Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Christian Teen’s Anti-Gay ‘Rap’ Goes Viral — And This Is Why It Has Liberal Blogs Buzzing

Mar. 7, 2013 7:38am Billy Hallowell

An anti-gay YouTube video is making rounds on left-of-center blogs and news sites this week. The clip, just over two minutes in length, features a young woman who performs a “rap” against homosexuality. Sure to rile anyone who believes in equal rights for gays, the video is devoted to speaking out against same-sex relationships.

Perhaps the most curious element surrounding the attention it is getting, though, is the fact that the clip was first uploaded in June 2012. Despite being relatively old, it’s getting play on many of the nation’s most popular left-leaning web sites this week, particularly because of its anti-gay contents.

Have You Seen This Christian Teens Anti Gay Rap That Has Liberal Blogs Abuzz? | Apologetics

Photo Credit: YouTube

The performance, entitled, “Rated T for Tolerance,” was originally uploaded by YouTube user “Apologetics.” With little information given about the video’s origins or the time at which it was filmed, it’s tough to make definitive assessments about the intent of those behind it.

A description accompanying the video, though, does shed some light on the mindsets of those who produced it. It reads:

Equality or Freedom?

Jesus didn’t come to make our lives fair, but to set us free.

To become born again and have our mind renewed through Christ is true Freedom through Righteousness; not Equality through fairness. Love is not a right; it is a God-given privilege bought at an extreme price — death on a cross. Jesus freely gave His life for you and me so we can have the privilege to be with Him in Heaven. God only ordains, blesses, and accounts for marriage as being a covenant between a husband and wife. Society, however, will always find cheap imitations of the real thing, promote it, then sell it. Realize this is not hate speech, I speak every word out of love.

Love is a choice.

Some of the lyrics are certainly controversial, as “Apologetics” (her real name is not given) freely offers up her opinion about homosexuality and the ongoing debate about the rights afforded to gays and lesbians. The words, clearly standing in opposition to these themes, rhyme, as Salon notes.

“Don’t propagate your hate, because I have a higher standard on who you date. I’m not here to rally against that which the government legislates, I simply don’t support a mind that is reprobate,” the girl proclaims. “Homosexuality is not innate. It is not a genetic trait. It cannot replicate the love between a man and a woman which God did indeed create.”

Salon was less-than-pleased with the performance, sarcastically noting, “Maybe we would all be more receptive to hate speech if it rhymed more of the time?” Here’s more about what the outlet had to say about the rap:

The video, titled “T for Tolerance” is a two minute anti-gay Christian rap which is, for totally normal and good reasons, being performed by a teenager in the middle of a forest.

Now this might sound like a hateful and terrible thing to do, but it’s really an act of love. Here’s why: This young Shakespeare has so much Christian compassion for the gays that she would just hate to see them “bake in the lake of fire for love’s sake.”

The Huffington Post, too, found the video offensive, saying that it is “what might be one of the most ridiculous anti-gay ‘raps’ ever.” The outlet’s lede, perhaps, perfectly best encapsulates the outlet’s opinion on the girl’s tune: “T For Tolerance? More like T for Terrible, Terrifying and Tragic.”

Wonkette and Gawker also covered the video, with the latter outlet characterizing the clip as, “a painfully flow-less Christian teen spitting h-ate-ful rhymes about homosexuality.”

Watch the video that has left-leaning blogs abuzz, below:

–

Other Must-Read Stories:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (544)

B-Neil
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:46am
She said it all. I thank her from the bottom of my heart. It’s great to see youth with such intellect. Ya just can’t add on to that. Thank you Blaze for posting her. On and On with the praise. Hallelujah

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RayOne
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:33am
  Good words, I want to see that message ‘hipped’ and ready for MTV.
  
  Report this comment
- drattastic
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:51am
  I can’t stomach rap of any kind regardless of the lyrics ,so I didn’t listen but it took a lot of guts to put herself out there like that, especially knowing that she will be mocked and scorned.
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:34am
  WHY ISN’T SHE ON AMERICAN IDOL?
  
  This is wonderful. We love it and we love her. Don’t forget God destroyed the two Homosexual Cities of Sodom and Gomorra with atomic fire.
  
  Report this comment
- FrankieBaby
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:21am
  Great to see her stand up for morality.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:35am
  To not be a gay hating, homophobic, anti-homosexual you must not only support their rights to do whatever they want in their bedrooms, but you must also celebrate their lifestyle, approve of it personally, and be happy for them.
  
  anything less and you’re the devil incarnate. Is that about right?
  
  Report this comment
- tom1973
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:49am
  Golden! She is simply replying to the “onslaught” that has been foisted upon the culture as regarding homosexual marriage, and relations! She is giving the truth as to how the God of the Bible views this particular sin being celebrated and legitimized. Not that any other sin is left out, but this one, in particular will have grave consequences, especially since our “elected president” representing “us”, has come out promoting it! Our nation has many problems, but at least we have the freedoms up to this time to “speak the truth, in love”.
  
  Report this comment
- tnman65
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:49am
  Awesome. She is a brave girl, now she must face the onslaught of a lot of mad people. She won’t be allowed to have her own opinion. You MUST be politically correct.
  
  Report this comment
- theaton
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:55am
  Some people, like this young lady, just don’t understand what it is to be a Christian.
  
  Report this comment
- HellboundandDown
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:28pm
  Blazers really must spend a great deal of time thinking about hot man lovins by the amount of stories and comments concerning the sweaty man-action! But then again, it is called the Blaze. That’s a pretty flaming name, if ya gets my drift! But seriously, you wacky Christians, Gay Sex must be pretty doggone awesome if all those people are willing to go to the Lake of Hot’n'juicy Fire for it, know what I’m sayin’? You’re thinkin’ about it right now, ain’t ya? Settle down, boys.
  
  Report this comment
- StonyBurk
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:28pm
  How beautiful the feet…. IMO SALON and “the already captured press–and Liberal establishment” –see Warning to the Homophobes “by Steve Warren of Act Up Sep. 1987 the Advocate p.29. are so full of it their eyes are brown. Or as the Holy Writ put it best Unable to stand the truth God gave them over to strong delusion that they might believe the Lie.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:32pm
  I’m kind of sick of hearing about gays and wish gay people would go back in the closet. What you do in your bedroom is nobody’s business, stop making it people’s business by telling the world about your sex lives. I also wish my fellow Christians would give it a rest and have a little compassion. While it’s probably true that most gays are not born that way, most of them became the way they are because they were molested when they were children. From what I’ve gathered during discussions with these people online is that one of the reasons they hate God so much is because they blame him for not stopping the people who abused them. Homosexuality is disgusting, we’ve got it, thank you Mr. and Mrs. Obvious. We don’t care what you do in your bedrooms as long as children aren’t involved, thank you Mr. and Mr. Gay. Can we find something else to talk about now?
  
  Report this comment
- JayBoy
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:02pm
  Homosexuals are funny. Everything in their life seems to revolve around their sexuality. As a christian I don’t hate people for choosing that lifestyle, they are sinners just like me. The difference is I try to repent from my sins, not glorify them! God Bless!
  
  Report this comment
- LogCabinRepublican
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:06pm
  My “Mate is MY Fate” This is her opinion and she is not god she too will be judged.
  
  Report this comment
- LeftOfRightOfLeft
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:00pm
  You’re all agreeing with a ~17 year old on matters of life and love. What does a ~17 year old know about love? Almost nothing. I have seen teenagers say they are in love after dating someone for 5 days. They’re bursting with hormones and have underdeveloped brains. This might be why so many people on The Blaze agree with her.
  
  Report this comment
- tonypro
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:29pm
  @theaton
  @LogCabinRepublican
  @LeftOfRightOfLeft
  
  I’m sorry ya’ll can’t see the Biblical truth in what this young lady is saying. Sad for you.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:17pm
  Tony:
  
  There was very little Biblical argument in her rap. There was just a lot of ignorant rhymes about homosexuality being a choice. Here’s a challenge to that woman, and everyone else who thinks that you can choose your sexual orientation: choose to be gay for a day. Spend one day being attracted to the same sex. I’m not asking you to have sex, just choose to be attracted to you own gender. If you can’t choose your sexual orientation, what makes you think we can?
  
  Report this comment
- LeftOfRightOfLeft
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:48pm
  @TONYPRO:
  Yeah the biblical truth is this young lady is property so we shouldn’t listen to her.
  
  22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
  
  Corinthians 14:34-35 “… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
  
  Titus 2:4: “… train the younger women … to be subject to their husbands.”
  
  Deuteronomy 5:21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:17pm
  Well done young lady. Just putting out the facts. Blessings on your life. The Left hates facts. Just hates them. Don’t worry. WE all LOVE YOU for doing this. Brave. Courageous. Semper Fi.
  
  Report this comment
- JonSigMan
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:24pm
  Yes, very well said indeed, not hateful, just accurate and sincere. She gets my vote of approval! :)
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:24pm
  @ muffythetuffy
  
  God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because some people there were participating in homosexuality.
  
  And ‘atomic fire’? Where did you find that the fire was ‘atomic fire’ or is that just a creation of your mind? If you want to say what God allegedly did, you should understand it better and you shouldn’t add your fantasies into it. I suspect your changing how and why He did something may be a bit sinful.
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:33pm
  Getoffthepotter,
  
  Just because one doesn’t WANT to be gay for a day doesn’t mean human beings can’t choose to be gay. Your challenge somehow proving one doesn’t choose to be gay is absurd. Becoming a homosexual is a systematic, lengthy process. Attitudes and beliefs regarding one’s sexuality occur, are reinforced, and one’s behavior is conditioned over a considerable period of time. It’s not something that happens in one day! Furthermore, there is ZERO empirically sound research evidence that homosexuality is genetic and not a personal choice. Don’t try the argument that no one would choose anything in their life that would result in such pain, ridicule, etc. People choose things in their life every day that are harmful and cause pain for themselves and others. Do you think people who engage in bestiality are born with a sexual attraction to animals? If not, how does this happen? It happens because deviant thoughts are reinforced over time and the individual eventually acts on them. Q. How do heterosexual prison inmates decide to become “gay for the stay”? A. The biggest sex organ we have is between the ears! Our thoughts change and we decide it is okay to be different and go against what our nature is. A gay person may believe they deserve any punishment they get (poor self-concept). They may enjoy the attention (gain sense of power). Their choice may be an act of rebellion toward family/society/God. It’s complicated, but we are not born gay.
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:02pm
  After hearing this I think there should be a law on the books requireing all Q_ueers to wear knee pads. That way when they get old Medicare won’t have to pay for knee replacements.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:05pm
  Formidable:
  
  Ever notice how it is only straight people who claim that you choose to be gay? Have you ever heard of a single gay person claim that they chose to be attracted to the same gender? Shouldn’t this tell you something?
  
  Anyway, I’m sure you don’t want to be gay, your homophobic nature drips from your comments. That is why I challenged you to just be gay for one day. If you can’t change your sexual orientation, how can you expect us to change ours?
  
  Also, there is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic or inborn trait. Studies have shown that the 2nd or 3rd son in a family has a much higher chance if being gay. By limiting yourself to looking for a “gay gene” you are missing the concept of biology and genetics. I could ask you to show me the gene for being left-handed. Or for having green eyes. If you can’t show me the gene, should I suppose that those are choices?
  
  When you actually think logically and rationally on the issue, there is no way to claim that sexual orientation is a choice. But here’s another experiment to try: ask every gay person you know, ask gay people you meet in public if they had a choice in their sexuality. You really have no idea if you were born straight, so get some first-hand answers from people born gay.
  
  Report this comment
- cgnick
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:20pm
  Awe, nothing sweeter than a clever hateful message in the name of Jesus. So what was her point?
  
  Report this comment
- crolic9
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:28pm
  Yes this great.
  She hits the nail on the head.
  May God Bless her and her words.
  It is getting old that they dictate to us
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Whether you judge her rap good or bad is irrelevant.
  
  Yahoo has posted at least 2 gay stories today.
  
  One was on a tranny MMA fighter. Florida officials are thinking about yanking her credentials to fight. The ESPN sports writers & promoters just want the money. They don’t care about the travesty. they went on this whole spiel about how hormones would make the trannies muscles the same as any other female fighters muscles. My question is does that go for her bones? She might be running on more estrogen & less testoterone but that is not going to significantly reshape the bones. Heavier bones need stronger muscles. Just another perversion of logic & science.
  
  Then there was the story of the girl who wanted her college to pay for her mastectomy. So Obama Care is going to rate a young tranny ahead of other people based on life years & subjective quality of life criteria & deny care to people with real genetic problems. In the final analysis liberalism is perverse & evil.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:32pm
  Walkabout:
  
  True, the quality of here rap is irrevalent. What matters is what she said. However, the two stories you posted we’re also irrevalent in this discussion.
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:46pm
  Potter,
  
  I believe I could change my sexual orientation if I wanted to. I’m not saying it can’t be done, you are. Furthermore, you failed to answer any of my pertinent quesions. I’m well aware that most gay people claim their orientation is not a choice. Are you blind to the motivation for this stance? If it is not a choice, how can we be held accountable? Therefore, says the homosexual, “I can’t help it. Therefore, you should accept me and approve of what I do.” Beyond that, this stance gives validity to gays’ notion of special rights. What exactly would be the down-side for homosexuals claiming their orientation is not a choice?
  
  I reject your term “homophobic.” Phobic means “fear.” I am not afraid of homosexuality, which is exactly what this B.S. term tries to insinuate. I merely do not agree with the lifestyle and find it repulsive. I don’t really care if you are gay, and I’m not trying to change you or the world. The only thing that truly bothers me are the loud, obnoxious, parade marching gays who want to continuously force their political agendas and lifestyle in my face and then criticize me for not liking it. I’m not running around broadcasting my sexuality and bedroom preferences to the masses, and I really get tired of homosexuality being a never-ending topic. Live your life, and quit trying to make everyone embrace your sexual orientation. I don’t need anyone’s approval to feel good about myself. I wish more gays felt the
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:55pm
  same.
  
  I was thinking about your last comment. If I really have no idea if I was born straight, what makes gays so sure they were born gay?
  
  Report this comment
- captjack1978
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:01pm
  I agree 100%
  
  Report this comment
- Sparky101
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:24pm
  JHRusky, this is for the benefit of anyone who may have misunderstood your statement. This is from Genesis 19: …all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” So, since it was ALL the men (and no women) would that not meet your standard of “some”?
  
  Report this comment
- hpyagl
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:48pm
  That “strong delusion” has really got some of you by the bouncy balls. A take on my biblical reference for the masses.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:59pm
  Formidable:
  
  Yes, I am saying that you cannot change your sexual orientation. If you think you can change yours, prove it! Be attracted to your own gender for a day! You keep refusing this, if you think you can change, try! Let me assure you, I tried very hard as a younger man to change my sexual orientation. I desperately tried to be attracted to women, it did not work. I would not call it being born this way, as that implies infants have sexual attraction. Rather, I had no choice. I have never been attracted to women, but right from puberty I have been attract to other men. I presume something similar happened to you, you were attracted to the opposite gender from puberty and were never attracted to your own gender. That is how I know I am gay, and how you know you are straight.
  
  And yes, a phobia is a fear, but homophobia means a person who has an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It does not necessarily mean fear, but there are plenty of people who seem to fear gay people, it is pretty sad. And what makes you think gay people want your approval? We honestly do not care what you think, we just want equality under the law, and we want today’s youth I grow up knowing the truth, and not have to deal with the discrimination and hatred so many of our generation grew up around.
  
  (Continued)
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:12pm
  (Continued)
  
  To some of your earlier questions: I do not know anyone who claims to be attracted solely to animals, do you? I know gay people, straight people, bisexual people, transgender people, but. No one in this category. It seems to me that there are no people who would fit into this category, rather an extreme few people who are curious and want a bigger phallus or something of the sort. I may be wrong, but that is my thought.
  
  In prison, a persons sexuality does not change. I you asked the men inside if they were gay, I bet they would still claim to be straight. The whole prison shower situation results from all women being removed from the situation. Those men are not attracted to the other men, but hormones build up so high that they will take any pleasurable feeling they can. Homosexuality is not about sex, it is about attraction, it is about love and who you want to spend your life with.
  
  Also, we are not forcing our sexuality on you with pride parades or anything else. If you don’t want to see it, don’t go to the parade! Should I think you are forcing your religion on me when you build a new church? That building is always there, shoving Christianity down my throat! An straight people also walk around holding hands, the kiss in public, they were rings to show they are married. Should I be upset that they are shoving their sexuality down my throat?
  
  Report this comment
- Leavon
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:21pm
  Smart Girl, gonna fall on deaf ears of the Leftists though, of course they’re gonna use all kinds of labels about her. I’ll stick with Smart Girl.
  
  Report this comment
- zapparules
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:17pm
  to FORMIDABLE and so many others of you…
  
  Do you think a young man or women – children – are making the choice to be gay?
  Do you think a young Boy Scout would choose to be gay? To be ousted from an organization he has worked so hard to be a part of?
  You are thinking like an adult – and applying such thought processes / choice making to children who… If you looked into this issue you would find don’t yet ‘operate’ that way.
  Do young adults have a true grasp of morality yet?
  And even if (religious) morality is ‘drummed into their heads’ – like some religions do… Then why/how do such children still become unsure of their sexual orientation.
  Explain how a person – exposed all their life to just a (supposed) deeply moral environment – like say, someone living in an Amish community… would ‘choose’ such a (supposed) immoral sexual orientation?
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:40pm
  Um..this wasn’t exactly rap. But still good.
  
