Homosexual Movement’s Goal is to Outlaw Christianity

Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

[slaudio: http://www.americanclarion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Homosexual_Movement_Goal_Outlaw_Christianity.mp3, Listen to the author read this article]

banned BIbleFor years now, many of us have been warning America that freedoms of religion, speech, conscience and association and homosexual “rights” cannot coexist; they are by nature mutually exclusive.  This is becoming clearer by the minute, as the radical homosexual movement has taken super flight under the ever-darkening reign of the pro-homosexual Barack Obama (or whatever his name is).

The homosexual movement is part of a larger push toward tyranny that has its roots in the spirit realm.  Ephesians 6:12 clearly spells out the real battle:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

While we certainly have human enemies aligned against us, our true enemies are Satan, his demons and the spiritual wickedness of those in places of great power.  As Christians, we have read the end-times prophecies, and we know the warnings Jesus gave us about how awful things will become in the last days.  Satan is working feverishly to fully cement his terrible, earthly rule and bring those hellish days to fruition.

The Godless communists (or fascists, if you prefer) are using the homosexual agenda to work toward eradicating Christian opposition to their plans, which are Satan’s plans.  If you know your Bible, then you know that Christianity is destined to be outlawed.  We are moving steadily toward a time when Christians here in America will be in danger of state-sanctioned murder for their beliefs.  If you think I exaggerate, then you don’t know what God has already told us, or perhaps you mistakenly believe that the United States is the exception, that it can’t happen here.  Christians throughout the world have always been persecuted, but here in the United States, we have enjoyed unparalleled protection and freedom during the existence of our nation.  That protection is quickly being eroded, and the homosexuals are used as pawns in this process.

Peter LaBarbera, a former journalist for the Washington Times and founder and President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), has an outstanding column at WorldNetDaily that plainly illustrates the fact that Christian liberty and homosexual “rights” cannot coexist.  In the column, titled, “‘Gay’ Power vs. Religious Liberty,” he also compiles a long, sickening list of examples of Christian persecution at the hands of homosexualists, leftist courts and outrageous state laws that protect homosexual behavior while robbing the freedoms of those who conscientiously object.  In part, he writes:

“The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.” – Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folger (Porter), “The Criminalization of Christianity”

There is a war between homosexual “rights” and Americans’ religious and First Amendment freedoms – and the “gay” activists are winning.

The “zero-sum game” is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern “rights” based on homosexual “orientation” (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.

“Gays win, Christians lose,” Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests. She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas.

Mr. LaBarbera also points out that not all the battles we face are related to the homosexual “marriage” fight:

These victims of escalating “Gay Tyranny” in America are not all tied to the question of homosexual “marriage.” Indeed, well before “gay marriage” came on the scene as a “mainstream” issue, pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws and corporate pro-LGBT policies were victimizing and punishing Christians and other moral opponents of homosexuality. And those laws are invariably used to argue for homosexuality-based “marriage.” The homosexualist agenda moves ahead incrementally, but “sexual orientation” laws and policies – and their philosophical presupposition that homosexuality is about innate “identity” (“who you are”) rather than changeable, wrong and aberrant behaviors (“what you do”) – is the foundation for the entire far-reaching LGBT agenda.

There is much more to Mr. LaBarbera’s piece, and I strongly recommend that you read it, along with all the examples of Christian persecution he cites in the second part of the column.  It will give you ammunition against the idiot claims of leftists who declare that there is no such thing as a “homosexual movement” and that Christians are not being targeted by homosexual activists.  Those lies are easily debunked.

Even so, we are losing this battle, and there are numerous reasons why.  Brian Camenker, of MassResistance, wrote a report titled, “Lessons Learned from the Hawaii ‘Gay Marriage’ Fight.” Homosexual “marriage” was forced on the people of Hawaii by a group of leftist politicians, despite massive opposition by the residents of the state who demanded that the issue be put to a vote by the people, instead of rammed through legislatively.  This is another important column that you should take a few moments to read.  In his piece, Mr. Camenker lays out the battle as it stands and makes sobering observations, on which he expounds, including the:

-Huge forces stacked against us in these battles

-Huge, well-organized lobbying blitzkrieg by the homosexual movement

-Enormous amounts of pro-homosexual money coming in

-The mainstream media’s non-stop PR campaign

-Almost no support from national conservative movement

Mr. Camenker goes on to describe the astonishing battle by the people of Hawaii against this monstrous move by their leftist lawmakers.  He also lays out lessons and strategies that we must implement to fight this homosexual juggernaut that is devouring the rights and freedoms of the American people.

