Defense Nominee James Mattis on Open Homosexuals in Military: ‘I’ve Never Cared’ About Their Sexuality

WASHINGTON — While being questioned by Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday over his position on women and open homosexuals in the military, Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee, James Mattis, said that he has “never cared” about the sexuality of those in the Armed Forces and has no plans to overturn policies allowing them to serve.

“In your book ‘Warriors and Citizens,’ and the interviews you did afterwards, you said in recent policy debates such as those about allowing homosexuals to serve openly [that] you believe that ‘the American public is not nearly as concerned as it should be that the changes to military policies are accruing risk to our forces,'” Gillibrand noted, quoting from his publication.

“We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military disregarding our war-fighting practitioners advice,” she read.

Gillibrand then asked in light of Mattis’ past remarks, “Do you believe that openly-serving homosexuals, along with women in combat units, is undermining our force?”

Mattis replied that he believes the focus needs to be on making the U.S. military as strong as possible, and that he has no plans to repeal any current policies.

“Senator, my belief is that we have to stay focused on a military that is so lethal that on the battlefield it will be the enemy’s longest day and their worst day when they run into that force. I believe that military service is a touchstone for patriots of whatever stripe,” he said.

“It’s simply the way they demonstrate their commitment, and I believe right now the policies that are in effect—unless a service chief brings something to me where there has been a problem that has been proven—then I’m not going in with the idea that I’m going to review these and right away start rolling something back,” Mattis advised.

  • Connect with Christian News

Gillibrand then questioned Mattis again, “Do you believe that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or women in combat is undermining our lethality?”

He replied that his concern is not in regard to the sexuality of those who serve.

“Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with,” Mattis stated.

“So the answer is no?” Gillibrand asked.

“Senator, my concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain that it is at the top of its game so that we go up against an enemy—-the criteria for everything we do in the military up until that point when we put our young men and women across the line of departure is they will be at their most lethal stance,” he responded. “That’s my obligation as I move into this job.”

Mattis also advised during the questioning that he has no plans to oppose women serving in the military. As previously reported, Mattis had formerly questioned whether women are suitable for carrying out the “intimate killing” required in ground combat.

According to Military.com, Mattis also once said that he is worried about “eros” in the trenches, opining that it is not wise to put “healthy young men and women together and we expect them to act like little saints.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Ugh, please! US military is over. Westerners are good and intelligent only when they are Christian. What are they trying to protect if men do not protect women and children or teach children good morality but let anything goes as anyone wants anything for that moment? Don’t they know that manly women bring children’s unhappiness? What does USA want on earth? An immoral dystopia to counter Russia and China? What’s the meaning of maintaining just money and power with no proper ideals. So sad. Americans must remember why their nation was created in the first place. No Christian values = No head = No direction.

    • johndoe

      Still insulting Americans. Definitely not a christian.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Well then it would appear that Mattis could also care less about the following:

    “And Yahweh spake … saying, Take ye the sum of all the congregation … every MALE by their polls; from [not twenty one or eighteen, but] twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war….” (Numbers 1:1-3)

    See also Deuternomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Maybe he doesn’t. So what? He’s up for Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of Christianity. Is there some reason he needs to care what the Bible says to do his job?

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Thanks for asking.

        “…Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: ‘They [the 17th-century Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8, demonstrating the continuing veracity of Yahweh’s law and its accompanying blessings, per Deuteronomy 28:1-14].

        ‘Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.…’23

        “America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1788, when the United States of America, as a nation, stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. Instead, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution….”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          None of that answers my question.

          • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

            Oh, but it does! You’re not seeing it is probably a fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 2:12-14.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Ironically, I just read Numbers 1 & 2 last night.

      It’s really sad to see so many people who profess to be Christian get all excited and jump on the bandwagon of celebration without any discernment at all. Mattis, like Trump, will likely turn out showing Proverbs 14:12 true again.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Indeed.

  • Tony

    If anyone wants to Serve this Country and maybe die for it . i do not have a problem with the Sexual Preference.

    • johndoe

      Exactly this!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “….food for powder, food for powder. They’ll fill a pit as well as better. Tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.” (Falstaff in Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 1)

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    As a 20yr Retired Veteran the absolute best thing Mattis could do is go back to DADT or before, reverse the recent policy on Transgenders, and reverse the policy on women in special forces. Roll back the Social Experiment by the Obama Admin and make the Military a military again!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Why?

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Because it is against good order and discipline, hurts military readiness, against the UCMJ (that’s Law), because I served 20yrs and saw the negative impact, because it’s immoral – just like fornication and adultery are prohibited in the Military too, because the Military was far better even before DADT, and because my having to explain it to you probably means you still don’t understand.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I would understand if you explained it to me, but you haven’t. You’ve just asserted a bunch of things without any evidence.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, as an ambulance chaser one would think you’d know that testimony, personal and first-hand, IS evidence. Plus, as I stated above, the UCMJ is Law. That IS evidence.

            So, you’ve proved, just as I suspected, that you aren’t interested in evidence or Truth. Rather just trolling and harassing. That you for showing your true colors.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What “personal testimony” have you shown me? You haven’t told me what you saw, you just said you were in the military, and you think it’s so. Personal testimony is “I was in the room, and I saw X say Y to Z,” not “I was there and I think this is causing a problem but I can’t specify what, how, or why.”

            What part of the UCMJ is being violated?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            As for my “personal testimony”, like I said, I’ve played your game before and know that whatever I say you’ll find a way to reject it. Stop being so lazy. Google UCMJ. I’m standing on Matt. 7:6 from here on out.

            Now go play your games somewhere else. Those who wanna reject Truth and live in Denial are gonna do so as long as that accomplishes their own purposes.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why don’t you try actually making a point before you accuse me of rejecting it? And then you want me to research the UCMJ so I can make your other point for you?

            You’re not very good at this, are you?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “this”? What is “this”? The little game you like to play? You’ve said that exact same thing before. I’ll tell ya what I’m good at and that’s not throwing my pearls before swine.

