Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit of Men Seeking Damages From Kim Davis Over ‘Gay Marriage’ License Denial

CINCINNATI, Ohio — A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by two homosexual men who sought damages against Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for denying them a marriage license because her name would be on it.

As previously reported, U.S. District Judge David Bunning dismissed all outstanding legal challenges against Davis in August after the state legislature passed a law that removed the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, thus assuaging Davis’ concerns.

“In light of these proceedings, and in view of the fact that the marriage licenses continue to be issued without incident, there no longer remains a case or controversy before the court,” he wrote.

Davis had been in national headlines in 2015 after she declined to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses as long as her name was on the documents. Davis, who attends a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal assembly, said that she would do so if her name was removed.

Her refusal soon led to three lawsuits—Miller v. Davis, Ermold v. Davis and Yates v. Davis—filed by homosexuals who sought to force Davis to issue the licenses.

In September 2015, Bunning ordered that Davis issue the licenses, but as she continued to refuse without the accommodation, Bunning ordered that she be placed behind bars until she was willing to comply. In the meantime, the judge arranged for a deputy clerk to sign the licenses in her absence.

Davis was released from the Carter County Jail five days later after her attorneys filed an appeal of the contempt order, and also because Bunning was satisfied that her deputy clerks were providing the licenses instead. He stipulated her release on the condition that she not interfere with her deputies.

  • Connect with Christian News

By the end of the year, new Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin issued an executive order for the Department for Libraries and Archives to release new licenses that do not cite the county or the name of the county clerk. Months later, the state legislature passed a law altering the licenses similar to Bevin’s order.

Bunning therefore dismissed the remaining suits against Davis after determining that their legal challenges were now moot.

However, on Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Ermold v. Davis that the lawsuit can’t be moot because the men didn’t seek an injunction, but rather damages for being denied the license.

“The district court concluded that because Ermold and Moore were eventually issued a marriage license, the dispute in their case was resolved,” it wrote. “We conclude that the district court’s characterization of this case as simply contesting the ‘no marriage licenses’ policy is inaccurate because Ermold and Moore did not seek an injunction, they sought only damages.”

“This action is not a general challenge to Davis’s policy, but rather seeks damages for a particularized harm allegedly suffered by a specific set of plaintiffs,” the court said.

It remanded the case back to Bunning for further review.

Judge Eugene Siler Jr. said that Bunning should have also considered whether the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (KRFRA) protects Davis from punishment.

“[T]he district court has never ruled on the effect of that statute upon the conduct of the county clerk,” he wrote. “It should have the first opportunity upon remand to decide whether that or any other provision of the law would protect Davis as a qualified-immunity or absolute-immunity defense under the circumstances.”

Davis’ attorneys with Liberty Counsel note that “[b]efore you can get to damages, you have to jump over qualified immunity, and you have to show that you’re the prevailing party.” They do not believe the men will be able to do so.

“The ruling keeps the case alive for a little while, but it is not a victory for the plaintiffs,” found Mat Staver said in a statement. “We are confident we will prevail.”


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
  • Jason Todd

    And in the case of Kim Davis, just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean someone’s not out to get you.

    • Colin Rafferty

      In the case of Kim Davis, just because someone’s out to get you, doesn’t mean you don’t deserve it. No one was out to get her until she illegally chose to violate their civil rights.

      • Oboehner

        Her civil rights don’t matter though right? Sodomy over morality.

        • Jason Todd

          Exactly. The LGBTQW community wants nothing from us other than total subservience.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Nope, the LGBTQW community just wants to to get out of the way. How do you think the community wants you subservient?

          • Sharon_at_home

            He’s being dramatic when he says “total subservience” I think. Christians believe this is a sin, and by ‘making us allow’ Gays to do something that is against Christian belief, he believes that is being totally subservient.
            I disagree because compromises can always be considered.

        • Colin Rafferty

          Of course her civil rights matter. And they were not violated. If you disagree, please tell me how they were.

          As the country clerk, she is the representative of the State, and is required to execute the law without violating other citizens’ civil rights. When the law changed in a way that she believed immoral, she had three choices: (1) quit her job and find a new line of work; (2) keep her job and do what the law required; (3) keep her job and violate other people’s rights.

          She made her choice. And now has to live with the consequences of her own actions.

          • Oboehner

            As her religious beliefs are constitutionally protected making your little 1-3 irrelevant. They made their choice to be sodomites, now they have to live with the fact not everyone buys the BS they’re selling.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You may not be buying it, but really, that doesn’t matter. Your view of someone else’s marriage is irrelevant, as it should be.

            Her religious beliefs are completely protected. She can marry whoever her beliefs make her want to marry.

          • Oboehner

            Your statement is nonsensical, her religious right encompass far more than whomever she wishes to marry.
            But again, post the specific law that states the sodomites have the right to force Kim to act contrary to her beliefs.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No one is forcing her to act contrary to her beliefs. She made the mistake of choosing a profession that forces her to act contrary to her beliefs. And she made the even worse choice of doing it as the agent of the State, and in shirking her job responsibilities, choosing to violate other people’s rights.

            These are all her choices. She knew that sodomites could legally buy marriage licenses, and chose this route.

          • Oboehner

            Without a law protecting their chosen perversion, your whole argument is based on nothing. Kim wins.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Technically, you are correct. If they were not legally allowed to marry, Davis did not violate their rights.

            However, they actually are legally allowed to marry, and Davis violated their rights by refusing to give them a marriage license.

          • Oboehner

            “However, they actually are legally allowed to marry” Post up or shut up, I have put forth several pieces of information needed to give your argument one shred of validity, so far it has none.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Wow. Are you honestly saying you don’t think that same-sex marriage is legal in the US? That the wailing and gnashing of teeth by same-sex marriage opponents was just a sham?

          • Oboehner

            Unless you can post the elusive law making it legal…

          • Colin Rafferty

            It was the Obergefell decision. Do you need a link?

            Oh, you want a law? It’s each State’s laws that specify marriage. Each of them say that it involves two unmarried people of an appropriate age. And after Obergefell, there are no restrictions on gender in any of these laws.

          • Oboehner

            As the saying goes: decisions, decisions – not of which are law. Article 1, Section 1 in case you have forgotten. And again, sexual perversion is NOT a gender.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You know, I just realized that you never pointed me to a law that restricts marriage to just mixed-gender. Kentucky doesn’t have a law like that.

            So where is this law that restricts same-gender marriage?

          • Oboehner

            Now you’re arguing a negative. So where is this law that restricts one’s right to practice their religion?

          • Colin Rafferty

            It’s called the 14th Amendment. The one that doesn’t let the government apply laws differently based on gender. Davis, as the agent of the State, was doing exactly that.

          • Oboehner

            Love beating those dead horses don’t you? Lifestyle choices are not stated in the 14th, practicing one’s religion however, is specifically stated.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I did not state lifestyle choice, either. It’s gender.

            Dude, here are the facts about the world. If you disagree with them, they you are choosing to ignore reality:

            1. The law in Kentucky is that two unmarried adults may marry. There are no gender restrictions.
            2. The couple who attempted to get a marriage gender from Kim Davis were unmarried adults.
            3. Kim Davis, acting as an agent of the State, chose to deny them a marriage license because of their gender.

            Therefore, Davis was violating this couple’s Constitutional rights.

            If you want to think that Davis’s rights were violated, that would be between her and her employers, not her and the citizens whose rights she violated.

            Unless you have something new to say, I’m done.

          • Oboehner

            State law does not trump the Constitution. State law is not the Constitution.
            You were done long ago.

          • Colin Rafferty

            That is a new one. You are correct, State law does not trump the Constitution. Which is why gender restrictions on marriage no longer exist.

          • Oboehner

            Show how the government has jurisdiction over marriage at all.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not gender, and it is sexual orientation. Until Obergefell, there were different Circuit Court rulings on whether the 14th Amendment forbid states to ban same sex marriage. Most said yes, but the 6th Circuit (which includes Kentucky) said it didn’t.

            Then Obergefell came down, overruling the 6th Circuit’s ruling and holding that equal protection should be granted to same sex couples.

            What Oboehner is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge is that appellate court rulings make sweeping decisions of law, not on the matter before them. SCOTUS did not rule that Obergefell and Arthur could get married, they ruled that the law forbidding them from getting married is unconstitutional.

          • Bob Johnson

            No really a negative – actions are considered legal unless there is a law restricting or prohibiting that action.

          • rubellapox2

            Hahahahahaha… omg… delusional…

          • Oboehner

            You’re stooping to that now, why not just admit you have nothing and spare me the drama.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, he actually does think that. He thinks the Obergefell decision only applied to the particular couples that were directly involved in the case.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’ve come to realize he is just a troll.

          • Parodyx

            If he is, he’s a career man.

          • Bob Johnson

            “Technically, you are correct.”

            Actually I think he is wrong, all things are legal unless a law was made that makes that activity illegal. So basically all perversion are legal unless a specific law states otherwise. many such laws exist.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, because marriage in this sense is a government institution. The government sets the requirements of being able to be married.

            Of course, it is simply two consenting unmarried people of age. With nothing to do about gender.

          • Bob Johnson

            But their perversion is legal, so the idea that “without a law protecting their perversion” is meaningless. If I enjoy an act that Oboehner thinks is a perversion, I do not need law to allow me to perform that act.

            As for civil marriage, it is based on as you say “two consenting adults. For all I know they shun sex altogether, now I might think that perverse.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Quite perverse!

          • Oboehner

            Do tell how not giving licenses to perverts violates her job description at the time of her getting that job.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Her job description is to give licenses to all people legally able to wed. They are legally able to wed.

            As I’ve said before, she knew very well when the law changed, and she had a choice to make then. In fact, she made the same choice every day between Obergefell and the time that couple came to get a license. She chose to go to work, knowing that her job may require her to go against her morals. And she chose to do this.

          • Oboehner

            “They are legally able to wed.” That would involve a specific law, post it.
            Kim chose a job that didn’t go against her morals, what changed?

          • Colin Rafferty

            Honestly, I’m not up on the particular marriage laws of Kentucky. But none of them restrict by gender, because that would be unconstitutional.

          • Oboehner

            Again, sexual perversion is NOT gender.

          • Colin Rafferty

            That is correct, sexual perversion is not gender. But that has nothing to do with the laws. The laws on restricted based on gender, not perversion. And gender is a protected class.

          • Oboehner

            Laws? Which one specifically gives homo’s the right to force Kim to go against her religious beliefs?

          • Colin Rafferty

            Round and round we go. No is forcing her to go against her religious beliefs. She has chosen the job, and once the Obergefell decision came down, knew what her job entailed. In fact, she did not go against her religious beliefs. She instead chose to illegally violate their rights.

          • Oboehner

            Court decisions are as relevant as SpongeBob – dead horse, stop beating it. You still have nothing.

          • Bob Johnson

            What law prevents a same-sex couple from getting married?

          • Oboehner

            What law states we have to give a crap what sodomites wish to do?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Funny then, that after Obergefell, same-sex couples began getting married nationwide, and when they couldn’t, the Supreme Court stepped in. In fact, people’s behavior changes nationwide in response to EVERY Supreme Court ruling.

            So either you know the law better than every judge, lawyer, law professor, civil servant, and elected official in America, or you’re wrong. Which is it?

          • Oboehner

            Obergefell? Who cares? Is that somehow law now?

            So either every judge, lawyer, law professor, civil servant, and elected official in America know the law better than the Constitution , or they’re wrong. Which is it?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Obergefell? Who cares? Is that somehow law now?”

            Colloquially, yes. Pedantically, it’s a binding interpretation of what an ambiguous law means.

            “So either every judge, lawyer, law professor, civil servant, and elected official in America know the law better than the Constitution , or they’re wrong. Which is it?”

            Nothing in the Constitution specifically mentions same sex marriage. It just says “no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which law? What does that mean? Does it include sex marriage laws?
            I don’t know. That’s all it says.

            Luckily we have SCOTUS rulings to clarify it. Rulings which everyone in America, except apparently you, understand to be binding.

            So I’ll ask again: why do you believe that your understanding of how SCOTUS rulings work is more correct than the millions of people who dedicate their lives to studying law?

          • Oboehner

            Horse pucky, binding indicates law, since only Congress can make law this doesn’t even qualify as toilet paper.

            “Nothing in the Constitution specifically mentions same sex marriage.” Exactamundo, however the First guarantees the right to practice one’s religion – without employment stipulations.
            The Constitution also states in the 10th Amendment that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over state law unless it is to settle a dispute between two or more states.
            Luckily I have the SCOTUS rulings to use after I pinch a loaf.
            So I’ll ask you, if I were to poll the looters during a riot and they told me they were entitled, why then wouldn’t that be legal? It is the same as courts usurping power for power and profit.

          • Parodyx

            Your restraint is admirable, Oboehner notoriously sneers and dodges his way through these discussions.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The 14th Amendment, again.

          • Oboehner

            Equal protections for what law exactly? Some opinion by some court in an isolated case? Hardly.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, some opinion from the Supreme Court, which, despite your obstinate insistence to the contrary, has the power to overturn laws.

          • Oboehner

            Usurped for itself, hardly constitutional. But I guess the courts don’t have to abide by the Constitution, right?

          • William of Glynn

            What about heterosexual perverts?

          • Oboehner

            What about them? Are they in on the lawsuit too?

          • William of Glynn

            Should clerks deny marriage licenses to heterosexual perverts?

          • Oboehner

            If the perversion was evident and the reason for the application and it went against their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The 14th Amendment.

          • Oboehner

            Equal protections for what law exactly?

          • james blue

            Should a Muslim DMV clerk be allowed to refuse to issue driver licenses and vote ID to women?

          • Oboehner

            I’m quite sure there are other clerks the woman could go to.

          • james blue

            Not the question I asked,

          • Oboehner

            Is being a woman a lifestyle choice?

          • james blue

            Again not the question I asked.

          • Oboehner

            Apples to oranges, unless you can answer: “Is being a woman a lifestyle choice?”

          • james blue

            Are clerks constitutionally protected to refuse to issue documents to certain people if it is counter to their religious beliefs or are they not? The target of their refusal is irrelevant they are either constitutionally protected to refuse based on their religious beliefs or they are not—So which is it?

            If your argument held any weight you would have simply stated ‘yes he can”

            Please cite the part of the constitution you are talking about where it says anything about “lifestyle choice” that would make your “apples to oranges” dodge valid

            Isn’t religion a lifestyle choice?

          • Oboehner

            “Isn’t religion a lifestyle choice?” Specifically protected by the Constitution. Is sodomy?
            Being a woman – apples.
            Being a pervert – oranges.

          • james blue

            So ignoring the question completely now?

            The question isn’t about the victim of the refusal, it’s about the constitutional protections of religious beliefs.

            I asked you to cite the part of the constitution you are referring to where it differentiates between religious views of women and religious views of gays.

