Homosexual Group Wants Govt to Release Names of Schools ‘Using Faith as Guise for Discrimination’

School Bible pdA prominent homosexual advocacy group is calling upon the U.S. Department of Education to release the names of religious schools that it believes are “using faith as a guise for discrimination” by seeking exemptions from a federal law that has recently been interpreted to pertain to homosexuality and transgenderism.

“There is an alarming and growing trend of schools quietly seeking the right to discriminate against LGBT students, and not disclosing that information publicly,” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin in a statement. “We believe that religious liberty is a bedrock principle of our nation, however faith should never be used as a guise for discrimination.”

The group is referring to Christian colleges and universities nationwide that have requested an exemption from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits educational institutions from discriminating against a person based on their gender. Although the law has been most known as being applied to women, the Department of Education recently told various schools that Title IX also applies to transgender students.

But Title IX also contains a provision allowing religious schools to request an exemption from the law if  “application of the law would conflict with specific tenets of the religion.” HRC notes in a new report that 56 schools nationwide have requested an exemption, especially in recent years, with 23 seeking an exemption surrounding their convictions about homosexuality and 33 seeking an exemption surrounding transgender issues.

Schools who do not seek an exemption may be required to allow male students who identify as female to use the girls’ restroom and vice versa, or may be mandated to permit male students who identify as female to share dorm space with the girls and vice versa.

HRC provided the example of a George Fox University student named Jayce, a female who identifies as male.

“Jayce, a transgender male student, was denied a request to live in male housing with his friends,” it outlined. “George Fox had argued that accommodating transgender students would be incompatible with their interpretation of the Bible. Jayce questioned the school’s rationale: ‘I’m living with a bunch of young women … It’s not a good recipe for promoting the kind of behavior that a Christian university expects from its students.'”

  • Connect with Christian News

The group also told the story of Southwestern Christian University student Christian Minard, who was expelled after the school learned that she had “married” her same-sex partner.

“Southwestern Christian required students to sign a ‘lifestyle covenant’ prohibiting, among other things, ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) behavior or acts,'” it explained.

HRC believes that it is discrimination for religious schools to refuse to allow transgender students to use the restroom or dorm of their choice, or to prohibit students from engaging in homosexual behavior. It wants the Department of Education to release the names of the educational institutions that have requested an exemption from Title IX and to require schools to post information on their website about the scope of the exemption granted.

“Prospective students and their parents deserve greater transparency, and we urge the Department of Education to take action by helping to increase accountability and to ensure that no student unknowingly enrolls in a school that intends to discriminate against them,” Griffin said.

But some institutions say that the exemptions are extremely important as Christian schools must be permitted to live out their faith lest they violate their entire purpose and mission as a Bible-based organization.

“If we were unable to choose faculty members who both live out and have a traditional view of Christian sexual morality, then that really damages our ability to pursue our mission as an institution,” Hunter Baker, a fellow for religious liberty at Union University, told the Daily Caller. “You’re making it illegal for us to insist on a Christian life and worldview.”


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
  • afchief

    The skin and bones anorexic girl that stands in front of the mirror and sees herself as fat…do we cater to her self-deception and encourage her to eat less? Of course not. Instead, we call it what it is, a disorder, and seek ways to change the behavior for the child’s own well-being and safety. Why don’t we do the same with the confused transgendered lot? It is just another word for homosexual.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      Transgenders are not confused! Get that in your head! Ever took the time to talk to someone who is transgender? I supose not and again you listen to what others tell you.

      • afchief

        LOL! They were born a certain sex and they think they are the opposite sex?!?!? That is not confusion?!?!?!?

        Please, you are making me laugh!!!!

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          As always judging someone you don’t know, typical for people like you.

          • afchief

            If that’s not confusion, what is?

            And how is that judging?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            How is that judging? Have you ever talked to a transgender? I think not, so you judging transgender people without knowing them, without even talk to them.

          • afchief

            I know God! I know that when God makes a man, He does not make a mistake. A man’s DNA does not change, perioid

      • Rosemary Martin

        I know one personally, watched him grow up, he had a bad childhood, met some shrink in a chat room who convinced him he is transgender. Still just an abused little boy even more screwed up than before thanks to a demented shrink. I have seen things that used to be called mental illness being now a right?

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Oh wow, one out of how many worldwide. I know several and they are very happy with their lives.

  • Frank

    It’s not “traditional” Christian view on sexuality. It is the Christian view on sexuality. There are not two different Christian views. Christ is not divided.

    • mantis

      if that were the case there wouldn’t be so many different denominations of Christianity

    • Leslie Gray

      Do you have any idea just how many different views there are of homosexuality in this country alone? Then there is the sticky little detail of the fact that the word homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. Just how did a nonexistent word even get in the Bible in the first place?

      • Shaun D.

        There word “homosexuality” isn’t in the Holy Eternal word of God, true, but the description of it IS!!!!!

        Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
        Romans 1:24-32
        Genesis 19

        • Leslie Gray

          What I know is this. There are many Christian scholars that disagree on the topic of homosexuality and the bible. A great deal of cherry picking ala cafeteria style interpretations of the Bible are common among almost all of the protestant religions.
          Whatever.

          My point is this, at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is that your interpretation of scripture is legally unfit for recognition in our nation’s law;Thanks to the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.

          • afchief

            Nope, that is a boldface lie!!! All Christians agree that homosexuality IS sin!!!

          • Leslie Gray

            Tell that to the United Church of Christ and several others that fail to agree with you.

          • afchief

            I will and I will say they are NOT Christians!!!!

          • Leslie Gray

            The 1st amendment makes sure that you are entitled to believe whatever you like.The nice part is that the 1st amendment also prevents you or anyone else from being able to establish their religious beliefs into law.

          • afchief

            Look, you are stuck in this sin (homosexuality) and there is freedom in Jesus Christ. He and we Christians do not hate you. But if you continue in this sin there is eternal consequences. Give your life to Jesus Christ and He will set you free.

          • Leslie Gray

            How can I even begin to worship something I have never believed in?

          • afchief

            We are all sinners and need a savior!!

            Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

            And it is by faith

            Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

          • Leslie Gray

            I can do that too. “Lo, do I see my mother. Lo, do I see my father. Lo, do I see my sisters and my brothers. Lo, I see the line of my people stretching back to the beginning. They do call to me. They bid me to take my place in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever.”

          • Bob Johnson

            “where the brave may live forever.” Well actually they leave with Odin for Ragnarok.

            That is what happens when you take sacred text literally.

          • Leslie Gray

            Sure. If you believe that sort of thing. My intent was to demonstrate that the scripture quoted had no more meaning than any other passage of text being quoted out of the blue.

          • Coach

            Leslie, you’re welcome to live as you please, but the God who made you will call into account your evil. I saw earlier where you mentioned televangelists being greedy for money, true and there condemnation will be worse than Hitler’s.
            You can argue all you want for your sin and it’s a broad road, take whatever you want, but you will stand before the throne on judgement day utterly stripped of everything to receive the payment for your sins and God will justly cast you into hell.

            Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

            Psalm 7:10 My defense is of God,
            Who saves the upright in heart.
            11 God is a just judge,
            And God is angry with the wicked every day.
            12 If he does not turn back,
            He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready.

            It’s amazing that people will use televangelists as a defense for not believing, that’s like saying you don’t like Jews because of people like Hitler.

          • Leslie Gray

            I like this passage even better, Matthew 6:5-6, (5)“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. (6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

            You are commanded to keep your faith a secret so that your God will reward you, also in secret.

          • Coach

            Your father the devil can twist scripture too. It’s better for you to quote the quran than to twist God’s Word to try to destroy His people.

          • Leslie Gray

            How very medieval of you.

          • PastProdigal

            And you failed.

          • Leslie Gray

            Like I really care.

          • PastProdigal

            We realize it’s a lot of fun to babble off silliness, take Scripture out of context, and try to promote garbage as being in the Bible, but you need to realize that you are just digging your pit deeper.

          • Shaun D.

            God hates homosexuality. He condemns it 100%, past, present and future. 🙂

          • PastProdigal

            There’s a difference between the Creator giving us His Word to live by in order to live healthy, productive lives and spend Eternity with Him in the end, and you babbling meaningless nonsense.

          • Shaun D.

            Thats just some lies and mythological crap from the mouth and heart of an abominations, which has the sentence of death upon him or herself.

            You’re a child of Satan. You’re. Under the wrath of God, you will not escape His wrath.

            Fall upon His mercy and live. REPENT!

          • PastProdigal

            Actually, the First Amendment was established to keep government out of religion, not the other way around.

          • Leslie Gray

            Extract from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut

            Jan. 1. 02.

            Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

            There it is again, “…‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” And, the magic words, “… thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

            Jefferson was an adamant defender of the right to religious freedoms. But, even Jefferson saw the need to keep religion and government from mixing as it had in the dark days of inquisitions, hangings and burnings.

          • PastProdigal

            She’s talking about churches that haven’t fallen into apostasy.

          • Leslie Gray

            No, actually she’s not. She’s referring to temples of hate.

          • Shaun D.

            I’m in agreement with God.

            You’re in agreement with Satan, along with all your carpet munching and fudge packing fecal boy abominations.

            You lose

          • Leslie Gray

            Oh, I see. Too bad this site won’t let me properly cite studies for you. You’re reactions are clearly those of a man in deep denial of deep seated desires that you are ashamed of. You need counseling.

            I loose nothing.

          • PastProdigal

            That simply is untrue. It’s pretty hard to miss God’s condemnation of homosexual acts, no matter how hard you try to defend it. You can criticize Christians all you want, but you’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s God that set the rules. We just go by them.
            And this has absolutely zero to do with the “establishment clause” which you refer to, and which doesn’t even exist in the First Amendment anywhere, or in any other of our founding documents. It came from a personal letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists who were concerned about government meddling in their religious practices, and mean exactly the opposite of what the atheists and uninformed are trying to pretend that it means.

          • Leslie Gray

            It would seem that the constitutional scholars over at Cornell disagree with your opinion on the existence of the establishment clause.

            “The First Amendment’s
            Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law
            “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids
            the government from establishing an official religion, but also
            prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over
            another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring
            religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.” (citation – Cornell University Law School website search – ‘Establishment Clause’)

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            The quoted portion of the 1st Amendment IS the clause you want to claim does not exist.

            As for the rest of your argument. Show me where Jesus ever said anything against same sex relationships. And, I’ll show you what Jesus thought of the practice of getting married in the first place.

          • Shaun D.

            The only thing we concretely know we will hear from you QUEERS is bigotted lies, hate and total disregard for truth, decency and morality.

            The Holy Eternal Bible ISNT judged by the laws of the land, you abominable vile sick creature, and child of Satan.

            This world is judged by the Holy Eternal word of God.

            You’re going to Hell. Where you WILL burn with everlasting flames in outer darkness.

          • Leslie Gray

            Flames in darkness. Really? I’ve been a fire fighter for many years. I can tell you that there is no such thing as flames in darkness. Flames are very bright. Where there are flames, there is no darkness.

            You worry about your religious issues. My spirituality is no concern of yours. Oh, and your words hold no truth for me. Thus your words hold no fear for me, either.

      • afchief

        This is how homosexuals try to justify their sin by saying the word homosexuality did not exist years ago. Which we Christians ALL know is a boldface lie. The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don’t get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15.

        • Leslie Gray

          The term homosexual was first used in print was in 1869 in an Austrian protest pamphlet against anti-gay laws of the day. Biblical times were much earlier than 1869.

          If you have a bible with the words homosexuality and homosexual in it, then you should reread Revelation 22:18 “18I
          testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
          if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are
          written in this book;”

          • afchief

            Is homosexuality sin? Yes or no?

          • Leslie Gray

            I don’t believe in your religion. And NO. Being born gay and living the life I was given honestly is not a sin.

          • afchief

            You are NOT born gay. There is NO gay gene. Men’s bodies are NOT meant to have sex together.

            There is freedom in Jesus Christ!

          • Leslie Gray

            Wrong on all counts.

            As for freedom, I prefer a compass that only points to the things I want the most, a strong wind at my back and the rolling deck of a tall ship beneath my feet. Oh, and some really bad eggs.

          • afchief

            If you continue down this path of homosexuality there is ONLY pain. You will have NO peace.

            I have warned you that this life has eternal consequences. It is you choice!!!

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • Leslie Gray

            Quite the contrary. Since I have fully embraced the life I was born to live the pain and suffering I was experiencing has all but vanished. Moreover, I have found that the lives of those so called christians that condemned me have continued to be fraught with anguish and guilt.

          • Bob Johnson

            No. Homosexuality is an abomination along with eating shrimp and wearing polyester. Oh yes and cheeseburgers.

          • afchief

            Yes, it is sin. Since there has been NO homo marriage since mankind began (and there is none now) two men having sex together is fornication. It is also perverted and deviant. It is because of a reprobate mind.

          • Leslie Gray

            You should do some basic research before making such a claim. History is replete with same sex unions in almost every culture known to man.

            The historian John Boswell claimed the 4th century Christian martyrs Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in the ritual of adelphopoiesis, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage. The icon depicting their wedding is still on display.

            A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga
            in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061 by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

            There are many more examples of same sex marriages to be found throughout history.

          • afchief

            If one looks at a dictionary one will find that marriage is defined as “between one man and one woman”. No matter what homos or anyone else tries to call it. It will NEVER be marriage.

            In 1986 Sodomy was against the law. What changed? Two homo judges on the bench!

            Homosexuality is still sin. It is perverted! It is deviant! It is extremely dangerous to one’s physical and spiritual health.

            It is death!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            The bench has six Roman Catholics and three Jews.

          • Leslie Gray

            What part of homosexuality are you the most afraid of? The love of two people for each other and their desire to live together in peace and quiet? Or the sex? If it’s the sex, then you must know that heterosexuals engage in all of the same risque and risky behaviors and acts that of us do. I think that you’re jealous, and maybe just a tad envious. Those are both two of the so called deadly sins you know. relax, let go of your anger. Anger only leads to hate.

          • afchief

            Yours is a typical lie coming from homosexuals. The data/statistics show how high the disease and cancer rates are for homosexuals because of this unnatural behavior.

            I hate what homosexuality does to the soul of a man.

          • Leslie Gray

            Don’t try to snow me with your dogma. I worked in a medical case management office for too many years for that to work. Funny thing, 70% of all of our HIV clients were cisgender heterosexuals.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!

            Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals

            Frank Joseph, M.D.

            What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.

            Any of you, who have children in public schools, it would behoove you to print out the following and mail it to the principal of your child’s school, with a little note stating:

            I don’t know if the students at (name of school) are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is just another normal alternative lifestyle. If you have been, then you should print out the following and have it passed out to your students, as the truth must be told in order to preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.

            If the authorities give you a hard time, I would take my child out of that school and put him/her in a private school, and if you cannot afford it, I would homeschool him/her. And you can tell that to the principal.

            Or, you can wait until one day, your child comes home and says, “Mom, I think I’m homosexual.”

