Only Democrat Politicians, Activist Judges, And (Of Course) Beelzebub Support Gay Marriage

A snippet from The New York Times pretty much says it all:

Supporters of the [gay] marriage law, which the Legislature approved in May, have far more money and ground troops than opponents, who have been led by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet most polls show the two sides neck and neck, suggesting that gay couples here, as in California last year, could lose the right to marry just six months after they gained it.

Although Maine’s population is a tiny fraction of California’s and the battle here has been comparatively low profile, it comes at a crucial point in the same-sex marriage movement. Still reeling from last year’s defeat in California, gay-rights advocates say a defeat here could further a perception that only judges and politicians embrace same-sex marriage.

If Maine’s law is upheld, however, it would be the movement’s first victory at the ballot box; voters in about 30 states have banned same-sex marriage.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont allow gay couples to marry, but courts and legislatures, not voters, made it possible.

“It’s a defining moment,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the repeal effort. “What happens here in Maine is going to have a mushrooming effect on the issue at large.”

The people have now spoken thirty-one times.  And thirty-one times out of thirty-one times, the people have rejected gay marriage.

I think the gay activists have it right: only Democrat politicians and activist judges support gay marriage (I added the part about Beelzebub in my title, assuming that gay marriage advocates simply overlooked their biggest supporter).

These are people who care about democracy about as much as I care about liberalism: they actively despise it.

Gay activists used the most vile sort of intimidation tactics following their Prop 8 defeat in California.  They did the same thing in Washington state, targeting people who exercised their rights as citizens for boycotts, threats, and worse.

And, yeah, they have been trying to pick up the same fascist tactic in Maine.  And here’s what’s going on:

In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

On one side of the debate is Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington and one of the main people who got the referendum, known as Referendum 71, on the ballot. Stickney opposes releasing the names, arguing that doing so opens signatories up to intimidation and harassment.

In an interview, Stickney said he has been hit with “numerous death threats,” threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, and “obscene, vile emails” for being the public face of his cause.

“We’ve feared for our children’s lives,” he said.

Stickney characterized the people who signed the petition are “a bunch of little old ladies and nice people who go to church,” and said that “obviously we want to protect them from this kind of thing.”

He added that efforts to release the names amounted to a modern-day version of voter intimidation.

If I may wax philosophical for a moment.  The gay community practices a form of philosophical irrationalism, because they have abandoned the objective moral absolutes which have provided every other culture in history some semblance of moral order.  The eclipse of such moral absolutes has created an exclusive emphasis upon experience and subjectivity.

The problem of such moral irrationalism is that there are no longer any criteria for judgment.  If there are no transcendent absolutes by which one can evaluate experiences or beliefs, then ANY experience or belief can be invested with such transcendent meaning.  There is no basis for saying one idea is true and another false.  There is no basis for insisting that a particular moral principle – for example, that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, or, for that matter, that one ought not to murder Jews – is universally binding.

No culture has ever embraced homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals argue that their quest to impose gay marriage upon a society that clearly does not want it is a humanitarian quest for “civil rights,” and therefore good.  But when the wellsprings of irrationalism are released, human beings have a marked tendency to lurch to authoritarianism, violence, and self-destruction.  Just as homosexuals are proving yet again as they target law-abiding citizens for persecution.  The religious confessional doctrine of original sin accounts for the way that laudable ideals and noble-sounding goals can quickly turn vicious.

President Obama recently signed “hate crimes” legislation protecting gays in a bill that was ostensibly supposed to provide funding for our troops.  [This amounts to another proof that Democrat politicians are determined to impose their will upon the people, rather than allow their people to impose their will upon the politicians].

But the despicable reality is that if people need to be protected against hate crimes, it is the people who need to be protected FROM gays.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Only Democrat Politicians, Activist Judges, And (Of Course) Beelzebub Support Gay Marriage”

  1. Jim H Says:

    If you could explain what you need to be protected from concerning me, I’d appreciate it. I’m a voting, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding American gay that’s been in a committed relationship for 17 years. I’m not even asking for my relationship to be recognized from ANY govt., including my own. So while conservatives can marry and divorce all they like to prove their morality, committed gays you need protection from? Did you know that my taxes help pay for children to go to school? Did you know that my taxes help fund a military that won’t allow gays to serve?

