Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't even benefit gays

I will be the first to accept that homosexual people have suffered discrimination and sometimes worse through the decades and that the churches have, at times, been complicit in this. There is much penance to be done before we can look our homosexual brothers and sisters in the eye. But that baleful history does not diminish the need to speak the truth in love.

I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all. But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same.

Continue reading at www.guardian.co.uk

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

ajfrench

I think too many people misuse the term of love. It is not love to be wishy washy on matters for which unrepentence would mean the loss of that persons soul to eternal damnation. That's just trying to not be offensive in your own favor. It's a pathetic bailout and what Christ calls lukewarm.
- Johnny C. Love
  
  Amen!
- jammer444
  
  I agree that we have a duty to show the gospel to everyone..and it is up to the individual as to whether they want to accept Christ as their personal savior, or not. We cannot FORCE someone to save themselves, but we MUST try.
  THAT being said, I personally know quite a few gay and lesbian folks, who are kind, good natured and loving . They do not see that they are doing anwthing wrong, because OUR SOCIETY has given them a free pass to sin, by calling it "normal" and "healthy". It is anything but…
  In the end times, sin will be called good, and good be called sin…….
  - Myrtle
    
    We are in these "end time" We are calling evil good and good evil. If we speak up and stand up for the WORD OF GOD we are called ugly names. Just to teach GOD'S WORD we are accused of trying to force our opinions on others. HIS WORD is being twisted into things that they do not say. We have no choice if we live for HIM, we must point out evil and proclaim the good that HIS WORD teaches.
    - Mary
      
      Amen
- DEFEATOBAMAIN2012
  
  Whatever.
  Hey Gays welcome to the Marriage Tax.
- Linda F.
  
  I agree. Refusing to tell people the truth, when that truth could save their souls, is a form of hatred in God's sight.
MEG

Our government is taking the political easy way out (Democratic Party Members)! Love the sinner and hate the sin! We can't have it both ways. What is wrong with a contract between two people who want to live together??? Marriage is not the way! Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman! I don't care what religion you are you must know this is NOT the answer. If two people invest in a life together they should have a legal contract!
- Evermyrtle
  
  Right!! If we read and study HIS WORD , it tells us this very plainly. That is our main source of getting the truth of GOD.
- Lee
  
  When you take all the laws of the bible and apply them equally then you can complain about gays being married.
  Until that time just shut up! You don't want to marry another women or a man marrying another man don't do it.
  Don't attend what would probably be the best wedding you have ever attended should by some mistake you are invited.
  Until then let those of us who prefer equality of all people enjoy love in whatever form pleases us.
  Our religion does NOT prohibit same sex marriage and everything is just fine.
  - Sandy
    
    Are you kidding me? Even BARNEY FRANK the top gay man in the halls of Congress does not want these kind of people (including our current man in the white house) at his wedding!!! He says that they are a bunch of losers looking for an easy score… and he has come out and said Don't even think you are coming to my wedding party… That has got to say something for what this truely is… At least to some of us.
David

I used to feel that way, but over the years I've learned that what other people do, is none of my damn business.
- John J Flanagan
  
  David, that is an unChristian approach. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus have said to anyone, "What other people do is none of my damn business.?" No. He would never say such a thing. It is not about condemning other people on a personal level, but we certainly must stand for something, lest we stand for nothing. You have a very clear choice, the same choice of Christians through the ages, you must contend in a civil and peaceful way for the truth, safeguard the principles and convictions our Lord gave us, and be about warning the wicked. This is your calling if you are a Christian, and you must be prepared to be called a hypocrite and other nasty names by our deviant and fallen culture.
  - Lee
    
    You are way off base. All you are is an obvious homophobe and bigot. Ought to look into why you are so envious of the gay culture. Afterall jesus hung out with men…bet he too was gay.
    - Sandy
      
      Lee, I feel really sorry for you. I pray that you will someday experince Jesus, Holy Spirit, and Father God in a deep way some day because He died for you 2.
  - Sandy
    
    I beleive that Jesus would have gone to them and offered them some hope and forgiveness (He has done it with the woman at the well, and He has done it with a few others in scripture and His final words to them have always been the same those words are "Go and sin no more" and to the self righteous leaders of the land He called them what they were and mixed no words about it. "You den of vipers." Jesus called sin out.. He made no bones about it. And we are to do the same. We are not to make light of it or anything else. The only reason sexual sin(any sexual activity outside the bonds of 1 man 1 woman marriage this includes quite a bit of things) is an issue is simply this. If our bodies are the temple of Christ and we carry on doing sexual sin it grieves the Father and sooner or later He will leave because God and sin can not live in the same house. That truth is just as strong today as it was 2000 years ago. So… that being said, we as beleivers are to confront sin and be prepared to pay the cost of carrying our cross.
David

If their souls are condemned to eternal damnation, it was their choice to make, not yours.
- ajfrench
  
  What a stupid comment; also not conceived in love. If you knew your boyfriend was going to kill himself, wouldn't you try to stop him? If not, then you didn't love him.
- ajfrench
  
  And yes you do have a responsibility. Jesus said if you see another man sin and you don't warn him, you are guilty. I take that seriously. I'm not looking for kudos, my responsibility is to work at bringing about Gods kingdom on earth; as it is in heaven. Too many Christians read too little scripture and the become blind leaders.
- Chief
  
  David: If I interprit the scriptures correctly it is opur responsibility to attempt to change that which is against Gods law then if they will not listen at that point it will not be held against us however if we make no attempt at informing thin it will be on our heads.That is the way I read it which may or may not be correct.
- Evermyrtle
  
  While your are right, we are responsible for what we do to earn damnation. It is Christians duty, to help these who are not living for GOD, to make sincere efforts to show them the truth. If we do not do that , that will be counted against us and can help to pave our way to the same place. It sort of like a blind person about to step in from a moving vehicle, if we don't try to stop him, we are responsive for that decision, we are guilty of the result of whatever occurs.,
  - msjallen
    
    Actually, it is what people don't do that leads them to damnation: not believing in Jesus Christ as their Savior is the only unpardonable sin. John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
- edcrandall
  
  James 4:17 "to him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin."
- keyboardshark
  
  "8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
  
  9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."
  Ezekiel 33:8-9
- lee
  
  That is your opinion. Only homophobes seem to be able to condem good people who should have equality and the same rights you do.
Tim

If gay&lesbian lifestyles were "normal", why aren't the animals & birds etc,etc, pairing up in gay life styles? It's because it's not natural !!
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. Any homosexual behavior you care to name – anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.
  http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
  - Evermyrtle
    
    Animals do not have a conscience, I believe. Humans supposedly have common sense, and have the power of thought to know right from wrong. We should study and learn what is good for us and dot those things. The very best source is the HOLY BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD. IT WILL NOT LEAD YOU ASTRAY. IT SPEAKS THE TRUTH, ALWAYS AND COMES STRAIGHT FROM GOD THROUGH HIS PROPHETS.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Tim stated that animals do not engage in same sex behaviors. He is wrong.
- msjallen
  
  I've heard it said only humans mate face to face; animals do not.
  - Evermyrtle
    
    msjallen, this is not a comment that I would ever have expected out of you. THIS IS A SURPRISE!!!
  - laura
    
    Check it out there are not the only ones who mate face to face. In fact most humans prefer having sex doggy stylr.
    - Mark
      
      Laura-
      What are you doing Thursday?
      - Mary
        
        Sorry but I will be attending a dinner for my girlfriend who is getting married on Saturday.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    You may have heard it, but that does not make it accurate.
    
