely correct and I should have qualified that as “civil marriage.” My position has long been that churches should get entirely out of the business of solemnizing “marriage” licenses. That would nullify this phony “discrimination” accusation since all would be treated equally under the law. A heterosexual couple would have to go through the same civil channels to be legally married. Then the couple, married in the eyes of state, would be free to have their wedding in the church of their choice. I can’t say that would never lead to some conflicts, but it would go a long way to reducing some of this rancor. We will still, of course, have to deal with government intrusion into “hate” speech (meaning preaching the Gospel) as in Canada and parts of Europe, but that’s a parallel topic I won’t address here.

  • Emmanuel

    Hey lefties, still no answer or rebuttal?

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Where ARE the a-theists today on THIS story?!? Or, maybe it is the one a-theist, with 20 different usernames.

      • Robert Strickland

        I’m an atheist and I have no issue with this for one simple reason. They are consenting adults.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Thank you for posting! Many a-theists are biting the polygamy bullet. Now, what objective basis do you have, under a-theism, for denying “non-consensual” or “adult-child” marriage? Or, human-beast marriages?

          • StereoMan

            Why do you feel it is OK for a Christian to object to the moral implications of pedophilia or bestiality, but not an atheist?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Both the a-theist and Christian CAN object, StereoMan, but it is not rational for the a-theist to do so. There are no limits in the animal kingdom placed on pedophilia or inter-species sex – there is no cop out there to stop it. Furthermore, objective moral values and duties cannot be grounded under a-theism, as we have discussed before – a view shared by the great a-theistic intellectual thinkers over time. So, the a-theist can object (in an objective moral sense) to pedophilia and bestiality, but he must borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from a transcendent God and, thus, temporarily deny his a-theism. Hope that helps and great hearing from you!

          • StereoMan

            “Both the a-theist and Christian CAN object, StereoMan, but it is not rational for the a-theist to do so.”

            Of course it is, why do you say it isn’t?

            “Furthermore, objective moral values and duties cannot be grounded under a-theism, as we have discussed before – a view shared by the great a-theistic intellectual thinkers over time.”

            I maintain they absolutely can be, and that the great atheist (not a-theist) thinkers you mentioned were not saying what you think they were saying. They talked about a universe that doesn’t have morals when it unleashes a force of nature, act-of-God type event that wipes out thousands of people.

            “So, the a-theist can object (in an objective moral sense) to pedophilia and bestiality, but he must borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from a transcendent God and, thus, temporarily deny his a-theism.”

            As I said either: Still hopelessly deadlocked. But you should know that your views in this regard have been shared with some other (presumable) atheists on the FSTDT dot com board, and as I suspected, were roundly shot down.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “But you should know that your views in this regard have been shared with some other (presumable) atheists on the FSTDT dot com board, and as I suspected, were roundly shot down.”

            Strange how your imaginary friends can shoot me down, but you cannot. 🙂 The argument is not with me, it is with your fellow a-theists:

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

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

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

            No objective purpose, meaning, moral values or duties, ethics, etc – it is all in there. You have to make these things up to delude yourself into believing that these things are objective, but deep down, you know better. Please don’t blame me, StereoMan, for the fact that I understood my a-theism better than you do.

            Under your view, you are an accident whose lifespan is maybe 80 years, 100 years, tiny in the cosmic sense. After that, you cease to exist, and eventually, the universe dies a slow cold death in darkness. Your existence will matter not one whit, so neither did the ruling on Friday or any objective purpose, meaning, or morality that you fabricate in order to delude yourself. You may pretend all you want, but you are just deluding yourself.

          • pianoman

            “Now, what objective basis do you have, under a-theism, for denying “non-consensual” or “adult-child” marriage? Or, human-beast marriages?” – The RULE OF LAW. “Consent” is a REQUIREMENT for any legal contract, which a marriage is. A child can NOT consent, an animal can NOT consent. Questions?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The RULE OF LAW.”

            Precisely what we Christians pointed to in order to deny SSM: looks like you didn’t mind changing that law, now did you?

            “”Consent” is a REQUIREMENT for any legal contract, which a marriage is. A child can NOT consent, an animal can NOT consent.”

            Again, you are pointing to established law. But, wasn’t established law changed last week?!?

            Hopefully, by now, you see that you are making precisely the same types of arguments that Christians made in attempting to maintain traditional marriage – tradition and the law. Weird how you resort to these same arguments when you find certain practices detestable, but your side just calls Christians names when we do the same for a “marriage” that we find detestable, huh?

          • pianoman

            “Precisely what we Christians pointed to in order to deny SSM…” – Established laws can not violate the Constitution, as legal bans on same sex marriage do. The marriage equality ruling has been decades, if not centuries, in the making. Better late then never.

            “Again, you are pointing to established law. But, wasn’t established law changed last week?!?” – Let me know when any State changes their laws to allow a 50 year old to marry a 5 year old and we can talk.

            “…attempting to maintain traditional marriage – tradition and the law.” – “Christians” do not even know what a “traditional” marriage is, because there is no such thing. The idea of “marriage” has existed far longer than any religion, and no religion, no group “owns” that idea.

            “but your side just calls Christians names when we do the same for a “marriage” that we find detestable, huh?” – My “side”? You don’t know me well enough to group me with any “side”. As for your feelings towards same sex marriage, you are free to feel, think, say, whatever you like about it – however, unless, (or until), the Constitution of the United States is changed you are NOT allowed to impose those views on the nation as a whole, and you are not allowed to violate the rights of your fellow Americans to enjoy the freedoms and liberties that you yourself do.

          • Robert Strickland

            You said it yourself when you said “non-consensual”. My objective basis on this is the same as my objective basis on polygamy. Consent. “Beasts” can not give consent. Children are deemed unable to give consent. That’s the difference.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Robert, my question goes deeper: I am asking you to justify the need for consent. What argument will you make that shows why consent is objectively required?

            It certainly is not a requirement in the animal kingdom, where consent is never sought and rape occurs all the time. Under naturalistic a-theism, there would certainly not be any objective moral grounding for consent or for any other objective moral value or duty:

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

          • Robert Strickland

            I’m happy to answer that. It’s quite simple. Consent. “Beasts” are not able to give consent. Children are not able to give consent. Three adults of sound mind are, in this country, able to give consent.

            See the difference?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see the difference, but I don’t see you providing any grounding for it. What is your argument for why consent should be objectively required? It is certainly not grounded in the animal kingdom where rape occurs all the time sans consent nor in naturalistic a-theism, where there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties:

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

  • FoJC_Forever

    The only legitimate Marriage in the eyes of the God who created Marriage is between one man and one woman for the entirety of their natural life.

    • Jim H

      Please explain Jacob and Esau’s multiple wives or David’s or Solomon’s many wives and concubines.

      • Angel Jabbins

        Was not God’s standard. They disobeyed God and if you go read the bible stories of their lives, they paid a heavy price. In many cases, it lead them to into more sins against the Lord. The bible is about real people…all of whom were sinners just like you and I…it tells it like it was (and is)…includes all the sin and gory details…what happens when people live outside of God’s law. It has consequences. God forgives and restores, but the consequences remain and affect the generations following.

        • Jim H

          “Was not God’s standard. They disobeyed God…”

          I don’t see that. In David’s case God clearly states that He gave David multiple wives and would have given more. David’s sin was killing Uriah the Hittite to cover up his adultery with Uriah’s wife.

          “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
          2 Samuel 18

    • pianoman

      “The only legitimate Marriage in the eyes of the God who created Marriage is between one man and one woman for the entirety of their natural life.” – How exactly do you know “Gods” thoughts on the matter? Did he tell you personally?

      • FoJC_Forever

        Yes.

        • pianoman

          O. K. Well, that settles that then I guess…

  • webshade

    Maybe Homosexual Polygamy is next?

    • Jim H

      If it would have no effect on you, ‘m curious about why you would care?

    • pianoman

      Actually, it’s looking like the next battleground will be Hetrosexual Polygamy, (one of the great dreams of far-right Christians…

  • All In

    It’s telling that not one gay supporter has come out (sorry about the pun) against this. They appear to be happy with the complete destruction of all things good. Not too hard to tell what evil looks like.

    • DNelson

      Well we can end that streak right now. I do not support polygamous marriage.

      • Taussig

        ditto

      • Martin Walsh

        Why not? Please explain.

        • DNelson

          Civil marriage, and the rights, benefits, and protections, provided by it are all geared around two people. Allowing more than two people to be legally married would throw that system into chaos. Child custody, medical decisions, pensions, retirement benefits, military benefits, property, inheritance, taxation, etc., etc., etc.

          • Martin Walsh

            Thanks. So you have no objection in principle – just concerns about the mechanics/administrative/contractual aspects. All these issues are resolvable. It seems to me that if the decision is taken to change the law to support SSM then as the Chief Justice himself said, there is no reason why the law could not be changed to allow polyamorous marriages. The reason why marriage is two people, male and female, is that it is based on the twoness of the sexes not just for administrative convenience.

          • DNelson

            “then as the Chief Justice himself said, there is no reason why the law could not be changed to allow polyamorous marriages.”

            Marriage laws have changed many times in our history. None of those changes resulted in the legalization of polygamy.

            For any restriction that the State imposes on the ability of citizens to access a right that is offered by the State, the State must provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for why the restriction is necessary/reasonable. If those who desire to be legally allowed to marry more than one person believe that they have a legal argument in: “Well, I should be allowed to marry more than one person since two citizens of the same-gender are allowed to marry” they are sadly mistaken. The allowance of two citizens being able to marry provides no rationale for why more than two citizens should be allowed to marry.

            “The reason why marriage is two people, male and female, is that it is based on the twoness of the sexes not just for administrative convenience.”

            Well, surprise, that is not what civil marriage is any more. It is two consenting, unmarried, non-closely related, adults.

            State laws specifically limiting marriage to two citizens of opposite gender were put into place relatively recently. I believe the first was put into place around 1993. They were put into place specifically to deny two citizens of the same gender from accessing a right offered by the State.