  Report this comment
- 3-Blue
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 12:30am
  The logic of truth is inescapable. This girl is beautiful in her intelligence, strength and love. Look inside. Everyone knows this. She represents everything we in our stupidity are throwing away in this society. Yet it persists and becomes stronger still. That is because love is the strongest force in the universe. Hateful, militant homosexuals and so-called liberals are simply wrong and are servants of evil. Everyone knows this in their heart. It is truth. That’s why they fight so viciously. One doesn’t have to yell to convince anyone of truth. It is already known. Even a whisper is too much. One must attack, protest and ridicule in order to embrace the lie- the big lies that liberals love. Progressives and liberals live the lie in their everyday lives. They inescapably know this too. That’s why they are so angry… That’s why there are so many Trolls on this site. They cannot win and they know it. So they attack. They are only hurting themselves. :)
  
  Report this comment
- cgnick
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:11am
  So how many of you Christians actually considered being gay?
  
  Report this comment
- pfbronco
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:11am
  @LeftOfRightOfLeft
  
  Not sure if anyone responded to you. I wanted to respond to your 1 Cor 14:34-35 comment.
  
  Does this passage mean that women can’t speak in church services? 11:4-5 seems to say that women prayed and prophesied in public worship. Chapters 12-14 show that women and men are given spiritual gifts and are encouraged to exercise them and their faith in the body of Christ. Women have much to do and much to contribute. I think you may be taking this out of context.
  
  From what I’ve read, in that culture at that time, women were not allowed to confront men in public. Apparently, some women who had become Christians began to do this and it was causing division in the church. Unfortunately, during this era, I’m not sure women received the kind of formal religious education that men did. Could it be possible that women were raising questions during the services that could have been answered more appropriately elsewhere? I think Christianity actually frees women, it liberates them. It liberates all of us who accept Christ as God’s Son, our Lord, and our Savior. I think Paul may have been asking the women to not flaunt this freedom during worship. I think he was preaching unity, versus trying to silence women.
  
  I’m not trying to argue, just point to a different perspective. God’s perspective.
  
  You may laugh at my “freedom” comments when I say “Christ is Lord”…you are free to walk in front of a speeding car…think that’s a good idea?
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 2:50am
  Zapparules,
  
  I agree that it seems incomprehensible that someone would choose an orientation that seems so against nature and invites ridicule…. yet, I believe people do. As I said before, it is a complicated process and not on equal par with making a choice to have a Pepsi over a Sprite like some people seem to paint it. Re: your question of why the Boy Scout would choose to be gay only to be ousted later… there are quite a few variables inbetween you aren’t considering. If you say he didn’t make a choice, we can agree he was gay at least the majority of the time he was a Boy Scout. I am guessing he must have disclosed his orientation as an adult, yet still wanted to work within the organization and hoped it wouldn’t matter to the Boy Scouts. Unfortunately, it appears he was mistaken. Pete Rose also thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame.
  
  And, yes, I believe even children raised in deeply moral environments can and do choose what would be considered immoral behavior all the time. They have sex before marriage, drink alcohol, smoke pot, cheat in school, etc.. It’s called rebellion, searching to establish one’s own value system, and asserting their independence. What about the Amish who decided to be a part of that reality TV show and do things their upbringing taught them not to do? A lot of Amish don’t even have TVs. In a sense, it is human nature to be tempted to do what we’re told we shouldn’t do. Some give in to this temptation while other
  
  Report this comment
- DirkPotters
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:01am
  @HARRYPOTTER
  
  Having lived in Santa Cruz, California for 10 years, I have personally heard several homosexuals say that their homosexuality is a CHOICE. I can give a good example. Sitting around at a barbecue at the same table of 3 lesbians, I listened as they giggled to each other that they would be able to convert another woman to lesbianism.
  
  Will they say it in front of a camera or in front of a microphone? Absolutely not.
  
  And for those that doubt that a 17 year old girl could understand “love”. I’d put money on it that she probably understands love better than you do. There is a BIG difference between “lust” and “love”. If you had ever read the Masters & Johnson report on homosexuality that came in the 1970s, you would find that there is NO “love” involved. Heck, even Freud wrote that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Do you know how AIDS spread so quickly in San Francisco in the early 1980s? Well, when you visit a bath house 3 times a week, and each time you visit you have sex with at least 10 different people, it doesn’t take long to spread… I am pretty sure that is in the Kinsey Report on the subject.
  
  Yet, how many people out there know those truths?
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:09am
  Potter,
  
  I have to tell you that if I was in prison, no amt. of hormone build-up is gonna make me settle for a man. You also said homosexuality is not about sex, it is an “attraction.” Did you know that pedophilia is defined as “an attraction to children in the mind”? There are many other paraphilias out there you might want to familiarize yourself with. Some people only have sexual pleasure when someone urinates on them, i.e., a “urophiliac.” Hitler was one of them. The urophiliac would likely tell you that the one they love just happens to be one who was willing to urinate on them. People who have fetishes have conditioned themselves to be sexually aroused only when a particular object is present. They weren’t born that way either. Anyways… some food for thought. There are numerous unconventional sexual behaviors that are choices people make. Some of the choices are even called disorders. Homosexuality was once considered to be, and some in the mental health field still believe it should be…. no offense.
  
  By the way, I don’t go to gay parades. Unfortunately, I don’t have to go to them to see them. The media takes care of that for me.
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:14am
  “Christian Teen’s Anti-Gay ‘Rap’ Goes Viral — And This Is Why It Has Liberal Blogs Buzzing”
  
  But that’s only the tip of the hòmo iceberg …
  
  The FÀGGOTS are OUT-in-force and backed by deep-pockets businesses that don’t advertise their twisted ASSociations. BUT THERE IS A WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT THESE PERVERSIONS and they are doing it themselves. It’s called “Human Rights Campaign” and their existence is for the sole purpose of pressuring business to support homosexuals in the workplace & beyond:
  http://www.hrc.org/
  
  They publish a brochure of the companies they have infiltrated and give them ratings on their “hòmo-friendliness”:
  http://www.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index/
  
  Download this 2013 brochure! Don’t just BOYCOTT these BAD BUSINESSES. Write to them, call them, and tell them why they have lost your business and your sales (for big ticket items). Be calm, be reasonable, be firm. Vote early, vote often, with your pocketbook — it’s your children’s future you are buying back!
  
  Also listed are businesses who don’t care (be vocal & help them along) and those that don’t do hòmo-business (the best & encourage them).
  
  PART 1 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE REALLY NASTY – THE SPONSORS ! !
  
  American Airlines
  Citi
  Microsoft
  Nationwide Insurance
  Bank Of America
  Ernst & Young
  Lexus
  Mitchell Gold & Bob Williams
  Prudential
  Deloitte
  BP
  DV [?]
  Caesars Entertainment
  Chevron
  Google
  MGM Resorts
  checkmark [?]
  C
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:15am
  PART 2 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE REALLY NASTY – THE SPONSORS ! !
  
  Goldman Sachs
  IBM
  Met Life
  Morgan Stanley
  Orbitz
  Paul Hastings
  PWC [?]
  Macys Inc
  Replacements Ltd
  Shell
  crown woman [?]
  TD Bank
  Tylenol PM
  
  THESE ARE THE NASTY – THE SUPPORTING RETAILERS ! !
  
  Barnes & Noble
  Best Buy
  Dynex
  Future Shop
  Geek Squad
  Insignia
  Magnolia Home Theater
  Rocketfish
  Delhaize America
  Bloom
  Bottom Dollar Food
  Food Lion
  Hannaford
  Harveys
  Healthy Accents
  Home 360
  My Essentials
  Nature’s Place
  Reids
  Sweetbay
  Taste of Inspirations
  eBay
  Half.com
  Rent.com
  Shopping.com
  StubHub
  Limited Brands
  Bath & Body Works
  C.O. Bigelow
  Henri Bendel
  La Senza
  Victoria’s Secret
  White Barn Candle Company
  Office Depot
  Sears
  Kmart
  Staples
  Corporate Express
  SUPERVALU
  Acme Markets
  Albertsons
  Cub Foods
  Farm Fresh
  Hornbacher’s
  Jewel-Osco
  Lucky
  Osco Pharmacy
  Sav-on
  Save-A-Lot
  Shaws
  Shop ‘n Save
  Shoppers Food
  Star Market
  TJX
  HomeGoods
  Amazon.com
  Diapers.com
  Soap.com
  Wag.com
  Woot
  Yoyo.com
  Zappos.com
  Costco
  Hallmark Cards
  Walgreens
  Beauty.com
  drugstore.com
  Duane Reade
  VisionDirect.com
  Kroger
  Baker’s
  City Market
  Dillon Food Stores
  Food 4 Less
  Foods Co.
  Fred Meyer
  Fry’s
  Gerbes
  Jay C
  King Soopers
  Kwik Shop
  Loaf ‘N Jug
  Owen’s
  Pay Less
  Quality Food Centers
  Quik Stop
  Ralphs
  Scott’s
  Smith’s
  Tom Thumb
  Turkey Hill Minit Markets
  OfficeMax
  Safeway
  Target
  Home Depot
  Home & Garden
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:15am
  PART 3 of the
  * Hòmo-Corporations 2012 List *
  
  THESE ARE THE NASTY – THE SUPPORTING RETAILERS ! !
  
  Corian
  Kevlar
  Nomex
  Real Touch
  SentryGlas
  Sorona
  Teflon
  Tyvek
  Zodiaq
  Herman Miller
  Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
  Owens Corning
  AttiCat
  Berkshire
  Duration
  EcoTouch
  FOAMULAR
  INSUL-DRAIN
  INSULPINK
  Oakridge
  PINK
  PROPINK
  QuietR
  QuietZone
  RapidFlow
  Supreme
  VentSure
  WeatherGuard
  Woodcrest
  Woodmoor
  Replacements, Ltd.
  Sears
  Country Living
  Craftsman
  DieHard
  Kenmore
  Weatherbeater
  Whirlpool
  Amana
  Estate
  Gladiator
  Jenn-Air
  KitchenAid
  Magic Chef
  Maytag
  Roper
  Macy’s Inc.
  Hotel Collection
  Tools of the Trade
  Newell Rubbermaid
  Amerock
  Calphalon
  Irwin
  Kirsch
  Lenox
  Levolor
  Pelouze
  Vise-Grip
  Target
  Room Essentials
  Smith & Hawken
  Classified Ventures
  Apartments.com
  HomeFinder.com
  HomeGain.com
  Home Depot
  Behr
  Glacier BayHampton Bay
  Husky
  TrafficMaster
  Vigoro
  Monsanto
  Roundup
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:36am
  Dirk:
  
  Clearly you misunderstood those women. Did they say that they chose to be gay? It sounds like they were trying to get a straight girl to try it. There are groups of people, male and female, gay and straight, that will try to get someone to try the other side. For them it is a challenge, or a sexual thrill. But I asked how many people you know, who admit being gay, have said that they chose to be gay. Your other ignorant comments about gay promiscuity focus on what you clearly have heard, and not the truth. Sure, there are some gay people who have sex with as many people as possible, but there are also plenty who live in committed, monogamous relationships. There are plenty of straight people who have tons of hedonistic sex as well. There amount of lust and love is the same in gay and straight relationships. Some may be based on lust, but others are much more about love. Don’t dismiss that.
  
  Formidable:
  
  I do consider pedophilia to be an inborn trait, but that does not make it right. They are harming children if they act on their impulses. How is an adult consensual couple harming anyone by expressing their love? Your other comments refer to fetishes, which gay and straight people have. And if you don’t want to see what the media shows you, turn off the tv. You chose to read this article and comment. You chose to hear about gays. If you truly didn’t want to see or hear about gays, you wouldn’t.
  
  Report this comment
- ConserveChrist
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:03am
  One thing I disagree with her about. People are born with sinful tendencies. Some are more prone to anger or aggression than another person who may be a habitual liar. Someone is born with alcoholism while another person want’s to be gay. Another may be a womanizer. This DOESN’T make it right to be gay, but everyone is born with a weakness that only GOD can overcome.
  
  Report this comment
- gauxigers
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:30am
  I just love it so much!!! This young lady’s courage should speak to all of us! It’s time for truth, love and justice to reign again in the hearts of men and speaking out aginst homosexuality is not a sign of hate but love and concern for the well being of our fellow man.
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:57am
  Potter,
  
  You are correct that fetishes are seen in both homosexuals and heterosexuals, but you are missing the point. My point was that homosexuality, LIKE pedophilia, fetishes, etc., is the result of personal choice. Choice in this case being defined as an overall conclusion based on a series of multiple decisions over time. Pedophilia is NOT an inborn trait, and to consider pedophilia in this manner is not only dead wrong… it is DANGEROUS.
  
  …and thanks for the advice about turning off my TV. If only it were that easy. Homosexuals only constitute roughly 3% of the population, but they sure make themselves out to be a much larger and important group. Hey….I know…. perhaps attention-seeking behavior is an inborn trait, and most of them progress on to become homosexuals later in life. That would explain the disproportionate amt. of homosexuals in the liberal arts and Hollywood too. Hmmm…. maybe we’re onto something here.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:14am
  @Conservechrist
  
  “People are born with sinful tendencies. Some are more prone to anger or aggression than another person who may be a habitual liar. Someone is born with alcoholism while another person want’s to be gay. Another may be a womanizer. This DOESN’T make it right to be gay, but everyone is born with a weakness that only GOD can overcome.”
  
  Well said!
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:27am
  @ sparky101
  
  “This is from Genesis 19: …all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” So, since it was ALL the men (and no women) would that not meet your standard of “some”?”
  
  My point was that God did not destroy the city because of homosexuality. He destroyed it because Lot could not find 10 righteous people within the city. It doesn’t say Lot could not find 10 heterosexual people so to say it was because of homosexuality is simply wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- zapparules
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:52pm
  FORMIDABLE…
  What happens if your belief is wrong? …if your belief that sexual orientation is ONLY a choice?
  (Are your beliefs infallible?) What if it is not always a choice but yet law and policy responds otherwise? What critical Rights might be / are being taken away because policy follows YOUR beliefs?
  
  So ok. Lets say every possible ‘wrong’ is but a choice.
  Please explain what is the harm being done to you/others/society if homosexuals are given all the same rights as heterosexuals.
  Do you believe Americans should have the freedom to make such choices? Who are you to take away certain important freedoms and Rights – based on YOUR beliefs?
  
  Similarly. Do you seek to ‘punish’ and restrict Rights from ALL others who make any of the many other wrong ‘choices’ (you deem wrong)?
  Do you propose that gov’t restrict the Rights of… adulterers / divorcees / believers of another religion (which is a sin – a wrong belief/choice in your eyes – right?).
  
  Your comments on the Boy Scout make no sense whatsoever. When/if disclosed has NOTHING to do with the choice/non-choice of being.
  So a ‘totally’ honorable Scout – who has achieved the rank of Eagle – just decides to REBEL (to the extreme) and be stripped of all the recognition he worked years to obtain… – ???
  I can tell you… You ARE wrong.
  
  Who determines immoral behavior? if raised to believe homosexuality is fine – not immoral then… Who are you to say it is and, as a result restrict t
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:41pm
  Zapparules,
  
  No, my beliefs about sexual orientation are not infallible. However, I am currently on the side of science, not mere emotion. If science changes their position, I will rethink mine.
  You are muddying the waters bringing up a discussion of rights. No, I don’t think a person deserves any special rights because they have chosen to be homosexual. No, it is not a civil rights issue. The beginning of this discussion was whether or not a person chooses to be gay. You are diverting attention away from that by throwing other logs in the fire.
  Re: the Boy Scout…. are you giving a hypothetical example or are you speaking of a real-life Boy Scout whose Eagle rank was actually taken from him because he said he was gay? I have never heard of an Eagle Scout losing his award because he disclosed in adulthood that he was gay. Like I said before, it would seem more likely that a former Boy Scout is now wanting to work in the organization as an adult, he at some point shared with the organization he is gay, and is now angry the organization will not allow him to work for them and do what he wants to do. Again, the BSA are a private organization and if they believe Mr. X no longer exemplifies their definition of strong moral character because of his chosen sexual orientation, no soup for Mr. X.
  My religion and upbringing tell me homosexuality is wrong, empirical research confirms it’s a choice, and my own eyes tell me it’s abnormal. We shall agree to disagre
  
  Report this comment
- formidable_foe
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:43pm
  Zapparules,
  
  We CAN agree on Frank Zappa being an outstanding musician. His former drummer, Terry Bozzio, is one of my favorites of all time.
  