Yes, this is a steeply uphill battle, but we should never quit fighting it.  The prince of the power of the air, Satan, is successfully crafting a deceptively pro-homosexual atmosphere in our nation, from the media, to entertainment, to corporations and all major institutions.  This causes many people to fear standing in opposition to the militant homosexual agenda and its activists, because of their track record of hostility, even violence, toward those who oppose them.  Many conservative groups and churches fear the vicious vitriol of homosexuals and their supporters in our twisted culture, and that’s really a shame.  Fear is a debilitating force if we give it sway over us.

We must stand, as much as ever, against this degenerate and tyrannical homosexual movement, and in so doing, we must not lose sight of the real nature of the battle.  It’s a spiritual battle, and we must approach it as such, putting on the full armor of God, as best we can, if we are to have any hope of turning back this truly evil tide.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


  1. thisoldspouse says:

    Amen, Gina. Great article as usual.

    If you want to know that Obama and his homosexual handlers intend for society, look at the current Military. It is becoming a microcosm of what they want for society, once they gain as much control over us by “legislative” edicts as they do over the Military.

    • WXRGina says:

      Yep. The military is just the start.

      Thanks, Spouse!

      • thisoldspouse says:

        Padlocked church doors; harsh discipline for offering an “unorthodox” view, even when solicited, on homosexuality; being labeled “officially” as a “hater” and laws written to address and suppress that condition; etc.

        It’s all in our future if we can’t turn it back.

        • Bo Hannon says:

          these post are exactly why there are labels that “officially” are viewed as “haters” just saying……

          • WXRGina says:

            Yeah, that’s it, Bo. We live in a “modern” era when telling the truth is considered “hate” by those who are blind to the truth.

            • Bo Hannon says:

              don’t think our modern eara tells much truths….truths maybe believed by both “sides” doesn’t make their beliefs the “truth”….

        • Bion Niederkohr says:

          Is “hater” a new legal term now? Or are you just making things up?

          • thisoldspouse says:

            Please tell me that you realize that we now have a new LEGAL system of “hate crime” laws. Or are you really that dense?

  2. David says:

    Gina, Bulls eye! That is where it is at!

  3. michael says:

    1Jo 3:11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

    god is love god loves all life god wunts use to love each other the church i go to severs god and we are lgbt so your wrong varry wrong we love god we do his work and he loves use just like you or anyone jeuse caame and died and raise for all life cuzz he loves use all

    • WXRGina says:

      Are you serious? Why the deliberately wacky spelling and grammar, if you’re so bent on pushing the homosexual message?

      Yes, Jesus did come and give Himself as a sacrifice for all of us, for all of our sins-SINS, that do include homosexual behavior. To “love one another” is also to tell the truth to one another, not encourage people to continue living in sinful defiance of what God had told us. Any “church” that encourages you to remain in the homosexual lifestyle is not a church of the Bible.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      - 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.”

      - Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

      - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ” Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

      - 1 Timothy 1:9-11 “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

      - John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands.”

      • thisoldspouse says:

        Get ready for the “mixed fabric” and “shellfish” nonsense now, Bob.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          You can see that coming from a mile away, can’t you? 🙂

          • Alyssa Bryant says:

            Matthew 15:11
            It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

            See how Mathew supports oral sex so long as you well… you get the picture.

        • Alyssa Bryant says:

          Why is this nonsense? These commands are in Leviticus too. *scratches head*

          • Bob Ellis says:

            You should take the time to read Leviticus-and the rest of the Bible-so that you know what you’re talking about. Many regulations were laid out for the Jewish people in Leviticus that we don’t understand because our culture is 3,000 years removed from theirs. But most of the directly moral and behavioral ones, you will find are pretty easy to understand (e.g. that men and women’s sexual organs were made to function together in a complimentary fashion, and that the anus was made for expelling waste).