            Would you like to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and become a new Creation who can then be capable of understanding Truth and see things in a whole new way?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “This” would be defending a position, and so far, nothing you’ve said has changed my mind regarding your ability to do so. Have you lost the conversation? I’ll ask the question again: what harm has come from having gays, transgender people, and women serving in combat? And how do you know?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, whoopde doo! Good 4U. Your mind hasn’t changed. And that somehow is my deficiency! LOL

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            The same thing applies to what used to be called good ol’ common sense but that’s been thrown out these days two by folks who simply put their hands over their ears, shut their eyes, and repeatedly shout, “NO NO NO. I’m just not gonna believe it!!”

            “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:2)

            I’ve “defended” my position just fine. The fact you can’t comprehend what is right and natural is your problem. Not mine. And it has nothing to do with my ability to present the Truth.

            Ask the questions as many times as you like until the cows come home. The answer is the same. Just as I said above. You’re the ambulance chaser. Surely you understand the Law.

            Since the beginning of the creation of Man and Woman, Homosexuality (There’s nothing ‘gay’ about it. Why don’t you call it what it is? Too self-defining and self- condemning?) has been an abomination and Unnatural. For 200yrs sexual perversions were known to be against Good Order & Discipline and to hurt Military Readiness. George Washington first instituted the prohibition before there even was a UCMJ.

            The UCMJ is just what it says. it is self-defining. It’s the Law. Only a moron would be incapable of and unable to understand that willful disobedience and disregard for the Law leads to chaos and anarchy. Sorry you can’t grasp that simple concept.

            It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that it is harmful with girls are forced to shower or be in a locker room with some dude who is deluded and deranged enough to not recognize what’s hanging between his legs makes him a boy. Failure to recognize the obvious not only leads to confusion and is contrary to Good Order & Discipline but it is dangerous.

            Evidently you’ve never spent any time in the Military and aren’t familiar with Command Inspections and Uniform Inspections. Having some dude dressed up as a woman with a 5 o’clock shadow being inspected by his Commander is not only ludicrous on it’s face but it, again, doesn’t take a rocket scientist in this politically charged atmosphere today to see that there are all kinds of problems arising from that.

            Lastly, your obvious inability to distinguish between the natural and the unnatural, the normal and the abnormal, and the biological, scientific, and just plain in-your-face- obvious evidence and truth that men and women, male and female, are different – each having their own strengths and weaknesses – makes it abundantly clear that NO answer to your question will ever be good enough for you and had you the capacity to see and understand the obvious you would be asking the question in the first place.

            “18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18-22)

            Now come on back and prove that last verse spot on correct!! There’s plenty more of God’s Truth to come.

            Or would you like to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and become a new Creation who can then be capable of understanding Truth and see things in a whole new way?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I can’t debate twenty different topics all over the map, so I’ll just pick one: what does the UCMJ ban regarding homosexuality, and where can I find it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You are obviously seriously confused. I’m not debating you. It’s not worth my time. And I’m not about to try and debate someone who can’t figure out a simple Google search like “UCMJ Homosexuality” in the search box.

            Buh Bye

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And hello again. I can quite easily figure out how to type anything into a search bar, but, as I apparently need to repeat this, IT IS NOT MY BURDEN. It’s yours. You want to prove the claim? You put forth the effort. It’s not my job to go find proof for your argument.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Do you people ever get tired of ruminating on and regurgitating the same vomit over and over?

            IT IS NOT MY BURDEN. It’s yours!! I don’t have to prove spit to you!! History and facts are on my side.

            All anyone has to do is look at my responses and compare them to yours. You have NOTHING!! Completely EMPTY!! BANKRUPT!!

            Thank you for completely discrediting yourself and showing just how utterly inept, vacuous, and without even a scintilla of an argument to disprove the evidence I’ve put forth.

            It’s always appreciated when you put it out there in black & white for all to see. THANK YOU!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “IT IS NOT MY BURDEN. It’s yours!! I don’t have to prove spit to you!”

            No, it is not my burden to prove your point for you. If you want to convince me that homosexuality is forbidden in the UCMJ, all you have to do is show me where. It shouldn’t be that hard; the sections are categorized and numbered.

            “History and facts are on my side.”

            Right, so I’m asking you to prove that to me.

            ‘All anyone has to do is look at my responses and compare them to yours. You have NOTHING!! Completely EMPTY!! BANKRUPT!!’

            If you mean that I haven’t put forth any evidence, you’re right. Because I’m not making a claim. You are. You’re claiming that homosexuality is banned by the UCMJ, and I’m asking you to prove that to me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And I’m telling you to quit being so cotton-pickin’ lazy and do your own research. You want proof, GO FIND IT!! I have no obligation to prove squat to you. You’re right, I made claim. Now live with it. Don’t like it. Then prove me wrong. Like I said, you’ve played that game before and I’m not playing.

            I will add this though because I just happened to be reading an article that quotes the Manual for Courts-Martial:

            “The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.”

            So Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Bestiality, and other forms of Sexual Immorality and Perversion ERODE efficiency and effectiveness of the Military and thereby WEAKEN the national security of the United States.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “And I’m telling you to quit being so cotton-pickin’ lazy and do your own research. You want proof, GO FIND IT!! I have no obligation to prove squat to you.”

            On the contrary, YOU want the proof, as evidenced by the fact that you keep insisting that I accept your version of reality. YOU want me to accept that the UCMJ bans homosexuality. If you want me to believe that so bad, all you have to do is show me where in the UCMJ the homosexuality ban is found, but you keep refusing to do so. That’s baffling to me. That makes literally no sense.

            If I wanted to convince you of something, I would show you. If I wanted to convince you that opossums are marsupials, I would state the claim, then cite to the appropriate page Gardner’s “Mammal Species of the World” taxonomic reference guide. I wouldn’t state the claim, then act all annoyed when you questioned me on it and demand that you go find it yourself.

            Put differently, YOU want me to believe that the UCMJ bans homosexuality, so YOU have the burden of showing me where that’s found. My position is that it doesn’t, so why would I go looking for evidence to prove myself wrong?

            That all being said, I did review the UCMJ. All I found on the subject was that a homosexuality ban used to exist under Article 125, found at 10 USC Sec. 925. That article has been mostly repealed, and now just bans rape and bestiality.

            So again, we’re back where we started. Where does the UCMJ ban homosexuality?

            “[The purpose of military law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.]

