This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


gayblack

Gay Is Not the New Black

It's hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black." Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied: "Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black.'"

Continue reading at thegospelcoalition.org
 
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.

  • Annie

    Born that way? Does that mean that if you feel the urge to kill, that almost every person has at one time or another felt,your were born to kill? I DON'T THINK SO. GOD gave us the wisdom and HIS commandments to be able to discern what is rigtht and what is wrong. We are all sinners, we all have urges that we have to deny, therefore HE expects us to deny evil desires.

    I am talking to someone who puts down my dearest person in the world, I want to slap her. Does it make it right to slap her, I does not make it right. GOD tells us we must flee from evil and that homosexual behavior is an abomination. HE expects us to deny any temptation toward this evil.

    I must deny that "Gay is the new black!" Christians Blacks feel the same as Christin whites about the "abomination homosexuality!".

    The word "gay" applied to homosexuals should be abolished, to the opposite, maybe "mud"?

    • John E

      There are people who are born with the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. But if they become drunks, it is sin. There has not been any scientifically identified genetic trait for homosexualism. So the "born that way" claim falls flat. All of us have certain sins that we are especially susceptible to, and it seems we are born that way. Likewise, it is undeniable that certain people are more susceptible to the gross sin of homosexual perversion. But if we yield to temptation in our areas of weakness, we commit sin. And I agree they can't just turn it off and decide to be strait. But it is an extremely grievous sin, and attempts to make it normal, honorable and not even bad at all cannot be justified. I believe there is power in the cross and the blood of Christ to save those who will believe and receive it. All of us have and do sin, and all of us need Christ's salvation. God's mercy is unfathomable, and He makes that salvation available to any who will. But certainly, for those who reject God's way, even nature declares how wrong a redefinition of marriage to include couples who cannot reproduce would be!

      • Myrtle

        Every person has a place where we are weak. We must fight these things, not give in to them. My worse shortcoming is "TEMPER" My temper does not make it right to use it against anytime and evertime I get riled. My duty and anyone leaning toward homosexuality's duty is to control it. If we don't control it, it will control us. and lead to big trouble with GOD

    • Chris P

      I'm sorry that you are ignorant about your own biology. Religious people tend to be that way. People are born and develop all sorts of problems – clearly indicating that there is no intelligent designer. I am sure that people are "born to kill" – Republicans certainly love their guns and shooting small animals for fun. They also like to invade countries and kill tens of thousands of people. The Christian right is on a mission to kill Muslims.

      • Myrtle

        What do you mean by religious people? What or who do you believe in? I can't imagine not believing in anything at all. Are you an atheist? What do atheist believe in? I am not questioning you because I am criticizing you, because GOD gives you and me the right, to believe as we chose. Of course, there are consequences to what we believe and what we do but it is still our right. It is none of my business what you believe exactly, as it is none of your business what I believe in. That is 100% between us and our MAKER

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

          Atheists believe there are no gods and that everything in the universe has a naturalistic explanation.

          • Evermyrtle

            There is a saying, "You will reap what you sow," I believe that you will reap what you believe or maybe worse, because all the information is out there there is no need to be ignorant. Of course, that is a choice that GOD gives us, The pinch will come in when it is time to pay up, for all you you have done, believed, or did not do or did not belie The only one who needs to be concerned is the one involved..

          • Jeff Dixon

            There are many sayings in the world. Just because someone said it does not mean it is accurate.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            how could she have missed this? you make it pretty clear every day!!! : )

          • Evermyrtle

            This just dumps you into the four legged animal level. They are born, live for a given period of time die, that is the end of it.But humans have a soul they can depend on, you can use it to believe in GOD AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST or you can trash it and die as an unbeliever. All two legged animals do have a place to go after death, and you must chose that place, by having faith in the GODHEAD and living a life according to that belief or disregarding them. The choice is ours.

          • Mary Wood

            Are you just now realizing this about Jeffrey, Myrtle?

          • Jeff Dixon

            Now that is humorous.

          • Mary Wood

            It is : )

          • Jeff Dixon

            The choice is either to live your life according to fables in a book or to embrace the world as it actually is.

      • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

        Chris P says: "People are born and develop all sorts of problems – clearly indicating that there is no intelligent designer."

        No, it indicates that the once-perfect human genome has become corrupted as a result of man's sin. On a biological level, this means that genetic mistakes begin to occur and multiply, and as time progresses, these genetic mistakes become cumulatively large, and thus the problems we see with human health.

        This degradation of the human genome has also greatly decreased the lifespan of man. Before the flood, people lived as long as 900+ years (Genesis 5), and by the time of Shem, Noah's son, the lifespan had already decreased to about 600 years (Genesis 11:10-11). At the time of Salah it was about 450 years, Peleg 250 years, and Terah, the father of Abraham lived 205 years (Genesis 11:14-32). Now it has shrunk all the way down to about 75 years.

        Study your biology. Once corruption begins, time is the great enemy of genetic information being faithfully reproduced with each succeeding generation. This is certainly no indication, as you claim, that "there is no intelligent designer", but rather it offers an argument for a perfect creation from a perfect Creator that has become corrupted.

      • petroskhan

        "People are born and develop all sorts of problems.." I notice that your own statement argues against the point you're attempting to make. Problem comes after being born, and "develops"; thanks for admitting that.

        "Republicans certainly love their guns and shooting small animals for fun." Well, I'm not a republican, but I do love guns. And yet, for over 40 years of owning them, have never shot one animal. I've murdered countless paper targets, though. And when a government, or group, is so opposed to me having something that is so effective in the realm of self-defense, I must ask "Why? Why are you so determined to rob me of my most effective means of defending myself, my home, and my family?"

        "The Christian right is on a mission to kill Muslims." A cursory study of the source material for the two religions (Bible and Koran) would show you that the opposite is true. A more in depth study of the material would show you the depth of the hatred that the Koran has for anyone who disagrees with them.

    • Chris from Sydney

      Very wise comment at the end, Annie
      If you can impose terminology then you can control ideology. Can you imagine how the debate would change if we imposed the word 'Sodomite' ?
      Imagine the impact of news reports of 'Sodomite rights' or 'Sodomite pride parades'.
      Christians stop using the euphemism 'gay' and start using the word 'Sodomite' or 'Pervert' that is how to fight this evil.
      The weapons of our war are not carnel but are mighty for casting do every arguement that exalts itself against the knowlege of God…..

      • Myrlte

        You are exactly right, call a spade a spade. That is the only correct way to do it. Like that everybody knows what weare talking about.

    • Jeff Dixon

      Killing someone harms them. Two adult gays engaging in consensual sexual activity does not harm them. The issues are apples to oranges.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        • Jeff Dixon

          Yes, but gay people are not born with AID's. Straight people give each other STD's as well.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            On the whole, not in the same category … many people including in babies are second=hand victims .. dirty needles, dirty blood supply for hemophiliacs for example, babies born to infected mothers… sex is a sacred thing that's the way I look at it, and to engage in risky behavior of any sort is asking for disease… the holy bible does have instructions for health … look at all the warnings there of laying with others, etc. … even if you think of the bible as a book of fables, there are definite Words of Wisdom regarding health … its how civilization developed and progressed. The fall of the Roman empire is thought to have happened from the development of promiscuity/homosexual behavior in the military… hasten to add I only heard this in a history class in college… an I have never seem any confirming research BUT I wouldn't be surprised. Decadence is one of the reasons listed here:
            http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefallarticles/a/fallofrome.htm Where would we be if it had not been found out in the 80s about the dread of the HIV virus. The African population would be practically non-existent today…
            http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm although some warlords are doing their best to eliminate whole populations for political reasons, as has happened in Uganda and Somalia…
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0294_UqaZ6s

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.schmidt.9638 Pat Schmidt

    As a Christian I know what is right and wrong for me. I also have to allow others to make their own mistakes just as I have and allow for the judgement of the Lord. That said I also know that people, like the CEO of Chick-fil-A have a perfect right to express their opinion just as the people who disagree have a right to picket. I also have a right to show my support to Chick-fil-A on August 1st and, at the same time, to honor my Lord and I will be doing that! I refuse to sit back and play dead but I will do it in a way that honors the teachings of Jesus when we are told not to judge.

  • jimbo999

    What do Black people who marched for civil rights in the 60s, who sat in the back of a bus, who sat at a "Colored" lunch counter, who took beatings, who had their houses and churches burned, who were lynched from a tree branch, who were prevented from sending their children to schools, who couldn't vote, who were terrorized by the KKK, who were prevented from living in certain areas, have to do with whether a man can "marry" another man?
    What do Black people think about that?
    How do they feel about their struggle of hundreds of years being compared to sexual perversion?
    By the way, all of those things I mentioned for Black people were done by Southern Democrats, and the Republicans fought the Dems to do away with those crimes against humanity.

    • T.M.S

      Amen. I am so tired of hearing the comparison of being gay to being Black. The nerve of these simple-minded people. Until they receive the discrimination that Black people endured for years they cannot be considered the same. You will always be able to see my color, but you will not know what my sexuality is until you ask.

    • Myrtle

      The same people who are abusing the black race now is the race who was abusing in the KKK era. Democrats no Republicans. Don't believe it? Look up the history and learn the truth.

    • Chris P

      Because gays are abused and have limited rights just the same as blacks. People are killed or bullied for being gay. Sally Ride's partner will not get survivors benefits because she is gay.

      • Bighoss

        Sally Ride's partner had a career as a college professor and had income from a venture she co-operated with Sally Ride. Her income and retirement benefits from those sources are more than adequate to comfortably sustain her financial needs.

        https://www.sallyridescience.com/bios/oshaughnessy.html

      • Myrtle

        You are right, homosexuals are abused because of their lifestyle. True Christina are not responsible for any of it. Some may call themselves Christians but we do not learn to abuse for any reason by our SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, because we know the GOD gives us a choice to live for HIM or against HIM but there are consequences both ways. We sill live with HIM for ever or not at all, depending on how we lived and for whom we lived, you know like who who had faith in?

        • Jeff Dixon

          Your god commands that his followers kill homosexuals. To claim a true Christian is not responsible is absurd.
          "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

    • Chris from Sydney

      Every year 37 THOUSAND White women are raped by Black men in the USA, how do you think White people feel about that ?
      Anyway, Leon Trotsky decided that the teachings of Karl Marx were not revolutionary enough and decided that not only class distinction must go but that ALL particularism, anything that distinguished people from one another i.e race, sex (male or female) religion and nationality, must be destroyed. He dreamed of a brown 'blended' bi-sexual godless humanity.
      He is the father of 2nd Generation Communism
      The first step to doing that was to force the different races to live together and positively promote inter-marriage.
      The 2nd step was easy divorce to destroy the 'specialness' of marriage
      3rd step Homosexual 'marriage', again this destroys the 'specialness' of marriage
      Next comes 'open borders'
      I know it is shocking but if the USA was still 'segregated' then it would not be possible to impose homosexual 'marriage', according to the game plan of 2nd Generation Communism
      That is how Black people sitting at the back of the bus are linked to homosexual 'marriage'

      • Myrtle

        Do you have any records on how many women are raped by white men? It happened both ways. I was around black men way back as far as1940. I was never, not once showed any disrespect by one. That is not to say that it didn't occur because it did, by black men and by white men, on black women and white women. Women should learn a couple of tricks that would put a man out of commission before they are
        attacked, one of these tricks if a man received the punishment, he would not try his "manly act" again, ever.

        • petroskhan

          http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

          You'll want to look at table 42, on page 30. It gives a breakdown of rapes committed by and against different races.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Petroskhan, except for some robberies, whites, more so than any other of three races, committed the bulk (>48%) of the "single-offender victimizations" crimes! Am I reading that right?

          • petroskhan

            One needs to look at ratios, in regards to percentage of total population. Whites do comprise a higher proportion of the population, but the numbers are not consistent with the percent of the population which they represent. Blacks represent a far higher percentage of the crimes than they do of the population.

          • Mary Wood

            understood. thanks

  • Engineer313

    Being Gay Is turning your back on the Lord Jesus Christ. Those that live this sick life style will in the end pay for it. Have you ever seen any wildlife do this kind of thing? No, only humans do it, and why I have no idea, except they have to be some of the sickest people on the face of the earth.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey 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. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. 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

      • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

        We do not derive our morality from animals. Some animals kill each other. Should we do likewise since that behavior is found in the animal kingdom?

        Also, so-called "homosexual" behavior in animals is highly subjective, and subject to the bias of the observer. We cannot know what is going through an animal's mind while it is mechanically performing an action that some may perceive as "homosexual" so there is usually no way to determine if there is a sexual motive to the mechanical action in which the animal is engaging. Those with an agenda to find 'homosexual' behavior in animals will interpret almost anything that two animals of the same sex do with each other as sexual.

        Besides, animals cannot be described as "homosexual" because "homo" means
        "man" and an animal is not a man. Just thought I'd throw that in for no charge.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

          Well, we actually do kill each other and very frequently I might add. Most animals kill other animals for food and we do that as well.

          However, humans are primates and primates are a social animal. We do better in groups than as individuals, and have learned over time that killing each other harms the group.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Of course we actually do kill each other, and it is a terrible sin in the sight of God, just like homosexuality. Behavior in the animal kingdom does not buy us a free pass from God's Law.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Rational thinking is what does that, Key. There is no such thing as gods law.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Rational thinking can 'rationalize' almost any behavior. Biblical thinking, however, protects innocent people from harm. If there are no moral absolutes, then virtually any action could be rationalized under certain circumstances. God, who created us, knows far better what is good for us, and therefore His Law provides the absolute standards of right and wrong that protect society.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Well said! What version of the scriptures do you rely upon, Key?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            KJV

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            You are well trained in your practice of rational thinking Jeff. It is really quite hard for me to fully rely so much on it – even though I am good at math – b/c it does tax the faculties in how to handle the moral issues such as we see in this forum… which don't always fit the simplicity of 1 + 1 = 2. In my own life, it has been easy to let go and let God when the work to be done is overwhelming to the point one feels dysfunctional, ever feel that way!? :) There IS safety in knowing that THE lighthouse is there when being tossed is a stormy sea of various sorts: family problems, illness, money problems, friends who get mad at you, too much work to do, etc etc Does that make any sense?

          • Jeff Dixon

            Sure, however, the problem is that the bible is the opposite of morality in much of what it says, not the standard.

            Micah Kills a Whole Town Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT)

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            mercy must not rob justice

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Yes, but again, Mr. Dixon, we have statistics, and are we not more talented creatures, to apply reason to our behavior? This is one area where I definitely believe a moral or religious conviction is essential. So many homes with no religious convictions, however, have no moral convictions. I think this is also reflected in the high rate (>70%) abortion rate among teenage girls in a certain race in a certain state which will remain unnamed by me on this post. What do you suggest?

      • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

        the hiv/std stats show however, it is riskier behavior… and like any serious illness, shouldn't there be an effort to reduce the risk by not doing what causes the disease… what is with people who take such risks… it's like smokers… I think they have a death wish! Homosexuals have an INCREASINGLY higher death rate at younger ages. I for one am glad that persons who repeatedly practice the behavior when they are infectious have been treated as criminals when they have been caught, as that is what they are… same as any other type of criminal. Can you imagine the horror of such a person victimizing a family member? Don't tell me that this is normal behavior. I simply do not accept it with statistics as they are. Recently the gays tried to force Boy Scouts of America into submission! What do you think of that Mr. Dixon? Think about the consequences before you speak. I already know it is abundant in nature. I read your post.

        • Jeff Dixon

          The sex drive is one of the strongest in humans. Asking that gay people not engage in sex is futile. AID's is a disease and just as we are attempting to cure breast cancers in women, we should be trying to cure AID's. Besides, as I have pointed out, more heterosexuals get AID's than homosexuals.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Of course that's true and that research is being done on a massive scale… It is dangerous research… unlike the cancer research which is dangerous as well the HIV research requires working with infected blood daily over a period of years … your last sentence is not true … look at the stats I posted here elsewhere

            Here it is

            Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2009HIV Surveillance Report, Volume 21

            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2009report/

            table 2a AIDS diagnoses, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics, 2006–2009 and cumulative—United States

            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2009report/pdf/table2a.pdf

            accessed080212

          • Jeff Dixon

            More gays get it in the USA, that is true, but worldwide, more heterosexuals get it.

          • UF Gator

            that's because of promiscuity and health vs unhealthy environments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Helen-Jenkins/100000180912271 Helen Jenkins

    Just as PC/Socialists double down to implant their perverse, deviant dogma, then WE THE PEOPLE must double/triple down on aversion to this abnormality. Even, in the animal kingdom [of which 'humans' are at the top] males reaching adolescence are driven from herd/pride to find unrelated group to join. As it is said,"there's a fine line between genius and insanity." With each passing day, as their long sought "One World Order-replacement for America, after its fundamental transformation- utopia evaporates, the level of insanity becomes more-undeniably-apparent. For those so completely indoctrinated, conditioned, that reality is unacceptable. As my grandmama would say," They made their beds, now let them lay in it". To TAKE BACK/RESTORE America, first there must be an acceptance that there is GOOD and EVIL. Socialism, loss of humanity, character, morality and integrity failed with its original theorist [Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 18460] and cannot be morphed into an acceptable ideology. Human beings eventually rise up against tyranny and total domination. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Ask: Japan's Emperor Hirohito, Germany's Hitler, Italy's Mussolini, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Ghaddahi. Socialist are proving 'one can be too smart for one's own good. America is a faith based nation. All the so-called elite genius intellect and millions of dollars will not be the saving grace when KARMA appears-and Penn State's Sandusky! Double down on RIGHT! Keep the faith and conversation going.

  • JDH

    I have absolutely no interest in what any two or more conecenting adults do behind closed doors, but when they come out and demand that we recognize same sex marraiges, I begin to become a little unhinged. Marraige is a religious rite and the Bible does not recognize same sex marraiges. If the state wishes ot recognize civil unions between members of the same sex, I have no problems with that. It is when these idiots want religions to recognize these unions that I have a problem. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all consider homosexality to be a sin. If I am a bigot tor standing with the tenants of my religion, then I proudly wear that name.

    • Myrtle

      Exactly!! But it does bother me that my country legalized something so evil in the sight of GOD, bringing us shame.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

        Banks are also legal in this country, even though the biblical god says that loaning money for interest is a no no.
        Exodus 22:25

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          Better read the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, where the two servants who invested their master's money and reaped a gain were commended, but the servant who dug a hole and buried his talent rather than investing it was condemned.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Just another good example of how the bible says one thing in one verse and the opposite in another verse.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            You are confusing excess usury with loaning money at a fair rate of interest. Not only that, but Exodus 22:25 talks about loaning money to the poor, not just loaning money in general. It was a law designed to protect the poor from being taken advantage of:

            "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury."

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Banks are allowed to loan money to the poor. That is perfectly legal, and once again, your attempt to discredit my comment fails.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            It's not legal, or at least not ethical, to give the poor loans that do not match their level of income or their ability to repay. If a poor person making $15,000/year asked for a 10 year loan of $200,000 at 5% interest, it would be far beyond their ability to repay, and even if such a loan were legal, it would be highly unethical.

          • Jeff Dixon

            Yes it would be, however, it is not illegal, which is what I said. Trying to change it from illegal to immoral is humorous, since this tread was from Myrtle lamenting that the USA has legalized gay activity. The topic was legal activity, not unethical behaviors.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            It is you that is changing the subject, not me. You were contending that God's Law was inconsistent, but I pointed out that Exodus 22:25 and the parable of the talents were dealing with two different issues. Exodus 22 was about protection of the poor from excess usury, not a general statement of whether it is right to borrow money. You then introduced your statement that banks were allowed to loan money to the poor, which has nothing to do with God's Law. That is man's law, not God's Law. the two are not comparable.

          • Jeffrey Dixon

            Nonsense. I said loaning money for interest is a no no in the
            bible, which according to Exodus 22:25 it is. That was in reply to Myrtle who
            said it was horrible that the USA has legalized gay activity. You then tried to
            say it was ok based on another verse. I pointed out that merely means the bible
            is inconsistent. That is when you attempted to change the issue from legality
            to ethical behavior. It is all in black and white Key. Just read the thread.
            YOU attempted to change the issue because you cannot argue that loaning money
            is illegal in this country.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Except that Exodus 22:25 does not say loaning money for interest is a no no. It said loaning money to the poor is a no no. You cannot extrapolate that to mean that loaning money to anyone is forbidden. We have to look elsewhere, such as the parable of the talents, before we can arrive at a conclusion regarding loaning money in general.

          • Jeff Dixon

            It is hardly the only verse which says not to loan money and charge interest.

            Leviticus 25:36
            Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your
            countryman may continue to live among you.

            Leviticus 25:37
            You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

            Deuteronomy
            23:19 Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food
            or anything else that may earn interest.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Glad to see you know your Bible so well, Mr. Atheist :) There is hope for you yet.

            But you do have a valid point. From the verses you quoted, it was apparently the interest that was the problem, not the loan itself. The concept of borrowing in itself is not entirely scorned by the Bible.

            The Israelites were commanded to borrow from the Egyptians:

            " And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:"
            Exodus 12:35

            They were also permitted to borrow animals from their neighbor, but were responsible for any damages:

            "And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good."
            Exodus 22:14

            They were also allowed to loan to other nations, but not to borrow from them:

            "For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
            Deuteronomy 15:6 (& 28:12).

            It is also a sin to not repay what one owes:

            "The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth."
            Psalm 37:21

            So I would agree that borrowing money for interest is frowned upon, but not borrowing in general. And as the parable of the talents indicates, there is nothing wrong with investing money for a return.

            There may be some other verses we are overlooking, but I would say you could make a case that borrowing while paying interest may be contrary for Christians. I think we would have to look at the motive for borrowing before we could decide whether it is wise or not. If the reasons for borrowing are so we can have more 'stuff' then I would think you could make a sound Biblical argument against it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Of course there hope for Jeff, as well as all of us, Key, especially if we use our talents! Does that sound like a likening of the scriptures?

            Now I get that talents are to be invested like money to earn interest… but that is not what In taught my five-year-olds

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            what version of the bible are you using Jeff?

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            … like that to make a housing bubble… yes. now that part makes sense… the people in the Clinton admin (all three branches) who thought loosening the criteria on borrowing money for homes beyond the means of the buyers brought on our housing crisis from which we still have not recovered and won't any time soon.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            ??? difficult to follow this contention. I think I get this: that talents are money… really doesn't make sense. I think you should think of talents as gifts of how to do things, you talent to do things, so you can prosper… seems realistic to me … my favorite talent is "to reason" … I like applied math /// and I fall way short of what I should do to prosper… pause for thought!

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            I don't see the meaning of the word "talent" to mean money. Is that what you mean?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Actually, it was a measure of weight used for precious metals, similar to a shekel, so it could be used to mean money

            "And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance."
            2 Samuel 12:30

            "And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was an hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and threescore and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary:"
            Exodus 38:25

            "And the brass of the offering was seventy talents, and two thousand and four hundred shekels."
            Exodus 38:29

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Why can't it just be a talent as we know it… that's what a parable is… it's the story about one thing to teach about something else

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Yes, I would agree it could be either.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            What is the opposite thing, the talent is literally you gift to do something, like mine is to reason if possible, I think I miss you point, what is it, Jeff?

          • Jeff Dixon

            I am not following your line of reasoning with your question. Key and I have been discussing whether it is acceptable to loan money for interest according to the bible and how that applies to what is legal in this country.

            Talent refers to a description of measuring weight.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Talents, I thought, could be viewed as a metaphor for other characteristics a person has, you know, like your creative side, as for you Jeff, your power to reason. Doesn't that make sense?

          • Jeff Dixon

            It could be in the modern use of the word, but the reference in the bible is different.

          • UF Gator

            I have misled my five year olds

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            Parable of the Talents: … with the lesson that if you have a talent, for example, to reason (my favorite,) you had better use it. : )

        • Bighoss

          If you wish to live under the proscriptions of the Levitical law and follow that directive, then that is your choice. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, that law has been done away with. The Book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christians are not bound by such dictates. You conveniently ignore this principle without ever making any effort to rebut it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Ah yes, the eternal and never ending laws of your god that happened to be done away with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            an all-mighty and infinite god also has an infinite vocabulary with infinite instructions

    • Chris P

      Marriage is not a religious rite. Most people's marriages on this planet have NOTHING to do with religion.

  • Glory

    God is not the author of sin.

    Skin color is determined by God.

    God never calls any skin color a "sin."

    God DOES call homosexuality a sin, and holds His creatures responsible for their choices to sin!

    Since we know God does NOT create sin, then we know Homosexuality is NOT pre-determined before birth (ie; by God).

    The homosexual agenda, in denying accountability for their actions, is attempting to proclaim themselves; "victims," as if they can't help the "sickness" that they "caught." ("We can't help it, we were born this way and wouldn't choose to be any other way").

    Homosexuals know if they can convince this ignorant society, that homosexuals are victims, then they can proclaim themselves, "innocent of any wrong." After all; who would accuse someone with the flu of a crime of choosing to practice "fluness?"

    This slippery slope of societal ignorance (buying the victimhood plea of homosexuality) will logically lead to the excuse of "sickness/victimhood" for all kinds of other sins —- Yes, even crimes; murder, lying, theft, adultery, rape, incest! When will this ignorant society call a spade a spade, or is this a matter of a wicked people loving their sin so much that accommodating another sinner's indulgence salves their own guilty conscience? ..and evil multiplies!

    Something to think about:

    Will our "proud for the gay" President also demand our tax dollars to care for the "sickness" of homosexuality?

    Don't our tax dollars already go to support the murdering of innocent babies in abortion? yep!, but it's called "healthcare for the financially challenged!"

    • Myrtle

      Thank you Glory, for a most excellent post. I'm sorry to say I cannot come up one as well written and true at the same time!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

      Except that the bible states that god created sin.

      Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]."

      • Bighoss

        "Evil," as used in the Bible, does not necessarily connote sin. Evil can, and often does, mean misfortune, as in "A great evil has come upon us, for we have suffered an earthquake." God has, at various times in history, visited this kind of "evil" upon men as a means of punishment or discipline.

        Your shallow knowledge of Biblical words and languages does not serve you will in debate.

        • Jeff Dixon

          It can also connote sin, hoss, Playing with the meaning of words does you little good.

  • Chris P

    "marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church" – that is a totally fabricated concept that is not common to all of the many fabricated versions of Christianity.

    In other words hogwash.

    • Myrtle

      What is your point? You don't believe in GOD, we accept that as your right. can't say that we don't care, because every soul that denies JESUS CHRIST is lost, unless he repents and Christians hates to see anyone lost but again, that is your right. Is your purpose to turn us away from GOD? If that is it you may as well go you way because that will never work! if is just to harass us, again you are wasting your time, because we just pass by at least 10 of your comments before reading one, even if we read as many as one in ten. We like to read comments that is filled with "good meat." So far, yours are wasted. You need to try to see if you can come up with some interesting subject and write on that, then we will read your comments.

    • jfisher

      Marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex in order to protect the human race from extinction and to keep blood lines as pure as possible. Men actually like to think the the child their wife bears has his blood running trough its veins:) When a society decides to include same sex marriage, multiple marriage partners, human and animal partners, the society will inadvertently destroy itself.

  • The Watchman

    It is the "sin", not the sinner that is abhorant. Hate the sin, pray for the sinner.

    • Myrtle

      Amen, you hit that nail solidly!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

      However, it is the sinner, not the sin who Christians have killed so often over the past centuries.

  • The Watchman

    God made man in His own image, I doubt very seriously that God would be responsible for placing something in His greatest creation that would cause them to sin and be arrogant in the face of the Creator. No, the practice of homosexuality is a choice, period!

  • Bighoss

    What is often overlooked in discussions of this kind is the menace to human health that is posed by male homosexuality. Despite the smoke-screening of this subject by some gay advocacy groups, it remains a proven fact that the majority of AIDS/HIV cases are within the gay or gay/bisexual sector. Numerous other diseases also are predominantly found within this sector, including something called "gay bowel syndrome" (look it up), which is a consequence of you know what. The average life span of male homosexuals is very significantly shorter than that of male heterosexuals.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-another-study-confirms-gay-life-expectancy-20-years-shorter

    Read the information in the link carefully. One of the studies reported was conducted by a Canadian PRO-GAY group. These PRO-GAY researchers concluded that “under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”

    That study's results were similar to the results of research by the prestigious Centers for Disease Control, which found that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public.

    • Vladimir

      Good post, Bighoss.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

      First, some information from science and research. The argument from nature is being accepted more readily in the scientific community due to the increasing evidence that sexual orientation develops before birth. Here are just a few examples of those who support that homosexuality is genetically dispositional:
      Author and respected geneticist Matt Ridley states that, “Nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence…Homosexuality is an early, probably prenatal and irreversible preference.“The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated, “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice”Frederick L. Whitam, PhD, Professor in the Department of Sociology at Arizona State University, said, “During the past 30 years, a strong body of evidence has emerged to suggest that sexual orientation is biological. During this same time period, not a single bit of scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is learned has appeared.”The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance stated, “We recommend following the lead of most physical and mental health professionals, and consider homosexual orientation to be normal, natural, unchosen and fixed.“Kenneth M. Cohen, PhD, Lecturer in Human Development at Cornell University, wrote, “Recent scans of the human genome reveal that some gay males share a genetic marker for homosexuality on the X chromosome. One avenue through which genes regulate homoeroticism is by instructing the brain to develop in a sex-atypical manner.”
      For more than twenty-five years, mental health practitioners and researchers have recognized that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Moreover, they are highly critical of attempts to change sexual orientation. These professional associations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Social Workers. These are not fringe groups. They represent roughly a half-million health and mental health professionals who support the fact that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus, there is no need for a cure. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association rejected reparative therapy as not only ineffective, but potentially destructive. The risks include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

        Second, if the issue is who get sick more often, then consider the difference between blacks and whites. I am sure most reasonable people believe that blacks deserve as much protection under the law as white people. In fact, if they are likely to need more medical attention, then they should get it. So, how does the debate suddenly change if the group is gay people instead of 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-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv/

        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/0R3502042010.html

        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-ethnicity-cancer_x.htm

        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-minorities-more-than-whites.php

        A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/race-wars-part-1-the-shocking-data-on-black-on-black-crime/

        On November 13, 2007, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) did a press release in order to give its findings on the 2006 Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report. This report is an annual one in which the CDC discusses STD trends according to an individual's race and sex in reference to the general population. This year the information was given by John Douglas, the director of CDC's Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention. Sadly, for 2006, he found that the occurrences of STDs tend to be much higher amongst Blacks versus Whites.
        The CDC found that in 2006 three STDs occurred more often with Blacks than Whites. The STDs in concern are gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia.
        The break down goes as follows:
        * The occurrence of gonorrhea in Blacks was 18 times higher than with Whites.
        * The occurrence of syphilis in Blacks was roughly 6 times higher than with Whites.
        * The occurrence of chlamydia in Blacks was 8 times higher than with Whites.

        http://voices.yahoo.com/stds-affect-blacks-more-than-whites-663992.html

        A new study has revealed that black girls are 50 percent more likely than white girls to suffer from the eating disorder bulimia.

        The findings of the study led by researchers from University of Southern California, University of Maryland and Universitat de Autonoma Barcelona, Spain, challenge the widespread perception that bulimia primarily affects the privileged.

        Asian-African girls, in particular, were found to be suffering the eating disorder.

        http://www.medindia.net/news/Bulimia-Affects-Black-Girls-More-Than-Whites-48942-1.htm

        Multiple sclerosis is a disease that usually affects more Caucasians that African Americans. But recent studies suggest that for those blacks that are afflicted by MS tend to have a disease that progresses faster and does not respond that well to available therapies as compared to MS that affects whites.
        Neurology researchers from the University of Buffalo studied around 567 MS patients. During the course of the study, the researchers found out through Magnetic Resonance Images of the brain showed that blacks with MS develop more damage to brain tissue and had less normal white and gray brain matter as compared to whites afflicted with the same disease.
        According to Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, MD, director at the Baird Multiple Sclerosis Center in Kaleida Health’s Buffalo General Hospital and associate professor at the UB School of Medicine and the study’s lead author, "Black patients showed more brain tissue damage and accumulated brain lesions faster than whites, along with rapid clinical deterioration."
        http://www.msnews.com/health/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/blacks-suffer-more-severe-ms-symptoms-than-whites/

        Black adults developed heart failure at a rate 20 times higher than did whites, even dying of it decades before the condition typically strikes whites, in a large multicenter study of the causes of heart disease, researchers reported.
        Heart failure typically occurs in the elderly and is rare in young adults. Researchers did not expect to see much of it among the 5,115 young blacks and whites, evenly split along racial and sex lines, that they had been following to learn about causes of heart disease. But after 20 years, 27 participants in the study had developed heart failure, all but one of them black.

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E7D61F3BF93AA25750C0A96F9C8B63

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          Your supererogatory narrative notwithstanding, none of that has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. Being born of a certain race is not a behavior, but an unchangeable genetic characteristic. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. Also consider that differences in medical problems between one racial group and another are often difficult to define because there may be multiple environmental factors at work rather than just simple genetic differences.

          In fact, your information makes a good argument against homosexual behavior, because the diseases, reduced lifespan, and mental health issues among homosexuals would be expected to be consistent regardless of race. So while your information may be interesting, it is an apples-to-oranges comparison to equate inherited racial characteristics, which are unchangeable, with homosexual behavior, which is acquired and reversible.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Smoking is hardly a genetic characteristic and that was one of the points I mentioned. Neither is bulimia which I also mentioned. Strangely, getting an STD is also not genetic and neither is murder. So, all you have done is attempt to discredit my posting with inaccurate information. But, simply reading both posts shows that your rebuttal actually does not address my comments.

          • Bighoss

            None of that irrelevant smoke-screening changes anything concerning the high prevalence of AIDS/HIV and other morbid sex-related conditions in male homosexuals and the the related severe shortening of average life span in that sector of society.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

            Except for the reality that you stated that gays have shorter life spans based on their behaviors. So do blacks.

          • Bighoss

            Try to focus on the subject at hand, Jeffrey. There are reasons of all kinds why some ethnic groups have longer or shorter than average life spans, but what we are dealing with on THIS topic is the FACT that homosexual men have been conclusively shown to have very significantly shorter than average life spans and that the variable accounting for this is their sexual activity and the diseases that accompany it.

          • Jeff Dixon

            Fortunately, i have focused on the issue, hoss. I have shown that other groups besides gays have been impacted by AID's. Blacks are more likely to get AID's than any other race. In Africa, heterosexuals get AID;s in far greater numbers than gay people.
            And as I also pointed out, science is confirming that being gay is genetic, which means it is exactly the same as race.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            But you are attempting to tie behavior to race. That is certainly not an equivalent comparison to homosexuality, since homosexuals come in all different races. Smoking is a behavior that affects people of all races, but it may disproportionately affect blacks for a number of environmental reasons. Once again, comparing medical problems of blacks against medical problems of homosexuals is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Homosexuals suffer the problems they do because of their behavior, and blacks suffer the diseases they do mainly as a result of their behavior, not their race.

          • Jeff Dixon

            I am showing that groups of people have medical issues. Hoss tried to show that being gay is bad because of medical problems. I showed that blacks also have have medical problems. And guess what, more straight people worldwide have AID's than gay people. In the USA, more gays have it, but that is not the reality around the world.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Then you are agreeing that black person's behavior, such as smoking, illicit sex (higher HIV rates), poor eating habits, etc are destructive and contribute greatly to their medical problems. So likewise, homosexual's behavior (engaging in sex with same-sex persons) is also destructive. I don't see how presenting the problems black people have medically makes a case for condoning homosexual behavior. While some of the medical problems blacks have are hereditary, such as sickle cell anemia, and may be partly environmental as well, none of the medical problems gays have are hereditary, but are entirely related to their behavior.

            You also says, "…more straight people worldwide have AID's than gay people." Obviously that would be true because far more people are heterosexual than homosexual. You have to look at the RATE of occurrence, not the raw number. In NYC, for example, men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men.

            http://www.thebody.com/content/64967/men-who-have-sex-with-men-have-a-140-fold-higher-r.html?ic=2004

          • Jeff Dixon

            Because it is only gay behavior which you condemn. You focus all
            your indignation on the gay community.

            Yes, the percentages has been higher for gays in the USA, but worldwide,
            that is not accurate.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Since AIDS started in the gay community, the only reason it has entered the heterosexual community is contact with gays, either through bisexuality or shared drug needles. So the blame for AIDS lays squarely on the homosexual community.

            It is not I that condemns homosexual behavior, it is God's Word that does. Sadly, AIDS is only one of the myriad of problems that gays face as a direct result of their illicit sexual practices. It is a lifestyle of disease, mental disorders, abuse, infidelity and an early death age, so anyone who condones or encourages their behavior is certainly not showing them love. If you want to show love to them, then tell them the truth about the destructive path they are on.

            Here is a resource that compares the lifestyles of homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples. There are many shocking differences which tragically bode ill for anyone trapped in the gay lifestyle. The statistics are frightening:

            http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

            One excerpt:
            ""Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different," proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. "We're the couple next door," claimed one partnered homosexual. "We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I'm boring."[1] Such down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights?

            Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as "part of mainstream American society"?
            On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
            · relationship duration
            · monogamy vs. promiscuity
            · relationship commitment
            · number of children being raised
            · health risks
            · rates of intimate partner violence            "

          • Jeff Dixon

            More nonsense. Sickle cell is passed on from heterosexual couples having children. Are heterosexuals squarely to blame for the disease? Besides, it is not known exactly how AID's first originated in humans, so to blame gays is without merit.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            I wasn't "blaming gays" for AIDS. I simply stated that it originated in the gay community, and that obviously the only way for it to spread was that someone from the gay community infected a heterosexual or bisexual person, who then introduced it to heterosexuals. So I am saying they are responsible for its spread, not the disease itself.

            True, we may not know exactly how the disease originated, but it is a fact that it first appeared in the gay community.

            "The origin of AIDS and HIV has puzzled scientists ever since the illness first came to light in the early 1980s. For over twenty years it has been the subject of fierce debate and the cause of countless arguments, with everything from a promiscuous flight attendant to a suspect vaccine programme being blamed. So what is the truth? Just where did AIDS come from?
            The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s (more about this period can be found on our History of AIDS page). A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome.            "
            http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm

          • Jeff Dixon

            Correct, in the USA. That does not mean it was not previously in the heterosexual community and simply not recognized as such somewhere else in the world.

            I am not saying that many gays are not promiscuous, but many straight people are as well.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            You can speculate all you want, but the fact remains that AIDS was first reported among homosexuals. It is what it is.

            If you want to compare rates of promiscuity, then you are venturing into a minefield. Homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heteros.

            "MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIPLest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:Married couples· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]Male HomosexualsResearch 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://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Apologies if this posts twice, not sure if something happened to the original.

            You can speculate all you want, but the fact remains that AIDS was first reported among homosexuals. It is what it is.
            If you want to compare rates of promiscuity, then you are venturing into a minefield. Homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heteros.

            "MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIPLest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:Married couples· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]Male HomosexualsResearch 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://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            gays = sodomites
            yes that activity is a choice
            the colon is not a sex organ
            it is an organ for the excretion of WASTE matter, highly contaminated

          • Jeff Dixon

            Heterosexuals also engage in anal sex. It is not limited to gays.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            still a choice that is unhealthy… we know that sticking ourselves with contaminated needles promote disease… no difference; where is reason to say stop when health is concerned… sounds like degeneracies we should NOT have to pay for

          • Jeff Dixon

            You said gays = sodomites. It also therefore = heterosexuals.

            And using a condom protects against infections.

          • UF Gator

            NOT for the majority of the population it isn't and anyway condoms are NOT fail proof http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/sexandrelationships/contraception/201032.html
            accessed 080312
            on the polymer chemistry of rubber and rubber like materials: the condom is made of atoms arranged in long chains called polymers… it you look at the chemical structure at a magnification, say the size of of an HIV molecule, you will "freak out" Using one is still risky because the layers and stacking of polymers are not like complete walls against the influx of particles the size of the incoming invaders, like sperm and viruses… I think the sperm is huge in fact in comparison to the virus and pregnancy can and does occur due to this fact, does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the same is true for viruses.

          • Jeff Dixon

            I did not say they were failsafe, I said they protect. I will look into your statement about the polymer wall.

          • Mary Wood

            please do

          • Jeff Dixon

            An in vitro evaluation of condoms as barriers to a small virus.
            Lytle CD, Routson LB, Seaborn GB, Dixon LG, Bushar HF, Cyr WH.
            SourceCenter for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA.
            AbstractBACKGROUND: Because of the possible presence of small holes, the effectiveness of condoms as barriers to virus transmission is controversial.GOALS: To determine the proportion of condoms that allow virus penetration and the amounts of virus that penetrate.STUDY DESIGN: A sensitive, static test was used to evaluate different condom types as barriers to a small virus, including brand with or without lubrication and ones of different materials. The test included some physiologic-based parameters and some parameters that exaggerated expected actual use conditions.RESULTS: Under test conditions, 2.6% (12 of 470) of the latex condoms allowed some virus penetration; the median level of penetration was 7 x 10(-4) ml. Lubricated condoms performed similarly to nonlubricated ones. Polyurethane condoms yielded results higher than but not statistically different from those for latex condoms.CONCLUSIONS: Few condoms allowed any virus penetration. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 1 x 10(-5) ml (volume of semen). Thus, even for the few condoms that do allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen would be several orders of magnitude lower than for no condom at all.PIP: Nine brands and 470 samples of latex condoms and two brands and 76 samples of polyurethane condoms bought from retail distributors were tested in vitro for their ability to block the penetration of virus. A sensitive, static test apparatus was designed for and used in the evaluation. The test included some physiological-based parameters as well as some which exaggerated the expected actual use conditions. Both lubricated and nonlubricated condoms were tested. Before testing, however, most of the lubrication was removed from the lubricated condoms through rinsing with Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline and blotting with sterile paper towels. The 0X174 bacteriophage of 27 nm particle diameter, 32 nm including its bulky spikes, was used as the proxy challenge virus. Under test conditions, 12 of the latex condoms (2.6%) allowed some virus penetration of median quantity 0.0007 ml. Just two of the latex condoms were responsible for 99.8% of the total penetration among latex condoms overall. The performance of lubricated condoms was similar to that of nonlubricated ones. Four of the polyurethane condoms allowed penetration, but only one condom was responsible for 98.6% of total penetration. The difference in performance between latex and polyurethane condoms is not statistically significant. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 0.00001 ml of semen. Therefore, even for the few condoms which allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen is several orders of magnitude lower than the amount of exposure expected when not using a condom.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9132983"The most authoritative recent report is by the US National Institute of Health which concluded: "In fact condoms are essentially impermeable to the smallest sexually transmitted virus, and that the consistent use of male condoms protects against HIV/AIDS transmission."

          • Mary Wood

            Good job Mr Dixon!

          • Mary Wood

            From you NIH finding, "Thus, even for the few condoms that do allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen would be several orders of magnitude lower than for no condom at all." this is nonsense, negates their entire statement and therefore their conclusion Jeff. And six people + others got paid megabucks to deliver this bogus statement to you, the consumer.

          • Jeff Dixon

            There is nothing nonsensical about it at all. First off, the vast majority of condoms are preventing the virus from entering the body, So, condoms can and do work, contrary to your initial post.
            Second, partial protection is better than no protection.

          • Mary Wood

            I get it. I prefer to go to the heart of the matter. It does come down in the end to opinion. I have the fullest protection, abstinence. It's a choice.

          • Jeff Dixon

            Yes it is.

          • Mary Wood

            I hope you trust is not misplaced Mr. Dixon.

          • Mary Wood
          • Mary Wood

            In recommend you look at the structure of the polymer and not depend on inflated government to tell you the truth. [You told me you are a libertarian. : )

          • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

            * Okay, you have a point. But the rectum is not a sex organ.

            * Really? Not entirely, Mr.Dixon, dream on.

        • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

          Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2009HIV Surveillance Report, Volume 21

          http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2009report/

          table 2a AIDS diagnoses, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics, 2006–2009 and cumulative—United States

          http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/reports/2009report/pdf/table2a.pdf

        • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

          "
          So, how does the debate suddenly change if the group is gay people instead of black people?"

          Because, Jeffrey, that is a way of gaining control of RESEARCH DOLLARS which is the only way these problems will be solved… this is a highly political topic we are talking about… because the FACT that more black people have the hiv/std/gay issues it is a way of diverting attention to their problem … and that is not the only specific areas to which the research dollars are being diverted in the black population… Yes, there has been a disproportionate amount of research dollars on diseases that are not targeted specifically to blacks/// that is changing and changing rapidly … and the change in the language as you have indicated by your question above has the specific purpose to change the mindset so those changes can take place more rapidly … am I answering you question?

          I suggest you look where the NIH is placing research dollars withregard to you question. nih.gov

      • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

        I think it is a choice. Even Christians have the power to reason even when it comes to health where otherwise they are completely ensconced in their religious convictions

  • Paul

    They're absolutely right – they're born that way! So are we all born with sin natures. Thank God that His Son Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins. And, if you'll put your trust in His death, burial and resurrection it can be for your sins too.

    We, who are thus saved from condemnation, are then commanded to PUT OFF the old nature.

    Spend time seeking the good things of God, and you won't have time, let alone desire, to engage in the sinful pastimes of the old nature.

  • william henry

    If, according to Mr. Bond, sexuality is unchangeable, how come Chastity Bono is now Chaz. These folks are so sick. Like a bunch of flies in a cow pattie all agreeing "smells ok to me".

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

      How has the sexuality of Chaz changed? Chaz was attracted to women as Chasity and is still attracted to women as Chaz.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

        I think she didn't have a choice, given her environment. Her upbringing was in no way "normal"

  • Vladimir

    Physical attraction between individuals of the same sex is a proclivity not an irresistable force. A person with this proclivity can choose to successfully resist it Someone with the proclivity to light fires or to batter other people can also choose to resist these urges. Being black or white is genetic and not a decision. Some people make a deliberate decision to confuse the two, for political motives. Don't choose to be made a fool of by these people.

    • Bighoss

      Exactly!

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon

      Really? You could choose to be sexually excited by someone of the same sex? I could not make that choice, ever.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

      I find this impossible to believe also, since I would not choose such a lifestyle. But I think my experience hinges on a rather happy childhood and having good heterosexual role models. What about people who have not been as fortunate? I think what Vladimir says is entirely possible. Role models in a child's life can be very defining.

    • Jeff Dixon

      The argument from nature is being accepted more readily in the scientific community due to the increasing evidence that sexual orientation develops before birth. Here are just a few examples of those who support that homosexuality is genetically dispositional:
      Author and respected geneticist Matt Ridley states that, “Nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence…Homosexuality is an early, probably prenatal and irreversible preference.“The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated, “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice”Frederick L. Whitam, PhD, Professor in the Department of Sociology at Arizona State University, said, “During the past 30 years, a strong body of evidence has emerged to suggest that sexual orientation is biological. During this same time period, not a single bit of scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is learned has appeared.”The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance stated, “We recommend following the lead of most physical and mental health professionals, and consider homosexual orientation to be normal, natural, unchosen and fixed.“Kenneth M. Cohen, PhD, Lecturer in Human Development at Cornell University, wrote, “Recent scans of the human genome reveal that some gay males share a genetic marker for homosexuality on the X chromosome. One avenue through which genes regulate homoeroticism is by instructing the brain to develop in a sex-atypical manner.”
      For more than twenty-five years, mental health practitioners and researchers have recognized that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Moreover, they are highly critical of attempts to change sexual orientation. These professional associations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Social Workers. These are not fringe groups. They represent roughly a half-million health and mental health professionals who support the fact that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus, there is no need for a cure. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association rejected reparative therapy as not only ineffective, but potentially destructive. The risks include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.

  • Silentio

    Michael steel might also be among those who think that killing off the people you don't like ought to be allowed, or that the buying and selling of children ought to be tolerated. there have been places that allowed that; but not in Christian countries.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

      Wait a minute… where is your source for this information about even the possibility this is correct about Michael Steel!? I tend to disagree. Please provide some sources.

  • Dennis

    This is the same old tired arguments.I was born this way yadda, yadda ,yadda.No.You are giving into the lusts of your heart of your flesh as we all do as scripture says.YHWH gives us over to these things.We pursue the things that we lust for.We all do it.Gays do it for their same sex but giving into it isnt right anymore than the child molester who gives in and molests a child.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

      I agree, especially with your last sentence, entirely!!!

  • Realist

    Christians don't own the institution of marriage.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood

      Why do you say this, Realist?