            So it boils down to you only accepting your own constitutional argument if you agree with the religious belief.

          • Oboehner

            Muddying the water and rabbit trails. Being a woman is NOT the same as being a sodomite – period.

          • james blue

            Again, I’m not making a comparison between women and gays, I’m comparing religious beliefs

          • Oboehner

            Like I stated before, being a woman is not a lifestyle choice. If this confuses you, try a simpler topic on another site.

          • james blue

            So the constitution doesn’t protect religious beliefs? A clerk can be forced to issue documents to people if it would cause him to violate his religious beliefs?

          • Oboehner

            Simpler topic, another site.

          • james blue

            You know I’m right.

          • Oboehner

            I know rudimentary facts escape you.

          • Croquet_Player

            Of course. That why he’s got no honest answer.

          • james blue

            Driving is a choice, voting is a choice. The refusal isn’t because they are women, just like Davis wasn’t refusing because the gays were men.

          • Jason Todd

            When someone equates gender to sexual behavior, it’s time to block them. They are far too stupid to engage any longer.

          • William of Glynn

            Actually, being a woman who drives is a lifestyle choice.

          • Oboehner

            Simply being a woman is not, try to stay on topic.

          • William of Glynn

            Her gender is protected. Her lifestyle choice of driving is not.

          • Oboehner

            Correct.

          • William of Glynn

            I’m sure you would agree that a Muslim DMV clerk is within his constitutionally-protected rights to refuse a driver’s license to a woman.

          • Oboehner

            being a woman is not a choice, I think we may have covered that.

          • William of Glynn

            I believe we have. By the way, being a male is not a choice either. That should cover it pretty well. Again, I’m sure you would agree that a Muslim DMV clerk is within his constitutionally-protected rights to refuse a driver’s license to a woman.

          • Oboehner

            Being male is not a choice either, HOWEVER sodomizing another man is. Think about that while you continue to beat that dead horse.

          • William of Glynn

            Yes, I have thought about it. Likewise, a woman driving a vehicle is a choice.

          • Oboehner

            The woman can still drive either way, heck I did it for years way back when. The sodomites can still do their thing as well.

          • William of Glynn

            Well, if a Muslim DMV clerk refuses a driver’s license to the woman, she can certainly drive, but she’ll have some explaining to do if she gets pulled over.

          • Oboehner

            Yet the sodomites can still plow the dirt road without the same worries.

          • Canis Vulpes

            That’s so disgusting, why do you have to make everything about sex?

          • Oboehner

            They do, why not ask them?

          • Canis Vulpes

            So what you’re saying is straight people should be allowed to have sex – and only when they’re married, and only for purposes of procreation, otherwise it’s a sin – but homosexuals can never have it?

            Tell me if I got any part of this wrong, because I don’t want to misrepresent your belief.

          • Oboehner

            Embellishing doesn’t help you cause, merely shows desperation.

          • Canis Vulpes

            I did ask you to tell me where I was inaccurate.

          • Oboehner

            I believe I have covered that multiple times.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Not with me.

            So what you’re saying is straight people should be allowed to have sex – and only when they’re married, and only for purposes of procreation, otherwise it’s a sin – but homosexuals can never have it?

            Is this your position?

          • Oboehner

            Embellishing again? Jumping to conclusions? Or just making crap up?

          • Canis Vulpes

            Neither one. It honestly sounds to me based on everyone you’ve said that this is your position. I’ve apologized plenty in advance if I’m wrong about it. Am I? About which part? Don’t just keep feigning moral outrage, TELL ME what I have wrong.

          • Oboehner

            Neither would imply only two. I have covered that already, but bring up a specific and I’ll let you know.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Oh, OK. Well, let the record show I asked you politely several times to state how I had gotten your position incorrect, and that you dodged it three separate times. 3 balls in your court is all I have time for.

          • Oboehner

            Everything you posted that I didn’t specifically say is wrong, how’s that?

          • Canis Vulpes

            You may not have said it, but it appears to me to be a very accurate reflection of your beliefs.

          • Oboehner

            You know what the say about assuming.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Not hearing you deny any of it either.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “”Isn’t religion a lifestyle choice?” Specifically protected by the Constitution. Is sodomy?”

            14th Amendment, Section 1:

            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
            the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
            State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
            shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
            States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
            property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
            jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          • Oboehner

            So pedophilia is a right? It is just as legit as pervert “marriage”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you don’t understand the difference between those two things, I don’t know what to say to you anymore.

          • Canis Vulpes

            You guys really struggle with this whole “consent” thing, don’t you?
            Do you not know the difference between consenting adults and an abusive sexual act on a child?

          • Oboehner

            What does consent have to do with “sexual orientation”? Either it is normal by birth or it is not, you guys really struggle with trying to have it both ways (no pun intended).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What does sexual orientation being “normal by birth or not” have to do with consent?

          • Oboehner

            So then you’re admitting gay is a form of deviance, ok got it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, if by “a form of deviance,” you mean merely something that is not the norm, I suppose that’s true, but that’s not what I was getting at.

            You always amaze me with your ability to completely miss the point.

          • Oboehner

            You have a point?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            My point was that consensual homosexuality is different from pedophilia, because by definition, that’s not consensual. Is that so hard to understand?

          • Oboehner

            Consent aside, you’re saying that having strong desires regarding children is by birth and is perfectly normal as long as they don’t act upon it, right?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I said nothing remotely like that.

          • Oboehner

            Now, you didn’t even elude to gay being a sexual orientation, something you are born with? Perhaps it was the other guy.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not sure if sexual orientation is something you’re born with or something that develops in someone’s early life, but either way, it’s not a choice.

            Maybe you could indeed say the same for pedophilia, I don’t know. Do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles?

            The difference between the two is that I don’t see how homosexual activity is wrong, where acting on pedophilia is, because of the lack of informed consent.

          • Oboehner

            “either way, it’s not a choice.” That your official stand on sexual orientation?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought I was pretty clear.

          • Oboehner

            So then pedophiles have no choice?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Read my last sentence again.

          • Oboehner

            “it’s not a choice.” Got it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s not what the sentence I was talking about said.

            The difference between the two is that I don’t see how homosexual activity is wrong, where acting on pedophilia is, because of the lack of informed consent.

          • Oboehner

            That sentence answered the question. Consent has nothing to do with one having a choice of “orientation”.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Consent has to do with whether acting on one’s desires is right or wrong.

          • Oboehner

            Is not acting on one’s desires a choice? Then that is not what you were talking about when you posted that it wasn’t a choice.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Or maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. Having desires (or an orientation!) is not a choice, but acting on them certainly is, of course. I never said that just because one has a certain desire, that makes it OK to act on, no matter what it might be.

          • Oboehner

            Then the two sodomite’s choice doesn’t trump constitutionally protected rights.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They have constitutional rights themselves, you know.

          • Oboehner

            Do post the one that specifically states perversion is guaranteed anything.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There is no such thing that specifically states that, in the biased, misleading way you put it…BUT tell me where there is any law that hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional states that homosexual people aren’t citizens and thus granted equal protection of the law.

            Also, it isn’t “perversion” according to the US gov’t. See Lawrence v. Texas.

          • Oboehner

            Equal protection of what law?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m talking about the 14th Amendment. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
            privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
            State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
            process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
            protection of the laws.”

            Not allowing law-abiding citizens to marry is certainly “abridging privileges” and “depriving of liberty.”

          • Oboehner

            So Jared Kreft can marry his horse then, good to know. I might want to marry 3 or 4 other women as well.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re intentionally missing the point now, aren’t you? You’re trolling me, right?

            A horse is not a law-abiding (or any other kind of) citizen, and cannot consent. (I know, I know, consent is meaningless to you, but I still had to bring it up) As for polygamous marriage, I doubt it will happen anytime in the foreseeable future, and it wouldn’t be something I’d go for myself, but I’m okay with it being legal.

          • Oboehner

            I’ll think about animal consent as I eat this hotdog, now on to polygamy, there is consent so that is perfectly legal already, remember the 14th Amendment? That guy can marry his grandma and be in love too!! After all granny consented.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You do realize incest (to varying degrees depending on what state you’re in) is illegal, right?

            In case you’re not being willfully obtuse right now, I’ll repeat what I’ve already said in a few different ways: I never said consent ALONE makes anything OK.

            If you’re going to argue with someone, at least know what you’re arguing against.

          • Oboehner

            Illegal? That’s rights denying bigotry! There’s consent, what happened to that? What do sodomites have that polygamists don’t?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “What do sodomites have that polygamists don’t?”

            Did you not see what I said about polygamy a few posts ago? Are you even reading my posts at all?

          • Oboehner

            There’s consent, what happened to that?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I am of the opinion polyamorous marriages should be legal.

          • Oboehner

            The Amish guy fornicating with the donkey has no choice either then too, right?

          • Canis Vulpes

            The donkey cannot consent. The man goes to jail. That’s how it works. The animal is being abused.

          • Oboehner

            Have a hamburger lately?

          • Canis Vulpes

            Apples and oranges again?
            Here’s a hint: Eating an animal is not the same as sexually abusing it. And even when you kill an animal for food, there are rules about keeping it from being cruel.

          • Oboehner

            Was the burger tasty? Did the animal consent?

          • Canis Vulpes

            Look up “omnivore” in the dictionary. Or online, if you don’t possess one.

          • Oboehner

            What does that have to do with anything?

          • Canis Vulpes

            If you looked up the word you’d understand. People are omnivores.

          • Oboehner

            Well good for them, I’m all warm and fuzzy over that.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Well, don’t compare eating animals to having sex with them then.

          • Oboehner

            Depends how you do it, either way I’m not seeing consent as a major obstacle.

          • Canis Vulpes

            That’s because you keep comparing things that are in no way comparable.

          • Oboehner

            In the simple mind perhaps.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Is that your way of calling everyone here, none of whom can comprehend what you’re doing either, stupid?

          • Oboehner

            “calling everyone here” More fabricated nonsense.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Hm, no, pretty sure it’s everyone here.

          • rubellapox2

            Consent is the crux of the matter… there is no aside….

          • Oboehner

            Don’t skirt the issue now.

          • rubellapox2

            Two adults consenting to marriage or sex is not harming anyone… raping a child who cannot consent does do harm.. two separate “issues”..

          • Oboehner

            In case you missed it: The American Psychological Association in 1999 published a report disputing the harmfulness of child molestation in its official peer-reviewed journal, APA Bulletin.

          • rubellapox2

            So? You like raping kids? And you feel the APA is now making it ok or something? What could possibly be your point with that post?

          • Oboehner

            Now making slanderous crap up? How quaint.
            If the APA was good enough for you when it comes to homo’s why not now?

          • rubellapox2

            Not making up crap… just asking for clarification after that off tangent post…

          • Oboehner

            Guess comprehension isn’t a strong point.

          • rubellapox2

            Guess changing the topic constitutes an argument to you…

          • Oboehner

            Guess not knowing the topic…

          • Canis Vulpes

            Yeah? And it IS normal by birth…for them.

          • Oboehner

            So you are a pedophile supporter as well?

          • Canis Vulpes

            No, as you have been told a hundred times, that is an act of abuse on a minor who cannot consent.

          • Oboehner

            YOU stated sexual orientation is by birth, what does consent have to do with something you are born with?

          • Canis Vulpes

            Um…whether you engage in it or not?
            I’m sorry, that question was daft.

          • Oboehner

            You admitting a choice now?

          • Canis Vulpes

            To engage or not to engage is always a choice, no one ever said otherwise…although it’s hard to think of a reason homosexuals shouldn’t fall in love like everyone else.

            The orientation is not a choice and never has been. Those who say otherwise are getting it straight out of the Bigot 101 handbook.

          • Oboehner

            Again confusing lust for love.

            “Orientation” is learned behavior and always has been. Those who say otherwise are getting it straight out of the no-clue 101 handbook.

          • Canis Vulpes

            It’s not your place to say whether it’s lust of love. You don’t get to speak on behalf of millions of people whose sexual orientation you do not share.

          • Oboehner

            If it quacks like a duck…

          • Canis Vulpes

            And you don’t know that it does. You can’t possibly know the depth of feeling two people you don’t know can feel for one another. And so you make it all about dirty sex.

          • Oboehner

            “And so you make it all about dirty sex.” I don’t, the sodomites do. (Heavy on the dirty).

          • Canis Vulpes

            Would you define your own relationship entirely based on the sex you are having?

          • Oboehner

            Unlike others, I don’t discuss or demand special rights.

          • Canis Vulpes

            That’s because you’re not in a position to NEED to. For which you should be grateful.

          • Oboehner

            I am eternally grateful I am not plagued with deviant sexual problems.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Nor are you particularly plagued with any kind of sense of empathy for people who can only form lasting bonds with people of the same gender. I imagine they’re as relieved about that as you are.

          • Oboehner

            They need help not empathy.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Is that your prescription, doctor? Oh…wait. You’re NOT a doctor. You’re a faith healer.

          • Oboehner

            If only.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Well, until such time as you ARE able to give prescriptions, I’d say all you have are opinions.

            Just like everyone else.

          • Oboehner

            Being a drug pusher for big pharma isn’t on my list of things to do ever, but do share how that would matter one bit. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to be a meteorologist to see the sky is blue.

          • Canis Vulpes

            No, but you DO need psychological training to make statements about homosexuals, which for some strange reason never calls them “perverts” like you do.

          • Oboehner

            Is the sky really blue?

          • William of Glynn

            No such thing as pervert marriage.

          • Oboehner

            Read this article at all?

          • William of Glynn

            Kim Davis is a perversion of a county clerk.

          • Oboehner

            Brilliance!!

          • Canis Vulpes

            There are no Christian perverts, huh?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Don’t you know, if they’re perverts, they’re not True Scotsmen, er…I mean Christians.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Exhibit A, the Catholic church’s pedophile priest issue.

          • Oboehner

            Am I here championing them? No, and they are not the topic here.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Is religion a lifestyle choice? You aren’t born religious, therefore, by your logic, I should have been free to screw over my Christian clients at will with no worries about legal repercussions.

          • Oboehner

            Probably already have.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            I beg your pardon? Did you just accuse me of a gross violation of ethics with no evidence whatsoever? Do you have any moral integrity? Any shred of honesty? Did you carve Matthew 7:1 out of your Bible?

            My career was spent defending people caught up in the criminal justice system so that their rights would be protected and the district attorney would need to work hard to get a conviction. I averaged 40 active cases at any given time, and I gave each one my best, no matter who the client was.

            I would like an apology for your libelous insult.

          • Oboehner

            You brought it up…

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            No, I brought up a hypothetical based on the idea that “religious freedom” means being able to discriminate against anyone you dislike. I was making the point that as a non-Christian, under these rules I would be free to screw people accused of criminal offences by saying “Oh, he’s a Christian? I don’t defend them!”

            Which would be a gross violation of the canon of ethics, my job description, and basic human decency.