    Black spider monkeys mate face to face, as do gibbons, bonobos, orangutans, capuchins and a few other primate species. http://www.szgdocent.org/pp/p-spdr.htm
    
    Hihi are the only birds known to sometimes mate face to face. http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-an…
    
    Beavers and hamsters will, on occasion, mate face to face. http://www.eros-lasvegas.com/articles/2004-05-18/…
- robert
  
  Did you mean to intentionally post that statement? How stupid can you be.
  Homosexuality can be found in everything animal, fowl and in simple cells. Get out something and read about all mammals.
blackhawk

Being gay is the unfortunate inserting of a mutated gene during the birthing process. Gays really can't help it . Yes ; They were really born that way but , by any sense of the imagination , it is not normal.
If their goal is to be given all the rights thru a civil ceremony ;That's OK with me ,however it's not just that. They want to stubbornly insist on using the word marriage . Marriage is a Sacrament given to the Churches by God and their inclusion into the inclusion of God's sacrament will forever defile it.
Gays ; Get your protection and rights and forget about infringing on the rights of the Churches and their right to honor God and procreate and stop the agitators who will forever stop the getting of all the rights.
- ajfrench
  
  So you have partaken of the Koolaid. This is a lie perpetrated on humanity by two gay scientists who wanted to make a viable excuse for their disobedience; just like the green issue is a lie to force us to pay taxes to the UN. Just another level of government we cannot afford and which are un-godly to their core.
- petroskhan1262
  
  Care to cite a substantiated source for the "gay gene" theory that does not rely on the work of a gay scientist?
- Evermyrtle
  
  That is like saying that I can't help but kill you if you make me mad. Tell that to the Sheriff that comes to pick me up. He makes me so mad, while questioning me, that I slap him because I can't help it, and see if he will let me go. We are all tempted in various ways, this does not make it right, to do what we are tempted to. We do it because that is what we want to do!!!
  
  Talk about irrational excuses, see if you can come up with a better one, because that simply will not cut is!!
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    You analogy is absurd. Killing someone hurts the individual. There are laws against hurting people. That is also why rape, arson and theft are illegal. However, two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sexual activity are not hurting anyone.
    - keyboardshark
      
      Jeff says: "However, two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sexual activity are not hurting anyone."
      
      That might be true in many cases, if they just left it at that. Initially, homosexual lobbyist groups said, "All we want is to be left alone." Then, a few years later, they said, "We just want our lifestyle to be accepted."
      
      Not long after that it was, "We want our lifestyle to be legally recognized as a civil union." And finally it went all the way to, "We want nothing less than marriage," which, since creation, has been defined and accepted as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
      
      Now, in England at least, they are demanding that churches be "compelled" to do that which is contrary to their deeply held convictions. They demand that we teach children to uphold homosexuality as a virtue. We are watching the breathtaking success of homosexual lobbyists as they intimidate well-known evangelical mega-church pastors into apologizing for their former, but now defunct, biblical conviction on the issue.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        If they had been left alone from the start, they may have been willing to leave it at that. However, they have never enjoyed that option.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "If they had been left alone from the start, they may have been willing to leave it at that. However, they have never enjoyed that option."
        
        And now they have 'progressed' to the point that they badger heterosexuals. Guess they haven't learned much…
      - laura
        
        The truth will be told from many sources. This is only one of the social implications and the 'creating' of homosexuals.
        If the god created all human form in his likeness why then should we hate all the gays and lesbians.
        Were they not created by the god?
        This is not a new story. There have been homosexuals since the beginning of time both amongst humanoids and other animals.
      - msjallen
        
        There is no balance when it comes to the Word of God. If God says homosexuality is a sin then He didn’t make them that way since God is perfect. It is one’s own sin nature that causes us to sin and make the wrong decisions in life especially when we don’t know what God’s Word says or we chose to ignore it. When the homosexual lifestyle is called an abomination or sin in the Bible it means it can be overcome just like any other sin through learning what the Word of God says and applying it to one’s life. I personally knew two guys who did change their lifestyle of homosexuality after learning what God’s Word said about it. Geneses 19:5-8, Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, Jude 7, 1Tim:9-10, & Romans 1:26-27
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no balance with the "word" of god. It says anything people want to hear.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        You are irrational Dixon and you keep on repeating your moronic proclamations to keep a lid on your hole you are rotting in.
      - Mary
        
        Two homosexuals engaging in their lust for one another are hurting themselves, the families that love them, and more importantly offending their Creator.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You do not know that they are hurting themselves. Besides it is no different that a husband and wife engaging in anal sex, which happens. You do not know that their families are hurt, you merely assume they are. Many families are fine with their gay children and their partners. Even if they are not, the family is not hurt. They are just upset. Many families get upset with their heterosexual children as well.
        
        However, the last item is the most humorous one. You have no proof this god of yours even exists.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "You do not know that they are hurting themselves."
        
        But they are.
        
        "PHILADELPHIA, Apr. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years!
        
        So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.
        
        "What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.
        
        According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.
        
        In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yr., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
        
        In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yr. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yr. compared to 56 yr. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.
        
        "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."" http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/180062680.h…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Besides it is no different that a husband and wife engaging in anal sex, which happens."
        
        Anal sex is not good for heterosexuals or homosexuals. (Caution: May be offensive!)
        
        "The internal anal sphincter (an involuntary muscle) does not look favorably upon foreign objects attempting to enter the rectum. This muscle relaxes during defecation, but remains in a contracted state otherwise, which seals the anal opening.
        
        For a period following receptive anal sex, the internal anal sphincter is stretched and is unable to contract strongly, thereby failing to completely seal the anal opening until the muscle regains its original tone. Repetitive anal sex, especially with large penises or rectal insertions of large objects may damage the internal anal sphincter, thereby preventing complete sealing of the anus, and leading to fecal mucus seepage (anal or fecal incontinence). Additionally, anal sex exacerbates fecal seepage by stimulating colonic motility, which sends feces from the colon down into the lower rectum. (6)
        
        The soiling of clothes from fecal seepage is a problem for many homosexuals. Goldstone mentioned a study where 25% of homosexuals that practiced anoreceptive intercourse and 50% of AIDS-afflicted homosexuals had anal incontinence compared to a 3% rate among heterosexual men. (6) Miles et al. compared 40 male homosexuals (all practiced anoreceptive sex) with 18 male heterosexuals. (7) Only one heterosexual but 14 (35%) homosexuals had frequent anal incontinence. (7)
        
        TO READ THE REST (it's rather gross): <a href="http://doesgodexist.multiply.com/journal/item/76" target="_blank">http://doesgodexist.multiply.com/journal/item/76
      - keyboardshark
        
        Homosexuals are also subject to many diseases and other conditions as a result of their lifestyle which harm or kill them:
        
        "In a nutshell, “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men:
        Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies);
        
        Enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus);
        
        Trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient);
        
        And the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).” (28)" http://doesgodexist.multiply.com/journal/item/76
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You are concerned about gay people. What about black people?
        
        The 2010 CDC report shows blacks are eight times more likely to get HIV than whites, meaning that 1 in 22 black Americans will be diagnosed with the AIDS virus in their lifetime. Black people are way more likely to get the virus that causes AIDS than Caucasians, Hispanics or Asians.
        http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/10/15/blacks-8-ti…
        
        Sickle cell anemia is a hereditary disorder that mostly affects people of African ancestry, but also occurs in other ethnic groups, including people who are of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent. More than 70,000 Americans have sickle cell anemia. And about 2 million Americans – and one in 12 African Americans – have sickle cell trait (this means they carry one gene for the disease, but do not have the disease itself).
        http://www.themedicalquestions.com/ge/0R350204201…
        
        Blacks who smoke up to a pack a day are far more likely than whites who smoke similar amounts to develop lung cancer, suggesting genes may help explain the racial differences long seen in the disease, researchers say.
        The largest study ever done on the subject also found that Hispanic and Asian smokers were less likely than black smokers to develop the disease — at least up to a point. The racial differences disappeared among heavy smokers, or those who puffed more than a pack and a half per day.
        The study involved more than 180,000 people, more than half of them minorities. Patients filled out questionnaires about their smoking habits, diet and other personal information.
        Researchers from USC and University of Hawaii analyzed lung cancer cases over an eight-year period. After adjusting for diet, education and other factors, the researchers found that whites who smoked up to a pack a day had a 43% to 55% lower risk of lung cancer than blacks who smoked the same amount. Hispanics and Japanese-Americans were 60% to 80% less likely than blacks to develop the disease. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-01-25-et…
        
        A new Alzheimer's report shows African Americans are two times more likely to develop Alzheimer's than whites.
        
