The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Is the U.S. Government Promoting Homosexuality Overseas?

By on 1.3.11 @ 6:08AM

At the State Department, LGBT rights trump religious freedom.

Revoking "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has gotten all the attention of late. But the Obama Administration is involved in another related initiative that is potentially no less significant.

Religious liberals in the United States have accused U.S. evangelicals of "exporting the culture wars" to Africa by preaching conservative cultural norms. But signals emanating from the State Department indicate that the U.S. government may be engaged in its own evangelistic efforts -- to help legitimize homosexual practices in those socially traditional countries.

Although the language of some U.S. officials begins with the legitimate concern for personal safety and freedom from the threat of violence, it often ends by demanding acceptance of homosexual acts as a human right.

"We've come such a far distance in our own country, but there are still so many who need the outreach, need the mentoring, need the support, to stand up and be who they are, and then think about people in so many countries where it just seems impossible," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a speech in June as part of "Pride Month" celebrations at the U.S. State Department.

At the event, which was organized by the group "Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies," Clinton said the State Department is supporting efforts to advance homosexual rights around the world. "We celebrate the progress of advancing the rights of LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] in our country, as we continue to advance the rights of all people around the world," Clinton gushed before the receptive audience, adding that the "struggle for equality is never, ever finished."

The State Department's increasing interest in homosexual rights comes as critics -- such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom --have accused the Obama Administration of weakening their commitment to the freedom of religion in favor of a more narrowly defined "freedom of worship." The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter.

According to Thomas Farr, a visiting professor at Georgetown and senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, the Obama administration seems to have decided that policy initiatives including outreach to Muslim governments and advancing gay rights would be compromised by vigorous advocacy for religious freedom.

"In fact, such a decision would harm the victims of religious persecution, hamstring key Obama initiatives, and undermine U.S. national interests," Farr writes.

During her June address, Clinton stated that her department has formalized reporting on homosexual rights for the first time in the 2009 annual human rights report that was issued in February on every country in the world. But the top U.S. diplomat quickly honed in on Africa, saying that U.S. embassies there had been directed to ask their host government about the status of LGBT rights. A special panel discussion on LGBT rights in Africa was also held later in the day.

"We celebrate the progress that is being made here in our own country toward advancing the rights of LGBT Americans, and we recognize that there is still a lot of work to be done but that we are moving together in the right direction," Clinton said.

Clinton's comments were echoed later the same month by Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael H. Posner. Posner gave an opening introduction at the Center for American Progress, where new CAP visiting Senior Fellow Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, hosted former Ugandan Anglican Bishop Christopher Senyonjo for a panel discussion about advancing LGBT rights abroad. Senyonjo is a rare liberal African prelate whose views are rejected by the Anglican Church in Uganda. Particular attention was paid to a bill long before the Ugandan parliament, which would further criminalize homosexual conduct. Ugandan Anglicans oppose the harsh legislation, which has virtually no chance of passage, but which has energized U.S. liberals, who have tried erroneously to blame U.S. evangelicals, like California megachurch pastor Rick Warren, for inspiring it.

Posner said he was at CAP to "lend support of the U.S. government" to Robinson and Senyonjo. "LGBT rights are human rights; we work to promote them as we would any other," Posner said.

In March, Posner introduced the State Department human rights report to Congress, emphasizing what was termed a growing crisis in abuse directed against LGBT people worldwide, and urging the use of diplomacy to counter the alleged trend.

In introducing the report, Posner singled out the case of Uganda, where he alleged that introduction of anti-homosexuality legislation has resulted in abuse. The report further documents LGBT-related incidents in almost every country in the world.

Posner's report met agreement with Robinson and Senyonjo during their conversation at CAP.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Jeff Walton directs the Anglican program at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (655) | Leave a comment

Booger| 1.3.11 @ 6:25AM

A more appropriate question would be whether there is anyplace left that the U.S. government is NOT promoting homosexuality. Perhaps this will be just the spark B.O. needs to send NASA back to the moon-Lunar Sodomy! It'll be a full moon for all. I know it's not currently fashionable to mention it, but once upon a time, wasn't homosexuality associated with Muslims and Turkish baths? Don't the Imams in the madrassas molest far more young boys than the Catholic priests ever thought about? Isn't it Afghanistan where one can find the infamous "dancing boys"? And didn't our dear Fearless Leader spend much of his youth in a Muslim school? Oh well, just move along folks, nothing to see here.

Cordially,

Booger

Harriet N.| 1.3.11 @ 11:18AM

"Where I hope we are headed is to discover the enormous diversity in human sexuality," Robinson said."

And I say, "Amen, and Amen, and Amen, brother!"

Time for you old AmSpec right-wingers to think a little about your own sexual habits. Any of your performed cunnilingus lately on your wife, girlfriend? Any of you asked your wife or girlfriend to perform fallatio on you? That's what you want, so admit it. You probably do lots of "kinky" things you would not want others to know about, don't you?

Yes, I think you need to "consider the enormous diversity in human sexuality," and shut your mouths when it comes to condemning same-gender sex.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 11:51AM

If it's so pleasing and wonderful why can't we see two guys kissing on prime time television? Oh wait, the FCC defines that as obscene and not appropriate for the public.

LiveFreeOrDieHard| 1.3.11 @ 12:46PM

Ummm, you can see two guys kissing on prime time television. You've been able to see this for years. The FCC has no definition in place that says homosexual kissing is obscene.

Recent shows where I recall seeing it include:

The Office
Will & Grace
Law & Order
House (a FOX show)

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 12:58PM

There is no such FCC prohibition, and you must not watch much TV.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 1:41PM

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court established the following criteria to determine whether speech is obscene: (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. www.fcc.gov

1. There are existing state laws against homosexuality.
2. The average person still finds that gay opened mouth kissing is "patently offensive," therefore will not be seen on network TV except in violation of FCC rules of course.

Farced| 1.3.11 @ 2:31PM

Any state laws against homosexuality have been invalidated by the Supreme Court over a couple of cases.

And because *you* personally think something is offensive doesn't mean the majority of people do. Same for whether or not something is a violation of a rule because you personally don't like it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 3:58PM

Is it your position that man-on-man open mouthed kissing is not offensive to the average person?

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 4:54PM

Even if it were, as long as it was part of a work with serious artistic value -- and that is broadly defined under the case law -- it couldn't be considered obscene. In a robust free society, all of us get exposed to things we find offensive.

Dan | 1.3.11 @ 4:34PM

Although I understand where you come from, I have to tell you something that you might not like to hear, something that is nonetheless "the simple and naked truth": Most of the peoples do not feel comfortable (yet) when they see two man kissing each other. You can call it hypocrisy or whatever you want, but on a day to day basis, I can see it happening. You guys are accepted by all Americans as a minority IN THIS COUNTRY, but when you are trying to impose your "kinky" behaviors (to use Harriet N's words) over the majority of Americans WHO ARE LAYING YOU AN OPEN HAND, that is not acceptable.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 4:57PM

Dan, quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether you are comfortable with it. Many people, particularly older people, are very uncomfortable seeing interracial couples. But that's their problem. No one's asking you to do it yourself, or to think it's "right". But other people don't have to live their lives in a way that makes you comfortable.

Searching| 1.3.11 @ 5:40PM

Do a google image search.

Type "soccer players kissing in the mouth."

Seems to be OK for jocks. Does not bother me one bit.

T.R. Mann| 1.4.11 @ 3:58PM

Majority? What majority? Homosexuals make up 3% of the population of the US. I hardly think that is a majority. Can you spell "MINORITY"? No, didn't think so.

Gran Torino| 1.4.11 @ 9:33PM

Sodomites and catamites have an impact on public policy out of proportion to their numbers. Whether you think so or not, they will have their place in the lake of fire. It's an abomination. God created Adam and Eve (not Steve).

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 5:57PM

Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles? Who are they afraid to offend?

da monk| 1.3.11 @ 7:41PM

NegroX:
Not all pedophiles are homosexuals.

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 8:34PM

monk, answer the simple question.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:06AM

Pedophiles attack vulnerable targets, boy or girl. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Besides, most pedophiles are males who attack young female relatives.

You seem to be hung up on pedophilia. If I had a daughter I wouldn't let you anywhere near her.

Rod| 1.4.11 @ 10:27AM

On the homsexual-paedophile link, Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, was slapped down last year for stating the facts about this. Here are just two of many scientific references which supports the Cardinal's position. For those with any interest in the welfare of children, it raises huge red flags over the wisdom of handing over kids to "gay" adoptees and foster carers, among many others:

1. "Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighbourhood of 2% . ... In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40% (Gebhard et. al., 1965; Mohr et. al., 1964)."
- From Ray Blanchard, et. al. "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior, April 1999 [Volume 28, Number 2], pages 111-127.

2. "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men (...) in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys (...) Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles."
- From Ray Blanchard, et al. "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles." Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2000 [Volume 29, Number 5], pages 463-478.

One could go on with enldess similar findings re paedophilia and abuse. It is enough to understand that the 1-2 % homosexual populace (1.3% being the latest official figure released here in Britain) perpetrates a third and more of child abuse. So in relative terms, a child is 10 to 20 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual, as confirmed by teacher-pupil abuse figures and the like. And this does not even take account of ephebophilia (homosexual abuse of post-pubescent boys) which is much higher still and accounted for 81% of the clerical sexual abuse cases within the Catholic Church in America.

None this is surprising, since once you toss away the sanitary handbook your mother gave you as a child, to indulge in pathologically filthy (and often deadly) act like sodomy, every destructive perversion becomes possible.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 2:05PM

Your "research" is authored by Roy Blanchard, who's been compared to George Rekers by his own mentor. I wonder how old Blanchard's "baggage handler" is?

But, I don't suppose I'll be posting on this site much more. I'm no longer capable to reply from my own computer. I guess I must have been saying something right. Typical right-wingers.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:05PM

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 5:57PM

Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles? Who are they afraid to offend?
=======
It's because we're talking liberal media. They must lie and cover up every single problem with homosexuals and bisexuals. The more serious the problem, the more they lie and spread false stereotypes of homosexuals as "nice people," always.

80% of the reported cases of the Catholic abuse scandal were cases of homosexual priests abusing male adolescents, not boys, nor girls.

Liberals (and especially homosexual activists) only spin out homosexuality propaganda, and they can care less about the victims, especially future ones of homosexual abuse.

That's why they keep a lid on who the perpetrators are.

Darragh| 1.3.11 @ 6:14PM

Wow...aren't you a charmer.

The reality is that a lot of gay women (especially) are into recruitment. Almost every straight woman I know says this--even though they like their gay friends. I don't know why, but this stereotype doesn't come out of nowhere. But, these days, gays are sacred. They can do no wrong. It may have a genetic component (though there's no evidence), but why be surprised that it's being promoted as a lifestyle choice worldwide?

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:10AM

May I ask how you recruit someone to change his/her sexuality? Do you bribe them with all the rights they will have stripped away from them? You're insane. Gays and lesbians flirting with closeted gays and closeted lesbians isn't recruitment: it's liberation.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:10PM

May I ask how you recruit someone to change his/her sexuality? Do you bribe them with all the rights they will have stripped away from them? You're insane.
==========
No, you are the one with very stupid ideas about human sexuality. Your comment above is nothing but ignorant homosexual propaganda. Human sexuality has a million elements that are cultural and a product of social conditioning. Yes, people can be recruited for all kinds of dysfunctional kinds of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Human psychology is profoundly shaped by environment and interpersonal experience.

No one is born with a homosexual problem.

Dennis| 1.3.11 @ 9:04PM

When I read the things that our own government is advocating (LGBT agenda) I recall how the Apostle Paul battled those in the early church who pushed for "open-mindedness" and a "let it all hang out attitude". Sex with harlots or prositutes was allowed and even advocated. The Word of God was not followed by many in the early church (nor was it believed) and Paul rightly came out against these religious leaders. What good is our faith if it demands nothing of us? If we're allowed to pretty much do whatever our flesh desires, then why are we bothering to call ourselves Christians?
The really shameful part is that Clinton & our State Department isn't worried about the millions of Christians believers in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, who are being beaten, killed, having their churches burned down and run out of the country...all because they refuse to bow to the "religion of peace"....

inge| 1.4.11 @ 6:04AM

Couldn't have said any better!

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 10:22AM

"Religion of peace" or we'll firebomb your house.
What a joke. Christianity is one of the bloodiest religions that has ever existed. Have you ever opened a Bible?

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 3:16PM

Here's worse:

Atheistic Communism
Pagan Nazism
Militant Islamism

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 9:58AM

Crusading Christians

Bill| 1.4.11 @ 4:16PM

Judaism was one of the bloodiest faiths around. Open the Bible again. Christianity isn't in the Old Testament. Nicholas, it seems to me you have a problem with Christians. Another thing you fail to see is homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. There is not evidence that homosexuality is genetic but is clearly a choice. Equate yourself with animals all you want. It shows the hypocricy of your behavior. Pedophiles use the same excuses homosexuals use to justify their behavior and you get mad. But you want to equate yourself with animals and you are happy with it. You clearly are showing the hate you accuse others of.

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 10:58AM

"The really shameful part is that Clinton & our State Department isn't worried about the millions of Christians believers in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, who are being beaten, killed, having their churches burned down and run out of the country."

To the contrary: I believe they are very concerned. The really shameful part is the shortsightedness of the Bush invasion, the 'Christianization' of the U.S. military, bible verses on rifle barrels, "Jesus Killed Mohammed" spray-painted on Bradleys… did y'all seriously think there would be no backlash against regional Christians as the invading Christians withdrew?

http://www.project-reason.org/....._mohammed/

Reaping the whirlwind sown by Bush/Cheney. Enjoy.

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 1:30PM

You & RCV make a great team.. of liars.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 1:52PM

...and the Peace of the Lord be with you, too, Margie.

Alessandra| 1.6.11 @ 8:17AM

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 1:30PM

You & RCV make a great team.. of liars.
===========
Add Nicolas for the foul-mouthed garbage and the trios displays in all magnificence just how trashy homosexuality advocates are.

Bill| 1.4.11 @ 4:19PM

In marriage, what a man and a woman do is permissable. People know that a man and a woman who are married have sexual intercourse but it isn't a topic of conversation. Human sexuality is a behavior, a choice. Not an identity like being black or female or a black female. Isn't it so easy to point out what you think is wrong with others in order to justify the homoseuxal behavior? That is hypocricy. That is intolerant.

old white guy| 1.4.11 @ 6:34PM

history has many examples of societies that were lost after perversion and devient behabior became the norm.

Alan Brooks| 1.3.11 @ 12:53PM

At least gays don't have abortions (unless perhaps they are surrogate-pregnant lesbians).
If you really hate abortion so much, why don't you leave non-aborting gays alone?

ushivon| 1.3.11 @ 8:57PM

Gays often are married to women, they have children AND multiple partners on the sly so why would they not be aborting their children aswell. Gays also PAY women to be impregnated with their sperm and to have children as surrogate mothers ie puppy farming for humans! Look at Elton John! They also may be keen participants in the IVF farce where multiple conceived humans in the earliest stages of life are got rid of as surplus to requirements. Human slavery from the instant of human conception. Unwed teen mums can be holy and by comparison to the evil goings on surrounding sex and human conception, they are certainly far closer to the original human design.

Brooklyn Dave| 1.3.11 @ 1:45PM

Hey, leave sub-Saharan Africa alone Obama. The fact is that sub-Saharan Africa is largely Christian, and quite conservative at that. So this is basically a slap at Christian conservatives. On the other hand, I am all for promoting "gayness" in the Islamic world. Don't you think Tehran would be better of with a big old GAY PRIDE parade all decked out with fabulous floats and feather boas instead of that crazy parade they have with the guys beating themselves bloody with chains--maybe their version of S&M. Islam need gaiety NOW.

brooklyn dave| 1.3.11 @ 1:47PM

Besides, Obama's goomba in Kenya Mr. Odinga would probably not be too fond of "gaiety" in his country-- even though he's a Marxist.

99 1/2 | 1.3.11 @ 10:41PM

As usual, AmSpec readers vent their appalling hatred towards homosexuals.

Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!
Vent your hatred!

Feel better?

Bill| 1.4.11 @ 4:21PM

What about the homosexuals that attack churchs and Mormon temples because they don't get their way or simply someone doesn't agree with the homosexual behavior?

Go ahead, vent your hate because people have morals and values that you don't agree with.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:19PM

As usual, AmSpec readers vent their appalling hatred towards homosexuals.
==============
http://gmdvp.org/

Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project: 1 in 4 Gay Men Experience Domestic Violence

Such a violent group of people! And that's without mentioning rape, assault, harassment, STDs, etc.

Apparently you don't seem to be bothered by how violent and grotesque so many homosexuals are--not only to heterosexuals--but to homosexuals themselves.

Whenever I see some liberal frothing at the mouth, vomitting the "hate" slurs, I wonder just what a slime of a person they are in their personal lives.

It's convenient for such people to call ideological opponents "haters." Then they swiftly draw attention away from all the aspects of their minds and lives that stink--so very deeply.

old white guy| 1.4.11 @ 6:37PM

wait until islam weighs in on the matter. and they will. barack the magic one will not be there stopping them.

Shar| 1.4.11 @ 1:55PM

B.O. did more than attend muslim school - ask his inner circle about Donald Young or Larry Sinclair and you will understand his "motivation". Or better yet, just google those two men and you will get a lot of information if it has not been scrubbed from the internet. Uck!

Karl Lucifer Marx| 1.3.11 @ 6:30AM

I don't see anything wrong with increasing exports as long as we can make a profit on it and create jobs.

Dean from Ohio| 1.3.11 @ 7:42AM

@ "Where I hope we are headed is to discover the enormous diversity in human sexuality," Robinson said. Senyonjo responded with a firm "yes."

Yes, indeed. You can read all about 'enormous diversity in human sexuality' right there in the Bible, in chapter 1 of Paul's letter to the church at Rome:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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.

"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. 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, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 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. "

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 8:51AM

I am continually amazed at the attempt of the homosexual populace to try and gloss over everything that is in Scripture regarding homosexuality. It's as if they are completely blind to what is right in front of them.

I'm not quite saying that homosexuality is a total choice - but it's far from mere genetics (apparently there aren't that many homosexuals who didn't have some sort of abuse or neglect or something similar in their childhood).

five & dime| 1.3.11 @ 11:27AM

Perhaps the "homosexual populace" does not believe in the barbaric scriptures you cherish.

The writers of the Bible were primitive desert dwellers--all men-- who knew nothing of science, psychology, genetics, etc.

I cannot speak for the homosexual population, but I believe they would have the good sense to trust in the scholarship of modern science rather than to take seriously the rantings of men from an ancient tribal mentality.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 11:50AM

I'm not talking about those who don't believe - I'm talking about those who do consider themselves Christians and gloss over those things that they should believe about sin and death and grace and salvation.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 12:08PM

Many Christians can and do separate out the Good News of Jesus Christ from the tribal prejudices of the ancient people -- humans, imperfect, with the flaws and sins of all humans -- who wrote those ancient works, as infused with the divine spark as they surely are.

five & dime| 1.3.11 @ 12:14PM

Well said, RCV.

The life-affirming, positive contributions of ethical Christianity are what I value.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 12:37PM

"I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." Duet. 18:18.

You can't have it both ways.
You either believe God's words as spoken through His Prophets and Apostles or you call Him a liar.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 1:07PM

Yes, you can. If you don't accept your starting premise that God himself wrote the Bible, then you're not calling Him a liar. You're recognizing that human beings are imprefect, except for one human being, who was also divine. Otherwise, you're worshiping idols, which we know you shouldn't do.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:40PM

jesus said:
"If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" Jn. 5:46 & 47.

Or do you also reject the words of Moses?

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Lk. 9:26.

None of us have the liberty to say that rejecting His words is not the same thing as rejecting Him.

If I say something, and you refuse to believe me, you are calling me a liar. Same thing with God.

That is what HE says, not me!

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:32PM

I do believe His words. What we're arguing about Margie, is what are His words, and what are the words of people like you and me. St. Paul is not God, nor did he profess to be. His epistles have no more authority than the wisdom contained in them, which is a lot. But he was just a wise imperfect man, beset with the same prejudices and cultural blindnesses of other men of the time. That's what led Paul to say that women should be silent and not try to teach others. I know that's sexist nonsense, and so obviously do you. Just as you know that Paul was wrong when he taught, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom. 13:1-2)

Do you believe that? Do you believe that Barack Obama was appointed by God? Or that Caesar was? Or Fidel Castro? Do you think people should not have resisted the authorities in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China?

Of course you don't. You pick and choose from Paul's teachings and follow those that your brain tells you are right. Yet you criticize others for doing the same.

One thing that Paul said in that same epistle does make sense, and applies to what you're doing. "therefore, you have no excuse, O man, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.". (Rom. 2:1)

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:26AM

It isn't me that disagrees with and claims that the Apostle Paul's words were not spoken by the Holy Spirit, it's you.

And that last verse you quoted doesn't apply to me, because I'm not doing what you're doing.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 11:53AM

Keep telling yourself that. And ask if you would have been the first to cast that stone at the adulterous woman...

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 11:54AM

...and you haven't answered the question about Paul's views on deference to authorities, who are appointed by God.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 12:28PM

Slimy Leftist lawyer tactics, hmm? (That is what RCV is, folks).