            You then made an accusation. A vile one. Sir, you can claim tio be a Christian, but you certainly aren’t following some of Christ’s best teachings, like Matthew 7:1.

            I would like you to apologize for insinuating that I violated the Constitution and my own ethics. Unless you can back up that claim, of course.

          • Oboehner

            Since you like posting Bible verses, how about this one?

            Romans 1:26-28 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
            27
            In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
            were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts
            with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
            error.

            28
            Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
            knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they
            do what ought not to be done.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            You do realize that those verses make it clear that God allowed all this to happen, right? He could have snapped his fingers and changed things, like he did with Pharaoh in Exodus, but chose to allow people to become depraved.

          • Oboehner

            Because of disobedience, just because he allows it doesn’t mean he sanctions it – we have free will after all.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Although I know it wasn’t the answer you were seeking, it was an answer with some merit. It would mean the person is served regardless of one person’s faith. So the woman would just go to another clerk, not have to leave without the service without it.
            I think it would have been a much more reasonable request to direct them to someone else who would have no problem with the service.
            It would have meant no need to sue or feel bad or anything if she had just referred them to another clerk, but at the time she was the only one who could sign.
            Depending on when she starting her job, she might have taken it before homosexual marriages were legal and did not at that time think she’d ever have to choose between her religion and her job. I know I would have prayed that I never needed to make that choice, but I wouldn’t have quit before it became an issue. Plus it was an issue that was taken care of by the courts. So she shouldn’t have to lose her job because of her faith.
            If the majority of people who vote for that official don’t like her standing up for her faith, they won’t elect her again, right?

          • Mr Dalloway

            Heteros have always been, and still are, responsible for a great deal of lifes ills. Whether it’s the destruction of our planet or to rape, murder, famine, disease etc. if you want to point fingers look in the mirror first. Have I said too much?

          • Oboehner

            Too much nonsense.

        • Croquet_Player

          She has every right to practice her faith as she wishes. No one is forcing her to hold a government job, and she is not free to pick and chose which obligations to the public the job entails.

          • Oboehner

            “She has every right to practice her faith as she wishes.” She wishes her job and she wishes not to issue licenses to perverts. Problem solved.

          • Croquet_Player

            People can wish for ideal jobs all they like, but they have no constitutional right to a job, nor the right to fulfill (or not) their job obligations according to their own whims.

          • Oboehner

            They have the constitutionally protected right to exercise their religion, don’t recall any employment stipulations in the First Amendment. The Constitution cannot be altered at the whim of sodomites.

          • Croquet_Player

            And no one is stopping Ms Davis from exercising her right to practice her faith. Nor is anyone forcing her to accept or keep a job with requirements which contravene her particular faith. It’s entirely up to her. The Constitution cannot be altered at the whim of anyone, although the Constitution can be amended. (See Article Five.)

          • Oboehner

            Was pervert “marriage” an issue when Kim took the job?

            The Constitution cannot be altered at the whim of anyone, although the Constitution can be amended, not by anyone in the judicial system.

          • Croquet_Player

            Job descriptions change. No one is forcing her to remain at her job, or to do anything at all which contravenes her faith.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Was pervert “marriage” an issue when Kim took the job?”

            Actually, yes it was, considering the cases that led up to Obergefell, such as US v. Windsor and others, had already taken place by then. It’s not like some people woke up in January 2015 and said “hey, let’s try to get same-sex marriage legalized, why didn’t we ever think of this before?”

          • Oboehner

            Given that fact the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can make law, how is one court opinion in one case relevant to ANYONE outside that courtroom? Answer, it is not. Feel free to try again.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought I’d been over this with you already. The courts didn’t make law. They didn’t need to. They ruled that existing laws are unconstitutional.

          • Parodyx

            He will dodge. It’s what he does.

          • Oboehner

            Do post the constitutional provision that grants the courts the power to rule that existing laws are unconstitutional.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Article 6.

            “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”

            Courts ruling that laws are unconstitutional sounds like a pretty good definition of “judicial officers supporting this Constitution.”

          • Oboehner

            Now your stumbling down lame conjecture boulevard with reality road nowhere in sight.
            Supporting the Constitution means to uphold the directives written in it, not go rogue and make crap up based on your opinions.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Striking unconstitutional laws down IS upholding the Constitution!

            I’ll ask you this: Since you obviously feel (unlike most other people) that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have the ability to do that, how SHOULD the government go about striking down unconstitutional laws?

          • Oboehner

            No, it is in and of itself unconstitutional.

            Juror nullification. The government should not strike anything down it is the duty of we the people – otherwise we would have an Oligarchy not a Constitutional Republic.

            I also don’t care about popular misunderstanding (unlike most other people).

          • rubellapox2

            Article three in the constitution , sections 1, 2, and 3 clearly spell out the Supreme courts authority to clarify and rule on whether existing laws are constitutional…. the supremacy clause further clarifies that supreme courts decisions are binding on all lower courts and have precedence over state laws and constitutions….. puhleaze….

          • Oboehner

            Nope, try again. The power to rule on the constitutionality of duly passed laws does not exist in Article 3 nor does the power over state’s laws. You didn’t think I’d smell your BS a mile away? puhleaze….

          • rubellapox2

            Of course it does,,,The courts do have the power of judicial review.. that is their duty.. why it was created…you don’t know what you’re talking about…

          • Oboehner

            You are either lying intentionally or are vastly ignorant. Even the government admits (at judicial dot gov) that judicial review is something the court gave itself, NOT a constitutional power. Perhaps the government doesn’t know what it’s talking about either though – only you do… or whatever.

          • Parodyx

            The law doesn’t define “perverts” the way you do. You can’t deny people rights just because you think they are icky.

          • Oboehner

            What rights am I denying? Post the specific law that states one person’s perceived “rights” trump another’s constitutionally protected ones.

          • Parodyx

            I’m not saying you are denying rights, I’m saying that you want to. And you want to based on your personal loathing of people whose orientation you dislike and disagree with, not based on anything the law can reasonably work with.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Are you using “You” as reference to Oboehner or to Christians in general?

          • Parodyx

            Oboehner.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Thank you! 😀

          • Oboehner

            Bla bla bla, post the law like I asked of get a new hobby.

          • Parodyx

            She works for the county, not her church. If she worked in a church she’d be able to deny same sex marriage rights. But she doesn’t. She works for the county and has to uphold the law. She elected not to and found herself in a world of hurt. You’ve heard this over and over from others on this forum.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzzz… the law please.

          • Parodyx

            Go re-read the schooling you got from Colin Rafferty. Try to stay awake this time.

          • Oboehner

            Got nothing then, ok goodbye.

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Maybe you should realize you need to actually listen when you have two actual lawyers telling you actual law.

          • Oboehner

            I’ll stick with the Constitution and leave the submissive appeal to authority to you.

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Yeah, I don’t need to appeal to authority when I already appeal to the constitution.

          • Oboehner

            Changed your mind then?

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Nope, never did. I understand law, that’s all. You don’t.

          • Oboehner

            You are claiming something that is contradictory, that is not rational. But since you understand law so well, do point out my specific errors.

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Sure. First of all as it’s already been pointed out, you don’t understand that marriage laws are about gender. You appear either to not understand or possibly just not accept that in the Davis case, same-sex couples are legally allowed to marry, and she violated their rights (translation: BROKE THE LAW) by refusing to give them a marriage license . You appear to either not understand of not accept the words of the 14th amendment which state that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

            What else needs to be said? You’re wanting to mold the laws according to your prejudices, and refusing to acknowledge the laws that are already in place.

          • Oboehner

            More vague psychobabble about non-existing marriage laws effectively rendering you weak 14th Amendment argument void. What else ya got?

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Apparently nothing, because you know better than established lawyers about the law and don’t accept what the rest of the world does because your religion has told you it knows better.

          • Oboehner

            More useless rhetoric indicative of a severe lack of a substantive reply.

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Means a ton from a guy who calls the words of the Constitution and 14th amendment “psychobabble”.

          • Oboehner

            Now a false statement, I called “First of all as it’s already been pointed out, you don’t understand that marriage laws are about gender. You appear either to not understand or possibly just not accept that in the Davis case, same-sex couples are legally allowed to marry, and she violated their rights (translation: BROKE THE LAW) by refusing to give them a marriage license . You appear to either not understand of not accept the words of the 14th amendment” psychobabble. I did not call the words of the Constitution and 14th amendment “psychobabble”.

          • Parodyx

            Goodbye. Yes you did, I quoted them to you directly and you responded that it was psychobabble.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That wasn’t “psychobabble”, it was a pretty clear statement of facts.

          • Oboehner

            Correction, vague unsubstantiated crap.

        • rubellapox2

          Her civil rights were not violated… the couples who were denied were…

          • Oboehner

            So the First Amendment doesn’t apply to her, yet some mythological sex rights apply to the sodomites?

          • rubellapox2

            Her first amendment rights were never violated…

          • Oboehner

            Then what’s this crap about a lawsuit? Must be some kind of hallucination…. oh the colors!!

          • rubellapox2

            The lawsuit was because she failed to do her job….

          • Oboehner

            Who decided her job was to issue marriage license to deviant? What about the man and his horse, he couldn’t get a license either?

          • rubellapox2

            I don’t know about deviants, but those couples had a legal right to those marriage licenses.. ms Davis had no right to refuse them….ms Davis was elected as county clerk, not county bishop….if she can’t in clear conscience do her job, then she should resign…

          • Oboehner

            “but those couples had a legal right to those marriage licenses” Does Jared Kreft have the legal right to marry the horse? If not, then on what grounds do the homo’s think they do?

          • rubellapox2

            When the horse can sign legal documents and tell the magistrate “I do” I will support their right to marry…

          • Oboehner

            Are you denying the horse its wishes simply because it cannot verbally or in written form communicate? How bigoted!

          • rubellapox2

            and the oven or the lamp.. no marriage for them neither… so sad: (

          • Oboehner

            Bigotry I say!!

  • Garden of Love

    This was the whole goal of their “marriage.” They have no interest at all in monogamy or love. The SCOTUS just gave them legal grounds for harassing Christians.

    • Colin Rafferty

      All they wanted to do was get a license to marry. Instead, Davis chose to illegally violate their civil rights.

      • Oboehner

        They have no interest at all in monogamy or love. The SCOTUS just gave them “legal” grounds for harassing Christians.

        • Colin Rafferty

          Why do you say that? They are still happily married. They are not harassing Christians. They are suing a single person who intentionally violated their rights.

          • Oboehner

            Like it was stated…
            Looks like the sodomites are intentionally violating Kim’s constitutionally protected rights.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are getting it exactly backwards. As an agent of the State, she refused them service because of their gender. That’s an illegal violation of their rights.

            What rights of her’s have they violated?

          • Oboehner

            It was because of her beliefs she refused to license their perversion. Their chosen lifestyle does not trump her constitutionally protected right.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You clearly don’t understand how the law works.

            They did not force her to work as the county clerk. She chose to do that. Part of her job is to give marriage licenses to anyone who is legally qualified to marry. They are legally qualified.

            They did not ask her to go against her beliefs. She chose to go against them herself. She knew that part of her job was to give marriage licenses to filthy sodomites. And she chose to keep it. But she is also choosing to to violate people’s rights.

            When the sodomites went to get a license, they didn’t know anything about her, other than the fact that she was the person who sells marriage licenses. They weren’t looking to offend, just get married. And she chose instead to discriminate against them.

          • Oboehner

            I clearly do, Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that ONLY Congress has the power to make law. Do post the duly passed legislation that states perverts have the right to marry. Or post the section of the Constitution that states the government has any jurisdiction over marriage.
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” First Amendment

          • Colin Rafferty

            Marbury v Madison (1803) is the precedent that the Supreme Court has the power to void laws that violate the Constitution.

            The 14th Amendment states: “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, which means that the Supreme Court also has jurisdiction over State laws that deny equal protection. All State laws.

            Gender has long been one thing that is protected by the equal protection section of the 14th Amendment.

            Restricting marriage based on gender is clearly a violation of equal protection, which makes any law that restricts marriage based on gender unconstitutional.

            Which is why the Supreme Court had the right and the duty to remove those restrictions from all State laws in Obergefell.

            Exactly as they did the same with the racial restrictions in Loving.

          • Oboehner

            Do explain given Article 1, Section 1 how one single court opinion in one single case is in any way relevant.
            Marbury v Madison doesn’t give the courts the power to usurp authority not given them.
            “which means that the Supreme Court also has jurisdiction over State laws that deny equal protection. All State laws.” You didn’t pull something with that stretch did you? I’m calling BS on that one as you have forgotten the 10th Amendment.
            Gender has nothing to do with two sodomites wishing to celebrate their perverseness.
            Without a law giving the government jurisdiction over marriage, you again have nothing.
            “Exactly as they did the same with the racial restrictions in Loving.” Horse pucky.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You really don’t understand how the legal system in the US works, do you?

            As has been happening for over two hundred years, the Supreme Court makes single decisions that effect the nation.

            The 14th Amendment came after the 10th, which is why it overrides it, just as the 21st overrides the 18th.

            As for sodomy, the Supreme Court already said that the States can’t have laws against that back in Lawrence v Texas.

            Marriage laws are about gender. That’s the actual text of those laws. That’s why it’s about gender.

            And about Loving, are you saying that it was wrongly decided, or that it’s unrelated?

          • Oboehner

            “As has been happening for over two hundred years, the Supreme Court makes single decisions that effect the nation.” Who! there’s a great big steamy pile of BS, just as you can’t make law, neither can the courts. There is NO such power granted to the Judicial in the Constitution.
            “Lawrence v Texas.” May I once again direct your attention to Article1, Section 1.

            “Marriage laws are about gender.” Guess that rules out the turd burglars.
            What does lust, sexual addiction, sexual perversion, or emotional and mental deficiencies have to do with love? I love a good pizza now and then, I don’t marry it or fornicate with it.

          • Colin Rafferty

            To each their own. The fact that you can’t understand why people might want to marry doesn’t make them wrong.

            So you also think that Lawrence v Texas didn’t actually happen? That the States don’t recognize the authority of the Constitution?

            Do you also think that Loving v Virginia didn’t happen? It’s pretty much exactly the same as Obergefell, except substitute “race” for “gender”.

          • Oboehner

            “To each their own.” No, the Constitution is THE rule of law.
            So you think that the courts can usurp powers not granted to them by the Constitution?
            If a state has a law that seems to violate some belief or another yet doesn’t violate the Constitution, nor does it intrude on the rights of another state, it is up to the people in that state to change it. It is NOT the job of the courts to pretend to strike down any state law that falls in that category. Again the 10th amendment.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are correct. If it doesn’t violate the Constitution. And as I pointed out, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Which includes gender protection.

            So a law that discriminates based on gender violates the 14th Amendment. Like a law that restrict marriage by gender.