  Report this comment
- Palter
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:44pm
  Before 1967, interracial marriage was prohibited. One of the argument was of course involving a religious prudent interpretation of bible: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”….. Will we ever learn?!
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:45pm
  Formidable:
  
  We keep coming back to this…. You can’t choose who you are attracted to! That is an absolutely absurd idea. You say you won’t try to e attracted to your own gender because you don’t want to. Well in most gay people lives we went through stages where we did not want to be attracted to our own gender either. We tried very hard not to be. You can’t change something like that. I have come to understand that there is nothing better or worse about being gay compared to being straight. Each one is equally valid and can be equally fulfilling. We just cannot allow any behavior that is harmful to someone else like pedophilia is. Frankly, I pity people with that attraction, but will never condone harming an innocent child. That is the difference. Homosexuality is not harmful to anyone, but trying to convince a gay person that they can chane is harmful to their mental well-being.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:01pm
  You people are still trying to rationalize with this man? Give it up already. The topic is moot to begin with. Hardly worth a second glance.
  
  Report this comment
- zapparules
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:46pm
  FORMIDABLE…
  There are at least a few publicized cases of young Eagle Scouts being stripped of their Eagle merit and membership in the Scouts.
  Would be wonderful to hear from such gentleman themselves – and ask them if they chose such to be rebellious or for similar reason – or feel they had no choice (except for the choice to come out)
  Sorry but your line of thinking does not jive with all that I have read from such folks.
  And I do have a personal relationship with someone in a very similar situation and can tell you that this fine young man is in NO WAY doing such to be rebellious – and I whole heartedly believe he feels/believes he has no choice in his orientation.
  
  Please don’t confuse what happens when many adults seek sexual ‘variety’ as a thrill or similar – with the extremely difficult realization of youngsters that they have NO CHOICE in the matter.
  Again, just look at the number of youth suicides for those fighting with this supposed choice. Those folks feel they needed to make they ultimate choice because it troubled them so much.
  
  Interesting you use science when you admit faith not infallible.
  Is the science of this matter any more infallible (for you)?
  
  IMPORTANT: Gays and those that support them are not seeking any “special rights”.
  They/we simply seek that they are afforded (by the govt) the SAME RIGHTS as any other American / loving couple.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:46am
Well, one of her lines is “I’m not here to rally against that which the government legislates.” If she’s not in favor of forcing her morality upon others through the use of intrusive big government, I see nothing wrong with her views; indeed, they align quite a bit with my own (though leaving out the fact that we’re all sinners and gays are no worse than anyone else in the eyes of God might have been helpful).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:52am
  Edit: Last line should have read (though mentioning the fact that we’re all sinners unworthy of eternal life without repenting and believing in Christ, and that gays are no worse than anyone else in the eyes of Go,d might have been helpful).
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:58am
  It’s always easier to point out a sin that you’re not guilty of, isn’t it Locked?
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:14am
  @Locked
  There is a certain honesty with you that is lacking when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.
  
  Yes; homosexuality is no worse in that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, and non of us deserves his mercy. Non is righteous. No not one according to scripture. So we must all turn to Christ and put our faith in him and his work on the cross, for our salvation. Part of turning to Christ is to turn away from our sins. Though we are living in the flesh we cannot attain perfection, but we are commanded to turn away from sins. The evidence of our salvation is the fruit of the spirit.
  Nevertheless; there is a reason that God burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and namely homosexuality, as we see in
  
  Romans 1:26-27
  New International Version (NIV)
  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. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arro
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:17am
  @Gonzo
  
  Exactly. I feel like that’s why most Christians go after gays (because most heterosexuals, myself included, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual behavior), but don’t go after, say, divorcees remarrying (which is adultery).
  
  As someone who is neither an adulterer nor a homosexual, I have no problem pointing out that the Bible says both of these things are sinful. But not for a second will I pretend to be free of other sina, or morally “better” than a homosexual or an adulterer in the eyes of God.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:21am
  continued
  
  and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
  
  Sex belongs in a marriage only, between a man and a woman. We as a nation have turned away from God with our 50million abortions and STD, and now rampant homosexuality, is just a sign of the rebellion in the American people.
  
  @Locked
  Did you watch this sermon? If so what do you think about it?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ICTsqE4Fjs
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:22am
  @Squarehead
  
  I’m not sure why you say I’m dishonest on the issue; truthfully I see myself as more honest than those who focus on homosexuality as somehow being such a terrible sin above most others.
  
  “Yes; homosexuality is no worse in that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, and non of us deserves his mercy. Non is righteous. No not one according to scripture. So we must all turn to Christ and put our faith in him and his work on the cross, for our salvation. Part of turning to Christ is to turn away from our sins. Though we are living in the flesh we cannot attain perfection, but we are commanded to turn away from sins. The evidence of our salvation is the fruit of the spirit.”
  
  I completely agree.
  
  “Nevertheless; there is a reason that God burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and namely homosexuality.”
  
  Actually there are several reasons for the destruction of S&G, given in Genesis, Jude, and Ezekiel. Ezekiel never even mentions sexual immorality as being a reason, and Genesis places the emphasis on the attempted rape of angels being the precipitating cause. Someone who says “S&G burned only because of homosexuality” is ignoring the words of the Bible. I had a conversation with poster Chazael the other day about this in another topic.
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:24am
  You are correct but do you see a national organization of other sinners trying to destroy Christian beliefs and values because they want us to agree and accept their chosen lifestyle of sin? Are they teaching other sinful lifestyles in our public schools? Last I heard there wasn’t a school curriculum on adultery, murder, stealing, etc. etc. That is the difference. They are throwing this perverted sinful lifestyle of Satan in our faces and she is speaking out against it. Satan perverts everything and the perversion of homosexuality is just one of the tools he is using. Remember God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because they had fallen into this type of depravity. When God created a partner for Adam he created a woman for him, not a man. Satan is simply trying to destroy the seed of man through homosexuality, abortion and anything else that stops the reproduction of man. We are in a spiritual war against Satan and if we don’t speak out then we are just letting him win. God wins in the end but we still have to fight the battle while we are still on this earth. If people would accept Christ
  and study His word they would begin to see that they no longer desire to live a sinful lifestyle. It changes everything for the better and through Christ you begin to truly see through all the lies of this world. All a person has to do is believe. But it is easier to believe the lies of men because then you don’t have to change anything about your lifestyle. I prefer Jesus’ way to man’s
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:24am
  @Locked
  
  You are right about divorce.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:26am
  Squarehead, He also flooded the Earth, was that only because 3% of the population were homosexual? I think there were a lot of sins He was angry about. It’s a sin and in God’s eye, it is unacceptable, but I think to a flaw, we as Christians like to concentrate on the sins we are not guilty of.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:36am
  @JCLDWL
  
  “If people would accept Christ and study His word they would begin to see that they no longer desire to live a sinful lifestyle. It changes everything for the better and through Christ you begin to truly see through all the lies of this world. All a person has to do is believe. But it is easier to believe the lies of men because then you don’t have to change anything about your lifestyle. I prefer Jesus’ way to man’s.”
  
  I 100% agree with this sentiment. There’s a key part right in the middle of this though:
  “All a person has to do is believe.”
  You cannot force someone to believe. Would the world be a better place if we were all morally righteous folks? OF COURSE! It’ll never happen though, because we have free will, and that means we have the divine right to much our lives up if we wish to do so.
  
  My point from the original post I put up is that it’s not the government’s place to police and legislate morality. If we want to gain converts to Christianity, I am of the opinion that living a good life, being happy, and setting a good example will attract people far more than telling them they’re damned, cannot love, and should go away.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:59am
  This is what you must know:
  
  And I thought Michele Malkin dancing was an affront to God. Whew! This girl must be the granddaughter of some unholy union between Bobby and Sissy in the dressing room of the Lawrence Welk show. Said to see young people in America grow up so ignorant and intolerant. She has no concept of freedom or liberty.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- crazyrightwingmom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:20am
  Yoursense…that wasn’t Michell Malkin dancing! Another lady.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:45am
  Until people on here can openly admit that they are being hypocritical when they argue for “limited government” and “freedom” while also trying to use the government to pass legislation around their book; I have no reason to think they’re making a legitimate point.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:48am
  Jcldwl, Yes, I “do you see a national organization of other sinners” pushing a sinful agenda. I think racking up debt without any real intention of paying it back is a sin and I see the Democrat party and the POTUS pushing it on the American public on a daily basis.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:50am
  Mr or Ms MODERATIONISBEST,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  DING DING DING! We have a winner!
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- zorro
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:53am
  Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:17am
  
  “Exactly. I feel like that’s why most Christians go after gays (because most heterosexuals, myself included, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual behavior), but don’t go after, say, divorcees remarrying (which is adultery).”
  
  And I think the difference is, no one is out there promoting and pridefully marching for divorce. If the homosexual lobby wasn’t so hung up on normalizing the behavior, we wouldn’t have to speak out against it. It’s not enough to “legalize” it. By the government sanctioning it, they begin to demand our churches provide their ceremonies, that our Christian citizens provide them services for their lifestyle, etc. This is a problem, Locked.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:57am
  @Locked
  
  While referring to scripture with emotion is a conversation, it is not a way to show what scripture says.
  
  1) Sodom was destroyed over Gross immorality and going after strange flesh. Jude says this, flat out. And in Genesis it is the only reason given as well (Gen 19:5,9). It is also the only confirmation needed for the 2 angels (Gen 18:21 19:12,13).
  Nor does Ezekiel contradict this any way. Which you could not show. The abominations (or detestable thing as you would refer them as) can be those sins… and with Gen and Jude must be.
  
  2)All sins separate from God. But you are absolutely wrong that all sins are equal.
  Speaking to Pilate:
  “Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” John 19:11
  
  3)”Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Matt 18:7
  
  If you are saying gay marriage/unions should be allowed, woe to you for helping to place/uphold a stumbling block.
  As for not wanting to force others to do something “…for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” (Snippet Rom 13:4)
  That is the Godly function of government. A government which does not avenge evil, but rather upholds it, is not good but evil.
  
  (Cont).
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:58am
  @
  Like it or not in a democracy your voice/vote is a part of government.
  
  What we are not to do is give to Caesar what is God’s and try to serve God through Caesar (Matt 22:21). Romans gives a great contrast. Rom 12:19 “Never take your own revenge” while Rom 13:4 government is “an avenger of God who brings wrath on the one who practices evil”.
  
  You are mixing the teachings for Christian living and trying to live those out through government (your voice/vote) which as shown, will necessarily cause you to place/uphold stumbling blocks by upholding an ugodly form of government. The government is to uphold the teachings that are naturally good; the government is not to uphold the teachings for following Christ (Mercy, forgiveness, etc…). And as Christ said we can give to each without contradiction. Government throws stones; Christ says sin no more, without the stones.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:01am
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  4)Another part of the thread, but I’ll put it here. Homosexuals have love… but not all love is good; people can and do love evil.
  “…and men loved the darkness rather than the light…” (snippet John 3:19)
  
  “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Matt 6:24
  
  If you love, you will by necessity hate the things that are against what you love. Homosexual love is hate towards God. It is not a Godly love, but a love of the world which is not from God (1 John 2:15,16).
  
  So yes, homosexuals which have not rejected their fleshy desires cannot love with the same love which what God is. If God is your standard for the defintion of love, then no they cannot love (1 John 4:7-9 5:1-3).
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:24am
  LOCKED you’re concerned that she should not be “forcing her morality upon others through the use of intrusive big government,” but that’s exactly what the homosexual agenda has accomplished.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:41am
  @Theotherbean
  
  “you’re concerned that she should not be “forcing her morality upon others through the use of intrusive big government,” but that’s exactly what the homosexual agenda has accomplished.”
  
  How do you figure? Last I checked, gays aren’t calling for a bad of heterosexual marriage because it’s against their religious beliefs.
  
  @Chazael
  
  “4)Another part of the thread, but I’ll put it here. Homosexuals have love”
  
  Not according to Diane TX.
  
  “… but not all love is good; people can and do love evil.”
  
  And when that evil hurts other people, then it should be stopped through Constitutional means. I’m sorry if you think two women kissing hurts you.
  
  “If you love, you will by necessity hate the things that are against what you love.”
  
  This seems to follow a common fallacy you commit: that situations are always for or against. Black and white. That’s hardly ever the case in reality. For example, I hate religious theocracy and love the Constitution, but I don’t hate you. I simply disagree with you and don’t care for your big government ideas.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:56am
  @Chazael
  
  My response to your first post has failed to show up three times now. Not sure why. I’ll try breaking it down into smaller pieces.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:01pm
  @Zorro
  
  “And I think the difference is, not one is out there promoting and pridefully marching for divorce.”
  
  Probably because divorce is legal and no one is trying to ban it by calling it a sin, an abomination, or anti-biblical (which is odd, as it is all of those). Yet those same arguments are made against gay marriage, and it is unrecognized at the federal level even while some states allow it.
  
  I think the states should decide, frankly.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:03pm
  @LOCKED, THEOTHERBEREAN, MODERATION, et al
  
  I have much respect for all of you and I appreciate honest debate – I learn much from your comments.
  
  I will say, at the risk of being ridiculed, that government does have a certain amount of responsibility in regulating moral behavior, albeit it is easy to take this to an extreme.
  
  There may be certain behaviors which are deemed immoral that are too taboo to allow; this does not mean all ‘sin’ should be legislated against.
  
  Divorcees remarrying, alcohol, drugs, promiscuity, etc seem to fall into the latter category. So does the ones regarding hair length, adornment with jewels, the eating of certain foods and keeping the Sabbath holy are a few of these examples.
  
  However, the question of homosexual ‘marriages’ seems to fall into the taboo category.
  
  I am sure we can figure out a way to protect the rights to those who engage in homosexuality. They have a right to visit loved ones in hospitals, cover who they choose under their insurance, bequeath their property to someone, etc, without elevating the relationship to ‘marriage’ status.
  
  I think we should not tear down any walls until we know why they were out up in the first place.
  
  Self-regulation works best, but there are times that government regulation is needed – and I believe this is true with the subject in question.
  
  Report this comment
- TonyRUS
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:11pm
  You have it exactly backward, Locked. She is resisting gays forcing of THEIR morality on us! We do not insist that gays believe what we want them to believe about homosexuality. They can believe whatever they want about it. They can say and do what ever they want about it. It is THEY that want US to say and do and believe what THEY want us to. But you just don’t get that, do you.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:18pm
  Hmmm, still not posting. I’ll break it up even more…
  
  @Chazael
  
  “Nor does Ezekiel contradict this any way.”
  
  And I have never, ever, once said this wasn’t the case. In our last conversation you would continually ignore Ezekiel’s text, saying its “debatable” and doesn’t matter. Sorry, but I still disagree with you cutting up the Bible to suit your biases.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:27pm
  @Brother Ed
  
  Thank you for your comment; I always enjoy your posts as well.
  
  “There may be certain behaviors which are deemed immoral that are too taboo to allow.”
  
  Now we’re getting to exactly what Gonzo said before:
  “It’s always easier to point out a sin that you’re not guilty of”
  
  Is that not the case here? Nothing makes homosexuality a “worse” sin than the others you listed; indeed, if anything I’d count divorce as worse, as it very likely hurts people (think children of divorcees). However, many people have drank, had lusty thoughts, maybe even tried drugs. Folks cut their hair, and wear jewels. I personally love good food, and while I spend time on Sundays in church, I don’t take the entire day off from everything else.
  
  But homosexual attraction? Never felt that. And it weirds a lot of people out, to the extent that they want to use government to regulate such behavior and claim it’s because of the Bible. Sorry, if it doesn’t hurt someone else, it seems the government has no place legislating against it.
  
  “I am sure we can figure out a way to protect the rights to those who engage in homosexuality. They have a right to visit loved ones in hospitals, cover who they choose under their insurance, bequeath their property to someone, etc, without elevating the relationship to ‘marriage’ status.”
  
  I’m not sure what the “marriage status” is. US marriage is not Biblical marriage; no one can doubt that. So why worry?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:36pm
  @Tonyrus
  
  “She is resisting gays forcing of THEIR morality on us!”
  
  You’ll have to explain this one to me, because this makes no sense. If gays were advocating that you be forced into a gay marriage, I’d understand. If they were calling for the outlawing of heterosexual marriage, I’d agree. Oh, here’s one! Imagine if they said “You can get married, just like everybody else… but it needs to be a member of the same sex”? That would be atrocious! Yet I seem to recall hearing some eerily similar slogans…
  
  But saying that a secular government allowing non-biblical marriage is forcing “morality” upon you? What? Legal US marriage is already non-biblical. And since when is the government saying ye or nay the only way you validate your morality?
  
  In a bizarro world, if marriage was outlawed tomorrow, would you consider yourself living in sin with your wife? Or would you say “Ha, nice try government. Marriage is between us and God”?
  
  “They can believe whatever they want about it. They can say and do what ever they want about it.”
  
  Except, you know, get married?
  
  “But you just don’t get that, do you.”
  
  Nope. Your protests don’t make sense. Homosexuality is sinful, but allowing gay marriage is not forcing “gay morality” on me any more than allowing divorce is forcing “adulterous morality” on me.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:42pm
  @Chazael
  
  Huh, the rest still isn’t showing up. Let’s see…
  
  “If you are saying gay marriage/unions should be allowed, woe to you for helping to place/uphold a stumbling block.”
  
  Alcohol is legal, but some people who drink will become drunks and fall away from God. Am I upholding a stumbling block because I don’t petition the government to repeal the 21st amendment? Of course not. Just like with Sodom, you’re picking and choosing which Scripture you follow to back up your position.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:48pm
  @ Locked
  
  I had to run some errands, so i am unsure if you are done or not so I will keep them under the respective #’s that i used in the first post. That way if you are not done, it will be easy to go back because of the reference.
  
  1) Ezekiel’s text does matter… you just can’t argue from it with the point you are trying to make.
  
  Cutting it down into sections A= all of verse 49 B= haughty D= committed abominations E= Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
  
  As stated many, many times you can either interpret it this way:
  (A,B,C,D)E (A,B,C,D was what God saw when He removed them)
  or
  (A,B)C (D)E (Sodom had A thus had C) (When God saw D He removed them)
  
  Unless you can show that the latter cannot be true, you can’t argue necessity from a postion which has 2 possible interpretations.
  
  And on top of that, this conversation has shown me what i did not see before…. “removed them when I saw”. What did God see when the city was destroyed? What was the confirmation God was looking for to destroy the cities (Gen 18:21)?….. The same things Genesis describes (Gen 19:5,9) and the same things Jude describes for the reason (Jude 1:7).
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:50pm
  @Locked (cont)
  
  Not only is postion in conflict with Jude and silent in regards to Genesis, but now that has been shown to me, even in Ezekiel that position cannot be held.
  
  Jude= Reason for destruction gross immorality and going after strange flesh.
  Genesis= Confirmation that led to destruction= Attempted homosexual rape of angels and Lot
  Ezekiel=Answer to what God saw WHEN He removed Sodom. Answer what Jude and Genesis describe.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:52pm
  Locked always seems to make sense. I am also against legislating morality as it generally gets us nowhere. If there is a problem with morality in society I like how we try to educate our culture against it much in the same way we did about smoking. IT doesn’t start with government it starts with the people.
  
  Mod- It seems the christians on this thread are fairly consistent. Who wants to legislate morality here through the government?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:58pm
  @Chazael
  
  “Cutting it down into sections A= all of verse 49 B= haughty D= committed abominations E= Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
  
  As stated many, many times you can either interpret it this way:
  (A,B,C,D)E (A,B,C,D was what God saw when He removed them)
  or
  (A,B)C (D)E (Sodom had A thus had C) (When God saw D He removed them)
  
  Unless you can show that the latter cannot be true, you can’t argue necessity from a postion which has 2 possible interpretations.”
  
  I’ve “shown you” the text several times; obviously you just don’t want to read it. The part you are skipping is “this was the sin of your sister city, Sodom:” The following describes the sin exactly, and nowhere is the account the same as Jude. You calling it “debatable” is simply false. You claiming Jude’s account to be the ONLY sin is also false; just like in Ezekiel, the described sin doesn’t say “ONLY these sins.” There were three different reasons given across the three books; you are picking only one and discounting the others.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:04pm
  @ Locked
  
  4)What i wrote was consistent with Diane TX.
  
  Love of evil is not the same as love of good.
  If you hold to the statement that “God is love”, then no they do not love. Which is the same thing 1 John 4:7-9 5:1-3 say. If one doesn’t love, one does not know God. Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God and obeys His commandments.
  
  3) Hurting others is not the standard…. not placing stumbling blocks for others to trip over is. Your position is in direct opposition to what Jesus said.
  
  When one defines everything in relation to God everything is black and white. That is not a fallacy; that is morality. It is either Godly or not. You are either following (living) by His word or not. To even have an objective morality one must define everything from God. If you define from person X or government X you can get ungodly results. Which is why love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul is the 1st command. It makes sure the heart is Godly so one can follow the second, love your neighbor as yourself.
  
  You need the 1st in order to have a Godly second. You need black and white.
  
  2 positions you hold which directly conflict with what is written.
  
  You/Scripture
  
  Can place stumbling blocks/Woe to the person who places stumbling blocks
  All can love/Not all can love
  
  That should tell you something…..
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:19pm
  @ Locked
  
  3) First pointing to a sin, to justify another never gets you to good.
  
  Second… no Christian has to speak out, we already have a King and we look on government to see what God is doing in the world (Dan 2:21).
  
  But if you do, and you are, you better not be placing or upholding stumbling blocks…. which you are. If a Christian decides to speak/vote it will always follow “sin no more” not do what you want.
  
  1) You are confusing “these were Sodom’s sins” with “this is why I removed”. Why it was removed is clear: it was what He saw, when He removed them (at the time of destruction, what the 2 angels saw/confirmed, what Jude ascribes to the destruction). Not only have I read it, I have explained it. You only say what is written is right, therefore I am wrong…. that is the equivalent of a tantrum.
  
  They are all Sodom’s sins. And all those sins were necessary, but not sufficient for why they were removed. As Romans 1 points out those type of sins are necessary for homosexuality to be embraced by a society. But they are not why they were destroyed. Genesis makes that clear, Ezekiel makes that clear, Jude makes that clear.
  
  I realize what you wrote was written before my other post appeared, but I thought I would answer anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:44pm
  @Chazael
  
  “Love of evil is not the same as love of good.”
  
  Nope, but it’s still love. Diane seemed to say that gays can’t love. That’s false.
  
  “Hurting others is not the standard”
  
  It is in politics.
  
  “not placing stumbling blocks for others to trip over is.”
  
  Good news; no one is doing that. If I was forcing straight people to marry their same sex partners, you’d have a point.
  
  “Your position is in direct opposition to what Jesus said.”
  
  Ha! Tell me again about Christ’s words on homosexuality.
  
  “When one defines everything in relation to God everything is black and white.”
  
  You’re not doing this, however. You’re discarding parts of the Bible based on your own views, and adding words to others to do the same. I have no issue with God’s laws; I have an issue with your selective discarding of Scripture. And even more so, your desire to use your subjective beliefs and force them upon others.
  
  “First pointing to a sin, to justify another never gets you to good.”
  
  But pointing to how YOU react to sins that you’re fine with, but act differently to others, is quite relevant.
  
  “You are confusing “these were Sodom’s sins” with “this is why I removed”.”
  
  No, I’m really not.
  
  :You only say what is written is right, therefore I am wrong…. that is the equivalent of a tantrum.”
  
  I’m sorry that quoting the Bible and saying “You’re ignoring this section” is considered a tantrum in your view. I call it being honest.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:10pm
  Odd, comment is still not posting. Let’s see if there’s a forbidden word in it somewhere…
  
  “@Chazael
  
  The last part of my original response still won’t show up. Luckily, you’ve effectively repeated the portion I was trying to address.
  
  “Second… no Christian has to speak out… But if you do, and you are, you better not be placing or upholding stumbling blocks…. which you are. If a Christian decides to speak/vote it will always follow “sin no more” not do what you want.”
  
  When Jesus said “go forth and sin no more,” did he follow it up with “or I’ll send the Roman police after you!”? When God gave us free will to choose to sin or repent, did he stipulate that humans should elect a government to force people to comply?
  
  What you are advocating is enforcing your religious morality through legislation, and it’s fundamentally opposed to founding principles of the United States. Saying “God gave us free will, and it’s the government’s job to take it away and make you choose the right path” is extremely disturbing to me.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:33pm
  @ Locked
  
  3)Hurting others is the standard in politics?
  
  “…for it is a minsiter of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (snippet Rom 13:4
  
  You are pointing to the world’s idea of good government and not God’s. Why is that?
  
  Forcing straight people to marry is one example of placing a stumbling block for another to trip over. But one does not have to force anyone in order to be the “man through whom the stumbling block comes”. Your confusing “causing” in v.6 with “physically making someone do”. A scripture to illustrate the the stumbling blocks are the cause:
  
  “”But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” says the Lord of hosts.” Mal 2:8
  
  A teaching, which forces no one…. but allows them to choose to trip over it or not… is a cause.
  
  So yes, you are in direct opposition to scripture.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:34pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  5) (New number, new topic) As far as Christ’s words on homosexuality… yes there is. Do you remember when Jesus was asked about the resurrection and He didn’t point to a section in the Pentateuch entitled: The Resurrection. He pointed to a passage that had nothing to do with it… but the words did. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” He is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt 22:32). All based on a verb tense.
  
  In the same manner Jesus spoke of marriage as being based upon creation, the creation of male and female (Matt 19:4,5). The only other way to get otherwise is through the corruption of creation, corruption of the male and female. Which both condmens homosexuality as well as homosexual marriage/unions. Paul points the same thing out when he points at creation and people having no excuse(Rom 1).
  
  And if you really believe Jesus is who He says He is, He condemns it in the OT, NT, and through His creation.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:35pm
  Wow, what a marathon Locked. You get 100 points for patience.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:35pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  3)You wrote:
  
  “You’re not doing this, however. You’re discarding parts of the Bible based on your own views, and adding words to others to do the same. I have no issue with God’s laws; I have an issue with your selective discarding of Scripture. And even more so, your desire to use your subjective beliefs and force them upon others.”
  
  One I never claimed I was doing this… you are. You wrote:
  
  “This seems to follow a common fallacy you commit: that situations are always for or against. Black and white. That’s hardly ever the case in reality.”
  
  Also please point to the “selective disregarding of scripture”.
  
  And explain why Rom 13:4 is wrong.
  
  Another example of a unsubstantiated claim. If you make a claim… you have to show it.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:36pm
  LOCKED,
  you are totally entitle to disagree. You can even disagree, because God made you a free will moral agent, but your choice to disagree has consequences – particularly when what you say is wrong and much of what you say is wrong. Others have covered it quite well, particularly Chazael who seems to have a greater depth of understanding than you about the teachings in the Word of God.
  Be careful when you seemingly take pride in an understanding of the Word, when it is quite clear that in some areas you profoundly err.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:37pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  1) (But applies to all)You said:
  
  “I’m sorry that quoting the Bible and saying “You’re ignoring this section” is considered a tantrum in your view. I call it being honest.”
  
  But you are not pointing at scripture, but an unfounded interpretation of it. In order for it to be a founded interpretaion you actually have to be able to explain it logically, as the scripture is words which have meaning. And two explain HOW something is not following scripture by using the necessity of the meaning of scripture to show how another’s interpretation cannot follow the meaning of scripture.
  
  So yes, saying “You are ignoring scripture” without anything to back it up is a tantrum.
  
  Example:I wrote:
  
  “You are confusing “these were Sodom’s sins” with “this is why I removed”.”
  Your reply:
  “No, I’m really not.”
  
  If that were true you could show, by using the words how “I removed them when I saw” does not mean the reason why Sodom was destroyed was what He saw at the time of removal.
  
  But you didn’t… you didn’t even attempt it.
  
  “No, I’m really not.” is equivalent to a tantrum.
  
  Your interpretation of scripture, does not equate to scripture, unless you can SHOW your interpretation aligns with scripture. And when someone SHOWS how your interpretation does not align with scripture, your going to need to prove that it does.
  
  Pointing to text and saying I am right does not do that! Emotions will not suffice.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:44pm
  LOCKED, I mean that big government has legislated legal abortion and homosexual marriage, which FORCES me to not only accept that which I find unGodly, reprehensible, and even murder, but I must also pay for it through taxation. That is unconscionably wrong, if you ask me.
  
  ED, Thank you for your civility, but patronizing me does not make your comment more palatable. I’m just sayin..
  
  And I’m not certain Ed, whether the rest of your comments were for or against government regulation of homosexual marriage. I personally (at this time, but I will always entertain rational arguments) don’t have a problem with the government allowing “civil unions” to realize the same “civil benefits” that married couples receive. But I do not believe the gov has any business changing the rules established by God for marriage, (marriage being a solemn religious pact between one man, one woman and God) by legislating that “homosexual marriage” also “must” be accepted as valid. What business should the Gov have in the hand of God?
  
  Therefore, unless it’s really nothing MORE than the added benefits, I think it is wrong to be FORCED, against one’s beliefs, to accept the gov’s definition of marriage, to satisfy an alleged “inequality” issue, when a more reasonable solution may exist.
  
  But, I believe the concerns are more than just inequality.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:58pm
  @ Locked
  
  This post wasn’t up yet when I replied to the others.
  
  You said:
  “When Jesus said “go forth and sin no more,” did he follow it up with “or I’ll send the Roman police after you!”? When God gave us free will to choose to sin or repent, did he stipulate that humans should elect a government to force people to comply?”
  
  You are pointing to God’s kingdom, in which we are to forgive, show mercy, and say “Sin no more”.
  
  You are then trying to mix it with Caesar’s, which we are told not to do. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God’s what is God’s. The Godly function of Caesar is to be an avenger of evil.
  
  Your view of government is wrong:
  
  You: Can’t make others do.
  Romans 13: An avenger who brings wrath upon those practicing evil.
  
  As shown when you said this:
  “What you are advocating is enforcing morality through legislation. It’s called theocracy, and it’s fundamentally opposed to founding principles of the United States. Saying “God gave us free will, and it’s the government’s job to take it away and make you choose the right path” is extremely disturbing to me.”
  
  You didn’t point to the Bible, but a definition… a faulty one.A true theocracy combines both the civil and the priestly. Like ancient Israel and like when Jesus comes again.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:00pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  Things which are evil, based upon creation, are to be avenged in a civil government. Not only those that directly, physically hurt others… but things that are evil.
  
  But you do not legislate that one must forgive, must turn the other cheeck, must believe in Jesus, etc…
  
  But you definately don’t state go ahead and sin against creation, it is your right.
  
  The civil still follows creation. Sins against creation still pollute the earth
  The priestly follows what Jesus has done.
  
  You are enlarging what the Godly portion is to include even evil that is based upon creation. And then substituting a new standard… that which does not physically harm. Which not only isn’t found in the scriptures, it contradicts them: example Rom 13 Matt 18:7 (already expounded upon).
  
  Your view isn’t Biblical, but worldly.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:05pm
  @Chazael
  
  “Hurting others is the standard in politics?”
  
  No: government should intervene only when the rights of others are infringed (ie, they are hurt).
  
  “You are pointing to the world’s idea of good government and not God’s. Why is that?”
  
  Because our government is not based on the Bible, nor God, but the Constitution. Do you not agree that using the government to enforce your idea of biblical morality is theocratic?
  
  “A teaching, which forces no one…. but allows them to choose to trip over it or not… is a cause.”
  
  By this reasoning, God violates His own words in the Bible by allowing us to sin. We’re not forced to; but He allows it and thus is guilty in your view?
  
  “As far as Christ’s words on homosexuality… yes there is.”
  
  Odd, as you didn’t quote Him.
  
  “He condemns it in the OT, NT, and through His creation.”
  
  A much better answer, but you fail to provide how I am in direct opposition to the words of Jesus (your quote).
  
  “Also please point to the “selective disregarding of scripture”.”
  
  Ezekiel 16:49-50. By “interpreting” away the actual words, you selectively disregard the Scripture. You obviously don’t see it that way; but the fact that you need to go “Well, sure, that’s what it says… but it’s not what it -means-” should be a pretty clear indication to anyone willing to read these posts.
  
  “And explain why Rom 13:4 is wrong.”
  
  A better question would be if you think this applies to all governments.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:07pm
  @THEOTHERBEREAN
  
  I am FOR a government regulation stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.
  
  I don’t have a problem with ‘civil unions’; you are free to enter into contractual agreement with any person you choose.
  
  I, too, believe there may be an ulterior motive to this movement, however,I am wiling to work with people to address reasonable concerns until my skepticism is proven correct. As I mentioned above, these include: visitation rights, inheritance issues, insurance coverage among others.
  
  I do not believe it to be the proper role of government to force morals upon its citizens, however I also believe that some morals MUST be adhered to for the safety and betterment of society. These, however, must be done on a limited basis, as it is easy to get carried away.
  
  I do not wish to force people to quit drinking, pay tithe, or attend church, for example.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:19pm
  @Chazael (cont)
  
  “But you are not pointing at scripture, but an unfounded interpretation of it.”
  
  The “unfounded interpretation” is the actual text of the Bible. Ezekiel 16:49-50. God lays out the sins of Sodom, and says “Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” And your answer is “Well… that’s not what it REALLY means.”
  
  “If that were true you could show, by using the words how “I removed them when I saw” does not mean the reason why Sodom was destroyed was what He saw at the time of removal. ”
  
  Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. Instead I’ve pointed out the text, and you have said, “No, it’s debatable.” I don’t find your reasoning valid, because it requires you to reinterpret what the text actually says. You disagree. And thus we’re at an impasse, where you say your interpretation is correct, and I say the text of the Bible is. And as said, we’re not going to see eye-to-eye.
  
  “A true theocracy combines both the civil and the priestly.”
  
  So in your view, it’s not theocratic to force your religious views upon others through government legislation? Again, we’ll have to disagree.
  
  “Your view isn’t Biblical, but worldly.”
  
  When it comes to politics, you are certainly correct. I keep Christ’s teachings in my own life, but do not force them upon others through governmental force. I see no reason to do so in the Bible either; we are told to respect authorities and their power, but not to use it against others.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:21pm
  @CHAZAEL
  Wow! Great posts. Thank you for putting that together.
  
  @GONZO
  Point well taken regarding Christians focusing on sins they don’t commit. That is very true; nevertheless this article happens to be about homosexuality, hence the reason it is the focus. BTW, I miss your old logo :)
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:26pm
  @Gonzo
  
  Thanks, this has been a common theme with Chazael recently.
  
  @Carbonyes
  
  “Be careful when you seemingly take pride in an understanding of the Word, when it is quite clear that in some areas you profoundly err.”
  
  Feel free to show me where. I haven’t seen any errors yet, but I have seen plenty of disagreement from those who will not follow the text of the Bible when it doesn’t conform to their biases.
  
  @Theotherrebean
  
  “I mean that big government has legislated legal abortion and homosexual marriage, which FORCES me to not only accept that which I find unGodly, reprehensible, and even murder, but I must also pay for it through taxation.”
  
  First, our taxes do not fund abortion, any more than they fund churches.
  Second, I guarantee you don’t think of abortion the same as you think of murder. Easy question: would you kill a would-be murderer to stop him from committing a murder? If so, why do you not kill abortion doctors?
  Third, I can almost see eye-to-eye on us paying for gay marriage benefits, but then you responded to Ed with:
  
  “… I personally… don’t have a problem with the government allowing “civil unions” to realize the same “civil benefits” that married couples receive.”
  
  … which leads me to believe this isn’t truly your belief, as you’re fine with tax payer money going to “civil union benefits,” but not if they’re called “marriages,” even if all the benefits were the same.
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:34pm
  @LOCKED
  
  I did not respond to your questions because I have enjoyed your interaction with CHAZAEL and didn’t want to interrupt.
  
  We are mostly on the same page, and I am content with leaving other questions for another time.
  
  I don’t have to be in complete agreence with someone to call them ‘friend’. As a matter of fact, I prefer to associate with those whose opinions are different, that’s how I learn.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:48pm
  @Brother Ed
  
  “I did not respond to your questions because I have enjoyed your interaction with CHAZAEL and didn’t want to interrupt.”
  
  Not a problem; if people post something to me, I try my best to respond :-)
  
  “We are mostly on the same page, and I am content with leaving other questions for another time.
  
  I don’t have to be in complete agreence with someone to call them ‘friend’. As a matter of fact, I prefer to associate with those whose opinions are different, that’s how I learn.”
  
  True. And truthfully, my ideal answer would be to get the government out of the “marriage” label altogether. I also don’t have an issue with civil unions as a concept, but I do have a problem with the justifications I’ve heard that say “It’s because of the Bible!” Any time I see religion mixing with politics, I get worried… even when it’s my own religion!
  
  Just random musing on my part… If Jesus had meant to have governments become theocratic and to force morality upon all people, He would have conquered the world and set up an earthly government. Instead He had bigger fish to fry and conquered death, giving us the option of following His teachings… but not forcing us to do so.
  
  At any rate, God bless, and have a great day!
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:22pm
  LOCKED Although by law federal funds may not be used directly to pay for abortions, Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions, receives about $1 million a day in federal funding for its other services, but there is no accounting for what they actually use the money for.
  
  I don’t believe government should be involved with providing any tax payer “benefits” to married couples in the form of tax breaks or any other revenue generating scheme. I think the legal regulations which account for children and property are the “benefits” I was referring to.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:28pm
  ED, I think we pretty much agree. The only difference is I think that aside from the legal issues associated with marriage such as children and property, (that’s all I can think of at the moment) the gov should stay out of marriage altogether.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:30pm
  @Theotherberean (sorry, I keep spelling your name wrong; I swear I don’t do it on purpose!)
  
  “Although by law federal funds may not be used directly to pay for abortions, Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions, receives about $1 million a day in federal funding for its other services, but there is no accounting for what they actually use the money for.”
  
  I’m not sure if it’s true there’s no accounting for how the money is used; if they operate like most businesses that receive federal funding and grants, use of those grants is automated in their system to only apply to certain activities (such as overhead, etc). Doing otherwise would cause a budget error.
  
  I may be wrong of course; I’m basing this only on my knowledge of how federal funding works and that I’ve never seen any evidence about misuse of funds from PP.
  
  “I don’t believe government should be involved with providing any tax payer “benefits” to married couples in the form of tax breaks or any other revenue generating scheme. I think the legal regulations which account for children and property are the “benefits” I was referring to.”
  
  Ah, my mistake. In that case I very much agree with you. If there are to be any tax breaks I think they should apply only to those couples with dependent children under the age of 18; and even then, they should ideally be at a state level, not a federal one.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:40pm
  LOCKED the GAO admits there is no accountability, and a move is underway in Congress to insure better accountability. “Last year, Planned Parenthood performed a record 333,964 abortions and received a record $542 million in federal funding — up 11 percent since 2011, Mr. Vitter said.” http://tinyurl.com/cm7dacr
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:59pm
  @LOCKED
  It is obvious that you are willfully ignorant, pointing to the fact that Jesus didn’t do a sermon on homosexuals, as your fall back. You listen only to what your itching ears wants to hear, to things that alight with your morals.
  
  @Chazsel has done a great job showing how you are wrong, using scriptures alone.
  You say that @Chazael wants a theocracy! No, that is not what he is saying. He is just pointing to the Biblical view. Our nation was based on a Biblical world view.
  
  God forbids the following, and so did our government 50+/- years ago:
  a) Steal
  b) Murder
  c) Homosexuality
  d) Bestiality
  e) Pedophilia
  
  The further away we as a nation turns from God, the more of his laws we want to live without. Look at USA today:
  a) Steal (Our goverment steals everyday, frivolous lawsuits are legal, eminent domain, government salaries and pensions are like the tax collectors of Christ’s day )
  b) Murder (Ok to murder unborn children) Other times in recent history it was OK to murder Jews, Blacks, and Indians.
  c) Homosexuality (Legal)
  d) Bestiality (Decriminalized in the military)
  e) Pedophilia (Many homosexuals are trying to lower the age of consent)
  
  A country that follows those common sense laws is NOT a theocracy! In fact they are only common sense laws.
  
  Your world view is that of the latter list.
  
  You did not answer me on the earlier post if you watched this sermon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ICTsqE4Fjs
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:19pm
  @ Locked
  
  3) This quote about sums it up:
  I wrote:
  “You are pointing to the world’s idea of good government and not God’s. Why is that?”
  Your reply:
  “Because our government is not based on the Bible, nor God, but the Constitution. Do you not agree that using the government to enforce your idea of biblical morality is theocratic?”
  
  Which tells you what about where our government is in relation to God?
  
  It violates what a good government is supposed to do “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (snippet Rom 13:4).
  And it is set for the woes warned about in Matt 18:7, because it is placing and upholding stumbling blocks for others to trip over.
  And your teaching violates those words.
  
  Nor does God allowing sin to be practiced equate to the same thing… He is not placing/upholding the stumbling blocks. Just as a person who wishes to stay silent is not placing/upholding a stumbling block, neither is God. His voice is always against the stumbling blocks. OT do not sin. NT do not sin. Creation do not sin.
  A person whose voice/vote/actions is placing them.
  The quote I think you are referring to was:
  “A teaching, which forces no one…. but allows them to choose to trip over it or not… is a cause.”
  
  “Allows” them is in reference to the “teaching” which was placed. Placing the scroll allows them to trip over it… if it wasn’t there they could not. It was not in reference to inaction.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:21pm
  @ Locked
  
  I wrote:
  “As far as Christ’s words on homosexuality… yes there is.”
  Your reply:
  “Odd, as you didn’t quote Him.”
  
  Yes I did quote Him. A paraphrased quote with the scripture reference. Maybe you can point out where they differ? Or was the meaning the same? In which case you have to answer if Christ’s words about the resurrection really didn’t say anything about the ressurection?
  
  You also claimed:
  “A much better answer, but you fail to provide how I am in direct opposition to the words of Jesus (your quote)”
  
  Your original claim was:
  
  “Ha! Tell me again about Christ’s words on homosexuality.”
  
  Which the answer fits just fine. What were Christ’s words on homosexuality? That it is sinful.
  
  But the quote you provide about your words being in direct oppostion necer came up in the quotes about Jesus… but rather your view on government (a separate post).
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:22pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  1)You wrote:
  
  “Ezekiel 16:49-50. By “interpreting” away the actual words, you selectively disregard the Scripture. You obviously don’t see it that way; but the fact that you need to go “Well, sure, that’s what it says… but it’s not what it -means-” should be a pretty clear indication to anyone willing to read these posts.”
  
  I do not interpret away any words, all are accounted for and explained (already gone over). Nor do I say “Well, sure, that is what it says… but it’s not what it -means-”. I have said 2 things.
  -In the other thread I stated that it was ONE possible interpretation out of TWO. Therefore it could have two possible meanings.
  -In this thread I am saying I was wrong.. there are not two possible interpretations, but rather only one. Because What God saw (which promted the removal) was at the same time He removed. You can answer that at a quick glance of Gen 19.
  
  I wrote:
  “And explain why Rom 13:4 is wrong.”
  Your reply:
  “A better question would be if you think this applies to all governments”
  
  “…and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Snippet Rom 13:1,2) In relation with “For it is a minister of God” to start v.4 which is what I have been referring to.
  
  It is a statement about “all” authority.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:24pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  My question:
  “If that were true you could show, by using the words how “I removed them when I saw” does not mean the reason why Sodom was destroyed was what He saw at the time of removal. ”
  
  Response:
  “Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. Instead I’ve pointed out the text,…”
  
  I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to go to Genesis 19 and read what it was at the time of destruction that happened. Ezekiel 16:50 states that was the reason. Jude backs that claim up with a declarative stance on what they were destroyed for.
  
  As I said in the other thread, you are trying to say there is a panorama view, where each scripture adds a little more to the picture. You don’t get a full picture without them.
  
  That works for subjects like the Gospels where each paints a picture, sometimes they paint the same ones, sometimes they do not. You only get a full picture by taking into account all of them.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:25pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  That doesn’t work here. Jude specifically says the reason was gross immorality and going after strange flesh. What you would need it to say is that it was “a reason” “part of the reason” “part of their sin”… but it doesn’t. It says “since they in the same way as these indulged in” “are exhibited as an example”.
  
  Referring back (repeatedly) to but v.49 are the sins/guilt of Sodom. I agree. Pointing to them and saying I ignore them is false. They are Sodom’s sins. So are haughty and comitted abominations.
  
  But the reason for destruction is not equivalent to what the sins are. If someone was told a person was greedy, self-centered, wore pink, picked their nose. When I saw it, I shot him. Where would you put the reason for the shooting? It could be all of them or only one of them. But if the event was told, and the person picked their nose just before the shot went off, then that was the cause. All the descriptions are descriptions of the victim.. but only one would be the reason for the shooting.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:26pm
  SQUAREHEAD,
  to answer your question about the sermon by a Pastor Anderson, he is preaching the Bible Truth. The homosexual lifestyle is degenerate and affects every aspect of their life, including their mind sets toward family relationships. Their lifestyle is aberrant and gives them a warped sense of what a family truly is which means that they are not fit to adopt as they can not properly raise a child.
  The homosexuals propensity for disease far exceeds and death far exceeds that of a normal person and their life expectancy is approximately 20 yrs less than a heterosexual. These figures and statements are supported by CDC research. Contrary to what the APA, which has been taken over by the liberals and their agenda with infiltration by the gay agenda like most other government agencies and departments, including our school systems, which are also promoting the gay agenda.
  Need I say more, for it does not stop there.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:27pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  You wrote:
  “So in your view, it’s not theocratic to force your religious views upon others through government legislation? Again, we’ll have to disagree.”
  
  You are casting the wide net again, combining the way to follow Jesus and good and evil according to creation. Which is not Biblical as already pointed out. It isn’t about disagreement, but a contradiction. The Bible says what government is for, what it is supposed to do, and you say otherwise.
  
  You wrote:
  “When it comes to politics, you are certainly correct. I keep Christ’s teachings in my own life, but do not force them upon others through governmental force. I see no reason to do so in the Bible either; we are told to respect authorities and their power, but not to use it against others.”
  
  That is flat out false…
  
  We are to respect the authorities BECAUSE they are an avenger for good against those who practice evil.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:28pm
  @ Locked
  
  At the same point as always. To summarize:
  
  1)The destruction of Sodom cannot be what you claim (full list of sins in Ezek) because it does not follow the words of the Ezekiel text in conjunction with Genesis, nor the text of Jude.
  
  2)All sins are not equal. I am assuming you now agree, because after posting John 19:11 I didn’t see anyother response to it.
  
  3)Stumbling blocks and woe to those through whom they come and Rom 13 clearly state what we should do as Christians and what the proper role of government is. Nor are we to mix what is Caesar’s with what is God’s. Your teachings are in direct conflict with this.
  
  4) The love which homosexuals have (love from the flesh in general) is not the same love from God, nor can it be called as such if your definition of love is God. I haven’t heard back on this in particular for a bit, so maybe you now agree.
  
  (cont)
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:29pm
  @ Locked (cont)
  
  5) Christ’s words on homosexuality. Christ not only spoke about it in the NT (as shown) but also the old and through creation. To deny that one would have to not only deny that Christ answered a question about the resurrection from the Pentateuch, but also deny that His words do not have the consequences that they do.
  
  Unless you can actually refute a claim, not just point to a text and demand that it says something… but show it. Once again this conversation will be over.
  
  I don’t say this much.. but not all should be teachers (Jam 3:1) we will be judged for idle words let alone making claims about the Bible (Matt 12:36).
  
  All I can say is examine yourself (2 Cor 13:5) because if your teachings actually reflect your heart and are not just in error you don’t have the same faith as I do.
  
  “…and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (snippet Gal 2:20)
  
  That faith in Jesus IS how a Christian lives their life. If you can segment your faith away in an aspect of your life… you don’t have the same faith that verse is referring to.
  
  As I said, if you want to keep to the same old, same old (making unsubstantiated claims, not proving what I said was incorrect) …then have a good day.
  
  Report this comment
- qualityrkc
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:49pm
  You have been consistently rational and fair-minded in the comments I am seeing and I want to thankyou for that. If you are a conservative republican then I want you to know that regardless of what anybody says YOU are the hidden treasure in your party. I know reasonable, rational, compassionate conservatives exist bc I have an aunt and uncle who are just that but when I turn on the tv or read the news I never see these people represented. I have hope that one day once your party hits rock bottom conservatives will realize that is only people like yourself who will be able to bring back the party from the fringes of obscurity. I hope the dems also have their “come to jesus” moment and start respecting the constittion also but currently they are being rewarded for being the least craziest party of the two. This will not last forever and when their spending and destruction of civil liberties is noticed by the majority of the country the republican party will need individuals like yourself to say “hey, vote for us! Bc not all of us want to rule you with our bible!” Thanks again for the thoughtful comments. Depressing seeing the rationality (or lack thereof) behind some of these ugly comments on here and I always find it amazing how unchristlike and hive minded christians can become when they get together on issues like this but it is always nice to see a true christian step in from the shadows and explain clearly and concisely why they are wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:52pm
  @ Locked
  
  I wasn’t going to reply to this.. but I changed my mind.
  
  The reason why governments do not conform to what is the Godly function of government, even though God appoints them?
  
  Because God is directing the nations to destruction. They are appointed to be destroyed.
  
  The governments have never been meant to be perfect, but to fulfill God’s purpose.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 9:36am
  @Square
  
  “God forbids the following, and so did our government 50+/- years ago:
  a) Steal
  b) Murder
  c) Homosexuality
  d) Bestiality
  e) Pedophilia”
  
  Do you see a common theme among most of these? Besides homosexuality, they all violate the rights of others or involve harming them against their will. Coincidentally that is exactly what I said the government should stop; to which @Chazael said “No, that’s not the point of government.” He said government is to uphold the laws of the Bible – not to stop people from infringing the rights of others. THAT is why I called it theocratic.
  
  As for your other points:
  a) The government “stealing” from the people is nothing new. I agree it’s wrong, which is why I advocate Constitutional, small government.
  b) First, abortion is not murder (see my post to theotherberean where I countered this), and second, abortion wasn’t illegal prior to Roe – it just wasn’t protected. Many states allowed abortion. If you think abortion suddenly started in the 1970s, you haven’t studied history.
  c) Doesn’t harm me. Why do you want the government in your bedroom?
  d) False; it’s covered by other statutes, and redundant ones were removed. The horror!
  e) Gay does not equal pedophile. If you think it does, show some citations.
  
  “A country that follows those common sense laws is NOT a theocracy! In fact they are only common sense laws.”
  
  And your points run counter to Chazael’s. You should read his posts.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 9:54am
  @Chazael
  
  “Yes I did quote Him. A paraphrased quote with the scripture reference.”
  
  … two references, actually, both of which said nothing on homosexuality nor even sin.
  
  “Maybe you can point out where they differ? Or was the meaning the same?”
  
  You referenced Matthew 22:32: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” When I asked for Jesus talking about homosexuality. You then referenced Maathew 19:4-5, ““Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” And again, said this quotes Jesus on homosexuality.
  
  It’s obvious that neither of these talks about homosexuality. Here’s an easy way to find it: look for the word “homosexuality” in those two quotes. Abomination? Men lying with men as they do with women? Still nothing.
  
  “What were Christ’s words on homosexuality? That it is sinful.”
  