            I just heard that in the Los Angeles school district that the enrollments are considerably down (20-30,000) and has caused much grief to the school hierarchy, as the amount of money received is based on the number of students. Probably because more parents are homeschooling.

            burbtn.gif – 43 Bytes

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • Leslie Gray

            Not a single word of that post means anything unless you CITE YOUR SOURCES. Where did you find that “information”? Who was the author? When was that “information” published? For all I know you got that “information” from sources that have no desire to produce anything that has any credibility at all.

            “Also, see AFA Action Alert.” Is this what you call a citation? And if all of your material has been coming from that source, that means you listen to that moron Brian Fisher and his tirade of revisionist history and pseudo-science. He’s nothing but a lying hate monger.

          • Leslie Gray

            These days a shambles is a tumbled down wreck of a shed. In the time of King James a shambles was a butcher shop where people bought fresh cut meat. Words and their meaning change with time. Get used to that.

            Homosexuality is a part of the natural world. What you prefer to call a sin, the natural life cycle of the world considers homosexuality to be a side effect of increased population.

            What really changed with Lawrence vs Texas is the realization that equality is more important than your tradition.

          • afchief

            The road to dehumanizing humans began long ago. The homosexual lobby is merely one in a long line of lobbyist’s lobbying to change the nature of humanity to appease the masses who, after rejecting the truth of God, entered into fanatical worship of self. Read Romans 1.

            Man is becoming his own god now. Sex became and is, the only high calling of humanity. Sex, separated from procreation, love, and marriage has been THE opening of Pandora’s Box and the major reason humans are returning to a state of barbarism and devaluing humanity on a scale never known before in human history. Yes, Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

            GOD and SCIENCE said/shows that it takes a male and a female to produce a baby. That’s why same sex marriage is a fraud.

            If our Constitution can be interpreted that people have a right to violate nature, then it needs to be changed to reflect science.

          • Mr. G.

            Now you’ve done it, Bob. I’m conflicted. Should I have shrimp for lunch or a cheeseburger?

          • Mr. G.

            It can be – in exactly the same ways that heterosexual behavior can be sin – no more and no less.

          • afchief

            Trust me, it is!!!! It is perverted, deviant, and dangerous to one’s physical and spiritually health

          • Mr. G.

            The greatest danger to the physical and spiritual health of homosexuals is the behavior of people who claim in God’s name that there’s something wrong with them. This straight Christian man abhors such treatment of people. I have no problem breaking bread with homosexuals. I would rather starve than do so with someone like you.

          • afchief

            Ahh yes, I see the truth as usual always offends!!!

          • Mr. G.

            My intent is not to offend but to help you get in touch with your feelings. You present as a textbook example of a person desperate to suppress their own feelings of same-sex attraction. You appear to be terrified that, if societal prohibitions continue to relax, you’re not going to be able to contain those feelings / will act on them. Therapy might be helpful. God bless.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the enemies of God are doing everything they can to get us to question God, His authority, His positions, and His nature. It’s the same trick that was used in the garden. The Bible tells us that there is “nothing new under the sun.” This spreading of confusion has always been one of Satan’s most effective weapons. Homosexuality IS sin! It IS death!

          • Mr. G.

            I stand in awe of how God has used Westboro Baptist Church to unmask the face of anti-homosexual theology and expose its consistently rotten fruit for all to see. The parallel between WBC’s actions and the significant favorable change of heart toward homosexuals is obvious. God is good!

          • afchief

            WBC does NOT represent Christians.

          • Mr. G.

            They claim to. You claim to. How are we to tell the difference? Regardless of the flavor, the fruits of anti-homosexual theology are consistently rotten. This Christian rejects both WBC’s flavor and yours as not of God based on the fruits they both yield.

          • afchief

            There Is No Such Thing As a “Gay” Christian

            By Greg May

            ________________________________________

            In a previous article (“Information Highway: Avenue of False Doctrine”) I voiced my concern over the growing number of websites on the Internet promoting false doctrine. Also increasing in number are gay “Christian” websites.

            There is no such thing as a “gay” Christian.

            Homosexuality is a sin according to God’s Word. It is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. In Old Testament times, people who practiced homosexuality were to be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death. It was the rampant promiscuity of this lifestyle that caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah:

            And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is Great, and because their sin is very grave…” (Genesis 18:20).

            The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood in the time of Noah are examples of the coming judgment upon the world as recorded in the book of Revelation. Just as Noah and his family were put inside the Ark before the Flood, and Lot’s family were sent away before burning sulphur fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, so will God’s people be removed from earth when Jesus appears in the clouds during the Rapture.

            There is a striking similarity between the days of Noah and Lot and the conditions of the world today: The economy was prospering, business was good and the construction industry was flourishing. Violence was widespread and the pursuit of pleasure was the main objective: “If it feels good do it!”

            Homosexuality and immorality were proliferating as well.

            Paul wrote in the New Testament:

            “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Romans 1:26, 27)

            “…and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions”: Could Paul have been prophesying about AIDS?

            Today our society glamorizes the lifestyle; celebrities are applauded when they “come out of the closet” and others are persecuted when they speak out against the gay lifestyle.

            The late Patrick Heron once wrote, “I would hope that people with opposing views would be tolerant of the Christian position. After all, we are constantly being asked to be tolerant of the gay community.”

            I remember watching on TV news back in the 70s when a member of the gay community pushed a pie in Anita Bryant’s face when she spoke out against gay rights issues in Florida. Today the gay community is bringing lawsuits against people who don’t go along with their agenda.

            Satan is the master of deceit and the father of lies. He has a talent for presenting something that goes against God’s will in a nice gift-wrapped package for people to sample.

            The disco 70s did more to make “being gay okay”’ than anything else. The disco movement which was widely supported by the gay community burst upon the American pop culture scene like an atomic bomb. Now it was the “in thing” to dance at gay clubs because, “They always have the best music” and gay people know how to “party” better than anyone else.

            Two of the most prominent “Disco Queens” – Gloria Gaynor and the late Donna Summer became born-again Christians. In fact, Summer’s career took a nosedive when she confronted her gay audience during a concert telling them, “AIDS is your sin.” But Grace Jones continues to exploit her androgynous look and popularity with the gay community to promote her career; and her father and brother are both ministers.

            Female impersonators are being paraded everywhere and are now featured in mainstream entertainment. Recently, a female impersonator was quoted in the media as being a “drag queen for Jesus” and ABC TV’s Diane Sawyer presented a full-length interview with former Olympic star Bruce Jenner who is changing his sex.

            God loves the sinner but He hates the sin.

            Jesus went to the cross and died for all; anyone can be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. Mary Magdalene was caught in adultery in which the penalty was death. But Jesus didn’t condemn her – in fact, He pardoned her. It was Mary Magdalene who stayed at the foot of the cross after Jesus’ disciples left.

            In the past, churches shied away from reaching out to the gay community. Today there are ministries that are being offered at many churches to bring men and women out of the lifestyle of sin and darkness and into the light and joy of God’s Word.

            Those who claim homosexuality is not a sin in God’s eyes are blinded by Satan.

            The love that David and Jonathan had for each other in the Bible is often misconstrued by the gay community to suggest they were lovers.

            “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been

            unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”

            (2 Samuel 1:26)

            The love that David and Jonathan had was a supernatural and pure love in the form of a godly covenant between them – they were not homosexuals.

            “And they two made a covenant before the Lord” (1 Samuel 23: 18).

            Jonathan loved David beyond the love he had for women and also beyond the love for his father and his own life, just as Christ commanded us to love Him:

            “If any man comes to Me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

            God’s Word makes it unmistakably clear that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

            “. . . for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave

            traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the

            sound doctrine . . .” (1 Timothy 1:10).

            In these last days we need to be about the Father’s business which is winning souls for Christ. Although the Bible makes it clear homosexuals will have no place in God’s Kingdom, He makes a way for the sinner to be cleansed and washed white as snow by the redemptive Blood of the Lamb that was shed when Jesus was crucified at Calvary.

          • Mr. G.

            Please forward documentation appointing Greg May as a certified arbiter recognized by God of who is a Christian and who is not. Thank you in advance 🙂

          • afchief

            The Bible

            What it says

            There are claims that the Bible does not really condemn homosexual behavior or that Jesus would not condemn this behavior. But let’s look at what the Bible actually says.

            The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; Jude 1:7). The passage in Romans, in particular is so clear that it seems to have been written by St. Paul in anticipation that people might challenge the idea that homosexual behavior is wrong (in case you don’t get it, let me make it perfectly clear!). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15.

            Homosexual behavior is always discussed in the Bible as a serious sin. It is usually not singled out, but listed among other particularly heinous sins as examples of how depraved one can become. It is discussed in the context of idolatry. Idolatry is a most serious offense against God, and its seriousness helps explain why homosexual behavior was a capital offense in the Old Testament. Historical Christian interpretation has consistently viewed homosexual behavior as sinful. The modern word sodomy even comes from the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            It should be pointed out that what the Bible condemns is not personality traits such as feminine feelings on the part of a man (or masculine feelings on the part of a woman). However, Jesus taught that sin runs deep. He said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28; compare Mark 7:15-23). But notice the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “such were some of you.” This seems a clear indication that homosexuals can change. While our basest instincts of many sorts are difficult to control, we are not like animals in the forest; we can overcome our temptations to become blameless in God’s sight (Philippians 2:15; Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:7, 6:14; Titus 1:6; 1 John 3:4-10).

            There are those who take some of the passages of Scripture above and attempt to show that they do not really mean to condemn homosexuality. But these arguments fall short, and upon investigation become an obvious ploy to distort the plain meaning of Scripture. As applies to other doctrines of the Bible, one must avoid trying to interpret Scripture in light of one’s proclivities, and instead, interpret one’s proclivities in light of Scripture. The Bible is its own grid. It is wrong to overlay your own grid on the Bible. For a more detailed look at this, see Biblical Interpretation.

            Is the biblical view still valid?

            Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocritical on homosexuality because they ignore the death penalty for this sin as prescribed in Leviticus. This is a false charge based on a limited understanding of the Bible. It is helpful to understand the difference between CIVIL or CEREMONIAL LAWS versus MORAL LAWS in the Bible. While civil or ceremonial laws can and do change from country to country or time period to time period, moral laws do not change because they are rooted in the nature of man. The New Testament repealed Old Testament civil law (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) and Old Testament ceremonial Jewish laws (Acts 10:12-15; Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). So the Old Testament PENALTY for homosexuality (death) does not carry forward into New Testament times, even though the NATURE of the sin and its condemnation remains. The Bible is consistent throughout on moral law, which includes homosexual behavior.

            This understanding is consistent with how Jesus deals with other sins. We see in John 8 how Jesus treats the adulterous woman. He condemns her actions, yet helps her escape the severe penalties common in their culture.

            What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

            No specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:7). There can be no mistaking what Jesus taught in this regard. In this passage, Jesus is reiterating what Moses taught (Genesis 2:24) about marriage and family. Anything contrary to this—any sexual relationship outside of a committed marriage relationship between one man and one woman—demeans the institution of marriage and is unbiblical.

            Jesus was quite clear about his contempt for sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Jesus’ teaching on moral issues in fact toughened and strengthened them, such as in Matthew 5:27-30 when he expanded our understanding of sexual sin to even lusting in our heart!

            Jesus didn’t merely accept people as he found them—he turned people’s lives around. After his encounter with Jesus, the tax collector Zacchaeus pledged to pay back his debts fourfold (Luke 19:1-10). And Jesus made it clear to the adulteress in John 8:1-11 to leave her life of sin.

            Further, Jesus specifically said that he did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). Jewish law was quite clear on homosexual behavior. To suggest that Jesus would have condoned homosexual behavior is twisting Scripture for political correctness.

            “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” ——Jesus per Mark 10:7

            The God of the Bible is not merely a God of love and forgiveness. God has characteristics of love AND justice (among others). Jesus, for example, warns about hell more than any other biblical figure! We must not underestimate the holiness of God, who demands right conduct—in fact, perfection (Matthew 5:48). For examples of the wrath and judgment of God, read: Genesis 2:17; 2 Kings 17:18; Psalm 74:1, 79:5, 90:11; Proverbs 10:16; Micah 7:9; Zephaniah 3:8; Matthew 5:29, 7:13, 23:25-28, 25:46; Romans 1:32, 2:8, 6:23; Acts 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 6:7-8; Philippians 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:15; and Revelation 20:12-15.

            There are those who suggest that God is merely a God of love and accepts people just as they are. Certainly that is incorrect. God does not accept us as we are. He demands repentance. We must not create a God to suit ourself. This is idolatry which is a violation of the First and Second Commandments.

            Is the Bible out of date and out of step with society? Absolutely not, as we will see below. The scientific realities of homosexual behavior validate the Bible.

            Bible Irrelevant?

            Here are links that sheds further light on what the Bible says about homosexuality and gay marriage:

            Yes, Jesus Did Talk about Homosexuality

            Got Questions on Marriage

            Jesus on Homosexuality

            What Jesus Said about Homosexuality, Part 1

            What Jesus Said about Homosexuality, Part 2

            Did Jesus Address Same-Sex Marriage?

            Dishonesting of the Pro-Homosexual Arguments about the Bible

            Keller Addresses Five Arguments from “Gay” Christians

            Top of page The Theology

            The theology of this debate is as old as Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3, when God tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the issue was whether Adam and Eve would abide by God’s commands. Adam and Eve decided for themselves what was right when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Ever since that day, mankind has tried to decide for ourselves what is good or bad, in dangerous disregard of God’s command.

            Is it possible to be a gay Christian? Here is a link that explains: Gay Christian?

            Top of page Sanctity of Marriage

            The argument against same-sex marriage is by no means limited to Christian dogma. In fact, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is an ancient concept from across religious and non-religious philosophy (including Greek and Roman thought). The distinct bond that constitutes traditional marriage was not invented by the state, and the state has no right to change it.

            Proponents of same-sex marriage have mis-characterized marriage. Marriage is not about companionship or its utilitarian benefits, not about taste or preference, or even about love.

            Many in the culture have mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the convenience of adults. The problem with this common misunderstanding of marriage today is the mistaken idea that marriage is about the rights and happiness of adults, that two adults have a right to happiness for as long as they want. In actuality, marriage is not adult-centric, but is the bedrock institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing children.

            Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

            Anal intercourse does not produce children. Further, there are complementary aspects of a man and woman that are important to the institution of marriage which go beyond the obvious physical attributes. There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a woman, and vice versa.

            Many heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, misunderstand that the fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them. That is why laws have historically discouraged adultery and divorce. Statistics are clear that children raised outside of a traditional strong family unit are much more likely to suffer social ills. (See Getting the Marriage Conversation Right.)

            These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to both a mom and a dad.