    Reality check, please!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, I’m not for taking away any of your legitimate rights, Jim. You have the right to marry any woman of who will have you, same as me. That you don’t want to avail yourself of this right is fine with me; but please don’t demand substitutions. Rights don’t work that way.

    Second, since homosexuality has never existed in the history of human civilization, why exactly is the burden of proof on me? Please don’t forget the fact that YOU’RE the one who is arguing for something that every civilization on earth has rejected in the past. Given that homosexuality has been rejected by every single major religious system on earth on every continent on earth from every major culture on earth, why precisely is it that all of them have been wrong but you’re right now?

    If you don’t think that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes because you don’t have children, can all conservatives opt out of paying taxes because we don’t have any Republicans in the federal government? I mean, do you REALLY think that’s a good argument? There are all kinds of things that I don’t get to benefit from, yet my taxes pay for them.

    You DO realize that the benefit you’re paying for is a safe country safe from tyranny, don’t you? If you think it’s a load of fun to serve in the military, you’ve got another thing coming. We continue to limit women from serving in the most significant branches in the military (e.g. infantry). Maybe women shouldn’t pay their taxes, either. Hell, maybe NOBODY should pay their taxes. And you say we conservatives are anti-government!!!

    Then there are a whole lot of unpleasant things to get into. Here’s a homosexual who understands that he’s not all that unusual in having had more than 500 sexual partners, but that he’s older now and has slowed down some. 43% of homosexuals have had more than 500 sexual partners, and 28% have had more than 1,000. There’s the Dutch study that discovered that male homosexuals in “committed relationships” still have an average of eight OTHER sexual partners not their “partner” every year. We find that only five percent of homosexuals in a “committed relationship” have relationships that have lasted twenty years, and that the average homosexual relationship lasts less than six months. Stuff like that.

    Here’s a site that lists a lot of studies, for those who are interested.

    Homosexuality is a biologically filthy lifestyle. The human body was simply not meant for sodomy. Homosexual men have shocking rates of sexually transmitted diseases compared to any other group. And the average homosexual lives as much as thirty fewer years of life than the average heterosexual. The many studies validating that are summarized here.

    Another article to examine.

    Why on earth would we want to validate and legitimize a lifestyle that shortens lives more than crack cocaine???

    To a very real extent, Jim, we’re not merely trying to protect ourselves from the real horrors of the homosexual lifestyle; we’re trying to protect you from yourselves.

  3. Jim H Says:

    Couple of things that you are amazingly clueless on: 1) You claimed you need protection from gays – yet you weren’t willing to address that at all in regards to me. You fear me and want protection from ME how? 2) I don’t engage in sodomy. Plenty of heterosexuals do. Biblically, you aren’t even to sleep in the same house with a menstrating female…our bodies aren’t meant to be one during the menstration cycle. Does that prove men and women aren’t to have sex? Absolutely not…just not during menstration. 3) While you can site study after study of slutty hetero and homosexuals, that does NOT justify your stance. I’m all for being committed and in a long term relationship. You do realize that statistics are NEVER equal. If I can prove to you that a study of folks who are catholic and recite 10 hail-mary’s a day live 20 years longer than all other faiths, does that mean your view of Christianity is wrong? I freely admit that promiscuity is not wise – hence, my 17 year committed relationship. You can’t even acknowledge that, can you? That you are wrong about me? You want to site studies to discredit a man you don’t even know…simply because he doesn’t agree with the poison you are putting out there to the masses? Wow. Do I need to site studies and then apply them to your personal life to prove you are a sinner, liar, cheat, horrible husband, etc.? Is that how Christians discuss things now?

    Your rant about the military is simply discusting. To claim that other branches (those other than infantry) aren’t significant is arrogant. You are NOT an authority on the military. That is apparent.