          • Oboehner

            Does not state lifestyle choice.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Being homosexual is not, in and of itself, a “lifestyle choice”. Homosexuals do not all have the same “lifestyle”.

          • Oboehner

            *SIGH* It most certainly is in whatever form it takes.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, to you, all “lifestyle” means is who you choose to, or would like to, have sex with?

          • Oboehner

            Noun life·style ˈlīf-ˈstī(-ə)l, -ˌstī(-ə)l : the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sure. I just always thought there was a little more to that than what gender one’s desired partner is.

          • Oboehner

            “desired” = choice

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Not quite. I’m heterosexual. I desire a female partner. That was not something I ever chose.

          • Oboehner

            You can choose to act on that or not – again, choice.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            True, but regardless of whether I do or not, I’m still a heterosexual, and have that desire, which is not by choice.

          • Oboehner

            You can choose to act on that or not – again, choice.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But I thought you were claiming that desire and choice are the same thing.

          • Oboehner

            The two sodomites in the above article had clearly chosen to act.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So?

          • Oboehner

            Being obtuse is going nowhere.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, by marrying, they chose a certain lifestyle, huh? That would be the lifestyle of monogamy. Such a dastardly, evil choice!!

          • Oboehner

            So gay doesn’t occur in this situation anywhere? Being obtuse is going nowhere.

          • Bob Johnson

            No. They had already chosen to act, what they wanted was a tax break, visitation rights, medical coverage, you know all those civil bennies.

          • Oboehner

            And they just couldn’t get that any other way… *SOB*

          • William of Glynn

            You be sure and get back to us when you’re nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            To do that he’d have to at the very least pass law school. That’s an unlikely proposition considering every time his professors quote case law he’ll start arguments with them about how court rulings are irrelevant.

            He wouldn’t make it past the first day.

          • Bob Johnson

            But that could be because he got the syllabus and found out now much the textbooks cost.

          • Oboehner

            Irrelevant nonsense.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How about you look at Art. 3, Sec. 2, granting the Supreme Court “appellate jurisdiction as to law and fact.”

            SCOTUS can decide issues of law and fact.

          • Oboehner

            Appellate: “Having the power to overturn a lower court.” Sorry no legislating here.
            How about you look at Art1, Sec. 1

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not “legislating” it’s overturning a lower court’s ruling on the law. Or did you miss the “as to law” part?

          • Oboehner

            Yet in your delusional mind that one court opinion somehow affects the rest of us? No.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            My delusional mind? You do understand that literally EVERYONE disagrees with you right?

          • Oboehner

            Now your delusion has popular opinion legislating?

          • Sharon_at_home

            Aren’t you rude! You don’t have to be nasty about other people’s opinion just because you don’t agree with them.
            It’s a fact of life that everyone won’t agree with everyone.
            I find your name calling and attitude offensive.

            aside to other posters: Does this mean I can sue him for offending me? LOL! J/k.

          • Oboehner

            Definition of delusion: “something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated” – Merriam Webster
            That is a scientific term used to describe a situation such as this. If you find it offensive, that is unfortunate, however it’s use is appropriate in this instance.

          • Bob Johnson

            You can sue anyone you like for any reason whatsoever. Winning the suit is a different matter, and if you lose you will have to pay the other persons court costs (i.e. lawyers).

          • Sharon_at_home

            Ok, Thank you. Would that happen if the case was dismissed because what they sued for was corrected and wouldn’t happen to any other homosexual couples. That’s usually the reason for suing from the articles I’ve read.
            Wouldn’t the court tell them about who pays and who receives and how much in the verdict? I’m sorry if I’m asking too many questions. :s

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’ll answer your question but I’d just like to ask you to clarify it. I’m not sure what you’re asking.

          • Bob Johnson

            No problem answering questions.

            If they had requested an injunction to force the clerk to do her job then it could be dismissed. However they sued for damages due to the time, effort and expenses associated with not getting their license. Assume you wanted to get a dog license and you checked with the city webpage to find the hours the office is open, you go downtown and find two signs on the door “Open 9AM to 5PM M-F” and “Closed Today”. Okay. You go down the next day and a sign says, “Gone Fishin’”. After a week of non-returned phone calls and various closed signs, you sue the city for all the time, gas money, lost wages that you have had to spend. The case goes to court. In the mean time a new sign appears on both the city office door and on the official website which reads, “Open by Appointment Only”. By now of course you have the additional cost of the lawyers you hired and more time off work to go to court.

            The judge will probably rule in your favor, changing the rules does not erase the damages (expenses) you have incurred. In this case, the lower court ruled as if the case where an injunction the next higher court did not really making a ruling on the case but said the lower court used the wrong set of laws and returned the case to be decided based on the actual complain.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I looked at an older article about this and it said that the men were happy with the courts decision but now they aren’t and want her to pay for their wedding because it’s bigger. (more friends) It said they were happy because Davis got sent to jail, but it never said they were looking for damages, but rather than they just wanted to make sure no one else has to “go through it”. So I feel like they originally did not ask for damages and decided to when their wedding cost more than they would have spent because of the people that supported them.
            If it’ s suing for damages, is the the money they spent trying to get a marriage license all they can ask for or can they ask for so much that Kim Davis will end up broke? I really don’t like the fact that there isn’t a limit to how much they can sue for. These suits are ruining people’s lives. I feel bad for the men, but they will end up fine, and she could end up on welfare.
            I do appreciate your help. Since I’m not American I don’t always understand the laws properly. I learn a lot from these boards and other sites I use, but I prefer to ask someone, rather than look it up or hope it will be explained. Thanks again! 😀

          • Bob Johnson

            Who knows the details in this case? That is for the courts to determine. In the dog license example you may have at first said, “No big deal.” But later when you see your sick leave is all used up, you may change your mind. Your previous comments do not preclude you from changing your mind. You do have to file before statue of limitation (a time limit set by law) expires.

            Regardless of the amount the people request the court (judge and/or jury) will determine the size of the settlement. It might be they only get one dollar, on the other hand the judge may award punitive damages. For example in the McDonald’s coffee case the judge felt the amount the old lady was asking for would not deter McDonald’s from continuing their practice and just pay the fines, so the judge added $2.7 million dollars in addition to the asked for amount. (Later this was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.)

          • Bob Johnson

            Delusional, like in, “The God Delusion”?

    • William of Glynn

      Adulteress Kim Davis’ only interest involved her 15 minutes of fame.

    • William of Glynn

      All the gay couple wanted was to get a marriage license, which they had the legal right to do. Kim Davis targeted the gay couple for the purpose of harassment.

  • V-Ball

    If you want a good laugh, go to Youtube and look for the video where these two buffoons and their little band of shrieking buddies invaded her office and behaved like junior high girls. It’s so funny to watch because she did the right thing, kept her composure while they were screaming like maniacs. That’s how to deal with this type when they want to get a rise out of you, be the adult, because they hate that, they want to drag adults down to their level.

    • Parodyx

      Funny, I watched it and just saw a woman breaking the law and two people not being too happy about it.

      • V-Ball

        You people all think alike. Like a herd.
        I guess that’s due to being infected with the same diseases, taking the same medications.

        • Parodyx

          And straight people never get STDs. Want to talk about a herd mentality next time you’re sitting with the rest of your flock in church?

  • james blue

    It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it.

    • Nidalap

      Luckily, we have laws here that allow specifically for religious accommodation.
      Remember, even Paul asserted his rights and appealed to Caesar…

      • Chris

        “…even Paul asserted his rights and appealed to Caesar…”

        And what happened to Paul? That’s right he was executed, wasn’t he?

      • james blue

        A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

        On the other hand if a christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

        It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it.

        • Sharon_at_home

          I agree, but when she was elected into her position, the homosexual marriage was not an issue for her to choose to serve or not. If she is an elected official won’t she have to be re-elected to stay in the position? They said she couldn’t be fired because she is elected. Is that how it works in the US?
          I agree with you about Christians being the ones to make sacrifices, but it’s hard to know when to do that, and when we should stand up for our faith. I doubt the people in Public Service jobs ever considered whether or not they would have to choose about gay rights when they got their jobs. Do you think all of them should give up their jobs (because they changed the rules) because they might have to choose?

          I read an article that had a good quote in it. A gay man, Christopher Ciccone, 54, posted it on Facebook. There is more directed at the Davis case, but I liked especially like this part:

          ” ‘Is it so difficult to allow this women (sic) her religion?…or must we destroy her in order for here (sic) to betray her faith,’ he wrote. ‘No matter how we judge its truth, the rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.”

          It doesn’t matter IMO but, it was in the news because the person I quoted is “Madonna’s Gay Brother “. If anyone cares.

          I agree with this. I don’t know what ever happened to trying to kindly accommodate other people. It was what people did matter-of-factly in the years I was growing up. Somewhere along the line, people stopped doing that. Personally, I expect it was during the “Look out for #1” view was being touted. More people really started only caring about themselves after that campaign.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “I agree, but when she was elected into her position, the homosexual marriage was not an issue for her to choose to serve or not”

            That’s irrelevant. Laws change, and get struck down (such as Obergefell did to Kentucky’s ban on SSM).

            “Do you think all of them should give up their jobs (because they changed the rules) because they might have to choose?”

            If their conscience and/or their religious conviction prevents them from doing their job, yes.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Even when there isn’t a likely-hood of being in that position, but there is a possibility you think they should still quit?
            Do you think they would be able to find a job of equal pay and benefits? It’s not easy out there without a job, and with a family…
            Someone inferred that the events happened shortly after the law came into effect.
            For all we know she was going to not run in the next election and hoped she could get to that point before she was asked to service Gays, and didn’t make it. Do you think the lawyers would allow her to say that?

            Try to think about Kim Davis before the lawyers took over her life. She sounded like she just wanted to live a simple faithful life. If she was hoping she wouldn’t have to choose before the next election, and hopefully a job without any conflicts too?
            You shouldn’t expect people in today’s society to just quit their jobs immediately when the Law was just put into effect. It’s possible that there are a lot of Public Service employees that don’t agree with gay marriage that would never have to deal with it. But there is always a possibility in Public Service. So that would mean the people like Kim Davis who might stand up for their religion should not work in Public Services? So strong faith is a reason not to allow them to have a public service job? I’m specifying it’s the Government Public service jobs because they can’t go into their own business (depending on what public service I guess.) In the case of working for a company vs. self employment I agree that they enter into a position (they should) know the company’s policies therefore accept the agreement to do things that do not agree necessarily with their faith. And if the agreement changes they should make a decision then.
            I also agree that personal businesses should be able to refuse someone without fear of reprisal for their beliefs. BUT I think it should be on a sign that they don’t service whomever. Or that general one that used to be used, “I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. I think in that case they weren’t expected to say why, but I’m not sure. Maybe they did and that’s why I don’t hear about them anymore? 🙂
            I’m really just trying to let you see the other side to what you said. And most of it is my opinion so I don’t expect you to agree necessarily.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Davis was elected county clerk in 2014. Even though that was before Obergefell, there had already been cases regarding SSM before that, US v. Windsor, for one. She should have at least been aware that it was an issue under consideration, and there was at least a chance that she would be put into a position like she was. That’s why I suspect she was trying to do more than “leading a simple faithful life” and just “hoping she didn’t have to choose”, she wanted to turn it into in a big protest, it seems.

            “So strong faith is a reason not to allow them to have a public service job?”

            If someone sides with their faith when it conflicts with law, they shouldn’t seek a job like that in the first place.

          • Bob Johnson

            “So strong faith is a reason not to allow them to have a public service job?”

            So what about a devout Hindu (vegan) clerk not issuing meat packing permits or a devout Muslim clerk (no alcohol) not issuing bar licenses?

          • james blue

            Life isn’t always fair.

            Would you be asking the same if it was a clerk in the south who had been in the job prior to the overturning of laws banning interracial marriage and still didn’t want to issue a license to an interracial couple?

            Laws change all the time. Government officials are required to follow those laws regardless of if they agree with them, Clerks are required to issue government documents, licenses and permits to all who legally qualify regardless of their personal opinion or if the rules change.

          • Michael C

            …when she was elected into her position, the homosexual marriage was not an issue for her to choose to serve or not… I doubt the people in Public Service jobs ever considered whether or not they would have to choose about gay rights when they got their jobs.

            A federal judge ruled that Kentucky’s ban on the recognition of the marriages of gay couples violated the U.S. Constitution on July 1st, 2014.

            Davis wasn’t elected to office until four months later.

            Davis knew it was an issue while she was applying for the job. But in rural Kentucky where the median household income is $40,000 and 25% live below the poverty line, a gig paying $80,000 that requires no college education is nothing to scoff at.

            I don’t know what ever happened to trying to kindly accommodate other people.

            Davis forbade any deputy clerks in the office from issuing licenses to gay couples. She wouldn’t allow anyone to issue licenses in the entire county.

          • Jason Todd

            Who cares? Events over the past 18 months has made all of that moot.

            That battle is over. Kim won.

            The only reason this would go forward now is to punish Kim for her faith.

            Anyone who says different is ignorant or a liar.

          • Michael C

            That battle is over. Kim won.

            Kim Davis’ lawyers report that she is satisfied with the final outcome of this situation despite the fact that is doesn’t actually resemble her original demands.

            Great. If she says that she’s happy. Cool beans.

            The people of Rowan County, Kentucky are the real winners in this situation. Now, all eligible couples are being treated fairly and equally without respect to their sexual orientation. The fair and legal application of Kentucky’s marriage laws is no longer a captive of one woman’s whim.

            The only reason this would go forward now is to punish Kim for her faith.

            The reason this is going forward is because the victims of discrimination are often due damages and the perpetrators of discrimination are often punished.

            If there were no penalties for illegal discrimination, it would be much more common than it is.

          • Jason Todd

            That places you in category 2.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Ok thanks for the info. I guess I was mistaken and I’ll take responsibility for it. I was thinking about the employment situation in the US. But as you say.

      • William of Glynn

        Oh, so you do like some laws?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    This is a proof that Western Sodom tries to destroy the world’s Christian population by blaspheming and bullying with immoral chaos. When will the Americans wake up?
    May God bestow His justice upon the Western Sodom.

  • William of Glynn

    This article mistakenly indicates “two homosexual men,” where it should read “couple.”

    • Mr Dalloway

      The media has yet to catch up with modern times. Radio, televised news, newspapers and other branches of media are all dying arts.

      Media plural for mediocre,
      Jim Breslin

      • notearsinheaven

        modern times are occupied by fools. People who do not know anything but latch on to the next stupid thing. Read the constitution. YOU will find out who has rights. To religious freedom. NOTHING said about boys marrying boys or girls marrying girls. I guess the Founding Fathers were just not thinking stupid.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          What the founding fathers were thinking is irrelevant. They had all been dead for 100 years before the 14th Amendment was ratified.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            About 40 years, actually. But yeah, they were all bones by the time of the Reconstruction Amendments,

    • Oboehner

      You mean sodomites.