            The most comprehensive study to date of the psychological and social status of adults with homosexual parents is that of Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas (Study). Based on a random sample of about 15,000 this study reported results consistent with common sense, that those raised in a traditional man-woman intact marriage did best. Those with a homosexual parent(s) were the:

            most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual

            most apt to to be on welfare

            most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection

            most apt to have recently thought of suicide

            most apt to report being raped

            most apt to test impulsive

            most apt to smoke

            most apt to report heavy TB viewing

            most apt to have been arrested

            most apt to have pled guilty to a crime

            most apt to score high on depression

            most promiscuous

            least apt to be employed

            least apt to report being able to depend on others

            least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family

            It isn’t that gay people are necessarily bad parents, but children thrive most fully when raised by a mother and a father. The Witherspoon Institute’s Report on Marriage explains why: There are crucial sex differences in parenting. Mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children.” Complementing that, “Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to tackle difficult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and seek out novel experiences.” Similar arguments appear in a policy brief by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a journal article from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

            The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. “Nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman,” says scholar Harry Jaffa. Political entities have overwhelmingly agreed. For example, the Minnesota Supreme court said, “There is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race,” a limitation it finds illegitimate, “and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

            Historian Glenn S. Sunshine has this to say in his book Why You Think the Way You Do: “Throughout history, in every society without exception, marriage in one form or another has had a privileged place as a means to regulate sexuality, so that children would be brought into the world and raised in a stable environment. The notion of homosexual marriage was thus absurd; it violated the very purpose of marriage. Some societies had provisions for temporary same-sex relationships, usually between an adult and an adolescent male, but nothing that allowed for permancy or gave the status of marriage.”

            As put by Melanie Baker, “Law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny….If we want to preserve the democracy that stands on self-evident truths as its foundation; if we want to provide our children and grandchildren with the same protection we currently enjoy; and if we want to salvage the remaining bits of rationality essential to a truly diverse and integrated society, we will stand against bills like the [Maryland] Civil Marriage Protection Act.”

            Actually, we discriminate in many ways as to who can marry. One cannot marry his mother. One cannot marry a minor child. And one cannot have multiple wives. These are all issues determined to be important for the individuals involved as well as society.

            Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the authority of God, as well as hurt society.

            Liberals may argue, “Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?” The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. Its purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society.

            David Orland in an article entitled “The Deceit of Gay Marriage” puts it very well. He says:

            To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society’s reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.

            The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons:

            First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law—though many are surprised to learn this—is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.

            Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual “families” of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones.

          • Mr. G.

            Please forward the documentation certifying that your understanding of the Bible is 100% compliant with God’s intentions. Thank you in advance 🙂

          • afchief

            John 16:13 (NASB) But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;

          • Mr. G.

            Are you claiming to be “the Spirit of truth”? If so, I want to go on record as doubting the veracity of that.

          • afchief

            The Holy Spirit leads and guides us into ALL truth and we KNOW that homosexuality IS sin. We also have the mind of Christ!!!!

            1 Corinthians 2:16 (NASB) For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

          • Mr. G.

            Confirmation bias is making a fool of you.

          • afchief

            Just speaking truth!!! Just speaking truth!!!

          • jenkins_laurence

            Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

            “abusers of themselves with mankind” = arsenokoitis arseno (man) koitios (bed)

          • PastProdigal

            Once again, it means nothing that that particular word is not in the Bible. That’s really a very silly argument.

          • Leslie Gray

            So, basically you just said that having added words to the Bible in direct opposition to the clearly stated prohibition against such actions means nothing to you. Yet, earlier you said “It’s God that set the rules. We just go by them.” And then when such adherence became inconvenient for you, you chose to ignore the clear warning in the book of Revelations.

            It must be nice for you to have such a flexible belief structure as that. The ability to pick and choose your rules must make life very comfortable.

      • Rosemary Martin

        Read Romans chapter 1.

        • Leslie Gray

          You should take that warning seriously then and stop what you’ve been doing.

        • Bob Johnson

          And then continue on to Chapter 2.

      • Shaun D.

        And you freaks, “abominations” (LGBT), unto God deeply desire to polute true Christianity with your perversion.

        THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO PUT YOU TO SHAME. 🙂

        • Mr. G.

          In the eyes of this Christian, you’re failing miserably and would do better to hold your tongue.

      • PastProdigal

        There are many words that describe sins and other actions and things that are not in the Bible. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Homosexuality is clearly described in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. There simply is not getting around it.

        • Leslie Gray

          Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t really the way you think it is. Either way, it makes no difference. Your notions of religion have been repeatedly declared unfit for our nations laws by the constitution. And, unless someone succeeds at repealing most of the Bill of Rights, you’ll never get conservative sharia law in this country anyway.

          • afchief

            Our country was founded by Christian men. Our Constitution is based on Christianity. I can prove this very easily. As John Adams pointed out “our Constitution is for a moral people”.

            Homosexuality is not moral. It is perverted, deviant and extremely dangerous.

          • Mr. G.

            There is nothing any more inherently immoral about homosexuality than there is about heterosexuality. Nor is it any more deviant nor particularly dangerous. Who tells you this stuff? Or do you make it up as you go along?

          • afchief

            The Case Against Homosexual Activity

            Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society—specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other “gay rights” issues—revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and “legalizeable” or immoral and “illegalizeable”?

            If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

            Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and “illegalizeable,” then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

            Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity—and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

            In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

            To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA’s controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because—just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture—a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

            Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn’t it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

            For centuries, the position of “traditional value” people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

            Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to “discriminate” against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to “discriminate” against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like “Exhibitionists offend people.” We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don’t want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

            Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

            Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

            For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior’s coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

            To those “freedom-loving” liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone’s property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

            And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether “freedom-loving” liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they’ve established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

            Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

            Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than “normal,” they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually “normal” people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty—it doesn’t hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not “hurt” anybody.

            If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the “path of least resistance.”

            Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

            Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

            Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio—all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

            It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

            Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

            The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

            (We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned “race” in the preceding paragraph—homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

            Homosexuals try to “naturalize” their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

            (There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally “mount” another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

            As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point—what if some poor guy felt a “natural/instinctual” desire to have sex with a consenting sheep—are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn’t “hurt” anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

            “There’s a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations,” we’ve heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong—stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

            Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences—the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most “convenient” to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

            “But it’s love,” homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn’t justify immoral sexual activity.

            And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature’s way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

            Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings—from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

            The response to that is: allowing “unnatural” things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

            “Who are you to judge others?” we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.—obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and “homophobic” for being against homosexual activity.

            Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. That argument is so bad, so ridiculous it could even be used by pedophiles. Pedophiles can say that if adults were just having sex with 5-year-olds we wouldn’t have a population problem! Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

            Then there is the “consenting adults” argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

          • afchief

            Secondly, society has better things to do with its people and resources than treat diseases that homosexuals bring on themselves by consentingly or voluntarily engaging in unsafe and/or physiologically unnatural sex acts. (Resources would be better spent finding cures for diseases people do not bring on themselves, do not “ask” for, as diseases associated with the involuntary aging process. We also could spend that money feeding the starving children of the world. In a very real sense, children are starving because some people, including some heterosexuals, think they have the right to engage in unsafe sex and spread disease. If that doesn’t outrage you you may have lost your humanity. Homosexuals should apologize for all the STDs they’ve spread, and all the money those STDs have cost, and especially for setting bad moral examples for our children.)

            And third, two people engaging in immoral sex acts in absolute privacy is one thing; coming out of the closet with one’s vices and demanding equal rights is quite another and should be frowned upon to say the least. When someone’s behavior becomes public knowledge, when it thereby affects the public, it becomes the public’s business, and the public acquires the right to legislate against that behavior should the public decide logically that it would be advisable to do so.

            Homosexuals like to especially point out that people of the same sex can understand each other better than they can understand the opposite sex, because people of the same sex are naturally more similar to each other.

            There is some truth to that, but when homosexuals conclude from it that homosexual relationships are therefore better and/or more moral than heterosexual ones they go too far. While men and women have their differences, they have many things in common. Let’s build on the things we have in common. Let’s unify the populace, not sexually segregate and disunify it as homosexuals apparently would prefer. Besides, people of the opposite sex can be much more attractive and exciting, naturally.

            By the way, the more lesbians there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight men. No red-blooded heterosexual male should want that. And the more male homosexuals there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight women. No red-blooded heterosexual female should want that. Plus, from an evolutionary standpoint regarding reproduction, the more homosexuals there are the narrower the available gene pool (due to fewer potential mates), which isn’t good.

            Some critics point out that, in the wide circle of people we at H.O.M.E. know and love and like, there are probably some closet homosexuals. They argue that since we already like them, what difference should their homosexuality make? The fact that this type of “argument” is even being used, like some of the other seriously flawed arguments discussed above, shows how badly our educational system is failing. In the wide circle of people you know and love and like, odds are there are one or two closet racists or sexists or “homophobes” or thieves or pedophiles (etc.). That isn’t much of an argument for anything.

            It should be stressed that numerous homosexuals and bisexuals have a large number of sexual partners, many of whom are essentially perfect strangers. These people just use others for sex and have a difficult time loving. They are contributing to making the world a colder and more exploitative place. (Incidentally, promiscuity says basically this: I do not think you are worth marrying but I’ll use you for sex. Promiscuous sex is actually somewhat of an insult to thinking people. It’s just sexual exploitation.)

            Homosexuals have told straight people that straights must have sexual hang-ups and inhibitions because they do not sexually desire people of their own gender. Well, it is evident that anyone (like a homosexual) who cannot or will not desire/love/marry/enjoy the opposite sex must also have some big hang-ups and inhibitions. Too, since many bisexuals tend to prefer their own sex when it comes to sexual partners, those bisexuals must have the same hang-ups and inhibitions afflicting homosexuals, though to a lesser degree. (If bisexuals fully enjoyed the opposite gender sexually, they wouldn’t waste their time on same-sex partners. Something, some sexual inhibitions and hang-ups, must be interfering with bisexuals’ enjoyment of the opposite sex.)

            Also, as a review of the numerous studies done through the years on homosexuals bears out, it is a fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young (for more info on this fact see the section of our website called Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?). That abuse is what has so disoriented the sexual desires of many homosexuals. In other words, many homosexuals were not born homosexual and so can choose to be what they were born to be—heterosexual. Such a choice may not be easy and may require therapy, but for many disoriented people it is a viable option. And for these people to choose to remain homosexual just lets the degenerates who abused them have too much power over them—the power to determine their sexual orientations.

            Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything. The environments we grow up in can make us tyrannical or meek, generous or selfish, loving or hateful, etc., etc. Human beings seem to be almost infinitely malleable—capable of becoming pedophiles, necrophiliacs, torturers, whatever. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes. Homosexuals should be able to become enjoyably heterosexual if they concentrate and “train” themselves to. They cannot justify not doing so. Let’s go forward, not back thousands of years to the ancient Greek and Roman debauched societies. Let’s progress not regress. Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

            Males are attracted to females by chemical substances (pheromones), just like dogs in heat, and are attracted by flirtatious behavior and perhaps by physical traits like breasts. This is how nature works. Even lower animals flirt. This natural “programming” is why normal men are attracted to women and vice versa.

            Being what we are, i.e., fulfilling our natures, within reason, makes us happiest. Being heterosexual is within reason, engaging in homosexual activity is not within reason. That is just the way it is. Just like we should not eat poison ivy or bask in the sun to excess (getting sunstroke and/or severe sunburn) or lay naked in the snow too long (getting hypothermia). That is just the way it is. Our natures entail limits.

            It would be wrong for society to allow homosexuals to impose their “morality,” their be-tolerant-of-aberrant-sexualities “morality,” on us. It would be wrong for us to allow homosexuals to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. It would be wrong for us to yield to their unreasonable demands for toleration and legalization of homosexual acts. Like it or not, that is reality. That is just the way it is. Most people can easily accept that. If homosexuals do not want to appear irrational or prejudiced they also ought to accept that.

            Indeed, any honest and logical homosexual has to admit that the decisive argument against homosexual acts, the argument that legal homosexual activity is a bad legal and moral precedent, is a perfectly valid argument. This is because homosexuals and their liberal supporters use the same type of argument to try to defend their values. Liberals like to ask those who want to censor some book or some smutty rock and roll lyrics: “Where will the censorship stop? What’s next on your list?”

            If homosexuals and their supporters recognize the validity of the bad-legal-precedent argument, the “slippery slope” argument, and they do, then they have to admit that such an argument helps demonstrate that homosexual acts are immoral and illegalizeable.

            Also, as noted previously, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science and logic). In the section of our website titled “Is Homosexuality A Disorder?” we make the case that it is, though we view it as a comparatively minor one. (And, again, we are all born imperfect.) Still, it makes no sense to treat a disorder as if it were not a disorder.

            On another matter, those adults who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are taking advantage of the young and confused. They are doing a disservice to everyone, and they are heartlessly setting young homosexuals up for a big fall. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. We should not be instilling the false hope—we should not be fooling young people into believing—that homosexual activity is okay when thinking people have known for centuries it is not.

            The biggest reason that the so-called “gay rights” (sad wrongs) movement has gotten as far as it has is that the major media, which for decades have been dominated by pro-homosexual liberals, have conducted a massive, sophisticated propaganda campaign in favor of homosexuality. They have willfully disseminated exaggerations and falsehoods, plus have engaged in widespread censorship of inconvenient facts concerning homosexuality.

            We wish more Americans knew just how much their values and emotions have been insidiously manipulated by media “malpractitioners.” Someday in the future people are going to look back at this era and wonder how so many pro-homosexual people let themselves be taken in by fallacious propaganda.

            (For those who want to know more about media manipulation—and about all the in-depth psychological research done on people with the goal of learning how to push our buttons, how to get us to respond in certain ways to various stimuli—a good and important read is the classic book Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard.)

            Before we close this section, some words on the mean-spirited use of the term “homophobic” by those who love to call people like this writer pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn’t really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others “homophobic” are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.

            To conclude: penalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination. Penalizing people for immoral or illegal behavior is simply the right thing to do. That is a truth homosexuals (and bisexuals) should be able to understand. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don’t homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? These extremists should get a life.

          • Mr. G.

            We can and have decided that homosexual behavior is moral and should be protected. Same-sex marriage is legal and so is adoption by same-sex couples. The world has not ended.
            The rest of your cut and paste screed is little more than slippery slopes and “I think it’s icky”. You lost. Get a life.

          • afchief

            Ahh yes, the truth always offends!!! Does it not? Homosexuality is still a disorder!! It is perverted, deviant, and extremely dangerous!!!

          • Mr. G.

            Repeating your lies does not make them true.

          • Mr. G.

            Speaking of other times when medical professionals were mistaken: masturbation was once claimed to cause insanity and/or blindness. Oh, and to some folks, it’s a “sin”. LOLOL

          • Leslie Gray

            What? Aren’t you able to have an original thought of your own? All you do is to cut and paste this stuff from whatever source you use to substitute for a brain and independent thought. I have no desire to debate a parrot.