            The New Testament also affirms these Old Testament moral standards, including the fact that God considers the perversion of human sexuality to be an egregious offense against his created design.

      • Alyssa Bryant says:

        Yep, the Bible is pretty ridiculous. Lot is viewed as righteous even though he was willing to send his own daughter out of the house to be gang-raped.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          What’s pretty ridiculous is people who read tiny sections of the BIble (or don’t read it at all and merely regurgitate propaganda they’ve heard elsewhere) and then distort its message because they hate the message.

          Lot was a pretty pathetic example of a God-follower, and I think most Christians know that since it’s clear throughout the account of his life. But when compared to the sodomite culture of Sodom, he looked pretty good.

  4. Coxygru says:

    The headline screams outrage but the author presents zero evidence in the article to support her claim of an effort “outlaw Christianity”. Where are the lawsuits or legislative bills? The claim is absurd and impossible.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      If the commenter spent 5 minutes of Google research, the evidence would abound.

      However, no amount of evidence will convince those whose eyes are squeezed shut to the truth.

      • alasandra says:

        Please name one instance where Christians have been forbidden to hold a church service? Heck Westboro Baptist Church is able to LEGALLY picket service men’s funerals with their hateful rhetoric. And Gina is free to spew her hateful rants in blog columns whenever she feels like writing one.

        But you bullies can’t stand the fact that people just don’t accept your gospel as dogma and actually speak up and stand up to you, and that you are expected to actually obey laws that protect other people’s rights.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          Religious freedom includes more than the right to hold a church service. Even in communist China and the former Soviet Union, many people had the government-given “right” to hold a church service. Of course, it had to be a government-approved church and a government-approved service.

          Religious freedom also includes the right to live according to the religious standards of one’s religion, and the dictates of conscience. We worship God and exercise our religious freedom not merely by gathering in a church building and making professions of faith, but in the way we live our lives. Christians are required by God to offer up their very lives (and how they live those lives) as an act of worship to God. You can’t worship God and be disobedient to the standards he as made clear (e.g. do not take innocent human life, do not sanction sexual immorality, etc.).

          The founders of our nation recognized this fundamental importance:

          The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. - Justice Joseph Story / Commentaries on the US Constitution

          There must be religion. When the ligament is torn, society is disjointed, and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by a vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell conscience. They sell their country. By this vile practice they become odious and contemptible. But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion. - Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Declaration of Independence

          Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. - Massachusetts Constitution (Samuel Adams, John Adams helped author)

          Article XIX. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. - North Carolina Constitution, 1776

          Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, - Georgia Constitution, 1798

          Section. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding - Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776

          XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience. - New Jersey Constitution, 1776

          Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. - James Madison / Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731

          Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. - New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution

          Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. - John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers

          No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. - Thomas Jefferson

          Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. - Thomas Jefferson

          It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences. - Thomas Jefferson

          Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. - James Madison

          If someone wants to purchase contraceptives, they are legal for adults to purchase. If someone wants to sodomize someone else, no one is stopping them. If someone wants to counterfeit marriage, no one is even stopping that.

          But it is an egregious violation of religious freedom to force people to facilitate or participate in such things when such things violate their conscience and their religious convictions.

          • alasandra says:

            Maybe you should go back and reread your quotes

            provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others
            in their religious worship. - Massachusetts Constitution (Samuel Adams,
            John Adams helped author)

            Ah way back then Samuel and John Adams didn’t think you should obstruct others in their religious worship. In other words you and Gina do not get to determine what other people believe and how they worship. And you DO NOT get to interfere with their worship. So if homosexuals want to marry then you don’t have the right to prevent them they are free to worship and marry in the way they choose.

            Article XIX. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own
            consciences. - North Carolina Constitution, 1776

            Again each individual gets to determine how to live their own life you don’t get to force your dogma on them with laws.

