Alabama Supreme Court Unanimously Dismisses Pleas to Defy U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

Alabama Supreme Court wsMONTGOMERY, Ala. — While expressing reluctance and issuing sharp rebukes against the nation’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday unanimously dismissed pleas from family groups who requested that the court defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage.”

The Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program had filed requests with the court, as well as Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen, asking that it uphold the state’s ban on same-sex nuptials.

“It is ordered that all pending motions and petitions are dismissed,” the court wrote in its unanimous order, with separate concurring opinions being released by the justices.

“In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which a 5-4 majority declared, without any constitutional basis, that same-sex applicants have a fundamental constitutional right to marriage, I concur in dismissing the ‘Motion for Clarification and Reaffirmation of the Court’s Orders Upholding and Enforcing Alabama’s Marriage Laws,’ wrote Justice Michael Bolin.

While surrendering to the decision, Bolin also noted, “I do not agree with the majority opinion in Obergefell; however, I do concede that its holding is binding authority on this Court.”

“As respectfully as I can, albeit reluctantly, I concur in dismissing the petitioners’ motions, and I further concur specially to note that the process of licensing of marriages in Alabama as we have known it may have been irreparably broken,” he wrote.

Justice Greg Shaw made similar comments.

  • Connect with Christian News

 

“I concur with this court’s dismissal of the various post judgment motions and requests in this case that ask this court to enter an order defying the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges,” he wrote. “A decision by this court cannot stop the issuance of federally mandated same-sex government-marriage licenses.”

He said that he believes it would bring “disrepute” on the court to defy the ruling.

“If a judge finds that he or she cannot abide by a controlling decision of a higher court, then that judge should resign from office. He or she should not indulge in the pretense that rebelling against a superior court’s decision is an accepted judicial response,” Shaw wrote. “Such conduct does not show respect for or comply with the law; it does not promote public confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Instead, I believe that defiance would bring the judicial office into disrepute.”

Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as the “Ten Commandments Judge,” said that he went along with the dismissal of the cases since he said it did not invalidate the Alabama Supreme Court’s order last year halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses. However, he issued a lengthy rebuke against the U.S. Supreme Court, citing Scripture and historical case law.

“The Obergefell majority’s false definition of marriage arises, in great part, from its false definition of liberty,” Moore wrote. “Separating man from his Creator, the majority plunges the human soul into a wasteland of meaninglessness where every man defines his own anarchic reality.”

“In that godless world, nothing has meaning or consequence except as the human being desires. Man then becomes the creator of his own reality rather than a subject of the Creator of the Declaration,” he continued. “See Romans 1:25 identifying those “[w]ho changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator.”

Moore also pointed to Genesis 2:24, which declares, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The instruction was repeated by Christ in Matthew 19:5, and again by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31.

“In a world with God left out, the moral boundaries of Scripture disappear, and man’s corrupt desires are given full rein,” Moore lamented.


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
  • Ambulance Chaser

    Of course they did this. They HAVE to. The Alabama Supreme Court is not superior to the US Supreme Court. I don’t know why the Alabama Policy Institute, the Alabama Citizens Action Program and Probate Judge John Enslen don’t know this.

    • acontraryview

      Oh they know it. They just want to use the issue to raise money and pander to voters.

  • Jerial Knight

    Well I see Christian news is not interested in discussion at all. They block me on FB for disagreeing and using facts. This is pathetic.

    • jjgrndisland

      boo hoo

  • lee metzger

    None of this matters. What matters is that homosexuality always has, and always will be a disease spreading lifestyle. The losers are those who continue to buy into the lie that they were born that way, as if they can by words alone sanitize what is inherently a dirty business.

    • John N

      Newsflash: Just living is a disease spreading activity. Homosexuals are no exception on that. If you do not want to spread diseases, stop living.

      By the way, religious fundamentalists are helping very well in spreading diseases by opposing vaccinations, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. So religious fundamentalism surely is a disease spreading lifestyle.

      And how come homosexuality has suddenly become a ‘lifestyle’? You think all homosexuals all over the world are black, living in big cities, drug- and alcohol users and having multiple sex partners at the same time? Just like heterosexuals all over the world are white, christian, god-fearing, one-partner southern rednecks?

      So you deny the scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences?

      • lee metzger

        Your first comment is ridiculous. Homosexuals spread disease because they refuse to stop “swimming” in the sewage plant of the human body. They spread disease because they refuse to control where they put it, and so pay a very heavy price for such a reckless mentality. As far as religious people opposing vaccinations, they never did except for extreme groups like the JW’s. It’s only in the last few years literally that autism and other human conditions have been linked to vaccines, so I suppose people are just supposed to ignore those realities? Be an idiot, but don’t be stupid. And yes, homosexuality is a lifestyle, a behavior, a CHOSEN behavior. It’s not an ethnicity, like black, asian, etc. It’s a desire to hook up with people of the samesex, and that’s it. And if you don’t think that most homosexuals are in it for the sex, than you’re being an intentional denier, because anyone who knows them well knows that’s it’s all about the sex. There is a separate category of them who are so lost in life, so helpless and without hope because of horrible backgrounds that they’re looking for love anywhere they can find it. These are of all human beings most miserable, especially since they sincerely do believe the lies of a culture that seems hellbent on screwing itself up in whatever ways it can find. And don’t give me that crap about scientific evidence regarding sexual orientation. “Scientists” bought and paid for by the gay lobby, very willing to intentionally find “results” that keep the money trail flowing their way. Take bisexuality. Going to seriously make the case that people were born to swing both ways? Give me a break. How stupid do you think people are? No gene makes a man put his penis where it doesn’t belong, in a place where disease is spread like wildfire. If you really think that’s the case, then you’ve become so open-minded that your brains have literally fallen out.

        • John N

          >’As far as religious people opposing vaccinations, they never did except for extreme groups like the JW’s.’

          Do you mean JW’s are fundamentalist christians just like you are?

          >’Homosexuals spread disease because they refuse to stop “swimming” in the sewage plant of the human body’

          Diseases are as or even more easily spread through vaginal contact, blood, semen, nasal mucus or saliva. So we should stop all human contact?

          >’It’s only in the last few years literally that autism and other human conditions have been linked to vaccines, so I suppose people are just supposed to ignore those realities?’

          Thanks for proving my point: religious fundi’s spread diseases by not vaccinating their children due to ignorance and science denial.

          >’And yes, homosexuality is a lifestyle, a behavior, a CHOSEN behavior’

          Your opinion, against all scientific evidence, again. Back to the Dark Ages.

          >’…than you’re being an intentional denier, because anyone who knows them well knows that’s it’s all about the sex. ‘

          So you actually know them well? Talked to them? Asked them their opinion? And you didn’t catch any dirty disease? Seeing your answer, you are either lying about you knowing them, or about what they told you.

          >'”Scientists” bought and paid for by the gay lobby, very willing to intentionally find “results” that keep the money trail flowing their way. ”

          And of course you ave evidence for these heavy accusations, and brought them to court. Didn’t you?

          >’No gene makes a man put his penis where it doesn’t belong, in a place where disease is spread like wildfire. If you really think that’s the case, then you’ve become so open-minded that your brains have literally fallen out.’

          Do you have any idea how many heterosexual man put their penis were it does not belong? If you think that is not the case, it is maybe because you’ve become so close-minded, your brains actually stopped working.

          • lee metzger

            Actually, NO, JW’s are not fundamentalist Christians. They deny Christ was God, so they’re a sect, not a true Christian group. As far as human contact, obviously anyone who’s infected will spread that disease through all kinds of human contact. Homo’s are in a different category however. Sexual promiscuity is the sine que non of homosexuality. They refuse to control it, just like the alcoholic refuses to control their drinking.

            —— Wrong about religious fundi’s not vaccinating their children. Most do so by far, it’s just that with vaccinations being linked to autism, they’re rightly questioning what in the world are they putting in these vaccines to begin with.

          • John N

            >’Sexual promiscuity is the sine que non of homosexuality. They refuse to control it, just like the alcoholic refuses to control their drinking.’

            Again, silly unsupported claims that only show you don’t know homosexuals at all. Maybe you should get out of your basement more. And I don’t mean to go to church.

            >’…it’s just that with vaccinations being linked to autism, they’re rightly questioning what in the world are they putting in these vaccines to begin with.’

            Vaccinations are not linked to autism in anyway. Where did you get that? Been around with antivax-conpiracists as well?

            >’Here’s where you all are guilty of an hypocrisy you can’t escape from. You say it’s genetic.’

            I did not. Read again what I – what science – says: that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. And the same counts for transgender people – no ‘feelings’ involved. So who is the one lying here?

            >’And i’ve known plenty of gays, so I can say they’re all about the sex without hesitation, no apologies, and no turning back from that observation.’

            And after the above, this sounds very untrustworthy. You’ve been making unsupported claims, over and over. You’ve been caught lying about what I said, and making a big fuss about it. Why would I still believe you?

            And even if you’re right, anedotes are lousy evidence. None of the gays I know are in it for the sex only. I wonder why christian fundi’s are so fascinated about the sex thing.

            >’Once again, you deflect from the point. I made it clear that no GENE makes a man do that, it’s clearly a choice of the will.’

            So now you do claim to know the function of every gene in our body? You are really incredible.

          • lee metzger

            “I did not. Read again what I – what science – says that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic……” Goodbye dude, you’re cognitive processes are clearly damaged. And I know homosexuals quite well, it’s not my problem you cannot handle the truth about them. This is over.

          • John N

            Ok. I guess you are out of arguments, so you switch to insults.

            Well, they were not very convincing in the first place.

    • acontraryview

      “None of this matters.”

      Oh good. Then you have no issue with same-gender civil marriage. Great news!

      “The losers are those who continue to buy into the lie that they were born that way”

      In what way are they losing?

      • lee metzger

        Um, check CDC stats on how 2% of the population account for 61% of new HIV cases. Yes, THAT population. Things like that which prove that their normative life choices alone spread disease. It’s estimated that in the near future, 50% of black gay men will have HIV. That’s what I call LOSING in every sense of the word.

        • acontraryview

          I’m aware of the DC stats, Lee. They are not the result of being gay. They are the result of individuals making poor choices regarding their behavior. Just as the higher rate of diabetes in black people is a result of their behavioral choices – not simply because they are black. Of course, you may also believe that being black is “losing” as well.

          • lee metzger

            but those stats prove the sexual promiscuity which is the sine que non of homosexuality. Homosexuals “outed” themselves decades ago by making it clear that they would have to portray themselves as being “born this way” if they were to receive societal recognition as a viable, separate “ethnicity” if you will. Their words, not mine. Further, the testimonies of many ex-gays prove they were not. I personally know 3 who were brought of the bondage of that self-destructive life. I will never, ever affirm their choice just like I’d never affirm the choice to do drugs, drink uncontrollably, sleep around with everything that moves, etc. To people who refuse to be sheeple, there is no mystery to what gays are trying to do, and it simply won’t work. All know inwardly that samesex relationships were never meant to be. Those who choose to deny that is a big so what? for me. There will also always be those who insist that chain smoking will never give them lung cancer. For such, there is no hope. For sure, I’m not going to affirm such a deadly choice. Not now. Not ever.