  No. Those are the Bible’s words on homosexuality. Christ never addressed the issue. It’s a pedantic point that is relevant because it shows that you continually reinterpret the actual words of the Bible to fit your own views. That’s why I said it’s a better answer to point out the parts of the Bible that DO address homosexuality… and that it’s false to say Christ Himself spoke on it.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:12am
  @Chazael (part 4, really hope these are posting…)
  
  ““If that were true you could show, how “I removed them when I saw” does NOT mean the reason why Sodom was destroyed was what He saw at the time of removal. ” … I am not asking you to prove a negative.”
  
  You just asked me to show how something does NOT mean something else. I’ve pointed out what Ezekiel says several times. You disagreed and said “prove it doesn’t say what I want it to!” My response is simple: the text doesn’t say what you’re contending. I can’t “prove” your negative because you won’t read the text as written.
  
  “Ezekiel 16:50 states that was the reason.”
  
  No. You are contending that Ezekiel 16:50 refers to Genesis instead of not only the sentence before it, but half of 16:50 itself. It’s lunacy to think so.
  
  “As I said in the other thread, you are trying to say there is a panorama view, where each scripture adds a little more to the picture. You don’t get a full picture without them.”
  
  EXACTLY.
  
  “That works for subjects like the Gospels where each paints a picture, sometimes they paint the same ones, sometimes they do not. You only get a full picture by taking into account all of them…. that is not the case here.”
  
  The only reason you’re provided for thinking this is “because I interpret the Bible to say so.” The text certainly disagrees with you. Ezekiel flat out says: “Here are the sins. Therefore I did away with them. See? No more Sodom.”
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:23am
  @Chazael (part 5, I believe)
  
  “Jude specifically says the reason was gross immorality and going after strange flesh. What you would need it to say is that it was “a reason” “part of the reason” “part of their sin”… but it doesn’t. It says “since they in the same way as these indulged in” “are exhibited as an example”.
  
  Referring back (repeatedly) to but v.49 are the sins/guilt of Sodom. I agree. Pointing to them and saying I ignore them is false. They are Sodom’s sins. So are haughty and comitted abominations.”
  
  And then you run into the issue that Jude 1:7 does not use the word “abomination” but fornication and going after strange flesh. You say this is the same as tô<ebâ, but that word is not used in Jude. You DO ignore the text, by handwaving the other sins away as "haughty," and conflating tô<ebâ with fornication and lusting for strange flesh.
  
  "All the descriptions are descriptions of the victim.. but only one would be the reason for the shooting."
  
  That precipitating cause is not the sole reason for something to happen. You continue to uphold Jude as the only sin that mattered. If Archduke Ferdinand hadn't been shot, would World War I have happened? Of course – it would have had another precipitating cause because the underlying reasons did not disappear. Jude might be the "straw that broke the camel's back;" but insisting that's all that matters is ignoring the camel's back problems entirely.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:33am
  @Chazael
  
  “You are casting the wide net again, combining the way to follow Jesus and good and evil according to creation. Which is not Biblical as already pointed out.” It isn’t about disagreement, but a contradiction. The Bible says what government is for, what it is supposed to do, and you say otherwise.”
  
  And later on, you’ve said the purpose of government, God’s plan for all government, is to cause its destruction. Combined with your statement here, Christians are to…
  1. Vote in those who will enforce biblical morality through legislation
  2. Legislate against all opposing (sinful) behaviors
  3. Ultimately destroy the government (and likely the country), because it’s God’s will
  
  I disagree. I can see how you’ve gone down a slippery slope to come to that conclusion, but as said, I’ll defer to the Bible in my personal life, and to the Constitution in politics. It seems logical that if Christ wished to overtake government and found a monarchy, He would have done so, or advocated doing so. In Paul’s time, Christians did NOT have a vote in the Roman government; extending his words about Rome to a democratic system is incongruous.
  
  “That is flat out false…”
  
  I don’t see it as such (see above). If you do, that’s your choice. And you’ve already said the ultimate purpose of government is to have them be destroyed… while simultaneously saying that we should elect religious fundamentalists to do so. No thanks!
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:42am
  @Locked
  
  You can nitpick on the minutia, in order not focus on the main point of the arguments. It is obvious for those that read the threads, that is what you are doing.
  
  You call yourself a Christian, and don’t call abortion murder, I suppose it is just like removing an abscess. Woe to you when you have to explain that to God.
  
  Regarding Homosexuality not affecting you, is that the result of going back into the closet? is there a celebration for that, like when people come out of the closet? Enlighten us.
  
  A homosexual is a person of a reprobate mind, just like a pedophile and someone that practices bestiality.
  Read Romans 1 that I posted earlier it shows that those are sins of the people has given up on.
  
  Just like pedophilia is illegal, does not mean that the government are in peoples bedrooms! But when caught it should be punished, for the perversion that it is.
  
  You still have not commented on Pastor Andersen sermon on the Sodomites I posted twice before for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ICTsqE4Fjs&list=HL1362757335
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:45am
  @Chazael (part 6)
  
  “At the same point as always.”
  At last! Thanks for taking the time to answer, by the way :-)
  
  1)The destruction of Sodom cannot be what you claim (only Jude) because your interpretation of Ezekiel blatantly ignores the text’s actual wording. In your own words, you’ve admitted that the attempted rape of angels was only the precipitating cause; that the sins of Ezekiel were not reasons for the destruction (Ezekiel saying they were), and that the Bible should not be taken in a panoramic view… at least here. Because of your interpretation.
  
  2) I honestly missed your John 19:11 section; my bad. I do not hold that all sins are equal; Matthew 12:31-32 makes this obvious as well. I said homosexuality is no worse a sin than most others. You have not proven otherwise.
  
  3) Your own words betray you. You sidestepped my question about prohibition by saying I was pointing out one sin to justify another. Then you (without any citation) said that since it’s already on the books it’s fine, as long as we don’t talk about it. But this makes no sense; why argue that Christians need to force the government to ban gay marriage, but not ban alcohol? Again – your own biases are showing.
  
  4) You change the definition of love to suit your needs. All things come from God, including love. LUST is never the same as love; you have conflated the two. There is no reason gays cannot love one another.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:54am
  @Chazael (part 7)
  
  5) Both verses you provided did NOT provide Christ’s words on homosexuality. Christ Himself,as a man, never spoke on it; Christ as God certainly did. Paul certainly did. OT authors certainly did. Christ did not. That’s not to say homosexual actions are not sinful; they are. My point was to show that you will ignore the actual text to suit your own needs.
  
  “Unless you can actually refute a claim, not just point to a text and demand that it says something… but show it.”
  
  If the text of the Bible does not persuade you, your eyes are closed to the Truth, just the same as any non-believer’s.
  
  “I don’t say this much.. but not all should be teachers (Jam 3:1) we will be judged for idle words let alone making claims about the Bible (Matt 12:36).”
  
  And following Matthew 7:3, I think you need to take a long look at your own actions and words. When the words of the Bible are not enough for you, you’ve begun to place your own biases into the Good Book.
  
  “If you can segment your faith away in an aspect of your life… you don’t have the same faith that verse is referring to.”
  
  I’ll admit I’m not perfect, and I can understand how you, personally, derived the idea that the US must become a Christian theocracy. I disagree, for one logical reason: not even Christians can agree on what this entails. The Constitution decides the matter for us by saying “Actually, let’s not establish theocracy.” That works for me.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:01am
  @Chazael
  
  “I wasn’t going to reply to this.. but I changed my mind.”
  
  I’m glad you did, because this final comment, more than any other, shows me the vast gulf between our thinking.
  
  “The reason why governments do not conform to what is the Godly function of government, even though God appoints them? Because God is directing the nations to destruction. They are appointed to be destroyed. The governments have never been meant to be perfect, but to fulfill God’s purpose.”
  
  If governments that do not conform to the Godly function of government (to avenge evil) are to be destroyed, and no government is perfect, by your own reasoning all governments have one reason for existing: to be destroyed.
  
  This is similar to the idea of individuals (we are called to be moral, but none of us will get there, and all will be destroyed unless we repent). There is no salvation for governments – in your own words, they exist only to self-destruct. They will not be perfect, and using government to enforce Christian values and mores will save the government from destruction no more than ruling like North Korea would.
  
  In other words, it’s a wash. I can agree on a historical perspective (no government has endured throughout all of time), the government’s role is not to stamp out crimes but to punish them when they happen. This applies to Christians and non-Christians, because our government takes not only our faith into account, but all others.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:12am
  @Square
  
  “You can nitpick on the minutia, in order not focus on the main point of the arguments. It is obvious for those that read the threads, that is what you are doing.”
  
  Yes, that’s why I just quoted and replied to eight comments from Chazael, because I don’t want to focus on the main points (rolls eyes).
  
  “You call yourself a Christian, and don’t call abortion murder”
  
  Murder is illegal killing. Abortion is legal. By definition it’s not murder (but is killing). Furthermore, God has condoned abortion (Numbers 5:19) and ascribes less importance to a fetus than a living person (Exodus 21:22).
  
  I certainly don’t think abortion is a GOOD thing, but it’s not murder.
  
  “Regarding Homosexuality not affecting you, is that the result of going back into the closet?”
  
  Ah, ad hominem fallacies, the last resort of a bruised ego.
  
  “A homosexual is a person of a reprobate mind, just like a pedophile and someone that practices bestiality.”
  
  And like adulterers, as you agreed before. Go and compare remarried folks to pedophiles. While you’re at it, reread Romans 1 and then equate gossiping to bestiality. Yes, these are all equivalent as sins – but if you think they all cause the same actual harm, you’re wrong.
  
  “Just like pedophilia… it should be punished, for the perversion that it is.”
  
  Pedophilia violates the rights of others (namely, in infringes consent); homosexuality does not. You see no difference between the two?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:16am
  @Chazael (part 3, ended up as a new string, reposting it here)
  
  “-In the other thread I stated that it was ONE possible interpretation out of TWO. Therefore it could have two possible meanings.”
  
  And I pointed out that the only way to read that is by changing the text. You disagreed, and I said “Well, we won’t see eye-to-eye then.” And here we are once more.
  
  “-In this thread I am saying I was wrong.. there are not two possible interpretations, but rather only one. Because What God saw (which promted the removal) was at the same time He removed. You can answer that at a quick glance of Gen 19.”
  
  See the above point. Now you’ve completely changed what the text says to suit your own needs. If God didn’t count the other sins as reasons for destruction (despite that being exactly what the text says), why even mention them? You’re saying they’re unimportant, despite sexual immorality not even being mentioned. That’s why I’m saying you disregard text at will.
  
  “…and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God”…It is a statement about “all” authority.”
  
  And later on you say that God’s purpose for all governments is to be destroyed. You are saying we should elect Christians to enforce Christian morals to bring about the destruction of all countries, because God wants all governments destroyed. Frankly, that view is terrifying.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:54am
  @Locked
  
  You still have not commented on Pastor Andersen sermon on the Sodomites I posted 3 times before for you if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ICTsqE4Fjs&list=HL1362757335
  Then explain why what he says is not correct.
  
  You said:
  “Murder is illegal killing. Abortion is legal. By definition it’s not murder (but is killing). ”
  
  To that I say:
  Killing Jews was legal, and mandated in Germany a couple of generations ago, as was the killing of Slaves here 150 years ago. That does not make it right. I assume you know the commandment: “Though shalt not Kill”, it does not say murder!
  
  Your fervor in writing in all the articles on homosexuality for over a years is very telling, as you have never denied before this article that I have read of not being a hom o. So I am serious about going back into the closet. You would be better served to get a new name as too many of us have read your verbose illogical gymnastics in defending sodomy over the year+, while claiming to be a Christian and holding the Bible as your authority.
  
  I will leave you with this scripture:
  
  2 Timothy 4:3
  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 12:11pm
  @Square
  
  Send me a transcript of the video, I’d be glad to read it. I cannot watch videos (hence why my original comments to this article came from quotes listed in the linked articles. It worked out, as I don’t care for rap).
  
  “Killing Jews was legal, and mandated in Germany a couple of generations ago, as was the killing of Slaves here 150 years ago. That does not make it right.”
  
  I never said it was right. I said it wasn’t murder. I also said God is pretty ok with it overall… which I notice you ignored.
  
  “I assume you know the commandment: “Though shalt not Kill”, it does not say murder!”
  
  Depends on your translation; most agree that “murder” is more accurate, as killing in self-defense is supported by almost all Christian sects.
  
  “Your fervor in writing in all the articles on homosexuality for over a years is very telling, as you have never denied before this article that I have read of not being a hom o.”
  
  HA! If you’ve read my comments as you imply, then you’d know that’s a lie. Even in my post directly after your first response I said as much – I’m neither gay, nor an adulterer.
  
  Feel free to apologize any time now.
  
  “You would be better served to get a new name”
  
  I feel no shame when discussing the Bible, and if you are trying to make me do so you’re failing terribly. And if you had read my posts, you’d know I consider sodomy a sin, and only have a problem with folks who are hypocrites about sin.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 12:16pm
  @Squarehead (continued)
  
  “2 Timothy 4:3″
  
  I do rather like this verse, but the one you should be looking at is the preceding one:
  2 Timothy 4:2
  Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
  
  I have tried my best (and I think, with a boatload of patient) to correct and instruct you. I’ve enjoyed chatting with Chazael; because even if I think he is reinterpreting his text, his arguments have caused me to closely reexamine my own beliefs for possibly faults. I haven’t seen any; I’ve been able to respond to his assertions, and have found his interpretation lacking.
  
  And unlike you, Chazael has been very patient, very thorough, and almost always polite. His politics worry me (as all fundamentalism and calls for theocracy do), but personally I think he’s likely a great Christian who certainly knows his Bible and his interpretation of it.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:08pm
  @Locked
  
  @Chazael’s patience, knowledge of scripture as well as eloquence is to be admired for sure, and no I have not showed the fruit of the spirit as I have run out of patience.
  
  You say you consider homosexuality a sin, but on every story on the blaze you literally write a book defending homosexuality, like it is a slight feeling of pride. I have not nor does most condone adultery, nor hypocrisy, as you keep fighting for.
  
  If you are not a homosexual, nor a paid defender of some rainbow group, then I am curious to what drives you for bombasting the comment sections in defense of homos, at every opportunity you get. You gloss over the many scriptures that Chazael, myself and others give you, and nitpick about minutia to divert away form the arguments against you.
  
  Regarding homosexuality; I am not saying, that anyone is deserving of God’s grace period. But as Christians we are to turn away from sin, and we see what scripture says about that sin. Like in Romans: …God gave them up… etc..
  
  If you are not a ****, then I do apologize. Either way I pray that God convicts you, I and others here of our own shortcomings and opens eyes on whom needs it. We all fall short, but someone here is clearly wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:28pm
  @Square
  
  “You say you consider homosexuality a sin, but on every story on the blaze you literally write a book defending homosexuality, like it is a slight feeling of pride. I have not nor does most condone adultery, nor hypocrisy, as you keep fighting for.”
  
  I fight hypocrisy. If homosexuality were treated like other sins, I’d have no qualms. The question I always try to get people to ask themselves is “Why are we so upset about this one?” A lot of people point to the Bible, but the Bible doesn’t back up their rants.
  
  And I don’t defend homosexuality; it’s just seems that pointing out hypocrisy gets on a lot of people’s bad sides.
  
  “I am curious to what drives you for bombasting the comment sections in defense of homos”
  
  I don’t think I bombast at all; bombard, maybe. I already said: hypocrisy. The hubris of folks who claim to speak God’s word – but can’t back it up. My thinking for most? The hate came first; then Scripture is shoehorned into justifying it.
  
  “You gloss over the many scriptures”
  
  Cite them. I’ve tried to be comprehensive.
  
  “But as Christians we are to turn away from sin.”
  
  Agreed. Here, let me say it to all posters: don’t commit gay acts! It’s a sin; God doesn’t like it! Try to be celibate!
  
  “I do apologize.”
  
  If you are sincere, thank you.
  
  “I pray that God convicts you, I and others here of our own shortcomings”
  
  All shall eventually be judged. I think none of us forget that! God bless :-)
  
  Report this comment
RussellB
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:46am
I totally agree with everything she said, good for her for saying it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- christianUSA
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:54am
  Amen. The real problem is that the other side wants to and is trying to take away hers and our freedom of speech to say that and other Biblical views that have been believers views for 4000 years and considered moral by most of even general world and many other religions.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:46pm
  We really don’t care about your personal opinions. We just don’t want you to be able to discriminate against us, and we want the same benefits and rights you already enjoy. We want equality, that’s it.
  
  Report this comment
- christianUSA
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:40pm
  note suits or actions against Christians by gays by search on web and many more:
  Two Gay Men Sue Christian Preschool in New Mexico
  Gay student to sue Christian school
  gay man filed suit against two Christian publishers
  Christian group to sue Boris Johnson over ‘gay cure’ bus Ad
  Christian Man Restrictioned on Passing Out Bibles at MN Gay Pride Parade
  Woman sues church over gay marriage
  gay veiw: I think a Christian religious leader …SHOULD be forced to …[gay] marriage.
  Christian Counseling Student Sues School for Forcing Gay Sensitivity Training
  Christian are being force from public speech and platforms in expressing their views!
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:55pm
  In 21 states gay couples are not recognized at all. In 21 states, it is legal to fire someone just because they are gay. In 29 states it is legal to deny someone service just because they are gay. In THE ENTIRE COUNTRY gay couples are not recognized by the federal government, and are denied the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples. The double standard and discrimination is staggering. And you are complaining that a few zealous groups are trying to stop a couple people from forcing their hatred and homophobic views on gay people?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:33pm
  HARRY, that is because “gay” is a perverted sexual preference which deserves no more “recognition” than any other sexual perversion, such as bestiality or scatology.
  