        And Hispanics are one and a half times more likely to develop the disease.
        http://www.thegrio.com/health/alzheimers-effects-…
      - evermyrtle
        
        Sickle cell disease has nothing to do with sexual behavior. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Why bring it up as if it were connected to behavior of any kind. It is true that mostly black people are plagued with it and if there were anything that can be done about they would do it.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Sure it does. If black people did not have sex, there would not be more black people with the disease. Now, sex does not cause the disease. However, sex does not always cause AID's to get passed on. People can get it from blood transfusions and shared needles. Babies can get it from their mother. You know, like black babies can get sickle cell from their parents.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "You are concerned about gay people. What about black people? "
        
        Being black is an inborn hereditary characteristic of the pigmentation of the skin. Being homosexual is an immoral choice. The two are not comparable.
        
        Here is typically why one becomes a homosexual. It is environmental rather than hereditary:
        
        "In his first chapter, "Answering the Basics," Haley quotes the Nicolosi's on the issue of gender nonconformity in young boys and girls as the single most common factor associated with the future development of a same-sex attraction.
        
        Later, in Chapter 5, "Answers for Men," he quotes Dr. Nicolosi's analysis of what happens when a young boy fails to identify with the masculinity of his father and begins to identify with the femininity in his mother. Eventually, this disidentification with the masculine becomes eroticized and homosexual behavior is often the result.
        
        Mike Haley spent 12 years living the gay lifestyle and experienced what, for many homosexual males, is a typical story. He had a strained relationship with his father and began looking for adult male affirmation from other men. The relationship he found eventually turned into a sexual encounter at 11 years of age." http://narth.com/docs/questions.html
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You do not know that being homosexual is not hereditary. You merely hope it is not.
      - keyboardshark
        
        There is no evidence that it is hereditary. See my replies below to blackhawk and Laura 1 day ago where I presented a discussion on that topic.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
        
        The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
        
        A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
        
        In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.
        http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct…
      - Dionesius3
        
        More "fecund", or fruitful, than average….
        I find that women, are never "average" and I have studied well over 2000 of them extensively. And their genitic make up was well known.
        
        This study you cite is a joke, at best and junk-science at worst.
        Go read a little more for goodness sake…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average."
        
        And I'll bet that "some" female relatives of heterosexual men also tend to have more children than average. The statistic is meaningless.
        
        "Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill. "
        
        So in other words, they curve-fit their 'solution' to a non-existent problem. You cannot start with a collection of "models" and then work your way backwards to find one that fits a certain situation. That is not the way legitimate research is conducted.
      - Dionesius3
        
        Life expectancy of the homosexual male 38.3 years. According to ALL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES ON EARTH.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        And those gerbils don't help…
      - Mary
        
        What a fool you are. They hurt no one. What does it matter to you? Some of our best doctors, teachers, politicians, lawyers, scientists and in general mothers and fathers are gay and lesbians.
        Live, love, laugh, and enjoy life and stay out of the way of those who are free to live their own ways.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      Did I say something about "not hurting??" I was talking about the lame excuse,"gays can't help it!" How ridiculous!
      If you can't curb your desires, you are in big trouble!!! Might be sex, greed, anger, spite, ignorance,hate and anything that controls you.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        They are driven by the same sexual urges that heterosexuals have. However, their desire is for the same sex instead of the opposite sex.
        
        You are demanding that everyone one of them never have sex. Given how strong the sex drive is in humans, that is absurd.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        '…their desire is for the same sex instead of the opposite sex. "
        
        That is a lie that does not square up with reality and facts. Heterosexuals do not have hundreds and hundreds of sex partners as for example homosexuals in Australia do when they hit their fifties. Also heterosexuals do not live 11 to 21 years shorter on average due to their sexual behavior ramifications as homosexuals do.
      - laura
        
        Do you have to lie in a weak attempt to prove your point. What you have stated proves nothing and in fact is the exact opposite of the truth.
      - keyboardshark
        
        laura says: "What you have stated proves nothing and in fact is the exact opposite of the truth."
        In response to Des who said: "Heterosexuals do not have hundreds and hundreds of sex partners as for example homosexuals in Australia do when they hit their fifties."
        
        I can back Des up on this one:
        
        "Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
        
        · The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
        
        · Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
        
        · In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
        
        · A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        : ) I do not have to lie. You have to lie about me to suppress the truth. The research is out there look it up.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, you are not only a deluded loon, you are one of the most egocentric blowhards I have ever met.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        When you not plagiarizer others from internet you can only rant your ad hominems…
        How pitiful you are Dixon and how ruthlessly deceived.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        "plagiarizing" for "plagiarizer"
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Does not change the reality that you are delusional or a blowhard.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        You and reality are enemies so stop that silliness.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no silliness involved. I am merely pointing out that you are delusional and a blowhard. Which you are.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        What you "merely" do is repeating your superficial, content deprived irrational assertions and name calling for unfortunately that is all you can do apart of plagiarizing some other irrational, superficial under educated neophyte off the net.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I do repeat myself at times. It is often the best way to convey information to the uneducated.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Obviously it does not work. You need to tape it and sleep with headphones on…
      - Dionesius3
        
        I worked for many years as a "bean-counter" in the life insurance industry. The fact is a Homosexual male has a life expectancy of 38.3 years. A figure that has been researched since the mid 1960's by insurance companies. It has dropped consistently every year since they began studying the subgroup. Insurance companys list homosexuality as THE HIGHEST risk group on the earth at this time.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Conditions that could possibly make you "uninsurable"
        
        Abdominal aortic aneurysm (within past 6 months)
        Alcoholism treatment (past 2 years, using or used in the last year)
        Alzheimer's disease/dementia (at any time)
        Bankruptcy (not discharged)
        Cancer treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy (present)
        Cirrhosis of the liver (at any time)
        Illegal drug use other than marijuana (within 3 years)
        DUI/DWI (several, within 5 years)
        Gastric/intestinal bypass (within 1 year)
        Heart attack (within 6 months)
        Heart bypass surgery (within 3 months)
        HIV positive (at any time)
        Kidney failure/disease, on dialysis (present)
        Lung disorder, on oxygen (present)
        Mental disorder requiring hospitalization (within 1 year)
        Organ transplant pending or received (within 1 year)
        Probation/parole (currently serving)
        Pregnancy with complications (currently)
        Suicide attempt (within 2 years)
        Stroke (within 1 year)
        Valve replacement (within 1 year)
        Source: Genworth Financial Life Insurance Underwriting Guide
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        What is the lie? I said that homosexuals desire same sex partners and heterosexuals desire opposite sex partners. I made no reference to the number of partners.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "However, their desire is for the same sex instead of the opposite sex. "
        
        You are confusing lust with normal desire.
        
        "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
        
        27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
        
        28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"
        Romans 1
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Are you really stating that heterosexuals do not lust after women and that many do not have multiple partners?
      - keyboardshark
        
        Of course heterosexuals are tempted to lust, but the difference is that a married man can desire his wife sexually without it being sinful. There is no provision for a male to legitimately desire sex with another man whether they try to label it a 'marriage' or not. Therefore, any sexual desire for a person of the same sex is purely lust, not to be confused with a legitimate desire for an opposite-sex partner to whom they are rightfully married in God's eyes, who created the marriage institution.
        