They don't work on me, nor does reverse psychology.
Take your baggage and practice on somebody else, old man. And before you do, read what I actually said.. and answered already.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 12:42PM

Name-calling is a poor substitute for answering tough questions, which you always refuse to do.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 1:26PM

Lying for a living both in your profession and here (or is that part of your profession as well?), does not fit the name of Christian.

You are a blatant liar.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 1:39PM

Nor does name-calling, Margie. Your general modus operandi is to attack people when you can't respond with logic. That's not Christian, and what you preach is not Christianity. It's narrow-minded bigotry, exactly the kind of behavior that Christ spent most of time rebuking.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 5:46PM

RCV,

You're a despicable deceitful liar.

Liars go to Hell.

p.s. Your modus operandi is to mock God and Christians, and conservatives. You are disgusting. In fact I will say you are a snake. And I reserve that word to describe the vilest of liars.

"You are of your father the Devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.

Lotsa luck.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 8:11PM

I have never mocked God, whom I love. Discussing issues of theology is not "mocking Christians" -- I'm one myself, though proudly not of the narrow-minded version that repels people from Christ's loving embrace. As for conservatives, I fully reserve my right to disagree with their ideas when I find them silly.

When you want to discuss ideas on their merits, like adults do, Margie, I'm happy to address them. But you choose always to call people names -- liars, leftists, communists -- instead of addressing the points they raise.

I hope you can find peace and charity and love in Christ, instead of venom and hatred and calumny. It's a sad way to live your life. But God bless you anyway.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 9:22PM

Do you ever post once without lying?
I truly do not think it is within you.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 2:07PM

It is always wise to remember what "the Bible" is and how it came to be in its present form. It was not handed down to us in tact from God, as were the tablets on Mt. Sinai. What we call the Bible is a diverse collection of works deemed inspirational by the ancient Hebrews, and the later Roman Catholic Church. It includes, among other eclectic things, a collection of lyrics used in the Temple of Zerrubbabel (Psalms), traditional ancient Hebrew peotry (Proverbs), a priests' manual (Leviticus), letters written by human beings during their life (the Epistles), and even a collection of erotic poetry (the Song of Solomon).

To start with God saying, "I will raise up a prophet...." and go from that to saying that every word in these diverse writings of human beings is divine, is quite a leap -- indeed more than a leap. It is saddling God with man's imperfect utterences. (The notion of God sitting around writing erotic love poems about women's breasts is particularly blasphemous, as delightful as those verses may be.)

God gave us our brains for a purpose. Use them. Worship Him -- not men's words.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:12PM

Why do we need the Good News?

Darragh| 1.3.11 @ 6:19PM

Uh sorry folks--this is man attempting to supersede God to make things easier for him/herself. It's God in charge, not you.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 6:42PM

Absolutely correct, but you will be called a hater for speaking the truth.
RCV thinks he can insult both God and Bible believing Christians and get away with it, but he is wrong.
No Christian has to sit by and not speak up when another does this.
It isn't the God of the Bible you believe in, RCV. I's the one you are making up in your head, and your own gospel.

Pelligrino| 1.3.11 @ 7:06PM

Thanks, Darragh and Margie. It is good that you try to help the lost. Would that they had eyes to see and ears to hear.

Gentlemen, to do that, you have to let your egos die.

God is in charge. This is His world. And, no, your life is not your own.

It never was.

robert williams| 1.5.11 @ 1:43PM

people like it or not God said it is an abomanation to him to practice Homo agendas and as you read in this aritacal Obama and his Obamanation Cabnit is all for satanic Values .

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 7:26PM

Despite your claims, Margie, I have never insulted God. It is indeed the God of Abraham, and his only Son, Jesus Christ, I believe in. Just because I don't concur with your conception of the what the Bible is doesn't change that. Nor do I need to make up anything about Him. I have the accurate accounts of His life and teachings in the authoratative Gospels.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:04PM

Well RCV, by picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe, you do insult Him.. and those who love Him. You mock the Bible and those who wrote it, who were moved by God's Spirit.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:20 & 21.

And as I recall you mocked Jesus' miracles as well, previously.

And you say you have "the accurate accounts of His life and teachings in the authoratative Gospels"?

That's funny because you have basically discounted the Apostle Paul here and quite openly. Like I said, you pick and choose. This isn't what a Christian does.

That's between you and God but when you speak openly in a forum and say things, I can refute what you say, and add what I think.

"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town." Mt. 10:14 & 15.

Jesus said that to His disciples. Their words were His words.. so He said. And you do not apply that to the Apostle Paul.. and Solomon, and who else?

There seems to be a mighty huge cult of false Christianity out there today who do this. Like those who say, "Well, I wasn't actually there, so I don't know if God actually means what He says when He said He created Man from the dust of the Earth."

Wow. Because the high and mighty so and so wasn't actually there to see it?

Like I said, you pick and choose, you are making yourself the authority. I know you must see that is what you are doing. But why?
Rhetorical question only.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:47PM

But you don't see that is exactly what you you are doing. (see my 10:32 post above)

Sorry to quibble, but Jesus wasn't talking to St. Paul, who wasn't one of his appointed apostles. And are you claiming that His apostles, let alone every "disciple" of His who followed, was infallible? If so, you, you haven't read the Gospels.

You obviously can choose to put anyone or anything you want on an equal status with God. I choose not to. He has no equal. None. No human --none -- is either sinless or infallible. You can choose to believe otherwise. But I refuse to concede to you or any other human inquisitor the authority to judge Christian orthodoxy.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 12:24PM

It isn't me that you must concede to... but to the Word of God, whom you disagree with, and worse.
You're in rebellion toward Him, you twist His words and you lie.

Yes, you lie. I never said anyone was infallible, liar.
My posts speak for themselves as to exactly what I did say.. or rather what the Bible says, with which I fully agree. What the Bible says is that "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

YOU don't agree. I DO.

"Agree with God, and be at peace; thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 12:44PM

"Good will", Margie, try it sometime. It would make your form of Christianity a little more attractive to others if you had a dose of it once in a while.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 1:20PM

Perhaps the God you mock will have mercy on your wretched lying soul before you die and you will choose to practice some good will toward Him.. with "whom you have to do".

Ryan is close minded| 1.3.11 @ 12:48PM

Perhaps you should dig a little deeper into Christian history. Nicodemus, among others, was a follower of Christ that was pro-homosexuality.... and then there are the dead sea scrolls....

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:13PM

Ummm...didn't Nicodemus have all of two lines in the NT? What did he say that was pro-homosexual?

NavyBrat| 1.3.11 @ 1:20PM

Funny, "the scholarship of modern science" says, in overwhelming fashio, that the homosexual lifestyle is one of the more dangerous lifestyles that one can engage in.

And I guess those "men from an ancient tribal mentality" finally figured out that you don't play "hide the salami" with your buddy of the same sex or your favorite goat. You "educated" people still seem to have not gotten the memo that one's rectum/anus is a ONE WAY STREET, no matter how "hard" you "push against" that PHYSICAL, SCIENTIFIC fact.

R.C.| 1.3.11 @ 1:38PM

Stop reducing gay relationships to animalistic coupling.

First of all, gays are affectionally, romantically oriented to their own sex. Sex is not the end all.

Second, a huge percentage of gays practice oral sex--just as straights do.

Third, most gays are practicing safe sex.

But NavyBrat (he's a brat, all right) is a hater. So go ahead and hate. Hate all you want to, brat. Your hatred will only hurt you.

NavyBrat| 1.3.11 @ 3:22PM

I guess these days, pointing out that one's pooper is a one way street qualifies as "hate." And spare me your faux concern about what might "hurt" me. At least I'm not playing "hide the boudin noir/blanc" with some other dude, thereby putting myself in an astronomically high health risk category.

You wanna sleep with a dude? Fine. Don't expect me to jump up & down, stop my feet, clap my hands & light a match b/c I'm so happy for you. I don't have to like it. And if that also qualifies as "hate" in your book, then you're nothing more than a thin skinned little child. Cowboy the hell up. If you want unabashed worship of your lifestyle decisions, might I suggest a different website?

NavyBrat| 1.3.11 @ 4:09PM

That's "STOMP my feet..." in English.

#91 Fielders| 1.3.11 @ 5:01PM

TIME FOR AMERICAN SPECTATOR TO STOP KICKING THE GAY HORSE TO DEATH.

Get over it, goons. Many of my friends are gay--including my sister--and they are here to stay!

Get the hell over it now. I'm sick of your constant homophobia.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 4:50PM

Having a different opinion on a subject where the science is still undecided hardly qualifies as a "phobia." Constant homophobia my foot.

If you want adult debate on the topic, stay. If you want to stomp your feet and take your ball and go home when someone offers a divergent view, then go.

Darragh| 1.3.11 @ 6:21PM

Jeez, I wonder why the life expectancy of male gays is 20 years less than straight men?

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:26PM

Men who have sex with other men are fueling HIV infections in Europe, according to a new report supported by the UK’s largest sexual health charity.
Disproportionately

In 2009 the NBS released a statement showing that men who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by HIV.

These men account for 63 per cent of the HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK.

And the UK Blood Transfusion and Tissue Transplantation Services will not accept blood donations from men who have had sex with men, regardless of whether they used a condom. This policy is based on an impartial assessment of the available evidence and is designed to ensure a safe blood supply.

————–
Sept 9 2010-

A study published today suggests that rates of HIV in France are 200 times higher in gay and bisexual men than in heterosexuals.

The report from the French National Institute for Public Health Surveillance showed that although HIV infections are falling in the country, half of the 7,000 new cases diagnosed in 2008 were found in men who have sex with men (MSM).

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:28PM

Julia Medew–December 13, 2010

HIV infections are on the rise among young gay men in Victoria, prompting calls for more prevention campaigns to combat the virus.

[[Given that liberals are too stupid and irresponsible to inquire why these men have a homosexual problem in the first place. Oh, that huge white elephant in the middle of the room…]]

Research published in the Medical Journal of Australia today says the number of gay Victorian men being diagnosed with HIV in their 20s has jumped from 36 in 2007 to 59 last year. This occurred while infections stabilised or dropped among gay men aged 30 and above.

Authors of the research from Melbourne’s Burnet Institute said several factors might be contributing to the trend, including rising rates of unprotected anal sex and the growing prevalence of other infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, which increase the chance of bodily fluids mixing during sex.

Behavioural studies had also shown that as HIV had become easier to treat, gay men under 35 were more likely to have sex with more partners, while not knowing their own and their partners’ HIV status, the authors said.

[[Because they just want to get married with one other homosexual, as early as possible, you see. That’s why they must pass a law about homosexual "marriage" at all costs.]]

‘’It has … been suggested that younger gay men may be more susceptible to engaging in risky sexual behaviour because they are less concerned about the implications of HIV since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART),'’ the authors wrote.

Head of HIV and STI research at the Burnet Institute Mark Stoove said that as more HIV positive people continued to live longer with treatment, there was also a greater pool of people who could transmit the virus.

[[All of this while society turns its back to a million abused children, other sexual violence victims, hunger victims, Haiti earthquake victims, etc. Obviously, there’s no money for these victims. There’s also never much money to help the thousands of mentally ill homeless people, living in appalling conditions. Victims of profound, grotesque violence and distress are left to rot in society, oh, but if you want to act out your deformed sexuality, a pot of gold is always lying at your feet.

Why should taxpayers pay for treatments for these garbage of homosexual men, who do nothing but wreck their health, their lives, and other people’s? And who refuse to treat their homosexuality problem in the first place?

This is absolutely unconscionable. The monstrous priorities enforced by the obscenely privileged to waste precious public resources on themselves and their deformed values and lifestyles.]]

aerikson| 1.3.11 @ 4:40PM

If your objection to the "homosexual lifestyle" (and I assume you mean gay male) is one simply based on its "danger", then I can only assume that you fully support the commitment of two females. I mean, considering they are by far the least likely to contract STDs through sexual contact and they are much less likely to suffer horrible acts such as rape by their partner. But that's not really why you're against LGBT equality, right? Its really because you find it icky? The thought of two men kissing creep you out? Well, get over it. The thought of people praying to an invisible sky wizard creeps me out too, but I don't try to use the power of the state to force people to my will like a damn socialist.

Jacob| 1.5.11 @ 8:23AM

Yes you do.

All life is a contest. There's nothing inherently wrong with either side for trying to win.

And if there's this whole "I don't care if it offends you because it doesn't hurt me" mentality then why can't people masturbate in public?
Technically the masturbator is even less likely to get STDs than the lesbian.
All those emotionally scarred kids would just need to get over it and realize that it doesn't matter if they're offended!
Americans are so cool now you can marry your brother, your mother and your dog no problem.. JUST DON'T SAY PRAYERS IN PUBLIC EVER YOU INTOLERANT HATERS..OR ELSE!!!

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 11:07AM

Actually, I believe it was Matthew that discouraged praying in public (6:5-6).

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 1:25PM

He didn't discourage praying in public, but that it depends on the motivation inside of a person doing it, whether or not they are doing it to be seen by men.. or not.

ejp| 1.3.11 @ 4:22PM

Oh really? What desert did St. Paul, a man who came from a prosperous trade city of Tarsus and who had received the BEST education anyone in the Jewish community could receive in those days reside in?

What desert did St. Luke, a Greek physician who had a clear understanding of history writing trends pioneered by his fellow Greeks reside in?

Nice to see another example of how anti-Christian bigots are usually the dumbest people in the world when it comes to Biblical history 101.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 6:17PM

RCV is pro Christian. Just not pro Biblical Christians. Ya know, the real thing.
It is so convenient to pick and choose which parts and persons of the Bible to agree with, then you can allow all the sin in your life that pleases you.
Real Christians have not that luxury, nor do we want it. I personally cannot bear calling God a liar.
Each one judges God to be either true or false and He can't be partly false to suit anyone.

Anti-Christian bigot does fit you, RCV.
Is that really what you want to be?
That is a rhetorical question.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 7:35PM

I am not only pro-Christian, Margie, I am Christian, just as all who believe in Jesus Christ, his birth, death and resurrection are. Unless you're keeping kosher, following the ritual dietery laws, taking ritual baths when prescribed, etc., you are also "pick[ing] and choos[ing] which parts of the Bible to agree with". Do you believe slaves should submit to their masters? Do you believe kings rule by divine right? Do you believe women are "unclean" when menstruating? Do you think it's wrong for Jews and non-Jews to eat together?

We should all have the kind of humility that Jesus calls on us to have, and not be like the Pharisees, "tith[ing] mint, dill and cumin, and ... neglect[ing] the weightier matters of the Law: justice and mercy and faith."

Slandering other people -- I have never called God a liar, and would die before I did so -- is not Christian. Is that what you want to be, Margie?

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:08PM

Yes RCV~ humble yourself. Believe in God. ALL of His words, not some.

You DO call Him a liar by rejecting His words. See my above post.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:50PM

I believe all of His words. I don't put the words of mere men on a par with His as you do.

ejp| 1.4.11 @ 3:36AM

Oh, I see, YOU presume you know more the words of God than Paul of Tarsus whom the Risen Christ felt compelled to appear to and give the task of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles even to the point of martyrdom? Sounds to me as if you're saying God was a total dope to have entrusted such responsibility to him because part of the spreading of the Good News meant undermining a secular position of 2000 years later!

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 11:50AM

Not at all. Paul was wise about many, many things, but surely an imperfect man. He spent most of his adult life persecuting Christians. He had contemporary attitudes about things like slavery, women and other cultural biases. But he was brilliant in many things, including church organization and evangelism. He was brilliant to realize that if Christianity was to spread universally, requiring converts to undergo circumcision and follow Jewish dietary laws wouldn't work. Christ made no mistake in choosing him to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. (If Peter and James had had their way, Christianity today might be a small Jewish sect of little influence. But that doesn't mean Peter and James weren't faithful and true to Christ; they just weren't perfect, like you and me.)

But that doesn't make Paul God, nor his pronouncements infallible. Remember, Judas Iscariot was a chosen Apostle as well. God has his own purposes in choosing each of us for our tasks in the world.

ejp| 1.4.11 @ 12:53PM

Oh, my so now when Paul mentions the sinful nature of homosexual conduct in the SAME passage where he also denounces sins that still today are regarded as sin even by the PC brigades of modern secularism, he's now on par with Judas Iscariot.

Your whole premise requires you to regard God as a dope and not as good as you in your judgment, because the flaws of which you speak are not flaws that show up when it comes to preaching the word of God in His inspired word. And that's a premise, and a whole perspective I can reject for the unbiblical, unsound pick and choose to conform to modern secular PC thinking for the sake of kissing up to the greatest group of anti-Christian bigots in present day society.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 1:13PM

No, he's not "on par with Judas Iscariot" nor did I say he was. Nor is God in any way "a dope". Paul served well the purposes God had in mind for him. But simply because a group of Roman Catholic bishops decided to include several letters from Paul in what they decided was "scripture" doesn't make his pronouncements the word of God. That's blasphemous.

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 3:18PM

The problem you deal with is that Paul's letters tend to meet some pretty rigorous standards; and that Peter more or less pronounces them as scripture as well.

What did Paul write that was so egregiously wrong?

ejp| 1.4.11 @ 5:38PM

Oh my, now it's "Roman Catholic bishops" who are at fault! Of course I'd like to remind you that at the time Scripture was assembled, this was the days of a unified Church West and East, so why are you so particular about singling out "Roman Catholics" but leaving the Constantinople Byzantines out of it? Seems to me, you just revealed the source of another one of your present-day hangups.

You just want to cast aside those parts of Scripture to conform to present day secularism, and why there are people who have a hang-up with wanting to suggest that if God had really been on the ball he would have had the Gospel spread by pro-homosexual behavior people to let us know what God *really* thinks about the subject, is one thing I will always find amazing about those such as yourself.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 7:55PM

I have no "present-day hangups" about the Roman Catholic Church. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, was baptized and confirmed in the Church, and was an altar boy all through my childhood. I left the Church only because of my theological difference on the issue of Papal infalliblity, which is not unlike the discussion we're having on various portions of Scripture.

My point in noting the origin of the Canon is the irony that so many fundamentalist Christians -- some of whom, like Margie, see the Roman Catholic Church as doctrinally in error, or worse ("demonic" was the word used more than once), nonetheless take as authority the words the Church decreed were to be included. From where did they get that authority?

On Ryan's point, Peter and Paul were both great men. They also had serious theological arguments and disagreements about the Law, and about what portions were binding on new Gentile converts. Both were disciples of Christ. But were they both speaking for God in expressing their views on the subject? No. Neither was. I give great weight to St. Paul's teachings. But it is incumbent on me, as it is on every Christian, to consider Paul's views and ascertain whether they are sound, or whether they are expressions of a human prejudice. That's what I try to do. If I disagree with you, so be it. But we all must do the best we can with the tools God gave us.

Do you not "cast aside" those portions of scripture that "tell you" that kings rule by divine right, that slaves should submit to their masters, that women should be silent in church and not try to teach others on matters of theology, that all people in authority are there by God's will?

Ryan| 1.5.11 @ 8:16AM

Last paragraph - in context, most of those matters make some sense (other than divine right, which was more "read in" than otherwise).

Slaves obeying their masters is IMMEDIATELY followed by masters being kind to their slaves. It doesn't necessarily condone slavery - nothing in the NT really does - but talks about it as a fact of life in the Roman Empire.

Women aren't told not to teach "others," their told not to teach "men," and it's a Biblical authority issue, not a subjugation one.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 4:53PM

Ah yes, another cradle Catholic who was not properly taught the faith and now will use their "knowledge" to show us all how terribly terribly wrong the Catholic Church is....

Indeed.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 11:34PM

The Catholic church is not " terribly wrong". It is the greatest force for moral good in the world. I consider the Holy Father to be the world's spiritual leader. I simply believe that the doctrine of papal infallibility -- a recent addition tothetenets of the church -- is fundamentally wrong. It is my fervent hope that someday all of Christ's church can be reunited under the leadership of the Holy Father, but papal infallibility is a great bar to that unity

Ted| 1.6.11 @ 5:05PM

"Papal Infallibility" properly understood should not be a bar nor is it fundamentally wrong. It applies only the Church's teachings on faith and morals. Also, what is your authority for declaring it fundamentally wrong? I don't mean to be flippant, as I once had the same issue. Upon further reflection and study I realized my prior understanding was incorrect.

Whether recent or not is immaterial. People could (and do) make the same claims about the teachings of Vatican II. It's a package deal.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 12:14PM

Cute.. so as long as certain "mere men" who spoke from God who happen suit your type of sin say words that you like, then you choose to listen to them, but the other "mere men" can be discarded.

I see you have judged the Apostle Paul accordingly.

What was that you said to me about not judging others, self righteousness and all in "your humble opinion"?

Jesus says this:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." Jn. 13:20.

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 11:11AM

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
1 Timothy 2: 12

Words of God, Margie. Now, OBEY!

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 1:21PM

As soon as you see fit to obey the God you are rebelling against.

You do not understand the meaning of that verse, and the liar, RCV perverts it in order to try and shut me up. That has nothing to do with preaching the gospel at all. It has to do with when Christians are gathered together as a church, that the men are to lead and teach.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 3:12PM

I have no desire to shut anyone up, and certainly don't believe the antiquated nonsense that women are incapable of teaching or leading prayer. The rector of my Episcopal parish is a woman and as good a priest as I have ever worked with.