          • Martin Walsh

            Having denied by law the inherent essence of marriage i.e. One man, one woman joined with the potential to bear children, all bets are off. The number two is now arbitrary. Laws can be changed. The redefinition of marriage, incidentally a pre-political pre-state reality over which the state should have no jurisdiction to define but simply acknowledge, leads to any possibility. Let’s see what happens shall we? As I said above there is now no objection in principle to polyamorous ‘marriage’ and possibly even incestous ‘marriages’.

          • DNelson

            ” One man, one woman joined with the potential to bear children”

            Civil marriage has never carried a requirement of procreation, nor does procreation require that a couple be legally married. So, no, the “inherent essence of civil marriage” is not the potential to bear children.

            ” incidentally a pre-political pre-state reality over which the state should have no jurisdiction to define but simply acknowledge”

            If that were true, then atheists would not be allowed to enter into marriage. They are.

            “leads to any possibility.”

            No, it does not. Civil marriage is a legal contract. As such, there are any number of restrictions that cannot be changed unless we change who is allowed to enter into a legal contract.

            “As I said above there is now no objection in principle to polyamorous ‘marriage’ and possibly even incestous ‘marriages’.”

            Our laws are not based upon “principal” from the aspect of simply not liking something.

          • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

            Exactly the reason the state would not allow it. And why state legalized Gay marriage its such a sham. As its was paraded as an equal rights campaign. If the battle was truly for equality. All forms and shapes of marriage should be legalized.The state (i hope) would realize that marriages for example polygamy and polyamory would overburden the already over complicated and complex legal system. Gay marriage fit the current regime nicely. And it would bolster the voting base of what ever tyrant promoted it.

          • DNelson

            “The state (i hope) would realize that marriages for example polygamy and polyamory would overburden the already over complicated and complex legal system.”

            Agreed. Allowing same-gender marriage, however, does not have that affect.

          • Oboehner

            Really. Smells like BS, but do explain how one deviant group “marrying” doesn’t have the same effect as another.

      • http://vgsage.com Azix

        Explain that to us.

        • DNelson

          see above

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    ““It’s about marriage equality,” Nathan Collier, 46, told The Associated Press this week.” “I’m not trying to redefine marriage,” Collier continued. “I’m not forcing anyone to believe in polygamy. We’re only defining marriage for us. We just want legitimacy.”

    Sound familiar? The slippery slope that the Gaystapo said did not exist. Thus far, gay rights advocates have not been able to answer the questions “why two?,” “why consenting,” “why adults?” in the context of last week’s ruling. They will reply “Oh, these are just a few handfuls of cases, let’s not let a small minority override the sanity of the majority on the (new) definition of marriage.” The irony will escape them that such is precisely what Christians were saying from the beginning.

    • StereoMan

      There is no “Gaystapo” and all this guy is doing is being a sore loser and grandstanding.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Oh, we finally got you out here, StereoMan – you have a LOT of courage! 🙂 What happened to “no slippery slope” from last week?!? Why are you denying this man “marriage equality?!?” Are you a polyamor-phobe? 🙂

        300 examples of homofascism:

        http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

        And the Gaystapo alert – some good recent posts on Sulu:

        https://www .facebook .com/GayActivistsarehypocrites/timeline?ref=page_internal

        “all this guy is doing is being a sore loser and grandstanding.”

        What?!? How in the world do you know this? Are you into supernatural mind-reading now? 🙂 Perhaps, we thought the same thing about the gay activists? “You guys are just sore losers and grandstanding over the ‘right’ to marry someone of the same sex.” 🙂

        Now, if you want “grandstanding,” let’s look at the gay guy who faked a hate crime against himself:

        http://winteryknight .com/2015/07/03/gay-man-fakes-hate-crime-against-himself/#respond

        Excerpt from AP:

        “A man who reported someone beat him and carved a homophobic slur into his arm staged the attacks, authorities in rural Utah said Tuesday.

        Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker said Rick Jones, 21, could face charges after officers investigating the series of reported attacks found inconsistencies in the evidence. The Delta man eventually acknowledged faking the harassment, Dekker said.”

        • StereoMan

          Well, before you pull me down 18 different rabbit holes which link tenuously at best to the issue at hand, maybe you should respond to MY comment. Are people born polygamists?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “before you pull me down 18 different rabbit holes”

            Haha – you know me too well – we did have a good exchange last week, didn’t we? That was fun. 🙂

            “maybe you should respond to MY comment. Are people born polygamists?”

            Please forgive me, SteroeMan, but I did not SEE that in your comment. Was that elsewhere – I am not seeing it above?

            I don’t know if people are born polygamists, or gay or bisexual, or not. I am not sure exactly how that relates. I do know they have not found a gay gene – I think the homosexual correlation tendency for identical twins is about 10%, indicating that the genetic component is not that big. My guess is that homosexual behavior is a complex interaction of many genes and environmental effects. Nature and nurture. I think that is the state of the art right now on that issue, based on the best science that I have seen.

            As for polygamy, I do not know to what degree that is a genetic effect and an environmental effect, but I suspect it is complex and involves both nature and nurture too. But, I am merely speculating. We are ALL born with certain tendencies to sin (I know you don’t like that word) in certain ways, that is all I know. I am no different.

            Nevertheless, I do not think any of this is relevant. The questions “why two?,” “why consenting?,” and “why adults?” still seem to stand. I MUST commend you, however, for your courage, in commenting on this story, given that you kept denying these sorts of things happen last week. (And this example is just one of a growing number.)

          • StereoMan

            “Why two?”

            Isn’t it two people who get married as we know marriage to be?

            “Why consenting?”

            Because it doesn’t seem like a very good idea to force two people to get married who don’t want to, does it?

            “Why adults?”

            Because the law judges anyone younger than that to be not responsible for their own actions and so not legally able to consent.

            Really, I think a lot of your complaints are legal in nature. You often mention brothers and sisters marrying. I personally couldn’t care less if they did. Doesn’t concern me.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Isn’t it two people who get married as we know marriage to be?”

            Well, that has been the tradition. But, the tradition was also for opposite sex marriage, and that has been overturned, so why can this not be overturned? Do you see that you are making the same argument (tradition) that the Christian made in denying SSM? That is why we could see this coming, and it did NOT take long.

            “Because it doesn’t seem like a very good idea to force two people to get married who don’t want to, does it?”

            Well, it didn’t seem like a very good idea to allow two same sex people to get married either, to the Christian. But, apparently, that argument did not hold up. Why can’t a person force another person into marriage, if “marriage equality” is the goal?

            “Because the law judges anyone younger than that to be not responsible for their own actions and so not legally able to consent.”

            Yes, but we have seen that the law should be overturned in the case of SSM, right? That was a LOT of laws overturned by SCOTUS last week. 🙂 Why can’t this aspect of it be overturned? I see no reason whatsoever, using the same identical arguments and logic as those used by people in favor of SSM, that “two” “consenting” “adults” would not be set aside in honor of “marriage equality.”

            “Really, I think a lot of your complaints are legal in nature.”

            Yes, that is the point of this article, legal – the reasoning of the SCOTUS last week, applied consistently to “more than two or even one (that actually happened somewhere a few years ago)” “non-consensual” “child-adult or child-child” “marriages” would DEMAND that these cases be allowed. And any argument against them would necessarily rely on precisely the same arguments used by Christians to deny SSM.

          • StereoMan

            “So why can this not be overturned?”

            It does seem to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic on your part. When straight people give themselves the right to marry two people or their brothers or their dogs or their toaster, gay people should get that right, too, I suppose. Until then, kindly be serious.

            “Well, it didn’t seem like a very good idea to allow two same sex people to get married either, to the Christian. But, apparently, that argument did not hold up.”

            Why should it be the place of the Christian to allow or disallow someone else’s marriage? This issue is CONSENT, right? “Why consent is what you asked?” Well, if all parties involved are in consent, just as with a straight marriage, it seems to me all the ducks are in a row.

            “Why can’t this aspect of it be overturned?”

            Do you really want to open that can of worms? I won’t even LOOK at the moral issues of sex with children, but the risks to the life of a pregnant 10-year old girl are horrifying, the lack of desire on the part of a child who is too young to have any kind of sexual feelings (which is why we NEED these age of consent laws…) I’m feeling sickened just writing about it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Why should it be the place of the Christian to allow or disallow someone else’s marriage? ”

            To which I reply “Why should it be the right of the a-theist to disallow polygamous, non-consensual, child-child, or man-child “marriages?” Especially under a-theism, where there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. (Sorry, could not help it. :-))

            “Well, if all parties involved are in consent, just as with a straight marriage, it seems to me all the ducks are in a row.”

            Well, that is only because that is YOUR definition of “marriage.” But, why? I mean, Christians were saying “one man, one woman” lined up the ducks in a row.

            “I won’t even LOOK at the moral issues of sex with children, but the risks to the life of a pregnant 10-year old girl are horrifying, the lack of desire on the part of a child who is too young to have any kind of sexual feelings (which is why we NEED these age of consent laws…) I’m feeling sickened just writing about it.”

            It sounds like you are saying that the physical, emotional, and psychological risks resulting from such a “marriage” would be destructive? But, last week, I made precisely the same argument against SSM, remember? (And, I will also add: just what is wrong with adult-child “marriage” under a-theism, but that is a different argument? :-))

            So, let me make my thought experiment even more clear: you and I are standing before SCOTUS, but on different sides of the issue. I represent a man, woman, and 8 year old boy. The desire if for my plaintiffs to become a 5-touple with a particular hose and bridge via “marriage.”

            You are on the side defending the (current) definition of “marriage:” two consenting adults. Now, please tell me how you are going to argue your case against me WITHOUT using precisely the same arguments as Christians used in attempting to deny SSM. That last part is the trick.

          • StereoMan

            “Why should it be the right of the a-theist to disallow polygamous, non-consensual, child-child, or man-child “marriages?” Especially under a-theism, where there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. (Sorry, could not help it. :-))”

            Perhaps we shouldn’t discuss this at all then, since we are still hopelessly deadlocked. You think morality requires God and I do not. I do think you’ll find that most atheists would take huge offense to your premise 1 and 2 from the other discussion.