          • John N

            >’but those stats prove the sexual promiscuity which is the sine que non of homosexuality. ‘

            According to CDC statistics, around 500.000 persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men. That must be around 8,5% of all homosexual men in the US which are, according to you, living in sexual promiscuity. Sine qua none? I didn’t think so.

            >’…if they were to receive societal recognition as a viable, separate “ethnicity” if you will.’

            You seem to make a lot of such silly claims. Time to back it up. Where did homosexuals asked to be a separate “ethnicity”?

            >’I personally know 3 who were brought of the bondage of that self-destructive life’

            And I know al lot more who don’t. Anecdotes are not evidence.

            >’I will never, ever affirm their choice just like I’d never affirm …’

            Who asked you to do so?

            >’All know inwardly that samesex relationships were never meant to be. ‘
            I know they are. So wrong again.

            >’There will also always be those who insist that chain smoking will never give them lung cancer. ‘

            Right. Because they are science deniers. Like you, concerning sexual orientation.

          • acontraryview

            “but those stats prove the sexual promiscuity which is the sine que non of homosexuality.”

            No. They show that homosexual men are more likely to engage in acts which expose them to HIV. Nothing more.

            “Homosexuals “outed” themselves decades ago by making it clear that they would have to portray themselves as being “born this way” if they were to receive societal recognition as a viable, separate “ethnicity” if you will. Their words, not mine. ”

            Please cite who has made the claim that homosexuals are a separate “ethnicity”.

            “I will never, ever affirm their choice”

            Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

            “To people who refuse to be sheeple, there is no mystery to what gays are trying to do, and it simply won’t work.”

            What is it you believe they are trying to do?

            “All know inwardly that samesex relationships were never meant to be.”

            That would be false.

            “Those who choose to deny that is a big so what? for me.”

            Then why do you discuss it with such regularity?

            “There will also always be those who insist that chain smoking will never give them lung cancer. ”

            Given the science that clearly links smoking with lung cancer, it would foolish to admit that no such link exists. Your example, however, is completely non-related as smoking is an action while sexuality is a trait.

            ‘Not now. Not ever.”

            Good for you!

        • John N

          And your solution is, to not allow them to live in a monogamous relationship like a same sex marriage. I see.

          • lee metzger

            my solution is that the medical community should warn people about the real dangers of homosexual sex, and stop refusing to do so because of political pressure put on by the GayStapo.

          • John N

            Oh, I’m rather sure they already do that.

            I’m also sure they do not deny them the right to arrange their living as they want, unlike some christians who think their bible is a law book.

            And using terms like ‘GayStapo’ is certainly evidence of the neverending christian love for theri fellow humans.

  • Reason2012

    The Supreme Court does not make laws – they have no authority to redefine religious institutions like marriage. It’s that simple.

    • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

      Since the Supreme Court didn’t make any new laws, only reinforced the 14th Amendment, what’s your point?

      • Reason2012

        That their “ruling” is useless.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Since same sex couples are now able to get, and are getting, married in every state in America, I’d hardly say the ruling was “useless.”

          • Reason2012

            Since they cannot create laws, I’d say same-gender marriage is still not legal in 100% of the states.

          • gizmo23

            You sound like afchief. What happened to that guy?

          • Carcosa

            I think he was banned.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You know, I actually miss him, his comments really made me laugh.

          • gizmo23

            me too. I have a feeling he was banned

          • Luke Sulla

            Maybe he died. The “really good” RWNJs tend to be older. And very tightly wrapped, quite stroke prone. Either way he will be missed.

          • Bob Johnson

            Probably banned. He is still copying and pasting over on American Thinker and WND.

          • acontraryview

            “I’d say same-gender marriage is still not legal in 100% of the states.”

            Say what you want, but you are wrong.

    • Guest

      The SCOTUS ruled on the 100% secular civil contract titled ‘Marriage’, they have no authority over anyone’s religious definition of same.

      Just as they ruled the licensing restriction of race on this civil contract unconstitutional they did so with the one regarding sex.

      The civil contract of Marriage wasn’t changed one iota, merely more people have access to that contract.

      • Reason2012

        They have no authority to redefine religious institutions that have existed for 3,500+ years. That’s a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.

        There is no race restrictions on the institution of marriage, so that should have never been illegal to begin with and was made illegal by other means. They simply removed a restriction that was never mentioned to begin with.

        The contract of marriage deals with the legal aspects of marriage after the fact (one man and one woman) – it doesn’t DEFINE marriage. So their attempt to now pretend it defines marriage is a farce.

        Thank you for posting.

        • Guest

          Again any religious usage of the word is irrelevant to the secular civil contract. And yes there was a race restriction in a number of states on that licensing that civil contract.

          Is all this really because you didn’t know that the US government has no power over religious words just like you don’t? Many churches marry couples regardless of sex and the government can’t take your understanding of the religious term over that of these others.

          Thank you for posting.

        • acontraryview

          “They have no authority to redefine religious institutions”

          Nor did they. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.

          “The contract of marriage deals with the legal aspects of marriage after the fact ”

          After what fact?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “There is no race restrictions on the institution of marriage, so that
          should have never been illegal to begin with and was made illegal by
          other means.”

          By the same exact means that restrictions on same-sex marriage have been made illegal!

          • Reason2012

            False. The Bible doesn’t say a word about black people not marrying white people. The Bible says plenty that marriage is one man with one woman. HUGE difference.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The bans on interracial marriage were made illegal by the same process that the bans on same-sex marriage have been. That’s all I was saying. What does what the Bible says have to do with that?

            I’m no Christian. I’ll leave the Bible debates to you guys.

    • acontraryview

      They didn’t make law.

      Civil marriage is not a religious institution.

      It’s that simple.

  • Reason2012

    Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    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 even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    It doesn’t work anymore to call any who do not agree with the attempts of activists to legally re-define morals as having a phobia or being a bigot – people are realizing those are the only hateful actions here.

    We need to get back to the truth of God.

    May God / Jesus Christ be glorified.

    • Gott Mit Uns!

      Who were the homosexuals in the Bible? Jesus said this: “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). The Aramaic word m’haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but literally means: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These “trusted ones” were also servants such as chamberlains, eunuchs and officers. Additionally, m’haym-ne meant homosexual men because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They weren’t a threat in committing adultery with other mens’ wives or in having pre marital sex with the women of the nation.

      The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: “and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;” These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7 Lamsa). The third part of this verse should be read as: “and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

      Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didn’t need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men.

      “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and [tender] love with the prince (sar- ruler, captain) of the eunuchs.” (Daniel 1:9 KJV). The first underlined word is from the Hebrew word khe-sed, which means loving-kindness, mercy and favor, and is translated as favour in this verse. The second underlined word is from the Hebrew word ra-kha-mim, which is translated as tender love here, but means love. Daniel was given favor and love (plural) in the presence of the prince of the eunuchs. Most likely the intimate word ra-kha-mim, meaning love, was given to Daniel because he was handsome (See Dan. 1:4).

      A second evidence where the Bible shows that eunuchs are gay men is in (Daniel 14:2 NAB), which says: “Daniel was the king’s favorite and was held in higher esteem than any of the friends of the king.” In the Aramaic Old Testament, the word friends is replaced with the Aramaic word raḥ-maw, which means “lovers of him [i.e. the king]”. Raḥ-maw is from the singular Aramaic word raḥ-ma (or raḥme), which means love. Chapters 13-14 are in the Catholic canon of scripture. The Aramaic Old Testament contains fourteen chapters of Daniel. The Aramaic text of Daniel also has “the song of the three children” (Or, “Prayer of Hananiah and his companions” – Aramaic name for that portion) after verse twenty-three of Chapter Three. Dr. Lamsa, being a Protestant, just left out the additional parts of Daniel and Esther, plus the Deuterocanonical books. Dr. Lamsa did insert an extra sentence in verse 23 that is not in the Masoretic text, but in the Aramaic and Greek text of Daniel.

      The translators of the New American Bible translated the Greek word sym-bi-o-tes as favorite, but that is incorrect. Sym-bi-o-tes, according to Liddell & Scott means: one who lives with, companion. That matches with the Aramaic text, which says that Daniel …was living with the king.

      The additional words or text found in the Old Testament book of Daniel in both the Aramaic and Greek texts are probably not inspired. I included this verse from the Aramaic text to show that an Aramaic speaker would have understood eunuchs to be active homosexual men; as they were often the king’s lovers. Boga (or Bagoas Greek pronunciation) was the eunuch lover of Darius the Persian and eventually became the lover of Alexander the Great.

      There is good reason to believe the so-called Deuterocanonical books are inspired (at least most of them) but no good reason to believe the additions to Esther and Daniel are inspired. These additions are not in the original Hebrew text of either Esther or Daniel.

      • Reason2012

        Eunuch is someone who’s castrated, not a person who’s homosexual.

        “[Jesus said] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
        Matthew 19:12

        Using your logic, Jesus was saying there are some homosexuals who were born that way, some who were made homosexual of men, or some who made themselves a homosexual.

        If you try to pretend it means to choose to live in celibacy, a person is not “born from the mother’s womb choosing to live in celibacy”, which again shows how you’re simply being dishonest.

        It’s translated from the Greek Word eunouchos, the word meaning “a castrated person”.

        Not to mention more logic that refutes your false claim: Jesus is not going to say that it’s good to do something that instead elsewhere God says it’s a sin. He’s not going to say “A person committed a bad life-long sin for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake”. And you’re not choosing to be celibate if it’s “you’re made celibate of men” as part of that verse says.

        Even if a person didn’t know the word meant “castrated”, reading the verse makes it clear it CAN’T be “homosexual” or “choosing to be celibate”.

        You can try to twist scripture all you want, but it’s God you’ll have to convince that he approves of homosexuality, not men, as you’re bearing false witness of what God says and will answer to the deception you spread that God is just fine with homosexuality.

        • Guest

          actually that was not the case in biblical times – in fact the minority of eunuchs were physically castrated.

          Romans crushed the testicles since that would render the male infertile without the negative side effects of loss of testosterone and risk of infection of physical castration. Men who had undescended testicles were considered eunuchs in both Rome and Hebrew cultures. And the Jews considered anyone without an interest in woman a eunuch from the Babylonian Talmud discussions.

          But you know this – even Strong’s biblical lexicon says that a physically castrated man is just of the possible meanings, including ‘choosing to be celibate’.

          So I repeat your words back to you ‘you can try and twist scripture all you want but its God you’ll have to convince’.

          • Reason2012

            In fact the minority of eunuchs were physically castrated.

            I already addressed this.

            The word means castrated/impotent (you’re impotent if you’re castrated), which contradicts your claim they were “homosexual”.

            How were they castrated/impotent? Jesus told us:

            “[Jesus said] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
            Matthew 19:12

            – Some born that way
            – Some made that way by other people
            – Some made themselves that way

            Your attempt to pervert scripture and basic words falls flat.

            You know what word they used to describe those caught up in homosexuality? Sodomites. Here they use the Greek word eunouchos instead, which is a castrated/impotent man, not a “homosexual”.