            So Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Bestiality, and other forms of Sexual Immorality and Perversion ERODE efficiency and effectiveness of the Military and thereby WEAKEN the national security of the United States.”

            Non sequitur. Nothing in the section of the UCMJ that you quoted proves the conclusion you wrote.

            I’ll accept that the UCMJ is to promote order, discipline, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military. I have yet to see any evidence that allowing gays to serve openly would harm or impede any of those values.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong again. I’m not insisting you accept anything. I’m just telling you what Truth & Reality is. It’s entirely up to you as to whether you continue to choose to live in Sin & Denial.

            Of course it makes no sense to you. You’re the god of your own little kingdom and you get to decide for yourself what is makes sense or not.

            “so why would I go looking for evidence to prove myself wrong?”

            Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Those who desire to live in the Truth know the answer to that. Those who desire to live a lie and in denial ask that question.

            “Non sequitur. Nothing in the section of the UCMJ that you quoted proves the conclusion you wrote.”

            Non sequitur. The UCMJ proves exactly what I wrote. Your failure to accept Truth does not negate the evidence provided and Truth that exists.

            That is evidenced by your “I’ll accept that the UCMJ is to promote order, discipline, efficiency, and effectiveness of the military. I have yet to see any evidence that allowing gays to serve openly would harm or impede any of those values.” And you don’t even see it.

            That’s analogous to saying, “I’ll accept that the 55mph Speed Limit Law is to promote order, discipline, efficiency, and effectiveness and safety of the public. I have yet to see any evidence that allowing someone to openly drive 90mph would harm or impede any of those values.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You know I respect you and your posts enormously. I think I can tell you you’ve done well here, you have nothing further to prove, you’re not dealing with someone who is grounded in reality, and it shows.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You know…I think this post might be what I was waiting for. I could drop my end now.

            Thanks 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ah, I see, you’re another one of those guys that thinks every law on the books always applies no matter what a court decision says or anything like that? Cute. You know there was a law in Alabama on the books til 2000 that said interracial marriage was illegal?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, you really don’t see. But you can. Would you like to be able to? I’ll point you to The One who can clear up your vision.

            I see you’re another one of those who like to tout the Law when it suits them and the same with court decisions and likely other “authorities” as well (i.e. the APA, AMA, etc.)

            The fact is there is One who is The Authority and has already decided and THAT will NEVER change.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “No, you really don’t see. But you can. Would you like to be able to? I’ll point you to The One who can clear up your vision.”

            Oh yes, of course, that’s it! I’ve been an atheist for over 20 years, but after talking to you, now I suddenly see I must convert! (Sarcasm, if you can’t tell…..)

            That really doesn’t have anything to do with anything. You’re right in that there is a part of the UCMJ still on the books that criminalizes homosexual acts. My point is that that is now rendered unenforceable by the repeal of DADT.

            “I see you’re another one of those who like to tout the Law when it suits them”

            Just like you’re perfectly happy to tout the UCMJ when you think it suits your purposes!

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Now I wonder how I knew you were an atheist?

            No, the Law is not rendered irrelevant because someone chooses to ignore it. The Law still addresses and deals with the behavior. Whether or not it is enforced and politics drive things is a different matter altogether. The repeal of DADT simply states that one can openly admit to practicing their conversion and join the Military. It has yet to be determine what would happen if one were caught in the act.

            There is a BIG difference between my touting the Law and you atheists. You ONLY do it when it suits your purposes – as evidenced by your statement above. Your hypocrisy is seen in the admission of going by the “courts decision”. Yet the same who hold to that refuse to admit they would’ve support the courts decisions that said Blacks weren’t fully human, women couldn’t vote or hold certain public offices, etc.

            So, now that you’ve “come out” as an atheist, what exactly are you doing on this CHRISTIAN site and what exactly do you hope to accomplish? (Other than doing Satan’s bidding just as Eph. 2:1-4 says.)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You seem to be absolutely convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that allowing homosexuals to serve openly will bring about the downfall of the military or something. I ask you, then…..what about Canada? They have allowed gays in the military since 1992, and there was a study conducted in 2000 that concluded, and I quote, “Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance.” (archive palmcenter org/files/active/0/Canada5.pdf)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, if there is any doubt, let me remove it. I am.

            Canada? Really???? LOL You want to point to Canada as an example of how Homosexuality works in the Military? You seriously wanna compare Canada’s Military to the greatest Military Force on the face of the Earth?????

            Perhaps you would be better off looking at what The Commandant of the Marine Corps had to say when Obama implemented his social experimentation. Or the any number of other high ranking officers in the other branches who have left the Military over Obama’s social engineering and new policies.

            Or maybe talk to the number of recruiters out there who can’t even meet their miniscule goals which are less than half as compared to just 20-30 years ago.

            But, like AC above, I doubt any amount of evidence would convince you that opening the Military up to perversion and unnatural acts has a negative impact of Military Readiness.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “You seriously wanna compare Canada’s Military to the greatest Military Force on the face of the Earth?????”

            What does the relative strength of the countries’ militaries have to do with the fact that study found no change?

            “Perhaps you would be better off looking at what The Commandant of the Marine Corps had to say when Obama implemented his social experimentation. Or the any number of other high ranking officers in the other branches who have left the Military over Obama’s social engineering and new policies.”

            The only thing those are evidence of is the opinion of those men. The Canadian study I talked about reported that people there held similar opinions before 1992, but since then, opinions have generally changed. (as is generally the trend in the US, actually.)

            “Or maybe talk to the number of recruiters out there who can’t even meet their miniscule goals which are less than half as compared to just 20-30 years ago.”

            Is that caused by gays in the military? You’re comparing now to 20 to 30 years ago, when DADT was repealed less than 6 years ago.

            ” I doubt any amount of evidence would convince you”

            Try giving me some actual evidence first, and then we’ll see. I could probably say the same exact thing about you, though, couldn’t I?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “What does the relative strength of the countries’ militaries have to do with the fact that study found no change?”

            So first you compare U.S. Military with Canada and then you ask that question. Good job. You’re batting a thousand.

            “The only thing those are evidence of is the opinion of those men.”