            As it happens, it’s not the atheist (not a-theist) who is disallowing the things you mentioned, it’s the law. (And occasionally it’s common sense – consensual means mutually desired, and you’re asking why it’s “disallowed”? It’s not, it’s just that no one WANTS it. If they did, no one would say it WAS non-consensual.)

            “I mean, Christians were saying “one man, one woman” lined up the ducks in a row.”

            It lined up THEIR ducks. But only theirs.

            “It sounds like you are saying that the physical, emotional, and
            psychological risks resulting from such a “marriage” would be
            destructive? But, last week, I made precisely the same argument against SSM, remember?”

            Did you? I certainly hope not, because if you did, you’d be saying that homosexuals can impregnate one another, and if that’s what you’re saying, a biology lesson is in order.

            ” (And, I will also add: just what is wrong with adult-child “marriage” under a-theism, but that is a different argument? :-))”

            (And I will just answer: The same exact thing that is wrong with it under Christianity or any other belief system. Making kids pregnant is nasty on just about every level there is, and I REALLY don’t think you want to defend it.)

            “I represent a man, woman, and 8 year old boy. The desire if for my plaintiffs to become a 5-touple with a particular hose and bridge via “marriage.”

            You’re breaking about 18 million LAWS, for one thing. Child abuse chief among them. Also that inanimate objects cannot give consent, nor (legally) can an 8-year old boy.

            I’m sorry, are those all the same arguments Christians would use? Well, shoot. Look at all the things we have in common despite the fact that one group of us is atheist (not a-theist) and the other isn’t.

            Did I also mention – no one would WANT what you’re suggesting?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You think morality requires God and I do not. ”

            No, I KNOW that there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties under a-theism. And, so do most a-theists, if they think about it. Doesn’t mean that a-theists cannot behave morally, just that there is no objective morality if God does not exist. There is no one to appeal to. Consider this:

            Suppose Hitler had taken over the world and either killed or brainwashed everyone who believed that what he did to the Jews was objectively wrong, in the moral sense. Under a-theism, that’s it: Hitler was morally good for doing what he did, because there is no transcendent grounding that what he did was morally wrong, in an objective sense. And, if you disagree with this statement, I must ask you: just Who are you appealing to to say he was wrong? Not yourself. You have been brainwashed to believe he was right, in my scenario.

            “As it happens, it’s not the atheist (not a-theist) who is disallowing the things you mentioned, it’s the law.”

            Oh, but we have seen that the law is often immoral, right? Didn’t you think that the law to deny SSM was wrong?!? Of course, you did. How about the laws supporting slavery and Jew gassing? Now, do you see it? By appealing to the law, you are no better than the people who supported slavery and Jew gassing, but you think you are just as moral as they are. Well, if there is no transcendent (objective) Grounds for morality, then the folks for slavery and Jews gassing were morally “right,” when those things were legal.

            “It lined up THEIR ducks. But only theirs.”

            Yes, it did, and under a-theism, theirs is just as good as yours! Your morals are ice cream flavors – see above. 🙂 Both sides are SURE they are “right,” but, if there is no God, then both sides ARE right in an ice cream flavor sense. Every time you appeal to objective moral values, you are acknowledging the existence of God – you just do not see it.

            “Did you? I certainly hope not, because if you did, you’d be saying that homosexuals can impregnate one another, and if that’s what you’re saying, a biology lesson is in order.”

            Nice dodge, nice fail. I said that there were physical and psychological consequences, just as you did. You just don’t like it that you are making the same argument this week that Christians made last week. 🙂

            “And I will just answer: The same exact thing that is wrong with it under Christianity or any other belief system.”

            Nope – as I showed above, there is no cop in the jungle to prevent it and you have no One, under your view, to make it objective or transcendent.

            “You’re breaking about 18 million LAWS, for one thing.”

            So were you guys advocating for SSM last week, before SCOTUS bailed you out. See above why “legal” does not equal “moral.”

            “Also that inanimate objects cannot give consent, nor (legally) can an 8-year old boy.”

            And why is consent necessary? Because it is necessary to be legal? So was traditional marriage last week. (see above) Because it is traditional? So was traditional marriage last week. Some cultures are not into consensual marriage, so that is what you are left with, under a-theism. 🙂

            So, it appears that in your response, you are appealing to legality and tradition – both things appealed to by the backers of traditional marriage prior to SSM. I asked you to provide arguments different from the ones used by Christians to deny SSM, as to why this 5-touple could not be married and you failed to do so. Which is the point of this article.

          • StereoMan

            Approximately everything you’ve said here is a retread of what you said over and over and over last week. I think you were wrong then, and I think you are wrong now.

            First of all, under Christianity, why is anything wrong? Because God says it is. And, being the dutiful Christian, you go along with him for that reason. But that is no different than when I ask a Christian their opinion in a moral issue and they quote scripture back to me. And I say no, I didn’t ask for scripture, I already know what God’s opinion is, I want yours. And they give me scripture again. Over and over. Well, that is NOT what is being requested. And some Christians can’t, or don’t want, to provide an honest answer.

            I don’t actually think you’re in the safe moral place you think you are. You have a whole religion you conveniently hide yourself behind when those pesky moral dilemmas raise their heads. “I’ll just go with God on this one.” No more responsibilities, no more quandaries. Whereas I can say with no place to hide myself that I think it’s morally wrong to commit an act of abuse on another human being. Not because God says so, but because I can simply see that I am forcing my will on another unwilling person and that shows a complete lack of empathy and respect. I don’t see where God fits into the equation anyway, even conceptually. God, the force of all that is good and just and moral – that’s only how YOU envision God. You insist that I am “borrowing” God from you every time I make a moral statement. Which God is that? Why does it have to be yours?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “First of all, under Christianity, why is anything wrong? Because God says it is.”

            Well, not exactly. God’s Nature exudes goodness, not that something is good because He commands it or he commands it because it is good. That is Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which turned out to be a false dichotomy.

            I have to give you credit tonight: last week you were saying there is no slippery slope, and this week you came on a story proving the slippery slope, or part of it anyway. Takes guts on your part.

            “And they give me scripture again. Over and over. Well, that is NOT what is being requested. And some Christians can’t, or don’t want, to provide an honest answer.”

            I do my best not to quote Scripture to a-theists, because I remember how I received it when I was one. 🙂 The only exception I make is when I am showing the superior explanatory power of Christianity when it comes to answering the fundamental questions of life. Then i do some selective quoting.

            “You have a whole religion you conveniently hide yourself behind when those pesky moral dilemmas raise their heads.”

            I don’t remember hiding behind it. My family and friends sure don’t think I do. “Would you shut up about God for 5 minutes?!?” 🙂

            “No more responsibilities, no more quandaries.”

            Well, that is surely not true. I find the study of Christianity to be far more intellectually satisfying, and challenging, than the study of a-theism, since there is not a lot to study there – at least not in terms of the fundamental questions of life. They just get an “I don’t know” under a-theism. I think that when the possibility that something exists that is non-material, it really does open up a lot of serious study.

            “Not because God says so, but because I can simply see that I am forcing my will on another unwilling person and that shows a complete lack of empathy and respect.”

            See? “Empathy” and “respect” have no grounding under a-theism. You just chose those as qualifiers, to fill the gap. (I agree with them, of course, BTW.) But, there is not a lot of “empathy” or “respect” in the animal kingdom, and we are just animals under a-theism. Furthermore, I note that 97% of a-theists have no “empathy” or “respect” for the human being in the womb, so it must be a selective “empathy” or “respect.” There is actually no reason whatsoever, under a-theism, to choose those objectives. And, even if there were, it would not be an objective one, and it would not matter since, ultimately, the universe is in for a slow dark cold death. So, I really think your argument here is more with your fellow a-theists, in the big sense, than it is with me.

            “Which God is that? Why does it have to be yours?”

            Well, with respect to our discussion, it does not have to be. We just need the mere existence of a God to ground objective purpose, meaning, moral values, and duties. So, that is a good, if subtle, point you just made, indeed.

            But, I can give you the trail from, say, Kalam (the God Who brought 300 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing) to the Christian God if you like. I fear that I will be repeating myself with you however, but I will be glad to do it if you so desire. I have lost track with what we discussed last week. I just know it was a lot of moral ontology and good stuff at that.

            Again, thanks for coming onto this story tonight – I like that you didn’t avoid it and took it on – good show! I enjoyed the dialogue very much! Have a great night!

          • StereoMan

            “Well, not exactly. God’s Nature exudes goodness, not that something is good because He commands it or he commands t because it is good. That is Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which turned out to be a false dichotomy.”

            I have a much bigger problem with it, in that you continue to assume God without having proven Him Can I just say you have a lot of work to do before I continue on blindly accepting that CONSIDERABLY large stumbling block.

            “I have to give you credit tonight: last week you were saying there is no slippery slope, and this week you came on a story proving the slippery slope, or part of it anyway. Takes guts on your part”

            You seem to have misunderstood something again. The slippery slope is there all right. It’s worse than ever. Now you have people lining up to marry their plants. Except that they AREN’T lining up to marry their plants.

            “The only exception I make is when I am showing the superior explanatory power of Christianity when it comes to answering the fundamental questions of life. Then i do some selective quoting.”

            Here’s the issue at hand: “Atheists having no objective morality.” And we do. God is not required to state that gassing Jews is wrong. It’s wrong because it is an act of extreme violence and abuse which forces the will of one person of the will of another uncooperative participant. Is God necessary in this scenatio? No.

            “See? “Empathy” and “respect” have no grounding under a-theism.”

            No. I don’t see. What I see if you forcefully concluding that there’s no grounding. But not providing any. Empathy and respect are firmly grounded under atheism simply because it does not require a God for them not to be.

            “But, there is not a lot of “empathy” or “respect” in the animal kingdom, and we are just animals under a-theism.”

            Disagree. No atheist (not a-theist) would say that. We are more than just animals, it’s not just our opposable thumbs, it’s the fact that we have consciences.