  Report this comment
- christianUSA
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:43pm
  OPinion: H_Potter: it seems per your statement Christian publishers publishing Bibles with wording not to your or some gays liking should be legally forced to stop printing or change the words of that book/Bible because they are “forcing their hatred and homophobic views”; that is not permitting those Christian publishers persons thier opinions, that is not free speech nor even freedom of religion, that is not tolerance that is government tyrany. That is a perversion of use of law; so it seems one type of perversion begat another. May you find peace though Trusting in Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:54pm
  Christian:
  
  I certainly agree that Christian publishers should be able to publish whatever they want. I’m not sure how you can up with that one. I think that most of the lawsuits mentioned above will amount to nothing, they were just brought up by a few over zealous people, and a sue-happy society. But the idea that the anti-gay people in this country are being somehow repressed or discriminated against is just not true. My point above was that as a gay man, I am denied rights and benefits that you take for granted, while the last poster was complaining that someone was being sued. This is akin to complain of someone calling you names, while someone else is being beaten to death by a gang of thugs.
  
  Report this comment
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:44am
That’s painful to watch on so many levels. Not only is it entirely devoid of true facts, but “flowless” doesn’t begin to describe this quasi-musical atrocity.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jcldwl
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:51am
  Hard for you to accept the truth isn’t it. This was a great video and I am so happy to see the youth coming together and telling the world they are sick of the lies they are being indoctrinated with in the schools and in the media. Praise God.
  
  Report this comment
- Stoic one
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:34am
  You are entitled to believe what you want. That does not mean you are entitled to force your beliefs on me through the law.
  
  Report this comment
- The Jewish Avenger
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:40am
  You should listen to her drum solo instead :)
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGg9EFMuqM
  
  Know we disagree a lot but hope all is well with ya LPHP
  
  Report this comment
- rosegrower
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:48am
  Isn’t most rap “music” flowless and frankly, quite jarring?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:26am
  STOIC I agree with your logic. Government therefore should not sanction homosexual marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:46pm
  Refusal of the government to certify homosexual marriages is the “moral majority” using the force of government to prevent homosexuals from enjoying our rights. The government certifying homosexual marriages over the objections of the “moral majority” is NOT a use of force to prevent the moral majority from enjoying their rights.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:59pm
  The problem is that the gov has no business regulating “marriage” at all. Marriage was established by God. The only reason gov got involved in marriage was due to the “civil” issues such as what happens to children and assets in a divorce, etc. I don’t have a problem with establishing “civil unions” but homosexual marriage is a misnomer.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:20pm
  Personally, I would have no problem if the government called every legal marriage a civil union and left marriage to the church. But we all know that will never happen. The only realistic solution here to achieve equality is to allow gay marriage. As it is, we are simple legalizing an legislating bigotry and discrimination.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:52pm
  HARRY, your argument is a slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:07pm
  @Lesb
  Based on your name it is obvious why it was painful for you. I agree with you on the musical atrocity part was an atrocity, but my guess is that the content is what really got you fired up.
  
  If you are a person of faith, this brings things into the light for you, and the conscience does make it painful.
  
  If you are a person of faith, I would be curious what you think about this sermon?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ICTsqE4Fjs
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:39pm
  Theother:
  
  I understand what a slippery slope argument is, and I am glad that you do as well, but please tell me how my argument is a slippery slope. My argument is that we are not equal as long as you receive rights and benefits that I do not, so we need to allow gay marriage to achieve equality. How is that a slippery slope?
  
  Report this comment
- Gavinwcaf
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:39pm
  Hit a nerve huh,!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
cee200
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:43am
wow… this women speaks the truth well…

yes.. they HATE the truth… and WILL attack her and this video… the very thing the video says at the end

they LOVE THE DARKNESS and will attack the light… so to stay in the darkness…

but thank you for the truth…. glad people are watching you and your video…

thank you for speaking God’s truth… they are really mad at GOD for it is his message they attack…

not yours.. you are only the messenger of truth…. IT IS HIS ( GOD/JESUS ) message… yeah… :)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:41am
Luckily, for the sake of my progeny, our society is moving in the opposite direction of this young woman’s outdated beliefs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- One Man Mormon Blues Band
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:54am
  That is exactly what homosexuals cannot have: progeny. And that is why marriage was instituted, to protect the children, not to satisfy the parents “needs”.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:00am
  Neither can priests, or people who are born sterile, severly deformed…what is your point?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:23am
  @Doors
  
  “Neither can priests…”
  
  I’m not a Catholic, but I believe priests can have children provided they marry (and have a spouse die) prior to entering the clergy.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:49am
  @Locked
  
  Was not aware of that…I was not a catholic either…thanks!
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:03am
  One Man Mormon Blues Band
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:54am
  That is exactly what homosexuals cannot have: progeny. And that is why marriage was instituted, to protect the children, not to satisfy the parents “needs”.
  ___________________
  Funny I know a Lesiban couple, both have had children and are raising them together. So I guess they can have progeny.
  
  Christians on the fringe right are little more than hate filled creatures filled with rage that people dare believe all should have equal rights. There is little difference between her rap, teh preaching of the WBC or the posts on the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:29am
  DOORS, I agree at least, that homosexuals are severely deformed.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:30am
  ENCIMON, where did your lesbians get their sperm?
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:07pm
  Oh look doors is commenting on a website he hates again. Did you get lost on the way to HuffPo?
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:40pm
  You most ignoble sir, can neither see nor perceive past the end of your nose.
  
  Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:40am
… THAT HAS LIBERAL BLOGS and gay advocacy sites like Huffington Post, Wonkette, Gawker, Salon and The Blaze ABUZZ?

“Despite being relatively old, it’s getting play on many of the nation’s most popular left-leaning web sites this week, particularly because of its anti-gay contents.”

Yes, and this is why The Blaze (The Gayze) has decided to feature it – The Blaze is striving to become the nation’s most popular left-leaning gay advocacy web site. The performance is very interesting, and this young woman sounds intelligent and thoughtful – her “anti-gay” opinions are based on The Bible, so, of course liberals are in full condemnation mode.

If The Blaze had simply presented the video as a “news” item, it would be one thing, but putting The Blaze into the same category as Huffington Post, Wonkette, Gawker, Salon, turns this into just another BLAZE liberal ‘gay advocacy’ post (the first of many today, I am sure). Really – linking to some of the most liberal, vile, hate-filled and pro-obama-agenda web sites in America is disgusting and diminishes The Blaze greatly.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JeanetteVictoria
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:37am
Everything she said is *TRUE*! However the homosexual crybabies don’t like the truth and will throw one of their hate filled temper tantrum that will probably result in some death threats and stalking.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:44am
  If what she said is ***True***, prove it using the scientific method.
- joejmz
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:31am
  @The_Doors
  
  The Scientific Method cannot be used to prove anything, therefore, your request is nonsensical.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:06am
  Its only true is you believe in the myths of bronze age goat herders, compiled in Rome about 500 years ago about a sky diety that demands city dwelling rape victims and those that enjoy shrimp cocktails be stoned to death.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:34am
  ENCIMON your Biblical and historical “super” ignorance once again rears its ugly head.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:48am
  theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:34am
  ENCIMON your Biblical and historical “super” ignorance once again rears its ugly head.
  _________________________
  What the council of Trent of 600 year ago, where the Cardinals and Pope determined what books would be included in the authorized Bible, the KJV is just a derivative work, created from the Catholic Bible (give or take a few chapters).
  
  As for stoning rape victims, good old Deuts delivers:
  
  22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;
  
  Report this comment
- jeffile
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Encinom – Please tell us who are these stone age goat herders from 500 years ago. I believe the stone age ended just a few years earlier the year 1600. Perhaps Columbus was trying to escape those goat herders. You are like the person who does not understand the concept of algebra and chooses to ridicule those who do understand. Maybe, some day, someone will convince you to see through your prejudices and contempt of the beliefs of the vast majority of the human race. Maybe, you’ll see the seeable and finally say, “Oh, now I get it.”.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:32pm
  @jeffile
  
  Learn to read before you make snarky comments. The bible is little more than a collection of Bronze Age myths of goat herders, compiled in Rome 500-600 hundred years ago during the council of Trent. But can we really expect something intellicent from body that choose to believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs and cavemen lived together. That despite the libraries of evidence, evolution isn’t real, but that some sky diety snapped his fingers and created everything as it is now.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:54pm
  ENCINOM, as I said, your ignorance is laughable. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:57pm
  @theotherberean
  
  Today’s bible is nothing more than a collection of what was approved at the counsel of trent, with some minor differences among the protestants. Nothing divine about a gathering of old Cardinals picking and choosing which fairy tales to include in the book.
  
  Report this comment
- jeffile
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:57pm
  Encinom – My comments were snarky? My comments were directed at your ignorance. The Old Testament was written prior to the birth of Christ and the four Gospels of the New Testament were written 40 – 100 years after the death of Christ. Your comments indicate you believe the 15th century was still in the stone age. Yes, you are correct when you state which books were to be included in the Now Testament but all the books had been in existence for a millennium. Christianity is guilty of many evils but the good message remains the same. This country has done many evils but contrary to declarations of progressives this is a good country, and consists of a far more compassionate populace than ever seen before. On top of that, as much as you hate to hear it, this country was built upon Judeo/Christian principles which liberals and progressives are attempting to eliminate.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:49pm
  @jeffile
  
  I see reading is hard for you, the bible is a collection of bronze age fairy tales of goat herders complied(look up the word it doesn’t mean written, but gathered) by the 500 – 600 years ago by Rome. You only prove the problems of the home schooled.
  
  Most of the evil committed by this nation has been by Christians to advance christian teachings.
floridaborn
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:34am
Spot on – despite modern indoctrination, there is a price to pay for sin.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:09pm
  Homosexuals can step off the Broadway stage and MSLSD to fight in a foreign country for their precious gay leader….Dont ask a Christian man to fight for your gay freedom while you support your Gay leader who wants to deem Christians as Evil and as Drone targets…..The End.
  
  Report this comment
JeanetteVictoria
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:29am
I guess the queers decided to swarm. Remember the queers love Fascism (Nazism began in a gay bar)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stoic one
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:22am
  I am interested in this:
  
  (Nazism began in a gay bar)
  
  Please provide link(s)
  
  Report this comment
- saneromeo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:35am
  Not true, the Nazis killed 1000′s of homosexuals, and even made it a death penalty offense for SS members caught engaged in homosexual behavior…It is a surprisingly ignorant statement if one knows anything about the Holocaust.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:37am
  C’mon stoops, I found this with a simple search.
  
  The truth about homosexuals and the Nazi party…
  
  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080515
  
  Report this comment
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:12pm
  Hitler was gay….
  
  Liberals and Homosexuals can step out of the bars and into the Sandbox…….they can fight for their Gay leader who believes Freedom Loving Christians are Drone Targets……We fight for God and country…..Something a homosexual will never understand…!!
  
  Report this comment
- freestaterev
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:55pm
  This is a side of the NAZI party that seems so unlikely, until you see the details. The classic old “it’s a man’s club” brings new meaning when the curtain is pulled back.
  
  As odd as it may sound, many at the top of the NAZI chain were indeed gay, and it was quite a known fact that they didn’t hide. Hitlers right hand man, Ernst Röhm, Edmund Heines, to name a few. Because of there was so many “top brass” who were gay, many of the chosen Nazi leaders were put in their position for sexual favors.
  
  Hitler didn’t have Röhm killed because of his sexuality, but because he feared Röhm’s rise to power.
  
  But here is the key- they didn’t like “effeminate” homosexual men.
  
  Louis Snyder writes, “Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals”
  
  Even Heinrich Himmler complained, “Does it not constitute a danger to the Nazi movement if it can be said that Nazi leaders are chosen for sexual reasons?”
  
  Hellenic ideal of masculine homosexual supremacy and militarism was fully realized. “Theirs was a very masculine brand of homosexuality,” writes homosexualist historian Alfred Rowse, “they lived in a male world, without women, a world of camps and marching, rallies and sports. They had their own relaxations, and the Munich SA became notorious on account of them”
  
  http://modernhistoryproject.org/m
  
  Report this comment
JTX
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:25am
Great job the video. Nicely articulated and her points are all good ones.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
vaman
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:24am
What a shame, this poor girl seems to have been raised in prejudiced christian household, where her parents have done her great harm. She will see how this type of bigoted thinking is a hindrance to society and to her since she is so public about it. She is still young enough to throw off the shackles of her family and her evil religion though.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:43am
  “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”~Isaiah 5:20 Woe to you neighbor, woe to you. Throw off the shackles of SIN and step into the light. Step into Christ Jesus. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural way. It is clear for anyone who fairly assess the world around them to see.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:56am
  “Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.” -Frankenstein
  Woe to you neighbor, woe to you. Throw off the shackles of faith and step into the light. Step into Reality. Religious faith is a perversion of the natural way. It is clear for anyone who fairly assess the world around them to see.
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:24am
  @CAPNCRUNBLE32…Amen.@Doors….The Bible and God’s word has nothing to do with science you believe or you don’t. God bless her.
  
  Report this comment
- saneromeo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:36am
  A hindrance to society? SO what? The collective does not matter, if the individual cannot exist…
  
  Report this comment
- DebateMe
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:57am
  @Vaman
  Typical liberal response to call her bigoted. You forgot to also mention that she’s stupid, angry, racist, and hateful.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:39am
  …said the bigot.
  
  Report this comment
- Azzman
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:16pm
  @VAMAN- just goes to show you that the younger generation is not gobbling up all the state run media homosexual propaganda. It’s refreshing to see future generations approaching an issue with honesty and medical evidence.
  
  Report this comment
willkauffman
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:23am
Awsome and yes standing up for what is right does not = hate but = love.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:00pm
  Only to the hate filled christian fringe is bigotry right. There is little difference between the hate spewing preaching of WBC and the comments on the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
- hpyagl
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:00pm
  Encinom,
  you forgot to include some reference to “tiny caskets” in your latest posts. Come on! Get with it!
  
  Report this comment
VaderActs
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:20am
I totally agree with the scope of her morale values! The media along with liberal thinkers have proper gated this lifestyle as normal; which is more in line with twisted!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
truthhasno
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:18am
How is what this lady is saying hate?
Hate was when Hitler Gassed 5 Million Jews, Homosexuals and The Disabled
This Lady Is Simply exercising her freedom as Allowed By The Founding Fathers
Called Freedom of Speech
By Calling any statement “Hate Speech” you are denying freedom of speech
IF You Deny Free Speech to others how can you then turn round and demand freedom in relationships
In A Free Nation There are Consequences for every Freely Chosen Action
This Lady Firmly Believes That Homosexuality results in less than ideal consequences
She is Not Asking for it too be banned
She is Not Asking to Gas the Homosexuals Like Hitler Did
She is simply Stating her Firmly Held Belief and sincerely wishes to help others
You are free to agree or disagree
But Labeling Free speech as Hate is simply politically correct psychobabble
Political correctness is The Exact opposite of freedom of speech
“Hate Speech” is a Politically correct term and has no validity in a free society

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- qualityrkc
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:27am
  Free speech can be hateful. If someone said christians had lower moral standards and were reprobates wouldn’t you call that hateful speech? I would.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:48am
  @Truth
  
  “By Calling any statement “Hate Speech” you are denying freedom of speech”
  
  Absolutely false. “Freedom of speech” means the government won’t throw you in jail or restrict your right to speak your opinion. The government isn’t involved with the backlash (and praise from some outlets) this young lady is receiving.
  
  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of the consequences of what you say.
  
  Report this comment
XRavishX
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:15am
This video isn’t even an “anti-gay” video so much as it is a “take responsibility for your choices” video. She uses the homosexuality issue to get her point across since it’s a controversial issue and because it’s probably the biggest issue where people, in her opinion, fail to take responsibility for their choices and instead leave it up to uncontrollable factors like genetics. “It’s not my fault” is one of our current generation’s primary slogans and she not only has the wisdom to recognize that, but the courage to stand and speak out against it using one of the most controversial issues of our time. I, for one, stand with her in this fight. Regardless of a person’s belief in a higher power, one should always take responsibility for every thought he or she has, every action he or she does. To not do so is the very definition of irresponsibly. In this case, if a person is gay, he or she should stand up tall and say that it is their choice to be gay. If a person who genetically has the propensity to become an alcoholic can choose to not become one despite their genetic makeup, then a person who only SUPPOSEDLY has the genetic propensity to be gay can choose not to be if he or she wants.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:53am
  Good point. We’ve raised an entire generation who believe they have a “right” to everyone’s stuff, and we are obligated to share it with him.
  
  Report this comment
thewhiteright
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:09am
People that think this is hate speach, won’t enjoy the afterlife very much. I’ll remember that when I walk over to THE LAKE OF FIRE, look in to see them there begging for a warm drink of pi$$.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:15am
  You think you will carry all that hatred to heaven with you?
  
  It should be replaced with regret that they never knew Christ…
  
  Report this comment
capitalismrocks
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:58am
I don’t see this as anti-gay. I see it as a calm and meaningful statement of truth. Look, if gays are that way from their genetics or at birth, that is to say that somehow nature/God has set a genetic bloodline on a suicide mission… to become a person who will not reproduce (and lets not throw artificial means,nature doesn’t know that artificial impregnation methods have been around for the last 50 years) and basically nature/God is dead-ending a genetic line, perhaps it is flawed and this is natures/Gods way of ending a flawed genetic lineage of people. So if you were supposedly “Born this way” then that means that you are set to die off because nature/God has put you into a position where your genetic lineage will not continue.

Being gay is a choice, no different than liking strawberry ice cream and not liking vanilla ice cream, liking blondes instead of brunettes, its a taste, a liking and a CHOICE, its NOT genetically ingrained into a person as gays are so desperately trying to convince people. Again, if it were true, even Darwin said being Gay is a dead end.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ihasa
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:14am
  Very poor logic. God (or nature) also ‘creates’ infertile people, their bloodline is also on a suicide mission as you say. What about people who are born so disabled that they cannot reproduce?
  
  If ‘God’ or nature can ‘create’ these people, it’s special pleading to say the same could not happen in the case of homosexual people.
  
  From a more Darwinian standpoint, there is no problem with people being born gay, perhaps it even provides a beneficial advantage to siblings who carry the same/similar DNA lines? This is a ghastly analogy – please forgive me – but in a bee hive, very few bees get to reproduce with the queens. Several out of thousands. The vast majority of drone bees are a genetic dead end, but nevertheless they perform a valuable function in the protection of the hive and the queen’s offspring. Point is, maybe even without reproducing, your existence can confer an advantage to your siblings – who share some of your DNA.
  
  Report this comment
- Diane TX
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:29am
  @ ihasa
  
  That’s just it. It’s not about sexual liaisons. Sex and love are two different things. If you only define your relationship by sex, without love, it’s pretty pointless.
  
  Report this comment
- Remember_Benghazi
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:13am
  Sexual orientation is not a choice. Homosexuality is observed in a variety of animals. It’s not just a human thing. Did those animals choose to be gay? Unless you are willing to concede that animals have free will in the same way that we have free will, homosexuality is a part of nature.
  
  Report this comment
- Trenaway
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:21am
  To the Blaze, why are you calling this Anti-Gay, when it is NOT? She is however Anti-homosexuality! She is against the act, not the person!
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:09am
  Remember, no homosexuality does not exist in nature. What you see in nature are acts of dominance and submission. Many animal species live in heirarchical structures. If a male dog mounts a male dog it is to establish dominance, there’s no penetration of penis to anus. If they sniff or lick each other’s groin it is for greeting, not pleasure. You won’t see a female dog fisting a female dog while the other one plays with herself. Two males or females hanging out together is companionship, not sexual attraction. Animals do not have sexual attraction. You really need more education in animal behavior, bud. Stop listing to liberal talking points.
  
  Report this comment
- ihasa
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:20pm
  Homosexuality does exist in nature, actually. To varying degrees. Some of it can be explained away in the terms you describe, but some of it can not, like reports of male birds nesting together as if they were going to breed. Primates indulge in same-sex sexual activity, but tend not to do it exclusively.
  
  Anyway, in humans it certainly seems that homsexuality is not a freely chosen path – you don’t seem particularly able to control who you are attracted to. I doubt any straight man made a conscious decision to be attracted to females. And I doubt some poor souls in Iran or Pakistan ‘choose’ to be attracted to men in a country where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment or death and you will be shunned by society. It just doesn’t compute.
  
  What most Blaze readers seem to be arguing for is for homosexuals to give up, and go back into the closet. A world where gay men are miserable, and find it almost impossible to establish the sort of loving relationships which everyone else enjoys; and in which gay men hide their true feelings so no one knows who is gay and who is straight; in which their sexual desires are suppressed and cannot find an outlet – this is the world that the average Blaze reader really wants? Just so they don’t get momentarily grossed out by the sight of two men holding hands?
  
  Report this comment
- TumbleBumble
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:22pm
  IHASA ~
  
  “I doubt any straight man made a conscious decision to be attracted to females. And I doubt some poor souls in Iran or Pakistan ‘choose’ to be attracted to men in a country where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment or death and you will be shunned by society. It just doesn’t compute.”
  
  Use the same argument but insert fat people, for instance. What person would continue to overeat and become obese? To be looked down upon by so many people, to have health problems, to have a difficult time finding clothing that fits properly, to ruin their attractiveness, to choose something that leads to depression… it doesn’t compute. But they do give into to their unhealthy desires. It is a choice and I am surprised so many people elect to become obese.
  
  Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:58am
So much hate! Wonder when her school will violate her right to freedom of speech and expression and expel her?
But, shortly the biggest hater on the board when it comes to this topic, ENCINOM will eventually arrive here to spew his blather and accusations. Well, news for you ENCINOM, you can remain as gay as you want. Nobody is going to try and take that away from you. Furthermore, those who do have traditional family values do not hate you. Some may simply disagree with you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- capitalismrocks
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:07am
  Nicely said and it is NOT hate to say – live your own life, just don’t demand I support your choice of sexual taste and lifestyle. I don’t care if a person wants to live as a gay, I don’t support it, but I wouldn’t deny a gay person to work in my company, be a customer in my store, or have any ill will against them, everyone should live their own lives, but don’t demand that I accept and support your choice and no matter what, it is a choice.
  
  Report this comment
Diane TX
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:56am
I agree with this girl 100% and I won’t be cowed by a bunch of people who are mentally ill. I’m sane, they are not.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Diane TX
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:02am
  Sex is not love because even a rapist can have “sex” and not “love” their victim. If your relationship is only about your sex life, that’s not something a sane person would call “love”.
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:40am
  Interesting Diane, I am reading between the lines of your posts here and your response above. Are you saying that homosexuals cannot feel love for each other? That it is all simply about sex?
  
  I am a straight, married Christian male so I am not the one to argue with you over that, if that is what you are saying, but I am fairly certain you are wrong. In fact, the gay couples I have known throughout my life had very close, tight relationships, closer than most heterosexual couples.
  
  Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending homosexuality, a blatant sin and perversion. OTOH, if homosexuals do not choose to follow God’s law then who am I to condemn them with it? Let Christ deal with them.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:51am
  @Diane
  
  Are you saying that gay people are incapable of love?
  
  Report this comment
- huntinwabbits
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:10am
  Trolltrainer..
  
  Go attend a gay-pride parade and then come back and answer if it is all about sex or not. Homosexuality is the epitome of hypocrisy where members cry for privacy while being overtly public about their lifestyles. They can’t help but display their perversion for the world to see all the while wondering why their private lives are such a big deal. Attend a gay pride parade or a gay pride anything and just see if it’s a place you would line up to take your children. It is complete filth. I feel like I’m getting HIV just thinking about it.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:14am
  Trolltrainer, in your opinion, should you not evangelize to unreached people groups, let God sort it out? Stating the truth is never wrong. I do think that we as Christians have a bad habit of pointing out the sins that we are not guilty of and making them more sinful than the sins we are guilty of…and we’re all guilty of plenty. We all need to repent.
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:30am
  GONZO,
  
  Did I say that? Read another post I wrote on this page, I firmly believe in EVANGELIZING. The problem is showing hatred (yes, hatred, just read some of these posts from so-called Christians) to sinners will NOT lead them to Christ. Now, I am not saying what this woman did is hatred, it is not. I am claiming that many posters in here are showing the hatred. They are known by the fruit they bear.
  
  Huntinwabbits, I am sure there are plenty of kooks at gay pride parades. What does that have to do with anything? You are trying to make a blanket statement on all gays by your observation of a select few. Are you really that intellectually dishonest? Does it somehow bolster your argument if you believe gay people cannot love each other, that it is simply about sex? Have you never had a good friend of the same sex? A best buddy? A hunting partner? Was that about sex? Of course not, you liked that person for who he was.
  
  Again, I am a straight, married man. Hardly the person to argue this. But to think that gays do not love each other is, frankly, stupid!
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:44am
  Gonzo,
  
  This is what I wrote elsewhere, and I think I should paste it here too. THIS is what my angry brothers in Christ should keep in mind when dealing with this issue:
  
  …The only way to correct things is to bring people back to Christ. THAT should be the primary motivation in everything we do. Yes, they need to understand that their lifestyle is wrong, and yes, we are right to make the stand that we NEVER accept or condone this perversion. BUT…As Christians, we need to be biblical on handling this issue. We are not the Judge. We are also ALL just as sinful as the most deviant homosexual. We should keep this in mind.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:50am
  We are in agreement then Trolltrainer.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:42pm
  You may be sane by Texas standards, not so much in NYC.
  So now gay couples are incapable of love?
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:52am
God says it’s wrong and man wants to argue the point. That never works out well for man.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:28am
  Spot on, my friend! THAT was truly elegant! Rush says “Brevity is the soul of wit”, and you got it!
  
  Report this comment
- Ollie123
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:59am
  Hey, locked, were not saying gays aren’t capable of love, we’re just quoting what God Almighty, you know the one who allows you to breathe His air for free! Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and speaks quite clearly in Romans 9 what a reprobate mind is all about. Go on your hate tribe against God, I don’t think it will end for anyone who opposes God’s Truth in the end. It is appointed unto men once to die, than after this the judgment. Not mans words , God’s Words!!
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:29am
  @Ollie
  
  I’m sorry you can’t reply to the proper threads, but I’ll try to address your concerns here.
  
  “were not saying gays aren’t capable of love”
  
  Diane seems to be. Are you her sock puppet?
  
  “we’re just quoting what God Almighty”
  
  Show me in the Bible where God says that homosexuals cannot love. I don’t deny homosexual actions are sinful, but Diane’s contention was that they cannot love.
  
  “Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and speaks quite clearly in Romans 9 what a reprobate mind is all about.”
  
  If you think S&G was destroyed only due to homosexuality, you’ve obviously never read Ezekiel 16:49-50. Kindly read the Bible before lecturing me :-)
  
  “Go on your hate tribe against God”
  
  First, what is a hate tribe? Second, since when have I said I hate God? I love God with all my heart!
  
  “I don’t think it will end for anyone who opposes God’s Truth in the end. It is appointed unto men once to die, than after this the judgment. Not mans words , God’s Words!!”
  
  And I’ve said nothing counter to this. I’m getting the feeling that you’re one of those who feel like if you aren’t singling out gays as sinners, then you’re not a Christian. Sorry, God doesn’t care if you’re gay or straight: we’re all sinners. Like the video said, love isn’t enough to gain eternal life. But that certainly doesn’t mean gays are incapable of love.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:11pm
  Yes, all sin is punishable by death, but some sins are considered worse than others: Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 21 envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
  
  Blasphemy is a sin for which there is no forgiveness: Mark 3:29; Matt 12:31, 32
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:03pm
  @Theotherberean
  
  Galatians doesn’t say they’re worse than other sins; it says they are not under the law and those who do them will not inherit the kingdom. I agree with you on blasphemy (against the Holy Spirit).
  
  Report this comment
trolltrainer
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:51am
Ironic, I was just commenting on the racist punk kid’s youtube rant on Asians.

Well, likewise here, it is her right and her life. I may agree with her sentiments but the video is ill-advised. She is now attached to this and it will be sure to haunt her.

She also appears to have the need to mature a bit more in her walk with Christ. Salon was correct in it’s comments, alienating homosexuals is NOT the way to try to lead them to Christ. I don’t normally like the phrase, “what would Jesus do?” (WWJD) as I am NOT Jesus. However, in this case, maybe she should contemplate that question before airing her cute little rap…

Nothing wrong with taking a stand on something, just be prepared for the consequences.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- capitalismrocks
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:03am
  I don’t see anything negative about her presentation, she even says everything has their own right to life as they want, she is not being anti-gay, she is just stating facts and truth and in no way is she saying that society or anyone should reject gays. I have no issues with gays, if you want to life that alternative life, then that is your choice, live it. Just don’t attempt to reshape society to conform to your sexual tastes. I won’t deny you anything, but don’t try to redefine marriage. If you want a civil union and all of the benefits that go along with that, then fine, but the churches do not have to cave into marrying people, the state can hold secular unions at city halls, but the state cannot force churches to go against the teachings of God and of nature that same-sex is not normal. Be gay and live your live, just don’t push others into thinking its normal or demanding that people support it.
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:12am
  capitalismrocks
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:03am
  
  I don’t see anything negative about her presentation…
  ————————————————————————————–
  I don’t either, and I agree with your post. Unfortunately, as evidenced by this article, not everyone feels the same. No one likes being told they are engaged in a life of sin, but alternately, you have to ask what good her video will do. Other than simply taking a stand against all this recognizing homosexuality nonsense they are cramming down our throats.
  
  My only point is this video may come back to bite this woman.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:35am
  Trolltrainer – nothing else works with people who prefer deviant sex over anything else except food and water. These people REFUSE to seek help; rather, they DEMAND acceptance, at ANY price!
  
  The only thing society has left for them is Truth: either that, or society must set aside it’s norms for ‘alternatives’, and that has historically meant the demise of such societies.
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:50am
  Woodyee, there is only 1 cure for homosexuality. It is the same cure for all our problems. Nothing else matters. You cannot force people to recognize God, it has to be their choice. That is the whole point to this life. You can fight against the degradation of society through turning from God and His law, but you will not win. Not on this earth. We know that already. The only way to correct things is to bring people back to Christ. THAT should be the primary motivation in everything we do. Yes, they need to understand that their lifestyle is wrong, and yes, we are right to make the stand that we NEVER accept or condone this perversion. BUT…As Christians, we need to be biblical on handling this issue. We are not the Judge. We are also ALL just as sinful as the most deviant homosexual. We should keep this in mind.
  
  Report this comment
- saneromeo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:41am
  Now she’s racist? Where did race come into this? Hmm…typical liberal response…sigh
  
  Report this comment
- trolltrainer
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:50am
  saneromeo
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:41am
  
  Now she’s racist? Where did race come into this? Hmm…typical liberal response…sigh
  ——————————————————-
  ROTFLMAO!
  
  Er…Lack of reading comprehension?
  
  Never mind…You are just wrong. I was not referring to the woman who made this video, it was another story posted today. You should try reading things through before running off half-c-o-c-k-e-d.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:39am
  @Trolltrainer – thank you for your kind response. I disagree with the ‘though shalt not judge’ thing. I grant in advance that I could be wrong, and that I misunderstood your point, but when the Lord walked the Earth, he did a lot of judging – EXCEPT, who will go to Heaven, and who will be cast into Purgatory.
  
  That sets the example for us as parents, and as citizens of a community; it sets up the example of morality. It is right for us to judge from right and wrong, not just for ourselves, but for our communities; and unjust for us to step into His shoes to try and decide who goes to Heaven or Purgatory.
  
  Report this comment
- carbonyes
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:08pm
  TROLLTRAINER,
  you mention that people do not like being told that they are sinners, yet if sin is not exposed for what it is then the person more likely than not will continue in that life of sin and undoubtedly end up in Hell for an eternity – which means a most horrible place with unfathomable punishments forever. Jesus did not hesitate to point out sin. He also showed great compassion but absolutely never condoned sin. He forgave sin, but it came from compassion. There are gradations of sin, and homosexuality is one of the worst, for it almost invariably spits in the face of God and confronts what God ordained for all time as we know it – the family unit, a man and a woman and children in marriage. There is no other alternative nor substitute. To say otherwise is to call God a liar, and God does not lie.
  Furthermore, the Word clearly says a righteous man judges all things. A man, or woman becomes righteous through receiving Christ and is cleansed in His shed blood. How does a righteous man judge? According to the Word of God. As he shall also in turn be judged.
  Homosexuality has no place in society, this country and this world, nor in the church and the church should profoundly preach against it. It is a literal abomination before God who distinctly says so in both the old and New Testaments. The acceptors and promoters of this aberrant lifestyle will very likely suffer as great, if not greater than those who live it.
  
  Report this comment
135AJS
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:49am
This is the needed information to millions that wish to twist the native. Because your for
one man one women as a family your a hater. Wrong your a person that truly know LOVE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:15am
  If you’re for one man one woman as a family you are a hater. The question is what is it that you hate?
  Perversion,unnatural unions being made in the church of God,or an ideology that will cause the destruction of Christanity by subversion of its morality.
  I’m a hater of all those things. I don’t hate anyone but I hate those ideas and actions. Just as much as a I hate addiction another tool used to destroy morality.
  That being said if two consenting adults same sex or otherwise want to inner a contract of a civil union or whatever that their business. It doesn’t belong in a church and it shouldn’t be call a marriage as marriage is a religious institution older than the Federal government.
  The government should get out of marriages and churches should get out of homosexuals lives.
  Fact is the entire reason this country was founded was to keep the government out of our lives and the churches from becoming our government. And here we are today the government is regulating everything we have and doing accept breathing, and the churches trying to stop free citizens from inner into a private contract
  
  Report this comment
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:47am
Beautiful. Truth.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodyee
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:46am
You may not like her style, but their is absolutely nothing wrong within nor about her message. Irrefutable.

Good morning, Billy! Back on your beat, huh?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.