            • WXRGina says:

              Oh, yeah? Sandra, you’re talking about our God-given, constitutionally-protected freedom of worship, and the last I checked, no one in America is trying to “force” any dogma on anyone. But, that has nothing to do with the aberrant behavior of homosexuals. No one is stopping homosexuals from engaging in the behavior they choose. We are resisting the “mainstreaming” of this unnatural, unhealthy and immoral behavior to the point that American citizens are being bullied, sued, silenced, threatened and even fired from their jobs for expressing opposition to this. You are playing for a losing team, Sandra-losing in the eternal sense, that is.

              • Coxygru says:

                Gina, you fail to substantiate your fallacious claim that homos seek to ban Christianity. Where’s your evidence? Secondly, the vast majority of homos in your country ARE Christians.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Gina (and I) have repeatedly substantiated the very real threat from homosexual activism. Like all liberals and other immature people, you refuse to accept evidence that interferes with your ability to do whatever you want.

                And no, most homosexuals are NOT Christians. Some, I’m sure, are, because even Christians struggle with various sins. But you cannot continue on in unrepentant sin and be a Christian. A real Christian loves his savior Jesus, and as Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15)

              • Coxygru says:

                You’ve done nothing to substantiate your false claims except add more vague false claims to them. Where is the evidence of your claims? Come on! Cough it up!

              • WXRGina says:

                Despite our answering your insincere questions and refuting your bogus claims, you still persist in your blind defense of the indefensible. We will not contend with you indefinitely.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                The evidence has been presented multiple times, but you are too hostile to the truth to come to terms with reality.

                And I’m done wasting my time and the time of others with someone who is hostile to reality.

            • Bob Ellis says:

              I’ve never heard of anyone trying to use the force of government to coerce homosexuals to believe a certain thing or worship a certain way or participate in practices they considered immoral.

              I think John and Samuel Adams were smart enough to realize not only this, but that homosexual behavior is immoral and a pox on society.

              If you want to sodomize someone, no one is stopping you. But you do not get to demand that your fellow Americans accept your sodomy as moral, legitimate or healthy, nor do you get to force your fellow Americans to participate in immoral acts.

              Doing so is the epitome of hypocrisy, for you are precisely seeking to not only force your dogma on others, you are seeking to leverage the force of government to force others to actively behave in accordance with your dogma.

              The hypocrisy is truly amazing.

              • alasandra says:

                Really Bob you can’t be that naive, there are actually still sodomy laws on the books in may STATES. And I have absolutely no interest in sodomizing anyone. Your stupid assumptions are amusing.

                You really can’t comprehend that heterosexuals don’t have a problem with practicing tolerance and respect for homosexuals. That most of us are mature enough to realize that respecting others choices doesn’t threaten our own.

                I really have to wonder why you and Gina are so threatened by the idea of respecting the choices of others.

              • WXRGina says:

                Sandra, no one is saying you are a homosexual. I know you’re not. But, you are repeatedly running up against the brick wall of truth, although you are unable to see it, and your gossamer arguments are dissolving in the Gulf Coast fog tonight. You would do well to go ahead and get some rest.

              • Coxygru says:

                Speaking of gossamer arguments… Where are your facts, Gina? Your article and your comments here fail to support the claim in your headline. Name the legislative bills aiming to cripple Christianity. Name them, please.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                The evidence has been pointed out to you. You refuse to even consider it because it proves you wrong. That indicates a complete lack of integrity on your part.

                There is really little sense in trying to dialog with someone who lacks even the integrity to admit they are wrong when presented with the clear evidence of it.

              • Coxygru says:

                Your evidence is prophesies and quacks like Camenker and LaBarbera? Sorry but outlawing a religion requires serious lifting on the legislative level. You and Gina have cited nothing that supports the claim in the headline. All you have is fear-mongering. How shameful.

              • WXRGina says:

                What’s shameful is your ignorant insistence on denying plain truth and reality. Your false labeling of Brian Camenker and Peter LaBarbera only shows your unwillingness to accept truth. I can’t help you.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                They are only “quacks” because they tell a truth you don’t like.

                The evidence has been presented multiple times, but you are too hostile to the truth to accept it.

                There is nothing more anyone can do for you until you decide you’re ready to grapple with reality.

              • WXRGina says:

                Who claimed there are legislative bills? But, if you want an example of that, you need look no further than any “hate crimes” legislation and ENDA. “Night of the Living ENDA”: http://www.americanclarion.com/25637/2013/11/05/night-of-the-living-enda/

              • Coxygru says:

                Gina, in order to outlaw something one must pass through legislation. Do you think all your readers are idiots?

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Where is the legislation that punishes military members for refusing to bow in homage to the homosexual agenda (http://www.americanclarion.com/23322/2013/08/15/another-airman-punished-for-not-toeing-the-pc-line/ http://www.americanclarion.com/23172/2013/08/06/military-thought-police-cant-say-homosexual-behavior-is-a-sin/ http://www.americanclarion.com/12777/2012/09/26/homosexuals-military-problems-left-ignores/)?

                Where is the legislation which allows the government of New Mexico to punish a privately owned business for refusing to participate in the counterfieint of marriage, or to arrest Christians for reading Scripture in public during a homosexual festival, or to force firefighters to attend a homosexual pride parade, or any of the other assaults on religious liberty we are seeing today (http://www.americanclarion.com/15186/2012/12/07/homosexual-activists-driving-store-out-of-business/)?

                When you review that legislation, you will have your answer. Whether you have the integrity to accept that reality, though, is another matter. Surprise me.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                There is no naivete on my part. When was the last time you saw a sodomy law enforced? The last attempt was thwarted with Lawrence v. Texas, which opened the door to all manner of sexual perversion.

                And while you may or may not have any interest in sodomizing someone, apparently you are very interested in making sure others are able to sodomize one another. Your attempts at deception aren’t really amusing at all.

                I can comprehend that some heterosexuals are morally lazy enough, or are ignorant enough, to condone homosexual behavior. Moral and intellectual sloth have never been virtues, however, nor do they change the fact that homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy.

                It also doesn’t change the fact that the homosexual agenda is ALREADY threatening the religious freedom of myself and my fellow Americans.

                Unlike homosexual activists, I care about the moral fabric of society and the freedom of my fellow Americans.

                You should, too.

          • Alyssa Bryant says:

            Go for it Bob! Live as you want! Who’s stopping you? If you really want government out of religion’s business, I bet you support abolishing the huge tax deductions given to the religious for their social clubs.

            • Bob Ellis says:

              Churches are tax exempt, and have been tax exempt since Colonial times, because they provide a vital and important good for society. They teach citizens of all ages to be moral people, people who treat each other with kindness and respect. They teach people not to prey on one another, to respect one another’s person and property, and to look to the good of others. Contributions to these organizations are also tax deductible because they contribute to that critical endeavor.

              Perhaps you would like to live in a dog-eat-dog world if immorality and amorality, but most people-especially responsible, healthy ones-do not.

              The importance of this effort was made clear by America’s first president when he said:

              Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

    • thisoldspouse says:

      Every single instance of homosexual activists suppressing people’s constitutional rights to free exercise of Christianity through “anti-discrimination” laws is effectively outlawing Christianity.

      • Coxygru says:

        The author of this article fails to substantiate her claims. The article has no meat on its bones. In fact, it has no bones. It’s diatribe.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          I believe the author included a quote from homosexual activist Chai Feldblum that sums up the proof you’re looking for quite well: “Gays win, Christians lose.” That really says it all.

          We could go to the trouble of listing all the cases worldwide and in the United States (e.g. the case where the government in New Mexico is hammering a private photographer for refusing to participate in the counterfeiting of a wedding), but experience has taught me that facts and logic are usually wasted on people who are hostile to reality.

          • Coxygru says:

            Bob Ellis, please note the difference between lawsuits against private businesses for discrimination and legislative acts that ban entire religions. Contrary to Gina’s wild claim, there are no legislative bills in the USA to ban any religion. However, many nations have legislation to ban gays from marrying, from speaking in public, from holding jobs, and even from seeking asylum. In America, businesses and for-profit operations run by religious institutions (like that NJ wedding kiosk) that refuse to serve homosexuals risk being sued for discrimination.