            “I note that 97% of a-theists have no “empathy” or “respect” for the human being in the womb, so it must be a selective “empathy” or “respect.””

            That’s because 97% of atheists (not a-theists) do not consider the fetus in the womb to be a human being.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey StereoMan, Happy 4th to you! Good to see you tonight!

            “you continue to assume God without having proven Him”

            I thought that I gave you 4 proofs for the God Hypothesis? OK, here they are – I can fill in the premise support with secular science, logic, and philosophy later, but these proofs are more than plausible – they are quite solid:

            Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

            Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
            Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
            Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
            Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

            Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God:

            Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
            Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
            Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design.

            Argument from Unconditioned Reality (not a syllogism but a step-wise proof):

            1. There exists at least one unconditioned reality.
            2. Unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.
            3. Unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.
            4. Unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted.
            5. The one Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator of all else that is.

            These are quite solid, in complete play in the current journals, and more than quite plausible. Also, if I remember correctly, you have not provided me with ANY evidence for the No God Hypothesis – you share a burden too, if you truly do believe that it is rational to be an a-theist.

            “Except that they AREN’T lining up to marry their plants.”

            I never brought up plants, Silly! Dogs and bridges, yes, plants, no. Then again, … 🙂 Last week, you said no polygamy, this week, polygamy. You are brave to come in and admit you were wrong. 🙂

            “It’s wrong because it is an act of extreme violence and abuse which forces the will of one person of the will of another uncooperative participant.”

            Like abortion. Whoops. 🙂 But, you are missing the point: the existence of God is required for the existence of objective moral values and duties. And, if not, then how are they grounded? Remember the Nazis take over the world example?No one knows that gassing Jews was wrong, so it is right, without God.

            “Empathy and respect are firmly grounded under atheism simply because it does not require a God for them not to be.”

            Take it up with Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Bertrand Russell, etc. Publish your result to show how grounding objective morality can happen without God. (Hint: merely asserting it does not count. :-))

            “it’s the fact that we have consciences.”

            Where does a supernatural thing like the conscience arise from under a-theism? Magic? 🙂

            “That’s because 97% of atheists (not a-theists) do not consider the fetus in the womb to be a human being.”

            And THAT is because 97% of a-theists are 100% wrong. This is not the 1950’s StereoMan: science, medicine, human biology, even ultrasound has proven conclusively that life begins at conception. That is what the medical textbooks say. Thanks for engaging with me on abortion, but the facts just are incontrovertible on this issue.

          • Cyril Tangham

            what is proof?

          • Cyril Tangham

            when a straight refuses to serve a gay….he is dragged to court…
            The gay can express his liberty but not the straight…
            Woh

          • Cyril Tangham

            also who told you that it is wrong to force your will on another? there is nothing ‘wrong’ with that?…..does the unwillingness of the other person make it wrong?
            When a lady is committing an abortion, did she seek the willingness of the unborn babe?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I really have no idea why he keeps spelling it “a-theist.” I don’t know what an “a-theist” is, or why WGC thinks he gets to rewrite the dictionary but that judges can’t rewrite definitions of laws.

          • StereoMan

            Have you ever known ANYONE here to drop their hateful pet phrases? Gaystapo is the favorite by far. Oboehner has several anti-gay ones that are so vile I can’t believe a Christian would use them.

            Also, “a-theist” is almost certainly being intended as an insult, but it doesn’t come across as one, it always looks like a misspelling that he refuses to correct.

          • Cyril Tangham

            Why does the law judge anyone younger than adult not to be responsible for their own actions?

          • StereoMan

            Because they are not deemed old enough to be responsible for their actions, and therefore not consenting, and therefore it is an act of abuse against a minor.

        • Lark62

          There is no slippery slope. Marriage is a contract between two people which includes certain govt benefits. The SC ruled states cannot discriminate based on gender when issuing a license for this two person contract.

          There is nothing in the SC ruling that says states must honor marriage contracts with 3 or more parties. That is a completely different legal issue. Thus ruling provides no precedent for it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “There is no slippery slope. Marriage is a contract between two people which includes certain govt benefits.”

            These folks beg to differ! Why “two?!?” Many other a-theists are biting the bullet and saying “why not?” 🙂

            “There is nothing in the SC ruling that says states must honor marriage contracts with 3 or more parties.”

            That is what we Christians said about SSM: “nothing in the Constitution which says anything about the state honoring SSM.” You are really making the point for me – you cannot discriminate against polygamous people if you are in favor of SSM. 🙂

          • Lark62

            The government cannot apply different rules based on gender or other irrelevant factors. “Some people thInk it’s yucky” simply is not s basis for treating person A differently from person B.

            If the government chooses to create a 3 person marriage arrangement, THEN they won’t be able to discriminate based on gender in that arrangement.

          • The Last Trump

            “There is no gaystapo…..there is no slippery slope….these are not the droids you’re looking for…”
            Convinced yet?
            Hee, hee! How they do try! 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh yes, and now they are caving to the slippery slope – the very ones who denied it last week! Or, they are using precisely the same arguments we used last week – tradition and law – to say that these slippery slope cases should not be allowed. I am not sure which ones are scarier – the hypocrites or the “anything goes” crowd?!? 🙂

            OK, for you viewing pleasure – the two best posts on homofascism (just take the spaces out):

            http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

            https://www .facebook .com/GayActivistsarehypocrites/timeline?ref=page_internal

            On the second link, the most recent 4 or 5 posts are really quite astounding. You will love the rainbow-colored swastika and the “progress” of the gay “rights” movement. Have you been forced to wear your rainbow cross yet – to be identified as a “hater?” 🙂

          • Taussig

            the persecution complex is strong with this one..LOL! when you start using boobwire as a reference …..immediate fail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s what they said about the Jews in 1930’s Germany! “My how those Jews are “paranoid” about persecution!” 🙂

            If you wish to refute any of the 300 data points, feel free to, but preferably NOT via ridicule. 🙂 Happy 4th!

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Marriage is not a contract. Adam was married to Eve because she was part of him. He gave up something from his body. Bone of my bone. Flesh of my flesh. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will be one flesh. Contracts are fun, but they are not marriage.

          • Lark62

            Last I checked I live under secular law in the United States of America. I don’t live in your myth.

    • Lark62

      “Why consenting”? “Why adults”?

      There is a serious problem with your system of morality if you can’t figure out why consent matters. If someone needs to explain why marrying a child is wrong, please avoid children.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        “If someone needs to explain why marrying a child is wrong”

        That is a non-answer, and it looks remarkably like the same argument that the Christians make: “If someone needs to explain why marrying a person of the same sex is wrong.” You seem to be using the same arguments that Christians used in denying SSM.

        Now, as a Christian, I KNOW why “consent” is important. The first question is how can you discriminate against non-consensual marriages, if you are in favor of “marriage equality?” The second question is even more fundamental: why is consent important under a-theism, where there are no grounds for objective moral values or duties?:

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

        • Jim H

          “Now, as a Christian, I KNOW why “consent” is important.”
          Why?

  • StereoMan

    You are born gay, you are not born a polygamist. Next.

    • Dave_L

      Are the Bi-sexual born as such or do they choose?

      • StereoMan

        Both.

        • Dave_L

          Do you have any documentation that Homosexuality/Bi-sexuality is genetic?

          • StereoMan

            http://www.apa. org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
            http://www.natureworldnews. com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence. htm

          • Dave_L

            I will look into that. Here is an interesting search phrase, copy and paste:

            “Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic”

          • SashaC

            Googling that leads to an article on Red Flag News, which leads to an article on Orthodox News. These are both conservative Christian sites. The studies mentioned are from the 90’s. Even if the weren’t outdated, if you look them up you’ll see the results are highly questionable.

            The article is centered on the opinion of a Dr. Neil Whitehead. Whitehead is a member of the discredited anti-gay group, NARTH. His “expertise” isn’t even in this field and he has no peer reviewed articles on the subject.

            You may want to reconsider using that as an example to support your views.

          • Dave_L

            Do you have any proof that Homosexuality is in a person’s DNA?

          • SashaC

            Did I make that claim? You made a claim and backed it up with a bogus, completely unscientific article connected to an anti-gay organization.

            But since you asked, google “Is being gay genetic?” and you’ll end up with a bunch of legitimate articles from recent studies over the last couple of years (instead of 24 years ago) backing up the claim that it is at least partially genetic. Scientists have not found a “gay gene”, so to speak, but there is definitely a genetic component.

            Honesty, I usually don’t feel the need to defend to you people that being being gay is not a choice. It wouldn’t matter if it was. Religion is a choice, and yet you enjoy federal protections, so this isn’t even a tree you should be barking up.

            Btw, StereoMan provided you with a link that you seem to have ignored. Wonder why that is…

          • All In

            There is no evidence that suggests gays are born that way. Numerous identical twin studies disproves the idea.

            Also, people change orientation all the time. Does that mean genes are ‘flickering?’

            What about gays who return to hetero? Did the gene suddenly switch off?

            What about all the ex-gays who overcame their desire for same sex? Did they have a biological transplant?

            No. Homosexuality is a chosen behavior. Period!

          • SashaC

            I’ve already addressed your first statement, in response to Dave. Do try to keep up.

            People never change orientation. They may try, but always fail. Conversion therapy has been completely debunked.

            You’re welcome to your opinion, but recent studies do not support your assertions. And as I said, even if it was chosen, who cares? You chose your religion, yet you are protected by federal laws. If you insist that genetic predisposition is required for protection, you would lose yours, so I suggest you stop pushing the issue. Trends indicate that you’re not going to be the majority forever, so be glad that we don’t vote on civil rights and that the Constitution protects the minority from the majority.

          • All In

            > People never change orientation.