          • Leslie Gray

            I am much more concerned about the impact of the unconstitutional actions
            of overly sensitive conservative religious advocates on the basic civil rights of the transgender community. I am far more concerned with protecting the health and safety of 700,000 plus transgender people in this country. I am somewhat less concerned with preserving the sanctimonious privileges, special rights and proclivities of a bunch of so called christians who are all too selfish to see the grave effects of their actions at the expense of people who are already the most oppressed group of people in this country. That distinction of oppression is entirely attributable to the very same crowd whose only interest is to preserve their own comfort at the expense of those much less fortunate than they are.

            What ever happened to once famed practice of helping those less fortunate while withholding judgment?

          • Mr. G.

            This Christian is right there with you. ^5

          • Leslie Gray

            ^5

          • Leslie Gray

            Your claim is contradicted by the fact that The Treaty of Tripoli which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by President Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797 clearly stated in a clause in Article 11 that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Attempts at revisionist history cannot really change the facts.

          • afchief

            I see we have another product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools!!!!

            Defining a Christian Nation

            Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

            Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

            [I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

            So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

            Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

            In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. 10

            Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

            [W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. 11

            Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

            A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;

            The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);

            Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;

            A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and

            A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

            Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

            American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

            With his statement, President Barack Obama became the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. 13 JOHN ADAMS

            [T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. 14 TEDDY ROOSEVELT

            America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. 15 WOODROW WILSON

            American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. 16 HERBERT HOOVER

            This is a Christian Nation. 17 HARRY TRUMAN

            Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. 18 RICHARD NIXON

            There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

            Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, 19 not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church. 20

            (The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. 21 While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” 22 )

            Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

            No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. 23

            President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).

            Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

          • Leslie Gray

            Irrelevant. Plagiarism and irrelevant.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth is ALWAYS the enemy to homosexuals and liberals!!!

          • afchief

            Part II

            The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

            Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

            HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. 24

            SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? 25

            In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

            [T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 26

            On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation” 27 because:

            [S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. 28 (emphasis added)

            President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, 29 and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history. 30

            Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

            There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

            The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

            From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

            Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

            One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 32

            His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

            In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 33

            Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

            For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. 34

            Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

            We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 35

            Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

            We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” 36

            Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

            [I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37

            Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

            I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. 38

            There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” 39 filled with “Christian people,” 40 and was indeed “a Christian nation.” 41 Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements 42 but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

            This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. 43

            In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

            For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

            Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. 44

            In another case, the Court similarly explained:

            The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. 45

            And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” 46

            The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

            We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. 47

            The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

            In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . . The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. 48

            For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, 49 across India, 50 Pakistan, 51 Saudi Arabia, 52 Malaysia, 53 and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. 54

            The Supreme Court commended this position 55 and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, 56 when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” 57

            Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

            It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . 58

            The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

            [I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. . . . Thus. . . . “It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ” 59

            The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, 60 and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position 61 – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, 62 including in the late 1990s. 63

            These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at bot

          • Leslie Gray

            What ever. The struggles ahead will not be decided by the verses in a bible, but by people and real evidence in court, should it come to that.

            “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

            -Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address

            And, you still have problem of dealing with the fact that the founding fathers words don’t really agree with you. Remember the words Jefferson. “…that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

            And when you copy text from a source, you are supposed to cite that source or you are violating federal copyright law. It’s called plagiarism.

          • afchief

            Do homosexuals and liberals ever stop lying? No they don’t. It’s their defining characteristic!!!!!

            Today’s living document proponents decry this approach as majoritarianism – the so-called “tyranny of the majority.” Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Minoritarism? That a small group should be able to annul the will of the People and enforce its own desires upon the masses? Such an option is unacceptable under original intent. As explained by George Washington:

            The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. 7

            Thomas Jefferson agreed:

            The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. 8

            Does this original principle therefore mean that minorities are to be disregarded or trodden upon? Of course not. As Jefferson further explained:

            Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable — the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect. 9

            While the minority is not to prevail, with its constitutional guarantee of “free speech,” it does have the “equal right” to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view. The minority does have equal rights, but equal right is not the same as equal power; the minority is never the equivalent of the majority and should never exercise control over it.

          • Leslie Gray

            There you go again with your plagiarism theft of the work of other people more able than you are. You don’t even know how to write a basic citation.

          • afchief

            The Treaty of Tripoli

            A line from this treaty embodies the counter charge most frequently invoked (and most heavily relied upon) by critics in their attempt to disprove what history overwhelmingly documents. Asserting that America never was a Christian nation, they invoke a clause from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that declared:

            The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .

            On its face, that clause appears to be nondebatable and final, but what the critics fail to acknowledge is that they have lifted eighteen words out of a sentence that is eighty-one words long, thereby appearing to make it say something that it does not say when replaced in the full sentence. Significantly (and much to the chagrin of the critics), when the borrowed segment is placed back into the full sentence, and when the full sentence is placed back into the full treaty, and then when the circumstances that caused the writing of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are presented, the portion of a line that they invoke actually strengthens rather than weakens the claim that America was a Christian nation.

            The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was one of several negotiated with during the “Barbary Powers War,” a war against Muslim terrorists that began toward the end of the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. 1 During America’s original “War on Terror,” five Muslim countries (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were making indiscriminate terrorist attacks against what they claimed to be five “Christian” nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). The conflict so escalated that in 1801, Tripoli formally declared war against the United States, 2 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

            The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “Pirates” by most Americans) attacked American merchant ships (but not naval ships) wherever they found them. (Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy; but after the Revolution, there was no protection, for America lacked a navy of its own.) These unprotected American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than for fighting, were easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers. The cargo of these ships was seized as loot and their “Christian” seamen 3 were enslaved in retaliation for what Muslims claimed that Christians had done to them (e.g., during the Crusades, Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada, 4 etc.). So regular were the attacks that in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American merchant ships and enslaved more then one hundred sailors, holding them for sell or ransom. 5

            In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate terms with those Muslim nations. 6 They reached several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary 7 powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean, 8 but because America had no navy and no threat of any power against the Muslims, the terms of the treaties were particularly unfavorable for America. Sometimes she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to each Muslim country to receive a “guarantee” of no attacks. Sometimes the Muslims also demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, 9 a “gift” frigate to Algiers, 10 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 11 etc.

            In those treaties, America inserted various declarations attempting to convince the Muslims that as Christians, we were not pursuing a “jihad” against them – that we were engaged in a war on the basis of our religion or theirs. For example, in the 1784 treaty negotiated by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that eventually ended Moroccan hostilities against the United States, three separate clauses acknowledged the conflict as being one between Muslim and Christian powers; 12 and the 1795 Treaty with Algiers contained similar acknowledgments. 13 In fact, a subsequent treaty with Algiers even stipulated what would occur if captured America (or European) Christian seamen escaped from Algiers and found refuge on any of our ships:

            If . . . any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the ships of war, they shall not be required back again nor shall the consul of the United States or commanders of said ships be required to pay anything for the said Christians. As the government of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility except in defense of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the consuls and agents of both nations hall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses. 14

            America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith. 15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

            The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. 16 Article XI of that treaty therefore stated:

            As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 17

            Critics end the sentence after the words “Christian religion,” thus placing a period in the middle of a sentence where no punctuation currently exists, stopping the sentence in mid-thought. However, when Article XI is read in its entirety and its thought concluded where the punctuation so indicates, then the article simply assures Tripoli that we were not one of the Christian nations with an inherent hostility against Muslims and that we would not allow differences in our “religious opinions” to lead to hostility.

            (Significantly, even if Article XI contained nothing more than what the critics cite – i.e., “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” – this still would not refute America being a Christian nation since the article only refers to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they also included a constitutional prohibition against any official federal establishment of religion. Therefore, if Article XI is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States did not establish the Christian religion, such a statement does not repudiate the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. However, the history of the Treaty, of the treaties negotiated before and after it, and the circumstances of the conflict discounts even that reading.)

            Even though clauses such as Article XI in the 1797 treaty clearly demonstrate America’s efforts to distinguish itself from the historical European Christian nations that hated Muslims, the diligent diplomatic efforts proved unsuccessful – especially in the case of Tripoli (today’s Muslim Libya); terroristic attacks against American interests continued largely unabated.

            The extortion payments became a significant expense for the American government. In fact, in 1795, payments to Algiers, including the ransom payment to free 115 American seamen, totaled nearly one million dollars 18 – a full sixteen percent of the entire federal budget for that year! 19 And Algiers was just one of the five Barbary Powers. Not surprisingly, American presidents and citizens resented remitting such extortion payments simply to enjoy rights already guaranteed them under international law. Preparations were therefore begun for a military remedy, thus embracing President George Washington’s axiom that:

            To be prepared for war is onto the most effectual means of preserving peace. 20

            In the final year of his presidency, Washington urged Congress to undertake the construction of a U. S. Navy to defend American interests. 21 President John Adams vigorously pursued those naval plans, earning him the title of “Father of the American Navy.” 22 Nevertheless, Adams shied from a direct military confrontation and instead pursued a more pacific approach to the ongoing Barbary Powers encroachments.

            By 1800, however, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget; so when Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, he refused further payments and decided that it was time to take military action to end the two-decades-old terrorist attacks. Jefferson took General William Eaton (who had been appointed as “Consul to Tunis” by John Adams in 1799) and elevated Eaton to the post of “US Naval Agent to the Barbary States,” with the assignment to lead an American military expedition against Tripoli. Using the brand new American Navy to transport the U. S. Marines overseas, General Eaton led a successful campaign that freed captured American seaman and crushed the Muslim forces. After five years, in 1805 Tripoli signed a treaty on America’s terms, thus ending their aggressions.

            It is from the Marine’s role in that first War on Terror that the U. S. Marines derive part of the opening line of their hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .” Two centuries later, the Marines were again ordered into action in that same general region of the world in America’s second “War on Terror,” again fighting Muslim terrorists. By 1807, Muslim Algiers had resumed attacks against American ships and sailors, and eventually declared war on America, but Jefferson was distracted with efforts to keep from going to war against Great Britain or France. When President Madison took office, he, too, became rapidly preoccupied with the issues that led to the war of the War of 1812, and also was unable to respond with military force against the attacks. With the end of that War, in 1815, Madison dispatched warships and the military against three Muslim nations: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Beginning first with Algiers, America quickly subdued them and brought them to the peace table where in July 1815 they ratified a treaty that freed all Christians and ended future slavery of Christians. 23 The American fleet then departed for Tunis, to deal with them; promptly after the Americans departed, Algiers renounced the peace treaty. However, two of the other Christian nations being harassed by Muslim terrorist attacks (the British and the Dutch) brought their fleets against Algiers and attacked and subdued them. In 1816, Algiers signed a new peace treaty in which the Muslims agreed that “the practice of condemning Christian Prisoners of War to slavery is hereby and forever renounced.” 24 Significantly, when the treaty was signed, it acknowledged the date according to both the Christian and Muslim calendars:

            Done in duplicate, in the warlike City of Algiers, in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816, and in the year of the Hegira, 1231, and the 6th day of the Moon Shawal. 25

            In the meantime, the American fleet and Marines had subdued Tunis, who signed a treaty ending the Christian enslavement and terrorist attacks. The Americans then signed another treaty Algiers in December 1816, replacing the one Algiers had renounced, in which the Muslims agreed to end the slavery of Christians. 26 This conflict ran the course of some thirty-two years, and it involved multiple incursions of the American military into the region, remaining there almost seven years, before the attacks against America ebbed.

            Interestingly, there are many parallels between America’s two Wars on Terror. Perhaps U. S. Army Colonel Brian Birdwell – a decorated veteran of the modern War on Terror, later crucially-burned during the terrorist attack on the Pentagon – best explained the philosophy behind both Wars on Terror. Birdwell noted that America had only two options in the terrorists war of attrition against the United States: continue to deal with the mosquitoes coming out of the Middle East swamp, or go drain the swamp and thus prevent future mosquitoes from coming out of it. In both 1801 and 2003, America had endured two decades of mosquitoes prior to its decision to go drain the swamp. Many Americans today forget that the 2003 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was preceded by the 1983 Muslim terrorist attacks on the Beirut Embassy and the Marine Barracks; the 1985 Muslim terrorist attack on TWA flight 847; the 1985 attack on the Achillo Lauro cruise ship; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers; the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers and multiple African Embassy bombings; the 2000 attack on the U. S. S. Cole, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Thousands of Americans across the world had been killed in those earlier two decades of terrorist attacks before America tired of dealing with the mosquitoes and decided to drain the swamp – just as did President Jefferson in 1801 after two decades of similarly harassing attacks.

            Significantly, not only the numerous treaties from the Barbary Powers conflict but also all of the official correspondence from the twenty year conflict leading up first to Jefferson’s and then to Madison’s attack on the Muslim Barbary Powers affirms that it was always viewed by both sides as a conflict between Muslim nations and a Christian one. For example, the writings of General William Eaton both in his early role as a diplomatic envoy under Adams and then in his later role as military theatre commander under Jefferson provide irrefutable testimony of this fact.

            Eaton, when writing to President Adam’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

            Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [i.e., the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27 (emphasis added)

            Eaton also explained why the Muslims found American targets so inviting. For example, when the American cargo ship “Hero” arrived in Tunis, the Muslims immediately noted that the heavy-laden ship was protected by only two tiny four-pound cannons. According to Eaton:

            [T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. 28 (emphasis added)

            Very simply, this type of weakness invited continued attack – and thus the need (to that point) to negotiate the often extortive treaties to keep peace. Eaton told Secretary Pickering how pleased one of the Barbary rulers had been to receive the payments promised him by America in one of the treaties:

            He said, “To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation.” 29 (emphasis added)

            When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State in 1800, Eaton promptly informed him:

            It is a maxim of the Barbary States that “The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.” 30 (emphasis added)

            When General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli at Jefferson’s order, his personal journal noted:

            April 8th…. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking! 31 (emphasis added)

            May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it? 32 (emphasis added)

            Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

            The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli 33 (emphasis added)

            The numerous documents and treaties surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Furthermore, the one line from Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli singled out by critics does not disprove that America was a Christian nation; to the contrary, when that line is reinstated back into the full sentence and its context, it proves exactly the opposite.

          • Leslie Gray

            Wow! Not only did I strike a nerve, but I severed an artery. Folks, “we have a bleeder!” What good do you think reinterpreting history for the sake of supporting your ideas are going to do you in court? Saying that is, that we make past the election coming up.

            Even with that collection of non-binding, what’s the right word? Yes, tradition. What value has tradition been in the fight to deny marriage to the gay community? Just where do we stand at this very moment?

          • afchief

            The truth is always the enemy of homosexuals.

          • Leslie Gray

            What truth? I showed you where the founding fathers clearly stated that they did not consider this country to be a Christian nation and you tried to bury me in irrelelevant opinions.

            The Treaty of Tripoli which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by President Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797 clearly stated in a clause in Article 11 that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Attempts at revisionist history cannot change the facts.

            Christianity may be the majority religion in this country. But, America
            was by no means founded on the Christian faith. I’ll take the word of
            the founding fathers for that. You can do what ever you want with that.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!

            No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

            These Christian quotes of the founding fathers will give you an overview of their strong moral and spiritual convictions which helped form the foundations of our nation and our government.