        That is why homosexuals want 'gay marriage'–it is an attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. They want to turn the lust of same-sex relations into something good by hijacking the legitimate marriage relationship that God has established between married partners of the opposite sex.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You continue to argue a religious perspective. Our laws are not based on religion. If there were, then barbershops and tailors would be illegal.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "You continue to argue a religious perspective."
        
        Of course I do, because marriage is an institution created by God, not man.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There was marriage before the bible or the Hebrews. It was created by man.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "There was marriage before the bible or the Hebrews."
        
        The first married couple, Adam and Eve, came way before any marriages you can document in the secular record.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Since there is zero evidence of Adam and Eve and genetics show they could not have existed, you are unable to use them as the first married couple, for they never existed.
        
        We can all argue about whether Jesus was a parthenogenetic being produced without physical insemination, and whether he became reanimated a few days after death, but getting direct evidence for those “miracles” is well-nigh impossible, and so we argue against them on the grounds of improbability. But there’s one bedrock of Abrahamic faith that is eminently testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from a single created pair—Adam and Eve—and that these individuals were not australopithecines or apelike ancestors, but humans in the modern sense. Absent their existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces.
        
        Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
        
        Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
        
        These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.
        http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/0…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Genetic Diversities: In the human immune system, one gene has more than 150 alleles (variations of the gene) in the current human population. But one couple, such as Adam and Eve, can have a maximum of only 4 alleles, and natural mutation rates would not produce 146 new alleles in 10 thousand years, or even 150 thousand years. By analyzing the diversity in these genes and others, using mathematical models for population genetics, scientists calculate that the current human population has descended from a population bottleneck (the smallest group of ancestors in our history, estimated at 10,000) that occurred about 150,000 years ago; and some of the 150 alleles in our immune systems go back to 5 million years or more.
        http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/humans….
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The evidence for the evolution of all animals on this planet is overwhelming. I recommend one read my accompanying article here. However, let's look a few concrete evidences here:
        
        Let me phrase this question differently than I have in the past. What would be proof of evolution for you? Surely you'd want transitions right? What if I can provide you evidence that's stronger than that? What kind of evidence would this be?– Genetics. Now, I won't get too deep with this cause I don't want to lose you. For some, science is drab and boring, so… I'm going to try and make this interesting. Now, we all know that when we have children, certain aspects of our parents are passed down to us. These “aspects” can be seen in your cousins as well. Since you and your cousins have the same grandfather, certain superficial characteristics are obvious to you right away, such as hair color, eye color, leg size, short/tall, nose shape etc. What if we can go deeper? We can look at the DNA now! With DNA we can now look at the contributions your ancestors (great-great-great x1000) made to give rise to you! The kicker however, is that we can see these same contributions handed down the family line in many of our ape cousins.
        What does this mean? What are they looking at? We can now match our DNA with other species of animals. These matches show us how closely related we are to them, not much different than the way we establish paternity. (Who's da baby daddy?) Critics of this evidence will say, “Well of course, this all part of God's plan, his design.” There's a major problem with this. These “aspects” as I mentioned earlier, can only be passed down via sexual reproduction. This is more than just a blueprint here. We can see the ac*****ulation of genetic material overtime and we share many of these genetic markers with the great apes and New World monkeys.
        http://www.infidelguy.com/article608.html
      - Vrae
        
        Jeff says:
        "We can now match our DNA with other species of animals. These matches show us how closely related we are to them, not much different than the way we establish paternity. (Who's da baby daddy?)"
        
        Is this the "We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees" thing?
        Actually, that was refuted by Science magazine in June 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1836.s…
        
        Also, "The 99% statistic is based on comparing a mere 97 genes between respective genomes. The human genome contains about 20,000 genes. Therefore, 97 genes represent only about 0.5% of our entire genome"
        - Second footnote of http://creation.com/another-evolutionary-truth-no…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The source you use either does not understand the information presented or is purposefully misrepresenting it. When scientists are discussing the similarities they are referring to the genomes at protein-coding loci. And those are less than 2% different.
        
        You would be better served reading actual science material instead of relying on Creationist propaganda sites.
      - Vrae
        
        (This wouldn't fit into my previous post)
        
        Jeff also says: "Critics of this evidence will say, “Well of course, this all part of God's plan, his design.” There's a major problem with this. These “aspects” as I mentioned earlier, can only be passed down via sexual reproduction."
        
        If you assume only one of each kind was created. I think it would be perfectly possible for there to be more than one of each kind to have been created in Eden. They would mainly be procreating within their specific kind, so they would not be going to other ones to mate. The "aspects" can thus be passed on.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        That has nothing to do with what I posted. Many of the human characteristics are handed down from other primates, not just from other humans.
        
        It is also very amusing since there were supposedly only two humans in the beginning.
      - keyboardshark
        
        "An allele is one member of a pair (or any of the series) of genes occupying a specific spot on a chromosome (called locus) that controls the same trait. For example, a pair of alleles controlling the same trait, i.e. eye color: one allele codes for blue eyes, another allele for brown eyes.
        
        In humans, simple traits such as eye color may be caused by the interaction of only one pair of alleles. But for complex traits, such as height, they are usually caused by the interactions of series of alleles. Some alleles are dominant over other alleles, as in the case of heterozygous pairings (where paired alleles are different, in contrast to homozygous pairings where alleles are the same). In the above example, since the alleles code for different eye colors they are heterozygous. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Allele
        
        In other words, an allele is a group of genes that determine how a specific trait is expressed. Since there are thousands of human traits, with at least two alleles determining how those traits are expressed, it does not make any sense that one couple, including Adam and Eve, could only have 4 alleles. I think your source is confused as to what alleles actually are and how they function.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, it is obvious you are confused about the topic of alleles.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Keyboard, I have already shown Jeff what you have delineated–many months ago, to no avail. He will not consider it.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        He cannot for he is irrational schizophrenic.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I will consider it. However, if the information is wrong, I will not accept it.
      - keyboardshark
        
        If all of that fanciful account were true, it would disproved evolution. " Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago.
        
        Since it takes both a male and a female to reproduce, how could a female who supposedly lived 140,000 years ago mate with a male who lived 60,000-90,000 years ago? Obviously it would not be possible. So the explanation they offer is illogical as well:
        
        "Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. "
        
        If all the female human genes were completely 'evolved' 140,000 years ago, then how would 'she' have been able to mate with an 'incompletely evolved' male living at the same time? His genes would not have completed their 'evolution' until (as the story goes) 50,000 to 80,000 years later? They would be incompatible for reproduction.
        
        " And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty. "
        
        Well, at least they realize that the virgin birth and resurrection cannot be dismissed, but judging from their far-fetched explanation of human origins, not to mention the glaring flaws with the dating of mitochondrial DNA, neither can Adam and Eve be dismissed for what the Bible says they are–the first humans.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Key, all this shows is that you do not understand the evidence provided. Nothing I listed states that these two people mated.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Nothing I listed states that these two people mated."
        
        You didn't read far enough. I only named that as one illogical possibility, because there are only two possibilities if the DNA origins scenario was actually true.. The other possibility, was that the completely 'evolved' female would have had to mate with incompletely 'evolved' males for 50,000 to 80,000 years:
        
        "If all the female human genes were completely 'evolved' 140,000 years ago, then how would 'she' have been able to mate with an 'incompletely evolved' male living at the same time? His genes would not have completed their 'evolution' until (as the story goes) 50,000 to 80,000 years later? They would be incompatible for reproduction. "
        (Shark, 20 minutes ago)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        keyboardshark91p Says:
        Since it takes both a male and a female to reproduce, how could a female who supposedly lived 140,000 years ago mate with a male who lived 60,000-90,000 years ago?
        
        That is exactly what you said.
      - keyboardshark
        
        But I listed two possibilities, both of which are illogical.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Neither of which are mentioned or required in what I posted.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Here is what your source said:
        
        "Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago."
        