            Thank you for showing why it’s completely ridiculous to try and engage people like you. Tell ya what, the next time you go to the doctor and he tells ya that you have a cancer that must be operated on immediately, you be sure to say, “Thanks for your opinion, doc, but that’s just your opinion. I happen to think differently.”

            “but since then, opinions have generally changed. (as is generally the trend in the US, actually”

            Well, whoopde do! Tell ya what Buckwheat, you just keep right on following the crowd and defining what’s best by the “trends”. We’ll see how that works for ya. Let’s see if you’re standing in line when it’s “generally accepted” to bend your German Shepherd over the couch or marry your own children or siblings. Btw, you do know there are efforts underway right this very moment to marry your child and siblings?

            You want evidence? I’ve already provided all I’m gonna. The FACT is the UCMJ prohibited it. And I quoted from the Manual of Courts-Martial why the UCMJ exists. The FACT is that George Washington first established the prohibition way back around the last 1700’s. The FACT is Congress made it Law. And the plain FACT is that those who are spiritually-dead, who call Good evil and Evil good, who condone and encourage perversions and all manner of immorality, aren’t ever gonna be convinced no matter how much evidence is provided.

            A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            Now, would you like to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and become a new Creation who can then be capable of understanding Truth and see things in a whole new way?

            Do you want to be healed?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “So first you compare U.S. Military with Canada and then you ask that question. Good job. You’re batting a thousand.”

            I’m still waiting for an answer for the question…..

            “Let’s see if you’re standing in line when it’s “generally accepted” to bend your German Shepherd over the couch or marry your own children or siblings.”

            It’s only people like you that think those things are actually going to happen.

            “You want evidence? I’ve already provided all I’m gonna.”

            So, your only “evidence” is a now-unenforceable law. Okay, then.

            “The FACT is the UCMJ prohibited it. And I quoted from the Manual of Courts-Martial why the UCMJ exists. The FACT is that George Washington first established the prohibition way back around the last 1700’s. The FACT is Congress made it Law.”

            I’m not disputing those facts, not at all. Going back to my earlier example, there were laws banning inter-racial marriage, which incidentally, people often thought there were Biblical justifications for. (I’m not saying there IS justification for that in the Bible, just that folks sure as hell thought there was.) The point is, laws change. Maybe “God’s laws” don’t change, but people’s interpretations of them sure do. And we are a secular nation whose laws are not based on any one religion. at any rate.

            “Now, would you like to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and become a new Creation who can then be capable of understanding Truth and see things in a whole new way? Do you want to be healed?”

            You are really barking up the wrong tree with that one, pal.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “It’s only people like you that think those things are actually going to happen.”

            Nope. It’ sonly people like you that think those things don’t actually happen NOW!!

            But hey, thanks for proving the Bible correct and God true just as He said for just 20yrs ago VERY VERY few people, if any, thought that Homosexuals would be parading down the streets celebrating their abominable perversion, be on every TV program throughout the night, and see Marriage redefined by a group of 9 unelected judges. And I’d pretty much bet the farm that just 10yrs ago nobody would’ve ever thought the White House would be flooded (pun intended) in Rainbow colors and thus openly mocking God. And I doubt even 10yrs ago anybody thought that we’d be sitting here today debating about what a Man or Woman is and whether some deceived, deluded, or deranged dude can shower in the high school locker room with one’s 16yo daughter.

            So thanks again. Always love it when you atheists do our job for us!

            “So, your only “evidence” is a now-unenforceable law. Okay, then.”

            Nope. Thanks again. BIG difference between “unenforceable law” and a Law that is willfully and intentionally not being enforced that should be. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to point that out to others so they see thru your lies.

            “And we are a secular nation whose laws are not based on any one religion. at any rate.”

            That’s another far too often regurgitated lie that is spewed without any thought for it is easy to see it’s a lie. One only need to look at the DOI, Constitution, other founding documents, National Anthem, our money, SCOTUS, and even the Inauguration Ceremony for the POTUS in a few days.

            That’s for giving me the opportunity to point that Truth out as well and to show that you folks simply choose to reject Reality and Truth because you want to live in Denial and can’t even be intellectually honest when trying to put forth your positions.

            “You are really barking up the wrong tree with that one, pal.”

            That’s what I figured. Thanks for admitting it. So again, exactly WHY are you coming to a CHRISTIAN site other than to harass and do your father, Satan’s, bidding?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Nope. It’ sonly people like you that think those things don’t actually happen NOW!!”

            You’re telling me it’s happening now, that people are marrying animals and their children?

            “Nope. Thanks again. BIG difference between “unenforceable law” and a Law that is willfully and intentionally not being enforced that should be.”

            That’s a matter of opinion as to whether it should be enforced or not, just like any law like that.

            “One only need to look at the DOI, ”

            ……which only makes one mention of “Nature’s God” That doesn’t mean we’re a theocracy, as much as you might like that.

            “Constitution”

            No mention of God whatsoever. (“In the year of our Lord” doesn’t count. I say “A.D” and it doesn’t make me a Christian.)

            “even the Inauguration Ceremony for the POTUS in a few days.”

            All that means is that the President is a Christian.

            Look, I’m not denying that the country was and is largely Christian, largely influenced by Christian thought, et cetera. That still doesn’t mean it’s not a secular nation, with secular laws, with freedom of religion and such.

            I gotta ask you, though, what channels are you watching where homosexuals are on every TV show? Hmm….or maybe I’m just not noticing that for some reason…..like how I actually don’t care. Yeah, that’s it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “You’re telling me it’s happening now, that people are marrying animals and their children?”

            Yup. Already been done in other countries and at least 3 different examples of attempts here in USA.

            “That’s a matter of opinion as to whether it should be enforced or not, just like any law like that.”

            Thank you. So much for the Rule of Law and your whole foundation. Obeying, following, and enforcing laws are just all a matter of opinion. Got it. I’ll give ya this though, at least you’re consistent with being an Atheist.

            “……which only makes one mention of “Nature’s God” That doesn’t mean we’re a theocracy, as much as you might like that.”

            Nice attempt at distraction and diversion. I’ve seen that tactic many times before. The issue was whether we are a secular country. NOT whether we are a Theocracy. One does not have to be a Theocracy to not be Secular. And btw, your faux omniscience fails you. I wouldn’t like it. But I will LOVE it when we are under the Lord Jesus Christ. You won’t like it where you will be though.