      • Parodyx

        No, most of us can function perfectly well without using insulting gutter language.

        • Oboehner

          How is my accurate verbiage “gutter language”? How can a legal term be insulting, when one man inserting his genitalia into the orifice from which another man defecates is not?

          • Parodyx

            Where do you want me to start? You’re reducing homosexuality to a single act which happens also to be practiced by straight couples.
            Many gay men don’t do what you’re suggesting.
            Lesbians, which comprise half of the homosexual population, have nothing whatsoever to do with this act.
            Would you want your faith to be identified only by burning crosses? That’s basically what you’re doing here.

          • Oboehner

            I would say the same of “straight” couples.
            The vast majority do, those who don’t… give them time.
            Lesbians have other issues.
            Would you want your faith to be identified only by sexual depravity? That’s basically what you’re doing here.

          • Parodyx

            No, I think we have hit the crux of the matter with you here. You’re grossed out by one single sexual act and you want to pin it exclusively on gay men and make that the way you identify homosexuals. You completely overlook the fact that they are human beings who fall in love like everyone else. But all they are to you is the act of sodomy. Whether they do it or not. Real nice.

          • Oboehner

            In your whiney tirade you forgot to mention the extremely high percentage of queer men who engage in sodomy versus so-called straight couples. You also confuse lust with love.

          • Parodyx

            That might have something to do with the equipment they have, no? Why do you look at only the sexual aspect of a gay relationship and not the romantic one? Is that honest? Would you do that with a straight couple?

          • Oboehner

            Show me two gay men who aren’t engaging in some sort of sex, and to whom that isn’t the focal point.

          • Parodyx

            If they’re homosexual men, what do you expect them to do? Invite some ladies over? To do what? Cook them dinner?

          • Oboehner

            The point is lost on you.

          • Parodyx

            No, I would say it’s lost on you. You can’t accept that homosexuality exists.

          • Oboehner

            So does pedophilia what’s your point?

          • Parodyx

            I find myself pointing out the difference between abuse and consent to you…and not for the first time, either.

          • Oboehner

            What does consent have to do with “sexual orientation”? Either it is normal by birth or it is not. I find myself waiting for an answer… and not for the first time either.

          • Parodyx

            No one said “by birth” except you. Maybe it forms in early life.
            Sexual orientation isn’t something you can instantly take issue with because all it is is an attraction to the same sex. Pedophilia is as well, but it’s an attraction to people who cannot consent to sex. Get it now? Anything? Ding ding ding?

          • Oboehner

            “No one said ‘by birth’ except you.”
            You forgot this guy/girl: “Yeah? And it IS normal by birth…for them.”
            Why are you playing favorites?

          • Parodyx

            It doesn’t matter. Whether birth or early in life, it doesn’t matter. What matters is consent. Abusing children is not consensual and therefore illegal. What two consenting adults do (whether heterosexual or homosexual) should be of no concern to you.

          • Oboehner

            So two adults abusing each other is fine with you?

          • Parodyx

            Of course not. Once again, CONSENT. If you abuse someone else it’s not consensual.

          • Oboehner

            So if they consent to abuse each other that’s ok with you?

          • Parodyx

            I repeat: Of course not.

          • Oboehner

            Now you’re flip flopping, you said earlier consent is ok with you, but now it’s not.

          • Parodyx

            I had to re-read what you wrote, it makes no sense. What does “consent to abuse” mean?

          • Oboehner

            Ok, Bob says to his buddy, “Steve I want to physically and psychologically abuse you, it that ok?”
            Steve replies, “Sure Bob, as long as I can do the same to you!”
            Bob says, “Ok Steve, lets get on with it!”.

          • Parodyx

            Oh, I see the game you’re playing now.
            Basically straight sex is a loving act.
            But homosexual sex is always “abuse” because of the religion you follow.

          • Oboehner

            Homosexual sex is abuse as two heroin addicts supplying each other.

            BTW, if it wasn’t for “straight sex” you would not exist – there’s a point there if you care to ponder it.

          • Parodyx

            Whether you like it or not, you just admitted to what you think a homosexual relationship is – an act of mutual abuse, which is about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard in my life.

            Sex doesn’t just exist to procreate, there’s also the fact that it is a pleasurable act. You simply cannot accept that two people of the same gender might actually be in love. Your example stated it best – “Bob” and “Steve” are two buddies, and you can’t see them as anything else. As far as you can see when they get together for sex, they’re just basically injecting each other with heroin. If that doesn’t offend every person who reads it…

          • Oboehner

            Like two heroin addicts supplying each other’s habit is mutual abuse, really…
            Is the pedophile in love?

          • Parodyx

            There is nothing two homosexuals are doing to damage each other. You’re welcome to name something (as long as it’s not also applicable to straight people).

          • Oboehner

            Fist answer my question: Is the pedophile in love?

          • Parodyx

            Why don’t you ask a pedophile? Doesn’t matter if he’s in love, if he engages in sex with a child it’s an illegal act of abuse.

          • Oboehner

            Don’t cop out answer the question.

          • Parodyx

            How do you expect me to tell you what a pedophile thinks?
            It’s not a cop out. For you, it’s a perpetual dodge.

            You are disgusted by sodomy and because you despise homosexuals so much, sodomy becomes the go-to description for you for all LGBT people even when it makes no sense…such as in lesbians.
            You cannot fathom the concept of consent, so you manufacture something called “consensual abuse” which doesn’t exist at all.
            You cannot fathom that two people of the same gender occasionally fall in love, so you focus instead on the sex they are having – but don’t do the same for a straight couple.
            Basically, everything about your is dishonest.

          • Oboehner

            You can’t tell what a pedo thinks, yet you seem to be perfectly qualified to tell me what a homo thinks…

            Gay is a mental disorder, what I don’t like is having the crap shoved down my throat and being told to accept it. I don’t like my children being told it’s ok when it is not. I also don’t like hypocritical trying to tell me there is some kind of difference between one type of perversion or another based on feel-good psychobabble. “Basically, everything about your[sic] is dishonest.”

          • Parodyx

            You’re the exact sort of person who should have one of your children come to you in utter pain one day and say to you “Dad, I’m gay”. Only then will you seem to get any sense of the empathy you’re so heartlessly rejecting. You have to call people perverts and degenerates and won’t lift a finger to put yourself in their position.

            It doesn’t matter that a pedophile’s attraction is children, or whether or not the pedophile is in love, or thinks he is in love. A minor is in danger of being abused and must be protected no matter what. That’s the part you don’t understand. You are completely unwilling to let people live their own lives. You have to inflict your religion on them. In fact, you are the first person I would point at when people ask which Christians are using their faith to beat up homosexuals.

          • Oboehner

            I believe I would get them the help they need.
            “or thinks he is in love.” Applies to sodomites as well.
            What if some “expert” said, “child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial.” (Bruce Rind, Ph.D.) Would you be ok with it then? Would you still be against it, or would you follow the experts?

            The American Psychological Association in 1999 published a report disputing the harmfulness of child molestation in its official peer-reviewed journal, APA Bulletin. You on board now?
            Personally I am disgusted by it all – including all forms of sexual deviance.

          • Parodyx

            Where would you send them for help? To a proper psychotherapist, who’d tell them there is nothing wrong, or to your pastor, who would tell them how evil they are?
            I’m not condescending to use your “S” word above but homosexuals are not pedophiles, there’s no abuse taking place. Homosexuals fall in love just like everyone else. If you want to try to steer this one back to pedophilia, I’ll just say it again. Bad example, no abuse is taking place, and no laws are being broken.
            No, I wouldn’t listen to the words of a single “expert”. I’d listen to what the scientific consensus says.
            I’m sure the APA didn’t publish any such thing, but I would sure like to know why you want to talk about pedophilia when the subject is homosexuality. It’s almost pathological with you.

          • Oboehner

            Proper, ROFL.
            Just wait until pedophilia get mainstream, you’ll be riding high on that bandwagon!
            “I’m sure the APA didn’t publish any such thing” and here you are speaking about that which you know nothing.
            Pedophilia/ homosexuality – cut of the same cloth.

          • Parodyx

            Slipperiest slope. Nobody is ever going to give the green light to child abuse. Ever. And you know that, too.
            No they are not cut from the same cloth, but then, you’re not one to exactly embrace facts are you? Especially when your pastor frowns on them.

          • Oboehner

            “Slipperiest slope. Nobody is ever going to give the green light to child abuse. Ever. And you know that, too.” Dig deeper you’ll find the “minor attracted” are riding the wake of their pervert predecessors. They just will justify the act and say “it’s not abuse”.

          • Parodyx

            No, because it will always be abuse. Because it always has been. It doesn’t matter how anyone tries to justify it. What you need to get over is the fact that homosexuality isn’t pedophilia because there’s no abuse taking place, your vile language notwithstanding.

          • Oboehner

            Did you not read the post about the APA? There has already been “experts” stating it really isn’t harmful, it’s actually good.

          • Parodyx

            Did you read the post from Ambulance Chaser which talked about how you tried to twist what was actually said?

          • Oboehner

            Denial doesn’t change anything, the APA did the exact same thing for homos, besides Ambulance Chaser thinks that court decisions are law.

          • Parodyx

            Ambulance Chaser is a lawyer. You don’t know law better than he does.

          • Oboehner

            Apparently I do, as Article 1, Section 1 states.

          • Parodyx

            Article 1, Section 1 states that you know law better than actual lawyers?

          • Oboehner

            If they think court precedents are law, absolutely.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Apparently you don’t fully understand the law as Ambulance Chaser does. He doesn’t get into the discussions unless it’s a matter he can help with to clarify laws. He can help with any law of the government, I believe. I personally respect someone who can stick to the law in matters rather than a personal view point every time. A.C. has been a benefit to not a few discussions.

          • Oboehner

            If he thinks court decisions are law, he is dead wrong. Apparently the reference I posted went un-read or at least not understood?

          • Sharon_at_home

            I doubt that he didn’t read it if he’s been here since you posted – either way he does know a lot of law and TBH there are some laws made by the state, are they not court decisions too? Towns and Cities make some of their own laws too. I have no idea about it.
            The thing is, there is no reason to demean him by saying he doesn’t know law. You really didn’t have to address that issue beyond acknowledging that it existed in your mind.
            Making someone out to be less than they are in any way, is not a good thing to do. How do you know that AC didn’t quit coming to this board because of your comments? Do you realize that just one insult could drive someone considering suicide to do it? Do you even care?
            Think about how you are saying things and if you honestly would not want someone to say the same type of thing to you, say it in a way that you wouldn’t mind.
            Show your light that Jesus said to shine. There is nothing n the commands that Jesus gave us that said to be rude and cruel to people who are sinners.
            You seem to think that by being a Christian you are better than others. or at least you sound like it. Maybe you did not realize it? You are not considered better because you are a sinner too.

          • Oboehner

            “I have no idea about it. ” Agreed.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The study is real but was roundly criticized for multiple forms of poor methodology (including reaching conclusions that the evidence didn’t actually lead to).

            It was never the mainstream scientific consensus on the subject.

          • Parodyx

            I’m also quite certain the conclusion it came to wasn’t “OK everybody,
            the medical world now recommends child molestation” as Oboehner seems to
            think.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think that’s correct. It has also been misquoted a lot by people pushing an anti-science agenda. In other words, it’s a bad study but the strawman version of it is even worse.

          • Parodyx

            The point that often gets lost is, OK, they might produce a study that finds that pedophilia is not a disorder but innate like homosexuality. But that’s not the same thing as saying “We found that it’s not a disease therefore we wholly endorse it.” Incredible as it is that anyone could be stupid enough to believe that, NOBODY is ever going to legally allow pedophilia because innocent will always be protected. Some of these people think there’s a movement afoot to allow kids to be preyed upon.

          • Chris

            In fact I would suggest it is the hate-filled homophobes like Oboehner who are the most likely to be closet homosexuals. I think that’s why gays trouble him so much. Not to mention that if gays are mentioned he immediately thinks of sex.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’d feel terrible for the kid though.

          • William of Glynn

            You’ll just have to get used to it.

          • Jason Todd

            Excuse me, but get used to what? Pedophilia? Because that’s what Oboehner was talking about.

            What the fruit is the matter with you?

          • Sharon_at_home

            High Five Jason!!! Great last line!!

          • Oboehner

            Yup, you people are predictable, when something fits your little feel good worldview the truth is irrelevant.

          • Nick Logan

            You need to educate yourself.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “What I don’t like is having the crap shoved down my throat and being told to accept it”

            Big deal! Obviously, in your case, being told that had no effect, so what does it matter to you? I’ll say just the same kind of thing you guys often say: Don’t listen to it. Suck it up, buttercup.

            “trying to tell me there is some kind of difference between one type of perversion or another based on feel-good psychobabble. ”

            Wow. Are you really saying CONSENT is “feel-good psychobabble”?

          • Oboehner

            “Don’t listen to it. Suck it up, buttercup.” Practice what you preach and troll a different site.

          • Sharon_at_home

            He does not have troll behaviours. I think you are more like the description of a troll actually. You don’t want to discuss, you want to attack the LGBT people on the board. You just think using badly chosen scripture to make your point.
            About this board…
            Some of the non-believers and homosexuals around here discuss things and not just about homosexual sex. There have been some good discussions on this forum.
            We try to encourage the people who treat the posters badly to go to another site because they are not behaving like Christians.
            BTW.
            A public comment board is for everyone even on a Christian site.

          • Oboehner

            “He does not have troll behaviours.” I have to call BS on that, he is on a Christian news site attempting to argue a non-Christian viewpoint – trolling.

            “A public comment board is for everyone even on a Christian site.” As evidenced by all of the trolling going on.

          • Sharon_at_home

            No I know this man’s posts and he does not do much more than ask questions – Yes he’s on a Christian board because he wants to get answers to his questions. He’s never rude to people who aren’t rude to him. Otherwise what he does is stand up for something – like we as Christians do for our faith.

            I believe it’s our duty is to tell unbelievers about Jesus but on here, unless they ask questions, I can’t always give them the answers as to why Christians seem to hate LGBT. Some LGBTs are terribly afraid of Christians. I don’t think Jesus would like that.

            What I do tell them is that Jesus loves them and wants everyone to come to Him and have eternal life. They already know that but they appreciate it when I try to actually answer the question without being a bitch about it. They’ve helped me understand homosexuality better than before, and I have helped them see that Christians who put people down about their sin are not following Jesus because Jesus wants us to love each other and putting someone down is not any part of Love.

            As far as whether or not God made homosexuals, we won’t know until we go heaven or judgment day. All homosexuals cannot be taught to be that way. It must be something else, and if it’s a variation of God’s image that’s God and he has a specific reason for putting them on the earth.

            I wonder if it’s a test to see how many Christians are good to them, and don’t focus on their sin, but rather focus on giving God’s Word to them.

            If that’s the case, there are going to be a lot of ‘Christians’ that will hear ‘I don’t know thee” from Jesus.

          • Oboehner

            “Yes he’s on a Christian board because he wants to get answers to his questions.” He doesn’t want answers, he tries to make people think he’s intellectually superior to the stupid Christians – troll.

            “Some LGBTs are terribly afraid of Christians” LOL asinine.

            Jesus loves them and wants them to repent and turn away from that sick perverted lifestyle.
            As far as whether or not God made homosexuals, the scripture is crystal clear he did not, it is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog.
            It’s not about some test, it’s about bullying their way to the mainstream.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Please tell me the scripture that is crystal clear that he did not, and that it is a learned behaviour. I’d like to read it and I could find the wrong scripture to read otherwise.
            There is always the possibility that I did not read the part with ‘understanding’.

          • Oboehner

            Leviticus 18:22
            Leviticus 20:13
            Romans 1:26-28
            Jude 1:7-8
            1 Timothy 1:8-111
            Corinthians 6:17-20

          • Sharon_at_home

            Thank you for the scriptures. I will review them.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Merely arguing a non-Christian point on a Christian site…..a Christian site that is a PUBLIC forum, after all…is not “trolling.”

          • Oboehner

            Then trolling does not exist.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Trolling is to “make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”

            That is not my intention. Does merely the existence of an opposing viewpoint make you upset?

          • Parodyx

            But it ISN’T a non-Christian viewpoint. It’s a non-extreme radical Christian viewpoint. HUGE difference.

          • Oboehner

            Ah, no. Trolling thing you know nothing about only makes it worse.

          • Parodyx

            And you would know all about trolling, wouldn’t you?

          • Sharon_at_home

            It’s not the same way people are normally in love. It would be more of an obsession I think than love, no matter how they describe it especially since the child cannot be consensual.
            On the other hand, as I said specifically that it wasn’t considered a ‘normal love’ like others love. The thing is the love is the exact same love for each other that 2 sex couples have towards each other. How would you feel if it was you and someone didn’t care if you loved your wife they wouldn’t let you do anything anyone else can do. Do you agree with the way people treat the LGBT?

          • Oboehner

            “It’s not the same way people are normally in love. It would be more of an obsession I think than love” Exactly like the homo, no different.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Seems to me straight sex can include abuse too. Whether it’s 2 sexes or one, what You define as abuse is not abuse if someone agrees with it. You do know that women are often raped, even by their husbands, and men are raped too. A friend of mine, gay when they didn’t come out for any reason, but didn’t date; two girls literally raped him to prove to him that he wasn’t gay. He has difficulty with relationships because of it.
            So sexual abuse is not restricted to homosexuals.
            “if it weren’t for “straight sex” you would not exist” So are you saying that God made a mistake allowing homosexuals to be born? He knows us from the womb. He knows everything about us even before it happens. You think you are not sinning by trying to say Our Mighty God made a mistake in any way?

            James 4:11-12
            “11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his
            brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth
            the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but
            a judge.
            12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

          • Oboehner

            The mistake is in the false claim they were born that way, they were not, it is learned behavior. Like your friend they need help not affirmation.
            Yes there is abuse in “straight” sex, by not all of it like gay sex.
            If you want to quote the Bible, try the passages about homosexuality.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If Bob and Steve are consenting adults, and not breaking any laws, then it’s no business of mine. How can you even consider it “abuse” in that situation, if it’s what they willingly do and even enjoy?

          • Oboehner

            How utterly empathetic of you, heroin addicts enjoy the high too.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            EXCEPT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR HIV MEDS.

          • Parodyx

            Not mine.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Please don’t use Caps. they are for yelling, not for discussion.
            And they have to pay for your heart medicine and any medicine that they don’t use that others covered by the same medical coverage do.

            Get a grip! How can you even think that is something that is medical something to even bring up. Everyone needs medication and a lot of people who are not LGBT have to take medicine for HIV – it’s no longer related to homosexuality.
            So do you get angry with anyone who needs a lot of help medically?

            I know you believe homosexuality is a sin, and I know I believe in what the bible says, but you can’t/shouldn’t deny people medical coverage because of their homosexuality any more than denying people who drink coverage when they have problems with their liver.
            Please put yourself in their shoes, without focusing on their sin, but on the way they love each other and care about others. Putting the sex thing on a back burner you’ll find out that homosexuals live and feel emotions all in the same way you do. They do all the things you do in your daily habits. That has nothing to do with what they do in the bedroom. It is what makes them people too if you don’t pull the sex off the back table.
            One Post at a Time….

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            We know it exists BUT it is an act of SODOMITES. NOT LOVE, LUST OF BODY AND MENTAL ILLNESS

          • Parodyx

            Take it up with medical science. Oh wait, then you’d have to learn a bit of truth.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Yes we know it’s considered a sin, and so do they know that some people consider it a sin.

            Isn’t our duty as Christians to help them overcome their sins? How is calling them names and telling people they are disgusting going to accomplish that.

            Why can’t it be about love – separately from what their sexuality is. I’ve been reading more about Homosexuals and since I believe as a Christian that Jesus wants everyone to love one another, in my eyes, they do just that and with a passion – that isn’t about the sex – that is often stronger than other loves. Do you think that Jesus would be as demeaning to the sinners? No he wouldn’t. Without the sex they are just regular people that love differently.

            He would want you to say what was in the scripture and then try to help them come to Jesus. He would want you to be considerate of them.

            You can hate a sin and be nice at the same time, you know.

            Do you trouble your friends by telling them how disgusting their sins are – since we are all sinners? If you don’t then you are not being consistent about telling every sinner about how awful they are for sinning. so why are you picking on LGBT for their sins?
            I follow Jesus and he told people that they were sinners but he never was nasty about it.

          • Nick Logan

            You’re a god damned idiot.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve always found it interesting that it’s often the people who are so vehemently anti-LGBT that are the most focused on their sexual activities.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            You call it love we call it lust and mental illness.

          • Parodyx

            Of course you do, because you have been taught to hate.

          • Roger Peritone

            Mental Illness would be when a person talks to themself, thinking that they’re talking instead to an invisible being in the sky.

          • Jason Todd

            Troll post. Flagged.

          • Nick Logan

            There are a lot more “straight” couple that like dick in the butt than you think. Also, not all gay couple buttfuck.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            Gay men cannot copulate any other way. You have no other opening to have sex but your anal canal. Lesbians well those who play the man also do not have the correct parts they use RUBBER PENIS’S to act like a man.
            PERVISION AND MENTAL ILLNESS. Like the Tranny who looks in his pants sees a penis and THINKS he is a woman. SICK SICK PEOPLE

          • Parodyx

            Never heard of the mouth, eh?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Here we go again….

            It’s always the anti-LGBT people that are the first to offer graphic descriptions of gay sex, something which they claim to find disgusting and sick, etc. I find that….uh, interesting.

          • Sharon_at_home

            You have a miserable way of looking at people who are different than you.
            Try this. instead of focusing on their sex life, which is nobodies business but theirs, try looking at the love side of the issue.
            – How exactly do you know know so much about the things that homosexuals and others do? Do you watch them or go to online porn? -Unless you speak to someone who is gay, you cannot say anything that is credible. If you haven’t spoken to a gay, you need to, because most of what you say/believe sounds like what you are reading in the Media and it’s not necessarily right.
            – are you as rude to anyone who is different than you? What about the refugees or the Muslims?
            – Look at the sources you are using to find out about homosexuality and try to use the ones that wouldn’t be bias and give good information about them.
            – Calm down. No one from the LGBT community is going to attack you and force you to act like they do. They probably don’t even like the fact that those descriptions you used are on the ‘Net. They just want to be left alone – they don’t even care if you become gay at any point in your life or not. They love each other and their friends just like you do.
            Think about it. Did you have to know your friends sexual habits before you became friends? Did they want to know about yours? If you found out a couple who you love dearly had sex anally would you condemn them and not be friendly with them anymore?
            These people are just that, people, and deserve the basic rights to their privacy. If you don’t want to discuss your time in the bedroom, why should you criticize them?

          • DrewTwoFish

            The idea of Florenca McDowell doing the nasty gives me the heebee jeebees (sp?).

          • Canis Vulpes

            What do you mean “Give them time”? Is that how it works? They will just gravitate to the sexual practice of your choice you find most deviant when the time is ripe?

            I wonder if you have a citation for this?

          • Oboehner

            My choice? Hardly. They just sink lower into the cesspool of deviance.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Defined entirely by you!

          • Oboehner

            Claimed entirely by you!

          • Canis Vulpes

            You want to be the yardstick by which the law defines “perversion”. You aren’t. You’re just a bigot.

          • Oboehner

            You want to be the yardstick by which the law defines “perversion”. You aren’t. You’re just a pervert enabler.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Your definition of “pervert” doesn’t matter to anyone else. Bigotry and hate appear to be immune to reason.

          • Oboehner

            Your definition of “born that way” doesn’t matter to anyone else. Since they are all born that way, either you support pedophilia or you’re a hateful bigot and a hypocrite – no reason there.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Once again you try in vain to tie pedophilia to homosexuality – two things that could not be more different – and end up failing. Sucks to be you.

          • Jason Todd

            Explain NAMBLA.

          • Canis Vulpes

            What do you need explained? What does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

          • Jason Todd

            So you are saying there are no homosexual pedophiles? Let’s be clear and on the record.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Pedophilia doesn’t know sexual orientation. There probably are pedophiles who are homosexual, but the vast majority are heterosexual. I repeat my question, what does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

          • Jason Todd

            There probably are pedophiles who are homosexual, but the vast majority are heterosexual.

            Catholic priests. Jerry Sandusky. Ryan Sorba’s undercover video. They make you a liar.

            I repeat my question, what does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

            Here, you are being disingenuous. You need to stop. It will not play here.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Josh Duggar. Ted Haggard. That makes YOU a liar.

            I will repeat my question, please try to be honest in your answer because we know you have a history of dishonesty: What does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

          • Jason Todd

            Josh Duggar. Ted Haggard.

            Neither of which were ever accused of pedophilia, which makes it a red herring. Nice try.

            I will repeat my question, please try to be honest in your answer because we know you have a history of dishonesty:

            Prove it.

            What does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

            You already know the answer to that question. Last time: Stop playing games.

          • Canis Vulpes

            “Neither of which were ever accused of pedophilia, which makes it a red herring. Nice try.”

            “What the Josh Duggar Fiasco Can Teach Us About Pedophilia”, TIME Magazine, May 22, 2015. Read it and weep. And then apologize for lying.

            It will be the “last time” when you answer the question honestly: What does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

            Let me help you with that, here’s the Wikipedia entry on it:

            “The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States.” Notice the absence of the word “homosexual” there?

            You WILL answer this question. And you will be honest. What does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals?

          • Jason Todd

            Read it and weep. And then apologize for lying.

            Apologize for what? What is it about the known facts surrounding what happened and existing Arkansas state law that says Josh Duggar committed pedophilia? And what does this have to do with the widely known prevalence of homosexual pedophilia, which you happen to be downplaying?

            You WILL answer this question.

            I’m afraid I do not have to answer to an apologist for homosexual pedophilia.

          • Canis Vulpes

            I am reporting you for that. I NEVER would be an apologist for
            pedophilia, it’s a vile and disgusting act which you inexplicably keep
            trying to pin on homosexuals who find it just as disgusting as you do. I have never said I supported it, and your calling me a defender of it is a hateful, disgusting lie.

            The point with Josh Duggar, of course, is that he represents the MAJORITY of people who abuse children who are NOT homosexual!

          • Jason Todd

            Go ahead and report me. Here’s the problem: You said there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexuals. When I pointed out NAMBLA, you suggested despite the name of said organization and its well known makeup of membership and goals, the organization isn’t homosexual.

            Now, this was crazy and stupid. Crazy for saying it, stupid for thinking any reasonable person would but into such nonsense.

            The question here is, why would someone do something like that. A homosexual apologist would. You aren’t the first, oh, no. I have seen plenty around the internet, usually around sites like this one.

            I have been saying for a while there would be a push for the normalization of pedophilia. The foundation has already been set. And the LGBTQW community is right smack dab in the middle of it.

            You have provided absolutely nothing to create doubt. In fact, if anything, you have reinforced my belief.

            I’m done with you. You are blocked.

          • Canis Vulpes

            I did report you. Maybe you’ll learn not to call people unsubstantiated things.
            Statistically, it’s very true. There ARE far more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexuals, simply for the reason that there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. NAMBLA hardly even exists at all, and has no backers or supporters, period. Even if it’s got 500 members worldwide it’s hardly a blip on the radar, and there are no homosexual organizations that endorse NAMBLA. So you’re being very dishonest.

            And if you’re saying there would be a push o normalize pedophilia, you’re likewise out of your mind because again, NO ONE would endorse the sexual abuse of children. So why do you walk around acting like people do?

          • Oboehner

            Both are forms of sexual deviance with one leading the other down the path of dangerously naïve acceptance.

          • Canis Vulpes

            And statements like that are why there are practically no adherents to your religion. You can deny science all you like, but you can’t force other people to do the same thing. Hateful statements are only opinions. They mean nothing.

          • Oboehner

            Saying I’m denying “science” doesn’t magically create it.

          • Canis Vulpes

            If you deny what medical experts say about it, you’re useless as a human being.

          • Oboehner

            “medical experts” have also said pedophilia is not abuse and can actually be beneficial, do you buy that bilge as well?

          • Canis Vulpes

            In the first place I don’t believe the second part of your statement, and in the second, if they have enough likeminded scientific minds backing them up, then yes. I’m not saying that’s what’s going on in this instance though since your statement is highly questionable.

          • Oboehner

            “In the first place I don’t believe the second part of your statement” *GASP* Science denier!!
            Then all you need to accept pedophilia is enough “experts” saying it’s ok, got it.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Not a science denier, a BS denier. Prove that science said that.
            And you’ve been told – how many times now? – that pedophilia is never going to be legal as long as everyone recognizes it as an act of non-consensual abuse. Which everyone does.

          • Oboehner

            The APA 1999, now don’t be a science denier.

            “as long as everyone recognizes it as an act of non-consensual abuse.” People once said that about gay, hmmm…

          • Canis Vulpes

            Yep, and then they got better data and better information. Which is precisely what science does.

            No cop out BS, please. Don’t just say APA 1999. I want a quote. A direct one, if you please.

          • Oboehner

            “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” a study published in the July 1998 Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association. It contended that “negative effects (of child sexual abuse) were neither
            pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less
            negatively than women.” It further stipulated that children’s feelings
            about sexual encounters with adults should be taken into effect and that
            “a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply
            adult-child sex.”

            “a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex.” – APA

          • Canis Vulpes

            Oh crap! You’re talking about the RIND study. The APA disassociated itself with that and did so strenuously. I should have known there was something up when you had to reach back nearly 20 years for a straw you could attempt to grasp. LOL

          • Oboehner

            “The APA disassociated itself with that and did so strenuously” Because of political pressure, the same reason they took gays off the list of mental defects.

          • Canis Vulpes

            That wasn’t why they took it off the list. They took it off the list because they had better and more conclusive data which showed that the religious bigots were wrong. The APA is very clear about their complete rejection of pedophilia.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, ” in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San
            Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out
            of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA
            directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In
            1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be
            declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but
            they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses
            by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed
            by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed
            in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

            What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality
            from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific
            breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated
            this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people
            started to kick up a fuss.” – Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away (Behaviorism and Mental Health dot com)

            ” The APA is very clear about their complete rejection of pedophilia.” Again political pressure.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Aren’t you a Christian? Do you believe God can make mistakes and did when the homosexuals were each born? God has a reason for everything that happens. Every single thing was decided before we were born. And you think God made a mistake when He allowed homosexuals to be born in His world?
            Maybe it was to test people of faith to see how they behave with someone who isn’t like them. He did outline how Jesus’ followers were to behave while they spread the Gospel. God doesn’t make decisions lightly about His people.

          • Oboehner

            God does not make mistakes, never has never will. That said there is no way gays were born that way, it is learned behavior exactly like Pavlov’s dog.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I think that’s a false dichotomy. Traits a person has can develop in their early life, so someone might not be “born that way”, but it’s still not something they chose.

          • Oboehner

            Just like alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.

          • Sharon_at_home

            How did the first 2 homosexual men learn the behaviour then? Besides, I know homosexuals who never had an exposure to another homosexual before they decided they were attracted to men not women. How do you explain that?
            I’d be interested in your explanations to these questions. I’m not trying to say you are definitely wrong, but without your explanation I can’t understand why you think that, which means I can’t agree or disagree.

            If God has a purpose for homosexuals to exist, he would not be making a mistake, would he. And I don’t believe He would allow them to exist solely to show a learned behaviour. God knows everything that will happen before it happens. He’d know that homosexuals exist and he would not have allowed them to exist without a reason. You may never know the reason, if the reason doesn’t involve you. You weren’t involved in any of my trials (that I know of) but you know that all of us will go through trials to test our faith, to teach us something we need to know, and to help us understand God’s power and to Glorify Him as we overcome each trial.
            I hope this has helped you understand why I say what I say about Jesus.
            God is Love.

          • Oboehner

            Gathering logic from that post is like shoveling sand with a screen door. Read Exodus 20.

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            Really? Many gay men don’t do what your suggesting? Where do they put their penis in order to have copulation? Answer where you poop from. Perverts

          • Parodyx

            Oral. Fronting. That’s two examples.

          • Nick Logan

            You need to look up that definition again.

      • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

        and/or perverts

        • William of Glynn

          Jesus did not refer to gay people using that offensive term. He referred to them as eunuchs and plainly stated that gay people are born gay.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            You could not be more wrong. Give me book, chapter and verse on that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He’s talking about Matthew 19:10-12, I believe.

          • William of Glynn

            As TheKingOfRhye stated, Matthew 19:10-12.

          • Jason Todd

            A eunuch is a male without a penis. Not a homosexual.

            Another self-serving lie bites the dust.

          • William of Glynn

            Are you able to count to 3? Jesus showed you how. It would seem that if you cannot lie to promote your own prejudices, then you have nothing.

          • Jason Todd

            It seems to me if you are saying Jesus meant anything other than men without penises, or that He approved of homosexuality in any way, that’s blasphemy and not a safe place to stand.

          • William of Glynn

            As I said, without lies on which to base your prejudices, you have nothing.

          • Jason Todd

            Projection isn’t an argument. And it’s not a response to what I said either.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “A eunuch is a male without a penis”

            If you’re going to “correct” someone, get your own facts right first.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Matthew 19:10-12New King James Version (NKJV)

            10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

            Jesus Teaches on Celibacy

            11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their
            mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and
            there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
            heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
            —————-
            Sorry boys. Nothing here about homosexuals.

            Try again?

      • William of Glynn

        No, I mean “couple.”

        The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts, per se. The ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality, something that anti-gay Christians are most guilty of today.

        • Oboehner

          No you mean sodomites, Definition of sodomy:
          “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal.” Merriam-Webster

          • William of Glynn

            I just gave you God’s definition of “sodomite.” You conveniently go with “man’s definition” of “sodomite,” yet your ilk claims to go with “God’s definition” of “marriage.”

          • Florenca Mcdowell

            You gave the definition of Satan NOT God

          • Oboehner

            You think you gave God’s definition, or did he send you a text?

          • Parodyx

            Well, how about discussing things like an adult, and not resorting to insulting pig-language?

          • Oboehner

            Scientific term, sorry.

          • Parodyx

            Is if that hard for you to say homosexual and not pervert?

          • Oboehner

            Synonymous.

          • Parodyx

            If you are into hate, I guess.

          • Oboehner

            Reality, reality.

          • Parodyx

            No…pretty sure hate is the word I meant.

          • Oboehner

            Irrelevant, again – reality.

          • Parodyx

            It’s not the reality of a normal, sane person.

          • Oboehner

            You have a right to your opinion.

        • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

          Book chapter and verse on that.

          • Chris

            Think about it like this. If the angels appeared as women and the men of Sodom tried to rape them would that story condemn all heterosexuals? No. It would be condemning rape [a non-consensual act] as well as violating what would have been paramount to people of the ancient near east – the law of hospitality.

            Ok. Now apply that same reasoning to homosexuals and the angels appearing as men.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Think about it like this…….GOD SAID THAT SAME SEX SEX AKA HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. PERIOD.

          • http://batman-news.com Teammm

            You’re the type of person that where I would say who gives a damn. Your false sense of righteousness has no bearing on my life.

            I only deal with tangible things, like the US Constitution, science, and human actions that harm other people. My morality is shaped by those things and I think I have a better foundation than you to rely on…without further marginalizing and attacking people who are already marginalized.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God and His Holy Word is the bedrock of Truth and Morality.

            His Words, His Truth and His Morality leads to eternal life. All else leads to eternal damnation in the lake of fire where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

          • http://batman-news.com Teammm

            Your rehearsed ritual is something that gives you comfort. It does nothing for me. I listen to music and treat people with compassion and empathy. That’s what gives me comfort. Mine doesn’t require fire, death and torture to win over hearts and minds.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Your refusal to accept the truth can and will be your downfall if you continue down the road you are currently traveling.

          • Chris

            First. GOD said no such thing. It wasn’t even the writers of the bible who said that. The idea of homosexuality as an orientation was only defined in the 19th century. Some homophobic theologians have interpreted the bible’s verses that way, and sometimes even translated it that way but that’s it.

            Secondly your reply had NOTHING to do with mine. It would seem that you couldn’t offer a counter to my argument.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            God has said same sex sex is a sin. He has said it several time in both the Old and New Covenants.

          • Chris

            First try to find out why those verses say what they say.

            Paul, for example, thought that two men having sex was caused by idolatry. Since homosexual behaviour is found in every species on the planet that would mean that every animal on the planet is indulging in idolatry. OR Paul was wrong.

            Second some denunciations are NOT about homosexual behaviour at all as I’ve shown with my argument concerning Sodom. An argument you haven’t even tried to answer yet.

          • Chris

            Now let’s look at those verses in their historical context. You know, the sort of thing fundies HATE to do. In the ancient world sexuality was seen as fluid. You could fancy men today and women tomorrow. What we would call bisexuality.

            Additionally there are several verses which condemn, not homosexuality, but temple prostitution and exploitative sex – i.e. an older man with a teenager.

            But all fundies see is a group they are being given permission to hate.

            I’m still waiting for you to supply evidence that I lied or apologize.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Chris, Why are they called by their sex preferences instead of something else? Who decided what to call the LGBT by those terms. I know some might be the science description but I have no ‘real’ knowledge of that.
            It would be interesting to know. 😀

          • Chris

            That’s an interesting question. I’ll quote wikipedia here “The first known appearance of homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously, arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law. In 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis.
            Krafft-Ebing’s book was so popular among both laymen and doctors that
            the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” became the most widely
            accepted terms for sexual orientation. As such, the current use of the term has its roots in the broader 19th-century tradition of personality taxonomy.”

          • Sharon_at_home

            Did God tell you to convict them and punish them? I know he didn’t because He wouldn’t. Punishment is for the Lord, not us, in this case.
            You don’t understand the bible very well as far as I can see. It’s like you have read it but have never had help understanding it.
            Are you in a particular religion?

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            May God continue His blessings on you and your family.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I appreciate your post but it didn’t answer the questions. At least tell me what religion you are. I’m an Apostolic in Canada. And you?

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            I am a Christian in America.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I see where you are coming from I think but the bible that says it in a way that sides with homosexuals is a revision of God’s Word and No one is supposed to do that for exactly this reason, don’t you think?
            Rape is always been considered a crime in the bible isn’t it? and I agree that that is what the outcome would be if the angels were women etc.
            I guess that’s why God didn’t dwell on those things and instead made his feelings known about the one sin he felt was abhorrent.
            It would be a sin in God’s eyes if you weren’t showing hospitality of strangers. It was something that Jesus spoke about that we should do.
            Which means that by not doing it, we are sinning. correct? You would probably know this better than I.

          • Chris

            “I see where you are coming from I think but the bible that says it in a
            way that sides with homosexuals is a revision of God’s Word and No one
            is supposed to do that for exactly this reason, don’t you think”

            Oh I would say that no listener was ever to sympathize with the rapists in the story of Lot.
            My point was that they violated guest right. Allow me to explain. In the ancient near east and still today in parts of the middle east if you accept someone as a guest they were sacrosanct. You couldn’t so much as touch them and had to feed and water them for 1-3 days. Guest right was so deeply ingrained that someone violating it would have struck people as being inconceivably horrible. If the angels had appeared as women and the guys wanted to rape them the reaction from any listener would have been the same.

            So any listener was supposed to be revolted over the men of Sodom attacking guests. Not because they were homosexuals.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I’m pretty sure He spoke of their desire for each other and something about the fact that they lie with other men like they would a female?
            I’ll look over the text and see if I can see that too.
            Didn’t they say they wanted the men for themselves, when they tried to get them out of Lot’s house?
            No I can’t see anyone that would enjoy hearing rape or hearing about it. I know I don’t…
            Yeah I have to read that part again. I obviously have never seen that scripture with understanding. It never hurts to re-read it (over and over and over again!) If I’m unsure and have a chance to, I’ll ask my pastor about it to see what he says too. I’ll be better prepared to discuss this if I could have enough information preferably by more than one respected source. Then I can decide for myself what I believe from that understanding.
            Blessings Chris. I always appreciate more knowledge about the bible. 🙂

          • Chris

            “Rape is always been considered a crime in the bible isn’t it?”

            Yes and no. Allow me to explain. If you are unmarried and I rape you then I am to pay your father a dowry and marry you for life. That’s it. If YOU are married and I’m single and I rape you then we both have committed adultery and will be stoned to death. But only if the rape occurs in the city. If it happens in the countryside then only I get put to death. If I’M married and you’re single and I rape you then you just become one of my wives.

            Additionally if you are a slave girl who has watched her parents be butchered, perhaps by me, I can rape you to my hearts content. Foreign slaves have few rights under Hebrew law.
            If you’re a Jewish slave girl I can still rape you but I can’t then sell you. If I’m dissatisfied with you I have to let you go.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How about Ezekiel 16:49-50?

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Ezekiel 16:49-50New King James Version (NKJV)

            49 Look,
            this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had
            pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she
            strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.[a]

            ———————-

            And this is the abomination mentioned in the above passage……..

            Jude 5-7New King James Version (NKJV)

            Old and New Apostates

            5 But
            I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having
            saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who
            did not believe. 6 And
            the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own
            abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the
            judgment of the great day; 7 as
            Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to
            these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after
            strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of
            eternal fire.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why does “abomination” only mean “sexual immorality”? Why couldn’t “abomination” refer to what was mentioned in Ezekiel?

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Those are God’s Words; not mine. The definition of abomination is not sexual immorality.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought you were saying that it is.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Reread what I typed out and try again.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ll rephrase my question. Why is “abomination” in Ezekiel referring to “sexual immorality, strange flesh, etc” mentioned in Jude? Why couldn’t it have meant the other things already mentioned?

            Just FYI, though…I’m an atheist anyway, so it really doesn’t matter to me.

        • Florenca Mcdowell

          They knew of God and did not declare his glory. Thou shall NOT lay with man as with women, even the women gave up the NATURAL TO BE WOMAN WITH WOMAN. William your post is spoken like a Sodomite.

          • Chris

            Ah, the verse where Paul says homosexual behaviour is caused by idolatry. Since every animal species on the planet contains homosexuals that must mean they ALL practice idolatry. Or Paul was wrong.

          • Sharon_at_home

            God said that we were to talk to sinners about their sins, and teach them about the Gospel so they can repent if they believe. He also said he came to bring all sinners to repentance. How are homosexuals any different than any other sinner? The Lord said they are all equal to each other in God’s eyes,

        • yabruf

          A couple of pedophiles shacking up is anything but a couple. The Bible calls the sodomite “brute beasts”, which literally means stupid animals.
          Why in the world would I call the equivalent of a pair of dogs a couple?……madness!

          • Chris

            But the bible calls fundies hipocrites, and sons of their father the devil so…

          • yabruf

            Lol what in the world are you blathering on about?
            What is a fundie, some kind of candy?

            Give me chapter and verse so I can get the context of what your trying to communicate.

          • Chris

            Fundie = fundamentalist + fanatic. If used to denote a Christian it indicates someone who is so closed minded and determined to protect Christianity that he or she doesn’t actually practice what Christ taught. Otherwise known as an ego worshipper.

          • Chris

            John 8: 44 & Matt 23: 13

        • Sharon_at_home

          Yes and No. Yes the anti-gay Christians are guilty of that. (I’m not!)
          No about Sodom; it was going to be destroyed for their sins of homosexuality before the men ever went there to see whether there were enough good people so they wouldn’t destroy it. It was a command from God to destroy it for their ‘ways’. Yes he made it clear that that was the reason for the decision. The other things weren’t in the focus as much before they went to Sodom. But He wouldn’t have liked any of the ways they treated others either. He did make it clear that that was why they were going to destroy it.
          In a bible other than the KJV I expect they have changed it to more in that line with that idea because they want to believe that God would love them too.
          The thing is, God does love them because He loves everyone. Jesus died for our sins even when we were still sinners. He died for homosexuals too because he wants all to come to know Jesus’ Love.