        If the genes supposedly point to a female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but the male genes on the Y chromosome supposedly point to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago, then the only assumption we can make is that the 'fully evolved' females mated with 'partially evolved' males for 50,000-80,000 years (140,000-90,000=50,000 years and 140,000-60,000=80,000 years).
        
        Not sure how else I can explain it. The other possibility, that the 'fully evolved' female and 'fully evolved' male arose and mated at the same time, does not fit the supposed scenario.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You have thrown in the red herring of the incompletely evolved male. There is no such thing as an incompletely evolved creature. Animals from slightly different species can successfully mate.
        
        The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). It is an exceleent example of similar species mating and producing fertile offspring.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
      - Dionesius3
        
        I think Jeff is a product of an incompletely evolved male MORON and an incompletely evolved female Liger. That makes him a hybrid (Panthera MORANNIS) Dumb Moron.
        
        He takes half-baked science and mixes it with silly reliance on his Public Indoctrination, oops I mean education. And he thinks anyone who does not believe in EVOLUTION is an idiot.
        
        You can't get that messed up without YEARS of Public Indoctrination (I mean education) and several more years of listening to your favorite doctors.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Most people who disagree with evolution do so on the basis of two things. Either their religious views cannot allow that point of view or they have not studied the topic,
        
        When 99% of all biological scientists in the world accept evolution, it is spitting in the wind to say it is all bunk.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Dion,
        
        You are another member of a large and growing club of people who recognized Dixon's dumbness and internet "knowledge". He is a classic internet moron.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Animals from slightly different species can successfully mate. "
        
        That may be true, but the offspring will be a hybrid of the two. The original type would be lost in future generations. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a fully-human female in your example above (140,000 years ago) mated with an inferior male (which would be all that there was at that time according to the scenario), and the result would be something less than a normal human.
        
        Then the next generation, being a hybrid, would have no 'pure' human left to mate and carry on the formerly 'completed' genetic blueprint. It would be a slightly inferior female mating with an already inferior male, because the 'normal' male in your scenario did not appear for another 50-80,000 years. By then, the formerly 'pure' female, after having mated for thousands of years with 'inferior' males, would also be 'inferior'.
        
        The scenario as stated cannot work.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There are no inferior males. That is just a red herring on your part.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "There are no inferior males."
        
        Depends on how you define "inferior". They may not have been functionally inferior in your scenario, but since it was theorized that modern humans have genes on the Y chromosome that trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago, they would not have had the full set of human genes until 50-80,000 years after the female had the full set.
        
        By the time the male in this scenario arrived who supposedly did have the full complement of modern genes, the female from 50-80,000 years earlier would no longer have been genetically the same as a result of interbreeding with the incomplete (if you prefer that word to inferior) males who supposedly existed during that time period.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff, you are an excellent example of an "inferior male." I really could not think of a better specimen for that title. What do you mean by "red herring"?
      - Vrae
        
        I have a question.
        
        Jeff says: "Nothing I listed states that these two people mated."
        
        Who would the female "mitochondrial Eve" reproduce with? Would there be anyone with a compatible number of chromosomes to mate?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course. Individual people do not evolve, populations evolve. There would also be others in her population to mate with at any time.
      - Dionesius3
        
        Whom would it be then Jeff? A spaceman? a Monkey? a Goat? If it was not eactly what Keyboard Shark was pointing out?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        As I just mentioned, it would be others in her current population.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Individual people do not evolve, populations evolve."
        
        In other words, a male and a female would have to evolve the exact same feature at exactly the same time and in the same location on earth (in order to mate), thousands upon thousands of times, over and over, if evolution were true. I wonder what the odds are……?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Sigh, no it does not mean that at all. Once again, you are confused over the process of evolution. You seem to be under the impression that once a gene mutates it is suddenly making it impossible for mating to take place. The mutations are very minor and work their way through a population over time.
        
        There can also be cases where a group becomes isolated and is no longer interacting with members of the old population. Then there can be variations that happen to one group that are not happening to the other.
      - keyboardshark
        
        I didn't mean that they would no longer be able to mate. I simply meant that if the "new" gene were to be carried forward to succeeding generations, it would have had to evolve at exactly the same time in the male and the female, and that those two members would have to be in close enough proximity to mate.
        
        Assuming it could happen, if a new trait developed in a female in N. America, and just by chance, that same trait developed in a male in Asia, the trait would not be carried forward because the two individuals would not be near enough to mate. The odds against evolution occurring simultaneously in a male and female in close proximity are staggering, even if there were a mechanism to produce new genetic information.
        
        In the case of an isolated group developing a variation that only happens to that group, I would say that is legitimate, but the only cases I have ever heard of were changes that occurred as a result of the loss of genetic information, not new genetic information.
      - Dionesius3
        
        We can dismiss the idea that you have intellectual credibility you mean. Genetics has proven nothing of the sort, and furthermore it could not disprove it.
        Your quoted "so called" authority is a third rate scientist at best and I'm not sure I would rate him that highly.
        
        Get a clue, read some real research. And stop relying on your Public Indoctrination (Education) for what you believe.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        "You continue to argue a religious perspective. "
        
        HAhahhahahaahahahaha, What he suppose to argue? Atheistic perspective? For him to do that he would have to be as irrational and as inconsistent as you are Dixon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Laws are not based on religious views, your delusional wishes aside.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        You are enchanting yourself only with your programmed mantras. It is sad to watch that, really.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I am sure you feel that way. However, what a delusional loon considers sad is meaningless.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Your rant and your life is meaningless…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        As usual, you post nonsense.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        No there is a lot of sense which you cannot grasp. In your view all you are is a bio-bag on two legs randomly bumping away through life with other bio-bags present. Meaninglessness upon meaninglessness and that is also why you are such a sad miser.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, you inability to grasp reality does not provide you any sort of knowledge about what is actually occurring.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Moronic rant from complete moron is not a substitute for anything.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Then why do you keep posting moronic statements?
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Keyboard……, you are right. It won't work, you cannot make homosexuality O K with GOD, whatever you do.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        More smelly red herrings from clueless Dod-xon
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Instead of actual evidence we get more idiotic postings. Not surprising at all.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Rant, rant, rant away Dixon. That is the only thing you can.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, I can post actual and real information from accredited sources. While you can post your delusional nonsense.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Nope, you plagiarize other morons like you although that is hard given the level of your shallowness and ignorance.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yet, I still continue to post actual information while you post delusional nonsense.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Nope you continue to post moronic nonsense or stuff that you do not know. never actually understood, never researched past 5 minute Google search. You are a victim of internet imbecility where under-educated morons like you roam and post staff which they Googled out creating a sad pretense of knowing something.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff, really your "information" is neither "actual" nor "real"–that is the truth of the matter.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Joe, you have never known or understood truth. Pretending otherwise is futile.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Hahahahahahaa What a moron.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        So says the man who believes in talking snakes and donkeys, stars that will fall to the earth and a sun that stops in the sky.
      - Dionesius3
        
        So says the man who has been so indoctrinated for so many years that he wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face. Jeff the talking Moron.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Jeff is a Dodo
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff, with all your real and factual grip on things, do you have a lot of "friends" on Farcebook?
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Really????????????????
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Really.
- keyboardshark
  
  blackhawk says: "Being gay is the unfortunate inserting of a mutated gene during the birthing process. Gays really can't help it ."
  
  "Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.
  
  The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
  
  No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
  
  How The Public Was Misled
  
  In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
  
  Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene…Normal Variation."
  
  Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
  
  In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics.
  
  Gene Linkage Studies
  
  Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
  
  a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
  b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
  
  To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
  
  In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations."
  