            “No mention of God whatsoever. (“In the year of our Lord” doesn’t count. I say “A.D” and it doesn’t make me a Christian.)”

            Wrong again! Your lie was that this is a secular country. That proves it is not as it references “our Lord”. That IS Christ!! Furthermore, you don’t get to decide what counts or not. Regardless of how deluded you may be to think the whole world revolves around you and your ways, it does not and YOU do NOT get to decide what counts. The actual words do. I will give you this though, at least you caught that. No doubt it’s been brought to your attention before by your false claim. Most folks never see that. However, that said, it’s not the only evidence that this isn’t a secular nation. The 1st Amendment is as well. And then there are those “court decisions” that you like to refer to where it is specifically stated that we are a country under God. Even one that says we’re a “Christian Nation”. That I would now say “were” is more accurate.

            “All that means is that the President is a Christian.”

            WRONG AGAIN!! What it means is that this is a country that is “One Nation Under God”. It’s our National Motto. When the POTUS puts his hand on the Bible and swears an oath, he is making a vow to Almighty God to do what he says and is recognizing AND acknowledging that there is a Sovereign God by which he is to govern and will give an account to.

            “That still doesn’t mean it’s not a secular nation, with secular laws, with freedom of religion and such.”

            Yes, it does mean just that. Moreover, what you fail to understand or at least acknowledge, is that there is nothing inconsistent with “freedom of religion” and Christianity. And, while I don’t expect you to understand this, it is a Truth that there is NOTHING that is actually secular. Everything has some spiritual basis for it.

            Your Madison quote does not contradict my points at all. And, if you’d take the time to bother actually reading more of Madison’s writings, you’ll find he was a far cry from trying to make the USA a secular nation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Already been done in other countries”

            People have married their children and animals in other countries?

            ” When the POTUS puts his hand on the Bible and swears an oath, he is
            making a vow to Almighty God to do what he says and is recognizing AND
            acknowledging that there is a Sovereign God by which he is to govern and
            will give an account to.”

            Yeah, I wouldn’t argue that. That only says something about what the President believes, though. A President, or a person elected to any other office, could swear an oath on any other book of any other religion (e.g. Keith Ellison), or even not swear on any. That’s in the Constitution, the part about “no religious test.” Not that I think it will happen any time soon that we’ll have a President who is openly not a Christian…but that’s a different issue. Like I said, I’ll acknowledge we are a country of mostly Christians, hugely influenced by Christianity, and all that, but that does not mean it’s not secular. The US has no official religion, it’s laws are not based on religious ones (I dare you to try to tell me they are), we have freedom of religion, separation of church and state…..therefore, we have a secular state. I don’t know what you think a secular state is, but that’s what it is. I think the problem I often encounter when talking about this is that “secular” really has two meanings; people often use it to mean “atheist” but that’s not what it means when you talk about a secular nation. The USSR was not a secular nation, for example.

            “is that there is nothing inconsistent with “freedom of religion” and Christianity.”

            I’m not arguing that….what does that even mean? Yeah, Christians can, and often do, like many of the founding fathers in fact, believe in freedom of religion. So?

            “Your Madison quote does not contradict my points at all.”

            If not, then perhaps I don’t understand what your points are. Madison was talking about separation of church and state. If you have that, you have a secular state. And, how on earth does the 1st amendment say different? You lost me on that one. What does a “secular nation” mean to you?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “People have married their children and animals in other countries?”

            Having a little trouble with English? Yup, that’s what I said AND I said it’s being attempted even NOW here in the USA.

            I don’t disagree with your supposition that it is a possibility one could put their hand on another holy book – such as Ellison & the Koran – but that does not negate my argument in the slightest that this is NOT a secular nation. Quite to the contrary it confirms that it is not.

            “Yeah, Christians can, and often do, like many of the founding fathers in fact, believe in freedom of religion. So?”

            So, you claim this is a secular nation. I just showed it’s not and that freedom of religion is perfectly consistent with Christianity.

            “Madison was talking about separation of church and state. If you have that, you have a secular state.”

            Not at all. The fact that church is even mentioned and, moreover promoted, proves we’re not secular.

            From the Dictionary:

            Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

            This country is and has been since its founding riddled full of religious attitudes, activities, and other things grounded in a spiritual basis. THAT is inarguable and is evidenced over and over and over again going back to the earliest of our founding documents.

            THAT is evidenced even up to the current day. One only has to look to SCOTUS and how it opens every single one of it’s hearings with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

            The question is really not whether this is a secular nation but how a nation founded and sustained thru the centuries on the belief that there is a Supreme Sovereign God could make so many absolutely godless decisions.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, okay, the problem here is exactly what I thought it is. We’re talking about different things, really. You seem to think a secular state is something like one where religion is not allowed or holds no influence, or something along those lines. That’s not what I’m talking about, that’s not what I would want anyway. I am talking about a secular state, meaning (from wikipedia) “a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. ” THAT is what the US is, or would you tell me the US does not fit that description?

            BTW, the defintion of secularism, just to add to what I’m saying: “the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.”

            Oh, and SHOW me a story where people in other countries have actually legally married their animals or children, and then I might believe you.

            “I don’t disagree with your supposition that it is a possibility one could put their hand on another holy book”

            It’s not a “supposition” or a “possibility”, it’s a fact. One doesn’t have to involve any holy book, for that matter. Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yup. Houston we have a problem. You seem to think Wikipedia is a more Authoritative source than the Dictionary.

            Secondly, rather than assuming what I “seem to think” why don’t you just take on face value what I said. I quoted the Dictionary. One should think since I did so that would define what I think and there would be no need for guessing.

            Wrt to the rest of your definition and suppositions, I’m not even gonna bother. You wouldn’t understand anyways and we’d go around and around and around in circles. Just as we have here were we are not talking about “separation of church & state” which is a rabbit trail off the OP.

            Wrt to the “SHOW ME”, I’ll tell ya the same thing I told the other fella. Stop being so lazy and look it up. A simple Google search takes hardly any time at all. You wanna deny it and stay in the dark, that’s fine. I couldn’t care less. The fact is it’s there and if you wanna enlighten yourself and know the Truth, it’s there for the receiving. You’ve already admitted you prefer to remain in the dark so don’t expect me to waste one iota of my time making any efforts to enlighten you.