            I don’t post this to persuade you – you’re clearly intent on perverting what the Bible makes quite easy to see and clearly you want to pervert the truth, not hear it. Just refuting the twisting of Scripture you’ve been fed so others can see how it’s refuted.

            In the end it’s God you’ll have to convince, not men.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Guest

            You’re welcome. In a gentle reminder that the voice of reason should be well-informed. Sodomite is a made-up word created for the Kings James version of the Bible. Many different Hebrew words were translated erroneously to sodomite.

  • Reason2012

    Google ex-gay and be flooded with the testimonies of even the most die-hard homosexual activists who have overcome same-gender attractions, proving it’s not genetic.

    Activists will pretend there are hardly any such testimonies, but anyone can do a search and see otherwise.

    Or activists will pretend they’re now bisexual.

    The activists seem to hate those who overcome homosexuality. So how does it hurt them that others have turned away from it? Why do they hate them so much?

    Is it because if there are any that DO turn away from it it proves it’s not genetic (which is does) and hence they have less of an excuse to remain stuck in it?

    Is it because it ruins the talking point that it’s supposedly genetic and hence demands legal enforcement of societal acceptance?

    And how does it factor in that it IS genetic fact that a person is a male or female, but if a person instead claims to FEEL like they’re the opposite, then genetic fact is thrown out the window as FEELINGS are the supposed REAL truth? So what if someone doesn’t FEEL like they want those attractions anymore?

    So of course when this blatant dishonest hypocrisy is exposed, they’ll try to say “well if he doesn’t want to ACT on being a homosexual that doesn’t mean he’s not one”. But that’s more hypocrisy: Apply that logic to transgenders: So if a transgender doesn’t want to act like a male anymore because he FEELS like he’s a female, does that mean that’s also a lie as well and he’s really still a male only acting like a female? Of course not! Now they’ll instead call you a bigot for even daring suggest he’s still a male.

    Makes it even more obvious how the entire movement is driven by lies.

    Transgenderism: FEELINGS trumps GENETICS.

    Homosexuality: GENETICS trumps FEELINGS.

    • gizmo23

      People have a right to be anything they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others

      • Reason2012

        So using your logic an adult woman can marry her dad?
        An adult male can marry his dad?
        An adult male can marry both of his parents?
        5 men can be called a marriage?
        An adult can marry their dog?
        An adult can marry a 16 year old? 15? 14? (
        No, “as long as it doesn’t hurt others” is not the litmus test for morals or normalcy.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          He said ‘to be anything they want’ not to do anything they want. I know someone who tried to be not gay, didn’t work for him. He divorced his wife and is now very happy with his partner.

          • Reason2012

            So you admit it’s not about “marriage equality” for all.

            Be anything they want?
            So if a person wants to be a dog they can?
            If a person who’s white wants to be black he can?
            No, genetics limit what a person can ‘want’ to be.

            Adults have continued to overcome homosexuality – it’s no more an orientation than the attraction to young people instead of adults.
            People have tried not to be attracted to abusive people as well – doesn’t always work out for them either. Doesn’t make that an ‘orientation’ either, which is the point. And there’s hope for people caught in such things, which is also the point.

          • Carcosa

            so long as they don’t break any laws they can o whatever they wish

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Yes people who are abused and are still attracted to their abuser needs help, that is true. People who are homosexual don’t need help. Attraction to young people, I’ll take it you mean pedophiles, are criminals and they should be castrated. And being homosexual is a orientation and not a choice. Or did you “choose” to be hetero and when did you “choose” to be? I was 6 when I got a crush on a boy in class. Was it then that I made the “choice” to be hetero? I’m asking cause it seems that you and others know a lot about this.

        • gizmo23

          I said nothing about marriage

        • Paige Turner

          No to all that.

          And your last sentence is redundant

        • Gott Mit Uns!

          Not one of which has anything to do with same-sex or opposite-sex marriage.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          You Christians don’t get enough of pointing these things out. What you listed are all crimes, homosexuality is not.

          Heteroes want to mary, who I am to say they can’t.

          • Reason2012

            Sodomy used to be a crime. So why can’t any of the other’s no longer be crimes. See how you insist other forms of marriage remain off limits – a crime? Just pointing out the hypocrisy of them claiming it’s about “marriage equality for all”.

          • John N

            Sodomy used to be a crime, until reasonable people removed it. Are you pleading to make it a crime once again?

            But if you want the other forms of marriage to be allowed again – you know, like in the good old biblical times – you are free to try to change the law.

            I not think many homosexuals are trying to do that, however. Most of them are quiet happy to be able to marry their one and only partner, thanks.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            What John said. Nothing else to add to that either.

          • Luke Sulla

            True. It was a lot more fun in those days.

        • Paige Turner

          No

    • Jarle Tveitan

      Christianity is definitely a choice. If you seek help, maybe you too can overcome your need to seek meaning in the supernatural, and instead learn to find meaning in something real.

      • Reason2012

        What “something real” are you referring to?
        That nothing can create something?
        That bananas are your cousins?
        That reptiles, frogs and fish are your cousins?
        That you’re to hate ex-homosexuals?

        • Paige Turner

          There’s no such thing as an ex homosexual. They don’t exist. It’s just a gay person who is celibate or lying. It’s really that simple. Nothing changed

          • Reason2012

            So is there no such thing as an ex-man then? A man that transgender’s to a woman is still a man?

            Why the hypocrisy?

          • Paige Turner

            You have now raised an entirely different discussion. Transgender people are not homosexual and vice versa.

            If a transgendered person wants to change their gender that they physically have vs the gender that they are then they can have gender reassignment. As far as them being an “ex” Man/Woman, this is redundant as this relates to gender which is Male/Female.

            The discussion on this site is about ex-gay people which is nothing more that gay people who are chaste/celibate or still gay but choosing to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. None of these things makes them heterosexual. Nothing changed.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Actually the ape is our cousin. Why would I hate? Waste of time. However I will defend my friends if they are attacked, the same as you do.

          • John N

            Damn, this time you beat me.

          • Reason2012

            So the “something real” is that that all life is descendant from the first life form, that apes are your cousins, reptiles are your cousins, frogs are your cousins, fish are your cousins?

            Please show this “reality” by showing, for example, populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Please show the human race ever seeing this “reality” as opposed to just reasons you believe in this, which means it’s just your own mythology instead of “reality”.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You know there is this thing called google, click evolution and voila, lots of info. But you wouldn’t believe it so why bother.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you cannot cite any such thing.
            Yes, there’s plenty of writings about why they believe in that fish to mankind anti-science mythology, but thank you for proving it’s not ‘reality’ as reasons to believe in it are all that can ever be given.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            As I said, you won’t believe. So no matter if anyone gives you proof, as has been given by many people, you still won’t believe it. You know they have found something new about neanthertalers right. They found out that ‘50.000’ years ago they made fire with a special chemical. Uhm, what do you Christians claim? Oh yeah, the earth is only 6.000 years old. Right!

          • Reason2012

            As I said, you won’t believe. So no matter if anyone gives you proof, as has been given by many people, you still won’t believe it.

            If it was actually science, one wouldn’t need to believe in it.
            Objects fall to the ground. No belief required.
            Diseases spread. No belief required.
            Matter affects matter. No belief required.

            You know they have found something new about neanthertalers right.

            Calling it a ‘neanderthal’ doesn’t make it one. Saying “this evolved from fish” doesn’t make it true. Saying “this evolved from amphibians” doesn’t make it true.

            They found out that ‘50.000’ years ago they made fire with a special chemical. Uhm, what do you Christians claim? Oh yeah, the earth is only 6.000 years old. Right!

            All “dating” methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:

            www answersingenesis org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

            “Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”

            creation com/templeton-confounded-by-lyell

            “10-year-old rocks from Mount St Helen’s were dated from 390,000 to 2.7 million years old, and rocks from the ad 1800 lava flow in Hawaii returned dates of 160 million to 3 billion years.”

            Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

            It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

            Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.

            creation com/original-animal-protein-fossils

            Behold the anti-science deception of evolutionism – they’re not in a hurry to publish this information but they are certainly keen on censoring it and ignoring it.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh look a biased site. Surprised, nope. Seriously? A site about creation, don’t think so. I’ll guess you never visit a history museum? I mean history from the first human, and I don’t mean Adam.

          • Reason2012

            It’s reporting on the SECULAR lab’s results that were sent there from SECULAR scientists. Don’t expect them to report on it anytime soon – but the facts are the facts nonetheless: things that were really only decades old “dated” up to 3 MILLION years old by their precious cross-checking dating methods.

            Red blood cells and soft tissue that cannot survive more than thousands of years found in increasing frequency on fossils “dated” 60+ MILLION years old.

            The information is out there – simple google searches.

            But again, don’t expect secular media to be in a hurry to report these facts.

          • John N

            >’Don’t expect them to report on it anytime soon – but the facts are the facts nonetheless: things that were really only decades old “dated” up to 3 MILLION years old by their precious cross-checking dating methods.’

            That old canard again, Reason? How many times do we need to refute your creationist stories? If your Dr. Snelling would have been a honest scientist, he would have known what dating techniques to use for what kind of rocks, and how to collect samples that do not contain intrusions.

            But instead, he tried to use science to prove creationism. And as we all know, that never ends well.

        • John N

          Have you got anything against bananas, reptiles, frogs or fish? Then why the problem with us being related to them?

          I guess you would rather be related to an invisible, non-physical deity, known for his cruel and saddistic approach towards other people, made by primitive humans in their image.

          • Reason2012

            Just pointing out the mythological belief Jarle has that he’s calling “real”.

            So you believe populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Please show the human race ever observing any such thing for any animal, not reasons why you believe in it.

            What I would “rather” is irrelevant. If you’d rather be related to bananas while eating them have at it. Just pointing out how others pretend this reality of bananas being their cousins is nothing of the kind but just a mythological belief.

          • John N

            >’So you believe populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. ‘

            No, I don’t, and I told you this before. Why don’t you read back my answer?

            By the way, you still believe all animals were created individually after their ‘kind’, whatever that may be? Do you care to explain how your god did it in such a way that all the evidence points to them being evolved from a common ancestor?

            Do you still believe the first man was created out of dust, and the first woman out of his rib? Do you care to explain how anything created from dust – mostly silicium – seems to be completely made out of non-dust – mostly carbon? How humans, created especially in your gods image, has his genome 98% similar to chimps? How a person, cloned from a man’s rib, came to be a woman?

          • Reason2012

            No, I don’t, and I told you this before. Why don’t you read back my answer?

            Let’s quote you

            Have you got anything against bananas, reptiles, frogs or fish? Then why the problem with us being related to them?

            There are you admitting you believe we are “related to fish”, which of course means you must believe that populations of fish (in the past, minimum) could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish (which is part of the fish to mankind mythology of evolutionism).

            So are you ignorant of their claims?

            Education is the best defense against believing that nonsense is science.

            Attacking what Christians believe does not make fish to mankind evolutionism science – but it does show yet again why some believe in the anti-science fish to mankind mythology of evolutionism.

            How humans, created especially in your gods image, has his genome 98% similar to chimps?

            The 98% figure is debatable.

            That said, how is it new models of Ford have 99%+ similar building blocks to previous models? Common designer. So of course if there’s a designer behind life, there WILL be DNA similarity, rather than 0% similarity you seem to imply there be in DNA.

            There’s 50% DNA similarity between banana’s and human beings. Why is that? Common designer.

            But of course all anyone who’s ever lived can offer on the subject or origin of life, or of the universe, or of all biological diversity of life is beliefs.

            You have your belief that bananas are your cousins, that life “just happened”, perhaps that nothing can create something. Have at it.

            Want to call it science? Now the onus is on you to show the human race ever seeing any such thing.

            You can’t.

            So instead you hatefully attack others beliefs they’re not trying to call science, which again shows everyone else what the true motive fish to mankind evolutionists have demanding their anti-science mythology be called science.

    • Paige Turner

      This looks familiar. I think it’s been posted a few times before.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        Yeah, that is her/his mantra. Or that more homosexuals turn away from their lifestyle. It is getting soooooooo old.

        • Paige Turner

          I knew it looked familiar. The formatting is nice and the scary bits are in bold which is always a nice touch.

          Apparently there are millions of ex gay people that no one has ever seen but if you just google them they appear. Weird!

          • lee metzger

            Can you ever deal with the facts someone presents? Apparently not. Apparently, to you, these testimonies aren’t of real people, but mirages. Real critical thinking there.

          • John N

            So everything on the internet is true, certainly if it is on christian homophobic hatesites.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Of course and if it is not on christian homophobic hatesites it is all a lie.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Roflmao! Can we say pot, kettle, black.

          • Paige Turner

            If there were facts in that rant then then writer would be able to provide cited references which instead have been replaced with bolded comments for effect.

            When you google “ex gay” you get Exodus international. This is what they writer instructs you to do.

            Exodus was the worlds largest “ex gay” group and closed its doors a couple of years ago with the president of that organisation apologising to those they hurt and admitted that no one had ever been converted. JONAH has also closed its doors.

            No one has ever been “converted”. There are gay Men who are in relationships with Women and Lesbians with Men but this doesn’t make them straight. They all say that they have same sex attractions which means that their sexuality has not changed. They are still gay/homosexual or whatever you want to call them.

          • Bob Johnson

            Reminds me of the guy who told me, “it is easy to be an ex-smoker.” He said, in fact, he quit at least 20 times a day.

          • TallZeke

            fggot

      • acontraryview

        He is a pathological liar.

    • lee metzger

      Really excellent comments here.

    • Gott Mit Uns!

      No such thing as “ex-gay” any more than there can be “ex-black” or “ex-white.”

      • Reason2012

        Sure there is – just like there are those who have risen above the attractions to kids instead of adults, or those who have risen above the attractions to abusive people instead of non-abusive people and so on.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          There could be a million “ex-gays” out there, I don’t care. What would it change? It wouldn’t change the Supreme Court ruling. It wouldn’t change how the laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. What’s the point of that argument, that homosexuality isn’t genetic or immutable or inherent or whatever? That’s debatable, but anyway, it’s not really relevant. The government doesn’t limit things that it considers people shouldn’t be discriminated against for to things that are genetic, immutable, etc. Religion, for one, is absolutely none of those things.

      • Paige Turner

        That passage he/she keeps cutting and pasting is hilarious.

  • Samuel F Waddell

    Signs of the TIMES. 2 Timothy 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,… ( Is this not the truth and the days in which we are living?)

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      So nothing has changed since the humans walk the earth. And we are still here.

      • John N

        Nothing has changed? We did pass through the Middle Ages. You know, that period of human civilization when christians were in charge all over Europe? Also known as the Dark Ages.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          I mean, what he summed up, men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, etc. That was and still is the case since we walk this earth. And yeah, we passed the middle ages and Christians are no longer in charge, lukily. Maybe I should have said, we have always been living in those days, from day 1.

          • John N

            You are absolutely right.

            And christians have heralded the end of times also from day 1, using the same prophecies over and over again. Why do you suppose they do that?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            To scare those who believe in a God.

          • John N

            Could be. Must be because their god is not able to do it for himself?

        • maxime1793

          No, you schmuck, there was never gay marriage in Europe – not in pagan times, not in Catholic times, not in the Enlightenment, not in the Renaissance, not in the Orthodox East, not when the Turks and Mongol hordes invaded, not in atheistic USSR or East Germany – never, ever, ever because IT IS A HUMAN UNIVERSAL THAT MARRIAGE EXISTS TO CREATE AND RAISE CHILDREN.

          And you don’t have your history right. The Dark Ages were after the Fall of Rome when initially Germanic pagan tribes expanded. The Middle Ages had plenty of technological advancement and a consolidation of Papal authority.

          • John N

            Well, if you really knew history, you would know some form of same-sex relationship has been existing at least since the ancient Greeks.

            And MARRIAGE EXISTING TO CREATE AND RAISE CHILDREN A HUMAN UNIVERSAL?

            I that case , you are prepared to vote laws that forbid people to get married just for love, without the intention to get children? And of course, those that intend to have no children at all, and those who cannot have children at all. I’m realy curious how far you are going to get.

          • maxime1793

            I read Ancient Greek and my wife is a classicist. You don’t know what you are talking about. Yes, some upper-class ancient Athenian men had relationships with BOYS. All the while, they were generally married to WOMEN! Do you condone that? I think you are referring to gay marriage – there is no precedent for this in human history.

            “I that case , you are prepared to vote laws that forbid people to get
            married just for love, without the intention to get children?”

            —No. What I clearly said was the purpose of marriage as an institution. It is historically aberrant to marry without any intention of producing children, and I don’t really see the point of 70 year old men re-marrying if their wives die before their time. Typically, such people marry quietly in private ceremonies so as not to raise eyebrows if they want to move in together. Many clergy actually will not perform such marriages. It’s bizarre but does not threaten the purpose of marriage.

            As for people who cannot have children, a small but significant proportion of people are wired that way and typically do not know until they try. All the same, if the marriage is healthy, they can adopt.

            As for homosexuals, they could already live together in the USA. Even in the Bible-thumping South, there is a tradition of ignoring some characters’ homosexuality as an eccentricity. If you institutionalise buggery, however, you are fundamentally redefining marriage as a romantic institution first and foremost and as something mystically necessary for personal fulfillment – all the while, the number of births outside marriage is exploding.

            Any such society is suicidal.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “I think you are referring to gay marriage – there is no precedent for this in human history.”

            I’ll just copy-and-paste my own copy-and-paste from elsewhere in this thread….

            “There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2]
            Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal,
            unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. A same-sex
            union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3]
            in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times
            in ancient European history.” (wikipedia article on “history of same
            sex unions”)

            Also, I didn’t even go into the whole Native American “Two-Spirit” thing. (basically their word for LGBT people…highly respected in many tribes)

          • maxime1793

            No, there was nothing like a “same-sex union” in Greece/Rome/Mespotamia. If you are going to copy-and-paste from the internet, at least remove the citation superscripts if you are not going to regurgitate the sources.

            Homosexual pseudo-academics will make any wild claim without the knowledge necessary to back it up. The claim about Ancient Greece and Rome was made by a gay psychologist and a lesbian activist law professor, not by classicists or ancient historians. If you scroll down in the Wikipedia article, they talk about pederasty in Ancient Greece – quite right, but then refer to these relationships as “unions” (??? – if a grown man rapes a boy – it’s a union?) and admits they “were not universally accepted”. They then claim we have attested same-sex marriages in Rome, but … they …. cite … NERO, the mentally insane despot as having officiated at an unconsensual “wedding” involving a little boy and a grown man. That kind of proves my point, doesn’t it?

            For the Mesopotamian claim, the citation is a work co-authored by a gay art historian is cited who is actually a mediævalist and does not read Akkadian and a non-academic purely gay activist who died of AIDS.

            “And hey, it’s not like the USA is even the first country in RECENT times
            to legalize same-sex marriage. Netherlands in 2001, Canada in 2005..”

            —Human history is thousands of years. The concept of gay marriage spans about thirty.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I also read in the same article that Christian Roman Emperors in 342 AD made a law outlawing same-sex marriage. If it was never known, why would they need to make a law against it?

            How it is relevant that the last guy died of AIDS, anyway?

            In the end, though, I don’t really care if it’s been around for 3000 years or 30. So what, either way? If the concept of same-sex marriage is new, how is that alone any kind of argument against it? Is an idea bad just because it’s new?

          • John N

            So what you are saying is homosexuality is fine, as long as they keep it hidden and do not ask for equality. And please not all at the same time, because that would destroy our society.

            Well, that would be a convenient solution. Back to the good old days, when gays, atheists and colored people knew their place and knew when to shut up.

            Now what is really destroying society is human overpopulation. So why don’ t you focus on the real problems instead of targetting 4% of the population who do not add to that problem? Oh yes, I forgot your deity commanded you to go forth and multiply. At any cost.

          • maxime1793

            “So what you are saying is homosexuality is fine”

            —Actually, no. It is socially unbeneficial and a poor lifestyle choice, but the evils of persecuting it outweigh the benefits.

            “as long as they keep it hidden and do not ask for equality”

            —Homosexual relations are not equal to heterosexual ones.

            “Back to the good old days, when gays, atheists and colored people knew their place and knew when to shut up.”

            —You’ve got nothing in common with “colored people”. I guess this is the cultural Marxism coming out – you’re all “oppressed” so you have something in common? Polls show Blacks are the most ‘homophobic’ racial group. The working class is more anti-gay marriage than rich people. In British culture, homosexuality was generally seen as an upper-class sin, spread via extreme sexual segregation. Or take a look at the churches – the Anglican Communion, for example, where Africans show the most solid resistance against gay priests/bishops/marriage ceremonies and gays and liberals increasingly hurl racist and First Worldist insults at them. You’re not an oppressed minority because people think you cannot gay-marry.

            “Now what is really destroying society is human overpopulation.”

            —A lot of people think that is codeword for genocide against what you called “colored people”. Greens, the world ruling class, and paleo-Nazis unite to kill off the world’s poor and brown?!?! In the meantime, such dark fantasies yield a ridiculously pathetic birth rate in the West.

            “So why don’ t you focus on the real problems instead of targetting 4% of the population who do not add to that problem?”

            —You’re not being targeted (or “targetted” – sic) because I don’t approve of gay marriage and won’t let you spread totally made-up BS about homosexuality in ancient history.

            “Oh yes, I forgot your deity commanded you to go forth and multiply. At any cost.”

            —Interesting idea. Heterosexuals are ruining the planet by having babies? Hipster nihilism at its best! Actually, the Third World has high birth rates because these societies are still significantly agricultural and have lower life expectancies. If the world ruling class were to permit them to develop, then their birth rates would decline. That’s real progressive/socialist thinking, not your degenerate anti-family death spiral!

          • John N

            >’Actually, no. It is socially unbeneficial and a poor lifestyle choice, but the evils of persecuting it outweigh the benefits.’

            Why is it social ‘unbeneficial’? Compared to what? Why is it a ‘poor lifestyle choice’, and why would someones personal choice matter to you? What do you mean with the ‘evils of persecuting outweigh the benefits? Do you propose a witch-hunt?

            >’Homosexual relations are not equal to heterosexual ones.’
            Well, according the law and the opinion of a lot of Western European countries and the US, they are. Life with it.

            —You’ve got nothing in common with “colored people”. I guess this is the cultural Marxism coming out – you’re all “oppressed” so you have something in common…’

            Why do you suppose I’m a homosexual? I doesn’t occur into your little religion-filled brain that heterosexuals can be sympathetic to the cause of equality for their fellow humans? Or does that make it easier for you to dehumanize people – let all who oppose your way of thinking be evil?

            At least you seem to realize that homosexuals in lots of places are experiencing homophobia just like in the old days (or even now) when coloured people or people of a different religion were experiencing. But you don’t see that as oppression. I guess because homosexuality is not ‘normal’ and so they deserve what’s happening to them?

            >’A lot of people think that is codeword for genocide against what you called “colored people”. Greens, the world ruling class, and paleo-Nazis unite to kill off the world’s poor and brown?!?! In the meantime, such dark fantasies yield a ridiculously pathetic birth rate in the West.

            You’re not making any sense here. Why mention genocide? And what ‘ridiculously pathetic birth rate’ do you see in the West?

            >’You’re not being targeted (or “targetted” – sic) because I don’t approve of gay marriage and won’t let you spread totally made-up BS about homosexuality in ancient history.’

            You do not target homosexuals? But you specifically won’t allow them to mary? And you deny homosexuality existed in ancient history?

            >’If the world ruling class were to permit them to develop, then their birth rates would decline. That’s real progressive/socialist thinking, not your degenerate anti-family death spiral!’

            So you do not deny overpopulation is a major treat to our civiliation, but somehow this is due to the ‘world ruling class’ not permitting the Third World to develop. And therefore homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Now that is some conspiracy thinking!

            But of course religious bigotry has got nothing to do with it.

          • maxime1793

            You do sound like one of those homosexuals who is really invested in the subject. Out of curiosity, just since this is on “Christian News” (not that I am a regular here – I’m not, I just saw a Facebook link), do you happen to be one of those who thinks the Bible does not really talk about homosexuality outside of Leviticus? I’m just curious about “how far you are going to get”, because I can guarantee to you, and show you philologically, that this idea, which is all over the gay internet, is false.

          • John N

            No, I’m not.

            I’m actually one of those who think it does not matter what the bible says.

            I’m one if those who think that two consenting, not closely related adults should be able to live their life in a union, a marriage or whatever kind of relation they want, without interference by relgious bigots.

            I’ m just pro equality.

            You’ve got any problem with that?

          • maxime1793

            Well, I’m glad to know that you are abstaining from infiltrating Christianity and other religions. However, I do have a question…

            Why should two closely related but consenting adults not be able to live their life in a union, marriage, or whatever kind of relation they want, without interference from ancient religious bigotry? Why are you opposed to equality for them? Also, what age is an adult? The age of consent in some Latin American countries is 9-10 years old and generally 14-16 in Europe but 18 in many American states, and only permissible within marriage in some foreign countries (which, if marriage be open to gays, I suppose would not be discriminatory).

          • John N

            I wonder why christians, when we ask for equality for homosexuals, often try to muddle the water by suggesting incest and pedophily will quickly follow. Slipping slope fallacy, anyone?

          • maxime1793

            Actually, I am not into slippery slope arguments, I am trying to figure out what the basis is for “equality” between gay and straight unions. You can’t appear to make an argument for them. To you, gay marriage is obviously equal to regular marriage, but obviously not equal to other (mostly still illegal) consensual relationships. You seem to use a mixture of libertarian and egalitarian arguments to justify gay marriage but nothing to justify depriving others of their choice and equality.

            And, in the end, these relationships are all aberrant and socially regressive, even if some pass the individual-consent test.

          • John N

            The basis for marriage equality? The ablity for any two consenting human adults to marry each other.

            And you seem to keep on claiming hese relationships are all aberrant and socially regressive, as if ‘aberrant’ has any real meaning outside your opinion, and as if you have any proof of ssm being more ‘socially regressive’ than straight marriages.

      • Samuel F Waddell

        Of course. Never in the history of the world not even in Greece or Rome was marriage ever legal between two people of the same sex. So we have moved now into uncharted waters. So to speak in history. When I was young and I am now 60 no one would have thought of gay marriage or ever considered it to be legalized. Homosexuality has always been considered a deviant behavior in all world religions and is considered so in the Christian faith of which I am and of course God doesn’t change with the popular opinion. Though we do not hate the people. We cannot hate someone who is caught a trap. It is a sexual sin of which there are many these days. Equally deadly are fornication, adultery and pornography etc. Sex is holy is marriage between one man and one woman as JESUS stated in Matthew 19:4-6. Many Scripture in the Bible warn against it. Sodom and Gomorrah was an example to people not to do this and Sodom had no BIBLE to warn them. When Christians try to awaken people it does not mean the we hate them but the opposite. Love will always speak the truth and will never have anything to do with deception. If we love people we must attempt to guide them away from death to life.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          So you are a major in history? Just curious. And again homosexuals are not trapped.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            I just want you to know that JESUS loves you no matter what you have done or anyone else for that matter. HE came to die for all sinners, myself included. That is not to say that He wants or allows us to continue in unrepentant sin. He does not but His love and plan, I have found, are far superior to our own. Have a blessed day!

          • Amos Moses

            “And again homosexuals are not trapped.”

            Just because the chains are not visible, does not mean they are not slaves.

          • John N

            Syas a man who just admitted that his relation with his god is based on fear.

          • Amos Moses

            No, my relationship is based on trust in Him. You on the other hand are mentioned in those passages. Care to guess which one fits you?

          • John N

            No.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Roflmao!!! And there are actually people who take this seriously? I really try very hard not to laugh with the comments Christians sometimes post, but it isn’t always easy.

          • Amos Moses

            And you are probably the most enslaved of the commenters i have read here. Enslaved to your own base desires and flesh.

            Have fun with that.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh look, someone else who thinks he knows me better then I know myself. So tell me about me, I’m curious.

          • Amos Moses

            No, i know a slave when i see one, what they have to say, and then they deny they is one.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Roflmao!!!! Sorry, had to laugh again. You have never seen me, so I’m curious how you come to that conclusion. You claim you know me better then I know myself, so maybe I learn something new about myself. Probably not, but you never know.

          • Amos Moses

            “So tell me about me, I’m curious.”

            You have spent time posting what you think christians believe on a christian site, and clearly you aint one.

            But you is what you is.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            That is all, me saying that you believe in a God? So me saying that, you came to the conclusion that I am enslaved? That ain’t much is it? Well, didn’t learn anything new about myself, what was to be expected. Let me know if you really know anything about me.

          • Amos Moses

            “So me saying that, you came to the conclusion that I am enslaved?”

            No, you saying the other things you have said, such as…..

            “So Christ didn’t leave it, it was written by someone else? Right!”
            “You know, that period of human civilization when christians were in charge all over Europe? Also known as the Dark Ages.”
            “That was and still is the case since we walk this earth. And yeah, we passed the middle ages and Christians are no longer in charge, lukily. Maybe I should have said, we have always been living in those days, from day 1.”
            “And christians have heralded the end of times also from day 1, using the same prophecies over and over again. Why do you suppose they do that?”
            “To scare those who believe in a God.”

            So yes, in totality, you are enslaved to a fleshly mind. A reprobate mind,,, but i get,,, that you don’t get it.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Yep, as I said before, you don’t know me. So you are saying I am wrong? People haven’t been living like that from day one? And Christians haven’t been heralding the end of times from day one? Uhm, I remember the priest in the church, when I still believed it all, preaching hell and damnation. And yeah, it scared me. So in my eyes it is to scare people. And Christians weren’t in charge in the dark ages? So the history I learned in school and still see in museums are a lie? And the bible was written by someone else, right? Fleshly mind? So meaning more interested in the flesh? Oh you’re so wrong. Have been single most of my life, last time I had a boyfriend I was about 25/26. Now I’m 47, do the math. I love my freedom, not giving it up for anything. So I guess, you don’t know me that well. However, I do have my toys.

          • Amos Moses

            “Yep, as I said before, you don’t know me. ”

            Your statements and the forum you have chosen to make them on reveal your heart.

            “Fleshly mind? So meaning more interested in the flesh?”
            “However, I do have my toys.”
            ” Uhm, I remember the priest in the church, when I still believed it all, preaching hell and damnation. And yeah, it scared me.”
            “And again homosexuals are not trapped.”

            Uhmmm, you never believed. Sorry to tell you. And the above statements only bear out what i have said. A mind of the flesh, a worldly mind, a reprobate mind, in rebellion. When you last had a boyfriend is completely of no consequence, has nothing to do with it.

            You are your own god, your belly is your god.

            But, again, i get… that you don’t get it.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Uhm, I was baptised. Did both my communions. Went to church every monday in primary school. First three years high school was a Christian school. You really think my parents would have put me in those schools if we weren’t religious? Yeah, I listen to my belly, when it starts to growl, I know it wants food. And what is wrong with a worldly mind? Don’t want to have a narrow minded mind. You free to believe what you want, as I am free not to believe. No one is hurt by that. And if you are, there is nothing I can do about that.

          • Amos Moses

            “Uhm, I was baptised. Did both my communions. Went to church every monday in primary school. First three years high school was a Christian school. You really think my parents would have put me in those schools if we weren’t religious?”

            All very interesting and we are not talking about your parents, we are talking about you. Going to all those things and performing all those works does not make a person saved. Sad to say, many think that is so. But it is not. Christianity is not based on works, not our works anyway.

            “You free to believe what you want, as I am free not to believe. No one is hurt by that. And if you are, there is nothing I can do about that.”

            No, when your “beliefs” are such that it is “okay” for homosexuals to do what they want, it is harming them, it is harming their partners, it is harming society and good order. i will agree that there is probably not going to be a reversal of that. But the fact is God has already rendered a judgement about it, and the judgement is “homosexual marriage”. There will be no smote or explosion, just a continual degrading of this society until it dies. It is already in the process.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I don’t need to be saved. But you free to think I do. Homosexuals are not harmed, neither are their partners. We have here SSM for 14 years now almost 15 and society is doing just fine. But then again homosexuals have been exepted here for as long as I can remember.

          • Amos Moses

            So you continue to deny reality and lie to yourself. Aids in 50% of the “gay” population is not “doing just fine”. Have fun with that.

        • Amos Moses

          “Jolanda Tiellemans to John N
          To scare those who believe in a God.

          John N to Jolanda Tiellemans

          Could be. Must be because their god is not able to do it for himself?”

          Yep, keep whistling past that graveyard.

          • John N

            So, Amos, still proud to worship a god that is known especially by the fear he invokes in people?

          • Amos Moses

            Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

            Prv 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

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

          • John N

            … as is contradicted by your own bible quotes.

            But it would fear him tooo, if I were you. You never know when he gets tired of his creations going wrong and decides to start all over again. He has a habit in resetting history, as you probably know. And drowning is a terrible way to die …

          • Amos Moses

            “You never know when he gets tired of his creations going wrong and decides to start all over again. He has a habit in resetting history, as you probably know. And drowning is a terrible way to die”

            So you further demonstrate your ignorance of scripture………………. He is coming back, many will not pleased with the results. Which will you be?

          • John N

            Thanks for proving my point.

            A deity that has such a bad record of destruction and genocide, and is mostly feared because of what he will do when he returns, is not worthy of worshipping. Doesn’t matter if he/ she exists.

          • Bob Johnson

            Movie review – check out “God on Trial” and if you don’t have time for the whole movie watch “God on Trial: The Verdict” both are on youtube.

          • Amos Moses

            So when the policeman arrests someone and brings him to court, and the judge passes sentence on them for their crimes, they are bigots and bent on genocide and generally bad people and you should just ignore them because they are not real.

            Yeah,,,,,,,,,NO!

          • John N

            So apart from being the executioner, your deity now also gets to play the roles of policeman, prosecutor and judge.

            I can already envision the kind of ‘justice’ such a system would bring us.

            Your version of reality gets more crazy with every posting.

          • Amos Moses

            No, He has always been them, men just emulate Him and His justice.

            The justice system Is built on it. Especially in this country. But it is changing and moving away from that model.

          • John N

            If you can show me one country in the world where you find prosecution, defense, judge and executioner in one person, I’ll show you a dictatorship. Although a theocracy would be not much of a difference.

            Luckily, you and I do not live in such a country.

          • Amos Moses

            ” Although a theocracy would be not much of a difference.”

            You do live in e theocracy, you just do not recognize it.

          • Amos Moses

            “He has a habit in resetting history, as you probably know. And drowning is a terrible way to die”

            Actually man will do all that, God will permit it, but it is man that will carry it out. So you need to look at godless humanism for the cause of that. And the flood BTW.

            The people were warned by God through Noah for 100 years, that is how long it took to build the ark. Again, men ignored the warnings.

          • John N

            … and so, your god decided to drown them. Men, women, children, babies. All living plants and animals.

            Because he was not able to create perfect humans, he decided to wipe them out and start all over. Just like some humans wipe out a hornets’ nest if they become annoying.

            And how wonderfull that worked out!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            And Noah’s family the only survivors to populate the planet again. Incest comes to mind. That is a sin right?

          • Amos Moses

            “Because he was not able to create perfect humans, he decided to wipe them out and start all over. Just like some humans wipe out a hornets’ nest if they become annoying.
            And look how wonderfull that worked out!”

            Not what happened and it shows you are not familiar with the nuances of the story.

          • Bob Johnson

            Pascal’s Wager. And what if it turns out to be Odin?

          • Amos Moses

            Well, Odin did not leave us a book with his name in it. Odin did not send his son to die for everybody. Odin has not made himself known through prophecy that has been verified. Odin never came back from the dead.

            Really, the day Christ died over 100 prophecies were fulfilled. Many of them in Isaiah 53 cover His birth, death, and resurrection. But also in many other passages in the bible.

            So if you have anything about Odin doing anything even close to that, put it forward….. don’t bother looking, tho…. it aint there.

          • John N

            Oh, but there is a book of myths containing Odins name, the Edda, of which we very well know who wrote it and when it was written. So it is by definition a more trustfull source than your bundle of manuscripts of which we don’t even know how many authors were involved.

            And since this seems the only tangible piece of evidende you’ve got, that must mean the existence of Odin is far more probable than that of Jahweh.

            Prophecies? You mean predictions about the future as described in the bible, checked against reality like described in the bible? Are you for real?

          • Amos Moses

            Well, there is no prophecy there……..is there?

            “So it is by definition a more trustfull source than your bundle of manuscripts of which we don’t even know how many authors were involved.”

            By whose “definition”. We know who wrote the bible to a reasonable certainty. And the overall author is well known to us. No one man is capable of writing what scripture says.

            “that must mean the existence of Odin is far more probable than that of Jahweh.”

            Again, no verifiable prophecy………..

            “Prophecies? You mean predictions about the future as described in the bible, checked against reality like described in the bible?”

            Prophecy is not a prediction……… so you are off on what it is. The bible is fully 33% prophecy. Read Isaiah 53 and then get back to me. Isaiah was written in the 8th century BC. The last prophecies of Christ in the OT were written 400 years before His birth. The first prophecy of Christ appears in Genesis 3.

            Just the math on fulfilled prophecies of Christ birth put it far beyond any chance. For even 8-10 of those prophecies to be fulfilled is beyond chance. There are over 300.
            —————————————————————————————————

            To answer the question what is the probability of one man fulfilling eight prophecies, the principal of probability is applied. Therefore, multiplying all eight probabilities together (1 times 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104) gives us 2.8 x 1028, or for simplicity sake 1 x 1028 or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

            Mathematicians confirm Borel’s ‘Law of Chance’ to be true. It states “odds beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 (a number followed by 50 digits) have a zero probability of ever happening”. To be more conservative, we consider a premise is proven true when “the statistical evidence produces odds so large it cannot be reasonably visualized and expressed in measureable terms”. An example is the ratio of the Universe’s mass divided by a Quark’s mass (smallest particle known to scientist). This ratio is a number less than 91 digits in length.

            Conclusion: With a 50 – 50 chance of each prophecy being fulfilled, the chance of the 365 Messianic prophecies being fulfilled is a 110 digit number (7.515×10 to the power of 109). This exceeds a billion-billion times the number defined by mass ratio between the universe and the quark. If every fact discussed on this page (ignoring the untold others within the Bible) were assigned a realistic probability value, the mathematical results would be absolutely unfathomable and incomprehensible to express in measureable terms.

            Add to this the perfection and harmony with inerrant and fulfilled historical, societal and messianic prophecy, along with the scientific knowledge, wisdom, and beauty from more than forty independent and diverse authors over a 1500 year period proves the authorship of this Bible is impossible for mankind to achieve without supernatural intervention.

            FYI, doubting prophecy not only makes you anti-christian, it makes you antisemitic. Got any Jewish friends?

          • John N

            Prophecy, according the Christian definition: the foreknowledge of futur events. It may sometimes apply to past events of which no memory is left or to present hidden things which can not be known by reason.

            So predictions they are, even if all of them are now long time in the past.

            Present me one example of a prophecy for wich there us not a more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge, and I’ll admit your god might be existing. And then I’ll present you one example of a prophecy that went completely wrong, and you will then admit your god is inexisting. Agreed?

          • Amos Moses

            “So predictions they are,”

            LOL! Sorry, do not see that in your “definition” and a self serving definition at that.

            “Present me one example of a prophecy for winch there us not a more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge, ”

            The birth, death and resurrection of Christ, all foretold in the bible, hundreds of years before His birth. But i get it that you do not get it.

          • Amos Moses

            “Present me one example of a prophecy for winch there us not a more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge, ”

            Try these………… 300 OT prophecies fulfilled by Christ……. (Sorry, this is only a partial list)……………….

            1. Gen. 3:15
            2. Gen. 3:15
            3. Gen. 3:15
            4. Gen. 5:24
            5. Gen. 9:26, 27
            6. Gen. 12:3
            7. Gen. 12:7
            8. Gen. 14:18
            9. Gen. 14:18
            10. Gen. 14:18
            11. Gen. 17:19
            12. Gen. 22:8
            13. Gen. 22:18
            14. Gen. 26:2-5
            15. Gen. 28:12
            16. Gen. 28:14
            17. Gen. 49:10
            18. Gen. 49:10
            19. Gen. 49:10
            20. Gen. 49:10
            21. Gen. 49:10
            22. Ex. 3:13-15
            23. Ex. 12:3-6
            24. Ex. 12:5
            25. Ex. 12:13
            26. Ex. 12:21-27
            27. Ex. 12:46
            28. Ex. 15:2
            29. Ex. 15:11
            30. Ex. 17:6
            31. Ex. 33:19
            32. Lev. 1:2-9
            33. Lev. 14:11
            34. Lev. 16:15-17
            35. Lev. 16:27
            36. Lev. 17:11
            37. Lev. 17:11
            38. Lev. 23:36-37
            39. Num. 9:12
            40. Num. 21:9
            41. Num. 24:17
            42. Deut. 18:15
            43. Deut. 18:15-16
            44. Deut. 18:18
            45. Deut. 18:19
            46. Deut. 21:23
            47. Joshua 5:14-15
            48. Ruth 4:4-10
            49. 1 Sam. 2:35
            50. 1 Sam. 2:10
            51. 2 Sam. 7:12
            52. 2 Sam. 7:13
            53. 2 Sam. 7:14a
            54. 2 Sam. 7:16
            55. 2 Ki. 2:11
            56. 1 Chr. 17:11
            57. 1 Chr. 17:12-13
            58. 1 Chr. 17:13
            59. Job 9:32-33
            60. Job 19:23-27
            61. Psa. 2:1-3
            62. Psa. 2:2
            63. Psa. 2:6
            64. Psa. 2:6
            65. Psa. 2:7
            66. Psa. 2:7, 8
            67. Psa. 2:8, 9
            68. Psa. 2:12
            69. Psa. 8:2
            70. Psa. 8:5, 6
            71. Psa. 9:7-10
            72. Psa. 16:10
            73. Psa. 16:9-11
            74. Psa. 17:15
            75. Psa. 18:2-3
            76. Psa. 22:1
            77. Psa. 22:1
            78. Psa. 22:2
            79. Psa. 22:7
            80. Psa. 22:8
            81. Psa. 22:9-10
            82. Psa. 22:12-13
            83. Psa. 22:14
            84. Psa. 22:14, 15
            85. Psa. 22:15
            86. Psa. 22:16
            87. Psa. 22:17, 18
            88. Psa. 22:18
            89. Psa. 22:20, 21
            90. Psa. 22:20, 21
            91. Psa. 22:22
            92. Psa. 22:27-28
            93. Psa. 22:31
            94. Psa. 23:1
            95. Psa. 24:3
            96. Psa. 30:3
            97. Psa. 31:5
            98. Psa. 31:11
            99. Psa. 31:13
            100. Psa. 31:14, 15
            101. Psa. 34:20
            102. Psa. 35:11
            103. Psa. 35:19
            104. Psa. 38:11
            105. Psa. 38:12
            106. Psa. 38:12-13
            107. Psa. 38:20
            108. Psa. 40:2-5
            109. Psa. 40:6-8
            110. Psa. 40:9
            111. Psa. 40:14
            112. Psa. 41:9
            113. Psa. 45:2
            114. Psa. 45:6
            115. Psa. 45:7
            116. Psa. 45:7, 8
            117. Psa. 45:17
            118. Psa. 55:12-14
            119. Psa. 55:15
            120. Psa. 68:18
            121. Psa. 68:18
            122. Psa. 69:4
            123. Psa. 69:8
            124. Psa. 69:9
            125. Psa. 69:14-20
            126. Psa. 69:20
            127. Psa. 69:21
            128. Psa. 69:26
            129. Psa. 72:10, 11
            130. Psa. 72:16
            131. Psa. 72:17
            132. Psa. 72:17
            134. Psa. 78:1-2
            135. Psa. 78:2b
            136. Psa. 80:17
            137. Psa. 88
            138. Psa. 88:8
            139. Psa. 89:27
            140. Psa. 89:27
            141. Psa. 89:35-37
            142. Psa. 89:36-37
            143. Psa. 90:2
            144. Psa. 91:11, 12
            145. Psa. 97:9
            146. Psa. 100:5
            147. Psa. 102:1-11
            148. Psa. 102:25-27
            149. Psa. 109:25
            150. Psa. 110:1
            151. Psa. 110:1
            152. Psa. 110:1
            153. Psa. 110:4
            154. Psa. 112:4
            155. Psa. 118:17, 18
            156. Psa. 118:22, 23
            157. Psa. 118:26a
            158. Psa. 118:26b
            159. Psa. 132:11
            160. Psa. 129:3
            161. Psa. 138:1-6
            162. Psa. 147:3, 6
            163. Prov. 1:23
            164. Prov. 8:23
            165. Song. 5:16
            166. Isa. 2:3
            167. Isa. 2:4
            168. Isa. 6:1
            169. Isa. 6:8
            170. Isa. 6:9-10
            171. Isa. 6:9-12
            172. Isa. 7:14
            173. Isa. 7:14
            174. Isa. 8:8
            175. Isa. 8:14
            176. Isa. 9:1, 2
            177. Isa. 9:6
            178. Isa. 9:6
            179. Isa. 9:6
            180. Isa. 9:6
            181. Isa. 9:6
            182. Isa. 9:6
            183. Isa. 9:6
            184. Isa. 9:6
            185. Isa. 9:7
            186. Isa. 9:7
            187. Isa. 9:7
            188. Isa. 11:1
            189. Isa. 11:1
            190. Isa. 11:2
            191. Isa. 11:2
            192. Isa. 11:3
            193. Isa. 11:4
            194. Isa. 11:4
            195. Isa. 11:5
            196. Isa. 11:10
            197. Isa. 12:2
            198. Isa. 22:22
            199. Isa. 25:8
            200. Isa. 26:19
            201. Isa. 28:16
            202. Isa. 28:16
            203. Isa. 29:13
            204. Isa. 29:14
            205. Isa. 32:2
            206. Isa. 35:4
            207. Isa. 35:5-6
            208. Isa. 40:3, 4
            209. Isa. 40:9
            210. Isa. 40:10.
            211. Isa. 40:11
            212. Isa. 42:1-4
            213. Isa. 42:2
            214. Isa. 42:3
            215. Isa. 42:4
            216. Isa. 42:6
            217. Isa. 42:1, 6
            218. Isa. 42:7
            219. Isa. 43:11
            220. Isa. 44:3
            221. Isa. 45:21-25
            222. Isa. 45:23
            223. Isa. 46:9, 10
            224. Isa. 48:12
            225. Isa. 48:16, 17
            226. Isa. 49:1
            227. Isa. 49:5
            228. Isa. 49:6
            229. Isa. 49:6
            230. Isa. 49:6
            231. Isa. 49:6
            232. Isa. 49:7
            233. Isa. 50:3
            234. Isa. 50:4
            235. Isa. 50:5
            236. Isa. 50:6a
            237. Isa. 50:6b
            238. Isa. 50:6c
            239. Isa. 52:7
            240. Isa. 52:13
            241. Isa. 52:14
            242. Isa. 52:15
            243. Isa. 52:15
            244. Isa. 53:1
            245. Isa. 53:2
            246. Isa. 53:3a
            247. Isa. 53:3b
            248. Isa. 53:3c
            249. Isa. 53:3d
            250. Isa. 53:4a
            251. Isa. 53:4b
            252. Isa. 53:5a
            253. Isa. 53:5b
            254. Isa. 53:5c
            255. Isa. 53:6a
            256. Isa. 53:6b
            257. Isa. 53:7a
            258. Isa. 53:7b
            259. Isa. 53:7c
            260. Isa. 53:8a
            261. Isa. 53:8b
            262. Isa. 53:8c
            263. Isa. 53:8d
            264. Isa. 53:9a
            265. Isa. 53:9b
            266. Isa. 53:9c
            267. Isa. 53:10a
            268. Isa. 53:10b
            269. Isa. 53:10c
            270. Isa. 53:10d
            271. Isa. 53:11a
            272. Isa. 53:11b
            273. Isa. 53:11c
            274. Isa. 53:12a
            275. Isa. 53:12b
            276. Isa. 53:12c
            277. Isa. 53:12d
            278. Isa. 53:12e
            279. Isa. 55:3
            280. Isa. 55:4a
            281. Isa. 55:4b
            282. Isa. 55:5
            283. Isa. 59:16a
            284. Isa. 59:16b
            285. Isa. 59:20
            286. Isa. 60:1-3
            287. Isa. 61:1a
            288. Isa. 61:1b
            289. Isa. 61:1c
            290. Isa. 61:1-2a
            291. Jer. 11:21
            292. Jer. 23:5-6
            293. Jer. 23:5-6
            294. Jer. 31:22
            295. Jer. 31:31
            296. Jer. 33:14-15
            297. Eze.34:23-24
            298. Eze.37:24-25
            299. Dan. 2:44-45
            300. Dan. 7:13-14a
            301. Dan. 7:13-14b
            302. Dan. 7:13-14c
            303. Dan. 9:24a
            304. Dan. 9:24a
            305. Dan. 9:24b
            306. Dan. 9:25
            307. Dan. 9:26a
            308. Dan. 9:26b
            309. Dan. 9:26c
            310. Dan. 10:5-6
            311. Hos. 11:1
            312. Hos. 13:14
            313. Joel 2:32
            314. Jonah 1:17
            315. Mic. 5:2a
            316. Mic. 5:2b
            317. Mic. 5:2c
            318. Hag. 2:6-9
            319. Hag. 2:23
            320. Zech. 3:8
            321. Zech. 6:12-13
            322. Zech. 9:9a
            323. Zech. 9:9b
            324. Zech. 9:9c
            325. Zech. 9:9d
            326. Zech. 9:9e
            327. Zech. 9:9f
            328. Zech. 10:4
            329. Zech. 11:4-6a
            330. Zech. 11:4-6b
            331. Zech. 11:4-6c
            332. Zech. 11:7
            333. Zech. 11:8a
            334. Zech. 11:8b
            335. Zech. 11:9
            336. Zech. 11:10-11a
            337. Zech. 11:10-11b
            338. Zech. 11:12-13a
            339. Zech. 11:12-13b
            340. Zech. 11:12-13c
            341. Zech. 11:12-13d
            342. Zech. 12:10a
            343. Zech. 12:10b
            344. Zech. 12:10c
            345. Zech. 13:7a
            346. Zech. 13:7b
            347. Zech. 13:7c
            348. Zech. 13:7d
            349. Zech. 14:4
            350. Mal. 3:1a
            351. Mal. 3:1b
            352. Mal. 3:1c
            353. Mal. 3:6
            354. Mal. 4:5
            355. Mal. 4:6

          • John N

            Ok. Thanks for this very complete list.

            After careful consideration, my conclusion us: dismissed due to abscence of reliable, unbiased and verifiable evidence.

            Please try again.

          • Amos Moses

            Liar, you have carefully considered nothing, you are just not able to refute scripture.

          • John N

            Refute scripture? Why would I do that? Scripture exists.

            What you cannot show us is it was written by a god and not by mere humans. Until you do that, i don’t have to refute anything.

          • Amos Moses

            “What you cannot show us is it was written by a god and not by mere humans. Until you do that, i don’t have to refute anything.”

            You asked for one example of prophecy. i just gave you over 300 examples that could have come from no where else…… But lie to yourself all you want,,,,, we are not fooled.

          • John N

            You gave me 300 examples of prophesies, according to your bible.

            If you want to prove your god exists and wrote your bible, you cannot use the contents of the bible as evidence. That does not compute.

            I guess I was expecting too much rational thinking from a creationist ….

          • Amos Moses

            i am not trying to prove he exists, you are trying to prove there is an alternate “natural” explanation for those prophecies. You have been given ample examples from which to draw to try to disprove. Whether you accept that they are fulfilled as prophecy, every one is, is completely irrelevant, as you are going to provide and alternate explanation………..if you can……. but so far all i am hearing is excuses for you to not do it.

            If you cant then you are a phony and a liar. So pick one……….. any one …. i do not care.

          • John N

            I already gave you my response. Lack of evidence.

            I’m not going to do your homework. If you got something you want to convince me about, then take one yourself, and show me the evidence it was a real prophecy. And remember, your bible is part of the claim – not part of the evidence.

            Try again.

          • Amos Moses

            So you are the liar and phony that i knew you were from the beginning.

            Thnx.

          • John N

            So you’re out of rational arguments, and therefore I’m a liar? Nice.

            No Thnx.

          • Amos Moses

            You were given the opportunity to either prove what you said you could do or be proven a liar and a phony.

            What do you want from me…. you could not or would not follow thru on your claim to provide and alternate explanation. Not my problem………………..

          • Amos Moses

            “Present me one example of a prophecy for wich there us not a more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge, and I’ll admit your god might be existing. And then I’ll present you one example of a prophecy that went completely wrong, and you will then admit your god is inexisting. ”

            And you could not do either one.

            Liar and a phony…………………………….. i gave you over 300…….. liar and a phony.

          • John N

            Well, I’ m still waiting for you to present such an example. I’m not going to do your homework. Are you just too lazy to pick one, or too clever?

            But if you continue to use the bible to try and prove your prophecies being fulfilled, my answer will remain the same: in lack of verifiable evidence, I see no reason to believe it happened the way it is described.

            After all, we do know the bible contains fables and myths, and we do know people tend to make up things and even to lie for a ‘good cause’.

          • Amos Moses

            i said we are done. The reason has been given, i will not bandy words with a liar.

          • John N

            I guess that’s a way to end a discussion. If you can’t win it, accuse your opponent of lying. Goodbye.

          • Amos Moses

            “Refute scripture? Why would I do that?”

            Because you ASKED to be given the opportunity to do so. Below….

            “”Present me one example of a prophecy for winch there us not a more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge, ”

            Now, you say………….

            “After careful consideration, my conclusion us: dismissed due to abscence of reliable, unbiased and verifiable evidence.”

            When it is ALL VERIFIED, all 300+, in the NT. You refuse to offer ANY “more reasonable explication than divine foreknowledge” because you know you CAN’T…………………

            So you do not bother to give the answer that you claimed you could. Because you are a liar.

          • Amos Moses

            “Well, Odin did not leave us a book with his name in it.”
            “Oh, but there is a book of myths containing Odins name, the Edda, of which we very well know who wrote it and when it was written.”

            So Odin did not leave it, it was written by someone else….. kinda defeats your argument to even bring it up, doesn’t it.

            FYI, the bible was written by over 40 authors on three separate continents over 1500 years and it has a consistent story and narrative. So not even close with what you have shown. FAIL!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So Christ didn’t leave it, it was written by someone else? Right!

          • John N

            Yes, the Edda was written by a human writer.

            Exactly like the bible.

            And if you think the bible is internally consistent, you certainly have not read it.

          • Amos Moses

            “Exactly like the bible.”

            No, you are mistaken.

            “And if you think the bible is internally consistent, you certainly have not read it.”

            Clearly you have not. But if you can tell me what it is about, from beginning to end, then i might believe you. Five words are sufficient.

          • John N

            Mistaken? How that? Do you have any prove it was not written by humans?

          • Amos Moses

            The words were scribed by a human hand, but the words are from God. Otherwise, why would you be so opposed to it, to a supposed “book of myths”. Are you on some forum, in Norway or whatever, trying to gainsay some poor Norwegian because he believes in the “Edda”? Do you generally rally your disapproval against unicorns?

            No, you are here on this forum, because you, deep down somewhere, know it is from the true God, and your response to it is rebellion to being told you are wrong and in sin. You will not find that in the “Edda” or any other book. You know this to be true.

            The bible makes UNIQUE claims that NO other book does nor can. That is why you are here doing what you do.

          • John N

            So another christian fundamentalist claiming mind reading capabilities.

            And yet not one of you seems to be able to understand that not believing in gods is an option. And a very sensitive one, in view of the lack of evidence.

            You are correct the bible makes some unique claims. So does the Edda, and so does the Silmarillion. That does not make any of them true. The difference is, no one is trying to force the Edda or the Silmarillion upon believers and none believers alike, as a law book, as a basis for morality, or as a basis for scientific education in schools.

          • Amos Moses

            “So another christian fundamentalist claiming mind reading capabilities.”

            Again, don’t have to read your mind, just what you have written and observe your actions and reactions.

            “And yet not one of you seems to be able to understand that not believing in gods is an option. ”

            Not believing in God is an option……. if you lie to yourself about reality. Have fun with that.

            “The difference is, no one is trying to force the Edda or the Silmarillion upon believers and none believers alike, as a law book, as a basis for morality, or as a basis for scientific education in schools.”

            You have no idea about morality and right and wrong outside of God. If it is just “evolution” then you should have absolutely no objection to anyone being abused for any reason as that is evolution. Having slaves is just evolution, beating and jailing homosexuals is just evolution, killing another who is taking your dinner is just evolution.

            There is NO right or wrong in evolution. So what is your basic objection if someone pulverizes you on the street? It just evolution. Stop your whining and man up.

          • John N

            You’re right , evolution is just a fact and does not care about wrong an right. Thanks for confirming that.

            But luckily evolution did give us the tools to decide on good and bad ourselves – a large brain, the ability to empathize with other people, and to develop and improve moral standards in a society that becomes more and more complex.

            Once upon a time – check your bible – slavery, beating up homosexuals and an eye for an eye were standard practices. Now we do not allow those practices anymore. The world may not be a perfect place to life in, but for most people it has never been better. Despite your fundi creationist rants about moral depravity, doom and judgment coming.

            And that, Amos, is reality.

          • Amos Moses

            “But luckily evolution did give us the tools to decide on good and bad ourselves”

            And the evidence that “evolution” did that.? Got a fossil to prove that? Yeah……..NO!

            “Once upon a time – check your bible – slavery, beating up homosexuals and an eye for an eye were standard practices.”

            First, we are talking, now as you have changed the subject, about evolution. You do not believe the bible to be true so your use of it as evidence is null. So fail on that.

            Second, you do not get to put forward any standard of good or bad, right or wrong or even rights, because they do not exist in the theory of “evolution”. You have no rights under evolution, there is no right and wrong because evolution cannot account for it, there is no evidence. So fail on that.

            If you want to choose that as your belief system, then you have to live with the consequences of it. No one has any right to tell anyone what is right and what is wrong, good or bad, Christian or otherwise. That is what you want us to do with homosexuals and criminals, so lets, for the mental exercise of it, live under your preferred system of disbelief for the time being.

            To start, you have no rights, you are an accident.

          • Amos Moses

            Dramatically, when the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity. Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.

            The manuscript evidence for the “New Testament” is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

            Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar’s The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus’ Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).

            Renowned Bible scholar F.F. Bruce declares:

            There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.

            Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD. 10

            In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity. 11

            The academic discipline of “textual criticism” assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this — of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament. I again compared this with Homer’s Iliad. Of the approximately 15,600 lines that make up Homer’s classic, 764 lines are in question. These 764 lines represent over 5% of the entire text, and yet nobody seems to question the general integrity of that ancient work.

            To my real surprise, I discovered the Bible to be better preserved — by far — than other ancient works I’ve read and accepted over the years, such as Homer, Plato and Aristotle. As far as my “interpretation of an interpolation of an oral tradition” theory, I found that the Bible was not changed or interpreted from the ancient source texts. Simply, as the Bible was carried from country to country, it was translated into languages that don’t necessarily mirror the original languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. However, other than some grammatical and cultural differences, the “Bible manuscripts” are absolutely true to their original form.

          • John N

            Nice.

            Any evidence it was not written by humans, just like the Edda?

          • Amos Moses

            It is not possible for it to be written by humans in the fashion it is written in. Not that i expect you to recognize the evidence.

          • John N

            So ‘it is not possible’ is your evidence?

            Of course you know how such a fallacy is called, don’t you?

            Exactly the same as your previous ignorance of evolution is no excuse for science denying .

          • Amos Moses

            “Exactly the same as your previous ignorance of evolution is no excuse for science denial.”

            There is no evolution, it is a faith based belief system, Sorry.

            Again, over 40 different authors on three different continents and over 1500 years. No one man or even group of men could have done that.

            But i get it that you do not get it.

          • John N

            I guess 99,99 % of al scientists don’t agree with you, sorry.

            And who would reasonable people trust more: someone who has a lifetime spent on studying the subject in detail, or a christian fundamentalist who is proud to claim he only trusts a 2000 year old book as a source of knowledge? Besides of the more convincing argument of the available evidence for evolution to happen

            And you should really stop relying on arguments of incredulity, you know. Unless you’ve got nothing better, of course.

          • Amos Moses

            “I guess 99,99 % of al scientists don’t agree with you, sorry.”

            And that matters because……………. yeah, it does not. BTW, where is the evidence exist for that figure…….yeah, it does not.

            “Besides of the more convincing argument of the available evidence for evolution to happen”

            Misinterpreted evidence amounts to………. yeah, it does not.

            “And you should really stop relying on arguments of incredulity,”

            Back at ‘cha.

          • John N

            If evidence doesn’t matter…if expertise doesn’t matter … if logical arguments doesn’t matter… well., then it stops.

            Sometimes I really envy you, creationists. All the knowledge one has to know, all written down in one book. A very simple and straightforward worldview. No questions unanswered, no doubts about anything.

            Complete and utter wrong of course, but so simple.

          • Amos Moses

            “If evidence doesn’t matter…if expertise doesn’t matter … if logical arguments doesn’t matter… well., then it stops.’

            The question was “I guess 99,99 % of al scientists don’t agree with you, sorry.”
            and the response was, “where is the evidence exist for that figure…….yeah, it does not.”

            So fail!

            “All the knowledge one has to know, all written down in one book. ”

            So i am pretty sure you have not done any real world research on evolution, just what you have read and rely on IN A BOOK, or BOOKS, or online,,,,,, so you are different in what real way?

            You are not so, again, FAIL!

            “Complete and utter wrong of course, but so simple.”

            Right back at ‘cha, sport!

          • John N

            Well, since you admit expertise does not matter, why would I try? But of course why you are free to come up with your own evidence, such as a list of active scientists who deny evolution and promote creationism we can check against the actual number of active scientists.

            And if evidence doesn’t matter why would I try? Because the difference between the bible and real science books is exactly that – the lack of any actual verifiable evidence for the creation, the fall, the flood.

            But of course that doesn’ t matter anyhow, because you already have the answers, and no piece of actual evidence could lead you away from that.

          • Amos Moses

            Expertise, it does matter. When it is fraudulently applied, it means nothing. Same for evidence, when fraudulently examined, means nothing.

            “and no piece of actual evidence could lead you away from that.”

            Again, any piece of evidence, improperly analyzed, means nothing. So no, why would i be led away by a lie.

          • John N

            So now you accuse scientists who accept the theory of evolution, of fraud – a crime.

            I guess you already sued them and this was proved before court?

            Oh, you did not? Now, why would that be?

          • John N

            Odin is a sissy compared to Baal. That one really hates followers of Jahweh.

            Or maybe one of the 4000-or so other gods that all seem to exist?

            Neutrality seems to be the best option.

          • Samuel F Waddell

            Without faith it is impossible to please God. He requires faith and not sight at present. We will all stand before Him one day so we must prepare to meet GOD now. CHRIST has given to those who believe the blessed Holy Spirit and the word of God and the joy of our salvation, the assurance of our salvation as well. It is never wise to challenge or mock the ALMIGHTY GOD. HE is loving, patient and kind but HE IS STILL GOD. These kinds of statements would have not been heard in our society, except by very few, 50 years ago. You must seek CHRIST for yourself but your heart must be willing to obey Him or He will remain hidden from you until you stand before Him. He is still giving you a chance to repent because He loves you but the longer you wait and the deeper you go in sin the harder your heart will become. It is possible to sear one’s conscience. By the way we all know in our conscience that we are doing wrong, this is God speaking in our hearts to us, we can violate the conscience though through continual refusal to repent and rejection of CHRIST and His WORD.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “Never in the history of the world not even in Greece or Rome was marriage ever legal between two people of the same sex”

          Not true.

          “There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.” (wikipedia article on “history of same sex unions”)

  • Paige Turner

    Is this the cutting and pasting section?

  • acontraryview

    Oh look – a moment of legal sanity in Alabama – how refreshing.

    Moore is not fit be a Supreme Court justice. He should be immediately removed from the bench.

  • Reason2012

    Google ex-gay and be flooded with the testimonies of even the most die-hard homosexual activists who have overcome same-gender attractions, proving it’s not genetic.

    Activists will pretend there are hardly any such testimonies, but anyone can do a search and see otherwise.

    Or activists will pretend they’re now bisexual.

    The activists seem to hate those who overcome homosexuality. So how does it hurt them that others have turned away from it? Why do they hate them so much?

    Is it because if there are any that DO turn away from it it proves it’s not genetic (which is does) and hence they have less of an excuse to remain stuck in it?

    Is it because it ruins the talking point that it’s supposedly genetic and hence demands legal enforcement of societal acceptance?

    And how does it factor in that it IS genetic fact that a person is a male or female, but if a person instead claims to FEEL like they’re the opposite, then genetic fact is thrown out the window as FEELINGS are the supposed REAL truth? So what if someone doesn’t FEEL like they want those attractions anymore?

    So of course when this blatant dishonest hypocrisy is exposed, they’ll try to say “well if he doesn’t want to ACT on being a homosexual that doesn’t mean he’s not one”. But that’s more hypocrisy: Apply that logic to transgenders: So if a transgender doesn’t want to act like a male anymore because he FEELS like he’s a female, does that mean that’s also a lie as well and he’s really still a male only acting like a female? Of course not! Now they’ll instead call you a bigot for even daring suggest he’s still a male.

    Makes it even more obvious how the entire movement is driven by lies.

    Transgenderism: FEELINGS trumps GENETICS.
    Homosexuality: GENETICS trumps FEELINGS.

    • Paige Turner

      Hang on – Ive seen this before.