    I never claimed I don’t want to pay my taxes. I do that gladly…it’s conservatives who have forgotten to take care of the sick, the elderly, the poor. You really need to go back and actually look at if the conservatives have the true spirit of Christ in them. The love of money is all too apparent.

    Going back to all major religions – please clarify this statement. I don’t think you’ve actually studied many and certainly, you’ve not studied as to WHY they outlawed or didn’t approve of same-sex relationships. And it’s convenient that you COMPLETELY left out divorce, mixed-race marriages, large age-difference marriages, and legal age of marriage. All these have consistantly changed throughout the ages. So, let’s go back and chat about homosexuality – many religions have accepted it, you don’t. We get it. You aren’t right for OTHER PEOPLES LIVES…just your own.

    You’ve really embraced legalism…how about some humility and love instead? Yes, I know you don’t believe that I’m saved and know the Lord – but the venom coming from your fangs isn’t from God. I’ll let you deduce the snake giving you that guidance.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I had to go back and reread my own post to realize that for the most part I never said half of what you claim I said. For example, I made the claim that branches other than the infantry aren’t significant WHERE, exactly???

    You start wandering into “I’m blocking this creep” territory when you deceitfully claim I said things I never said. And I most certainly never said that. You want to be blocked for being a dishonest liar, you claim I said something that I didn’t say again.

    You make another claim that is simply false, that “it’s conservatives who have forgotten to take care of the sick, the elderly, the poor.” That is a lie, and the statistics prove the opposite. The fact of the matter is that conservatives are MORE generous than liberals. Christian churches do so much more good, so much more volunteering, so much more giving, than any other group it is unreal.

    You make an incredibly false claim in demonizing conservative Christians. I just wish you could see all the things my church does for the poor. We give away massive amounts of food. We offer free psychological counseling, and we have nurses, a doctor, and a dentist who do free work for those who can’t afford it. We give away all kinds of clothing. We have a large benevolence fund. Shame on you for your lie.

    I may not be an “expert” in the military, but I DID spend four years in uniform and I DO wear a combat infantryman badge on my DAV cap (I serve in that service organization). I’m guessing that makes me a great deal more the authority than you. Just saying.

    I won’t waste my time with menstruation, other than to say that most Christians recognize that the New Testament is authoritative, and helps Christians understand how to understand the Old Testament and put it into proper context. That which is repeated as command or instruction regarding the Old Testament in the New still applies. That which does not, while it continues to provide teaching and understanding, does not directly apply. As one example, keeping the Sabbath is a law that no longer applies, even as Christians understand the purpose of the Sabbath law. All that to wit: menstruation laws are never mentioned in the New Testament; clear prohibitions against homosexuality ARE.

    And if you think that all the laws of the Old Testament apply today, you are FAR, FAR more legalistic than I have ever been or ever will be.

    My argument was quite simple, and you never even attempt to deal with it: to wit, given the fact that no culture – and most certainly and especially the United States – have ever had homosexual marriage, why on earth am I supposed to be the one who is on the defensive, trying to establish that it’s wrong to have homosexual marriage???

    I mean, “I want to eat every child I can catch, and unless you prove that I shouldn’t be able to eat every child I can catch, then I should get to do it.” What a ridiculous argument. It’s wrong. It’s ALWAYS been wrong. And whether someone offers a demonstration that it is wrong or not, it continues to be wrong.

    The burden of proof is all over YOU. Not me. YOU are the one who is trying to impose something on America that has not only never existed at any time in America, but has never existed in any culture anywhere at any time. Given the fact that you are now trying to impose an incredibly radical thing which our society has never tolerated – and which continues to be against the clear will of the people in every single state – where do you get off thinking I’m the one who has the burden of proof???

    It is YOUR burden to demonstrate that every single culture at every point in human history was somehow wrong and YOU are right.

    You wanted clarification about homosexuality in the world’s religions? Answer me this: where in the Christian Bible is homosexuality approved? Where in the Koran? Where in the Hindu scriptures (e.g., the Vedas, the Upanishads)? Where in the teachings of Confucius? Where in the Buddhavacana of Buddhism? Now you show me where these celebrate homosexuality. It is not there.