            Ok, ok, “supposition” wasn’t the right word to use but “possibility” is still valid.

            And thank you for referencing Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution because in looking at that I was reminded that Article II, Section One, Claus 8 actually holds the oath to be administered verbatim.

            It’s interesting to note that while the oath for POTUS does not include the words “So help me God”, the oath for VP and all Congressman does!! Ooops, so much for secular nation.

            Moreover, the prohibition of a religious test ONLY pertains to Federal offices. Many states still have specific religious tests and oaths that must be adhered to. Ooops, so much for a secular nation.

            I’ll finish with this. You say, “One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.”

            And I say that is foolishness because NOTHING is free from religious rule and teachings or neutral on matters of belief. It’s NOT a matter of “Whether” but simply a matter of “Whose”.

            And please don’t be so foolish as to think that Secular Humanism isn’t a religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Wrt to the “SHOW ME”, I’ll tell ya the same thing I told the other fella. Stop being so lazy and look it up.”

            And I’ll say the same thing he did. You’re the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. If you’re not prepared to back yourself up, maybe you shouldn’t make claims like that.

            “Moreover, the prohibition of a religious test ONLY pertains to Federal
            offices.”

            But the 1st Amendment has been ruled to apply to state governments. I was going to cite the particular SC case that did so, but you can look it up yourself, it’s not hard to find.

            ” Many states still have specific religious tests and oaths that
            must be adhered to. Ooops, so much for a secular nation.”

            Many? 8 out of 50 (perhaps unsurprisingly, mainly in the South) is not “many”. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that they are unconstitutional and unenforceable, one state’s SC ruled the same, and basically the other states aren’t bothering with enforcing those because they would be ruled the same.

            “And please don’t be so foolish as to think that Secular Humanism isn’t a religion.”

            Uh, I never mentioned secular humanism. Maybe, just maybe you could call that a religion, but only if you want to use a rather broad definition of that word. Just you don’t “be so foolish” to start calling atheism itself a religion, because it doesn’t fit any definition of religion.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And I reply with the same. Says you and that don’t mean squat. I have NO burden whatsoever to prove to you anything. Besides that, you’ve already admitted to being an Atheist for 20yrs. So you’ve already rejected the Truth that has been PLAINLY known to you.

            “18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18-22)

            Moreover, since you do claim to be an atheist you have NO basis for any claim to any kind of decision about what is right or wrong in anything. According to Atheism there is no absolute truth. To each their own. If you’re intellectually honest you must admit that there can be no prohibitions to any kind of sexual restrictions – for the Military or Society as a whole. Sexuality, and anything else, must be relegated to whatever one decides for themselves is “loving” and makes them “happy”.

            Therefore the Military and Society must forego all restrictions. Open it all wide up to Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Polygamy, Bestiality, Necrophilia, Adultery, Fornication, ANYTHING! Just eat, drink, and be merry for you live today and die tomorrow.

            “But the 1st Amendment has been ruled to apply to state governments. I was going to cite the particular SC case that did so, but you can look it up yourself, it’s not hard to find.”

            Hypocrite! That said, I don’t need to because that’s a lie. There are, the last I looked, still 8 states that have religious tests required. But, of course, you know that so you’ve just contradicted yourself and you try to get around that by saying the States aren’t enforcing the Law. Hmmm, wonder how you’d reply if a State, like say AL, refused to obey Obergefell. I think we all know the answer to that.

            Which goes right back to what I said above. You choose to be your own god because surrendering and submitting to God or the Law would place you under a Moral Authority which you will have no part of.

            Atheism is a religion by definition.

            Religion: a particular system of faith and worship. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

            You just get to pick and choose how you want it to “fit”. And, no doubt, every atheist does the same. To each their own as they decide because they choose to be their own god.

            For now.

            Which begs the question which you have refused to answer. Just what are you expecting to achieve by trolling a CHRISTIAN site with your nonsense?

            If you truly were an atheist and believes there is nothing else, you wouldn’t be here because you would ONLY be concerned for yourself. Nothing else would matter.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not being a hypocrite, I just don’t see why I should have to back up anything I say when I’m talking to someone who doesn’t think they have to.

            And of course, you don’t know what atheism really is. All it means is you don’t believe in any gods. That’s it. It’s not a belief system in itself. You say “atheism means this and that” but that’s just not true. And then there’s the old “atheists can’t have any morals because they don’t believe in God” argument. That tells that whoever makes that argument is saying the one and only reason they are moral themselves is because “God says so.”. Not because of anything like empathy, concern for your fellow man, no, you’re just following orders.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            More Denial. Your words are there in black & white for all to see.

            You just keep staying in Denial and telling everyone else that they don’t know what they’re talking about. That’ll bring you the contentment you seek.

            For now.

            And you are correct about Morality. Morals come from God. Period. That’s been evidenced with time and Man’s wisdom. Empathy and “concern for your fellow man” is a joke coming from an atheist. And it is thus because YOU are the one who defines it. If you truly had concern for your fellow man you wouldn’t do near the things you do and you most certainly wouldn’t approve, endorse, promote, or support anything that causes them harm. Which is exactly what you do.

            Call it “following orders” if you will. I’ll call it obtaining Life and living it to its fullest just as the Creator has said.

            Jesus said He came that you might have Life and have it to its fullest. To obtain the fullest of anything one must go back to the Creator and the Instruction Manual.

            It’s really not rocket science.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Again, if you truly think the only reason to be moral is because “God said so”…..that’s no basis for morality. You’re the one that has no claim of morality.

            There’s something I read about a while ago called the Euthyphro dilemma, from Plato. In modern terms, it would go “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” If the first choice is right, then God isn’t the source of morality. If the second choice is right, then there really IS no morality.

            You’re probably gonna just love this, but you know where I believe morality comes from? Evolution. Humans thrive with social structures, so we evolved to act to keep those social structures going.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Ok, you tell me, if all there is to life is to eat, drink, and be merry for today we live and tomorrow we die, then what possible reason is there for Morality?