            • Bob Ellis says:

              Yes, there is a factual difference between lawsuits against private businesses for running their businesses as they see fit and legislative acts that ban entire religions.

              Please note, however, that when both leverage the power of government to punish someone for refusing to violate the dictates of conscience and surrender their religious freedom, the net result is the same.

              Already, in places like New Mexico, Christians are being punished for exercising their religious freedom and refusing to participate in the counterfeiting of marriage. Christians in the U.S. military are being punished for exercising their religious freedom and the dictates of conscience (see my previous comment on the importance of conscience) rather than pay homage to politically correct Leftist dogma.(http://www.americanclarion.com/22478/2013/07/11/another-airman-punished-for-violating-political-correctness/)

              In America, despite the fact that homosexual behavior is contrary to science, morality, logic and public health, homosexuals can marry (just as any adult can marry someone of the opposite sex who consents and isn’t a close relative), speak in public, and hold jobs.

              What should never happen in America is for Christians to be forced to surrender their religious freedom and violate the dictates of conscience so that homosexuals can feel better about the immoral and unhealthy sexual choices they make.

              • Coxygru says:

                So much misinformation in your reply! Homosexual behavior has been scientifically documented (so far) in over 400 species, including humans. It is not “immoral”; it is perfectly natural as it is fully “in” Nature. The New Mexico photography case involved a private business and its clients, not a religion. One military chaplin’s punishment for insubordination does not equate persecution of an entire religion. You people do not have a blank check to discriminate against us and claim it as a religion exemption. Such arguments fail in courts of law. Do you know the number of state and federal court cases lost by anti-gay side in 2012 and 2013 in the USA and the EU? All of them!

              • Bob Ellis says:

                No, so much INFORMATION. That’s your problem. You liberals loathe science and information; it’s so inflexible when compared to fantasy.

                If you understood much of anything, you’d also realize that cancers and various illnesses have been scientifically documented in countless species. According to the very myopic “logic” of homosexual activists, cancers, diseases and other illnesses are “natural” and along with homosexual behavior should be embraced rather than discouraged.

                Does the fact that the are “natural” (in this loose and myopic sense) make cancer normal, beneficial or desirable? Ah, no. The same is true of homosexual behavior. It is aberrant (less than 3% of Americans identify as homosexuals, and the instance among animals-who lack intellect, self-awareness, a moral conscience, and free will-is also small), and a flawed impulse that has no scientific or biological legitimacy or function whatsoever.

                Notice, too, how you completely avoid the heart of the matter with the government oppression of the photographer in New Mexico. Religious freedom does not apply only to organized churches and religious institutions. Religious freedom applies to EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN. You do not forfeit your religious liberty simply because you start a business.

                And if you had bothered to read the material I supplied to you (as well as many other documented cases out there), you would acknowledge that more than one military chaplain is being punished for exercising their religious freedom. When even one American is being punished by their own government for exercising their religious freedom (a religious freedom characteristic of an entire religion), the entire religion is under attack.

                It’s interesting that you claim that “You people do not have a blank check to discriminate” (forgetting for a moment that homosexuals have the same right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex who is of consenting age and not a close relative), yet discrimination is precisely what you eagerly advocate. You zealously desire the government to discriminate against Christians and people of conscience who refuse to surrender their religious liberty and go along with your immoral behavior. And unlike Christians who merely don’t want to be a part of your immorality, you desire to leverage the power of government to PUNISH those who don’t applaud and facilitate your immorality.

                As I have said many times before, two diametrically opposed systems of morality cannot peacefully coexist. One will always come out on top. The United States has operated according to the Judeo-Christian moral code for over 200 years, and the result has been the greatest, most free and affluent nation in history. If we trade that moral code in for a hedonistic one, we will follow the same path as every civilization that has embraced narcissism and hedonism: oppression and ruin.

                You yourself provide the proof of Gina’s assertion that the homosexual movement’s goal is to outlaw Christianity.

                Thanks for providing a live illustration of her accuracy.