    And “my view” of Christianity??? Excuse me??? How about Moses’ view of Christianity? How about St. Paul’s view of Christianity??? What about the Bible’s view of Christianity??? These all confirm “my view” of homosexuality and directly oppose YOURS.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”

    Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

    And, of course, the fact that the New Testament condemns homosexuality allows me to bring in all of the Old Testament prohibitions, to include those prophets as well. But I shouldn’t have to do that.

    There’s another passage, of course: Romans 1:18-27. I’ll let someone else quote this passage and explain what it means:

    Romans 1:18-27 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

    Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

    Let me start by making two observations. First, this is about God being mad: “For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men….”

    Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this “orgy” of anger. Men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18). They exchanged “the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25). Next, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…” (v. 24). They “exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural (v. 26). Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are without excuse (v. 20).

    This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation. Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that’s part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. He is talking about a universal condition of man.

    Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses: a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).

    There’s only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one’s Creator. Verse 32 shows it’s rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God–true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality. God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse” (v. 20).

    Now, I’m sorry, but you feel completely free to invent your own god in your own image. I don’t. I worship the God of the Bible, who has condemned homosexuality for thousands and thousands of years without change.

    All that said, I do not hate homosexuals. I merely agree with the Word of God. I understand that, but for the grace of God, I could have been molested, or abused, and been sexually broken, and become a homosexual. So I don’t judge myself morally superior to you. That said, the Bible teaches right and wrong, and I can read. YOU can read, too. Yet you are in rebellion.

    As for your last statement, that I’m telling you you’re going to hell, no, I’m not. Because that’s not my call – it’s the Lord God’s call. What I AM doing is pointing out that you are defending that which God calls sin, and pointing out that the Word of God is calling upon you to repent.

    You mentioned adultery. Guess what? It’s sin. God hates it. And anyone who celebrates it, and says it’s okay, and that God welcomes it, is deeply in sin, and in mortal danger of hell. Just as you are regarding homosexuality. Your argument that heterosexuals commit the sin of adultery, and that somehow therefore God permits homosexuality, is deeply flawed. Because God doesn’t permit either.

    You call me arrogant. But am I arrogant for believing what Christians throughout the millennia have believed, for believing what Judeo-Christianity has taught for thousands of years, for believing what the Word of God teaches? Or are you arrogant, for making up your very own god and your very own religion to justify what you want to do?

  5. Jim H Says:

    …”serving in the most significant branches in the military (e.g. infantry). ” No branch of the military is insignificant or less significant than others. Women do serve in vital roles in various branches of the military. What you deem as inisignificant or significant is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The arrogant attitude however is.

    I have no idea where you claimed I’m being blocked, etc. Please list where. I had never even thought that. I did claim that you were making claims against me without even knowing me…but I have no idea how you get “block” out of that. I certainly have no idea where you are quoting me.

    Your claim straight away about churches being more giving then liberals is already false. Liberals attend church too! Liberals give to church and other charities! You are lying through your grubbly little fingers to claim that I was lying as well. Nowhere did I state that your church wasn’t giving, I was VERY specific NOT to pick on your church…they can’t help it if there is a loose cannon in their congregation. And are you certain that not a single liberal is in your church? Are you sure? And you do realize that it’s not YOUR church, right? You don’t possess it, own it, etc. The church is the Lords, noone elses. It seems you are serving more than one master.

    If you’d like to get into a theological debate, then you need to step back and look at what you are doing. You do NOT get to spread your beliefs on to this country. If so, you’ll be outlawing freedom of religion. You do realize that, correct? You can have ANY laws in your church you want…you do NOT have the right to make folks who don’t go to your church believe what you believe by passing laws. The pharisees did that. I sincerely hope you see the pattern. I recommend you go back to the original Greek, the original Hebrew and actually study. You have put the majority of your faith in a man’s translation. I did find the article very interesting…especially in explaining Romans…but the person never goes to the original manuscripts and used a really poor American Standard Bible translation. I encourage you to go back and actually study the Greek words.