  TO READ THE REST: http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
  - Laura
    
    Do you really think any person would chose to be gay and live a lifestyle that is more difficult than most?
    It is genetic and we now have real evidence of that from the massive Genome project that was, after many years,
    completed.
    - keyboardshark
      
      Laura says: "It (homosexuality) is genetic and we now have real evidence of that from the massive Genome project that was, after many years, completed."
      
      The Human genome project neither proved nor disproved any genetic basis for homosexuality. It was mainly an effort to map the human genomic sequence:
      
      "Begun formally in 1990, the U.S. Human Genome Project was a 13-year effort coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. The project originally was planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the completion date to 2003. Project goals
      
      -identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA,
      -determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
      -store this information in databases,
      -improve tools for data analysis,
      -transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
      -address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project."
      http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genom…
      
      Behavioral Genetics would be the field of study that addresses this issue, but if you had followed the link I provided in my reply above, they covered this topic. For your convenience, I will include a few more excerpts with the link again:
      
      "Gene Linkage Studies
      
      Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
      
      a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
      b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
      
      To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
      
      In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
      
      Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
      
      But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
      
      Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}
      
      Homosexual Twin Studies
      
      Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
      
      But two other genetic researchers–one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard–comment:
      
      While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
      The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
      
      … the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}
      
      More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
      
      Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
      
      "Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
      
      "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
      But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
      
      …the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
      Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
      
      It is not possible to know what the findings mean–if anything–since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
      
      LINK: http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
    - Dionesius3
      
      Proof of what? the complete lack of brain matter in your head Laura?
      
      Why don't you read up on some REAL scientific research on the issue and learn HOW silly your last statement is.
      
      YES I do think every gay person on the PLANET chose to be gay. Some had abuse as children that contributed to the isssue, some had other psycological issues that contributed. But ALL are living the lifestyle because they want to.
      Having a desire within me does not mean I HAVE to act on that desire. I might desire to run naked through the shopping mall, but the desire does not overpower my common sense.
- Edward Smail
  
  your nuts and not all people are stupid enough to buy into that gene crap, it is a learned lifestyle and the queers use that to explain away there criminal behavior at being a pedophile.
  - robert
    
    Gay men are not interested in children as sexual subjects. They are interested in other men. Those who have all the full equipment needed for a happy life.
    You want to see pedophiles. Check out the priests and ministers in most churches. They are the ones who commit crimes against the kids. All the bible crap has ruined the sex lives of many people and really warped others.
    Try living a good life as most gays do.
    - Dionesius3
      
      That is about the Dumbest thing I have ever seen. you ever hear of NAMBA? That is one of your most beloved gay societies. They have been fighting for your rights since before you were born. And that is ALL they are about is pedophilia. And that is ALL that 90% of all gay males are about as well.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Are you stating you could "learn" to be homosexual? Because I never could.
    - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
      
      You have much problems with learning and for a 50 year that is even harder than before. Your inertia sometimes works to your advantage just as a broken clock points right twice a in 24 hours,
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You have an amazing ability to post absolute nonsense.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Has it ever occurred to you that what so many people told you here i.e. that you are a shallow moron infected with cocksure ignorance can be actually true and not just a "vast religious conspiracy" against your "reason" :)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, it has never concerned me that people who believe in a delusion think I am wrong. Why would you ever think I have any concern about your idiotic posts or views? Humpty, while I am sure you believe you offer me "good" advice, I may as well ask the homeless guy with the sign that says the world will end tomorrow what he thinks about the universe. Your opinion and his will carry the same weight for me. You are a delusional loon and a blowhard to boot. I merely chat with you for the entertainment value it provides me.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        The fact is Dixon that you have been classified here and by so many as a bona fide internet moron and ignorant, shallow troll. You have deep psychiatric issues and that is why you are here for your sick, education deprived mind and psychopath psyche gets a kick of insulting faith of others. You would never do any of that face to face for you are a big coward and a sissy.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, you have also been classified on here as a moron by many besides myself. What is really amusing is that you really seem to believe I have any interest or concern about your opinions. Humpty, your delusional beliefs are merely a means to show others your stupidity. That is all they are and all they will ever be.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Nope, I have been called names primarily designed to put down my faith by others who are not comfortable with or never heard consistent theology but never actually that would question my sources, my familiarity with them and the way I used them. Of course never besides you but you do not count for you are a clueless neophyte with no shred of any meaningful substance or honesty. On another hand you have been called that and other things showing your stupefying and shocking ignorance of history, Bible, logic, mathematics and other siciences and so many other disciplines. Stick with your mortgages Dixon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Nonsense. Many on here have stated very clearly that they beelieve the Calvinist sites you use are worthless. They have stated very clearly they believe you misunderstand the information you present or that you misrepresent it. Kalev and Dwayne for example.
      - Glen S
        
        And you have an amazing ability to digress into insult and attack. You are a much better poster when you stick with YOUR belief system and its justification. Otherwise, you are no better than another poster we know so well.
- robert
  
  What are you a yokel from the farm country…oh, you couldn't be as then you would have seen homosexuality in every animal around. Marriage is no sacrament given by anyones god. It started when there were problems with men who could not figure out who the father was of the women they had living with them and who was the father of the children living with that woman. Also the rights of succession and inheritance came into play. Don't fool yourselves into believing this is gods gift. Today we live in a world where we all have serial marriages at best and in fact, the latest statistics show that there are more people living together in unwedded bliss than ever before and that there are few marriages than ever before.
  Marriage is no sacrament! Every gay guy and lesbian should have the same right to be miserable as any other married couple.
Roberta Petersen

I can't believe with all these attorneys out there there has not been one discussion as to how gays are putting themselves at risk by a marriage contract. Exclusive of the Christian, Buddist, Jewish, or what have you covenant, the primary right one gains in marriage is the Power Over Your Spouses Money. Today's marriage contract, thanks to the no – fault divorce laws, simply mean the higher earner loses – often big – in a divorce, with very longtime payments in some cases of alimony and child support. So if Ed marries Fred, and Ed is making $175,000 a year, but Fred is struggling in the job market and makes $16,000 part time, 3 years later Ed is going to have to shell out big time to Fred. Most gays just say well I want the same rights as heterosexuals – okay, if that means Social Security you have to be married at least 10 years to be entitled to your spouses benefit and you can never get married again or you will lose that in most circumstances. So they want to sign a prenuptual contract? Then what is the point of getting married at all?
- msjallen
  
  Great assessment of this major problem.
  - Bruce
    
    This is not a problem my dear. It is a wonderful way of life filled with great joy, music, happiness and all the arts one could imagine.
    In our church marriages have been held for years for both gays and lesbians. Most of our people who are gay or lesbian have had longer marriages than most of you who preach such hate and evil.
    Yuck! Who would want to be around those of you who are living false lives and use fake materials to uphold your silly beliefs,
- kilty
  
  That is exactly why people are no longer getting married! It is ridiculous to get married in this day and age when one can just write up a simple agreement as to who gets what and who does what with the kids.
  Marriage is really an old ideal that never did work. We just don't need it any longer.
  - msjallen
    
    Heb 13:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
    Eph 5:3 But fornication and all lasciviousness or insatiable erotic desires should not even be mentioned among you, even as is protocol for saints;
    - Michelsan
      
      There is NO right to think you have a right to force other people to live in your evil lifestyle.
      Leave us alone it is none of your business.
      You really need to come out of the closet like so many of your fellow zealots have done.
Sonny Magoo

I can't hang with this guy. He is misguided into believing the EQUALITY LIE. No where in created order or scripture is equality among men. Gods blesses and and withholds at His liesure. True we are ALL sinners, so there is equality there, but never in worldly, physical, material, or mental ways. As for races.. They are. Just like cats and dogs. You really think Noah had German shepards and French poodles on board? Or maybe all the genetic material for all races of dog was in just one pair….
This whole homo thing is about feel good. Just like no fault divorce. Hardend hearts.
- kilty
  
  We would suggest you not marry your boyfriend. Just explore and enjoy.
JoJo

The military would be greatly affected. Everyone seems to think it's all about "homophobia" but has anyone given a thought about the military housing shortages or the deployment problems that will occur with the additional burden of gay dual military families? Military personnel make crap wages as it is and on base housing is a benefit that many wait close to two years to receive. Legalize gay marriage and you'll have people marrying each other just to get out of the barracks. You may read this and doubt it, but those that are familiar with the military know that it's true. THEN gay couples will be adopting children. Straight dual military families are difficult because you can't depend on your deployment strength. With married gays in combat units and you've doubled the problem.

The writer of this article must feel very guilty about his issues with gay people and has to write a feel good article about how gays getting married won't affect anyone. Yeah, yeah…everything looks good on paper and in theory, but then REALITY sets in. What a concept.
- kilty
  
  Gays have been in the military since there was a military. Let everyone live their own lives and all of you stay out of others lives.
  I won't tell you how to live, have kids, have sex or whatever. I don't care if you have 15 wives..how one man could stand one wife is beyond my comprehension but if you want em get em.
  Just keep your nose out of our business and our religions and we will do the same for you.
Bill Kother

When I served in the army ( 1961-1967 ) there were homosexuals. They were not gay ( = pleasant delightful happy, etc. ) We basically ignored them unless they got to personal, touchy etc. I have never had the desire to beat up a homosexual, most people don't. I am, however, sick and tired of this perverted and unnatural behavior being taught as normal, even preferred. How is it that 1-3% of the population can have so much clout. Homosexual marriages ( I hate even saying it ) have a 100% failure rate; why even bother? Again I urge every true child of GOD to live holy and to pray for our land.
- kilty
  
  As a child of a god we know what we need and what god created.
  He ain't into the business of creating junk! He created the world the way he wanted it. Who cares. There is homosexuality in all mammals and basically all living creatures. So wake up this is the way it is. No longer are relatives who are gay forced to stay in the closet. Look at some of the most famous people in the world today and in history. Great artists, musicians, scientists, doctors, religionists etc. Enjoy all the people you like to be around. Makes no difference on their sexual preferences.
http://analogreigns.blogspot.com Ralph Davis

There is no right to do wrong. That is a corollary to the foundational principle of a liberal republic, namely that our human rights come from God, not from the will of the majority nor certainly from the discretion of government. If we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" than government must be limited, and is the servant of the people, not the converse. Starting with our rights come from God, it does become the responsibility of the people to understand just what God specifically wants from us…and what God has given us freedom about. Sexual behavior–NOWHERE in scripture is seen as a place of open-ended, libertarian freedom–probably because it's affects on other people, and ourselves, are so long-lasting and profound. Heartache, abuse, personal destruction, even disease and death….are closely associated with unlawful sexual behavior, while joy, companionship, children, wisdom, education and the whole future of humanity….is associated with healthy (God's-)lawful sexual behavior.

American governments, federal and state–under God–have no right to even make sodomy lawful…let alone faux-marriages committed to sodomy, something favored by the State. Evil fantasies can be indulged in and lived by only for so long, before sure destruction from above will come. God is not mocked.
- Lee
  
  No one really cares what you think! It is a done deed. Those of you who wish to think you are a superior version of a human being you aren't. All people are equals.
- Tim Smithpeters
  
  I agree with you Mr. Davis.
- Laura
  
  Hey Davis,
  You should have stopped with your last sentence. god is not! That is right there is no god so get out of our lives with your promotion of your mythological bible.
  Live by all the rules and see what it gets you. Sexual behavious is what you make it. Have fun and do it any way you want as life is short and sexual behavious never has and never will reduce one life. Please note AIDS the disease Xians love is not a gay disease it is an equal opportunity disease.
Evermyrtle

Marl 10:6-7
6. But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female.
7. For this al man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

Today is the Sabbath, Remember it to keep it Holy.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore GOD also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
- guest
  
  When you keep all the laws let us know. Until then you are just an old person caught in a fairy story.
Wayne

Not only have homosexuals received discrimination over the years, but so have whores, prostitutes, pedophiles, and those who have a preference for animals or wish to practice their deviant sexual preferences on my lawn. They are all considered to be rather queer (that is odd for those who have forgotten the meaning). And personally I see no reason to think that they are all OK and we should just all get along and give them recognition and milk and cookies every time they walk by. In God's arrangement of things, it is pretty obvious that some things are totally unnatural and not to be tolerated in decent company. I also discriminate against people who choose to have sex on my lawn, and so does the law. So, let's just be honest and say it, homosexuality is and always will be queer (odd). I do not condone and will not implicitly condone it by befriending it and creating laws to support it..
- guest
  
  Wayne….you are protesting too much. I would love to check you CD's and videos.
Giley

Leave well enough alone. Gay people should accept a civil union. I think its more about demands for the sake of demands rather than for a better relationship betweem the same sex. The bible says its sinful and that is it. Obama is supporting the gay marriage issue because its politically the right thing to do now.
- lee
  
  The bible says it is sinful…evidently your little book of myths and mystery did give you the whole story.
  You should read the story of David and his buddies.
  There are more good references in you bible than you seem to want to verify.
  Live and let live.
  Some of the best marriages we know of are between two men or two women. Long term marriages whilst the everyday person in the US gets married over and over. If you have enough money to hand over to a priest and want an annulment you can just pretend you have never been married. Then you can do it all over again.
Bon

Blackhawk … U r so wrong, u for sure have itchy ears. Being gay is a choice & no one is not born that way – I should- been there done that . I am not gay by choice & I am not alone!!!
Bon

That is I should know… Been there done that !!!
Jim

Homosexuals don't care anymore about marriage then they do serving in the military. It is just a stepping stone that they are using to gain minority status and having their deviant life styles looked upon as normal.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

Same sex "marriage" has been a law in Denmark since 1989. As of today over 90% of Danish homosexuals in Denmark do not want to use that law as they do not want to be legally "married"… Why? Because staggering majority of them change their sexual partners to fast for any "marriage" to hold any water and their sexual partners go in tens and hundreds of individuals over the span of just a decade or two.
- robert
  
  What a terrible exageration! I much prefer the new take on marriage where people in the US are no longer getting married.
  Just a few here and there. All we need is to have no laws regarding sexuality in any way at all.
  - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
    
    That is not "exaggeration" but reality on the ground in København. It shows how bogus and meaningless the issue really is of lust driven homosexuals.
    - Roberta Petersen
      
      Thank you Despeville – I posted earlier, as a former divorce victim, how marriage could penalize homosexuals, not benefit them…oh wait, the gay partner who has been struggling all his life financially could benefit greatly from a divorce settlement and alimony from his/her former partner! Unfortunately our present no – fault divorce laws penalize the greater earner – HE/SHE is the one that loses in the divorce.
msjallen

Wherever Homosexuality is permitted in a society or nation, it is like a cancer and becomes one of the first manifestations of national degeneracy, national catastrophe, and the inevitable 5th Cycle of Discipline or destruction. There is an excellent reason for not tolerating homosexuality or lesbianism and it is obviously destructive to a nation. There is nothing more ghastly than the function of homosexuality and other perversions.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  homosexuality legalized and supported is like any sin legalized and supported, an abomination to the Lord and His law.
  I thought it was fifth gear of the fourth cycle…
- robert
  
  My goodness msjallen/
  You are sure uptight about something that doesn't concern you. Did you know more heteros practice a&na/ inter/
  course than any other group. Try it you will like it.
  But then that is not the only act gaynfree person engage in.
Dennis

Wow …really? Right off the bat this article is screwed.We are not to be accepting of people who are trying to legitamize sin.Thats what the homosexual agenda is.That what they are doing isnt a sin and therefor ok.It is a sin and it is wrong and it is not to be embraced.Get a clue.
- littledove 517
  