Kris Lepine| 1.3.11 @ 4:32PM

Hey, did you see where Dean referenced you in his reply? You've exchanged the truth of God for what you want to be true. Someday you will know, hopefully before you've reached eternity.

Dan B| 1.3.11 @ 4:40PM

Your science is coming overwhelmingly from your mouth, I CAN SEE THAT. And at the same time I am very happy (as you underlined) that "those who support the barbaric scriptures" does not adopt your science as well. For God sake,...people evolved so much this day, with all this science going on...

Daniel| 1.3.11 @ 4:42PM

Your science is coming overwhelmingly from your mouth, I CAN SEE THAT. And at the same time I am very happy (as you underlined) that "those who support the barbaric scriptures" does not adopt your science as well. For God sake,...people evolved so much this day, with all this science going on...

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 5:58PM

If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:16AM

So, your alternative would be to give gays equal rights equivalent to marriage rights, without the title "marriage?"

Bill| 1.4.11 @ 4:27PM

Well clearly show how much you don't know. We gain a lot of science and psychology study before the first century from men like Plato.
You also show you know nothing about archaeology. Before first century Israel was not a tribal state. Jerusalem was a major city. Keep on showing your hate for Jews and Christians.

Dean from Ohio| 1.3.11 @ 7:43AM

@Robinson concluded the event by telling Senyonjo: "We send you back as a missionary to the people of Uganda and the Church of Uganda."

Doesn't he mean emissionary?

SAO| 1.3.11 @ 8:14AM

The Obama Administration is absolutely disgusting for doing what they're doing on the homosexual and other issues. I can't tell you how happy I am that the Republican Congress is coming back on Wednesday. It's about time Mr. Obama started facing some REAL opposition!

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 8:35AM

How exactly does one go about "promoting" homosexuality? Sexual orientation isn't a policy or a point of view, it's an innate characteristic. You think "promoting" heterosexuality is going to make more people STRAIGHT? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

The only thing the Obama Administration is "promoting" is fair treatment and simple human dignity for all people, regardless of whether they are Gay or Straight. Straight people have never had to worry about being fired from a job for being Straight; Gay people shouldn't have to worry about it either. Straight people have never had to worry about being attacked, beaten up or killed for being Straight; why should Gay people have to worry about their safety simply for who they are?

To talk about "promoting" homosexuality is as ludicrous as the notion that we can promote left-handedness.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 8:49AM

I get the point here, but I think that if it is being done at the expense of promoting religious freedom - which, like it or not, affects a LOT more people - then it's a waste of resources and a bad idea.

On top of which, there are further moral implications.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 9:03AM

DEAR RYAN:

I don't think you need to worry about anyone's religious freedom. Frankly I don't really care if anyone wants to preach against Gay people. We're used to it. We pretty much take it in stride. Pat Robertson once said that GOD HIMSELF might hurl a meteor at Orlando, Florida, because a "Gay Day" at Disney World; all it did was illustrate his own foolish prejudices, and it said nothing about the worth of Gay Americans.

Look at it this way: In the United States people are protected from job discrimination based on their religion. You can't fire a Muslim or a Hindu from his job simply because you don't like Muslims or Hindus. Does this mean your own "freedom of religion" has been infringed upon? I don't think so. I DO believe it is possible to ensure that ALL Americans be able to live safely and make a living without infringing on any one person's "freedom of religion."

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 10:11AM

I'm not talking about here in the US, where much religious persecution is either imagined or simply personal (not governmental), but abroad, where millions of Christians are persecuted every year through death, imprisonment, loss of property, etc.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:17AM

DEAR RYAN:

Relgious persecution, whether directed at Christians or Muslims or Jews or WHOMEVER, is as inexcusable. I don't think this has anything to do with the fact that Gay people worldwide simply want to be treated fairly and decently.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 11:51AM

That's the point of the article, though - that we are ignoring religious persecution and concentrating instead on homosexual rights abroad.

Kris Lepine| 1.3.11 @ 4:37PM

You missed the gist of the article. It's about our country pushing your homosexual agenda on other countries. We're doing it with abortion too. Isn't it funny liberals don't want us to "push our idea of freedom and democracy" on foreign countries but hey, let's push for our deviant behaviors and murding of innocents on them. You liberals are so sad. And yes, God created men, woman and marriage.

TJL| 1.3.11 @ 5:11PM

I think its even funner that conservatives believe theres a gay agenda. How does that work now. When someone comes out do they mail them a hand book or something. Also your imaginary friend had nothing to do with creating marriage for men and women. Marriage originally started as a way for men to sell their daughters.

Quartermaster| 1.3.11 @ 7:28PM

Only a severly deluded person, or one who ahs been living in a cave for the last 40 years would believe there is no agenda to shove homsexuality, and it's attendant ills, down the collective throuht of the body politic.

Queers are mentally ill. Period.

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 7:41PM

Just more hateful mythology that you're choosing to believe while ignoring facts.

Fundamentalism is a really depraved lifestyle choice.

Alex 0^0| 1.3.11 @ 9:29AM

Thanks for your decency. It's sad and weird that some conservatives feel the need to gang up on gays all the time, it's like an obsession detached from reality or proportion.

There were no gay issues in any of the thousands of State Dept cables on Wikileaks, it's just not a priority in the real workings of the State Dept. And yet here we are, another attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't hate gays as being "anti-religion." Someday soon people like Walton will be embarrassed by their obsessions with homosexuality.

Nothing| 1.5.11 @ 2:23PM

Actually the leaking of thousands of documents on Wikileaks has everything to do with homosexuality. PFC Bradly Manning is a homosexual and DADT was partly behind his motivation to betray his country. Yet his homosexual identity was swept under the rug by the mass media.

Publius| 1.3.11 @ 9:39AM

An innate characteristic, eh? Fascinating how the prevelance of homosexual activity at, e.g., woman's colleges, tracks along with acceptance.

The only thing the Obama administration is doing is currying favor with the left-wing base.

Acting as if homosexual behaviour can't be "promoted" is as ludicrous as suggesting we can't promote chastity and morals.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:02AM

DEAR PUBLIUS:

More often than not, Gay people don't lose their jobs or are subjected to violence because of their own "chastity and morals," but rather because irrational fear and prejudice against Gay people, regardless of how they live their lives. Often I hear people rail against what they call the "homosexual lifestyle," as if there was one monolithic way that all Gay people lived. It's as absurd as suggesting there's a "heterosexual lifestyle."

I'm reminded of a Republican political candidate here in West Virginia who would purchase hour-long blocks of radio time to host his own talk show as part of his campaign strategy. I called his "show" and told him that, while I found myself becoming increasing conservative as I grew older, I was still dismayed by his disdain for Gay Americans. I said to him, "It's almost as though you're incapable of making a moral and ethical distinction between a monogamous Gay couple and someone who is promiscuous." His response? "One is bad and the other is worse." Case closed.

Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

Perhaps the best thing for you to do when it comes to your dealings with Gay individuals and couples is simply to obey The Golden Rule: Treat them as you yourself would wish to be treated.

Alessandra| 1.3.11 @ 10:19AM

Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
=========
Because what they should do is to resolve their homosexual problem in the first place, then get married to people of the opposite sex, with whom they could actually have children, constituting a mother and a father, or a husband and a wife.

It seems poor judgement to me to brand people who don't agree with your dogmas on homosexuality as "full of hate," and trample on all their civil rights.

In all countries where there are published statistics concerning the legalization of homosexual marriage, homosexuals shunned marriage like the plague. The overwhelming majority does NOT want a long-term, monogamous relationship. It seems to me bad judgement to lie about this fact, and especially to lie about the reasons that produce this result.

More importantly, liberal Americans are obsessed in normalizing homosexuality so that they can pretend this is the only issue in sexuality that matters.

Compared to their obsession with normalizing homosexuality, liberals are too morally corrupt to give serious attention to issues such as sexual harassment, assault, battery, rape, pornography, prostitution, promiscuity, abortions, and STDs. If they don't already like to criticize these issues concerning heterosexuals, they go livid if any problem is exposed concerning homosexuals and bisexuals.

Scratch underneath this language of "gay rights," and you soon find a much more pernicious and harmful sexuality agenda, affecting both heterosexuals and homosexuals (and bisexuals).

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:30AM

"What they should do is to resolve their homosexual problem in the first place, then get married to people of the opposite sex, with whom they could actually have children, constituting a mother and a father, or a husband and a wife."

DEAR ALESSANDRA:

I really wonder if you actually KNOW anyone who is Gay. If so, have you ever thrown this suggestion at them? And how have they responded?

Alessandra| 1.3.11 @ 10:50AM

I know a lot of people, with all kinds of problems.

If you ever suggest to someone they should look into their problematic psychology or politics, how do most respond?

It's like asking Bernie Madof, before he was busted, if he thought he had an honesty problem...

What answer do you get 99.99% of the time?

Have you ever asked an aneroxic if she thinks anorexics are too thin? You should try that sometime.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 12:10PM

Nice dodge to a perfectly clear question.

Quartermaster| 1.3.11 @ 7:31PM

Homsexuals are mentally ill. Anyone that sees someone of their own sex in the way a normal person sees someone of the opposite is a very sick puppy.

Call it, hate, homophobia, or anything you like, but the only phobic individual here are those who are refuse to see that queers are mentally ill.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 4:51PM

Nice dodge to a perfectly clear question.
=====
Nice way to show that a few paragraphs with the answer clearly stated go right over your head.

alessandra| 1.3.11 @ 10:04AM

The total number of people with a homosexual problem varies according to culture and epoch, and geography. All you are spouting here are ignorant stereotypes that you have deeply ingrained in your mind.
The idea that people are born with a homosexual problem is ridiculous and not supported by science, sociology, anthropology, or psychology.

People develop a homosexual problem just as they develop a pedophilia problem or aneroxia.

In human sexuality, there are always elements of choice, and that also applies to homosexuality or pedophilia, but most of homosexuality or pedophilia are complex psychological dysfunctional developments.

How many people choose to be a pedophile? As many as those who choose to be a homosexual.

It’s the wrong question to ask. The question is why did they develop a homosexual problem in the first place, and what elements of choice were there?

Liberals are way too disingenuous to even begin investigating these questions. Their ignorant ideas about sexuality are apparently very satisfying to their overblown little brains.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:10AM

DEAR ALESSANDRA:

It's interesting that someone like you who is, I presume, heterosexual would claim to have some profound insight into what it means to be Gay ... moreso, even, than Gay people themselves? Have you ever asked any of your Gay friends, family members, or co-workers for THEIR perspective on this? It might be helpful.

Alessandra| 1.3.11 @ 10:30AM

DEAR ALESSANDRA:

It's interesting that someone like you who is, I presume, heterosexual would claim to have some profound insight into what it means to be Gay ... moreso, even, than Gay people themselves? Have you ever asked any of your Gay friends, family members, or co-workers for THEIR perspective on this? It might be helpful.
===========
Imagine the thought that I should have any capable insight of anything that I don't personally experience. Do you think it's possible in this day and age not to have people with a homosexual problem shouting in everyone's face, 24 hours a day, what their dogmas on homosexuality are?

Should a pedophile be able to dictate to me what I am to think about pedophilia? Should a dictator? Should an aneroxic, a gambler, a child abuser, a pornographer, or a pimp?

Oh, there is plenty of insight to be gained by talking to all kinds of people, but I woud like to remind you that when you believe anything you hear from others, you are no longer thinking independently.

And curiously enough, since you are very much interested in what other people like to say, I suggest you read or travel to visit other cultures (in both time and space). You will be surprised to discover that they don't all repeat the dogmas that you espouse on sexuality (much less on homosexuality!)

What then? If your views about sexuality are largely restricted to a relatively small group of people who have all been conditioned by the same cultural dogmas and concepts, are you going to discredit what everyone else tells you?

When dozens of conflicting testimonies and explanations are present, who will you believe? Will you choose the one that flatters your ego the most, that keeps your comfort level at a prime, and your dogmas all in place?

That's my guess.

TJL| 1.3.11 @ 5:37PM

Are you mentally ill or something. Honestly, Where are all these homosexuals screaming in your face. Hell, during the course of my entire life i dont think ive ever had a gay person scream in my face about their homosexuality. Secondly no one is asking for any one to accept homosexuality, their asking for tolerance. No ones forcing you to attend a parade, or a gay marriage. These people just want to live their lives without ignorant people (such as yourself) deliberately trying to make their lives harder. Another thing, How do you suggest we visit other cultures in time and space? Have you perfected intergalactic travel? You should show the rest of the world your intergalactic space time transporter you could make billions. You could use that money and your super advanced intellect to finally find the cure for homosexuality.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:35PM

TJL| 1.3.11 @ 5:37PM

Are you mentally ill or something. Honestly, Where are all these homosexuals screaming in your face. Hell, during the course of my entire life i dont think ive ever had a gay person scream in my face about their homosexuality.
=========
You certainly sound like you're screaming right now--but I suppose you're too dishonest to acknowledge what kind of tone you used above.

And no, I'm not mentally ill, but I can read. One skill you would gain a lot from acquiring.

Try again:
Do you think it's possible in this day and age not to have people with a homosexual problem shouting in everyone's face, 24 hours a day, what their DOGMAS on homosexuality are?

Maybe aside from illiterate, you're also blind. Or just plain stupid.

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 6:00PM

Would you know from the media coverage that there are more sex offenders among public school teachers then among Catholic priests? How come the church gets the blame and the Department of Education doesn't?

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 6:29PM

Because you just made that up.

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 8:37PM

Nicholas,
I suggest you check the FBI data.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:00AM

Post a link to a legitimate news source.

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 8:54AM

Ummm...actually it IS a bit bigger problem. Do a little of your own homework - it's one of those things that is getting swept under the rug.

Nicholsblosser@yahoo.com| 1.4.11 @ 9:53AM

Make a claim: Prove it.

Have you ever considered a little thing called proportionality? There are a lot more people working as public school teachers than there are working as priests. And, some of these priest you hear about have molested 10's, sometimes even 100's of children. I've never read anything about a public school teacher doing anything similar to that.

Alessandraale| 1.4.11 @ 5:38PM

I've never read anything about a public school teacher doing anything similar to that.
===========
If you ever leave those comic books aside, you will.

Ryan| 1.5.11 @ 8:18AM

If you're in any town of any size, you can see a news report in the past few years of some teacher seducing a student.

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 10:04AM

But 10's of students?
Teachers seducing students = disturbed idiots seducing 1, maybe 2, sexually driven 15 year olds.
Priests seducing students = Seriously psychologically disturbed authority figures forcing several, if not more, very young children into sexual situations that they probably don't fully understand.

I'm not condoning the first, but who the priests target, how many people they target, how they target them, and how old their targets are, make them much bigger monsters, in my opinion.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:51AM

Wow, Nicholas and I are in agreement (sort of). Teacher's seducing students doesn't make them disturbed idiots. It makes them criminals. I don't think that is any better or worse than a priest doing it, per se. But where I agree with you is that it is much worse in the case of a priest is because of who they are supposed to represent. A teacher represents the school or the school board. A priest is supposed to represent Jesus.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 5:03PM

Oh, that's an easy one to answer. You see, if you cover the Catholic Church's sexual abuse crisis, and instead of telling the truth about it (it was a problem primarily of homosexual men preying on young men and boys 13-18 years old; there was some pedophilia too, but the majority was homosexual abuse) lie about it and say, "Pedophlia!" you get to beat up the very Church that says no to abortion, homosexual "marriage," euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. There also was, to an extent, a need on the part of some in the media (think the NY Times) to get out in front of the story and portray it as a pedophilia scandal in order to protect a group for whom the NY Times actively agitates.

I am not in any way condoning any of the abuse. But the NY Times used a masterful propaganda campaign to keep the public (generally) from knowing the truth.

The numbers tell the story.

And no Nicholas, several well done studies have shown that a child is more likely to be sexually abused in a public school than they are by a Catholic priest.

As for posting a legitimate news source, you can do your own research.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 12:58AM

You are a liar. It's not my job to prove your lies.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:57AM

Oh darn. Back to the name calling in order to shut down debate and not deal with facts. And we just found something above that we could agree upon....

But more to the point, calling me a liar and what I write lies is so beneath you, and so cheap. You must prove (using facts) that I have told lies. Which would indeed make me a liar. The problem is that I haven't fudged the facts, nor have I lied. And Nicholas, you know it.

The research is out there for anyone who wants to read it. Do a search for the John Jay Study. This is why the Vatican took barred (somewhat unfairly in my view) persons with a homosexual orientation from entering the seminary to become ordained as priests.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 9:54AM

That doesn't say anything about how teachers are more likely to be sexual offenders than priests, which is the premise that makes me call you a liar.

RevJDSpears| 1.3.11 @ 9:00AM

Given that this whole article argues for an open enforement of second class citizenship anywhere for glbti persons it is no wonder that there are those that think that the USA is a theocracy.

It is also no wonder that many of the posters do not read what they quote from the Bible. If they did they would realize how misguided they are.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 10:14AM

If homosexuals were truly second-class citizens, you may have a point.

They can vote, live together, own property, buy, sell, and have no rights abrogated.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:24AM

DEAR RYAN:

I'm afraid it isn't quite that simple. Let me give you just one example:

According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Iowa and Massachusetts DO continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.

Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states.

So with all due respect, please don't claim that Gay couples in the United States have the same rights as Straight couples. It simply isn't true.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 12:04PM

Total BS. We have the same rights and restrictions. Neither one of us can legally marry a member of the same sex and we both have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. It's the same.

You don't want the "same" rights as everybody else as you already have them. What you want is a government endorsement of homosexuality.

aerikson| 1.3.11 @ 4:52PM

Total BS. We have the same rights and restrictions. Neither one of us can legally marry a member of a different and we both have the right to marry a member of the same race. It's the same.

You don't want the "same" rights as everybody else as you already have them. What you want is a government endorsement of miscegenation.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 5:03PM

Aerikson, your comment brings to mind Anatole France's cogent observation that, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:01PM

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 12:04PM

Total BS. We have the same rights and restrictions.
=========
Regarding marriage, perhaps. Regarding freedom of speech, conscience, and religion, no way.

http://socimages.blogsome.com/.....-teachers/

http://socimages.blogsome.com/.....claration/

in Britain, a loving, caring Christian couple, who have been married for 39 years and who had successfully fostered 15 children in the past, were denied the continuance of their foster status parent status because, under a new evaluation of their beliefs, they were declared unfit due to the fact that they do not promote homosexuality.

The obvious corollary of this is: if any person is "unfit" to be a *foster* parent because they (rightfully) do not promote homosexuality, then they are certainly unfit to be a parent, period.

How long before the state declares that Christians (and any one else who does not submit to a homosexualist ideology) must have their own children taken away because they are unfit parents? And if this couple is unfit to be foster parents, then Christians must be unfit to be teachers, doctors, etc.

In the US, two Christian social work students have already been expelled from university because they did not promote *the* agenda. Their fundamental right to study, and to exercising a profession ethically and knowledgeably, has been trampled on. Meanwhile, a homosexual man who had purposefully adopted two boys with the intent to sexually abusing them was only caught because he started looking for other homosexual pedophiles on the Internet. Of course, he was never denied foster parent status by the same rabid types of liberals- and who must have been thrilled with one more homosexual adopting children.

Wake up, folks. The only way to stop this is through political action. If anyone resigns from the military because of DADT repeal, I only hope it is because they will be ready to join full-time political activism to overturn this destructive ideological trend in our world.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 5:53PM

However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
============
No, at the root of this discrepancy is your homosexuality problem. The fact that you incapable of having a normal, healthy relationship with a woman is the problem at the root of this discrepancy. If you solved your homosexuality problem, there would be no problem about current marriage laws, because current marriage laws are just fine being for one man and one woman.

There is as much of a discrepancy here as when a man wants to leave money to his wife plus three lovers, and the law doesn't allow him to consider all of them as legal wives.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 10:15AM

Where are we scripturally misguided about homosexuality as a sin?

Yes, there are far too many people that are unkind and hateful about it, and far too many who do not take the log out of their own eye.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 10:41AM

Example: Christians like to use mythology about Sodom and Gomorrah as testament against homosexuality, when the story was actually damning people who are inhospitable.

Not that it matters. Because certain religions don't eat beef, doesn't mean there should be legislation against eating beef. If I don't follow that religion and their arbitrary dogma, I should not be expected to abide by that religion nor its arbitrary dogma.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 12:01PM

Sorry, but, in context, you're more or less wrong.

Jude 1:7 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 there is nothing explicit in Genesis that states it was hospitality - the city had become SO degenerate in all forms of sinful behaviour that it was destroyed. God had promised that he wouldn't destroy them if there was one righteous person in there, and there wasn't.

Also, at minimum, there is NO scripture that condones any sexual behaviour outside of heterosexual marriage. Period. Homosexuality is openly condemned in the OT and NT.

And these aren't "arbitrary" dogma. All of the law speaks about God's character and His design - the rules laid down were NOT arbitrary. Marriage is a picture of God and His people - two different entities - not God and God or something like that (read Song of Solomon and Revelation).

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 12:36PM

That's not how a majority of theologians interpret it, which opens up another problem with legislating BS religious dogma: Your interpretation is no better than the next guy's who reads your novel completely differently. Maybe leave "God's Law" to God, and quit telling other people how to live their lives? Isn't it your god's job to do the judging?