    Again, I’m not condoning adultry. I made no such claim that heterosexuals commit adultery (you do realize, it’d be fornication unless the man/woman is married and having a same-sex affair, yes?) and that I approve. I’m also not the one claiming all homosexuals commit sodomy (men and women) as you have. Appears someone isn’t thinking very clearly.

    “Now, I’m sorry, but you feel completely free to invent your own god in your own image.” – No need to apologize, you are more than welcome to have your own beliefs based on your interpretation of scripture. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations of the Christian faith because we ALL believe something slightly different. Your legalism has clearly blinded you to believe otherwise.

    To clarify, I called you arrogant on your belief of the military, not your faith. Further more, Judeo-Christianity has changed over the thousands of years…you simply have chosen to ignore the truth. The Christian stance on slavery, mixed marriages, even at what age a woman can marry have evolved greatly over the past two thousand years.

    I’m certain the God of love and forigiveness I have is different than what you believe. To claim otherwise would be foolish. The difference: I’m not wanting to pass laws to condem you for your beliefs. Our job as believers is to share the good news, not make a law out of it. Again, that’s what the Pharisees did.

  6. Jim H Says:

    I meant to quote this line from the article you referenced: “New interpretations cast a different light on the passage. ” Clearly, folks are retranslating the living word of God. To completely negate the fact that Paul is speaking of a punishment as a result from sin, not that the punishment is the sin. If you punish your child for being left-handed (we used to do that as Christians, you know?) and send him to his room, is the fact that he is in his room the sin? And once your child has served his punishment, and comes back outside his room but is still left-handed, at what point do you question that your son may just be a left-handed son? Sure, he’ll never serve on a right-handed panel of judges as you do…but he’s still your son.

  7. Jim H Says:

    P.S. I meant to say you are welcome to discuss this issue off-line and not on your site. I’m completely open to that.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Jim,
    I would be getting annoyed, but I’m not sure you’re being dense on purpose. You said, and I quote from your second paragraph of this post:

    Your rant about the military is simply discusting. To claim that other branches (those other than infantry) aren’t significant is arrogant.

    And in my last post I pointed out that I never said any such thing, and that I would block you (i.e. make it impossible for you to post to this site) if you engaged in such deception again. There is no point in having an argument with someone who lies and slanders your positions. And you slandered me by claiming that I said (or ‘ranted’) things I did not say.

    Here are my exact words in my comment:

    If you don’t think that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes because you don’t have children, can all conservatives opt out of paying taxes because we don’t have any Republicans in the federal government? I mean, do you REALLY think that’s a good argument? There are all kinds of things that I don’t get to benefit from, yet my taxes pay for them.

    You DO realize that the benefit you’re paying for is a safe country safe from tyranny, don’t you? If you think it’s a load of fun to serve in the military, you’ve got another thing coming. We continue to limit women from serving in the most significant branches in the military (e.g. infantry). Maybe women shouldn’t pay their taxes, either. Hell, maybe NOBODY should pay their taxes. And you say we conservatives are anti-government!!!

    Now, I submit that ANY FOOL is aware that the infantry is “one of the most significant branches in the military.” Try to argue that infantry is NOT a significant branch, or even one of the most significant branches. I’d like to see the argument that the actual fighting troops are irrelevant and all that really matters is the clerks.

    Every branch of service is significant. But only an abject ignoramus would argue that the military is built around the clerk. The military is built around the men who do THE DAMN FIGHTING. Your argument is literally that the man who sweeps the factory floor is every bit as important as the CEO who makes decisions that risk billions of dollars and the fate of the company on the notion that “every job is equally important.” Your argument amounts to claiming that the man who wipes the fighter’s brow during the fight is as important as the man who is in the ring fighting. Let’s do a pay-per-view of just the guys wiping the brows without the fighters and see how many subscribe to it. My guess is ZERO. Because you are WRONG.

    You are being asinine, pure and simple. Calling the infantry one of “the most significant branches in the military” (please notice I write “branches” rather than “branch”) is NOT the same thing as saying all other branches are insignificant. But the fact that every branch is significant does NOT mean that one branch cannot be more significant or even the MOST significant.