      • Nick Logan

        Like you never got a blowjob before. Most, if not every “christian” had a BJ or their pussy lapped up. You all are a bunch of hypocritical cucks.

        sod·om·y
        ˈsädəmē/Submit
        noun
        sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      No the article should state that two Sodomites want to pretend they are husband and wife.
      God will prevail in the end including you William

  • Mr Dalloway

    I have such great averous for this despicable common cow

    • Oboehner

      Apparently not that great of a loss.

  • Sharon_at_home

    I was looking at the daily mail co uk site and they had an article about this and quoted something from when the law suit was over. It makes this repeal in error, because they did sue for discrimination and not for an injunction according to this statement.

    from the Daily Mail in the U.K.:
    David Ermold stated:
    EXCLUSIVE: ‘Our marriage license put someone in jail, that’s what it
    cost’ – Gay couple whose lawsuit put Kim Davis in jail say wedding will be
    ‘tainted forever’ by her protest but they have NO regrets
    1. David Moore and David Ermold were denied marriage license four times by Rowan County, KY, clerk Kim Davis
    2. With other same-sex couples they sued and she was found in contempt of court – leading to jail sentence which ended yesterday
    3. They now have license issued by her deputy but there are questions over its validity as Davis’s lawyers say they don’t count without her name
    4. Couple will marry within 30 days allowed on license and had planned small ceremony but now want to thanks their friends
    Davis has become focal point for protests in favor of gay marriage and calling for Christians officials to be able to exercise conscience.

    So aren’t they now suing her for the costs of a more expensive wedding? Because they were supported by these people, not because they originally thought of them as good enough friends to invite them to the wedding.

    How is it that it is Kim Davis’s responsibility to pay for their desire to have (had) a larger wedding? Especially when said marriage has already happened. How can they justify that?

    • Michael C

      The cost of a wedding has nothing to do with this lawsuit and the damages sought have nothing to do with the cost of a wedding.

      The outcome of this case will not be affected by the modesty or extravagance of their wedding (it was modest). If this couple is awarded damages, the cost of the wedding will have zero impact on the total sum.

      The couple is suing for damages resulting from the discrimination just as Christians have sued for damages when they’ve been discriminated against.

  • notearsinheaven

    Too bad Trump did not settle this NOW. Religious freedom a constitutional right. WAY before any gay ppl decided to get “married”. ENFORCE it.

    • Mr Dalloway

      Trump would be run out of office if he ever stuck his nose in this. Oh and by the way Trump has some gay people in his lineage and so have you.

  • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

    I stand by Kim Davis 100%!

    • William of Glynn

      You would likewise have stood by George Wallace. In fact, maybe you did.

      • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

        There is ZERO correlation between the Civil Rights Era of this country and the sexual perversion you and your boyfriend practice.

        • Chris

          How about both suffering discrimination? How about both being regarded as second class citizens by the fundies of the United States? How about both being murdered by those same fundies?

          Sounds like there’s quite a few parallels.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            How about you being a lying drama queen?

          • Chris

            So homosexuals weren’t beaten up and killed for being homosexuals? The police reports beg to differ. Or do you doubt the people who’ve kicked their children out of home for being gay, killed them for being gay, physically abused them for being gay?

            Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt you know.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            You lie when you say Christians have done these things to homosexuals.

          • Chris

            Prove it. I, on the other hand can provide news accounts or police reports. How many would you like?

            “Three presidential candidates delivered speeches to evangelical
            Christians today on the same stage where a Christian pastor calls for
            gays to be executed.”

            September 22, 2000 – Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet,
            43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was
            angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his
            sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God
            to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a
            “Christian Soldier working for my Lord;” Gay testified in court that “he
            wished he could have killed more fags,” before several of the shooting
            victims as well as Danny Overstreet’s family and friends.

            Date 2016
            Christian father ‘shot his son dead for being gay’ and ‘stabbed to death his wife’ at their LA home.

            How many will it take for you to admit you are WRONG?

          • Chris

            I’m still waiting to back up your claim that I lied with evidence or apologize.

          • Chris

            You might also go to youtube and look up “Christian Parents Beat Gay Son After Disowning Him”

          • Chris

            Here’s another account of abuse “N.C. Church Members Charged With Beating Gay Man to Banish ‘Demons'”

            Or how about this one “Parents Paying Tens of Thousands of Dollars a Year for Pastors to Beat Their Kids Straight. ABC News’ “20/20” Friday night will report on anti-gay so-called conversion therapy camps run by pastors and preachers who use
            “the Bible and sometimes the belt” to try to change children from being homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual.

            Despite the practice being emotionally damaging and dangerous,
            despite being opposed by every major medical organization in the
            country, and linked to self-harm and suicide, Christian parents are still sending their children away to these torture camps.”

            Still waiting for your apology.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Many unChristian things have been done over the centuries in the name of Christ but none of it approved by Christ. Done by CINO’s. Christians in name only.

          • Chris

            Or, in other words, they weren’t true Scotsman.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Strawman argument.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Misuse of the term “strawman argument”. You did exactly what Chris said.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            strawman

            You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

            By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely
            fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own
            position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to
            undermine honest rational debate.

            Example: After Will said that we should put more money into
            health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised
            that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it
            defenceless by cutting military spending.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Thanks, but I already knew what it meant. What you did is a classic example of a “No True Scotsman” argument.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            And once again you are wrong.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You see, the definition of “Christian” I go by, and I believe other atheist-types do as well, (and what I’m guessing Chris was going with) is “someone who considers themselves a Christian.” Because for one thing, who the heck am I to say what makes a “true Christian” or not? And why should I really care anyway? As a Christian, do you care about who’s a “true Muslim” or a “true Hindu” or whatever?

            You’re telling me that someone who calls themselves a Christian and does this and that really isn’t a Christian. Fine, maybe you’re right for all I know, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

          • Chris

            A strawman is a distortion of an argument used by another. What part of my reply is a strawman? You wrote thast such people weren’t ‘true christians’ and such a reply is a no true scotsman fallacy.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Your Scotsman reply has zero to do with this because being born to a geographical region has nothing to do with being born again.

          • Chris

            It’s the name of a logical fallacy. This fallacy is also known as the redefinition fallacy, or, more generally, a variation of the equivocation fallacy. Would you prefer one of those? Or was your reply, as I suspect, an example of the red herring fallacy.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            A true Christian is one who has been born again through the Blood Atonement and Holy Spirit of Christ. At that point the Holy Spirit is living within that person and he or she is incapable of doing the atrocities that you mentioned.

            Read the Gospel of John.

          • Chris

            “A true Christian is one who has been born again through the Blood
            Atonement and Holy Spirit of Christ. At that point the Holy Spirit is
            living within that person and he or she is incapable of doing the
            atrocities that you mentioned.”

            And yet, according to the letters of Paul, all Christians are all sinners saved by grace. Since Christians are sinners then they CAN do any atrocity and still be Christians. As the saying goes – they’re not perfect, just forgiven.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            And again I say read the Gospel of John if you want insight to what I am telling you.

          • Chris

            I have read John. Several times. There’s NOTHING in there which even suggests that a Christian is incapable of sin. Now answer my question please.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Of course we are capable of sin. Christ will always be the only sinless man to walk this earth and I never said any different.

          • Chris

            Good. Then Christians can do those things. Thank you for admitting your error.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            The only special pleading that is going to happen is you when you are convicted of your sins. I hope it happens soon for your sake.

          • Chris

            Wonderful dodge, a display of a judgemental attitude AND a bit of ego worship to boot. Well done sir.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            There is no argument. Everything I have told you is the absolute truth. Do with it as you will.

          • Chris

            Everything you’ve told me is your BELIEF. And I was referring to my argument.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            Time for you to stop arguing and begin learning.

            I hope that day comes for you sooner and not later.

          • Chris

            Time for you to stop spouting slogans and start thinking.

            I hope that day comes for you sooner and not later.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            If you had read John you would have known why I asked you to read it.

          • Chris

            Yes because the only interpretation anyone can come to is yours, right?

          • Chris

            Additionally your interpretation of the bible is just that – an INTERPRETATION!

          • Chris

            Additionally you seem to be implying that you are perfect and no longer sin. If you can sin then Christians are capable of atrocities which are merely sins like any other. If you’re claiming that you are incapable of sinning then I have a suggestion – you are more accurately called an ego worshipper, not a Christian.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I thought only Catholics did that kind of thing. Is all of the higher religions? The things you posted is totally child abuse. I could never agree to anyone including myself/husband abusing any of my sons. You know what bear mothers do if someone gets between her and her babies, don’t you? That’s what I am like if someone messes with my child. lol
            Actually I have only found out about one child’s abuse – he said he was going to be beaten by his Dad for not eating everything in his lunch. His sister was going to snitch on him when they got home. So I went to the Pastor about it and he went to the grandmother to have the father talked to. The kids seemed to be thriving after that but only stayed for 4 months or so afterwards.
            No one will get away with abusing anyone if I find out about it. Men can be abused by their wives just like men abuse their wives. A child is far more precious in my eyes but if I realize someone is in an abusive situation I will not just shut my eyes and walk on by. It’s just not in me to be able to walk away from things that hurt others.

          • Chris

            There’s a guy by the name of Bob Larson who’s an evangelist. He even makes a living out of doing exorcisms.

            I agree with you totally. Those incidents are nothing but child abuse. I loved the image of you as a momma bear though. And thank you for sharing your story. Much appreciated.

          • Chris

            Nice to see fundies are still screaming insults as a response to a respectful argument. Unless you produce evidence to back up your assertion I’d suggest an apology. Though I’d say I’ll get neither.

        • Jason Todd

          Doug, you should know by now for the LGBTQW community common sense and reality only get in the way of their agenda.

          Never let them get away with it.

    • Mr Dalloway

      Attach a clothespin to your nose first.

  • Mr Dalloway

    Don’t worry folks Jebus will save her

    • Oboehner

      Or perhaps she’ll just “evolve” or some other stupid crap.

      • Canis Vulpes

        An evolution denier too. Why am I not surprised?

        • Oboehner

          LOL, deny something that never happened, LOL!! There is no proof – at all.

          • Canis Vulpes

            That statement is so ludicrous I’m not even going to entertain it.

          • Oboehner

            You can’t that’s why, because – -say it with me now: “There is NO proof whatsoever!”

          • Canis Vulpes

            I’m not going to condescend to the level of a science denying, evolution denying zealot, I’m sorry.

          • Oboehner

            ZZzzzzzz….. So you’re just going on faith eh?

          • Canis Vulpes

            “Faith”…the very thing it is not, and the ONLY thing you’ve got.
            How perfect. How delicious.

          • Oboehner

            If you had more than faith you would share, you don’t because that’s all you have.

          • Canis Vulpes

            Share what? The world’s vast libraries of information on evolution?

  • yabruf

    Leviticus 20:13 will get us off of this slippery slope!

    • Michael C

      Leviticus 20:13 will get us off of this slippery slope!

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

      Are you saying that I should be killed?

      • yabruf

        Dude I don’t know you, so no I don’t think you should be killed…..lol

        • Michael C

          Are you too ashamed to stand by your comment?

          I’m gay. Do you believe that I should be executed?

          • yabruf

            Ashamed of the moral law? Of course not.

            Your a sodomite, ok then yeah you need to put down. But that is the government’s job and unfortunately our government in the U.S. is no longer following God’s moral law.

            Although if it were up to me I would make sure you heard a clear presentation of the gospel prior to your death.

          • JMG

            No, just held in contempt and laughed at.

    • William of Glynn

      Irrelevant, since gay men don’t lie with women.

      • yabruf

        Ok slow one go back and read that verse again….lol

        Dude lays with a dude like with a women that’s the abomination.

        Sodomites will lay with anyone. They are not restricted to the same sex. The Bible is clear in Judges 19:25, where they abused a woman to death.

        • Chris

          “Sodomites will lay with anyone. They are not restricted to the same sex.”

          Prove it.

          • yabruf

            Lol, I just did Judges 19:25.

          • Chris

            The bible is a claim. It is not proof.

          • yabruf

            Correct if you are not a Christian. But I am and I know that the word of God is infallible, that is all the proof I need.
            See the reason God put three different stories detailing the depravity of the sodomites is because we are to see that as an example of what they are capable of.
            Not counting what we are to do with them.

          • Chris

            “Correct if you are not a Christian.”

            Correct if you are a Christian too. Belief is NOT knowledge. To merely say ‘you believe X is true’ proves NOTHING no matter how much you claim it does.

  • Robinske2

    There is no question that Homosexuality is a sin and forbidden by Jewish and Christian texts- and Muslim for that matter. The bible also states that “in the latter times, men will burn with lust for other men and even the women will do un-natural things. Homosexual marriage was imposed on the nation by 5 liberal judges on the Supreme court- it was never voted in and an amendment to the constitution could never have even come close to passage. No one should be forced by the government to do things that is clearly against their religious beliefs.

  • Robinske2

    Billy Graham once said that the last sign of a nation crumbling is rampant homosexuality. To the homosexuals posting here- God forgives all sin through the sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ on the cross and you only need to believe he was raised from the dead to be in good standing with the Lord. The holy spirit will work on you to change your life after that point.

    • yabruf

      Well yes and no. The sodomite can be saved from his sin but only before he becomes a reprobate. After God rejects him and turns him over, he is lost.

  • yabruf

    Leviticus 20:13 end of story. If this country still administered the death penalty like it used to we wouldn’t have this problem today.
    Shoot if we just went back to the 1960’s when the sodomites were arrested as felons we still wouldn’t have this problem.

    • Chris

      a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew
      is:

      “And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman,
      both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood
      is on them.” 3

      In modern English this could be translated as:

      “If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman’s bed,
      both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their
      blood will be on their own heads.”

      This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.

      • yabruf

        Uh ok I have never quite heard it twisted like that before but that was entertaining….lol

        I already have the correct translation and it’s called the Kings James version. I think I’ll stick with the 54 scholars fluent in greek, Hebrew, English and many other languages and trust that his word has been preserved over 400 years.

        • Chris

          King James version? You mean the version which was ordered by a gay king to justify his rule hundreds of years before the dead sea scrolls were found? That version?

        • Chris

          ” I think I’ll stick with the 54 scholars fluent in greek, Hebrew,
          English and many other languages and trust that his word has been
          preserved over 400 years.”

          “One such blatant error, made by translators of the King James Version, is found in Acts 12:4, where the word Easter is used . In the original Greek, this word is pascha and refers to Passover, not Easter. Passover is a biblical festival mentioned in Exodus 12:11, Leviticus 23:5, Matthew 26:2, Matthew 26:17 and elsewhere in the Scriptures. In the New Testament pascha is used 18 times and is translated correctly in the King James Bible as “Passover,” except in Acts 12:4, where the error was made. The New King James Version, and virtually all other translations, correct this mistake.”

          I’ll take modern scholarship any day.

  • Peter Leh

    Bottom Line.. when a tax payer goes into a county clerks office to get a marriage license….. guess what the tax payer gets?