            Nonsense:

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

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

            ————-

            “I worked to overcome feelings of inadequacy and incompetence as a man. As I worked with my counselor to fill my emotional needs, extinguish harmful behaviors, and heal emotional wounds, I noticed my homosexual compulsions becoming less intense. With time, they began to subside. Then, subtly, I noticed heterosexual feelings starting to emerge. These new feelings grew slowly as I continued progressing through the recovery process.” – “Homosexuality: Symptoms & Free Agency”, Floyd and Kae Godfrey

          • SashaC

            I’m not saying that there is no fluidity to sexuality. It isn’t black and white, but rather a spectrum. But you’re not going to take someone from one end of the spectrum and legitimately shift them to the opposite end. You may succeed in getting them to repress their true feelings, but few can do it for the remainder of their lives. Just look at the abject failure of Exodus International. There is no scientific evidence that suggests conversion therapy actually works, and the APA has denounced it as ineffective and harmful.

            People may experiment and their self identification may shift as a part of that, but it doesn’t mean their sexual orientation has actually changed. I self identified as bisexual for awhile, but eventually came to the realization I was straight. Did my sexuality actually change? Of course not. Are you going to understand something so complex? Of course not. Your mind is made up. You try to bend the evidence fit your preconceived notion, rather than looking at all the evidence and letting it lead you to the most likely conclusion.

          • Dave_L

            you are attacking the twin study by attacking the messenger….

          • SashaC

            See my reply to your similar comment.

          • Dave_L

            Ad Hominem = AD HOMINEM (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION)

            (also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)

            Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

            An Ad Hominem argument does not refute what is being said, it tries to invalidate the point on other grounds.

          • SashaC

            An Ad Hominem would be attacking your character, rather than the content of your arguments. My comment was not an appeal to emotion, but based on reason. It is a fact that the article you posted is pseudo-science, based on outdated info, written by someone with an agenda, who is not qualified to speak on it and has never produced anything peer reviewed on the subject. Any time someone points out why you are wrong, it is not an Ad Hominem, sorry.

            Also, just crying “AD HOMINEM!” is not a defense, as an Ad Hominem is not always fallacious. You need to specify why it is, if it occurs, which it did not in this instance.

            I know some people are impressed anytime a logical fallacy is mentioned, but those of us who actually know what they are are not amongst that group.

          • Dave_L

            where’s the DNA evidence?

          • SashaC

            Read my reply to your comment addressing that, below.

          • Dave_L

            Until you refute the “Twin Study” you can only attack the messenger which results in “argumentum ad hominem”.

          • SashaC

            As I said, simple googling of the twin studies will reveal the issues with them. But you aren’t about to acknowledge anything that refutes your claims, which is why you choose to ignore the most recent findings on the subject and cling to outdated information. Clearly, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

            Explaining why someone is not qualified to speak on a subject is not an attack. You still do not understand Ad Hominem.

          • Dave_L

            To date, no one has provided proof people are born that way.

          • SashaC

            If you want to play it that way, then no one has proven they aren’t.

            I’ve provided you with the info you’ve requested. You prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you can’t hear me. I understand you feel the need to defend your misconceptions at all costs. Therefore we are done here. Run along now, you’re dismissed.

          • Dave_L

            Are you admitting defeat?

          • Ken Campbell

            The twin studies actually support the genetic component as the twin of a homosexual is more likely to be homosexual. I don’t have the citation but when I read the article, it indicated that the genetic component was between 25% and 35%

          • Dave_L

            Where is the support?

          • Tux

            First link – utter indoctrination. Laughably, the only reference they use is to their own internal document. No references to actual studies. They just make grandiose statements like “evidence suggests” and “research has found”. What evidence? What research?
            Second link – inconclusive as the study has not been completed.

          • StereoMan

            The first link is science. And there are many organizations similar to it that will tell you exactly the same thing. Hope your laugh was a good one. The second link indicates studies are ongoing but what they know is solid evidence.

          • All In

            BS. It’s no more science than your opinion.

            Homosexuality is all about choosing. Evidence: what’s forcing gays to engage in homosexual acts? Nothing.

          • StereoMan

            For the last time, you have not described homosexuality but homosexual sex. People, both straight and gay, have sex when they are in love, Richard. It really isn’t complicated.

          • All In

            It’s not complicated at all. You would like to complicate it to suit your opinion. But as you can see, the research is stacked against your opinion.

            Seek Christ and set yourself free from your bondage. Then you will know the truth!

          • StereoMan

            How long are you going to fight the evidence staring you in the face that proves you wrong, Richard? How long are you going to insist that you know better than scientists, the dictionary, and established fact?

          • All In

            If people are born gay, how do you explain this:

            In a large random sample, 88% of women currently claiming lesbian attraction and 73% of men claiming to currently enjoy homosexual sex, said that they had been sexually aroused by the opposite sex. – Cameron, et al (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Rpts 64:1167-79; Cameron, et al (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Rpts 62:211-9; Cameron, et al (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Rpts 58:327-37; Cameron (1985) Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Rpts 57:1227-36.

          • Ken Campbell

            1986? 1988? 1985?

          • SpeakTruth

            Easy. Many, many straight women, even happily married straight women can find other women attractive, or sensuous. Many straight women are aroused by lesbian images. That does not mean we have the ability to fall in love with another woman.

            As far as the men go, most adults are very aware that most men (especially younger men) cannot control their arousal when skin to skin contact occurs, even if that contact is unwelcome That is why gay men can be married and father children. However, it certainly does not mean they have the ability to fall in love with another man.

      • Ken Campbell

        absolutely

        • Dave_L

          Proof?

          • Ken Campbell

            Bisexual people have a dual sexual orientation. They are attracted equally to the same sex and the opposite sex. It is likely that we all exist somewhere on the spectrum between pure heterosexual and pure homosexual with most of us leaning strongly in one or the other orientation. For the bisexual, the sexual orientation is a choice matter. In fact, those who view sexual orientation as a choice are probably speaking from a bisexual orientation perspective

          • Dave_L

            “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11, ESV)

            This verse shows that Christians who were homosexuals turned from their sin along with all Christians, whatever the sin might be.

          • Ken Campbell

            Actually it shows that the person who wrote these verses believed that this was the case. It is interesting that the King James Version has a different take on these lines. Such is the lack of authenticity.

          • Dave_L

            Here’s another translation;

            “Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom. In the past, some of you were like that, but you were washed clean. You were made holy, and you were made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11, NCV)

          • Ken Campbell

            its funny that male prostitutes are considered naughty but female prostitutes are left out. Sinning sexually sounds intriguing.

          • Dave_L

            “No Israelite man or woman must ever become a temple prostitute. Do not bring a male or female prostitute’s pay to the Temple of the Lord your God to pay what you have promised to the Lord, because the Lord your God hates prostitution.” (Deuteronomy 23:17–18, NCV)

          • Ken Campbell

            Do you notice how much the scriptures reflect the need for social order? It is like the Qur’an in this way. Part of it is spiritual, part is knowledge (science) and part is law

          • Dave_L

            There is no social order apart from them. Without God, all law becomes arbitrary and might makes right.

          • Ken Campbell

            In fact, the concept of god was used to have might. This is how Christianity and Islam were spread. Most pagan societies believed that a war was also fought on the level of the gods. Thus, if the people were beaten, it means that their gods were beaten. As a result, they would accept the new god

          • Dave_L

            references?

          • Kara Connor

            If you can’t behave without the thought of your god watching you, then you are intrinsically immoral. Some of us can. We have empathy, like other great apes, and that leads to the golden rule.

          • Dave_L

            If law makers must answer to an authority outside of themselves (God), the playing field is level. If they reject God, then they answer only to the powerful, and might makes right.

          • Ken Campbell

            We went through this already. Some of these categories make me wonder about the mindset of the author.

          • Dave_L

            “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            So who determines if the authors are inspired by God or inspired by some other self-serving motive. It is not as though God made his intentions clear.

          • Dave_L

            All 66 Books of the Bible are internally linked to each other. They refer to each other in several ways. They are in a sense one unit. All other writings that do not fit are used for other purposes. The Holy Spirit confirms their authenticity to those blessed with His presence.

          • Ken Campbell

            Actually there are many discrepancies throughout the Bible so this does not provide verification. The effort to make the books coincide are often quite comical. It is clear that the authors were trying their best but were also trying to attend to their own agendas

          • Dave_L

            “…..some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            The reality is that the people who manipulated the Bible (and later the Qur’an) did so with impunity as there is not supernatural being. This is a political tool and nothing more

          • Dave_L

            proof?

          • Ken Campbell

            There is the problem Dave. The position I take is one of a non-theist so since there is no god or gods, how would one explain the Bible. However, as is the case for the theist position, the precondition pretty much dictates the outcome. Thus my position looks at the ‘proof’ for a supernatural being and finds this proof lacking. Then it is a very clear road to understanding the sociological aspects of religious development.

            I do understand that the road for a theist is somewhat different.

          • Dave_L

            “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            OK…you need to understand that quoting a theist verse to convince a non-theist of something is not going to work. I do believe however, that it is easier for an atheist to understand a theist then it is for a theist to understand an atheist. I will explain this further if you are interested

          • Dave_L

            “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God….. ” (Psalm 14:1, KJV 1900)

            “Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.” (Proverbs 26:4, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            Responding with quotes from scripture will not be all that convincing. This is one of the reasons that theists do not make much headway in social change.

          • Dave_L

            No other option….

          • Ken Campbell

            That is unfortunate. Rational arguments still work for some.

          • Dave_L

            Can’t argue spiritual truth….“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            Actually you can argue with spiritual ‘truth’. the problem is that theists will not argue with it. There is no wish to analyse the belief system

          • Dave_L

            You cannot argue color schemes with a blind person

          • Ken Campbell

            you absolutely can. You can define colors mathematically (wavelength) and determine how these would combine. It is always possible to put a concept into the language of the recipient.

          • Dave_L

            Please, go right ahead.

          • Ken Campbell

            To start with, I would introduce the concept of clashing colors by showing the concept of clashing sounds in music. I would introduce harmony in the same way.

          • Cyril Tangham

            what makes the argument rational?

          • Ken Campbell

            a rational argument is based on logical questions and answers.

          • Dave_L

            Again, there is no possibility of reaching an understanding. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. …” (Psalm 14:1, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            Yes, I would agree that there is no likelihood of reaching an understanding. However this is a likelihood that we can agree to disagree and that we can agree that we should not push our beliefs on others.

          • Cyril Tangham

            Ken, I have a simple question for you?
            Do you have ALL the knowledge in the world?
            What ‘tools’ did you use to look at the proof for supernatural being?
            what is the “proof”…If I say i am looking for a car, then i must be knowledgeable about the car. So i must of necessity assume the existence of the car…and to proof that the particular car exists, i must already know it else i may pass over it in my quest…
            So you cannot dismiss that a car does not exist simply because you have not ‘found’ it.
            How did you go about it?

          • Ken Campbell

            1. I do not have all the knowledge in the world
            2. The tools that I used were the scriptures of the Bible and Qur’an

            So if you want to look for a car (perhaps a flying space car), you do need to know that it exists or have some evidence that it exists. If you cannot find it after a reasonable search, you will decide that it does not exist. How long would it take before you decide that a flying space car does not exist?

          • Cyril Tangham

            to believe that there is no GOd….you must have absolute knowlegde..and found God absent
            To say you cannot proof God, you must have all the possible proofs…and found God unprovable..
            I doubt strongly….

          • Ken Campbell

            You do not need absolute knowledge Cyril….you only need reasonable evidence. So if you look at reasonable evidence for anything (God, gnomes, unicorns) it is appropriate to state that these things do not exist. We generally do not assume something exists just because there is no proof to the contrary.

    • Becky

      “You are born gay…”

      No genetic evidence. Next.

      • StereoMan

        It’s there. You just have to have your eyes open .

        • All In

          No it isn’t. That has been disproven many times already. But I see you are still beating a dead horse.

          • StereoMan

            You are the one fighting science, Richard. Not me.

          • All In

            Here is what science actually says:

            Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors — how they “got that way.” The first of these studies was conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second, in 1970, involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. – Bell (1973) Homosexualities: their range and character. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Cole & Dienstbier (eds) Univ Nebraska Press; King (1980) The Etiology of Homosexuality as Related to Childhood Experiences and Adult Adjustment Ed.D. Thesis, Indiana Univ.

            Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.”

            Anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: “Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it’s impossible that that’s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.”

            Dr. Newton noted in an essay that her field has “no essentialist position on sexuality, no notion that people are born with sexual orientations. The evidence, fragmentary as it is, all points the other way.”

            Almost 80% of the 3,400 heterosexuals in the same study said that their preferences and behavior were learned – Cameron, et al (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Rpts 64:1167-79; Cameron, et al (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Rpts 62:211-9; Cameron, et al (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Rpts 58:327-37; Cameron (1985) Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Rpts 57:1227-36.

            “Genetics is not destiny.” – John Krystal, M.D., editor of Biological Psychiatry

            There are ex-homosexuals — those who have continued in homosexual liaisons for a number of years and then choose to change not only their habits, but also the object of their desire. Sometimes this alteration occurs as the result of psychotherapy; – Beiber, et al (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study Basic Books.

          • SFBruce

            Regarding the studies done in 1940 and 1970, of course, gay men believed their sexual orientation was due entirely to environmental factors, but that’s because it was the prevailing view at the time.

            You rely heavily on Paul Cameron, whose work has been completely discredited. The American Psychological Association, The American Sociological Association, The Canadian Psychological Association have completely dismissed his work due to faulty methodologies. Conservative organizations who used to use him as a reference almost universally have stopped doing so as a result of his reputation.

            You simply can’t get away from the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists today is that sexual orientation is not chosen. The fact that genetics isn’t the sole determining factor doesn’t mean one chooses to be gay or straight. You can dismiss this as political pressure by gay activists, and cite your fringe scientists, but the fact remains that the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.

          • Nidalap

            Ha! You can’t fool me! Homosexuality is obviously caused by man-made global warming! 🙂

          • All In

            All you’ve done is tried to discredit the published studies. That in no way denies their results or the abundance of them.

            To believe people are born gay is denial itself. It’s your choice to live in denial.

            In a large random sample, 88% of women currently claiming lesbian attraction and 73% of men claiming to currently enjoy homosexual sex, said that they had been sexually aroused by the opposite sex. – Cameron, et al (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Rpts 64:1167-79; Cameron, et al (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Rpts 62:211-9; Cameron, et al (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Rpts 58:327-37; Cameron (1985) Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Rpts 57:1227-36.

          • SFBruce

            “All you’ve done is tried to discredit the published studies. That in no way denies their results or the abundance of them.”

            This statement is internally inconsistent. Having discredited the studies, their results and abundance are obviously completely irrelevant. You didn’t even try to refute the basis I laid to discredit the studies.

            “To believe people are born gay is denial itself.”

            This is a circular argument, a logical fallacy in which the premise becomes the conclusion.

            And just to balance things out, you give us more Paul Cameron, someone who’s so completely discredited even your fellow conservatives no longer quote him.

          • All In

            > You didn’t even try to refute the basis I laid to discredit the studies.

            Your opinion was easily and overwhelmingly refuted by the actual science.

            > This is a circular argument, a logical fallacy in which the premise becomes the conclusion.

            It’s only circular to you. I’ll clarify: If you believe people are born gay in spite of the volumes of evidence contrary to that notion, you have to deny all of the evidence to maintain the belief. This is called denial. As such, my comment, “To believe people are born gay is denial itself” is accurate and NOT circular reasoning.

            If you take Paul’s comments out, the rest are consistent. And I have many, many more studies all saying the same thing.

            It’s a poor man’s attempt to discredit the whole by trying to discredit one.

          • SFBruce

            “If you believe people are born gay in spite of the volumes of evidence contrary to that notion, you have to deny all of the evidence to maintain the belief.”

            I believe I’ve successfully refuted a good amount of the evidence you’ve presented as “actual science.” As I’ve already said, you haven’t really addressed that directly, except to say I’m in “denial” because I don’t buy your discredited studies.

            I have never claimed that “people are born gay.” I do claim that it’s not chosen, and can’t be changed.

            You’re certainly entitled to your beliefs, but you might want to take some time and look at some studies that aren’t being used by anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council. It won’t turn you gay, and there’s always the possibility you’ll learn something.

          • All In

            > I believe I’ve successfully refuted a good amount of the evidence you’ve presented as “actual science.”

            You haven’t refuted it at all. Just denied it.

            > I do claim that it’s not chosen, and can’t be changed

            I believe you claim that because you don’t understand what drives behavior. But just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean gays don’t choose it. It just means you don’t understand it.

            I’ve done a significant amount of research, which is why I know gays choose the lifestyle. This also explains why gays switch back and forth. This is all choice, as clearly demonstrated by their behavior and why gays can become ex-gays, and vice versa.

            Here’s a few question for you:

            What forces gays to act on their desires?

            What causes someone to desire someone else’s wife?

            What causes someone to prey on children?

            What causes someone to want to marry two or more partners?

            What causes a son to marry his mother?

            All born that way? Biological? Genes?

          • Homer for God

            Have you realized that you bring such great evidence to back your side up, but yet not one has brought any shred of evidence to back themselves up?
            These tiny little victories can be only given to God.
            God bless

          • SFBruce

            “I believe you claim that [being gay isn’t a choice] because you don’t understand what drives behavior.”

            I believe that being gay isn’t a choice for 2 excellent reasons: (1) I’m gay, and I didn’t choose it, and (2) the current scientific consensus agrees with me. Your speculation about what I understand is as inaccurate as your understanding of sexual orientation.

          • StereoMan

            As always, your sources are at best ridiculously dated and at worst a joke so terrible that they would make your fellow fundamentalists blush. The real science on the matter and the most reliable is from the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. The are the most respected and do the greatest research.

          • Josey

            And you can’t prove scientifically that they are born that way either.

          • Jim H

            So you prefer to default to choosing they aren’t because of what? Do you simply like being able to discriminate against them and want an excuse. I would think a sense of charity/compassion would require the opposite default, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

      • Ken Campbell

        However this will soon come. This is the exciting part of living today. The genome is unraveling its secrets

      • nevergiveup

        Brilliant response

    • All In

      In the mid-1990’s, Dr. Diamond recruited a group of 90 women at gay pride parades, academic conferences on gender issues and other venues. About half of the women called themselves lesbians, a third identified as bisexual and the rest claimed no sexual orientation. In follow-up interviews over the last 10 years, Dr. Diamond has found that most of these women have had relationships both with men and women.

      Professor Graham Willett who is himself a homosexual and author of ‘Living out Loud – A short history of US’ – a history of homosexual activism in Australia has said, “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, “it’s not our fault”, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality.. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort [to recruit]?”

  • Crosseyedone

    And they said it would never happen. Yeah right. Next siblings. I wonder if Louis Armstrong would still sing “what a wonderful world” or is it more likely he would be singing the Kinks song Lola- “Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls.
    It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,”

    • DNelson

      “And they said it would never happen.”

      Who ever said that people would not seek the legal right to marry more than one person? That has happened way before same-gender marriage was legal.

      • Crosseyedone

        I’m guessing that is a rhetorical question but just in case you have been living in a closet somewhere and you’ve only just come out, homosexuals have been bleating for years that they “gaining” the right to get a “marriage” certificate would not open up the gate to other alternative life-stylers demanding their “relationship” be legally recognized.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          That’s not an answer. You’re just repeating what you said before. So I’ll ask again. Who said that? When? Where?

          • Crosseyedone

            Unfortunately I have only trained to provide instruction to students at a high school or college level. I’m not sure I can dumb down my previous answer to the level you seem to require. Sorry about that.

        • DNelson

          Nor has it. Those desiring to marry more than one person have been able to request a marriage certificate at any time. That two people of the same gender are allowed to enter into marriage does not serve as a legal rationale for why the State must allow a man to marry more than one woman.

    • Jim H

      Abraham and Sarah were half siblings sharing the same father. Who did Adam and Eve’s kids marry?
      So, the question really is why are the Christians posting here, who apparently read the Bible fairly literally, are okay with incest throughout Genesis, apparently as part of God’s plan and are all freaked out by it now?

      • Crosseyedone

        Howdy, the very fact you need to ask this question tells one that you do not understand the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant that God has with man.

        • Jim H

          No, it does tell you any such thing. But, It does tell me you apparently don’t know your Bible as well as you think you do because it was forbidden under the old covenant in Leviticus.

          My point would be more at what you would call the “intrinsic” wrongness of the act. According to a strict reading of the Bible, it must have been part of God’s plan at one time. Otherwise he wouldn’t have just made two people in Genesis 2, he would have made at least a group of people. Therefore it could not be wrong in any objective sense.

          The fact that later, on following the Exodus, He decided it wasn’t a good idea anymore, wouldn’t change the intrinsic nature of the act.

  • Becky

    Next, the zoophiles.

  • DNelson

    “It’s about marriage equality,”

    Mr. Collier is mistaken. It is all about whether the State can provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for restrictions on the issuance of a marriage licenses. Regarding polygamous marriage, the State can easily provide such reasons.

    • All In

      > Regarding polygamous marriage, the State can easily provide such reasons

      Such as?

      • Jim H

        Spousal social security benefits, pensions, tax deductions, etc.

    • Ken Campbell

      The primary reason for avoiding polygamous relationships is financial. It would cut deeply into the tax base

  • Matilde Tavares

    Next is the father/dog…,/donkey/ horse… Next?

    • Jim H

      Couldn’t happen, dogs, donkeys, and horses can’t say “I do”.

      • All In

        While they may not be able to verbalize, “I do,” they can show approval in other ways.

        • Jim H

          So, do you think animals have intention and can consent? Doesn’t that require what Aquinas called a “rational soul”? Doesn’t that mean they can also sin?

      • Dave_L

        “And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:16, KJV 1900)

        The “Beast” is held accountable along with the woman. The beast must be willing else sexual performance would be impossible.

        • Jim H

          I never understood that passage. I can see why they would kill the woman out of fear she would have a hybrid human/beast child like the Minotaur, since they had no understanding of genetics and wouldn’t know it was impossible.

          I don’t understand why they would kill the male animal, unless (as I said elsewhere) animals have intention and can consent. That would require that they have what Aquinas (and, I think, Aristotle before him) called a “rational soul”. That would also mean they could sin.

          I likewise I question if it is reasonable to say that a beast is willing, because that implies it has a will, which, in turn, indicates it has something comparable to human’s spiritual (soul) or cognitive (mind) capacities.

          Even if animals do have cognitive abilities of say a small child that does not mean they could consent any more than a small child could. I don’t think you can use the ability to perform to assume an ability to consent. A person with Down’s Syndrome who is physically mature enough can, and will (if given the chance) engage in sexual activity. I have known people who worked in the “locked up” section” of mental institutions and the same can be said for very psychotic people.

          If you contend that animals do have intention or will of any sort, does that require we seek their approval prior to slaughtering them for food? If the fact that they can act sexually implies cognitive or spiritual faculties of some sort and all living things show they wish to avoid pain an death, doesn’t that make what we do to them murder?

          You really can’t have it both ways.

          • Dave_L

            I don’t think the animal could function if it were not willing. God is Just, so He know doubt held the animal accountable calling for its death.

          • Jim H

            So that means they have intentions that require a rational soul or cognitive awareness. So, how many did you murder for meals today?

          • Dave_L

            I’m vegan

          • Jim H

            If you are serious, good for you. If not I don’t appreciate you taking the subject so lightly.

            I would like to be vegan, but I don’t have enough willpower. However, I haven’t eaten mammals or fowl in years. I rarely eat seafood. I do eat dairy and eggs (cage free if I can).

            I actually do believe animals have some cognitive ability and some sort of sense of self. I have seen films of pigs in slaughterhouses. They are pretty smart and when they figure out what is going on, which they do, thy want no part of it. They obviously want to survive. Which is why I don’t eat them.

            I have had a genuine paternal type of feeling of affection for most of the animals I have owned and they seem to reciprocate in their own way. I sat and petted two of my dogs as they peacefully took their last breath.

            So, I am quite serious about ideas concerning consent, will, and intention.

          • Dave_L

            Thanks for sharing this. I really am a vegan and have benefited greatly because of it. (Esselstyn Diet). God created us as vegans and expanded our diet to include animal protein after the Flood. People of old ate animals sparingly, unlike today.

          • Ken Campbell

            There is way too much meat in our diets. I see where McDonald’s is about to increase the size of the Quarter Pounder (they have the power to change our weights). However, our ancestors were omnivores as is evidenced by the canine teeth and the incisors. They ate what they could catch. We really did not move to vegetables until after we developed the ability to farm

          • Dave_L

            “God said (to Adam & Eve), “Look, I have given you all the plants that have grain for seeds and all the trees whose fruits have seeds in them. They will be food for you.” (Genesis 1:29, NCV)

          • Ken Campbell

            So in the creationist system, how do you explain the existence of the canine teeth in humans?

          • Dave_L

            God planned the end of all things from the beginning. It is all part of the big picture.

          • Ken Campbell

            So in this concept, God knew that humans would become meat eaters?

          • Dave_L

            He appointed them to eat animals after the Flood. God knows all things because He produces and controls all things.

          • Ken Campbell

            So God prepared humans to eat meat because God knew humans would fail and that God would kill them all with the flood and then have them eat meat?

          • Dave_L

            “In whom also we (Christians) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:11–12, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            I’ll take that as a yes. So God, who is omnipresent, already knew that he would throw Adam and Eve out of Eden and that the flood would destroy all creatures. Doesn’t this feel a bit like a set-up? If I give a person free will but only one choice, I’m not really giving them choices.

          • Dave_L

            God created all things to make His Glory known. Without sin there is no understanding mercy, righteousness, wrath, holiness, goodness. Nor God’s love. He verified His love when He took the punishment for sin in behalf of all who will ever want to be saved. To the exclusion and damnation of all who reject Him.

            “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,” (Ephesians 3:9–10, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            In other words, God was a serious manipulator, setting up a scenario and then stepping in to resolve it in a self-aggrandizing moment. The interesting thing is that so many people accept this as a positive thing.

          • Dave_L

            “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            Another interesting concept is the threat that God gave Eve. If she eats the forbidden fruit, she will die. Now at that point, Eve would have no concept of death beyond a word (much like a child). Thus the consequence would be meaningless to her.

            I’m only raising these points as an indication of how bizarre this belief system really is.

          • Dave_L

            It really doesn’t matter. Disobeying God regardless of the threat understood or not is sin.

          • Ken Campbell

            This is circular reasoning Dave. There is no rational basis for it. In another post you stated that this was ‘God hating’ but perhaps it is better seen as ‘God debunking’. You cannot hate something that does not exist.

            This brings me back to my original comment that a Theist cannot comprehend non-theism

          • Dave_L

            You debunking God is like the effect debunking the cause.

          • Ken Campbell

            I am debunking the cause as described in the Bible. I am debunking the Bible. If a book has no validity, then it has no value.

          • Dave_L

            “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” (Romans 8:5, KJV 1900)

          • Ken Campbell

            in my next creation, I’m going to build a creature with curiosity and then I’m going to punish that creature when it exhibits curiosity. This should be fun

          • Dave_L

            Do you have Scripture to support your theory? If not, it is nothing more than venting hatred for your maker.

          • Ken Campbell

            I do have scripture. Its the Book of Genesis.

          • Dave_L

            How about some quotes?

          • Ken Campbell

            Let us make man in our image

          • Dave_L

            explain?

          • Ken Campbell

            According to this line, God made humans with the ability to reason and the capacity to have free will (to make choices). While giving humans this ability, God knew that humans would not make the choices that God wanted them to make. God also knew that he would destroy all life (except those on the Arc) for making bad choices. In other words it was a set-up. A predetermined outcome

          • Dave_L

            “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:” (Romans 9:21–22, KJV 1900)

          • Jim H

            Yes, I have read Genesis many times and was always struck by the fact that it says that in the garden, God gave us fruit to eat and that didn’t change until after the flood when Noah and his family got off the Ark. The lives of people after that were also limited to “three core and ten” if I remember correctly.
            There are a couple of things related to are that which I find interesting. I have read that a human beings digestive track is longer than a pure meat eater and shorter than a pure plant eater, typical of an animal that lives on fruit. Also, human beings, along with guinea pigs, do not produce vitamin c in their bodies. It is theorized that we stopped making because our diet was so high in it we didn’t need to. That would be a diet high in fruit.

          • Dave_L

            Interesting.

      • Ken Campbell

        It is so hard to get that messy consent business out of the way

        • Jim H

          Yeah, people seem to ignore that factor altogether. It gets in the way of the rhetoric.

  • Matilde Tavares

    What about dog woofing or hiho for no/yes? Mayb one wood for no & 2 for yes? Or hee ==no, hee haw=Yes? This becone beyond ridiculous, more like insanity??

    • Jim H

      Only for those of you who feel the need to drive things past logical extremes.

    • Ken Campbell

      You let us know when you have trained your dog to do this.

      • Matilde Tavares

        was sick humour. i trust you saw that…

        • Ken Campbell

          You needed to use ‘satire font’. I frequently find myself suffering from Poe’s Law syndrome on some of these strings

  • Nidalap

    And, of course, we’re starting to see little test-balloon articles stating that pedophiles are just born that way too. All sexual deviance is logically related. Now that this ruling by the head lawyers has come down, we’ll see all the deviant groups rushing to claim their piece of ‘equality’ too…

    • Jim H

      It really doesn’t matter whether pedophiles are born that way or not. The issue is consent. A true pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, which would be under 11 years old. The most common age of consent globally 16 years old. That means a true pedophile would have lost interest 5 years before the object of their affections could consent. If they act on their urge before the person can consent, its called statutory rape.

      • disqus_AVDYxhWaoU

        Lol American ethics. I’ve frequently heard people call some one a pedophile for dating a 16 year old.

        • Jim H

          Pedophile has become kind of a buzzword. People use words like that to be emotive rather than technically accurate. precise. like to go for an an emotional reaction.

          For example Josh Duggar could not properly be called a pedophile because he was 15 at the time and you must be over 16 to technically be a pedophile. It may be likely he is, because his victims were all much younger than him (one was only 5), there were multiple incidents, and he was almost 16. Something unhealthy was going on, but does not technically make him a pedophile.

    • Ken Campbell

      It is likely that pedophiles are born that way. We should be willing to help them as they have a mental illness that leads them to hurt children. Sexual deviance is not ok if one of the partners is not consenting (I’m sure you already know this)

      • Nidalap

        Ah, but they’ve already been working to get pedophilia removed from the mental disorder list, just as they did for homosexuality! Offer them counseling to help and you may just be labeled a bigot! 🙂

        • Ken Campbell

          Actually that is not true. Pedophilia is still quite secure in its place as a psychiatric diagnosis.

          • Nidalap

            I certainly hope that it remains so! Nevertheless it IS true that certain groups have been trying to change that. You can thank NAMBLA and a couple of homosexual activist groups for that…

          • Ken Campbell

            Pedophiles are grouped in the paraphilia classification as far as a mental illness is concerned. This group also includes those who are excited by excrement and such. The fact that pedophiles also commit a crime places them in the criminal justice system. Being a pedophile is not illegal but assaulting a child is.

            I do not know of any homosexual organizations in favor of decriminalizing pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

          • Nidalap

            All sexual deviancy is logically related. The fact that general society still considers them monsters is the only thing stopping a “P” being added to the LGBTQ alphabet…

          • Ken Campbell

            One of the things that makes the opponents of same sex marriage sound shrill is when they make unsupported statements like this. The Same Sex Marriage result did not open the flood gates to sexual deviancy. It only corrected an unfairness where two consenting adults who love each could not have the safety of a social contract.

            By raising the ‘slippery slope’ issue, the opponents to this ruling look desperate. Homosexuality is simply a sexual orientation toward a person of the same sex just as heterosexuality is the sexual orientation of a person to the opposite sex. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are pedophiles. Normal healthy homosexuals are not attracted to little boys any more than normal healthy heterosexuals are attracted to little girls

            There is no plan or wish to extend rights to pedophiles except for the right to receive treatment

          • Nidalap

            The truth is, as I have stated, all the sexual deviancy is related. As for plans to extend rights to pedophiles, here’s a link to an article about it, since you like support for statements like these…

            http :// www;wnd;com /2013 /10 /lefts-new-crusade-adult-kid-sex/

            Let’s see if it goes through, just remove the spaces and replace the semicolons with periods…

          • Ken Campbell

            Thank you for putting in the link. This is a political rather than a scientific article. However, I will agree that sexual deviancy forms are related (often called the paraphilias). Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia but rather a sexual orientation, and is thus not considered a sexual deviancy. Heterosexuality is also not considered a paraphilia.

            there is no group (other than some paraphilia groups and the religious conservatives) who are suggesting that rights should be extended to the pedophiles. As far as I know, there has been no request in any state that pedophiles should have the right to target children.

          • Taussig

            citation for homosexual activist groups changing the age of consent?

          • Nidalap

            Apparently, this particular site takes quite some time to approve posts with links in them. I’ll try to see if I can work around their filter…

            http :// www;wnd;com /2013 /10 /lefts-new-crusade-adult-kid-sex/

            Let’s see if it goes through, just remove the spaces and replace the semicolons with periods…

      • Josey

        They are born that way too??? Then if that is the thinking and you say they should be helped, why aren’t they helping the gays “born that way” stop being gay? Or helping transgenders?? Or the shoplifter?Murderer?
        Here’s the problem, we are all born into this world sinners, we have a sin problem and the only person who can help with our sin problem is Jesus Christ. And we will never make right choices if we are justifying sin as “I can’t help it, I was born that way”…That leads to reprobate thinking. People who think I can’t help it because I was born this way don’t struggle anymore in their conscience or think there is a need for help from any counselor and most importantly they don’t look to the Saviour who is the one who can deliver them completely from sin. They just accept the behaviour and now we are seeing the same moral decline in this Country as has happened in other Countries because this acceptance that “they are just born this way” justifies the wrong behaviour, and this acceptance of their sinful behaviour in the form of “I was born this way” is now being forced on the rest of the population who makes right choices for their lives and for their families.
        Sad all around, sad for those who can be helped by Jesus Christ but instead are being fed the lie they were born that way so they no longer think they need any deliverance and are on the road to an eternal hell separate from Almighty God who loves them more than anyone can fathom and wants to set them free, it is sad and vexing for us who know who can set them free and show them what true love is as we watch them hurt themselves and others and as the cancer spreads and leads others down the same road to eternal separation from the one who died, bled and rose again to set the captive free, the Lord Jesus Christ.

        • Ken Campbell

          There are many things that are part of your genetic makeup. Some of these things are positive (intelligence) and some are negative (mental illness, myopia). Some things are just part of who you are and are relatively neutral.

          If your genetic makeup includes a mental illness, it behooves society to try to help you. At the same time, if your mental illness causes you to hurt others (such as pedophilia) then it is also important to prevent you from expressing this illness through your behavior.

          To believe in sin requires a person to believe in a god or gods. If you want to believe in your god, then that is your prerogative. However, it is an error to think that others will automatically accept your version of ‘reality’. So long as you do not push your beliefs on others there is no problem with supporting you in your opinion.

          Saying someone is born with a certain attribute does not justify the attribute. It is simply a matter of acceptance. The serenity prayer (which you should endorse) states this well: To change the things that I can change, to accept the things that I cannot change, and to know the difference.

          • Josey

            I don’t endorse the serenity prayer, it is not in the Bible, that is an AA saying or prayer. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ and I believe that with God all things are possible. So I do not just accept the things I cannot change but with prayer to God through Jesus His Son, I pray for Him to change what I cannot and for the strength to change what I can change.

          • Ken Campbell

            OK…..However, this will produce a problem in that you will have to learn how to accept the things you cannot change. Such is the pain of illness or the pain you see in your children. Without learning to accept your fate or your personal makeup, you will always feel abandoned.

    • Lark62

      I understand that some have a hard time figuring out why abusing children is immoral. After all, the font of all morality also known as the buybull is totally cool with selling small children into marriage. Those who base their morality on that archaic dung heap will be really confused.

      Those of us living in the 21st century know that it is wrong abuse children, sell children into marriage, and have sex without free and conscious mutual consent.

      • Nidalap

        That’s an interesting point of view, but if you’ll just look around a bit and use a little common sense, you might see some problems with it. Take an organization that exists right here in the 21st century, NAMBLA. Now, by your stated logic, they should be over here on the Right, with the Christians you imply agree with abusing children and all the rest. But no, they reside squarely on the Left side of the fence. You see, with our archaic, black and white views of good and evil, we’d never tolerate them for a single second. Now folks who have a very shades-of-grey, relative morality view, they seem content to let them stay right nearby. I think I prefer the company over here, thank you very much…

        • Lark62

          Abusing children is wrong. There are no shades of grey here.

          There are abusers and criminals in society and society has a responsibility to protect children regardless of the religious beliefs (or not) of the abuser.

          I would argue that the “do no harm” morality of humanists is better for protecting children than the “sex is impure” belief of some christians that lumps together all sex outside of marriage.

          For a real time example, the Duggars prohibit healthy expressions of teenage feelings, including consensual kissing. They rail against gays.

          Did this make five young girls safer? Would it have been better for a little five year old molested numerous times in her bed if the parents had taught their children that consensual sexual activity is not really just as bad as non consensual sexual assault?

          Consent, adult conscious consent or consent by equal peers in the case of teens, matters.

          To compare consensual activity some christians find yucky to child rape is evil.

  • pianoman

    Plural marriages most likely will be legal at some point, after all, there is a Biblical foundation for them, and the United States follows Biblical Law.

  • Tahatch Bearwolf

    You people need to wake up, the world loves gay “marriage” but hates polygamy precisely because polygamy is a GOOD thing that is nowhere in the Scriptures prohibited for non deacon/bishop people and that would fix many these single mother future criminal/leftist homes. So many “Christians” have rejected the truth in favor of the traditions of men that they fight against a form of marriage that GOD HIMSELF instituted, where do you think the twelve tribes of Israel came from people??? Polygamy is not wrong, nor were David or Solomon’s crimes polygamy, but rather they were murder and marrying heathen. It is time for those who believe to stop being deceived about this and so many other matters of Scripture, these are the last days, playtime is over.

    • Jim H

      I don’t necessarily agree that polygamy is a good thing, or that these are the last days. But I agree completely with what you said about scriptures and pointed the same thing out elsewhere. David was punished because he killed Uriah the Hittite and the twelve tribes came from Leah and Rachel and their handmaidens. People seem to explain away, or simply ignore, whatever they don’t like in scripture.

      • Tahatch Bearwolf

        People, even, maybe especially, believers these days do tend to ignore what they don’t like or add things they do, but that is one of the clear signs of the times right there, that we are in the midst of the great falling away, which is happening due to skewed doctrines and versions of “god” that are made in men’s images. Polygamy is certainly not good for everyone, but those for whom it is right know who they are, and it is no sin if done right. As for the last days, if you can’t see that we are on the doorstep of the tribulation then you simply need more information.

  • Guest

    Just more smoke. The SCOTUS ruling removed an unconstitutional licensing restriction on an existing civil contract, one that can only be between two people since it has a promise of mutual reciprocal exclusive commitment as part of the spousal relationship legally recognized. Simply put, promise to share everything with another person is a marriage, promise to do it concurrently again is fraud.

    All forms of legally recognized concubinal polygamy will require a new contract to be created, not just access to the old contract which is unusable by a polygamist.

    Want to have legally recognized concubinal status then either create a new contract or remove the restriction on sexual congress involved in a private contract. But marriage equality – allowing all people access to the same contract that others have already had access to – has nothing to do with it, they are two separate things.

  • Christian

    We really shouldn’t be surprised by this. I saw it coming before the ruling was ever handed down. If the ruling is allowed to stand I’m pretty sure this will be allowed too. Face it, we are in the end times, where right is wrong and wrong is right.

  • Looking Glass

    Betcha he voted for Bush. Betcha he’s a gun owner. Betcha he is in church every Sunday!