    Which means you lie when you say I said what I very clearly DID NOT SAY. Period.

    And you’re already doing it again. I provided you an article based on polling that said that “CONSERVATIVES are more generous than liberals.” Here’s that article link again. I then subsequently said that churches were the most giving organizations of all. Then I made the comment about churches being the most giving with this fact in mind.

    From USA Today:
    Voters who say they go to church every week usually vote for Republicans. Those who go to church less often or not at all tend to vote Democratic.

    Which is to say that you’re wrong: liberals by and large are NOT religious people who fill church coffers; conservatives are. Sorry, but that’s simply a fact. Are there liberal churches? Yes, but there aren’t nearly as many of them, and statistics show that they are dying while evangelical (i.e. conservative) denominations are thriving.

    Let me move on to another thing you say:

    If you’d like to get into a theological debate, then you need to step back and look at what you are doing. You do NOT get to spread your beliefs on to this country. If so, you’ll be outlawing freedom of religion.

    First of all, you couldn’t be more wrong: I in fact have EVERY right to spread my beliefs. And it is YOU who are “outlawing freedom of religion” by claiming I DON’T have that right. For you to assert that I somehow don’t have the right to spread my faith proves that you 1) don’t understand Christianity, in which Jesus COMMANDS me to spread my faith (Matthew 28:19-20), and 2) you don’t understand the Constitution, which gives me the freedom to spread my beliefs.

    Then you go on to make another huge mistake. You argue:

    you do NOT have the right to make folks who don’t go to your church believe what you believe by passing laws

    Every law has a moral point of view behind it. What you are saying here is that those who hate God get to impose THEIR morality on everyone, but how DARE Christians who believe in the Bible!!! How dare we organize and try to get out message out the way God-hating institutions do. And Christians might even VOTE!!! And what could possibly be worse than that??? Begging your pardon, but are you like a fascist or something? Where do you get off telling me that I don’t have the same rights that every other American has??? Where do you get off telling me that Christians don’t have the same rights that the ACLU has, or the Rainbow Coalition, or N.O.W.??? Why do you have the right to radically transform society into a homosexual utopia, when it has never been one before, while I don’t have the right to uphold the Christian morality that this nation was founded upon?

    Liberals have the right to shove laws down our throats, but conservatives don’t??? Not in this country, pal. Where do you get off?

    Begging your pardon, but I have five semesters of graduate-level study of Greek, and four semesters of graduate-level study in Hebrew. I know what I’m saying, and I know it complies with the original languages. I quoted from the New American Standard Bible, which is the best literal word-for-word translation out there.

    I notice that you don’t bother to provide any correction (because you’re wrong); rather, you just deceitfully insinuate that I’m wrong without bothering to provide any evidence. That, by the way, is something else that is going to get you blocked on my site. If you say I’m wrong, you’d better have the facts to back your assertion up.

    I Corinthians 6:9-11 uses two words: malakoi (Strongs 3120) and arsenokoites (Strongs 733). The second word means “sodomite” and is rightly translated “homosexual.” The first word “malakoi” means “catamite,” and has to do with pederasty, men having sex with boys. I Timothy uses that same word, arsenokoites, sodomite, homosexual. That’s just what the word means, Joe. You’re wrong. And the Jude passage hearkens to the activity of the city of Sodom made infamous in Genesis 19. Homosexuals who wanted to engage in homosexual activity.

    Now, lest you come back again with the fine distinction that not every single homosexual commits sodomy, let me again quote the words of St. Paul in Romans 1:26-27:

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    So it’s the general expression of homosexuality, and burning in passion for your own sex, that is damned. Not just “sodomy.”

    What you try to do – again, without bothering to offer any evidence whatsoever – is to deceitfully undermine our English translations, which were the result of the work of the greatest language scholars over a period of some 1,500 years. You seek to undermine the Bible by alleging that the Greek New Testament is some mysterious thing that can’t be known or understood by any but some homosexual “Illuminati.” As someone who has a Master of Theology, I can assure everyone that this is false.