You never addressed the fact that many of us are of very different faiths, so we should not have to follow your God's laws that are, to us, ARBITRARY. There is no reasonable argument for withholding civil rights from gay people outside of a religious context, and even there, it's out of spite seeing as your god is the judge, not legislation.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:20PM

"A majority of theologians" tends to be a modern response to the issue, and often it's better to say "a majority of left-leaning theologians" who care more about people's feelings than good Biblical theology that has been studied and debated and dispursed over centuries.

I am agreeable to leaving well enough alone - I tend to chime in when I see bad theology come about (in this case, on homosexuality - none of which you gave a good answer for if you want to argue Biblically).

I'm actually for civil unions in a certain aspect - there's a lot that can actually be done through contract and civil filings without the need for calling it "marriage."

I just believe - and believe that the evidence shows - that marriage between a man and a woman is the best thing for society, and that it should be our ideal.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:36PM

Opposing the name is bogus. Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriage. In case you haven't noticed, gays can already get married by religious institutions that choose to marry them. We're ONLY talking about the legal/contractual agreement at this juncture in American history. Calling it something different doesn't mean anything.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:47PM

It's probably more opinion than anything else, but I believe that marriage DOES mean something and re-defining it does it a disservice.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to being able to do some things through contracts. Just don't call it marriage, because that's NOT what it is.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:52PM

The word marriage is used in a number of contexts to mean a number of things. You can call any sort of merger a "marriage," and it's not meant to take anything away from anyone. Religious marriage--the actual thing--means something to you, but the word "marriage" is not special. Semantics is not a useful discussion in the national debate.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:59PM

Marriage between a man and a woman is the only marriage that can be right in God's eyes. The world may accept "Gay" marriage, but that doesn't make it right.

The Bible says that the whole world is in the power of the Evil one. (1 Jn. 5:19).

God wakes some of us up to His reality and we come to our right minds.. and join His family.. He calls us saints.. as in, "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you." Phil. 4:21. Contrary to popular belief, saints are also among the living.

"Do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth. Get wisdom; get insight." Prov. 4:5.

There is God's truth.. and then there is what our little minds like to believe.
Who is a better Lord? You, or your Creator?
Consider.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 12:34AM

And then there is the fact that religious marriage is different than civil marriage so it doesn't matter what you believe your dumb god thinks.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 12:02PM

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good." Ps. 53:1.

I know that what He says about you is true. And that's a fact.

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 11:20AM

"Where are we scripturally misguided about homosexuality as a sin?"

Where you're misguided is the significance of scripture to secular law. We don't legislate against "sin".

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 11:27AM

Really? So we don't legislate on murder and theft?

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 8:08PM

We legislate against crimes. Murder and theft are crimes. That you also consider them "sin" is secondary and coincidental.

We do not legislate against premarital sex, adultery, masturbation, coveting, lust, envy, anger, sloth, gluttony, pride, sodomy (anymore), unclean thoughts, blasphemy, irreverence toward (your) God, binge drinking… shall I go on? Depending on which 'denomination' you're a member of, not even all of these things are "sin."

Ted| 1.6.11 @ 5:07PM

Ah, but you see, the reason we came to regard them as crimes was because we first regarded them as sins... Nice try, though.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 1:01AM

No, we have common sense and decency.
Are you a sociopath? The only thing stopping you from murdering people is Religion?
You're seriously disturbed, dude.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:22AM

Oooohhhh....again, attack someone who disagrees with nasty names in the hopes that people won't pay attention to the facts.... We here at the American Spectator do care about facts.... Make all the smart comments you like...

Envy for example is not a crime. Unless the PC crowd tries to make it a thought crime. But envy often precedes and precipitates theft.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 9:58AM

All you people know how to do is deflect.

Theft would be illegal with or without the Bible.

Why? Because people don't like having their things stolen. The desire to not be stolen from is pretty universal.

JTF| 1.12.11 @ 6:45PM

"He who disqualifies others generally accuses them of his own flaw."

(Kiddushin 70a)

Who said anything about the Bible? He just said that we typically codified into law that which we first recognized as sin. This is what we Jews did.

People don't like having their things stolen, that is true. Those feelings may be typically universal. But just because I don't like having my things stolen doesn't mean I am unwilling to steal from another. Hence the law, which was first recognized from a religious perspective.

Granny Jan| 1.3.11 @ 9:45AM

This WH is a gay cult from the top down. This WH video is directed towards gay teens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4

Chuck Anziulewicz| 1.3.11 @ 10:06AM

DEAR GRANNY JAN:

30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any friends, family members, or co-workers who were Gay. Today most Americans DO know friends, family members, and/or co-workers who are Gay, and with that awareness has come increasing acceptance and support. The Obama Administration is simply acknowledging this. I'm sorry if you've been left behind in that trend, but it's never too late to get to know some Gay people, especially Gay couples. I think you'll find most of us are pretty decent people.

Granny Jan| 1.3.11 @ 3:55PM

Jidiot, I live in MA in the Lesbian capitol of the east coast. I've witnessed the gay agenda from the beginning. It's nothing butt an increase in phony rights and entitlements that will never end because the ultimate goal is the destruction of our society as it now exists.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 10:33AM

Homophobia was an export of Western, dominantly Christian nations for centuries. I'm glad we're now working on telling effected cultures why we were dangerously wrong.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 1:55PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new report published by the Family Research Council (FRC) reveals that there is a body of evidence indicating a definite link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Statistics show that homosexual men, who represent less than 3 percent of the adult male population, commit a disproportionate number (one-third or more) of the cases of child sexual molestation. The report, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” authored by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey (available at www.frc.org.), is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

This is not a "new" report any longer but it still holds true. Dangerously wrong? YES, YOU ARE.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:00PM

The family research council has been designated a hate-group. No reasonable person takes them seriously. All nationally recognized psychiatric and medical institutions denounce them as unscientific.

Find better sources.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 3:16PM

Sorry, but classifying the FRC as a "hate group," particularly when they have never advocated violence, is a bit of a stretch.

I know Tony Perkins personally, and he is simply doing what he can to stand up for Biblical values - particularly protecting the unborn and preserving marriage as a singular institution.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 4:03PM

They are officially classified as a hate group. Only people who have already made up their minds about being against gays--a diverse group of individuals arbitrarily demonized because of who they love, not because of anything they've done--value anything that the FRC puts out.

But don't look at me. I wasn't on the SPLC panel that decided to include them among other hate groups.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 4:51PM

You're assuming that the SPLC has relevancy here. Why do they get to be the "official" purveyor of hate groups? Upon what authority?

The KKK is a hate group. The Black Panthers are a hate group. Westboro Baptist is a hate group.

The FRC is a policy group. Lumping it in with racists, killer-wannabes, and such is a disservice.

It's become worse than anti-semitism - every time someone proclaims homosexuality as a sin they are labeled in the same breath as Nazis.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 5:40PM

When the FRC compares homosexuals to pedophiles, a baseless claim that leads to violence and hatred, then I think they're easily placed among other groups that use similar methods to spread violence and hatred, like the KKK and neo-Nazis.

That is not to say a Christian who believes that it is one of the very few things that they don't choose to ignore in their sacred text should be among those people. Christians saying it is against their religion are not actively spreading false information about a minority that can easily lead to violence and hatred.

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 8:52AM

Neo-Nazis and the KKK are violent. They don't use "similar methods," they ARE violent.

I DO get the claim that the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia can get overstated. But then again, we're also the ones that are claimed to somehow be Nazis when we simply believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 10:06AM

How often do you hear about the KKK attacking people anymore? Individuals: sometimes. The group: never.

The FRC doesn't actively attack people on the street, but they incite the hate that pushes other people to violence.

It is not a "claim" that the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is overstated. There is no connection. Pedophilia is about authority and access. These freaks aren't interested in being homo/heterosexual: They attack children. It's a serious psychological disorder.

Gay people, on the other hand, have perfectly healthy relationships that are no different than their straight counterparts.

The pedophilia tag is a way to demonize gay people. They said the same thing about black men being sexual predators and the like when people fought against interracial marriage. It was baseless, but enough people said it that it must be true, right?

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:10PM

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 10:06AM

The FRC doesn't actively attack people on the street, but they incite the hate that pushes other people to violence.
============
Anyone who is in favor of normalizing homosexuality, porn, prostitution, and promiscuity is responsible for a lot of violence in the world.

That means you.

As I said above, whenever someone starts vomiting the "hate" slurs against conservatives, it's time to look in deeply at their personal lives and their political views. It's amazing how ignorant, corrupt, and sometimes violent they often are.

And that goes for the SPLC folks as well. Recent articles show that they raise a lot of money on "hate" scare tactics and squander a great deal on luxury items for management.

Way to go, corrupt liberals.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 5:08PM

Yes, "officially" designated a hate group by a bunch of leftists out to score political opponents by labeling them with nasty names instead of debating on the merits of a given topic. Nice Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Nazi tactics.

That's a hoot!

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 8:39PM

By the SPLC ?, that's a group gushing with integrity. You need better resources.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:13AM

If you're a white supremacist, you probably don't think the SPLC is such a great group. Thanks for validating my point, "Negro X."

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 5:06PM

Ah, yes, designated a hate group by a bunch of leftists.... And I do believe you were asking further above for solid sources....

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 3:22PM

If you call everyone that disagrees with you a "leftist" and automatically disregard their opinions, you're not going to do much for bettering yourself in any way.

Ted| 1.6.11 @ 5:09PM

No, I don't generally consider people who disagree with me leftists... However, the SPLC has become a leftist organization.

And we could turn your observation around on you Nicholas. All over this page you label anyone who disagrees with you. So touche.

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 7:55PM

People who irrationally hate and fear homosexuals are homophobes. All hatred toward or fear of homosexuals as a general demographic is irrational, so I'm only labeling people what they are.

It works the same way with racism, which is what the SPLC has primarily fought against. They have won court cases against the KKK and the White Aryan nation.

It is very easy to see which side of history you will be placed on. I take some comfort in that.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:25AM

Yes, but it is in your presupposition that you err. To disagree with homosexual acts is not the same thing as harboring irrational hate and fear towards someone with a homosexual inclination. And you are labeling.

The SPLC used to do outstanding work against the KKK and the Aryan Nation. That's not what they are doing now.

I am glad you can find some comfort somewhere. Sometimes you have to take what you can get where you can find it. And I am glad to be of service.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 11:29AM

Our dear Nicholas the propagandist.... Note the use of the term "homophobia." If one disagrees with the homosexual agenda, one has an irrational fear, a phobia, of homosexuals. Hogwash.

Yep, I've read "After the Ball," too....

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 7:57PM

But you are a homophobe, babe--a not so clever homophobe at that.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:18AM

Nice try to frame the terms of debate. Ooohh, call him a racist or a homophobe and shut the debate down. Nope, I am just a guy who did the research. Along with my gay brother, thank you very much.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 10:03AM

You have a gay brother and you're still fighting against gays receiving civil rights and calling them pedophiles?

Think about your brother and then think about if you guys are more different than you are similar. Are you any more different than you are to anyone else?

Every claim the anti-gay agenda makes is based on stereotypes that fizzle out into nothing when you consider gays as real, living and breathing, people.

Wayne Farmer| 1.3.11 @ 10:46AM

A "phobia" is a baseless, unreasoned fear. Those who have studied and researched homosexuality for decades know it is a lifestyle of depression, disease, and death. Exposing the truth about homosexual behavior is not homophobia at all -- it is reasoned, fact-based opposition to a harmful behavior that God condemns. Don't call it a phobia.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 12:06PM

Absolutely correct. God not only condemns it but He will throw you into Hell if you don't repent of the behavior.

As it is written:

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:15.

If God demands repentance from a behavior that He condemns that means that He does not accept the behavior and that it is not genetic.

And science never found a "gay" gene and that is easily searchable for anyone who wants to find it.

Human beings can lie and deny God and His Way, but God changes for no one!

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 11:27AM

Christians get really hung up on the lack of a "gay gene." But here's the hard truth: it doesn't have to be "genetic" to be biologically determined. Gayness, like other conditions, is at least partially determined by hormone balance in the mother's womb. The more males a woman gives birth to, the more likely it becomes that one will be born gay.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....679681.ece

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 1:09PM

Dear person,

If God says He will throw you into Hell if you die while practicing the sin of homosexuality, then He did not create men and women to be "gay".

If I were you, and if you really care about where you and others will end up for eternity I would listen to Him, and not the scientists and or researches who have their own opinions.

In the end, doesn't it really matter what God thinks, and not what you.. or I or anyone else thinks?

God doesn't change for anyone. He hates sin. We Christians are called to do the same, and that is why you hear us.. we agree with God.
I hope you will, too.

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 8:23PM

If I still believed in/feared your God, (or hell, or 'eternity') I would agree that it matters what He thinks, and would most certainly listen to Him. I'd prefer, of course, that He contact me directly, like He did with Paul, and have, in fact, been quietly asking and waiting for a very long time for just such a revelation. It only seems fair.

As it stands, I just find the Story unlikely, and the Believers hysterical and unconvincing. I really don't think it's God you hear; I think it's your own prejudice. And when you find that prejudice echoed in scripture, you tell yourself (and others) it's the will of God.

It seems to work for you. But it's terribly unappealing.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 12:42PM

You fail to mention that problems with the "lifestyle" are due largely to homophobes, like yourself, oppressing gay people. Why do people kill themselves? Because bigots told them that who they are is wrong. Gay people who haven't been physically and psychologically oppressed by moron bigots live happy, decent lives.

Also, if your God is so hung up on gay people, but fails to make time for so many REAL problems facing this world, he is an idiot. I'd be ashamed to waste energy praising that do-nothing idiot.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:43PM

You actually almost hit on something in your final point that I think plagues the American church today:

Homosexuality is an easy target, and an easy excuse to point and blame societal ills when there are greater issues pressing the church, and forgetting the fact that it is the Gospel - not laws - that changes the hearts of people toward Christ.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:57PM

I think, overall, you and I can agree on a lot of things, like a lot of Americans can agree on a lot of things, no matter party affiliation, when we choose to actually engage with and react to each other reasonably.

Unfortunately, the people who say the most extreme, vile things are often those that also talk the loudest. It's really sad.

Steve A| 1.3.11 @ 2:46PM

I have spent much time in thought about it & I am only certain of 2 things concerning God.

#1: He is a fair judge. You will not get booted on a technicality.

#2: He does not run a rigged game. He sets the wheels in motion & lets the chips fall.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 3:13PM

There's that - plus, I understand two things:

1. It is only the Gospel (the Good News of the answer to our sin) - working through the Holy Spirit - that changes the hearts of men to good moral character.

2. As much as I like to debate here, "reason" doesn't really win people to Christ all that much; being mean and hateful about it even less so.

Quartermaster| 1.3.11 @ 7:39PM

Christ saves from sin. he does not save to commit sin. Homsexuality is a form of adultery and you will be condemned to hell for it's practice.

The Christ you claim to know about is not the Christ of the Bible, but one of your own making. He can be savior now, but will be judge later. he said he came to fulfill and establish the law, not destroy it. The law still condemns all forms of adultery, and homsexuality is just one form of it.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 12:58AM

Then I suggest you outlaw heterosexual divorce, hypocrite.

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 10:41AM

Ummmm...are you responding to my post? I'm not necessarily in disagreeance with you, and I don't see that there is really anything wrong with what I posted...

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 10:42AM

Above is for Quartermaster

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:23PM

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 12:42PM

You fail to mention that problems with the "lifestyle" are due largely to homophobes, like yourself, oppressing gay people. Why do people kill themselves? Because bigots told them that who they are is wrong. Gay people who haven't been physically and psychologically oppressed by moron bigots live happy, decent lives.
======
You fail to explain why a huge number of heterosexuals who are not oppressed for their heterosexuality live enormously problematic lives, ranging from unhappy to dysfunctional to violent.

What cheap propaganda you spew on here.

Homosexuals can care less what conservatives think, they hate conservatives and healthy views about human sexuality and relationships.

Homosexuals are entirely responsible for all the crimes and the harm they do in the world, to themselves or to others. This has nothing to do with conservatives, much less any fictional "oppression" your propaganda likes to dream up.

And for your info, the numbers of heterosexuals committing suicides are huge compared to a handful of homosexuals.

"Gay people who haven't been physically and psychologically oppressed by moron bigots live happy, decent lives."

Bernie Madoff was very happy until recently, when someone told him he wasn't exactly as wonderful as he considered himself to be... Now he is being oppressed... so sad.

Ted| 1.6.11 @ 5:13PM

"You fail to mention that problems with the "lifestyle" are due largely to homophobes, like yourself, oppressing gay people. "

Nice try, BUT.... you can't blame the medical risks associated with sexual activity on society. Homosexual men are far more likely to contract HIV than any other risk group per statistics available even to you from the CDC.

And please spare us the poor pitiful "if your God is hung up on gay people" nonsense. God is "hung up" on every human being because He loves them. That doesn't mean He likes everything all of us do....

TJL| 1.3.11 @ 5:47PM

could you please name some of those researchers.

Skylar.| 1.3.11 @ 11:24AM

"The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter."

You seem uninformed. Rather, ignorant. Uganda is passing legislation that makes homosexuality punishable by the death penalty - and other sub-saharan countries expected to follow suit.

Then you set up a strawman by pointing out Islamic countries. They are countries who mix government and state and you're pointing them out on it, but by the tone of your article I doubt you would have the same problem mixing Christianity with our government.

Hypocrisy. Good day.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 12:02PM

Read the article - Uganda is not "passing" the legislation - it's failing, it just got a lot of press.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 12:49PM

If it is failing, it is because of international pressure caused by all of that press. The US and other western nations are pressuring other nations to treat their citizens like humans. Why is that controversial?

Ted | 1.7.11 @ 1:29AM

It is failing in some places. Unfortunately we probably don't know half of what is going on in Iran.

Uganda, unlike Iran, looked like typical political gamesmanship. Sometimes the press really does its job.

Tony Raskoon| 1.3.11 @ 11:42AM

Christians are blown up in churches and in their homes with tacit approval of authorities. ...and our diplomatic efforts are focused on gay rights? Could it be a stealth effort to weaken the fabric of their society? You couldn't make this up.

Chuck| 1.3.11 @ 12:28PM

Why not? Uncle Sap promotes abortion overseas. No wonder these countries hate us.

YesJesusYes| 1.3.11 @ 12:30PM

All those Scientists who say that homosexuality is "normal" and "natural" and should not be changed are only looking at what IS and not taking in to account what OUGHT to be. If Christian scientists go about an experiment knowing ahead of time what the results OUGHT to be, (thankfully, we have the Bible to show them that) then they can come up with results that prove US right and the non-Christian scientists wrong. Just like in evolution science!

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:12PM

Evolution science is scientifically proven, unequivocally, no matter how you think the world OUGHT to be.

Some of us live on planet Earth.

LiveFreeOrDie| 1.3.11 @ 1:58PM

Evolution science is scientifically proven? Care to expand on that. I must have missed the huge press release that proved the THEORY of evolution.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:03PM

It's difficult to argue the merits of science with someone who doesn't believe science exists. I think I'll refrain from bothering. You can believe you live in whatever reality it is that suits you best--I don't particularly care.

Steve A| 1.3.11 @ 2:41PM

Nicholas, That may possibly be the weakest defense of a flawed argument I have seen. To suggest that we originated from some slime that crawled out of a pre-historic ocean billions of years ago requires more faith that Creationism.

If you have any guts, you will defend your position.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 4:06PM

Open any science book that wasn't written by someone with a religious slant. I'm sorry, but I refuse to argue with people who are decidedly against facts.

TJL| 1.3.11 @ 6:03PM

So it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe a space man created the earth and everything on it in 6 days. What are you smoking. There is no evidence that god created the planet because there is no evidence that a higher being exists. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific fact. Ill try to make it simple for you so maybe you can follow along. Have you ever owned a mixed breed dog. The dogs mother and father were two different breeds. When they had puppies the puppies would inherit genetic traits from both the mother and the father. Now repeat this process over and over for a long period of time. Viola Evolution.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 6:27PM

"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his eternal power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:18-20.

Now read this over and over until it sinks in.
Then reconsider what you are really buying into.
Evolution is a theory thought up by a man who was in open rebellion toward God. Have you ever read anything on Darwin other than what you were given in public school, because that's the truth about him.
It's either what God says.. that He created the universe, and Mankind, and animals (separately).. or else He is lying.
You already know, like the Bible says that God exists because it's all around you.
Are you too proud to acknowledge it?

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 6:33PM

I don't believe in magic. Your imaginary friend's fairy tales are not more valuable than my senses nor my capacity to collect and interpret real information.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 6:51PM

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Ps. 14:1.

You are right. your senses don't lie. God's creation is all around you and yet you deny Him. How is that? The Bible says that your mind is darkened and you are believing a lie. I could say you believe in the "magic", which is nothing but the faking of the making of creation by what... nothing, and I would be right.

Rightly interpret what is all around you, then you must acknowledge His doing.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 6:59PM

No, I prefer to live in this world, where reality is real and magic is fake.
Maybe your life is so horrible that you have to pretend it doesn't exist, in which case I'm sincerely sorry for you, but I refuse to deny reality when it conflicts with a poorly written novel.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 7:22PM

"So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." 2 Cor. 4:16-18.