  So right for in Romans 1: 32 it tells us "Who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who PRACTICE such things are deserving of death, NOT only do the same but also APPROVE of those who PRACTICE them." The deeply irrational nature of sin is seen in the fact that even hardened sinners still know in their hearts that their actions are deserving of death (V.21). Nevertheless, they go on sinning and even DRAG Others down with them when they APPROVE of Those who do the same things. Here in Romans 1: 18-32 it tells us that God has shown us all that He is God, and because He is a just and honest God it tells us in Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made everything beautiful in it time. Also He HAS put ETERNITY in their hearts…" He has done everything that is needed for us to know Him, and has sent His Son Jesus so that as it is said in Romans "We are all without excuse" for He has made Himself known since the beginning of time."
laura

Msjalle:
How would you know about the functions of gay folk…obviously you certainly are one who is still in your closet.
Break out have fun, dance in the light!
- msjallen
  
  Romans 1:26-32 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (As believer in the Lord Jesus Christ I have no desire for the same sex – no fun that way and the Lord wants us to the happy and enjoy life.)
http://twitter.com/davidcaryhart @davidcaryhart

I thought that I had seen it all. This polemic takes the cake for one of the most misguided, intellectually dishonest and self-absorbed pieces that I have read in some time. While the primary argument is not explained, the secondary argument seems to be some sort of slippery slope.

Marriage equality is inevitable. Among the numerous reasons is the simple fact that since Lemon, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test at the federal and state level. Laws MUST have a secualr purpose and all of those consitutional amendments are going the way of those laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

I am reminded that. in the criminal case that became the predicate for Loving v. VA, the trial judge opined from the bench that God did not intend for the races to mix. The argument has been reworked by his progeny to now apply to gay people but it is still the same irrelevant argument.
- kilty
  
  This argument will go on as long as there are bible thumping, envious Xians walking around trying to tell everyone else what to do. If you look into their hidden lives you will find incest and gay activities at the highest level in these groups.
littledove517

For those who say they approve of the sin of homosexuality, and what they do is their business the word of the living God says different and you are just as wrong as the ones committing the sin, for as a Christian or not we are not suppose to approve of anything that is a sin, and goes against the Word of the living God, for a little sin brings on more, and more sin, and that is why the living God destroyed the world because of its sin. He also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and if He did that then do we think that He has now forgotten and that it is now okay? If God does not do something about what is now taking place and becoming more and more sinful He would then have to say He is sorry for what He did for all the passed sins of history, and I do not think that that is going to happen for sin is sin no matter who or when it is done. In Romans we read, and pay close attention to the last verse, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress (hold down) the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God IS manifest (evident ) in them (among) them, for God HAS shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (deity), so that they ARE without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as gos, nor were thankful, but became FUTILE in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. PROFESSING to be wise, they became FOOLS, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God in an image made like corruptible (perishable) man—-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lust of their HEARTS, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the TRUTH of GOD for the LIE, and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the CREATOR, who is blessed forever. Amen. For THIS reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their WOMEN (females) exchanged the NATURAL use for what is AGAINST nature. Likewise also the MEN (males) leaving the natural use of the woman, BURNED in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are Not FITTING: being filled with ALL unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness (greed), Maliciousness (malice); full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evilmindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning (without understanding), untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful. VERSE 32- who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who PRACTICE such things are deserving of death, not ONLY do the same but ALSO APPROVE of those who PRACTICE Them" (Romans 1:18-32). Verse 32 – The deeply irrational nature of sin in the fact that even hardened sinners still KNOW in their HEARTS that their actions are deserving of death. Nevertheless, they go on sinning and even DRAG Others Down With Them When They APPROVE of Those would do the same things. They know they do wrong for in Ecclesiastes 3:11 also it says that "He (God) has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He HAS put ETERNITY in their HEARTS… We say oh it has been around for a long time so what, and it time to come out of the closet, and if one had to hide in the first place it show that there was some shame there, and they were and are committing that which is shameful as verse 27 stated. Murder has been around since the beginning of time also and it is a sin, so should we just act as it's okay to do also. Sin is sin. There is no big sin, or little sin, or one that looks better in the eyes of the Lord than another. He has told us how we should live in this world, and if we act stupid to His word and ignore it then we WILL reap the consequences of it just as they have in the past.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Many so called sins have been allowed by law. Tailors sew blended fabrics together. Barbers cut the beards of men. Cooks serve up shellfish. Bankers loan money to others. These are all prohibited by your god yet allowed by law.
  - Evermyrtle
    
    GOD is the only one who is above the law, HE does not follow the law of the land. HE is the real lawmaker, ant HIS laws will stand when the laws of the land is no longer in force.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Then laws allowing homosexuality should not concern you.
    - crone
      
      How strange your god is above the law! What law?
      If there ever were such a god he is no longer in the god business and in out of work and not wanted.
      We can live very well without his so called laws that caused nothing more than abuse.
  - robert
    
    Excuse me but you forgot the pork roast and pulled pork so beloved by the southern baptists.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Very well written truth. Thanks for such an excellent article!
- Evermyrtle
  
  Littledove you are right, GOD is not sorry and he will do something about the conditions of the sin in the world today, but it will be in HIS time. JESUS speaks of this coming event, many times, while HE was on the earth, telling exactly the condition of the world when HE will return. We can depend on it that HE is noticing and getting ready for HIS return. We will not know the exact day or hour, but we will know when the time is right, when the time is near, by HIS describing of these noted conditions of the world's evil.
- robert
  
  Sounds like a lot of fun to us. Your problem is you believe in a 66 book grouping filled with myth and superstition.
  Live and let live and keep your nose out of other people business.
  The majority don't accept your ancient and irrelevant beliefs.
Steve03

The article is by one of those Biblically illeterate Church of England apostates. Sentamu is even more liberal than N.T. Wright, so consider the source before you take his words as gospel.
- Evermyrtle
  
  He knows exactly what he is saying. Liberals will never agree with the Bible that we as Christian use as our guidebook for life.
Marilyn Smith

Marriage: God created it. He should be the one to say what it means, don't you think? And He does. Read it. It's not about the law, entitlements of discrimination (or the lack of it). It's a COVENANT before God. To have a "marriage" you have to have God present. That in itself would eliminate a great number of so called "marriages." Wake-up, Overcomers, the real Bridegroom in waiting in the wings. Let us be found worthy to be His Bride!
Deep_Thinker

I just have to laugh every time this subject comes up. The percent of population that is homosexual is miniscule to the number of "christians" who stand up, take their vows, and get divorced. Now where is the real threat to marriage?

Not only that, most of the sheeple have given the government the right to be involved in marriage, and now those same people want to use the government to impose their view on others. However, we are an individual liberty protecting country. And we are an equal rights country. I guarantee you gay marriage will be allowed. If you sheeple would have not allowed government to get involved in marriage, then maybe they wouldn't be thinking about redefining it.

Furthermore, this should be a states rights issue, not a federal issue. So it's even more ironic you get mad at Obama for not enforcing DOMA, when again, this is not a federal issue. He is actually enforcing the constitution on that one.. Which is probably a first.
Ruth Walker

You have a right to view it any way you wish, but as far as the law goes, equality has to rule. Same-sex marriage has been legal for three years here in Iowa and we straights can't tell any difference (but it's very important to the LGBT community). Now get it approved at the federal level so they can file tax returns joinly and aren't required to have expensive legal papers drawn up for the times they travel to states not recognizing their automatic rights that come with marriage.

The Supreme Court clarified it when it ruled unanimously in 1878 (Reynolds v United States) that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices" else it would "permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Stephen

The issue with the fags is not whether they benefit from it but what can they corrupt with it. That's the issue with them and their supporters. The issue never has been nor never will be about equality, the issue has always been about special rights. An individual would have to purposely hide their head under a rock not to realize that.