    You’re doing the same thing with the Bible that you’ve done to history and to American culture. I have two thousand years of scholarship on my side, from the writings of the Greek church fathers, to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to all the translation committees of very modern translation since the King James Version on my side. Frankly, you have a depraved will that will not recognize that which has clearly been declared to be sin on yours, and nothing else.

    I believe in the Bible. You don’t. I get my knowledge of God from the Word of God; you get it from your sexual desires and your determination to justify them in your own mind. THAT’S the bottom line meaning of Romans 1.

    Does God forgive? You betcha. But if you read the Bible and actually believed it, you’d see passages like this: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” IF we confess our sins.

    You’re not doing that as to regards homosexuality. You refuse to acknowledge it is sin at all.

    I have a sexual nature, and I commit sexual sins. But because I have the Holy Spirit in me, I recognize my sin, I know it is wrong, and I confess my sins.

    One of the funny things you say is, “The difference: I’m not wanting to pass laws to condem you for your beliefs.” Now, you say this AFTER you’ve said, “Your legalism has clearly blinded you,” and “you simply have chosen to ignore the truth.” You’ve got ALL KINDS of condemnation, you’re just too much of a hypocrite to see it. If gays get gay marriage laws passed, it will very much “condemn” my beliefs. And homosexuals are very much out to condemn my beliefs that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, just as it has always been in the Bible, and in every civilization since Adam and Eve.

    If homosexual marriage is passed, it will redefine ALL marriages. It will change marriage from what it has been since God ordained it: an institution ordained by God as the union between one man and one woman, and it will become instead a mere societal convention – based on political correctness – that allows one to redefine marriage in any way they want.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve never punished my child for being left-handed.

    You are making another unsubstantiated assertion which, even if true, does not change anything.

    There is no scientific consensus that one is born “gay.”

    But let’s say there was a “gay gene,” and we identified it. The same studies that assert that there IS such a gay gene have also found other genes, such as an “anger gene.”

    Now, let’s say I have the “anger gene,” and as a result I start beating homosexuals to death with a baseball bat. Is it your contention that I escape judgment, condemnation, or punishment – and in fact have my acts legitimized and celebrated by society – because I was “born that way”? Somehow, I doubt it.

    The other thing you do here is insinuate that we do not have moral freedom. We are not responsible for our actions. I was “born gay,” therefore I’m going to be gay, and what I do is right and proper and appropriate.

    Baloney. There is such a thing as being responsible for one’s actions.

    So, my dad was an angry guy, and I inherited his temper. That in no way takes away from my responsibility to place my temper under control.

    Same with homosexuality, if there in fact even is a biological component to it. There’s a word in the Bible: “resist.” Look it up.

    Now, having said that, and having already pointed out that homosexuality is immoral in virtually every religious system that ever existed, I must also point out that homosexuality is “immoral” from a Darwinian perspective, also.

    Survival of the fittest. And the “fittest” are defined as “those who leave the most offspring.” Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is “fit” and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the “physically fittest” ones. And homosexuals aint pulling their weight.

    Homosexuality is an evolutionary “dead end.” And if in fact there WERE a gay gene, a good Darwinian would be compelled to weed it out and eradicate it, lest it continue to result in biological filth that doesn’t benefit the human race, but only contaminates the human reproductive process.

    So I’m really not sure that you want to assert that you were “born gay.” One the one hand, it doesn’t do anything for you unless you repudiate human free will (which means the people who beat homosexuals to death are no more “responsible” than people who love them); and on the other, being “born gay” is a also merely a synonym for being “biologically defective.”

    For the record, I don’t believe you’re “biologically defective” because I also don’t think you were “born gay.” But because I don’t think you were “born gay,” I believe you’re morally responsible for your behavior and your choices.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    P.S. I meant to say you are welcome to discuss this issue off-line and not on your site. I’m completely open to that.

    Assuming you’re telling me that I don’t have the right to post my beliefs and views on my own blog, but that you will graciously allow me to speak only in private, well, that’s just mighty white of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: