The Pretended Offenses of Chief Justice Roy Moore

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme court asserted the opinion that gay couples had the right to marry under the US constitution. On the heels of this opinion, last year a federal judge ruled same-sex marriage was legal in the state of Alabama.

Judge Roy Moore

Judge Roy Moore

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore postulated that the US Supreme Court, and the federal judge’s ruling, was at odds with a unanimous decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that stated marriage is between one man and one woman. Moore then issued an administrative order to state probate judges stating they should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

This sparked a whirlwind for the good Chief Justice who was suspended from his job last week and faces possible ouster after the anti-American Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC); which then forwarded the case to the Court of the Judiciary. What was the crime?

In the Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers used the term “pretended legislation” to describe legislation that does not square with what the Declaration refers to as the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” As a result, this legislation had no lawful authority. And though our founders were guilty of breaking many pretended laws, they referred to these offenses as “pretended offenses.”

Chief Justice Moore’s legal council recently released a statement that read:

“He did nothing wrong. The politically motivated complaints filed with the JIC have no basis in the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

In other words, if the Chief Justice was drunk on the bench, he would have broke the canons (rules) of Judicial Ethics. Of course the judge has done nothing to break ethical rules, which means the only motivation for the enforcement of these pretended offence is politics.

Moore’s statement continues:

“The Alabama Supreme Court is the only body that has statutory authority to overrule administrative orders of the Chief Justice.”

Simply stated, Moore gave an administrative order to probate Judges to stop issuing licenses. If this was an ethical violation, only the supreme court of Alabama can enforce a penalty.

What Moore’s persecutors are attempting is an end-run around the rule of Law. They want The Supreme Court of the United States to be the author of law and thereby create “Pretended Legislation” in their favor.

So now the same court that removed Moore from office in 2003 for his refusal to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state’s judicial building, will decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics, and he could be removed from office if found guilty of this pretended offense.

But thankfully Moore is not laying down on this.  He recently stated:

“The JIC has chosen to listen to people like … a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda. We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail.”

God knows the outcome, but one thing is certain: His laws are not “pretend” because your rights are unalienable, regardless of what a king or court enforces.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.


  1. retiredday says:

    Apparently, the court of public opinion, particularly the “officially sanctioned” politically correct opinion, overrules courts of law, the constitution, and every other legal standard. This is just part of the “fundamental transformation” hyped by Obama.

    If we want to remain a nation of laws and not be ruled by whomever wields the most power to force their agenda, then we must fight to enforce those laws and the constitutional principles by which they are designed. Thank God that Justice Moore is exactly that kind of man. He is willing to go to mat for Constitutional liberty, and indeed has done just that. He is not just a man of words.

    We need justices like him on the federal Supreme Court!

  2. Lee David Brinkley says:

    Bull! The Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction on this matter and anyone adding otherwise is a fill and a liar. Forbidding marriage equality is a violation of equal, civil rights. What hateful people you people are!

    • DCM7 says:

      All you’re doing is just calling us names and calling things what they’re not — not a very convincing argument.

      What we hate is not people, but lies. And when someone insists on calling unequal things equal, that’s a lie.

      The joining of opposites in marriage — as much as people get it wrong (because it’s a difficult thing) — has a deep, unique value that cannot even begin to be approximated by the coupling of “sames” (based on an attraction that is both unhealthy and addressable, as countless people’s lives demonstrate).

      You can argue with that all you want, and you can support any number of laws that unjustly ignore it. But you’ll never change it, and you’ll never erase what we and others know.

      • Lee David Brinkley says:

        Maybe you should read everything I wrote. People are born gay. Sometimes people are born with genitalia that does not match their proper sex. It’s that simple.

        • DCM7 says:

          I read what you wrote. It wasn’t that long. Did you read what I wrote?

          “People are born gay. Sometimes people are born with genitalia that does not match their proper sex.”
          Those are just popular, simplistic beliefs that have no basis in reality. Science doesn’t support them. Real life doesn’t support them.

          People may have their sexuality or sexual identity messed up so early in life that they really believe they were “born that way.” Some people claim they were “born that way” while knowing it isn’t true. But people genuinely stop living as “gay” all the time. People’s confused sexual identities get straightened out all the time. And they’re far better off for it. You can deny or ignore that reality, but you can’t change it.

          By reciting pat, simplistic talking points, you just end up sounding like you haven’t given any real thought to either side of the issue.

        • DCM7 says:

          Addressing your new edit:

          “The bible NEVER defines marriage as one man ONE one woman.”
          It most certainly does. Note that, while polygamy is recorded as happening, it is never endorsed. The one man/one woman model is *always* presented as the ideal. And anything sexual between people of the same sex is *always* condemned in the strongest terms.

          “Neither God nor Jesus ever said a single thing against homosexuality.”
          For someone who wants to make references to the Bible, you sure show a poor understanding of what’s in it. It’s true that Jesus personally doesn’t address homosexuality directly, but it’s also true that he very clearly reinforces the one man/one woman model.

          “They condemned divorce 13 times.”
          Most of the places where the Bible is translated as saying “divorce” actually refer to the ancient practice of “putting away” a wife *without* granting her a proper divorce. Once one knows that, it sheds a different light on what’s being said.

          “Is anyone banning divorced people from marrying or using bathrooms?”
          No one’s telling anyone they can’t get married, within the appropriate conditions. And no one’s telling anyone they can’t use the bathroom, just that they have to use the one assigned to their actual sex.

          Just curious: How many times do these arguments have to be refuted before you’ll stop trying to use them?

        • retiredday says:

          “People are born gay.”

          People are born sinful. But that doesn’t justify continuing in sin. All sin will be judged by God, who teaches us what sin is and what sin isn’t. When it comes to the Bible, you are seeing what you want to see, and not seeing what you don’t want to see. You don’t really know the Bible. All you know is your own selfish desires, and all your arguments are rationalizations to feed those desires.

      • Lee David Brinkley says:

        It’s really this simple: discrimination is against the U.S.constitution. The court interpreted the Constitution as saying so. The U.S.constitution overrides state constitution, as well as laws.

        • DCM7 says:

          Just laws do not discriminate against people, but they do discriminate against behavior. By definition they have to call one behavior good and another bad. There always has to be discrimination of some kind. If you imply that “all discrimination is bad,” as you do, then you show no understanding of law, discrimination or the Constitution.

          • Lee David Brinkley says:

            Laws banning marriage equality are not just laws.

            • DCM7 says:

              “Laws banning marriage equality are not just laws.”

              True marriage equality means everyone is held to the same time-tested standards regarding marriage. That’s justice. That’s also not what you mean by “marriage equality.”

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                That’s such crap.You are too bigoted and uneducated to waste my time on. You ARE the weakest link, GOODBYE.

              • DCM7 says:

                “You are too bigoted and uneducated to waste my time on.”

                Your name-calling is amusing. I’d have to be more uncaring for you to call me “not bigoted,” and I’d have to know a lot less for you to call me “educated.”

                Yours is the kind of disagreement I welcome.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                Well your lies don’t fool me. I can see right through them. So can many many people. You’re fooling only yourself

              • DCM7 says:

                “Well your lies don’t fool me. I can see right through them. So can many many people. You’re fooling only yourself”
                Say it all you want if it makes you feel better. I have said nothing that is a lie, or that you can even make look like a lie. Truths you don’t accept don’t become lies just because you don’t accept them.

              • Lee, as someone who has argued for legal gay marriage for a number of years, I can tell you that it has been an egregious error for gay rights supporters to dismiss everyone opposed to it as whackjobs or simply misinformed or stupid.

                These are not as clear-cut issues as you might think. The law is a powerful tool, and it sets a precedent for the way people view culture and their role within it as well as what is even “ethical”.

                I recall warning those on the far Right to not take a scorched earth policy when it came to gay rights (in terms of opposing even basic housing and employment protections) because it would come back to bite them. It seems that is now happening.

                However, pendulums swing back and forth. Gay marriage was one thing. I think telling even liberal parents that their son or daughter has to be exposed to an adult of the opposite sex in a locker room because of unclear gender identity laws is going have the same negative repercussions.

                People generally have a live and let live attitude. When you start messing with their kids and not allowing parents to have any say in regards to what they are exposed to or the values that are taught to them, it’s going to be a bridge too far.

                Of course, that may very well not be what the transgender community is asking or demanding, but when even I can’t ask these questions without being personally attacked and called names, what hope for clarity is anyone else going to have?

            • Bob Ellis says:

              A law is not a just law because we like it. A law is just because it is right according to Natural Law.

              As Sir Edward Coke stated:

              The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.

              As jurist William Blackstone–to whom many of the founders of the United States looked for legal wisdom–said,

              Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt, or add any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience) to abstain from its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we, are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.


              Man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

              More recently, Dr. Martin Luther King illustrated the correct response to just and unjust laws with his actions, as well as with his words as penned in his letter from a Birmingham jail:

              You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

              Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

              Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

              The laws of the overwhelming majority of the states which articulated what every civilization throughout history has instinctively understood (that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman) were legally, constitutionally and justly enacted. Any attempt to subvert them is an attempt to subvert the rule of law, state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and the concept of just law itself.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          Again, read the material at the link. You are thoroughly wrong.

          • Lee David Brinkley says:

            I’m not. You and your kind are evil and bigoted. Your stance has no biblical backing. It flies in the face off Jesus’ teachings

            • DCM7 says:

              We know what is taught by the Bible and by Jesus. You either do not or you are disregarding it. Did you really think we wouldn’t see that?

              My life demonstrates that I have no bigotry, particularly against gays. I have already cited one example that shows that. But you’d rather believe that I’m bigoted. I’m sure you’d rather deal with 100 “God hates fags” nuts than with one person who is not hateful, but who knows things you don’t want people to know — and thus is not fooled by what you say.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                Name ONE one time Jesus or God spoke about homosexuality. I’m the sin of a preacher. Don’t tell me I don’t know the bible.

                The things you said show you’re a bigot. Thanks for playing “can I fake it” though.

              • DCM7 says:

                “Name ONE one time Jesus or God spoke about homosexuality.”
                Addressed above, by both myself and Bob.

                “I’m the sin of a preacher.”
                Interesting typo. BTW, my gay friend was the son of a clergyman as well. Unfortunately his father’s failings (including coldness and unnecessary strictness) had a lot to do with his turning out gay. Of course, my friend was the kind of person who was vulnerable to being bent in that direction (which is as close as “born that way” comes to being true).

                “Don’t tell me I don’t know the bible.”
                Well, I have to go by the evidence of what you say. If you really “know” it, then you should be saying radically different things than you are.

                “The things you said show you’re a bigot.”
                No, they just show that I disagree with what you’re saying. I have to, or I’d be ignoring some pretty important things that I’ve learned.

                “Thanks for playing ‘can I fake it’ though.”
                I guess you think you can just say things and they’ll magically be true. Too bad it doesn’t work that way.

            • Bob Ellis says:

              My stance is BUILT on Jesus’ teachings.

              Jesus was one of the eternal members of the Godhead, the Trinity, present at and active in the creation of the universe. Jesus is also known as “The Word” (the Gospel of John, Chapter 1), which is also what the Bible is known as (“The Word of God”).

              What does the Word of God teach about human sexuality in general and homosexual behavior specifically?

              – Genesis 2:24 Where God outlined his design for human sexuality: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

              – Genesis 19 where men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the male angels, and it was called a “wicked thing”

              – Leviticus 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

              – Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”

              – Judges 19 In Gibeah where “wicked men” wanted to have sex with a Levite man, and it was called a “disgraceful thing”

              – Mark 10:6-8 Jesus reaffirms God’s design for human sexuality: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.”

              – Romans 1:26-27 where the Bible talks about “godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” and says “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

              – 1 Corinthians 6:9 says, among other habitual sins, homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”

              – 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns “men who practice homosexuality”

              Homosexual behavior is counter to the Designer’s plan for sexual behavior. It violates the obvious design and intent of the human body, it can result in injury, it frequently results in the contraction and transmission of disease, and it separates one spiritually from one’s creator.

              I hope you’ll consider these truths, then seek to reconcile your behavior and your heart to your Creator. He loves you too much to allow you to continue in self-destructive behavior without warning.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                Sorry still no quotes about homosexuality from God or Jesus. And it’s well known that Constantine changed a lot of the bible to reflect his views.

              • DCM7 says:

                “Sorry still no quotes about homosexuality from God or Jesus.”
                So quotes from the Bible aren’t “quotes from God”? How does that work?

                “it’s well known that Constantine changed a lot of the bible to reflect his views.”
                No, that’s just one of many invented excuses people have for rejecting the Bible. The ancient manuscripts that are still extant today show very clearly that the Bible was *not* changed, and certainly not by anyone who came along as late as Constantine.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                Wow, you live in a fantasy world. You have said things you just said you didn’t. You say you aren’t a bigot but say bigoted things. You refuse to face truth. You and your ilk are the modern day Pharisees bye man, I’m never going to your fantasy land. I prefer truth and love. Practice your hate in your own little world

              • DCM7 says:

                “You have said things you just said you didn’t.” — No, but you seem to have misinterpreted things that way.

                “You say you aren’t a bigot but say bigoted things.” — You have shown no bigotry on my part. You have only shown that you don’t like what I say.

                “You refuse to face truth.” — No, I refuse to accept popular but false conventional wisdom.

                “I prefer truth and love. Practice your hate in your own little world”
                I would have pulled my friend out of the life that killed him. You would have just left him in it. Don’t talk to me about “love” and “hate.”

              • Bob Ellis says:

                You obviously didn’t read a thing I said, or are so hostile to truth that you cannot accept what was put plainly before you on a silver platter. Jesus condemned homosexual behavior repeatedly. Go back and read my last comment again, this time with an open mind and a hear willing to accept the truth when presented.

                It is well known that Constantine did NOT change the BIble to reflect his views. Manuscripts which predate Constantine prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                None of the things mentioning homosexuality were from God or Jesus. They are supposedly said by others.

                And actually a lot does prove he actually did manipulate the Bible. Again though, wouldn’t expect a fool to see the truth.. and you certainly are a fool.

              • DCM7 says:

                “None of the things mentioning homosexuality were from God or Jesus. They are supposedly said by others.”
                If you don’t accept the Bible as the word of God (or of Jesus), then it’s not clear what you’d accept as being from God (or Jesus).

                “actually a lot does prove he actually did manipulate the Bible.”
                Sorry, but your claim has been refuted already. It doesn’t help to pretend it hasn’t been.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                There is no credible evidence the Bible was changed in any significant intentional way from the original authorship. If we accept the Bible’s claim that its source is God (and its record of veracity exceeds any human document by astronomical proportions), then ALL that it says is from God, and since Jesus is a member of the Godhead, then that means Jesus said everything in the Bible.

                And as I cited from multiple passages in the Bible, God condemns homosexual behavior as an extreme perversion of his design for human sexuality, which was intended to be expressed between a man and a woman in marriage.

              • retiredday says:

                At the time in Israel’s history when Jesus lived as a man, knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures was very common. That is why very often Jesus would refer to a specific passage without completely quoting it. He would say just enough for everyone to understand what passage he was referring to. Since the people were so well-schooled in the Bible, not everything had to be spelled out to them. In that society homosexuality was commonly considered an abomination. Little needed to be said about it. The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) already said it all.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                Also your quotes of jurists past are pointless as they include a belief that religion has a place in government. It has none. A government based on any religion cannot stand. By it’s very definition out odd EXclusive rather than INCLUSIVE, which is the concept of the United States. Our founding fathers made it clear that they didn’t want religion within 10 city blocks of government.

                Also, the statement that most want a one man one woman marriage is false by far. 57% of the American people sporty marriage equality. Yes marriage equality means ANYONE can get married to ANYONE they want who is of legal age.

                Of your marriage can be harmed by gay marriage, the problem is in YOUR marriage.

              • DCM7 says:

                “Our founding fathers made it clear that they didn’t want religion within 10 city blocks of government.”
                You clearly haven’t spent much time learning about what the founding fathers said. You seem to have bought some very popular, but demonstrably false, claims about what they said.

                “the statement that most want a one man one woman marriage is false by far”
                Even if your statistic is true, what does it prove? Only that 57% of American people are ignorant about homosexuality (and marriage). That shouldn’t surprise anyone, given how common such ignorance is.

                “Yes marriage equality means ANYONE can get married to ANYONE they want who is of legal age.”
                Since when is “of legal age” the only standard? The other standards — including there being one person of each sex — all have reasons for being there, and neither you nor anyone else can show otherwise. The standards don’t go away just because some people don’t like them.

                “[If] your marriage can be harmed by gay marriage, the problem is in YOUR marriage.”
                Tired old straw-man. No one has ever claimed that their own marriage is harmed by “gay marriage.” They only point out the injustice of treating something as being something it isn’t. If someone gets paid for only pretending to do my job, that may not affect my job; but it’s still unjust.

                Again, how many times do arguments have to be refuted before you’ll stop repeating them?

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                You realize your B.S. “arguments” are nonsense, right?

              • DCM7 says:

                No, and you don’t demonstrate in any way that they are nonsense.

              • Lee David Brinkley says:

                First you say the majority don’t want gay marriage, then say “ok they do, but they are ignorant.” Foolish

              • DCM7 says:

                I didn’t say anything about a majority not wanting gay marriage. What’s right doesn’t depend on what the majority may think.

    • retiredday says:

      “Bull”? How easily you dismiss established, time-tested, God-honoring moral values. Contrary to the popular aberration that the Supreme Court “has jurisdiction in this matter”, constitutionally, it does not have any right to dictate social mores, redefine the institution of marriage or create laws, irrespective of the actual abuse of authority they exercise in doing these very things.

      “Marriage equality” is a perverted construct. No one is forbidding marriage here. A union between individuals of the same sex does not a marriage make! Homosexuals’ “equal marriage rights” enables them to marry individuals of the opposite sex — the same right heterosexuals have.

      If homosexuals choose to live in relationships that mock the very essence of what marriage is, that is your choice. The Bible calls it sin, but not everyone is a Bible believer. Christians aren’t trying to force or forbid anything on you. It’s your life. Live it as you choose. But Christians have a duty before God to speak the truth, and in this country we have the constitutional right to tell you that homosexuality is a sin and that in the eyes of God there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. That is not hate. It’s just you who hate hearing the truth.

      You are the ones who hate anyone who dares to disagree with your agenda, which is to force your immorality on all of society. As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Lot’s of people have been fooled into accepting the LGBTQ agenda as a matter of civil rights. You’ve even fooled yourself into believing it. But It is not. We are not fooled. No matter how hard you push to politicize it, you are not defending any civil rights. What you are doing is defying the authority of God.

      When you say, “What a hateful people you people are!” you are projecting your own hatred of God’s righteousness, which motivates us and for which we stand. We love God and we love you, because God loves you and wants to save you from sin. That is why we are so adamant, because you are sliding down the slippery slope to your own destruction. We care enough to speak the truth to you so that you might be saved. We don’t hate you.

      • Lee David Brinkley says:

        YOU clearly have not truly understood the bible

        • retiredday says:

          With a judgmental attitude like that, what reason should I or anyone else have for taking you seriously? From the outset, all you’ve been doing is mocking anyone who disagrees with your position. That’s really lame.

          Read your reply to me, and consider it my reply to you. What is clear is that you hate the Bible, you hate Bible-believers, and all you want do is name-call, project your own hatred onto us, and repeat your brand of talking points and accusations without actually intellectually engaging in a single statement made here.

          You have no desire to communicate. You’re just throwing verbal rocks, which is a demonstration of your own intolerance.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          The information has been laid out for you, clearly and repeatedly, today. It is clear that you don’t understand the Bible, and don’t want to.

          I have no problem with ignorance; we were all ignorant at some point. But I don’t have time for willful, deliberate ignorance, i.e. rejecting the truth when presented to you clearly. Let me know if you ever get ready to handle truth.

  3. Bob Ellis says:

    No, science contradicts and condemns homosexual behavior in every way.

    Please educate yourself:

  4. DCM7 says:

    “For every study that says it’s a choice there are dozens that say it’s not.”
    I do not say, and never have said, that it’s a simple choice. The “born that way”/”chosed” dichotomy is a false dilemma. The reality is that it’s largely due to factors early in life, but people can choose to take the hard (but right) road away from it. And many people have, whether you acknowledge it or not.

    “I have given a great deal of thought to this issue.”
    I’m sure you have. But that thought has been misdirected. As they say, “where you stand depends on where you sit.”
    “YOU clearly haven’t! You just opened to the page you were told to, read only the parts the preacher told you to read and ignored the rest.”
    That could not possibly less resemble what’s actually happened in my life. Actually, I’ve not only given it years of thought, but I’ve learned many things directly and indirectly from actual gays — including things they didn’t realize they were showing me.

    “I discussed the bible and scripture to prove your ignorance.”
    What you proved is that you’re less concerned with what it says than with what you want it to say.