            George Washington

            1st U.S. President

            “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

            –The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

            John Adams

            2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

            “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

            –Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

            “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer.

            And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

            “Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”

            –Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

            “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”

            –Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

            Thomas Jefferson

            3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

            “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

            –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

            “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”

            –The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

            John Hancock

            1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

            “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”

            –History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

            Benjamin Franklin

            Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

            “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

            “That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

            “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

            “But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”

            –Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

          • Leslie Gray

            Believing in God as the creator of man does not a Christian make. I believe all of those things too. Yet, while I respect Christian beliefs and the right of anyone to choose to have them, I am by no means a Christian. Nowhere in any of the founding documents are there any words that establish this nation as having been established as a Christian nation.

          • Leslie Gray

            Yet, John Adams as only the second President of this nation and one of the founding fathers signed a treaty with a foreign power that declared “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

            Your morals are not the only morals in this nation. Nor are your morals relevant in a court of law. If your morals were relevant in court, Lawrence vs Texas would have been very different.

            Homosexuals have been among us since there were no more than a handful of people. There are over 1500 species in creation that exhibit homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is part of the life cycle of the natural world. The natural world is reputed to be the Creation of God. And since you claim to be a follower of the God of Creation, then you should have nothing to say against the handiwork of your own God.

          • afchief

            Stop with the lies!!!! What about the obvious scientific inefficiencies of homosexuality? Can two animals of the same sex produce offspring – no. Animals use this behavior for dominance, PERIOD!!! This lifestyle is dangerous and not good for the people involved or to our society. We should not glorify such destructive behaviors or even legitimize them. It still is and always will be a “mental disorder” and “Sin”,PERIOD!!!

          • Leslie Gray

            There are far too many studies that clearly demonstrate the benefits of homosexual behavior for a given species. Such as the reduction of mating competition and the resultant environmental pressure placed on the regions food resources.
            Or, the fact that same sex couples in many species have been seen to adopt orphaned young and raised the young as their own. If a behavior exists in nature, is that behavior really a sin?

          • afchief

            You are a liar!

            The Case Against Homosexual Activity

            Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society—specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other “gay rights” issues—revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and “legalizeable” or immoral and “illegalizeable”?

            If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

            Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and “illegalizeable,” then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

            Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity—and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

            In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

            To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA’s controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because—just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture—a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

            Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn’t it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

            For centuries, the position of “traditional value” people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

            Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to “discriminate” against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren’t hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to “discriminate” against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like “Exhibitionists offend people.” We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don’t want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

            Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

            Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

            For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior’s coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

            To those “freedom-loving” liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone’s property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

            And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether “freedom-loving” liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they’ve established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

            Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

            Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than “normal,” they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually “normal” people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty—it doesn’t hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not “hurt” anybody.

            If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the “path of least resistance.”

            Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

            Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

            Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio—all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

            It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

            Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

            The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

            (We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned “race” in the preceding paragraph—homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

            Homosexuals try to “naturalize” their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

            (There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally “mount” another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

            As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point—what if some poor guy felt a “natural/instinctual” desire to have sex with a consenting sheep—are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn’t “hurt” anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

            “There’s a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations,” we’ve heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong—stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

            Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences—the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most “convenient” to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

            “But it’s love,” homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn’t justify immoral sexual activity.

            And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature’s way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

            Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings—from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

            The response to that is: allowing “unnatural” things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

            “Who are you to judge others?” we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.—obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and “homophobic” for being against homosexual activity.

            Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. That argument is so bad, so ridiculous it could even be used by pedophiles. Pedophiles can say that if adults were just having sex with 5-year-olds we wouldn’t have a population problem! Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

            Then there is the “consenting adults” argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

          • afchief

            Secondly, society has better things to do with its people and resources than treat diseases that homosexuals bring on themselves by consentingly or voluntarily engaging in unsafe and/or physiologically unnatural sex acts. (Resources would be better spent finding cures for diseases people do not bring on themselves, do not “ask” for, as diseases associated with the involuntary aging process. We also could spend that money feeding the starving children of the world. In a very real sense, children are starving because some people, including some heterosexuals, think they have the right to engage in unsafe sex and spread disease. If that doesn’t outrage you you may have lost your humanity. Homosexuals should apologize for all the STDs they’ve spread, and all the money those STDs have cost, and especially for setting bad moral examples for our children.)

            And third, two people engaging in immoral sex acts in absolute privacy is one thing; coming out of the closet with one’s vices and demanding equal rights is quite another and should be frowned upon to say the least. When someone’s behavior becomes public knowledge, when it thereby affects the public, it becomes the public’s business, and the public acquires the right to legislate against that behavior should the public decide logically that it would be advisable to do so.

            Homosexuals like to especially point out that people of the same sex can understand each other better than they can understand the opposite sex, because people of the same sex are naturally more similar to each other.

            There is some truth to that, but when homosexuals conclude from it that homosexual relationships are therefore better and/or more moral than heterosexual ones they go too far. While men and women have their differences, they have many things in common. Let’s build on the things we have in common. Let’s unify the populace, not sexually segregate and disunify it as homosexuals apparently would prefer. Besides, people of the opposite sex can be much more attractive and exciting, naturally.

            By the way, the more lesbians there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight men. No red-blooded heterosexual male should want that. And the more male homosexuals there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight women. No red-blooded heterosexual female should want that. Plus, from an evolutionary standpoint regarding reproduction, the more homosexuals there are the narrower the available gene pool (due to fewer potential mates), which isn’t good.

            Some critics point out that, in the wide circle of people we at H.O.M.E. know and love and like, there are probably some closet homosexuals. They argue that since we already like them, what difference should their homosexuality make? The fact that this type of “argument” is even being used, like some of the other seriously flawed arguments discussed above, shows how badly our educational system is failing. In the wide circle of people you know and love and like, odds are there are one or two closet racists or sexists or “homophobes” or thieves or pedophiles (etc.). That isn’t much of an argument for anything.

            It should be stressed that numerous homosexuals and bisexuals have a large number of sexual partners, many of whom are essentially perfect strangers. These people just use others for sex and have a difficult time loving. They are contributing to making the world a colder and more exploitative place. (Incidentally, promiscuity says basically this: I do not think you are worth marrying but I’ll use you for sex. Promiscuous sex is actually somewhat of an insult to thinking people. It’s just sexual exploitation.)

            Homosexuals have told straight people that straights must have sexual hang-ups and inhibitions because they do not sexually desire people of their own gender. Well, it is evident that anyone (like a homosexual) who cannot or will not desire/love/marry/enjoy the opposite sex must also have some big hang-ups and inhibitions. Too, since many bisexuals tend to prefer their own sex when it comes to sexual partners, those bisexuals must have the same hang-ups and inhibitions afflicting homosexuals, though to a lesser degree. (If bisexuals fully enjoyed the opposite gender sexually, they wouldn’t waste their time on same-sex partners. Something, some sexual inhibitions and hang-ups, must be interfering with bisexuals’ enjoyment of the opposite sex.)

            Also, as a review of the numerous studies done through the years on homosexuals bears out, it is a fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young (for more info on this fact see the section of our website called Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?). That abuse is what has so disoriented the sexual desires of many homosexuals. In other words, many homosexuals were not born homosexual and so can choose to be what they were born to be—heterosexual. Such a choice may not be easy and may require therapy, but for many disoriented people it is a viable option. And for these people to choose to remain homosexual just lets the degenerates who abused them have too much power over them—the power to determine their sexual orientations.

            Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything. The environments we grow up in can make us tyrannical or meek, generous or selfish, loving or hateful, etc., etc. Human beings seem to be almost infinitely malleable—capable of becoming pedophiles, necrophiliacs, torturers, whatever. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes. Homosexuals should be able to become enjoyably heterosexual if they concentrate and “train” themselves to. They cannot justify not doing so. Let’s go forward, not back thousands of years to the ancient Greek and Roman debauched societies. Let’s progress not regress. Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

            Males are attracted to females by chemical substances (pheromones), just like dogs in heat, and are attracted by flirtatious behavior and perhaps by physical traits like breasts. This is how nature works. Even lower animals flirt. This natural “programming” is why normal men are attracted to women and vice versa.

            Being what we are, i.e., fulfilling our natures, within reason, makes us happiest. Being heterosexual is within reason, engaging in homosexual activity is not within reason. That is just the way it is. Just like we should not eat poison ivy or bask in the sun to excess (getting sunstroke and/or severe sunburn) or lay naked in the snow too long (getting hypothermia). That is just the way it is. Our natures entail limits.

            It would be wrong for society to allow homosexuals to impose their “morality,” their be-tolerant-of-aberrant-sexualities “morality,” on us. It would be wrong for us to allow homosexuals to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. It would be wrong for us to yield to their unreasonable demands for toleration and legalization of homosexual acts. Like it or not, that is reality. That is just the way it is. Most people can easily accept that. If homosexuals do not want to appear irrational or prejudiced they also ought to accept that.

            Indeed, any honest and logical homosexual has to admit that the decisive argument against homosexual acts, the argument that legal homosexual activity is a bad legal and moral precedent, is a perfectly valid argument. This is because homosexuals and their liberal supporters use the same type of argument to try to defend their values. Liberals like to ask those who want to censor some book or some smutty rock and roll lyrics: “Where will the censorship stop? What’s next on your list?”

            If homosexuals and their supporters recognize the validity of the bad-legal-precedent argument, the “slippery slope” argument, and they do, then they have to admit that such an argument helps demonstrate that homosexual acts are immoral and illegalizeable.

            Also, as noted previously, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science and logic). In the section of our website titled “Is Homosexuality A Disorder?” we make the case that it is, though we view it as a comparatively minor one. (And, again, we are all born imperfect.) Still, it makes no sense to treat a disorder as if it were not a disorder.

            On another matter, those adults who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are taking advantage of the young and confused. They are doing a disservice to everyone, and they are heartlessly setting young homosexuals up for a big fall. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. We should not be instilling the false hope—we should not be fooling young people into believing—that homosexual activity is okay when thinking people have known for centuries it is not.

            The biggest reason that the so-called “gay rights” (sad wrongs) movement has gotten as far as it has is that the major media, which for decades have been dominated by pro-homosexual liberals, have conducted a massive, sophisticated propaganda campaign in favor of homosexuality. They have willfully disseminated exaggerations and falsehoods, plus have engaged in widespread censorship of inconvenient facts concerning homosexuality.

            We wish more Americans knew just how much their values and emotions have been insidiously manipulated by media “malpractitioners.” Someday in the future people are going to look back at this era and wonder how so many pro-homosexual people let themselves be taken in by fallacious propaganda.

            (For those who want to know more about media manipulation—and about all the in-depth psychological research done on people with the goal of learning how to push our buttons, how to get us to respond in certain ways to various stimuli—a good and important read is the classic book Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard.)

            Before we close this section, some words on the mean-spirited use of the term “homophobic” by those who love to call people like this writer pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn’t really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others “homophobic” are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.

            To conclude: penalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination. Penalizing people for immoral or illegal behavior is simply the right thing to do. That is a truth homosexuals (and bisexuals) should be able to understand. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don’t homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? These extremists should get a life.

          • Leslie Gray

            From what I can see you are STEALING the intellectual property of another person. Even if that property is rubbish, what you are doing is wrong. Cite your source.

            Lawrence vs Texas has already dealt with the issue of legislating morality. And you lost.

            A psychologist by the name of Robert Spitzer was responsible for the changes to the APA’s inaccurate classification of homosexuality.

            You support racial discrimination for the sake of property values.
            Seriously? “…just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause “white flight” and lower property values.”

            Vance Packard wrote his trash in the 1950’s. That was the same era as the great red scare and reefer madness. Packard was just another example of made to order research much the same as the discredited Mark Regnerus and his phony study.

            “Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything.” Bull cookies. Then tell me why is it that “conversion therapy” has been proven to not work?

          • Leslie Gray

            Who are you plagiarizing this material from? What is/are your source/s? All you ever do is to spew unsupported innuendo and unsubstantiated pseudo-science from only the Gods know where.

    • Raymond of Canada

      I would rather say it’s the view of every civilization in history, even Islam (which is not a civilization, but I digress)

  • Michael C

    This article presents an argument as to why religious schools should be permitted an exemption to nondiscrimination laws while still receiving federal funding.

    …but religious schools are already permitted an exemption to these nondiscrimination laws.

    Why do these schools want to hide the fact that they’ve requested this exemption?

    Why don’t these schools want students and parents to know that they intend on discriminating against gay and trans students and faculty?

    If they think that gay and trans people are bad, why are they afraid to make that belief public?

    • bowie1

      A local Christian school had to dismiss a teacher who was involved in an adulterous affair and they subsequently sued. In the end the justice system exonerated the school since teachers should set an example as best as possible the Christian life. This also goes for sexual sins be it hetero or homo sexual. What good is a Christian or Religious School if they cannot follow their own principals. By the way the Christian Reformed Church (which I belong to) does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but they must live a chaste life (as does the single person who has the normal desires for the opposite sex.)

      • Michael C

        That’s all very nice but it has nothing to do with this article.

        Religious schools that receive an exemption from federal nondiscrimination laws in order to discriminate against gay and trans students and staff while collecting federal funding want to do so secretly.

        Some people in and outside of the government are suggesting that if a religious school who receives federal funding requests an exemption from federal nondiscrimination laws, that exemption should be made public.

        Why don’t these schools want people to know that they will not tolerate gay and trans people?

        • afchief

          So do it openly. You can’t call yourself a Christian school and have homosexual teachers and students. It is not possible. Christianity and homosexuality are direct opposites.

          • Michael C

            It appears that you are in agreement with the HRC.

          • afchief

            I could care less! God calls homosexuality sin. We Christians echo that. It is no secret.

          • Bob Johnson

            Then why do these Christian schools want to keep it a secret?

          • afchief

            “The love of money is the root of all evil”

          • Leslie Gray

            Have you ever watched any televangelist in action. All they want is money. Where’s the evil?

          • Raymond of Canada

            Maybe, just maybe, when a student applies to go there, the student will find that out, especially when he sees the Christian denomination attached to it or the kind of students going there. Give LGBTs some intelligence credit.

          • Jade

            1 Corinthians 7:29 Now let me say this, dear
            brothers and sisters: The time that remains is very short, so husbands should
            not let their marriage be their major concern.

          • afchief

            Our time on this earth is very short. James compares it to a “vapor” that appears for a little and then eternity.

            James 4:14 (NASB)Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.

            What translation are you using for scripture? It is way off!

            1 Corinthians 7:29 (NASB) But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;

        • bowie1

          Applicants should know that a truly Christian or Religious School follow certain well known principles unless they specifically mention that they follow a more liberal direction and mention that in their vision statement.

          • Michael C

            What you’re saying is that gay students should assume that they’ll be kicked out of college if they are outed.

            What many other people are saying is that religious schools should be forthcoming about their intent to kick gay students out of college.

            Why on Earth would a religious school not want people to know how they intend on dealing with gay and trans students and staff???