Christians know eternity exists and that after your earthly body is destroyed, YOU go on to either Heaven or Hell.

The choice is yours.. you choose to rebel against the One who made you.. but I hope He has mercy on you as He did me, and millions upon millions of other Christians the world over.

Consider your latter end.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 12:41AM

You have never--not once in your life--ever had an original thought. You have never once thought for yourself. Maybe there is a one in a it-doesn't-exist,-you-dummy chance that I'm going to hell after I die, but a life devoted to the stupid crap you believe here is hell on Earth.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:51AM

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the LORD. For as the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." Is. 55:8 & 9.

God is the Originator of thought, He created it along with your wretched body. You are nothing but dust.. you came from dust and shall return to dust. Your life is but a breath.. too bad you will have to find that out when it is already too late.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 5:12PM

It's completely scientifically proven? Really? Is that why we still refer to the Theory of Evolution, rather than the Law of Evolution?

You really ought to educate yourself more. Generally and specifically on this topic. There's a whole lot of outstanding science out there that says there's a lot evolution explains, and there's a lot it doesn't.

And if you really want to discuss, discard the ad hominem attacks.

joseph| 1.3.11 @ 12:45PM

There is much more to this.
In a recent vote at the UN the Obama Administration sent their people to harass many governments particularly of small island states in the Caribbean to back language supporting gay, transgender and lesbian rights.
Throughout all the negotiations the Obama people and their gay supporters hammered away at soverign countries and pressured them to in an unpresented manner.
This is all happening as these countries suffer unbeleivable murder rates because of broken families with no fathers in the home yet the Obama Administration is focused on pandering to their gay, lesbian and transgender base at the expense of other issues of concern to these countries.
These countries will now have to deal with the fallout from the further breakdown of the traditional family and the confusion of the youth.

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:48PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:49PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Ryan| 1.3.11 @ 1:36PM

Several problems:

1. Nowhere is homosexual union condoned in scripture - only marriage between man and wife.

2. The picture given by God - in Song of Solomon and Revelation in particular - is marriage between male and female - Christ and His Bride - as opposites.

3. Your specific example doesn't go well with the rest of scripture - try something else Paul wrote - Romans 1:26. Also, your argument was pretty much expounded by a gay Christian trying to justify his lifestyle, and doesn't have the agreement of scripture to back it up.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:54AM

1) You cannot make an assumption that homosexuality is wrong because they are talking about heterosexual marriages. If you want to prove your point, find a passage that proves that homosexuality is wrong.

2) Again this does not say that homosexuality is wrong

3) You prove my point. You take one verse out of Romans while ignoring the others, which my friend, is called taking it out of context. Let's examine Romans when you take all the verses.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Ryan| 1.4.11 @ 8:48AM

1. If my points 1 and 2 don't say homosexuality is wrong, then why is it openly condemned in Leviticus (and despite the waffling that is attempted there because of sexual positions or whatnot, it's pretty explicit in the condemnation)? Why is it never spoken about in positive terms in scripture?
In Romans 1:28-31, Paul continues with a list of quite a few sins...just after mentioning homosexual activity - none of which show any "gray area" about whether or not they are sins. All these are lumped together.
Why is there no mention that homosexuality is okay in other contexts in the passage? Shouldn't it be separated out and something made mention if it was okay in other contexts?

2. If homosexuality is okay, then it must be part of God's design, and that it must show something about God's being and character (as all the Ten Commandments point toward). Where in scripture does it point out that it is a good and right and blessed practice? What characteristics of God does it show?

3. I'm not arguing against the idol worship matter; however, simply because something was culturally common and there wasn't a name for it doesn't excuse it as not being sin. Slavery was culturally common up until about 175 years ago. The ancient Greeks were "culturally common" pederasts. Roman culture was notorious for its "culturally common" excesses. It's become "culturally common" for people to live together and have sex while not married. It's a fallen world we live in.

That doesn't mean it isn't sin.

What your entire argument tells me is that people who believe that homosexuality (or anything else) isn't a sin and try to prove it Biblically are more or less trying to get off on a "technical" legality - trying to find something to excuse sinful behavior.

It's the same thing when someone cries out "don't judge others!" - Usually the person who claims that is trying to cover their sin.

Nothing| 1.5.11 @ 2:43PM

The argument that the Bible couldn't have said what it said because the word homosexual didn't exist until later on in history is nonsensical. Homosexuality existed in biblical times and the words used were words that were commonly used at the time to refer to homosexuality. Go ahead and believe that "soft skinned" people are bad and homosexuals are good.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 7:06PM

How do you square with this, shadow_man:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." Rom. 1:26-28.

You need to wake up to the fact that homosexuality is wrong, it is sin, and it is against both God, and yourself.

You cannot go to Heaven if you die in your sin. It is just a fact that we all have to deal with. It isn't just homosexuality, but that's the subject at hand.. you are trying to justify it but you are sadly wrong.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 7:43PM

So said Paul of Tarsus, a human being, in a letter he wrote around 56 A.D. to certain Christians in Rome. Don't confuse Paul with God. St. Paul never made that mistake, and it is idolotrous for any Christian to do so.

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:27PM

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and Apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations.." Rom. 1:1-5.

Yes, THAT Apostle Paul!

Who are YOU to say otherwise?

"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." Mt. 10:40.

RCV does NOT therefore receive Him. Or do you also choose to reject Christ's warning as well? Are you in the phony Christian camp that rejects the book of Revelation, too?

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of Life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright Morning Star." Rev. 22:13-16.

It doesn't matter what your intellectualloid mind tells you, because you are lying to yourself and others.

RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:56PM

And it doesn't matter what your narrow mind tells you, either, Margie. Your self-righteousness is so unChristian in my humble opinion, but that will be a matter between you and God at some point.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:33AM

"All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." Is. 66:2.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:55AM

You prove my point very clearly. You only pay attention to 3 lines and ignore the rest of Romans and it's historical times, which is called taking the bible out of context.

Let's examine romans again.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:42AM

"All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word."

You're twisting what it actually says, which is this:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Mt. 7:1 & 2.

The judgment that I pronounce, which is in agreement with God, is that your sin is both killing you know and taking you to Hell. One of which is the sin that you are promoting, homosexuality. You are perverting what is written in the Bible to suit your perverted leanings and it is WRONG.

Now, I just made a judgment which according the that verse you quoted and twisted, is allowable.

Why? Because, as the verse says, I am not practicing the sin of which I said to you, it is wrong.

Now, you can try and twist all you want to but it won't change the fact that sin is sin, and unless you repent, you will go to Hell. It's what God says, not me and so your "free" to disagree for now.. till your dead. Then it will be too late.

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:50PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

brooklyn dave| 1.3.11 @ 1:34PM

There are all shades of sexuality. I know guys who identify as gay but are able to perform with a woman--some who were married to a woman at one time. I think both gays and straights tend to put folks in a box so they claim "one for our team". More has to be said for bi-sexuality.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:52AM

Then what would mean they are bi-sexual. But bi-sexuality is not a choice either. You cannot suddenly say, "i'm going to now only be attracted to men" or "i'm going to now only be attracted to woman" They are biologically attracted to both sexes, and they can't change that.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:35PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:51PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:34PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:51PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

brooklyn dave| 1.3.11 @ 1:30PM

This is really a painful situation you are going through. Although I am not an advocate of same sex marriage (not because I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I do not trust the radical gay activist agenda) -- wouldn't civil unions cover the same ground as far as rights are concerned? I think there is a lot of semantic gobbledegook going on as far as this whole subject is concerned.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:48AM

I think you missed this part:

"This was taken from another poster"

:)

And sorry, but separate is not equal.

Nothing| 1.5.11 @ 2:50PM

Sounds like a completely made up posting...typical of the garbage that floats around the internet. I won the megamillions lottery but then washed the ticket in my pocket. Oh did I mention that I am paralyzed?

shadow_man| 1.3.11 @ 12:52PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

YesJesusYes| 1.3.11 @ 1:31PM

This is why our educators and doctors should not have shared the results of their homosexual studies with the general public. As soon as homosexuals got a hold of the studies that proved they weren't mental cases, they were emboldened to ask for equal marriage rights! Every time a new study comes out, further proving that homosexuality is unchangeable and natural, these homosexuals feel even more emboldened to ACT like normal people and demand "equality." They should be shamed back into the closet! I don't care if they ARE killing themselves, Jesus was clear: Homosexuality is an abomination. Period.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:50AM

Lol, so you don't want the truth to come out about homosexuals because you want an excuse to condone your bigotry? Sorry, but we aren't hiding in the closet anymore, we are going to fight for what is rightfully ours :)

Also, i see you also lack understanding of your bible. Jesus never said homosexuality was an abomination. That was from the OT in leviticus, which wasn't referring to homosexuality of 2 consenting adults, but fertility rituals and idolatry which were common during that time period.

skip| 1.7.11 @ 2:05PM

You belong in the troll hall of fame.

Jesus said: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

The 'Law' in this scripture refers to the first five books of the Old Testament including Leviticus.

Jesus did in fact endorse the statement that homosexuality is an abomination.

My dictionary defines 'fulfill' as "to put into effect" as well as "to convert into reality", and 'abominable' as "worthy of disgust or hatred" as well as "quite disagreeable or unpleasant".

No doubt you will continue to cite the professions that classify homosexuality to your liking. These same geniuses have classified alcoholism as a disease and not a behaviorial choice.

No doubt you will continue to cite other geniuses who believe they know the true meanings of the Bible's words thereby revealing God's true intentions which God Himself was too feeble and powerless to ensure we receive, words such as:

"Do not lie with a man as you would a woman; that is abominable" (Leviticus 18:22)

No doubt you will continue to state it erroneous to believe this is a condemnation of the behavior of two males and of two females.

Your behavior will always be repugnant and will never gain acceptance by intelligent and honest people.

Your behavior is sick and disgusting, detestable and abominable, deviant and perverted, according to the Word of God.

And make it worse by behaving as a liar.

shadow_man| 1.8.11 @ 10:41AM

Whether or not Jesus came to abolish the old law (there's two conflicting claims of this in the bible), doesn't change the fact that the passage in leviticus was not condemning homosexuality, it was condemning idolatry and fertility rituals among heterosexuals that were widespread during that time period.

Of course, you cannot refute any of my scholars, then you try to bring out topics irrelevant to homosexuality, like alcoholism. Alcoholism is harmful, whereas homosexuality is not :)

Of course, since you can't prove me wrong, you merely name-call, which is confirmation that your trolling has failed miserably :D

skip| 1.10.11 @ 4:30PM

You said: 'Jesus never said homosexuality was an abomination.'

I easily proved you a liar by citing Matthew 5:17 which obviously encompasses Leviticus 18:22.

You said: 'Alcoholism is harmful, whereas homosexuality is not.'

I cite the Centers for Disease Control which states over 82% of all known sexually transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male to male sexual contact, and that male gay and bisexual contact accounted for over 60% of all syphilis cases, while homosexual males comprise maybe 3% of the population. Also, experts overwhelmingly state the best social environment to raise physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy children involves both a male and a female parent.

Rectal sodomy, the use of a one way sewer pipe for sexual pleasure, is anything but a normal healthy act, and no medical professional will state otherwise.

You are not even a 'shadow' of an intelligent and honest individual, nor anything remotely resembling a 'man'. You are one hell of a liar though.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:33PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

Nothing| 1.5.11 @ 2:56PM

The scientific community changed long standing medical opinion as a result of pressure from gay advocates to say that the lifestyle is normal and healthy. People can function with many different disorders and be productive members of society, it doesn't mean that their disorder is normal. People can live with blindness, diabetes, missing appendages, and can even be "born that way," but it doesn't make it normal...even if some society of medical professionals decides to call it normal.

Homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality just as blindness is a normal variant of human sight.

Rustywheeler| 1.5.11 @ 8:44PM

Umm… blindness IS a natural variant of human sight. Also; myopia, color-blindness, hyperopia. You're equivocating on the word "normal".

Gay IS natural, which is exactly why Christians hate it so much, being all in favor of leaving behind the 'natural man' and all.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 11:41PM

If psychiatrists had really believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, why wool they care what the "gay lobby" thought? I've never found the psychiatrists I know to be shy about holding fast to many opinions I and others think are pretty indefensible. What evidence do you you base your claim on that the change was not a genuine professional view?

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:33PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 1:00PM

With all the research that went into this, where is the researched article on the exportation of feminism to other countries?

Let's start with the International Violence Against Women Act which is up for a vote in January and which would fund feminist groups in other countries at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:06PM

So, you are effectively Pro-violence against women? That's F-ed up, dude.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 1:15PM

Real conservatives don't get conned by the names Democrats give their laws Nicholas. If male, you are what we call a "Mangina" or "White Knighter". Do you really want the US taxpayer to fund feminist groups in other countries? Is that even half of one percent what one would call a conservative opinion?

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:29PM

Is funding 2 pointless wars a conservative opinion? Promoting human rights is neither a conservative nor a liberal cause. It is something we do because we live in one of the greatest nations on Earth.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 1:37PM

You are clearly a Democrat Nicholas. But, as such, are you OK with the idea that, if a woman puts a pinhole in a condom, you will have to pay $2000 per month for 18 years and barely see the child when your parents would raise the child at no cost to you if the system were fair enough to give the child to those who wanted the least financial compensation to raise it? As a Democrat would you vote for an anti-sex feminist city council member who would not only shut down all strip joints (in alliance with religious conservatives who hate heteros as much as homos), while making it a crime for you to ask a woman to strip (anti-john laws)? Are you OK with the IMBRA law forcing you to be background checked before you are allowed to talk with a female citizen of another country online? All this has nothing to do with "human rights" (except in taking natural rights away from men) and nothing to do with what either Democrats or Republicans once stood for.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:44PM

You are clearly a moron for drumming up a sensational "what if" scenario that may effect--oh, i dunno--1 in a million people.

Maybe your pinhead problem could be solved if a male was 1) more careful or 2) brought his own flipping condom.

The problem with the national dialogue right now that there is a total lack of substance coming from the far-right. We used to have moderates that could buzz off all the crazies' rhetoric. Now people only want to deal with the non-issues that make it onto Fox news.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 2:19PM

No Nicholas, I represent the average moderate independent voter and the Men's Rights Movement would have the support of most Americans *if* the morons at Fox News weren't supporting feminism like CNN does. The broken condom scenario was irrelevant to the fact that a huge number of stupid men are getting women pregnant in US states that intend to enslave those men with huge stealth alimony payments (excessive child support) that wreck those men's lives (and, no, I have never been one of those stupid men - I just know most American men are well aware that the government intends to enslave them if they have children and get divorced.

You haven't shown you understand that most American men are fed up with the anti-equality attitude of American feminism.

You are gay right? Most gays are manginas when it comes to men's rights.

But then they scream like little girls when their own made up "rights" aren't granted.

I will get the last word moron.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:23PM

Have the last word. White, heterosexual males between the ages of 18-65 are obviously the most oppressed class in the nation. That is the most reasonable view. That isn't ridiculous at all.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 1:11PM

Seriously, there will be no GOP victory in 2012 if one thinks more in terms of being a "moral majority social conservative" party than a "heterosexual men's rights" party. It is an insult to heterosexual males that the gay male agenda gets disproportional attention from BOTH parties. By writing (however justifiably) about the exportation of "gayness" by the US government, one is not writing about the exportation of anti-male Marxist feminist ideology. In a two party system, it matters what subjects one concentrates on to get votes.

That makes me concerned that the writer and the Spectator aren't "with the program" of the Men's Rights Movement which will call for millions of men not to vote GOP if the GOP ignores the rights of heterosexual males (an end to alimony and excessive child support as punishment for mating, an end to the attitude that men don't have the right to view porn or pay for strip teases, an end to most sexual harassment and domestic violence laws that make men second class citizens, and end to laws like IMBRA that force men to be background checked before being allowed to communicate with foreign women online).

Now, if the Spectator is "with the program" and publishes anti-Marxist-Feminist material in 2011, then this article will not have been a sign that conservative blogs were looking in the wrong direction.

Cagey| 1.3.11 @ 1:25PM

Homosexuals are mentally insane perverts plain and simple. Many of them are pedophiles and giving children to them is a violation of the child's rights to a normal healthy upbringing. Promoting perversion will undermine society and in the future homosexuals will not be normal, this period of insanity allowing the insane to become normal will be viewed as a horrible mistake one day and homosexuals will once again be hunted, prosecuted, persecuted and better! All society has to do is let them show their hand and watch how fast the social order changes again! We should religiously suppress homosexuality and never let them hold any office of public trust because we can't trust them! And when allowed into the military watch how fast friendly fire deaths rise.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:32PM

No one who is in a position to have a valued opinion on this matter agrees with you. You're just hateful-- which is your right--but your opinion doesn't matter.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 1:44PM

As a Democrat Nicholas, you would have made a better argument by pointing out that Cagey is probably hateful of normal heterosexual male behavior as well. But you won't do that because you are probably a gay male yourself and you are absurdly aligned with feminists against heterosexual males.

That's F-ed up Dude.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 1:49PM

Clearly, by his comment, it would not have mattered what argument I made.

Why are you so afraid of women? You use the word "feminist" like it is 1975. There are women rights groups that fight for equal treatment and against violence. That's not anti-male, it is pro-female. Quit trying to frame the issue as if you've ever been persecuted in your life.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 2:08PM

No Nicholas - It would have mattered a lot if you had engaged Cagey as probably being against heterosexual norms as well as homo norms. But you didn't do that.

Instead you went on about "human rights" which really meant you care only about gay rights and feminist rights.

And you didn't do so because heterosexual male rights don't mean anything to you. You are gay right? Or metrosexual.

Feminism in 1975 was just fine dude. But, if you haven't noticed, after around 1980 it changed big time. It was no longer about "equality" for women and only about "advantage". It wasn't about the glass ceiling anymore but about denying the right of a boss to have sex with his secretary. Feminism changed from being pro-sex to anti-sex because the older sexually active women found themselves being rejected or ignored for much younger women. Most feminist laws today are meant to stop older men from having sex with younger women.

Laws against "violence" have existed for 6000 years. There is nothing in the VAWA that prevents violence at all. They just used the word violence against women to get extra divorce advantages, etc into a law that foolish Republican politicians would vote for (VAWA was used as a bargaining chip by Republican Senator Brownback to get Alito nominated - Brownback stabbed Republican males in the back by doing this).

Do some research about VAWA by doing a Google search for that word plus the word feminism or roissy or conservatism.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:16PM

Heterosexual Male WASPs are not being oppressed. Find a more important issue. Why don't you fight against wasteful spending in the defense department, if you want to make meaningful cuts in spending?

YesJesusYes| 1.3.11 @ 1:52PM

"hunted, prosecuted, persecuted and better!" --Better?? How?? Castrated? Exiled? Ooohh.....burned at the stake? These thoughts make me smile. I have a cousin who lives in Massachusetts who is disgusted by gay marriages being legal in that state. You won't hear about it on the news, but most heterosexual couples in MA feel that the value of their marriage has gone down between 2 and 10 percent! (depending on what percentage of society is gay)

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:05PM

That's weird--MA has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

How does one measure the value of one's marriage? You are a silly little person.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 2:12PM

MA has the most insane alimony laws in the world. Being married and resident in Massachusetts would be the stupidest thing a heterosexual male could do.

Just do a Google search for Alimony and Massachusetts to read the horror stories.

If anything devalues heterosexual marriage, it is feminist lawmaking, not gay marriage.

Republicans, unfortunately, haven't yet learned that they can win big by fighting this sort of thing. Most women agree with the men's rights movement.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 2:20PM

That was not what we were discussing here. Now you've given YesJesusYes an out from responding to his/her ludicrous claims. Not everything is about heterosexual males--Overall, I'd say they have been given the best shake.

Jim Peterson| 1.3.11 @ 2:43PM

Nicholas,

YesJesusYes is on your side (at least as far as not thinking homosexuality is an issue). You didn't notice that his or her comments are sarcastic.

The whole point of the above article is or should be just that the government of the USA shouldn't spend money to change the world's various cultures. Your best argument would be that the author would probably be glad if a Republican administration spent 15 billion dollars trying to get things like prostitution banned in other countries or that a Republican president would spend our tax money building churches in Afghanistan.

A real conservative would be against all spending of taxpayer money to alter foreign cultures.

That would fit your problem with the two wars.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 4:12PM

With what has been written in this comment section, it is impossible to tell whether or not YesJesusYes is being sarcastic or not. Google Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." Yesjesusyes is the perfect example.

YesJesusYes| 1.3.11 @ 5:14PM

I love it.

RevBootled| 1.3.11 @ 6:23PM

Sarcasm or not, YesJesusYes makes a very excellent point.

Nicholas| 1.3.11 @ 6:34PM

That Christians tend to be kindof stupid when it comes to interpreting everyday reality?

Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:47PM

"Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his countenance is changed." Ecc. 8:1.

Wanna be like the wise man?

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 12:48AM

No, I want idiot evangelists to stop interfering with good people's lives for the sake of fulfilling false scripture.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:31AM

As soon as Jesus returns, then we will stop preaching His gospel. Until then, you will preach the acceptance of sin, and we will preach against it.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 2:13AM

Uh, did we forget to take our medication?

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 2:15AM

Uh, did we forget to take our medication?

Didn't realize how far away I was from Cagey's post above. That what this is in reply to.

Joe D.| 1.3.11 @ 1:52PM

Harriet N. just because you are sick and sinning does not mean we wish or need to promote your lifestyle CHOICE.

So if anyone should shut up it is you. But you won't that that is the tragedy. You need help and would rather confuse people that help fix yourself.

Joe D.| 1.3.11 @ 2:10PM

Chuck Anziulewicz, why don't you talk to some former gays and find out for yourself on how you can live a normal like without your problem. I have. So don't give us your double speak about how we can not understand you since we are not you. Tens of thousands of former gays are walking around for you to speak to.

So well said, Alessandra

YesJesusYes| 1.3.11 @ 2:58PM

I recently read that the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, AND the American Psychological Association (virtually ALL our doctors and psychiatrists) have all agreed that homosexuality is "normal" and "natural" and shouldn't be changed. This filthy, satanic "research" and "science" is what needs to change in this country. How can Americans be expected to continue abhorring homosexuality if they're being told that it's "natural?" I'm about ready to give up on education altogether. Throw out all our school books and replace them with the ONE true book - the Word of God. (King James Version, of course. Every other version is an abomination and perverts His Word)

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:42PM

American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, AND the American Psychological Association (virtually ALL our doctors and psychiatrists)
============
Yes, there is a lot of indoctrination, but fortunately there are (who knows exactly how many) doctors and psychiatrists who are intelligent, able professionals, equipped with knowledge and ethics, thus they refuse to go along with the homosexual propaganda being spit out by these political organizations. They may even belong as members to these organizations, but they are not sheep.

Most of these professionals, however, cannot publicly talk about their views. Then there are also NARTH and the FRC, and ADF, who need our support. These are courageous professionals who will not bow down to corrupt liberal pressure and shoddy, "junk research."

And:
A professional organization for pediatricians has dispatched letters to thousands of school superintendents across the United States with a warning that promoting – or "affirming" – the homosexual lifestyle to young children can damage them.

The letter was sent just days ago by the American College of Pediatricians, a nonprofit organization funded by members and donors, to school superintendents that tells them plainly, "It is not the school's role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student's medical condition, and certainly not a school's role to 'affirm' a student's perceived personal sexual orientation."

Further, schools can create a "life of unnecessary pain and suffering" for a child when they reinforce a behavior chosen out of a child's "confusion."

Charles U.| 1.3.11 @ 3:01PM

"The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter."

This would be because American evangelical missionary groups are not responsible for the anti-gay attitudes in the Islamic world, whereas they are directly responsible for spreading the misinformation that's led to the Ugandan law legalizing the death penalty for gays. Nice try, though.

Alan Brooks| 1.3.11 @ 4:56PM

I've yet to understand what's s wrong with anal sex as long as it is performed between consenting people and/or animals. Look at those excerpts from the Discovery Channel and see for yourself if that's not a wonderfully enjoyable practice
http://www.pornhub.com/view_vi.....124a822c64
http://www.pornhub.com/view_vi.....2013468552

alexc| 1.3.11 @ 5:21PM

Yeah! Navyfag ain't gonna let no other man near his colon. Oh wait. He doesn't have one! That's ok. His piece of shit father was a dentist. He grew up with his daddy putting his tool in his mouth.

alexc| 1.3.11 @ 5:32PM

although I really would like Navyfag to fuck the shit out of my poop hole and ram his huge dick up my ass while I would ejaculate on Barack's photograph as an IOU for having repealed DADT. Push that big fat zucchini farther up my donut Navyfag! I'm coming I'm coming I'm coooomiiiing!!! YEAAAHH!!

alexc| 1.3.11 @ 5:44PM

So we agree that Navy brat isa fag. But you think he's a pitcher. Do you think that's because he doesn't have a colon? Could he even be a catcher without a colon? And how do you know the size of his cock? Are you his father?

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 6:03PM

alexc,
Your posts are the prefect arguement against all things homosexual.

Alan Brooks| 1.3.11 @ 6:23PM

Don't be so harsh, he's actually paid to write these things, but he would do it for free because he's such a nasty boy that should be punished very hard by his best friend who knows how to punish him for hours. Ain't it a fact alex boy? ;+)

alexc| 1.3.11 @ 7:01PM

aaa oooo aaa oooo aaaaaa aa! aa! aa! aaaAAAHH!

Pelligrino| 1.3.11 @ 7:31PM

To the American Spectator Online Editorial Staff:

Is this what you want? Please read the posts offered today in the afternoon hours (EST) prior to 7:00 p.m. after the article discussing our US Govt./Dept. of State's promotions of the homosexual agenda. (Monday, January 3, 2011)

This is abominable. And, no, that is not overstatement. Gay men or those pretending to be for whatever sick purposes posting -- posting their proclivities.

Do we need to apply R and X ratings to your topics? XXX perhaps? Or can we have some editing, some moderating?

Is that too much to ask? Either there is decent, useful discussion here, or this is for the birds. No, lunes.

Surely you cannot be proud that these words (in all their graphic descripitions) are openly displayed here?

Might you not know that some school youth and others seeking their academic degrees come here to read and get smart on the issues of the day? Or that these comments remain with the foundational article once archived?

Or do I give you more credit that you deserve?

This site is starting to look like the drivel and decay found everywhere else in our net.

Do some work; don't be lazy. Have some standards; have some decorum. Get to moderating.

Sincerely (hoping you'll do something to enhance public debate)

Pelligrino

bluecollarbytes| 1.3.11 @ 8:09PM

I agree with your sentiments Pelligrino.

And the 'shock value' of 'gay in your face' only disgusts and bores nowadays anyway. Imagine this going on in the military, which it will eventually.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 12:53AM

Have you seen any of the veterans that fought for DADT repeal? They're professionals. None of them are people who--even a bigot such as yourself--anyone would blink an eye at. Grow up. Get over your stereotypes: it's 2011.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:47PM

Pentagon refuses to release information on sexual assault and harassment
December 18, 2010

It must be ugly. And after they repeal DADT, as it seems now that will happen, my prediction is that cases will double. Of course, there will be even more pressure on the military to repress information on all cases of homosexual harassment and violence to "prove" that the repeal worked. What a nightmare that will be for the victims.

New Haven, CT—The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, along with the Service Women’s Action Network and Yale Law School students, filed a lawsuit against the departments of Defense and Veteran Affairs, claiming the Pentagon has declined to release records related to sexual assault, harassment and/or trauma in the military. According to a recent Associated Press report, the plaintiffs, who filed lawsuit in New Haven on Monday, Dec. 13, 2010, want access to these so-called rape records so the severity of the issue at hand can be brought to light.

=================

Update Dec 25

Al Jazeera has a detailed article on the subject:

On December 13, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups filed a federal lawsuit seeking Pentagon records in order to get the real facts about the incidence of sexual assault in the ranks.

The Pentagon has consistently refused to release records that fully document the problem and how it is handled. Sexual assaults on women in the US military have claimed some degree of visibility, but about male victims there is absolute silence.

bluecollarbytes| 1.3.11 @ 7:58PM

America always exports its values, whatever they are at the time, which today happen to be of the Godless variety.

The values are preached selectively though, since we evidently have nothing of substance to say to the world's Muslims- they being differently-exceptional than us.

NoUtopia| 1.3.11 @ 8:39PM

Mr. Walton, I assume you were using sarcasm here when you said, "The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter." The answer to that is of course. Remember evil always follows the path of least resistance. In this case, the devil is using a favorite tool, a body of government, to do so. This particular body of government happens to be ours, which shouldn't surprise us.

Negro X| 1.3.11 @ 8:43PM

The problem is that gays are hetrophobes, if their position is valid there is no need to continually attempt to justify it.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 1:18AM

That was a pretty stupid thought you just vomited up there.

amdriven| 1.4.11 @ 12:51AM

No subject gets the juices flowing like homosexuality! So here's my 2 cents worth: I'm a 'Homo-Atheist'. I don't believe in it. Ask yourself this: How do you define it~(behavior) How can you prove you are one~(behavior) Are there any blood tests or DNA tests? Nope~it's just behavior.

Brian| 1.4.11 @ 3:53AM

I would say Repubs should de-fund promotion of the radical homosexual agenda but I keep forgetting about the truce the Repubs have declared in the culture war!

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:55AM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:56AM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:57AM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:57AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:32PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:58AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:31PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:59AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 6:59AM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:31PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.4.11 @ 7:00AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Ted| 1.4.11 @ 11:38AM

Nice propaganda... Too bad most of it is simply not true. The campaign to get both the APA (psychology) and APA (psychiatric) to de-list homosexuality was a political campaign not based on the medical evidence at the time.

The jury is still out on whether homosexuality is biological/genetic or environmentally based. Most experts believe it is a complex combination of factors.

As for all the research you cite, again, most all of it was politically motivated and had serious validity issues. Most social science research at this point indicates that homosexuals have much higher incidences of suicide, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, and depression than other groups.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the medical studies which indicate homosexual acts are very dangerous for those individuals. That's why homosexual and lesbian publications place a high priority on getting out the word about these health issues, as they rightly should.

Yes, I have read "After the Ball." Why do we need to "sell" homosexuality to the American public by downplaying the facts? Why do we need to use psychological and marketing/PR techniques to manipulate the American public's perceptions about homosexuality instead of persuading the public using facts and logic in the open?

Stop plying our brothers and sisters with propaganda.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 6:50PM

Well said.

Exposing every aspect of their propaganda should be top priority for conservatives.

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 12:23AM

Alessandra,

I really admire you and love what you are doing. Your posts are excellent.
Thank you for speaking God's Truth here.

Alessandra| 1.5.11 @ 6:19AM

Margie,

Thanks. I very much appreciate your comments too.

What we are seeing here is a tug of war - homosexual activists and liberals will do everything to lie about how homosexuals and bisexuals perpetrate crimes and other harmful behaviors, and conservatives want the truth.

What we must constantly tell liberals is that they shall not deceive (us and) one another.

"truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out."

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:38AM

And where is your evidence of all this. As usual, you got none :) If that were true, then those views wouldn't hold today, but they do ^_^

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 11:36AM

You are able to use your computer. All you need to do is an internet search. If you wanted to get really into it, go to a local medical school library. All the evidence is there, if you choose to read it. Your saying there is no evidence is a falsehood.

Nice try though. Keep the propaganda coming.

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:31PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

Jordash| 1.18.11 @ 11:00PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Steve G| 1.4.11 @ 8:30AM

harriet YOU ARE SO WRONG.Sodomy & homosexuality IS A SIN.PERIOD!End of discussion.THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO SHOVE THE ANTI GOD HOMOFACIST LBGT AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS AND THE OTHER OUTSIDE AMERICAN WHO WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH WHIPS AND CHAINS,BDSM AND GUYS SHOVING THEIR PENIS'S UP EACH OTHER REAR ENDS

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 10:14AM

I think you accidentally hit the caps lock key. With what you said, people probably won't take you more seriously if you turn it off, but you could give it a try.

Ace| 1.4.11 @ 9:42AM

Gay? There ain't nothing "gay" about it. It's QUEER.

Nicholas| 1.4.11 @ 10:11AM

I can't tell if you're attempting to be offensive because "queer" is no longer an offensive word. It is used as an alternative for a lot of people rather than explaining exactly where they fit on the kinsey scale, or for people who don't consider their gender expression to fit perfectly into a false masculine-feminine dichotomy.

Janus| 1.4.11 @ 10:37AM

Right on Shadow_Man, there is a lot of trolling going on, but I don't think it's good news for the pro gay side. We could spread facts and data without that pandemonium of provocators making us look like perverts and insulting those who disagree with our agenda. They do us the same disservice as leather and chains, love parade, outing of people as a retorsion device and attacks on catholics. As a gay man, I'd rather be left alone and never discuss sexuality with anybody who disagree with what I am. My heterosexual friends don't bother me with a straight agenda or their sexual prowess or with links to straight porn, I wouldn't tolerate it and they expect me to do likewise. jmho

jon B| 1.4.11 @ 10:51AM

what other people do with their sex lives doesn't bother me unless they're fukking America in the ass for 8 years like BU$H did...

Richard Baker| 1.4.11 @ 11:15AM

jon B:
You really should seek professional help. You ARE aware the W is no longer at 1600 Pennsylvania, aren't you?

Jeremiah| 1.4.11 @ 11:29AM

jon Butt, wait till you see what your karaoke prez has in mind for us:
http://c8.nrostatic.com/dest/2.....441971.jpg

Stephanie| 1.4.11 @ 11:54AM

gross but funny!

Randy131| 1.4.11 @ 11:54AM

Tell Mrs. Clinton that her advocacy for homosexual rights is definitely bearing fruit, for rumor now has it that her husband is now engaging in extramarital affairs with men instead of women, as in the past. Keep up the good work Hillary, for you are definitely having an effect, now if we could only figure out if it is your advocacy on your appeal that is influencing Bill's new choice, or maybe both.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 12:48PM

You're confusing Bill Clinton with the right-wing fudnamentalist hypocrite preachers we always read about. You know, the ones who hire rent-boys to escort them to Europe. The "family values" crowd.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 1:31PM

Billy Boy Clinton is a Left-Wing fundamentalist hypocrite and liar, much like yourself. A man who repeatedly commits Adultery and lied under oath about his despicable behavior.. and you defend such men. Kind of fits in with your false gospel, doesn't it?

"If you see a thief, you are a friend of his; and you keep company with adulterers." Ps. 50:18.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 1:43PM

Margie, you are so full of hatred and malice. I hope someday that Jesus will bring peace to your heart so you could love your fellow man instead of pouring venom out all day.

Shar| 1.4.11 @ 1:57PM

Look up DONALD YOUNG and LARRY SINCLAIR and you will understand B.O. a lot better and Rahm, too. Uck.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 2:23PM

Speaking the truth to you, a Leftist Lawyer and defender of corrupt politicians and and staunch defender of Obama the Socialist-in-Chief equals hatred and malice.

Speaking the Biblical truth to a liar who deliberately lies about others and claims that the Apostle Paul is to be disregarded, and you have mocked Jesus' miracles as well in your previous perverted posts- is considered by you to be hateful and malicious.

But then, that is no surprise. You share the same attitude and spirit of all liars and deniers on the Left. Those who create their own gospel, and not that of Jesus Christ.

"But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 4:07PM

sad....

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 5:29PM

Indeed it is:

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1-18-25.

ejp| 1.4.11 @ 5:40PM

Seems to me as if you've been pouring out your venom for the Scripture and in particular the Apostle Paul, because he didn't conform to the Gay-Rights agenda!

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 7:20PM

I have no venom, indeed lots of admiration, for Paul. Recognizing that he is a fallible man like you and I is something even he would acknowledge. And discussing Scripture and its nature and origin is something we all should do. Unless we understand how it came to be, what led to the inclusion of those writings that were added by decree, we can't have a meaningful understanding of what we are talking about. Without knowledge, we become like the automaton Scientologists.

Shar| 1.4.11 @ 2:00PM

Who does DONALD YOUNG remind you of?? VINCE FOSTER comes to mind.

How long can B.O. hide his past?
How long can he hide his Conn. Soc. Sec. #?
How long can he hide the fact that he is not nationalized?
Pray everything starts to come out - NOW!!
Is he a Bilderberger?
Is he - oh what the heck - you get the drift!!
Barry Soretoro, etc.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 4:25PM

There is no limit to the depths of depravity you folks will stoop to in slandering the President. I know this new world of equality is hard for many of you, but this garbage is so beyond the pale. You should be ashamed.

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 5:31PM

You're lying again.
You should be ashamed, but you aren't.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 7:13PM

CINO - Christian in Name Only

Margie| 1.4.11 @ 9:28PM

Can you post just once without lying?

All of your Leftist friends would agree with a liar like you.. and I am happy to accept your label. For I would be disloyal to God to befriend you.

The lines always have to be drawn.

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 10:19PM

I have friends who are liberals and friends who are very conservative. And guess what? Since we're adults, we have interesting and frank and stimulating discussions about issues without calling each other names. You should try that approach sometime. It's a much more pleasant way to live. God bless.

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 12:14AM

I do not befriend liars.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 12:56AM

Just act like an adult for a change.

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 10:47AM

The definition of CINO is a person who calls themselves Christians yet says homosexuality is not sin.

The definition of CINO is a person who is so arrogant that they openly state that persons and parts of the Holy Bible are not to be listened to.

The definition of a CINO is a person who practices psychological warfare on other Bible believing Christians.

In other words the definition of CINO is one who lies.

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 1:20PM

The real definition of a CINO is a person who professes to be a Christian, who pores over written rules and duly ""tithes mint, dill and cumin, and ... neglects the weightier matters of the Law: justice and mercy and faith." One who is so busy with their nose in a book they think will save them, while ignoring Christ's admonition to love our fellow men. One who usurps God's role of judging his Creation, and is always there to cast the first stone. That's a CINO. That's what Christ spent his life on earth warning us not to be, at our peril.

Alessandra| 1.4.11 @ 7:04PM

Thanks to wikileaks, one more example in the history of humankind showing that culture deeply shapes and alters sexual desire, orientation, and a host of other kinds of sexual attitudes and behaviors.

An American military official who works closely with Afghan security forces called the discomfort among U.S. and British troops "the elephant in the closet that no one’s talking about, but needs to."

The study makes a number of observations about the extreme segregation of women in Pashtun culture.

It discusses the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribes and the long-standing traditions in which boys are appreciated for their physical beauty and apprenticed to older men to learn a trade at an early age.

"Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships," the study states.

For a male to have sex with a boy is considered a "foible," the report said. By contrast, having sex with an "ineligible woman" would set up "issues of revenge and honor killings."

Years of living under that cultural construct have greatly altered sexual attitudes, the study said. "One of the country’s favorite sayings is ‘women are for children, boys are for pleasure," the report noted.

The study said the prevailing sexual attitudes in some parts of Afghanistan are creating a cycle damaging to boys and young men.

"There is frequently the risk that Pashtun boys will face a set of experiences that mold their beliefs regarding sexuality as adults in ways that are ultimately damaging, both to themselves and to Afghan society," the report concludes. "It appears that this set of experiences becomes cyclical, affecting generations, and that this cycle that has existed long enough to affect the underpinnings of Afghan culture itself."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....z18mLzeq2R

Do our Western homosexual retards (homo activists, that is) explain the above by saying that these men were born with this particular sexual orientation? I wouldn’t be surprised, given the mindless, ignorant way with which they view human sexuality.

However, the truth lies in the opposite direction: culture and social conditioning is what shapes, engenders, and enables their ephebo-homosexuality.

Frog in Uniform| 1.4.11 @ 8:51PM

Alessandra, I tried to leave a comment on your blog and it didn't work. As a matter of fact, I didn't see any comment at all anywhere in that blog... Are you sure the comments are activated? Keep up the good work.

Alessandra| 1.5.11 @ 5:06AM

Hello, Frog!

As to not being able to leave comments, I can't figure out why that would have happened. Comments are enable, however, they are moderated. This means that when you click to submit, the comment doesn't immediately appear, and it actually disappears. People can find that confusing.

I moderate comments to filter the hate-filled ones :-)

"Keep up the good work."

Thanks, you too.

Devin| 1.4.11 @ 9:42PM

I have read nearly every post to this particular article. I do have to say "Well done Margie" for standing solidly on God's perfect word. I would very much like to persue Nicholas' train of thought on the supposed "proof of evolution" at any time. Evolution is a Naturalistic/Atheistic explaination of how things came to be, that fails logically, and observationally. RCV and Nicholas both reason that since the Apostle Paul was a fallible man that some of the things he wrote must be fallible, too. The underlying assumption is that 1. God is infallible but has allowed his perfect word to be corrupted. 2. God is fallible. or 3. That God had nothing to do with writing the bible, or doesn't exist. The bible itself makes the claim that it is "God breathed". The bible also makes the claim that God himself is incapable of error. If that is true then there are no mistakes even if fallible men write down what God has directed them to write. If one makes the assumption that somehow fallible men "garbled" the transmission of what God has said, then you have to conclude the entire bible is irrelevant since all men and women are fallible. It returns men and women to the point of moral relativity, since we cannot know what parts of the bible are actually true, and which ones are not. Parts that seem right to us are the ones we pick and choose, and then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard what is offensive. There no longer is any real morality since we can just dismiss away what we don't want by saying "Fallible men wrote that". Jesus said clearly that he and the Father are one. Jesus has the full authority of the father and speaks with that authority. He transferred that same authority to his apostles " Whoever receives you receives me, whoever receives me receives the father." The apostle Paul was clearly ratified as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. The other Apostles ratified him as well as Jesus himself with Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus. The Apostle Paul speaks to us with the same authority as Jesus himself {God the Son}, God the father, and God the Holy Spirit. The other suggestions that only certain letters were included "by decree" shows a lack of understanding of history and how the early church fathers integrated God's word into the bible we have today. All the books of the New Testament were "measured" against the "Canon" of scripture and there were no dictators deciding haphazardly which books to keep or dismiss. One has to ask the question " What moral authority do you have RCV and Nicholas to say that homosexuality is ok?" if in fact the bible is not the perfect completed word of God, then where are you getting your morality from?

Margie| 1.5.11 @ 12:20AM

Thank you, Devin. Your words mean more than you know.

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." 1 Cor. 1:10.

Hey RCV~ Guess who said that? That rascally Apostle Paul!

RCV| 1.4.11 @ 10:55PM

Nicely done, Devin. I very much appreciate the thoughtful, measured approach you take to the important questions raised by this discussion.

I think the basic point of departure between these two perspectives is what the Bible consists of and what it purports to be. Your post expresses explicitly your view that the Scriptures are "men writing down what God has directed them to write.". If I believed that was the process of how the Bible came to be, then all the conclusions you draw would indeed follow.

But that conclusion is contrary to what we know about the various eclectic writings that make up the Bible. Indeed, leaving aside parts of the prophetic works, most of the various books do not even purport to make that claim. The Epistles, for example, are exactly what we know them to be: letters written by St Paul to various congregations to address problemsand issues they were facing. Paul makes no claim that they were dictations from God and he was a mere scribe, claims that both Mohammed and Joseph Smith, for example, explicitly made. They are letters, plain and simple, from a man. Filled with much profound wisdom to be sure, but human letters. Similarly, the books of Jewish history that have come down to us, such as Samuel and Kings, are just that. Psalms on the other hand, we know tube psalter or hymn book compiled from older Jewis songs and used in the Temple of Zerubbabel. Some even contain explicit musical direction ("to the choirmaster" )

And what of the Song of Solomon? A collection of 25 erotic love songs, including some that were traditionally sung at Jewish weddings. Do you really believe that God the Creator dictated to someone the following: "You are stately as a palm tree and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb down the palm tree and lay hold of its branches. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine."?

We can't be blind to the history of these various works and blindly pretend they have a single common origin. If you do believe they were inherently dictated by God Himself, where do you derive that belief fromoutsideany claim in the work itself?

skip| 1.5.11 @ 3:57PM

One can conclude your little theory also applies to the ten commandments in Exodus, just like Song Of Solomon, based on your seemingly countless other posts throughout AMSpec.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Obviously Man's sinfulness compromised God's intention to exclude undesirable fetuses from this commandment. If only God was not so feeble as to allow this unfortunate omission. As a self professed proponent of 'real Christian love', who repeatedly boasts of his support for Obama, and who casted his vote for Obama, and who repeatedly states his intention to again cast his vote for Obama in '12, the same Obama who refused to vote against even partial birth abortion, RCV obviously knows God's real meaning of this commandment, otherwise no ardent supporter of 'real Christian love' would ever continually support and vote for Obama.

"Honor thy father and mother"

Again God's feeble inability to prevent man's sinfulness from revealing to us God's true meaning of this commandment in the Bible, according to RCV's theory of 'real Christian love', leads us to the only logical conclusion, that is the full wording of this commandment should be:
'honor thy father and mother or father and father and father or mother and mother as the case may be'.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"

Again God's feeble inability to prevent man's sinfully erroneous interpretation of this commandment must lead us to believe that RCV's 'real Christian love' obviously means some people's wealth must be confiscated and given against their will to others deemed needy who must not be held accountable, and that in addition to acting in accordance with Christ's love is the bonus that we will be following our nation's constitution to the letter according to RCV the self-confessed constitutional scholar.

For the benefit of readers, in order to decide on postings as intelligently and honestly as possible, it is noted that in his reply to a question on his thoughts on the subject of manmade global warming about the petition at www.petitionproject.com (and .org), where 31,487 actual scientists of various disciplines in the field of physics debunked manmade global warming, RCV stated:

"I don't sign silly petitions on science matters"

RCV| 1.5.11 @ 11:47PM

Skippy, what's with your obsession with this petition? I gave you my full views on climate change, and besides, you've pointed out that I'm not eligible to sign your scientists' petition anyway since I'm not a scientist.

skip| 1.6.11 @ 3:30PM

I point out your response to the petition at www.petitionproject.com because it is a very convenient and effective example for all readers to see of your lack of intelligence and lack of honesty.

Asked for an opinion about this petition, in which a huge number of scientists (31,487) in various fields of physics debunked manmade global warming, and provided their specific fields, specific degrees, and institutions that bestowed the degrees in the respective fields, you actually bothered to provide a response.

In your response you ignorantly assumed they were asking for your signature, that they valued your signature on such an important subject, and that you had the qualifications to sign the petition. Not only that but you referred to the petition on such a crucial topic as 'silly' and not deserving of your time and input. The petition is only four sentences in length and is in straightforward words.

In your reply above you even fail to understand a simple word such as 'obession'. Obession is defined as a compulsive, unreasonable idea, often accompanied by anxiety or mental illness. Amspec is a forum where many ideas are presented, and readers need to sort through the relative intelligence and honesty of all these ideas in order to gain knowledge and wisdom. You claim I am unreasonable, even mentally ill, to point out your lack of intelligence and honesty as revealed by your absolutely ridiculous post.

Most important, you yet again cowardly ignore the points made about abortion, homosexuality, and covetousness, even though you have obnoxiously opined on what 'real Christian love' is on AmSpec, and throughout this thread you opine on God's omnipotence or lack thereof and the Bible's relevance or lack thereof. You pompously, sanctimoniously, arrogantly offer your perverse opinions on AmSpec ad nauseam yet protest when called out on your lack of intelligence and lack of honesty.

You are a liberal. Liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty. Liberalism is attacking America and the constitution. Liberalism is attacking Christianity. Your lack of intelligence and lack of honesty should be pointed out until you either gain some of either or shut up.

Ron| 1.5.11 @ 12:26AM

Why in the world do we continue to allow less than 3% of the worlds populace dictate the conscience of the rest? It escapes all measure of rationalism. It's time for the dog to not be controlled by it's tail. Either that...or it's time to have the tail docked.

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 2:02AM

It's actually somewhere between 8-12%, which is comparable to, when not more than, a lot of minority groups in this nation. Using that logic, legalizing interracial marriage, or giving people of color any rights at all, was just a waste of time.

The last part of your statement was verging on inciting violence. You represent Christianity well.

Alessandra| 1.5.11 @ 6:27AM

Anyone who is in favor of normalizing homosexuality, porn, prostitution, and promiscuity is inciting a lot of violence and harm in the world.

That means you.

You represent a destructive, violent liberal society very well.

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 9:55AM

I don't respond to anything you say because you only say nonsense that is driven at getting a rise out of me. If you are being serious, you're scum. Really stupid scum.

Janus| 1.5.11 @ 12:00PM

"If you are being serious, you're scum. Really stupid scum."

Nick, be nice to ladies. You would talk like that while I'm on duty, I would have to arrest you.
The secret for a nice attitude on the web is to behave like you're stuck in an elevator with Mike Tyson, it makes for a nice, peaceful chat. Agreed?

Alessandra| 1.6.11 @ 8:32AM

Nicholas, by your words, it looks like "scum" is what we find in your mind!

http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.e.....031810.pdf

Nearly 1 in 6 adults in California, about 3.7 million persons, report experiencing physical intimate partner violence (IPV) as adults.

Based on the CHIS 2007 IPV module, women (21.1%) are twice as likely to be victims of physical violence as men (11%), and eight times (8%) as likely to report being the victim of sexual violence compared to men (1%).

Bisexual (40.6%), gay, lesbian or homosexual adults (27.9%) are almost twice as likely to experience IPV as heterosexual adults (16.7%).

=============
Check out the significantly greater rates of IPV for homo– and bisexuals! It’s too bad they didn’t add these two categories together, so that we could have a comparison between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Huge difference right there, with non-heterosexuals being much more violent in their personal lives.

That means you and your pals, Nicholas.

And that’s not examining any sexual harassment problems.

If Americans were more educated, civilized folks, they would concentrate on addressing the problem of homosexual violence, not homosexual marriage.

Janus| 1.5.11 @ 11:53AM

quote from Nicholas "Using that logic, legalizing interracial marriage, or giving people of color any rights at all, was just a waste of time.

The last part of your statement was verging on inciting violence. You represent Christianity well."

This borders on sophism. As gay, we are a minority everywhere in the world, blacks or asians are a majority elsewhere, even if it's irrelevant in this discussion because the mere concept of majority or minority is not sufficient in determining whether we are right or wrong... And, although I'm gay, I'm unable to give a good reason we're entitled to anything but the strict application of the Constitution. I'm not mentioning local laws as the bigoted sodomy laws, many of which still survive in the most unexpected states. As I wrote earlier, I just wish to be left alone, I do not believe in any gay agenda or any promotion of homosexuality. I don't need anybody to tell me how I should feel because I'm gay and that includes gay activists. I would be a bigot's worst nightmare: a gay cop with a kickass attitude and several guns at home, but I don't have to explain it because I don't complain.
And please, Nick, do not throw that Christianity stuff in everybody's face, it makes us look self righteous and that's the very last thing we can afford.

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 3:16PM

Sorry, but I refuse to throw myself in front of the bus like the Log Cabin Republicans. I am entitled to equal treatment under the law, just like every other American. Gays do not receive this, and for this we bare unfair financial burdens and dehumanizing treatment from both public and private institutions.

The Christians are among the direct causes of this, and for that I will continue to bring up their misuse of the freedom of religion.

Nicholas| 1.5.11 @ 3:16PM

Sorry, but I refuse to throw myself in front of the bus like the Log Cabin Republicans. I am entitled to equal treatment under the law, just like every other American. Gays do not receive this, and for this we bare unfair financial burdens and dehumanizing treatment from both public and private institutions.

The Christians are among the direct causes of this, and for that I will continue to bring up their misuse of the freedom of religion.

ASSHOLE!| 1.6.11 @ 8:49PM

A S S H O L E ! !

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 12:52AM

Cool story, dude.

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:38AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

BULLSHIT| 1.6.11 @ 8:40PM

BULLSHIT

Jordash| 1.18.11 @ 10:59PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:38AM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

CRAP| 1.6.11 @ 8:41PM

CRAP!

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:29PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:39AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

HOGWASH!| 1.6.11 @ 8:41PM

HOGWASH!

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:39AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 11:42AM

Yes, they do endorse it because of political campaigns designed to get their endorsements despite the scientific evidence.

If you would like to investigate the process the organizations and the invalid, faulty, and/or incomplete science they used to support those positions, you will find that not all is as it seems.

I encourage everyone interested in this topic to go and do the research for yourself. Don't take my word for it or shadow man's word.

You will see for yourself that there is and has been a campaign to normalize homosexuality that is not supported by the science.

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:53AM

And where is this evidence of your claims? Oh that's right, you got none! Because you are trying to troll and failing miserably!

JTF| 1.12.11 @ 11:42AM

"He who disqualifies others generally accuses them of his own flaw."

(Kiddushin 70a)

JUNK| 1.6.11 @ 8:42PM

JUNK!

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:35AM

Indeed, you are posting junk. You must be a leftist.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:28PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:39AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

HORSEFEATHERS| 1.6.11 @ 8:44PM

NEENER@YAHOO.COM

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:53AM

No horse, i will not cyber with you through email.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:28PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:39AM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:40AM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:40PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:40AM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:40PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.5.11 @ 7:41AM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Ted| 1.5.11 @ 11:42AM

Well, I guess we know who the homosexual propagandist is.

Alessandra| 1.6.11 @ 8:14AM

Ad nauseum...

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 12:41PM

Everyone is a propagandist who doesn't agree with the extreme right's position... and a stalinist, and a nazi, and a communist, and a pedophile, and what else? We're probably all violent murderers and thieves too?

However, at least most of us still have the capacity to reason.

Ted| 1.6.11 @ 5:20PM

Assumption, counselor. Not everyone here is on the right.

As for the capacity to reason, thus far you have shown a remarkable inability to do so. You do have a knack for propganda right out of the Communist-Nazi playbook. They were all men of the left, don't you know....

Yep, I have read "After the Ball." It has worked, I'll give you that.

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 6:25PM

Yes, yes, you've said all this 4 or 5 times, verbatim. Run along and play now.

Ted| 1.7.11 @ 1:39AM

Yes, I have said it several times. And I suppose I will say it a few more. Verbatim. You see, if you repeat a lie often enough, then people start to believe it; I want to see if it works for the truth. You know, keep sticking to the truth and to the facts, even when people like you want to get nasty and call people names.

You don't have to read the posts if you choose not to do so. But let's face it. You don't want debate. You want to make ad hominem attacks against people who have different views than yours.

And you make assumptions that aren't true. That's okay though. Keep reading and posting at the American Spectator.

Nicholas| 1.7.11 @ 10:10AM

It's not an ad hominem attack to call something what it is.

Homophobe. Liar. Misinformer. Cherry-picker of "facts." These are not attacks; They're labels.

Nicholas| 1.6.11 @ 12:41PM

Everyone is a propagandist who doesn't agree with the extreme right's position... and a stalinist, and a nazi, and a communist, and a pedophile, and what else? We're probably all violent murderers and thieves too?

However, at least most of us still have the capacity to reason.

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 8:03AM

Lol, when an anti-gay conservative cannot refute information, they simply cry "Propaganda" or "liberal"

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:41PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

SNAKE OIL| 1.6.11 @ 8:46PM

SNAKE OIL

Alessandra| 1.6.11 @ 8:24AM

People who understand homosexuality is a problem are not in denial about the fact that it is disoriented. It is not a question of fear. People who have a need to normalize homosexuality tend to have a sexuality ideology that understands sexuality (including homosexuality) in very ignorant ways, including very stereotypical concepts. One of these stereotypical memes that has been repeated ad nauseum for a couple of decades now is the “homosexuals just want to love each other.”

I think that is the most common stereotype I see in the minds of people who normalize homosexuality. People with a homosexual problem are portrayed as being all the same, not having a psycho-sexual problem, and the sexualization of another person (of the same sex) gets transformed into an action of “love.” This is a grotesque deformation, because sexual desire does not and has never equaled love. Thus, I also see people who have a need to normalize homosexuality as having an extreme need to romanticize sexual desire itself and to romanticize homosexuals.

This is in light of the fact that people who normalize homosexuality most often use a defining concept of sexual orientation to mean sexual attraction.

Obviously, it is clear by this stereotype that another key problem that has been completely hidden by this meme is any issue concerning unethical or harmful sexuality attitudes and behaviors that are produced in the minds of a great number of homosexuals. Given that someone with a homosexual problem may sexualize another person due to having a complex set of harmful or unresolved psycho-sexual problems, which may also produce egregious or violent behavior towards others, there is as much truth in saying that “homosexuals just want to love each other,” as there is in saying “homosexuals just want to harass and batter others.” Yet, for people who normalize homosexuality, it’s the first stereotype that must be repeatedly enforced. As I have mentioned, this is not a singular idea within the constellation of ideas of people who normalize homosexuality. It accompanies a much larger general attitude to always lying by omission or trivializing harmful or violent attitudes and behaviors related to sexuality and personal relationships in society, especially in popular discourse.

One key profile of people who normalize homosexuality are people who are quite ignorant about such problems, their life experience is one of extreme privilege, and they personally never or hardly ever see or have much personal contact with such issues. So these issues basically do not figure on their emotional radar screen, and have absolutely no emotional salience to them.

At the same time that they have this insensitive, and in-denial profile, the idea that someone would be prevented from getting their sexual kicks strikes as them as horribly repressive, not only concerning homosexuality but most other things as well (with basically children being the only thing off-limits). Given that a lot of people who normalize homosexuality are heterosexual and they must get their sexuality kicks, no matter how harmful or irresponsible or dysfunctional these kicks are, there is an identification with the idea that if this stereotypical homosexual is not being allowed to get their kicks, this is the same terrible imposition.

Obviously, an obligatory accompanying idea to this one is that anyone who does not normalize homosexuality must be a bad person out to repress “love.” So we see people who normalize homosexuality doing all this hand wringing and having crisis after crisis of tumultuous emotional expressions of how unjust and evil it is not to accept and glorify homosexuality. They must go on a sexuality crusade to right this horrible wrong. This is what I call the Don Quixote attitude to normalizing homosexuality.

The other interesting characteristic of most people who normalize homosexuality is their own attitude to their views on human sexuality. Most of them see themselves as great authorities on sexuality, no matter how ignorant they are on the subject or any related subject that intersects the realm of sexuality (psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, political science, history). We don’t see this same kind of arrogant attitude concerning a variety of other subjects (such as astrophysics, for example). It’s rare to see a person who is quite ignorant on physics to claim they are experts, but when it comes to sexuality, everyone is an expert. I would say this is probably due to the profound emotional salience of the topic of sexuality and that fact that, somehow or another, sexuality is always part of an individual’s life experience.

Another harmful consequence of this stereotype (“homosexuals just want to love each other”) is that it conveys the idea that people with a homosexual psychology only interact with other homosexuals, thus the “love each other.” People who normalize homosexuality hate acknowledging that homosexuals also harass and abuse heterosexuals (of all ages).

For most people who normalize homosexuality, there is a desperate need to equate homosexuality to heterosexuality and to repeatedly state that homosexuals are exactly the same as heterosexuals, whether we are talking about problems with sexual behavior, relationships, violence, etc. Every study that shows difference and every testimony that presents a difference must be attacked and brushed away from consciousness and cannot be acknowledged.

Another common characteristic of people who normalize homosexuality is that they are often quite comfortable with various mass problems involving sexuality or relationships in society (promiscuity, abortion, adultery, rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual child abuse, etc). Sure, many do the lip service speech against it, but we can see that overall they are never really bothered, nor outraged about these problems, nor do they do anything about it, concretely speaking, from a political or professional perspective. It’s what I call a Marie-Antoinettish attitude to sexuality.

Overall, most people I have seen who normalize homosexuality have this curious mix of Marie Antoinettish and Don Quixotish sexuality views.

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 8:02AM

LOL! It seems like our anti-gay friend here doesn't know we all have access to google. Plagarize other anti-gay sites more plz:

http://socimages.blogsome.com/.....sexuality/

You know why i know this site is discredited? Because i saw this tidbit in there that claim homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS than straights. That is taken out of context, and falsely misleading. Majority of the worlds AIDS is among african heterosexuals.

(Change all *** to www)

***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

ALESSANDRA, HAI RAGIONE!| 1.6.11 @ 8:47PM

ALESSANDRA HAI RAGIONE!

Devin| 1.6.11 @ 11:17PM

Genesis 19:4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? " Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my bretheren, do not do so wickedly!" "See now , I have two virgin daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." And they said, "Stand Back!" Then they said, "This one came in to sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. (reside temporarily) But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door. Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city...."take them out of this place!" "For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
Judges 19:22 Now as they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!" {Lit. Sons of Belial} But the man, the master of the the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. " Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man's concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!" But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when day began to break they let her go.......Judges 19:30 And so it was that all saw it said, " No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, "take counsel, and speak up!"
It has been submitted that God really doesn't mind homosexual behaviour, in fact the bible really doesn't ever talk negatively about that kind of a relationship, and God even blesses a union between 2 people of the same sex as long as they are monogamous. The actual accounts of the bible reveal what the truth is..that homosexuality is like any other perversion, and is depravity, which leads to even greater depravity just as the Apostle Paul said. If you notice in the first account the same accusation is being levelled at Christians today that was levelled at Lot..that we are acting as judges..Holier than thou..and while we don't have gangs of homosexual men trying to break down doors, we do see the vast increase of immoral behaviour. Without the authority of Gods word, i.e. it is just stuff written by old, dead guys, we venture into moral relativity. As the last verse in Samuel says.."Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." What brought the men in Sodom to the depraved levels they were at did not happen overnight, but their destruction did.

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:56AM

Let's examine the sodom story interpretation done by biblical scholars.

The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.

All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are no references to same sex acts or homosexuality.

How you get two consenting men out of all of that is simply laughable.

YOU REPEAT YOURSELF, FAG!| 1.7.11 @ 10:04AM

.

Devin| 1.14.11 @ 2:21PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:51AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

YOU SPREAD NONSENSE, FAG!| 1.7.11 @ 10:05AM

.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:58PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:52AM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:27PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:52AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:52AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

THIS GAY PROPAGANDA STINKS!| 1.7.11 @ 10:06AM

.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:26PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:53AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

WHO BELIEVES THAT SODO CRAP?| 1.7.11 @ 10:02AM

.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:25PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:54AM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:54AM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

PERVERT TRASH!| 1.7.11 @ 9:59AM

.

THE SODOMITE LIES!| 1.7.11 @ 10:00AM

.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:36PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:54AM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

GAY JUNK!| 1.7.11 @ 9:58AM

.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:36PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:55AM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

TRASH!| 1.7.11 @ 9:56AM

.

Devin| 1.14.11 @ 2:30PM

And for a different perspective:

"Another exegetical argument put forth by revisionists maintains that Leviticus condemns only homosexual behavior that is associated with idolatry. James Nelson sets forth this notion in Christianity and Crisis: “In these passages acts are condemned not because of some intrinsic aberration but because of their association with idolatry (particularly, in the sexual references, to Canaanite idolatry).”9 No evidence suggests, however, that the Leviticus text limits the condemnation of homosexuality to that occurring only in an idolatrous context. Leviticus addresses homosexual acts in general: A comparison of texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus indicates that Deuteronomy is concerned with sacred sodomy, while Leviticus is concerned with civil sodomy. The technical terms for female [qedeshah] and male [qadesh] cultic prostitution are absent in the Leviticus condemnation. Instead, the text includes an unambiguous and generic description of the homosexual act: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.”

Other passages specifically address ritual homosexuality. Deuteronomy 23:17, for example, specifically addresses ritual homosexual prostitution that was common to Canaanite religion: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute [qedeshah]; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute [qadesh].” That qadesh refers to homosexual and not heterosexual prostitution is indicated by the rendering of the word in the Septuagint. In 1 Kings 22:46, qadesh is translated by the Greek word endiellagmenos: “one who has changed his nature.” Bailey states that “the endiellagmenos may be either one who has altered his nature by becoming a homosexual pervert, or one who has been transformed by apostasy from a worshipper of Yahweh into a servant of idols”10 Revisionists ignore, however, that the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and are, in fact, intrinsically connected, as Israel’s adoption of Canaanite idolatry entailed both spiritual and moral apostasy.
By contrast, Leviticus does not limit its condemnation to that of homosexuality in a ritual context; no mitigating circumstances are mentioned that would permit such behavior, such as within the context of a “loving, committed relationship.” Bailey himself is forced to conclude: “It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion.”11
The revisionist argument leads to a logical impasse: If homosexuality is to be condemned only when practiced in an idolatrous context, then the same is true for the other prohibited behaviors listed in the immediate passage. As Michael Ukleja writes: “To hold to such a distinction, one would have to conclude that adultery was not morally wrong (18:20), child sacrifice had no moral implications (18:21), and that nothing is inherently evil with bestiality (18:23).”12

MORE GAY LIES!| 1.7.11 @ 10:01AM

.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:35PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.7.11 @ 7:55AM

Bumpity bump

GARBAGE!| 1.7.11 @ 9:55AM

.

SHADOW MAN YOU STINK UP THE | 1.7.11 @ 10:08AM

.

shadow_man| 1.8.11 @ 10:43AM

This post represents what the anti-gay people really are like folks. I bet if had the chance they would try to burn my house down.

Alessandra| 1.9.11 @ 8:58PM

As much as you would try to burn down their house. In other words, most likely neither of you would do such things.

All you are doing is smearing people who are fed up with your lies.

You're no victim. And the chances of you committing sexual harassment or intimate violence are much greater than being a victim of any conservative. And that's not mentioning how much homosexuals spread around STDs.

shadow_man| 1.9.11 @ 9:27PM

It seems Alessandra can't prove me wrong, so she puts words in my mouth :) Your trolling continues to fail miserably.

JOINT WITH YOUR GAY FARTS! | 1.7.11 @ 10:09AM

.

GIVE US A BREAK, FAGGOT!| 1.7.11 @ 10:09AM

.

Nicholas| 1.8.11 @ 9:46AM

Pretty immature. You can represent the anti-gay agenda.

Nicholas| 1.8.11 @ 8:05PM

Although I think it's funny that you and I are sneaking at night in the archives, adding posts that no one will ever read...
Watch yourself my human brother, I don't hate you, I don't know you and life made us grow apart on irreconciliable differences, but whoever you are, be careful. Watch for really dangerous people, not people posting here (you know that, don't you) but people who might seriously harm you, because they are evil and they'll see through you and see someone ready to trust them. Watch for disease, too, brother, and promise me to practice safe sex, OK? It's not in contradiction with my beliefs, as I think condoms should be forbidden only in a stable heterosexual couple. No one wants you to die or live a miserable life. Only criminals would do that. And we don't. Whoever tries to aggravate the gay posters here, does it on purpose, out of frustration of having to say the same things again and again. We won't change you, why should we change? Take care.

Nicholas| 1.11.11 @ 12:55PM

You should change because the anti-gay agenda is based in stupidity. You CAN'T change me, because being gay is not a choice. Yours is a lifestyle CHOICE. Mine is natural and normal, as it has been for all of documented human history.

Using condoms is a good idea for everyone, not just gay people. Condoms should NEVER be forbidden.

I have not been sneaking in, adding posts. I have been having a number of conversations with people with whom I disagree.

You clearly have an agenda that is forcing you to frame your agenda fallaciously. You don't know me, and have no place giving me advice about my personal life.

nicholas| 1.11.11 @ 12:57PM

comment* not agenda.

Nicholas| 1.12.11 @ 9:39PM

So you think my lifestyle is not normal and is a choice. Those are the words you use and the words I didn't use. In fact I hardly use them at all. Do not get me wrong: Except for the post above, I only posted once on this topic and it was not even related to anything anybody said (hint hint!). I have no agenda regarding what is going on in your soul, and I was sneaking in (I'm sorry you dislike this word) just for feeling a sense of privilege. My, I'm alone in this part that no one is reading, the static is gone, the silent noise of dedicated minds pounding at each other, mentally grabbing their throats and writing things that they, hopefully, will regret like those big slurs in capital letters or the insensitive comments on both sides... But now it is quiet, and here we are walking in these archives that will probably be zipped or "accidentally corrupted, please excuse us" in a few weeks... and everything looks so vain because as I said the differences are irreconciliable and no argument should last more than five minutes and nobody should be told what to do and what to think without having asked first. Right, I don't know you and you believe I have no place giving advice about anything personal, but this is wrong (besides, what have you been doing in this topic if the ruins around us are any indication?) because we are human beings for christ sake, I care for you as my human brother as I believe you cared for the people you were (and are still) posting to. This is why I told you to watch out for the people who may see through you. And I don't think they belong to this site. You're not hateful and you're smart and you're haunting this place for reasons that belong to you instead of watching tv and those are the reasons why I allowed myself to talk to you, using your name as the mirror in the final scene in "Paris Texas" because I'll only belong to this particular topic. As I said earlier, take care and may He protect you. Bye brother.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Nicholas| 1.14.11 @ 1:07PM

Well, this place is not the virtual desert I thought it was... But, never mind, if some troll is roaming the 'hood he will get tired soon.

Robert Hagedorn| 1.9.11 @ 7:20PM

Please do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:21AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 7:37PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:57PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:21AM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:24PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:21AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:22AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:23PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:22AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 7:37PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:23PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:22AM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:22AM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 7:39PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:23AM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:37PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:23AM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:38PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 7:36PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

shadow_man| 1.13.11 @ 6:23AM

Bumpity bump

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 5:28PM

I have read nearly every post to this particular article. I do have to say "Well done Margie" for standing solidly on God's perfect word. I would very much like to persue Nicholas' train of thought on the supposed "proof of evolution" at any time. Evolution is a Naturalistic/Atheistic explaination of how things came to be, that fails logically, and observationally. RCV and Nicholas both reason that since the Apostle Paul was a fallible man that some of the things he wrote must be fallible, too. The underlying assumption is that 1. God is infallible but has allowed his perfect word to be corrupted. 2. God is fallible. or 3. That God had nothing to do with writing the bible, or doesn't exist. The bible itself makes the claim that it is "God breathed". The bible also makes the claim that God himself is incapable of error. If that is true then there are no mistakes even if fallible men write down what God has directed them to write. If one makes the assumption that somehow fallible men "garbled" the transmission of what God has said, then you have to conclude the entire bible is irrelevant since all men and women are fallible. It returns men and women to the point of moral relativity, since we cannot know what parts of the bible are actually true, and which ones are not. Parts that seem right to us are the ones we pick and choose, and then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard what is offensive. There no longer is any real morality since we can just dismiss away what we don't want by saying "Fallible men wrote that". Jesus said clearly that he and the Father are one. Jesus has the full authority of the father and speaks with that authority. He transferred that same authority to his apostles " Whoever receives you receives me, whoever receives me receives the father." The apostle Paul was clearly ratified as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. The other Apostles ratified him as well as Jesus himself with Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus. The Apostle Paul speaks to us with the same authority as Jesus himself {God the Son}, God the father, and God the Holy Spirit. The other suggestions that only certain letters were included "by decree" shows a lack of understanding of history and how the early church fathers integrated God's word into the bible we have today. All the books of the New Testament were "measured" against the "Canon" of scripture and there were no dictators deciding haphazardly which books to keep or dismiss. One has to ask the question " What moral authority do you have RCV and Nicholas to say that homosexuality is ok?" if in fact the bible is not the perfect completed word of God, then where are you getting your morality from?

Bumpity bump.

shadow_man| 1.14.11 @ 3:38AM

Sorry, but i proved you wrong already :) And you couldn't refute a single point i made which proves that homosexuality is not a sin.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:38PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

Devin| 1.13.11 @ 7:16PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.14.11 @ 12:50PM

Conflating world numbers with the CDC's number on the USA.

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.
MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.
MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

Devin| 1.14.11 @ 12:40PM

That's pretty rich of you to accuse others of taking stats out of context. It's straight up from CDC. You also fail to note the role that scarification, resuse of needles, and unsafe blood transfusions play / played in spreading the infection among the heterosexual population...

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

As for the other statistics, you do know how to find the CDC, right?

Devin| 1.14.11 @ 1:38PM

"70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm
Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol."

There is a difference between lying and being mistaken... But, alas, in response to your 70% in Africa figure....

http://www.contraception.fr/annexes/std162stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:04AM

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:05AM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:05AM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:39PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:06AM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:39PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:06AM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:39PM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shaodow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:07AM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Leopold| 1.18.11 @ 11:22PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:07AM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:07AM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:07AM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

shadow_man| 1.16.11 @ 9:07AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 10:56PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 1:04PM

http://www.contraception.fr/an.....2stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 1:05PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 1:06PM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

1) Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

2) MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

3) White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

4) MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

Devin| 1.18.11 @ 1:11PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^| 1.19.11 @ 12:10AM

^_^

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:38PM

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:38PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:39PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:29AM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:39PM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:29AM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:39PM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:28AM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:30AM

You could at least give Derrick Sherwin Bailey and Peter J. Gomes credit since you have been using their arguments.....

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:40PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:40PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:40PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:41PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:27AM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

1) Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

2) MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

3) White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

4) MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

shadow_man| 1.19.11 @ 8:41PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:22AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Nicholas| 1.21.11 @ 4:34PM

Not giving up yet, Brother?

Nicholas| 1.23.11 @ 6:21PM

Well, you did. At last. Peace be with you.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 8:34AM

Don't worry, Nicholas. He'll be back. It's what trolls are all about....

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:49PM

Don't be mad your trolling has failed miserably :D

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 11:49AM

As has your tolling, love.... As for mad, who's mad? I am getting loads of entertainment value off of all this....

Nicholas| 1.26.11 @ 1:15PM

Brothers, aren't we a little too old for this kind of antics?
You guys be good. I'm outta here.

Peace be with you.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:23AM

http://www.contraception.fr/an.....2stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:24AM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.25.11 @ 7:25AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Leopold| 1.25.11 @ 1:15PM

Shadow man, shadow man,
Does whatever a shadow can,
To spin a web,
To tell a lie,
To do what he can to make a bad argument fly,
Look out!

Here comes a shadow man....

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:49PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:50PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:50PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:50PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

NavyBrat| 1.26.11 @ 2:11PM

Funny, "the scholarship of modern science" says, in overwhelming fashion, that the homosexual lifestyle is one of the more dangerous lifestyles that one can engage in.

And I guess those "men from an ancient tribal mentality" finally figured out that you don't play "hide the salami" with your buddy of the same sex or your favorite goat. You "educated" people still seem to have not gotten the memo that one's rectum/anus is a ONE WAY STREET, no matter how "hard" you "push against" that PHYSICAL, SCIENTIFIC fact.

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:50PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

NavyBrat| 1.26.11 @ 2:12PM

Funny, "the scholarship of modern science" says, in overwhelming fashio, that the homosexual lifestyle is one of the more dangerous lifestyles that one can engage in.

And I guess those "men from an ancient tribal mentality" finally figured out that you don't play "hide the salami" with your buddy of the same sex or your favorite goat. You "educated" people still seem to have not gotten the memo that one's rectum/anus is a ONE WAY STREET, no matter how "hard" you "push against" that PHYSICAL, SCIENTIFIC fact.

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:50PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:51PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Margie| 1.26.11 @ 2:17PM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

Exodus International| 1.26.11 @ 2:25PM

The truth will set you free.

Exodus International

http://exodusinternational.org/

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:51PM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

Exodus International| 1.26.11 @ 2:24PM

The truth will set you free.

Exodus International

http://exodusinternational.org/

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:51PM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

NavyBrat| 1.26.11 @ 2:14PM

Homosexuality is not a sin.

True enough. But homosexual acts are sinful, my dear misguided Rabbinical student....

shadow_man| 1.25.11 @ 10:51PM

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

Exodus International| 1.26.11 @ 2:21PM

The truth will set you free.

http://exodusinternational.org/

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 11:51AM

http://www.contraception.fr/an.....2stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 11:51AM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 11:52AM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

1) Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

2) MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

3) White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

4) MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 11:54AM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Exodus International| 1.26.11 @ 2:20PM

The truth will set you free.

http://exodusinternational.org/

NavyBrat| 1.26.11 @ 3:18PM

My my shadow boy, you sure do get around....

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.....ment-69930

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:39PM

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

Lies and Legends| 1.26.11 @ 7:47PM

So many lies.... Lies, lies, and more lies....

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:40PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:40PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:41PM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:40PM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:41PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:41PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:42PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:42PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Nicholas| 1.26.11 @ 7:51PM

From the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:

“Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. . . . [R]ecurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."

Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_00.....s/live/Top Ten Gay Men.pdf

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 5:42PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:41PM

What the heck happened to you? I have been waiting like all day....

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:54PM

From the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:

“Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. . . . [R]ecurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."

Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_00.....s/live/Top Ten Gay Men.pdf

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:41PM

http://www.contraception.fr/an.....2stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:42PM

The U.S. Government identified homosexuals as the highest risk cohort for STIs like HIV/AIDS. At the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference , the CDC reported that AIDS is fifty times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations.

Ronald Stall, a leading AIDS researcher stated that while it may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today, there are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse (also called a syndemic).

The other four other epidemics?
1) substance abuse
2) partner violence
3) depression
4) childhood sexual abuse.

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:43PM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

1) Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

2) MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

3) White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

4) MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

shadow_man| 1.26.11 @ 7:44PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

Devin| 1.26.11 @ 7:45PM

Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:05PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of pro gay trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything) that disproves their point and selectively quoting / highlighting evidence that purports to prove their point.

Other troll behavior includes: twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or simply copying and pasting the same posts ad nauseum (shadow man is excellent at this), or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise.

They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro truth side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for the truth.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:06PM

lol! Using my name are we :D Desperate troll is desperate!

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:06PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:06PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:06PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:07PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:07PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:07PM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:07PM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:08PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:08PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 1.27.11 @ 11:08PM

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

Devin| 1.31.11 @ 12:35PM

From the CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....ts/us.htm:

1) Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

2) MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

3) White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

4) MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

Devin| 1.31.11 @ 1:20PM

http://www.contraception.fr/an.....2stats.pdf
"A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed. In view of the toll that HIV continues to extract in Africa, a broadened epidemiologic agenda, including new efforts to assess the contribution of sex to transmission, and investigation of other potential sources for HIV propagation, appears warranted."

shadow_man| 2.1.11 @ 8:50AM

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

Devin| 1.31.11 @ 1:21PM

This wasn't my contribution, but I checked it out and it looks to be real.

From the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:

“Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. . . . [R]ecurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."

Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_00.....s/live/Top Ten Gay Men.pdf

shadow_man| 2.2.11 @ 12:44PM

You forgot to acknowledge these facts :)

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

shadow_man| 2.1.11 @ 8:49AM

bwahahahaha! Why did devon's posts get erased? FAil troll is fail!

Devin| 2.1.11 @ 3:24PM

Looks like all of your porn links got removed. And probably the comments to which you attached them. Clever. Clever indeed.

shadow_man| 2.2.11 @ 12:43PM

What porn links? Lol, making up more stuff i see :D Your trolling continues to fail so miserably ^_^

Devin| 2.2.11 @ 2:16PM

You are giving me mucho entertainment. Also noticed you have published the same material in mutliple venues. You are a simple propagandist. Nothing more. Your trolling has failed....

I do wish you could come up with something more witty though... You are starting to become (slightly) boring....

shadow_man| 2.3.11 @ 1:22PM

Why thank for you telling me i'm entertaining and good at busting bad troll ^_^ But i already knew that :D

Devin| 2.4.11 @ 11:12AM

You are quite welcome. It takes a good troll to bust a bad one....

You are pretty good though. But I did notice that you have posted the same items elsewhere that you posted here. I was kind of hoping for new information thpugh.

shadow_man| 2.4.11 @ 3:02PM

That's nice :D But your trolling continues to fail so miserably ^_^

Yawn| 2.4.11 @ 4:59PM

What a snooze....

shadow_man| 2.6.11 @ 6:05AM

That's even nicer! But your trolling continues to fail so miserably :D

Devin| 2.1.11 @ 11:31AM

Interesting... Got a little cyber war going on, eh?

shadow_devin| 2.3.11 @ 8:29PM

Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.

I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.Well said Shadow Man, well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.
I couldn't have said it any better if I tried.

shadow_man| 2.4.11 @ 3:02PM

Getting desperate to incite anger are we!

Devinman| 2.3.11 @ 8:33PM

Gertrude Stein, leave that body!

Devin| 2.4.11 @ 5:08PM

I already won troll boy.... Long ago. You will fail to incite anger, but keep trying. I am laughing at you and your pathetic attempts....

shadow_man| 2.7.11 @ 12:51PM

To win as a troll, you have to incite anger. Since you failed to do that, your trolling has failed so miserably :D

Devin| 2.4.11 @ 5:09PM

This wasn't my contribution, but I checked it out and it looks to be real.

From the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:

“Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. . . . [R]ecurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."

Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_00.....s/live/Top Ten Gay Men.pdf

DeeplyBored| 2.5.11 @ 4:44PM

Are we done, now?

shadow_man| 2.6.11 @ 6:05AM

Nah. I like watching your trolling fail so miserably ^_^

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:54PM

Scrolling up, there seems to be a lot of trolling, but let me show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

^_^

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:54PM

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co....._Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

***.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:54PM

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

Since some people above were pulling Romans out of context, let's also examine that.

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.
It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

And finally, people take leviticus out of context.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

As an example, let's examine corinthians, and show why the anti-gay interpretation is simply laughable.

Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.

Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:55PM

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

shadow_man| 2.13.11 @ 6:56PM

I know mr.troll is watching ^_^ Let's see how long it takes for him to come out so we can watch his trolling continue to fail so miserably!

Devin| 2.16.11 @ 7:18PM

From the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:

“Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. . . . [R]ecurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."

Victor M. B. Silenzio, “Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider” (San Francisco: Gay & Lesbian Medical Association); accessed April 1, 2010; online at: http://www.glma.org/_data/n_00.....s/live/Top Ten Gay Men.pdf

shadow_man| 2.17.11 @ 12:38PM

Bwahahahaha, i knew i could get you to come back :)

Ahhhhh...taking AIDS statistics out of context now are we. The majority of the worlds AIDS is among African heterosexuals:

More on the origins of AIDS/HIV in Africa
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/origins.htm

(Replace *** with www)
***.rebirth.co.za/AIDS_in_Africa_1.htm

majority of AIDS in africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
"Many deaths are people who are their family's primary wage earners."

(Replace *** with www)
***.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html
***.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1394113/posts
60% pregnant woman have aids africa

"By 1999 the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 22.4%."
"hiv among pregnant women"
(Replace *** with www)
***.avert.org/safricastats.htm
***.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
***.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIW worldwide. AIDS among children is transferred by mothers.

Helping women and girls in many parts of Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the AIDS epidemic is aggravated by social and economic inequalitities between men and women.

heterosexual contact

70% aids comes from heterosexuals
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

Looks like you got caught straight up lying, lol.

As for your other statistics, where is the proof?

Stephanie| 2.20.11 @ 9:41PM

....

Stephanie| 2.25.11 @ 8:12PM

Well, they're done. At last.

Christian Louboutin| 6.23.11 @ 6:00AM

Religious liberals in the United States have accused U.S. evangelicals of "exporting the culture wars" to Africa by preaching conservative cultural norms.

Adidas| 8.11.11 @ 6:07AM

is good

العاب بنات| 4.10.12 @ 12:35PM

I don't believe in magic. Your imaginary friend's fairy tales are not more valuable than my senses nor my capacity to collect and interpret real information.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Articles by Jeff Walton

More Articles From Special Report

Follow Me

May 25, 2012 | Jay D. Homnick

Big Party in a Desert

May 24, 2012 | Oskar Svadkovsky

Nobody Pushed Tyler Clementi

May 23, 2012 | Ross Kaminsky

So Much For Human Rights

May 21, 2012 | Peter Hannaford

A Military Mother's Day

May 17, 2012 | Anne Jolis

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/03/is-the-us-government-promoting

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker|51 comments

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer|68 comments

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi|110 comments

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch|36 comments

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley|142 comments

Terrorism à la Carte

George H. Wittman|25 comments

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick|107 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day

Aaron Goldstein | 5.26.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Regarding America's 21st-Century Population Edge

Reid Smith | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference

Jeffrey Lord | 5.25.12

Bradley Prize Winner Meese's Originalism Should Figure in 2012 Race

Kevin Mooney | 5.25.12

My op-ed on Ravi/Clementi

Ross Kaminsky | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

Rep. Paul Ryan

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

The Millennial Perspective

David N. Bass

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

Greg Sowards Battles Queen RINO

Jeffrey Lord | 5.24.12

We Have To Do Something

Ben Stein | 5.24.12

The Problem With High-Mileage Cars

Eric Peters | 5.24.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2012, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.