            If there is no God and He has not spoken to us and therefore we should not trust and obey Him, for what reason should anyone not live solely for themselves?

            On what basis, exactly, do you have for a reason why everybody should not live solely for themselves and whatever makes them happy? On what basis, exactly, do you have the right to tell anyone they can’t do whatever they please?

            You’ve completely missed the answer of Plato’s questions. But that’s not surprising and I wouldn’t expect you to see it.

            As to your last supposition and premise, if you truly believed that then you would have to admit that Homosexuality is immoral. So again, you just proved my point. You really don’t know what you believe or why you believe it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Ok, you tell me, if all there is to life is to eat, drink, and be merry for today we live and tomorrow we die,”

            I never said that that is all there is to life. When it comes down to it, I do believe that ultimately, everyone is acting, or should act in their own, rational self-interest, but that’s far from saying “live for today, forget tomorrow.” The answer to all your first three paragraphs worth of questions is what I said in my last sentence. But I ask you this, though; how are you really that different? Aren’t you mainly motivated to be moral by your promised eternal reward? How’s that NOT acting in your own self-interest?

            “You’ve completely missed the answer of Plato’s questions. But that’s not surprising and I wouldn’t expect you to see it.”

            Then what is the answer?

            “As to your last supposition and premise, if you truly believed that then you would have to admit that Homosexuality is immoral.”

            I don’t see how that follows. Homosexuality has existed all throughout the history of mankind, yet we’re still here.

            “You really don’t know what you believe or why you believe it.”

            And there you go again. That is why a lot of atheists and such get annoyed at Christians. Tell me then, if I don’t even know WHAT I believe, let alone why I believe it, then what DO I believe, oh omniscient one?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “I never said that that is all there is to life. When it comes down to it, I do believe that ultimately, everyone is acting, or should act in their own, rational self-interest, but that’s far from saying “live for today, forget tomorrow.”

            Well, at least you’re getting close to being honest. Now just admit that “rational” is determined by you. Once you do that you’ll see it’s not far at all.

            “But I ask you this, though; how are you really that different? Aren’t you mainly motivated to be moral by your promised eternal reward?”

            Nope. Not mainly. Not even close. And if you had surrendered to Christ you’d understand that. But that does reveal why you were never really a Christian as you claimed to be.

            “Then what is the answer?”

            You wouldn’t understand if I told you. If you were a Christian and indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God, you’d understand.

            “I don’t see how that follows.”

            Really? C’mon! Don’t tell me I was erroneously giving you credit for being smarter than that. You said, “Humans thrive with social structures, so we evolved to act to keep those social structures going” and drew a direct connection between that and Morality. Ergo, since Homosexuals cannot “evolve” and by their very behavior it is contrary to “keeping social structure going” it must therefore follow that it is Immoral by your very definition.

            “Tell me then, if I don’t even know WHAT I believe, let alone why I believe it, then what DO I believe, oh omniscient one?”

            I’m not omniscient and I don’t pretend to be. Your Distraction & Diversion is noted again. What you unfortunately don’t see is that you proved my point by failing to answer:

            On what basis, exactly, do you have for a reason why everybody should not live solely for themselves and whatever makes them happy? On what basis, exactly, do you have the right to tell anyone they can’t do whatever they please?

            One doesn’t have to be omniscient to see your refusal to answer that question proves my point that you have no beliefs and what you think you do believe isn’t real because it’s not founded on anything. It’s subject to change at whatever whim and fancy you may have at the moment.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “I’m not omniscient and I don’t pretend to be.”

            Then how do you claim to know what I believe and even why I believe it, contrary to what I have told you?

            “Ergo, since Homosexuals cannot “evolve” and by their very behavior it is contrary to “keeping social structure going””

            If those things are true, then like I said, why has homosexuality existed throughout the history of mankind? (a lot of people seem to think there are more homosexuals now than ever before, but I don’t think so. Rather, it’s just that now, people are just more open about it)

            “On what basis, exactly, do you have for a reason why everybody should not live solely for themselves and whatever makes them happy? ”

            Read what I said in my last post again. I basically said I think they SHOULD do those things, but that doesn’t mean “live for today, forget tomorrow” like you suggested.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I didn’t. Made no such claim. I claimed that you don’t know what you believe or why. Sorry you have a problem with English.

            “If those things are true, then like I said, why has homosexuality existed throughout the history of mankind?”

            Because of exactly what I said – ergo, YOUR premise is NOT true. That’s why. Sheesh! The other reason Homosexuality has always existed is because of Sin. There’s coming a time, and hopefully soon, when that will cease to exist.

            You still have not answered my question so I’ll ask it again: “On what basis, exactly, do you have for a reason why everybody should not live solely for themselves and whatever makes them happy?”

            You’ve admitted that folks SHOULD “act in their own, rational self-interest”. What you’ve refused to admit is who gets to decide what “rational” is and that either it is you or it is to each his own.

            You’ve also failed to answer on what BASIS you make those determinations.

            So yes, if you are to be intellectually honest you must admit that Atheism must hold to “live for today, forget tomorrow” just as I submitted.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That doesn’t make sense to me. You don’t know what I believe, but you know I don’t know? Wrong, I know exactly what I believe, and why I do so.

            What I’m saying is IF homosexuality were immoral, it would lead to the destruction of social structures and the like. It has existed all throughout history, though, so I don’t see how someone can say it has.

            “What you’ve refused to admit is who gets to decide what “rational” is and that either it is you or it is to each his own.

            You’ve also failed to answer on what BASIS you make those determinations.”

            Well, it is true that everyone is ulitimately their own judge of what is right or wrong, but I believe what is truly right or wrong is self-evident. I don’t claim to be a moral authority myself, or take my orders from one, though. You asked me earlier what basis do I have for telling others what they can and can’t do…..for the most part, I don’t, actually. I mean, yeah, I do think, like the majority of people whether religious or not, that you shouldn’t do things like murder, steal, and so forth. What basis do I have for that? My own reasoning that those things are wrong, for the reasons I’ve already said.

            “So yes, if you are to be intellectually honest you must admit that
            Atheism must hold to “live for today, forget tomorrow” just as I
            submitted.”

            First of all, atheism doesn’t need a capital letter, it doesn’t “hold to” anything, because it’s not a philosophy or belief system in itself. All it is, I say again, is not believing in any gods. But, anyway, I don’t see how that follows, at all. How is it acting any less in my own self-interest if I do something with my own future in mind, rather than the present?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, and you ask why I come here? Self amusement, at least partly. It gets kind of boring talking to people that agree with you on most everything. Also, I try to get people to at least understand what I think and believe.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, good for you. Glad you’re getting your jollies.

            As for getting people to understand what you think and believe, you may be successful and getting folks to accept or tolerate and perhaps even understand what you think but you’ll never get them to understand what you believe because you don’t know why you believe what you do.

            The fact is you operate just like everyone else on Faith.

            “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1)

            I’d encourage you to Google “3 Most Important Questions Facing Our Culture Today – Jason Carlson” and watch that video. There’s a ton of information and lots of Truth that you may find enlightening.

            I’ll pray God illuminates your mind and then hope you’ll strongly consider those truths and surrendering as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ so you too can experience Life and to the full.

            For whether you accept it or not, Eternity is real and it is a VERY long time. What you do now, here in this life, matters. For ALL Eternity.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “…you’ll never get them to understand what you believe because you don’t know why you believe what you do.”

            That is precisely the kind of attitude that gets so many of the non-religious folks like me to have negative attitudes towards Christians. How can you presume to know why I believe what I do, or even that I know or don’t know why I believe it? Especially when you continually demonstrate you don’t know what I do believe. Even when I was a Christian myself, I never claimed to be able to read people’s minds or anything. Perhaps I wasn’t in the right denomination, the one that apparently gives you ESP or something.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, it’s really not the reason why you have negative attitudes toward Christians. Christ has said why 2000yrs ago. It’s found in John 3:19-20.

            I can presume to know that you don’t know why you believe what you think you do because of your own words. You admitted to be an Atheist. Atheists have no reason for believing anything except for the fact that they choose to. If it fits with their own desires, then they believe it. If not, then they reject it. It’s all based on their own desires, whims, and fancies. The only one they surrender to is themselves.

            And now you claim that you “were” a Christian. So you’re gonna seriously tell me that at some point in your life you realized that you were an enemy of God who hated Him and walked according to your own desires in the Flesh, the course of this World, and according to Satan however he led you, and realized that you would spend Eternity in torment for living a life of rebellion against your Creator and fully deserving of that AND THEN thru the conviction of the Holy Spirit and The Father drawing you to Himself you surrendered as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ as your new Master, picked up your cross, following Him and His ways in utter dependence upon Him and His power…

            and then walked away from that? Uh huh.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            “Canada? Really???? LOL You want to point to Canada as an example of how Homosexuality works in the Military? You seriously wanna compare Canada’s Military to the greatest Military Force on the face of the Earth?????”

            He wasn’t comparing the size or the magnitude of the military in Canada. He simply pointed out that the military performance there wasn’t affected by lifting gay and lesbian restrictions. The question being asked then is why would you expect it to be any different in the US if they did the same thing? And it’s a good question.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Why I didn’t know you could read minds or that God shared His omniscience with you.

            Of course, if either of those were the case you would have known I wasn’t taking about the size or magnitude of the military either. I spent 20yrs in the Military and the U.S. Military man for man is the BEST fighting force on the planet. All one has to do is look at the Navy Seals to see that. There is NONE better.

            So you’d be better off staying in your own lane lady. A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.

            And for the record, it’s not a good question because it’s based on a faulty notion. And your summation is faulty as well. He did NOT simply point out that the military performance there wasn’t affecting by lifting the Homosexual ban. He pointed out that there was study done that concluded such.

            Anybody with half a brain today knows that one can find a study to support whatever they want to. And the fact is most of those “studies” are gone into with the end results having already been determined and then the data reported to substantiate them.

            And THAT truth is evidenced by TheKingOfRhye’s comment below regarding The Commandant of the Marine Corps and other high ranking officers advice.

            For cryin’ out loud, BHO just commuted the sentence of a convicted traitor AGAINST the advice of the Secretary of Defense and several others.

            C’mon people, wake up!!

            (Or continue to come back here and show your blindness, ignorance, stubborn refusal to let go of your ideology, and willful disobedience, rebellion, and rejection toward God. Your choice.)

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Your self-congratulatory tone is impossible to miss, but you haven’t addressed the issue at all. Canada wasn’t affected negatively. Are the two countries so different that you think it would bring the USA to its knees? Really? After you just talked at length about how big and powerful and strong you are?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Your faux omniscience and utter arrogance to make such a statement is impossible to miss but it doesn’t seem to stop you from continuing to do so.

            SMH….

            (But hey, thanks for coming back and proving my last point.)

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And after all this going back and forth, you still can’t answer the question. Fascinating.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Answered many times. And after all this going back and forth, you still can’t understand. Not fascinating at all.

            “And you are dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them you live in the lusts of your flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:1-4)

            Even when the Truth is plainly revealed it is rejected:

            “18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18-22)

            Would you like to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and become a new Creation who can then be capable of understanding Truth and see things in a whole new way? If so, I’d be happy to lead you to Him and how to surrender to Christ.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What does this wall of scriptural text have to do with the fact that Canada has experienced no difference with regard to their military since accepting homosexuals?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. Diversion and Distraction is a common tactic of yours, the Left, Satan and his minions. Unfortunately for you, as I said, no “FACT” has ever been established. Your “study” doesn’t prove a thing and I have little doubt that if I wanted to take the time I could Google and come up with at least one study that says the opposite Probably more.

            The FACT, however, IS that the Commandant of the Marine Corps was OPPOSED to Obama’s policy of allowing open Homosexuality & Transgenders in the Military and said that it WAS HARMFUL to Military Readiness and Good Order & Discipline. THAT IS A FACT!!

            And frankly, your whole supposition is ludicrous. I don’t care if Sodom & Gomorrah themselves put out a dozen studies saying that Homosexuality isn’t harmful to their Military it does not change one thing about the FACT that Homosexuality is an unnatural abominable perversion of God’s created and intended ORDER. And anything that goes against God’s design brings confusion, disorder, sin, and DEATH!

            There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (Pro 14:12)

            For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)