            Why on Earth would a religious school want to keep their request for nondiscrimination exemption a secret???

            The only reason I can think of is money. They’re afraid of appearing unappealing to the world. They’re worried that, if people knew that they intend on discriminating against gay and trans students and staff, their enrollment numbers would suffer.

          • Leslie Gray

            You’re right. It’s always about the money.

          • Shaun D.

            What kind of idiot, would be a gay, AND want to attend a Christian school, UNLESS he or she is trying to gain access to other weaker persons such as children.

            IE: Priests in Catholic schools, raping little boys. Etc etc

            Trojan horses!

          • Michael C

            Your comment is peripheral to the actual topic and seems to be an attempt to derail the conversation (and you have extra commas).

            Firstly, I don’t know what you mean by accessing children. I don’t think that many young children attend college. Are you talking about gay people or pedophiles?

            Second, many gay people are Christian. You’d probably say that if they’re gay, they’re not really Christian. That doesn’t really matter. I could say that you’re not really Christian. That wouldn’t matter either.

            Colleges generally offer an education. Christian colleges are no different. If a college offered a top program in a field of study that I wished to pursue, I would consider attending the college. If that college were a Christian college, and they didn’t require me to be a Christian to attend, the same applies. If I was a Christian, I’d be excited to attend a Christian school that offers the program that I want.

            Do you have any questions or comments about the actual subject of this article?

          • Raymond of Canada

            Why are you insisting on treating potential students as victims or too stupid to know what kind of school they are applying to. Surely in this wonderful diverse culture there is room for a few institutions that oppose homosexuality and trans to speak and share their beliefs. Or, do we prefer everyone to think alike? You gotta love a liberal’s concept of diversity!

          • Michael C

            You don’t seem to be understanding.

            Religious schools are free to teach whatever they want about gay and transgender people. Nobody here is saying otherwise.

            Religious schools are free to discriminate against gay and trans students and staff. Nobody here is saying otherwise.

          • Shaun D.

            Michael C

            Those with sound mind do not gain insights, nor learn from, nor do we hear the ramblings of the insane, mentally ill, deranged or sexualy perverted as though they were capable of adding some new and beneficial information to society or to our own personal lives.

            But, thanks for revealing yourself for what you are.

            In honesty, i know you have nothing of interest to say, for the gay message which you ADVOCATE, is anti intelligence on every level, and is a slap in the face of common decency, morals (God given), common sense and goodness.

            When you said “gay Christian”, you lost 100% credibility.

            There are ZERO gay Christians. God has always hated sin, and the wages of sin is death.

            All homosexuality is SIN in the eyes of Almighty Creator God in Heaven.

            Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
            Romans 1:24-32
            Genesis 2
            Genesis 19

            And if you say the WORD “homosexual” isn’t on the Holy Bible, you’re just being ignorant. The description of the ACT of homosexuality IS in the Holy Bible in Leviticus and in Romans.

            The word Shark isn’t in the Holy Bible either, but Gid created them within the literal six day creation!

            P.s. without holiness you shall NOT see rhe Lord

          • Leslie Gray

            You have clearly demonstrated that you lack the ‘sound mind’ requisite to an intelligent conversation.

          • Shaun D.

            Awwww….did you get your wittle feewings huwt?

            You’re judgement of me or anyone else for that matter has zero value.

            Asi said, i don’t hold the opinion of the mentally ill (lesbians/bisexuals/gays/trannys) in high regard.

            You need mental help…..years of it.

            You NEED Jesus

          • Bob Johnson

            “There are ZERO gay Christians”

            Gene Robinson
            Otis Charles
            Mary Douglas Glasspool
            Thomas Shaw
            Michael Turnbull
            Peter Wheatley
            Horst Gorski
            Eva Brunne

          • Shaun D.

            If those people are homosexual/lesbian/bisexual/tranny or gay in any way, THEY ARE THE ENEMY OF CHRIST, THE ENEMY OF GOD, AND GOD DOES NOT HEAR THEIR PRAYERS.

            THEY ARE NOT SAVED, THEY ARE NOT HOLY, THEY ARE NOT PURE, THEY ARE NOT OF THE ETERNAL HOLY ALMIGHTY CREATOR GOD IN HEAVEN.

            BOB JOHNSON, you are a liar, an “abomination” unto God in Heaven and are completely under His wrath and will be punished for your wickedness.

            REPENT!!!! YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN!

          • Bob Johnson

            They are all Bishops.
            Is everyone who disagrees with you a liar and abomination?

          • Shaun D.

            What God says is true.

            You and your homosexual perverts oppose God and His Holy word.

            Therefore, as GOD has said in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-32 and Genesis 19, you are “an abomination”, AND “worthy of death”.

            And self that your profess gays to be “Christian”, when God Himself calls you His enemy, its obvious you’re a liar.

            P.s. you’re on your way to Hell. 😉

        • Raymond of Canada

          Maybe school administrators and religious leaders don’t want to parade their Christian beliefs around as gays and lesbians like to do with their lifestyle. I have a feeling those that want to live a gay lifestyle will not be attracted to a school which has religious expectations. That kind of takes care of itself.

        • lady liberty

          Every institution of higher learning has standards of conduct. It should not be a surprise to anyone that an institution of higher learning that is associated with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam would include in those standards of conduct traditional morals. Students who which to attend any institution must decide if they choose to live by the institutions standards or not.

      • Michex

        You understand. as do we all, that homosexuals now believe that they should be able to tell a religion what its doctrines should be.

        This only applies to Christian schools though.

        Schools of the other two major religions are exempt from homosexual criticism because they are considered “minorities” and liberal homosexuals don’t want to offend “minorities.”

        Essentially, it’s a liberal/homosexual war against Christianity.

        I wonder if the ACLU and SPLC are headed by Christians.

        • Shirley Kelly

          True

        • Michael C

          The issue is not whether or not religious schools can discriminate against gay and trans students and staff.

          They can.

          The question is whether they should be transparent about their intent to discriminate.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            EXACTLY!

          • Michex

            There is no law requiring a religious institution to be “transparent” and no obligation on the part of schools to modify their religious tests or employment criteria in any way.
            Homosexuals think they rule the country now.
            People are sick of homosexual demands on other people and organizations.
            Homosexuals think too highly of themselves.

          • gizmo23

            So are schools ashamed of their stance ?

          • Oboehner

            So why is it to be made public other than to put a target on the schools?

          • gizmo23

            That answered my question. They don’t want to stand up to for their convictions

          • Oboehner

            Who doesn’t? The perverts or the schools? Would you stand up simply to be attacked when it served no other purpose?
            You did answer my question as well, your motives are purely to attack those who disagree with you – how tolerant.

          • gizmo23

            If it is truly a belief of the school why try to hide it? If they are afraid of being criticized maybe they need to develop stronger convictions

          • Oboehner

            Are you afraid to say why they want it? If you are afraid of being criticized maybe it should just be let go. I really don’t think it’s about convictions, I think it’s about harassment on the part of militant perverts.

          • gizmo23

            So they run their business out of fear?

          • Oboehner

            Afraid to answer a simple question? Why does it need to be made public? I don’t want to hear about convictions, I want to know why the perverts want the information public.

          • gizmo23

            So they can make a decision on choosing a college. Do you think deceiving people is moral and Godly?

          • Oboehner

            You’re telling me these militant homo’s are looking for a Christian college to attend?

            Do YOU think attempting to deceive people is moral?

          • gizmo23

            no

          • Oboehner

            Then why are they fighting to make these things public?

          • Leslie Gray

            Why then are these schools so ashamed of their request for an exemption that they are wanting to hide their actions from the public?

    • Oboehner

      Why do homos want that public? Will Bruce’s rear be tighter as a result?

    • lady liberty

      The request for information was not made to the schools. It was made to the Department of Education.

  • Cady555

    “…to ensure that no student unknowingly enrolls in a school that intends to discriminate against them.”

    It sounds like the request is merely that schools be honest about whether they have received an exemption. This way potential students can make an informed decision about whether to enroll.

    How is honesty a bad thing?

    • Raymond of Canada

      Don’t be naive, Cady555. The advocacy group has more in mind than the rights of individual students. They won’t rest until every Christian institution in Canada and U.S. submits to their tyranny.

  • Don D Lasater

    Crock of shit

  • MikeMovesPittsburgh

    Any time one chooses order over chaos it is a diiscriminatory choice. Non practicing, so called “Christians”, seek to implement their personal politics into a kingdom of God atmosphere and it is not going to be tolerated. We are an odd lot; we love people but do not love the sin they embrace. Don’t be deceived, bad company corrupts good morals!

  • Shaun D.

    “There are TWO genders…….MALE OR FEMALE. Leave it up to the queer agenda to desire to PERVERT everything which is normal, and to attempt to bully NORMAL and GOOD people (heterosexual), to fit into THEY’RE sick vile abominable sexual freak show.

    • Bob Johnson

      Look up “Intersex” or what used to be called “Hermaphrodities” also look up “Turner syndrome”, and “Klinefelter syndrome”. Estimates run from 1.0% to 1.7% of the population. That means for the United States, we have between 3,169,000 to 5,421,000 people who do not meet your definition of gender.

      • Shaun D.

        No thanks, not so certain you deserve an reply, seeing your mentally and intellectually challenged., but here it goes……GOD IS THE CREATOR, HE DECIDED HOW MANY SIXES THERE ARE.

        There are only TWO SEXES, male & female.

        Sexual perverts like to image that gender is a thing one can define in any way they desire. GOD SET TWO genders, no more.

        Btw, hermaphrodite ISN’T A gender, it’s a mutation! Sicko

  • Josey

    I would think that the school has a faith statement and anyone desiring to attend would know beyond a doubt whether their life style is in line with said statement. This is ridiculous, they should know what a school is about before attending or are they kindergartners?

    • Michael C

      This is exactly why some feel that it should be made public when a school requests an exemption to federal nondiscrimination laws.

      …because students and staff should know exactly how the school would react to gay and trans students and staff.

      • HazumuOsaragi

        students and staff should know exactly how the school would react to gay and trans students and staff.

        I, too, would like to see ‘truth in advertising’, though currently many discriminatory institutions prefer to appear to be non-discriminatory whilst ‘dog whistling’ their intent to be exclusive (as in segregatory.)

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      They are not confused! Get that in your head!

  • Enrique Baldwin Del Castillo

    What I know it’s that the biological violation of man by man it’s wrong because of all the negative consecuencies fisical, emotional and spiritual. Check the statistics from countries were gay marriage it’s permited and you will see for yourself. Marriage it’s supouse to bring life for the couple more years to live, and eventually a new one ( a baby ) but the biological violation of man doesn’t. And why they don’t have their own restroom ???

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      Which countries? I live in one and live near another country who have homosexual marriage and none of what you claim is happening there. So please point out which country you’re referring too.

      • afchief

        Which country?

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Yeah! Can’t read or what? I just want to know which countries he is talking about.

          • afchief

            I’m asking you which country YOU lived in where so called homosexual marriage was normal. I have been all over the world and would like to know.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            In the Netherlands. The first time I saw two men holding hands in Public, I was 6 years old. That was 41 years ago. So here it has always been normal. We have here marriage equality for 14 years now. In Belgium since 2003.

          • afchief

            My parent company is in Amsterdam and I have been there several times and have never seen two homos holding hands. I have heard a lot about the red light district downtown, but not of open homosexuality.

            Jesus said it would be just like the days of Lot when He returns. In Lot’s day there was open homosexuality.

            There return of Christ is right at the door.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh wow, several times. I’ve been living here my whole life. I’m pretty sure I know more about my own country then a tourist.

    • rcvj

      Canada gets along pretty well and we have had marriage equality for over ten years. You really do have a problem with sex.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        Like many others.

      • afchief

        Really?

        Same-sex “Marriage” and the Persecution of Christians in Canada

        Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, the fourth country in the world to do so. During the rushed public debate that preceded legalization, the Christian and traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman had strong support. Polls showed a deep split among Canadians, and the majority (52 percent) were actually against legalization at the time that it occurred.

        Opponents of same-sex “marriage” were given all kinds of assurances. The preamble to the Civil Marriage Act states that “everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion,” “nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs,” and “it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage.”

        But how quickly things change. Since the watershed moment of legalization, Canadian social norms have shifted rapidly, and what was once considered fringe or debateable has become the new normal.

        Today, different opinions on “gender identity” and same-sex “marriage” are no longer tolerated. Our society is sweeping away respect for religious faiths that do not accept and celebrate same-sex “marriage,” and the Civil Marriage Act’s assurances seem merely farcical. It is not premature to speak of open discrimination against Christians in Canada.

        Christian Lawyers Need Not Apply

        The Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms declares that Canadians have a fundamental “freedom of conscience and religion” and “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” But constitutional guarantees are at the mercy of lawyers, and Canadian lawyers have emerged as among the most fiercely intolerant of anyone, including their own colleagues, who fails to support same-sex “marriage.”

        This extreme intolerance became evident last year when Trinity Western University, the largest privately-funded Evangelical Christian university in Canada, set out to establish a law school. TWU’s plans were approved by British Columbia’s Ministry of Education, which seemed like the final green light. But in a truly unprecedented move, the law societies of three provinces, including Ontario, voted to deny accreditation to the law school.

        The law societies gave only one reason, and it had nothing to do with sufficiency of the legal training of TWU graduates. The sole sticking point was the fact that TWU has acampus covenant which, among other things, asks students to abstain from same-sex (and heterosexual) sexual relationships outside of marriage, and states that marriage is reserved for man and woman.

        The benchers who sit on provincial law societies are some of the most powerful lawyers in the country. In debating the TWU covenant, many of these elite lawyers made comparisons between the opposition to same-sex “marriage” and racism. For instance, one Ontario bencher said: “we can draw a useful analogy between public attitudes towards interracial dating and interracial marriage in 1985 and discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2014.” In British Columbia, one bencher put it this way: “there is no way to avoid asking … what this Law Society would do if the community covenant related to interracial marriage, even if that precept was based on religion as it was in the case of the Bob Jones University.“

        The implication could not be more clear: Christians who believe in traditional marriage are the modern-day equivalent of racists, and warrant identical exclusion. Christian lawyers across Canada are now repeating the words of prominent Ontario lawyerAlbertos Polizogopoulos: “I did not attend TWU, but I share its biblical view of marriage…. Do my religious beliefs, particularly about marriage, somehow disqualify me from ably practicing law? That is the inevitable conclusion and consequence if we endorse barring TWU law graduates from practicing law.”

        Not only are Christian lawyers being pushed out by their colleagues, but they are also experiencing ostracism from their clients. As the debate over TWU heated in the media, some of Canada’s most powerful corporations created Legal Leaders for Diversity(LLD), a group that now includes over 70 of Canada’s largest corporations. Through LLD, these companies aim to alter the legal landscape by choosing to do business only with pro-gay law firms. Never before has there been a concerted effort to essentially starve Christian law firms out of business.

        Catholics Seen as Opposed to Human Rights

        The view that Christians are no longer fit for certain jobs is spreading out beyond the legal profession. In March, Toronto’s city council voted to remove the nomination of a Catholic school trustee to the city’s Board of Health. The trustee had not shown any wrongdoing or incompetence, and city councillors didn’t even try to argue this. Their stated concern was that the trustee had a history of voting in line with Catholic teaching.

        In particular, some councillors were concerned that the trustee had consistently opposed gay-straight alliances in schools (a 2012 Ontario law states that these activist gay groups must be permitted inside all publicly-funded schools, including Catholic ones).

        As in the case of TWU, councillors used an analogy to racism. The chair of the Board of Health asked: “Would we allow that as a society if it was black-white alliances? That’s what human rights are about….” Another councillor said: “These are actually human rights issues, the right for gays and lesbians to lead an equal life in the city of Toronto.”

        The writing is on the wall. A mere decade after same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Canada, citizens who do not support same-sex “marriage” are outside the bounds of social acceptability. It is now considered in the public interest to deny them career opportunities and advancement.

        Children as the Next Frontier of Gender Diversity

        This coming September, all publicly funded schools in the province of Ontario, whether Catholic or secular, must begin to teach an aggressive new sexual education curriculumwhich is categorically opposed to Catholic teaching on sexuality and the human person.

        Starting in grade three, the curriculum introduces children to the idea that gender is fluid, and that little boys can decide to be girls, or vice versa. The message is that transgender desires are just as perfectly normal as homosexual leanings.

        This message is already being propagated by our media. For instance, Canadian public radio recently covered the case of a 12-year-old boy who chose to “come out” as a girl one year earlier. This “heartwarming” story includes details such as the fact that the boy’s puberty has now been chemically stopped, and he may be put through female puberty instead.

        Young Canadian children have been “coming out” as transgender, and are being encouraged by officials in schools and government, and by the media. Currently, a Catholic school in Alberta is being pressured to allow a 7-year-old transgender “girl” to use the girls’ bathroom. Last year, the province of Alberta issued a new birth certificate to a 12-year-old “boy” who was born a girl.

        Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s largest pro-life organization, accurately expressesthe dilemma that Ontario’s Catholic schools are facing:

        It is unclear how Catholic schools can implement teaching on birth control, abortion, the idea that being male or female is a social construct, gender expression, and the 6-gender theory, even if retrofitted with a “Catholic lens.” Catholic moral teaching forbids abortion and the use of artificial contraception as grave evils. The theory of gender identity, gender expression and the idea that there are more genders than just male and female directly contradict Christian anthropology of the human person.

        The Dawn of a New Dictatorship?

        Canada continues to pioneer through a vast social experiment. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” represented the victory in our laws and public morals of a view of the human person and human sexuality that is seriously incompatible with the Gospel. This is turning out to be a zero-sum situation, and Christians are starting to be seen as public enemies.

        Last May at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Princeton professor Robert George spoke precisely of these changes in our Western culture, and of the coming persecution of Catholics and other like-minded Christians. Here in Canada, his predictions are already coming to pass:

        The days of socially acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past…. Powerful forces and currents in our society press us to be ashamed of the Gospel … ashamed of our faith’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. These forces insist that the Church’s teachings are out of date, retrograde, insensitive, uncompassionate, illiberal, bigoted, even hateful … these same forces say you are a homophobe, a bigot, someone who doesn’t believe in equality. You even represent a threat to people’s safety. You ought to be ashamed!

        …One may in consequence of one’s public witness be discriminated against and denied educational opportunities and the prestigious credentials they may offer; one may lose valuable opportunities for employment and professional advancement; one may be excluded from worldly recognition and honors of various sorts; one’s witness may even cost one treasured friendships…. Yes, there are costs of discipleship—heavy costs.

        Trinity Western University is now fighting expensive court battles in three provinces, and will likely wind up at the Supreme Court. The Toronto Catholic school trustee isconsidering an appeal to a human rights tribunal. Thousands of parents have protested against the new sexual education curriculum in Ontario, pulling 15,000 kids out of school to demonstrate their outrage.

        But Ontario’s premier, who is herself a lesbian in a same-sex “marriage,” has announcedher resolve to introduce the curriculum despite the protests. The tsunami of gender identity politics is only gathering speed, bringing ever more pressure upon those whodare stand in its way.

        May the Canadian experiment serve as your warning to America.

        • Richard Jones

          In Canada the days of bigotry in the name of religion are on the run. We have same sex marriage, not “marriage”. To the great majority of Canadians it is normal and not a matter for debate. No church, chapel , synagogue or temple (see how I got a number of gods in there) is obliged to perform a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple.

          The fact that the Roman Catholic church still sees artificial contraception as a grave evil is a comment on the foolishness of the old men who run it. Fortunately Catholics just ignore it and use contraception pretty well as often as non-Catholics. So Catholics can enjoy sex just like everyone else without producing a brood of unwanted children.

          I am proud to live in a country that is steadily shucking off the silly. arbitrary rules that bronze age men dreamt up in order to maintain their dominance over women and other lesser members of society.

          • afchief

            Really? I’m in Canada all the time on business and I see just the opposite. Especially with all the immigrates. There is nothing normal about homosexuality. It is perverted, deviant and extremely dangerous.
            Marriage has been and always will be between one man and one woman. It will never change no matter what homosexuals want to call it.

          • Richard Jones

            It has changed and is changing in countries all over the world. Get used to it. Your hatred of your fellow humans who have a different sexuality from yours is burning you up. Relax, stop believing all you read in the bible and enjoy life.

          • afchief

            Nope! As a Christian I hold and believe the Word of God 100%. It is truth!!!

            I would advise you to turn from your sins and give your life to Jesus Christ.

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • Valri

            Where are you experiencing any anti-gay sentiment in Canada? I suspect you are lying. It hasn’t affected anything in Canada at all.

          • afchief

            Go talk to all those Muslims, Eastern Indians, and orientals living and coming into Canada.

            You will hear a completely different story!!!!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Isn’t it great to live in a country like that? 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

          • Raymond of Canada

            Eat, drink and be merry! It won’t last forever!

          • Richard Jones

            I’ll go for that.

  • Reason2012

    And now you see more reasons why they REALLY wanted the government state religion of pro-homosexual behavior: for the criminalization of Christian beliefs on the matter.

    – Do not use your business to promote an anti-Christian act? you’re sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars

    – Do not do pro-homosexual pro-transgender agendas as your school – lose millions in funding

    – Dare speak out against homosexuality in your PRIVATE Christian school? They are now going after you as well.

    This is the real reason they wanted this new state religion that has redefined the religious institution of marriage.

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

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

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Michael C

      Perhaps you didn’t read the whole article. Religious schools that accept federal funds are permitted an exemption from federal laws pertaining to discrimination on the basis of sex.

      • Reason2012

        I didn’t say anything about whether or not they currently are permitted exemptions – just showing how yet again homosexual activists are going after Christians any way they can and are now demanding the names of schools teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin. What are they going to do with those names? Congratulate them? Reward them? No, they’re seeking some way to go after them, just like they target Christian businesses.
        Sorry for the confusion.

        • Michael C

          Oh, I see. I’m sorry, I misunderstood. Christian schools don’t want the general public to know how they choose to deal with gay and trans people. Got it. It’s not enough that they are exempt from federal nondiscrimination laws, they also deserve public funding while concealing the fact that they discriminate against gay and trans students and staff. Cool. Is there anything else we can give them?

  • rcvj

    I imagine these schools are somewhat ashamed and would rather the public did not know about their bigoted stance.

    • Leslie Gray

      Amen!

      • Oboehner

        Bigoted against an activity choice brought on by a mental illness? That’s funny.

        • Leslie Gray

          You fail to understand the fact that your view of homosexuality is no longer considered accurate. Modern scientific research has proven that gay and transgender people are actually born as they are. The only real mental illness issues associated with being either gay or transgender comes from repeated long term exposure to hate filled, bigoted, discriminating conservatives and their ilk.

          • Oboehner

            Modern “science has proven no such thing, they are not born that way any more than pedophiles and their ilk. It is a learned behavior, a mental illness. Don’t insult my intelligence with “scientific” born that way BS.
            Now don’t be bigoted against those who see through the gay fallacy.

    • Oboehner

      You a big pedophile fan or are you bigoted?

  • Jeff Spradling

    Why are homosexuals and transgenders enrolling in Christian schools when it’s a well know fact those lifestyles are against the tenets of the Christian faith? How hard is it to find out what the schools policies are? I’m not buying the “unintentionally enrolling”.

    Perhaps they’d have a better experience at a Muslim school.

    • Nidalap

      For the same reason they’d seek out Christian bakers or County Clerks. They want them shut down if they won’t bow to the brave new order of perversion…

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Yep, it was NEVER about equality – never.

    • Valri

      Why are homosexuals and transgenders enrolling in Christian schools? I dunno, maybe they read all those stories about Jesus’ unconditional love and kindness and it struck a chord with them.

  • tigersfan61

    Poor HRC…all these Christian schools are holding to what the Bible teaches and they can’t stand it…hmmmm

  • bowie1

    A christian school will often have a vision statement laying out their policies, beliefs, statement of faith and whatever is necessary to make it clear to applicants what they can expect. If applicants go in without paying attention to these then they have only themselves to blame.

  • Goldenpuff2

    So I’m assuming they are going to do the same thing to Islamic schools, right? They have them in Portland OR, Seattle, all over the place. What are they teaching in those schools? Let them make their claims but be fair about it – everybody should be fair game…not just Christians.

  • FoJC_Forever

    They just want to use the power of social networking and the government to force their way into these schools or to be able to shut them down. Remember what Lot faced when hosting the Angels of the LORD who came to deliver him. The men wanted to force themselves upon the Angels they thought were men. Satan has always tried to force people to submit to Sin, regardless of how it manifests. It is no different with the rampant spread and acceptance of homosexuality today. The demons promoting this in the world want everyone under their control and everyone to fear rejecting or resisting it.

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

  • jennylynn

    So it’s ok for the LGBT to discriminate against religious institutions, which has always been know to stand agains sinful lifestyles? This is just a bullying tactic. Most people don’t accept this lifestyle. It is not normal no matter how legal or politically correct you make it, and you can’t force people to accept it. If you don’t like the religious view, go somewhere liberal where they esteem you!

    • Michael C

      Religious schools are permitted an exemption to federal nondiscrimination laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex.

      Religious schools can discriminate against gay and trans students and staff.

      It’s totally legal. Nobody here is saying otherwise.

      • jennylynn

        Thanks!

      • jennylynn

        Just so you know disagreeing with a destructive lifestyle is not discrimination. I disagree with alcoholism, pornography, adultery, etc. it is destructive. That doesn’t make me discriminating, it makes me wise enough to know right from wrong to stay away from such destroying behaviors. The problem we have today is that “absolute truth” has been destroyed in the minds of men so that men can now self destruct and feel good about it and not be accountable for their behaviors, because if it feels right to you than it must be ok. In isaiah 14 satan said I will be like the Most High God, “like” meaning there will no longer be “evil” we will call it all “good” so even satan is good in a society of relativism. “Islam”, well, if you speak against its evil, you are islamaphobia. Therefore, satan who is “evil” is now considered good and is like God!

        • Michael C

          Religious schools are free to say whatever they want about gay and trans people as per the First Amendment.

          They are also free to discriminate against them as per the exemptions outlined in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

          • Raymond of Canada

            Michael: No one can say you haven’t tried to keep this conversation on track. And it has, compared to many other comments sections.

  • lorac odraned

    Prominent homosexual group is an oxymoron. Homosexuality is a sin. There is nothing prominent about sin. God said homosexuality is a sin. God’s word is truth. These groups are denying the word of God. They will be sorry!

    • Nidalap

      Prominent
      adjective
      1.
      standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable.

      I’d say sin is prominent alright…

  • Nidalap

    This reminds me of when they put the Proposition 8 supporters’ personal information out on the internet. It opened them up to all kinds of harassment. Same reasoning here, one presumes…

    • gizmo23

      So is harassment Ok as long as it is directed to people you disagree with ?

      • Nidalap

        No, Mogwai, it is not. Which is why thinly veiled tactics intended to generate this seem so, well, slimy! 🙂

  • Elat

    argghhhhh!!!! they are OUT of control. I have supported the Dems for years and THIS is the reason why I do NOT want them to win anymore. They’re out of control!!! They give these people unbelievable power to shut down religious freedom guised as their version of “discrimination”. It’s a LIE from hell. And we don’t even have to evoke religious freedom here just SCIENCE. You can NOT change gender. Their ideologies that are completely fact free from scientific facts need to be called “religious” and they have NO right to impose them on others. This is truly truly insane and DANGEROUS. Not just for mental sanity but the people they proclaim to “change” are nothing but mutilated and propped up with pharmaceuticals that will likely kill them. We MUST stop this madness.

    • Michael C

      Religious schools that accept federal funding are free to discriminate against gay and trans students and staff.

      That’s what this article says.

      Religious schools can kick out gay and trans people if they want to.

      Nobody here is saying otherwise.

  • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

    Discrimination is also discretion, we all have the right to discriminate. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior not worthy of any protection.

  • Coach

    Why would people who hate Christianity spend their time on a Christian news site?

    • Angel Jabbins

      That has been my question too. I personally think they are here for one reason only: to agitate and harass Christians because of their intense hatred for Christianity and the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t (and I am sure you don’t either) go to atheist websites to stir people up. I disagree with them, but respect their right to believe as they wish, and am not interested in going into their domain to agitate and harass them….as they do here on this Christian website. The atheists today are very aggressive and seem to have an ax to grind.

      • Coach

        The reality is light and darkness can’t coexist, Jesus said His followers would be hated by all for His sake. The world is under the power of its leader the devil and he wants to stamp out the truth in every way, which is why atheists are more aggressive and apostasy spreads like wildfire.

        Remember the words of our Lord:
        Matthew 24:11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

        • Angel Jabbins

          Absolutely true. We are certainly seeing it increase as the world comes more and more under his power…but not for long.

      • gizmo23

        How is questioning harassment ?

    • Jade

      I will be happy to answer your question. First of all, don’t try to use yourself as a definition for all Christians. There is a reason that there are over 400 Christian denominations – because all Christian pick and choose what parts of the Bible they follow and which ones they ignore. I am on this website because I am aware of everything that the Bible attributes to God. I want to show people who use their Bible as a weapon against others, that there are scriptures that most Christians do not know or do not what to acknowledge. There are major themes that most Christians do not want to discuss like the fact that there are 2 completely different birth narratives, Jesus was crucified on 2 different days (synoptics vs. John) and according to Paul, the only person who lived on earth and is currently in Heaven is Jesus. If you read 1 Corinthians 15, there is absolutely no confusion that Paul believed the only way you get to Heaven is at the 2nd coming of Christ when the earthly body will be transformed into the heavenly body – no person currently in Heaven or Hell. Then there are many scriptures that are so abusive to women and children. I can give you many examples if you would like.

      • Angel Jabbins

        So you are here to straighten us…the poor misled ones… out so we can view the scriptures through your distorted view. You just proved my point.

        • Bob Johnson

          I don’t plan or want to straighten anyone out – just show that there are multiple interpretations.

          • Angel Jabbins

            There are not ‘multiple interpretations’ when it comes to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith: Monotheism, God is a Trinity, the Deity of Christ which includes the hypostatic union (that He is both God and Man), that He was born of a virgin, was without sin, died on the cross for sinners and arose from the grave, that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (not of our good works in any way), and there is only one gospel message by which men can be saved.

            Their are sometimes differing interpretations on issues of lesser importance (non-essentials), like the existence of hell, how God saves,,,by free will choice of people or by divine election, whether tithing 10% is a command for today, whether women are allowed to be pastors, whether one should consume alcohol or not, whether there will be a Rapture of the Church…pre-trib, post-trib, etc. But I believe careful study of scripture can help us understand God’s will and plan in even these disputed areas.

            Too often people come at scripture with their own biases and prejudices, looking for it to confirm what they already believe and want to continue to believe, taking verses out of context, chopping the bible into bits and pieces rather than taking it as a whole, allowing scripture to interpret scripture.

            Do you believe in the essential doctrines of the Christian faith? They are plainly taught in scripture. Though there are many differing denominations, most all of them adhere to the essentials I listed above.

          • Bob Johnson

            Ah, good you are making me think about my faith. I will start with salvation. You seem certain it is by grace alone, for you seem willing to state that Coptic, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are not Christians. I am not so sure. These denominations believe that as well as by God’s grace we must also include good works and point to several Biblical verses.

            Personal, if I accept Galatians 2:16 “know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ,” then I must accept that all sinners, both myself and others will not be judged by Leviticus, the Ten Commandments, or any other laws. So pointing to homosexuals and crying “sinner” has no meaning, we all may stand equal before God and be judged solely on our belief in Jesus Christ.

            As for your “non-essentials”, I feel afchief will claim that the existence of hell is required – he certainly claims many will go there.

            I have and continue to read scripture, I think I know what it means and how my church’s clergy and congregation interpret scripture, however, broadening my reading, such as this website, provides fascinating insights.

          • Angel Jabbins

            And I am glad you are here if that is the case. Good for you, Bob! The people I was referring to are mainly the atheists coming here, who, for the most part, are set in their beliefs and are only interested in inflaming, agitating, and harassing Christians. Attempting to engage them in meaningful discussions is usually pointless.

            Yes, you are right. I do not consider Catholics to be Christians. I was Catholic a good part of my life…raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools right on through college, even taught in Catholic school….so I know Catholicism pretty well. As a Catholic, I did believe in Jesus, but his sacrifice alone was not enough to save me. I had to be a good person, participate in the sacraments of the church, not commit a mortal sin….then, maybe, I would go to heaven. If not, I could work off my unforgiven sins in an imaginary place (nowhere in scripture) called Purgatory. I was burdened down with trying to be good enough and never had any real assurance of being saved.

            I came to true faith in Christ mainly through reading the Bible, which we, as Catholics, were not encouraged to do. I was shocked that so many things I had been taught were not in the Bible. That was my first surprise. Then, as I read through the New Testament, I began to see that Jesus alone is enough, and nothing I can do in this life, no matter how hard I try, can ever be enough to satisfy the Holy God whom I have offended. And, if we could do anything at all to save ourselves, then why did God have to send His Son to die? It just makes no sense.

            The 10 commandments IS the standard by which God will judge every sinner even born. Sin is serious business. We all are, by nature, sinners and all that we do, even our best works, is tainted by our sin. None of us keeps the Law perfectly, nor can we. We were hopeless without a Savior. But Jesus came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and arose so that our sin debt could paid in full and forgiven by God. Jesus’ righteous perfect life can now be credited to each sinner who repents and trusts in Christ alone. So we don’t get saved by being good PLUS Jesus’ sacrifice because none of us CAN be good enough. We get saved by trusting in the work of Christ for us. Then, AFTER we are saved, we WILL do good works, not to gain heaven, but out of gratitude for Christ for all He has done for us. After being saved, we are still sinners and will be in a battle the rest of our lives to war against our sinful nature. The difference is our debt has been paid. As born again Christians, we now have the help of the Holy Spirit to live lives pleasing to God. We no longer love to sin. He hate it and fight against it.

            “So pointing to homosexuals and crying “sinner” has no meaning, we all may stand equal before God and be judged solely on our belief in Jesus Christ.”

            We are ALL sinners…no matter what the sin. We all stand guilty before God…liars, homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, idolaters, blasphemers, on and on. But God does not want us to stay in our sin. That is why He sent Christ to redeem us and give us new hearts that want to please God rather than ourselves. The only thing that can wash our sin away and make us right with a holy God is repentance and faith Christ’s sacrifice alone. To think we can add anything to what Christ has already done is really a subtle form of blasphemy. How can we improve on what God has already done? Good works—worthless to save—-but after salvation, are the evidence of a changed heart.

            Belief in hell is a non-essential for salvation….meaning, one can be truly saved and not believe there is a hell. However, at some point, I think every born again Christian, through study of the Scriptures, will come to believe in such a place of punishment. If there is no hell, then why would Jesus go to all the trouble to die for us….to keep us from going there? And… Jesus Himself talked about it more than he did about heaven.

            Since you have an open mind and are here to be broadened, I leave you with a couple of articles on these topics:
            Are we saved by faith alone, or do we need works, too?
            https: //carm. org/are-we-saved-faith-alone-or-do-we-need-works-too (Loose the spaces)

            Why is faith alone in Christ alone the only way to be saved?
            https: //carm. org/why-is-faith-alone-in-christ-alone-the-only-way-to-be-saved

            Attaining Salvation in Roman Catholicism
            https: //carm. org/catholic-salvation-attain

            Enjoyed this discussion!

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

      The seat of mockers. The fool rants and raves, and there is no peace.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I don’t know who “hates Christianity,” but if you’re asking why I, a person who is clearly not in this site’s intended audience is here, I can answer that.

      I’m here because I think the Christian Right spends too much time in its echo chambers. I think you aren’t thinking critically about the issues, and you retreat to places where you can read a biased article by a biased author and comment on it with biased people, and no one ever has to think too hard because no one ever upsets the social order.

      In short, I think you’re too comfortable and sometimes you need to examine and defend your beliefs.

      • Angel Jabbins

        I had another commenter tell me an article here was reported from a biased viewpoint…that I should go check Reuters for the real story. I did. Guess what. This website reposted the Reuters’ article word for word.

        I don’t consider myself a ‘Christian Right’ adherent. I am an independent who happens to be a Christian. And, as a Christian, I vote according to my conscience and based upon what I feel is biblical.

        As to not ‘thinking critically….’not examining and defending beliefs’? I have never in my life run across so many people who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag….and it is most always from those who are just here to taunt and stir things up…which they so love to do. When you try to use reason and logic with them and present pertinent information for their consideration, they end up reverting to name calling, ad hominin attacks, and most disgusting and telling of all….potty mouth. I don’t think you are one of those but sadly there are a number of them here.

      • Angel Jabbins

        BTW,

        1) You assume every Christian is part of ‘Christian Right’ movement. Not true at all.

        2) You assume the Christians who visit this website read nothing else….narrow minded, shallow, bigoted people who won’t take the time to understand no other points of view. Wrong. I personally visit multiple news websites daily; most are secular.

        3) Since this website is Christian, yes, of course, it will be from a Christian perspective and what is wrong with that? Liberal, progressive websites have their own biases and the people going to those websites love it to be so….that is why they go there. I, however, don’t go to those websites to stir them up. They are entitled to their beliefs and their discussions with like minded people. I respect that. Come here, though, and I will stand up for my beliefs!

        4) According to you, Christians never think hard about anything. Well, from my experience on this website, reading the responses from some of very knowledgeable, intelligent Christians here, I am surprised you could make such a statement. There are some very well informed, very astute people here doing battle with all the trolls daily, giving them some things to think about….if they WILL think.

        5) You believe you are so superior when it comes to critical thinking and logic that you have to be here…your devoted missioin… to straighten us out. But, in my conversations with the trolls here I have found that they are actually the ones lacking in logic since they allow their feelings to overrule it….feelings and personal bias over reason.

        Comfortable? No. If I wanted to stay comfortable, I wouldn’t waste my time and energy every day debating with liberals and unbelievers… doing exactly what you said, defending the Christian faith. I love to do it, even when it is uncomfortable, because it a faith worth defending.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay, but I didn’t say ant of the things you’ve accused me of saying.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I quote..you said:

            “I think the Christian Right spends too much time in its echo chambers.”

            And I said, we are NOT all members of the so-called Christian Right here….and it wrong for you to assume that… to put us all into the same pot. Personally I sometimes don’t approve of things done by the ‘C.R.’ It is fine for individual Christians to be involved in political efforts and even to form activist groups to address issues. However, the main function and business of the Church and of all Christians should be winning souls to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. While I will speak out boldly about the issues here and elsewhere, my main concern is always to promote the gospel of Christ since it is only the gospel that has the power to change people’s hearts and that, in turn, is the only thing that will change the direction of this nation.

            You said: ” I think you aren’t thinking critically about the issues, and you retreat to places where you can read a biased article by a biased author and comment on it with biased people, and no one ever has to think too hard because no one ever upsets the social order.”

            I said the articles here are often exact reprints from secular websites and it is perfectly fine for a Christian website to be biased towards the Christian view…just as liberal websites are biased toward their view. I could say the exact same thing you said above right back at you and the likeminded.

            Lastly: “you’re too comfortable and sometimes you need to examine and defend your beliefs.”
            You said it all. I just responded to it.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yes, you did. You may not have come right out and used the words ‘narrow-minded, shallow and bigoted’, but don’t you agree that anyone who “spends too much time in its echo chambers” would be all of those things? And isn’t that what your comment was meant to imply? We aren’t ‘thinking critically (like YOU) about the issues’…’retreat to places to read biased articles by biased authors’….You did say it. I just rephrased it as to how it came across as I read it. Very condescending…very! ‘Too comfortable…need to examine and defend your beliefs’. If you think it is comfortable coming on here daily explaining, re-explaining, and defending my faith to all the trolls here, then you are mistaken. As to examining what I believe, I have done that in the over 40 years I have been a Christian and continue to read and study Scripture on a daily basis. I am more convinced of my faith today than ever before.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “And isn’t that what your comment was meant to imply? We aren’t ‘thinking critically (like YOU) about the issues'”

            Some people don’t. Those who aren’t, I’ll challenge.

            “If you think it is comfortable coming on here daily explaining, re-explaining, and defending my faith to all the trolls here, then you are mistaken.”

            Yes, there are lots of people here who will challenge nearly everything one could say. Personally, I have no interest in talking you or anyone else out of your faith. I don’t see theological debate as interesting or useful, and I don’t care what religion anyone belongs to.

            I do, however, have a very serious problem with people who want to codify their religious beliefs into law. I’m a lawyer, and it’s my passion.

            Frankly, I’m sick of people who make arrogant pronouncements about legal topics they don’t understand. So I come here to correct them.

            Except afchief. He’s beyond help.

          • Angel Jabbins

            “I don’t see theological debate as interesting or useful, and I don’t care what religion anyone belongs to.”

            Yet you said that Christians “need to examine and defend (their)
            beliefs”. I guess you need to do a better job of expressing yourself then because your statement is aimed directly at Christians and, obviously their religious beliefs DO affect what they think and believe about issues. Theology matters… shapes how people think, vote, and relate in society. If you do not understand what a person believes and why they believe it, then you cannot truly understand their viewpoint. You are just judging what they believe to be irrelevant.

            You are ‘sick of people who make arrogant pronouncements about legal topics they don’t understand’.

            So you are the authority on all these issues just because you are a lawyer and so you know best. You are ‘sick of arrogant pronouncements about legal topics THEY (Christians) don’t understand’. Maybe they DO understand but have a different view from yours. I have had some discussions here with you. We talked about the gay marriage decision and how the Court overreached its power. You gave me nothing to convince me the Court was not in error, nothing to convince me that gays are being discriminated against as the black were. We went back and forth quite a bit. Your reasoning was lacking and your evidence nil. So, just being a lawyer, does not make you the expert and the rest of us poor blokes stupid.

            So you come here to ‘correct us’. How condescending of you. Thanks a heap.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re welcome. Any time.

          • Bob Johnson

            You read too much into Ambulance Chaser’s remarks. I find it interesting that many of the comments on this site concern what you earlier claimed were “non-essentials.” Yet the same people are ready to pass laws to enforce their view of scripture.

            “He who is without sin amongst you, let him cast a stone.” [John 8] Today while stoning still occurs in many countries, I take this to suggest I worry about my sins and leave others to make peace with the Lord in their own way. And if Jesus was not worried about adultery destroying marriage, I will not worry about same-sex marriage.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Jesus WAS concerned about adultery. Not just because it would destroy marriage. He was concerned about it mainly because it is a serious sin against a Holy God.
            Have you never read Matt 5: 27-28?
            ‘You have heard it was said to them of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery’. But I say to that he who even looks at a woman to lust after her and committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
            Jesus was very concerned about sin of all kinds. That is why in the next verse he says: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Or if you right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you, for it is better for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell.”
            Then a few more verses down he says, “Whoever divorces his wife for any other reason except sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery and whoever marries her commits adultery.” This is Jesus speaking….red letters for all you Emergent types…from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was very serious about sin and its consequences which he very plainly said would be hell.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Whatever happened to “unfair discrimination”? Discriminating between things you can eat and things you cannot eat is discrimination. Discriminating between people that can do the job and people that cannot is also discrimination. It’s just not unfair. Surely it is necessary to show that the discrimination is actually unfair before it is of any consequence?

  • Chrissy Vee

    *sigh…

  • bowie1

    If a skeptic or liberal have to ask a Christian School about their views on the gay issue then they probably are clueless on what the Christian Faith is all about. Christian Schools have a vision statement which clearly defines on what their stances are – at least they should have even just for legal protection.

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

    • PietjePuk

      Don’t you know that romans 1 is only the introduction for romans 2?

      It is written especially for you:

      2 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judges, for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who commit such things. 3 Do you think, O man, who judges those who do such things, and who does the same thing, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Do you despise the riches of His goodness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

  • Jeanine Schaefer

    There are many ways that can express the code of conduct for students without stating what exact forms are filed to do it. That ISNT hiding anything. Wanting the department of education to list all schools that have filed a particular document fools no-one. They are just out to sue…..what a surprise.

  • Shaun D.

    “Leslie Gray”, is actually Les. In other words…..IT’S a male.

  • Truthhurts24

    The lunacy of the sodomites continues

  • Jeff Flett

    “Leslie Gray” if I might ask, what drives your questioning? Are you challenging people’s commitment in order to find some connection for yourself or are you trying to make some sort of converts from the believers?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Post-christian American culture = Sodom