              • alasandra says:

                Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can break the law. For example if your “religion” requires human sacrifices the law against murder prevents you from practicing your “religion” Your religion doesn’t mean you can discriminate against other people. And quite frankly if you were following Jesus’ example you wouldn’t have a problem with anti discrimination laws.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                The last time I checked, Christianity (the religious worldview upon which our nation was founded) doesn’t require human sacrifice, or anything immoral, for that matter. In fact, Christianity is the epitome of moral and ethical behavior.

                And yes, religion DOES mean you can discriminate against other people. In fact, COMMON SENSE means you can and do discriminate against people. We discriminate legitimately countless times every day on the basis of behavior. In fact every single law we have discriminates on the basis of behavior; if you behave morally, you are rewarded (or at the very least are unhindered). If you behave immorally (murder, theft, vandalism, drug use, prostitution, possession of child pornography, perjury, etc.), the law discriminates against you and punishes you.

                Private individuals also discriminate every day. Do you choose to be around people you don’t like? If not, you are discriminating.

                Should a homosexual photographer who doesn’t want to photograph a heterosexual couple’s wedding be FORCED to do so? Should a homosexual restaurant owner be FORCED to cater a meal to a church he doesn’t like? Of course not. He is free to “discriminate” regarding who he does and doesn’t want to associate with.

                Finally, God certainly isn’t stupid enough to believe that “discrimination” on the basis of behavior is somehow wrong.

                Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

                All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:32)

                Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

                So you see, faux whining about “discrimination” is disingenuous, illogical and hypocritical. Everyone discriminates based on behavior, including God, and including homosexuals. And there are times when discrimination based on behavior (especially bad behavior) is not only optional, but a must.

              • alasandra says:

                First our nation was not founded on a Christian World View what tripe. Most of the Founding Fathers were products of the ENLIGHTENMENT and that is what governed the founding of America.

                Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

                Now that we have that pesky myth you and Gina like to spread out of the way.

                Successful Business Owners don’t practice discrimination and realize their customers private lives are none of their business.

                We have laws that everyone must follow. That isn’t discrimination as the laws apply equally to everyone.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Typical complete and utter Leftist lies. You don’t even understand that the Enlightenment was a product of the Christian worldview.

                Here is an explanation of the fallacy God-hating Leftists love to foist over the Treaty of Tripoli: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/confusion-at-southdacola-over-treaty-of-tripoli/

                Since it’s becoming very clear that you not only have no interest in the facts or truth, but are actually hostile to facts and truth, I doubt you’ll take the time to read this, but I’ll include it on the off chance I’m wrong, and for the benefit of anyone reading this who might be interested in the truth.

                America most certainly was founded by Christians on the Christian worldview, and the evidence is beyond voluminous:



                Frankly, it isn’t the government’s business or anyone else’s business whether the business owner wants to be “successful” or not. They own the business, and it’s their call as to how they run it. That’s how things work in a free country; apparently you loathe the idea of a free country.

                A homosexual business owner shouldn’t be forced to service Christians with whom he disagrees, and neither should a Christian business owner be forced to service an activity he considers immoral.

                Freedom is the American way, and really is the best way. You should embrace it instead of tyranny.

              • Coxygru says:

                Nobody advocates outlawing Christianity. Stop twisting the facts, Bob. Unlike you, as a man of integrity I refuse to live the life of dishonesty with a sham marriage to a woman per your recommendations. Regardless of the difficult to calculate percentage of homos in the population, we homos exist and we have rights. Nothing in your religion gives you the right to treat us badly. Your religion orders you to treat all others as you would like to be treated. Your perverse wickedness is duly noted.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Nobody advocates outlawing Christianity outright. They just advocate outlawing Christians from being able to be faithful to tenets of it that step on their immoral toes.

                If you were a man of integrity, you would do the right thing, which includes being sexually responsible, not ripping at the fabric of society (the integrity of marriage and family are immeasurably important to that), admitting that males and females were designed to be sexually complimentary, and that the unique bond of marriage can only be forged between a man and a woman.

                But all of these realities interfere with your personal desires, so you brush them and integrity aside and demand that reality conform to your petty desires. That isn’t integrity, and it isn’t mature or healthy either.

                Yes, Christianity calls for us to treat one another as we should be treated ourselves. When someone is doing something destructive to themselves or others, it is a caring act-not an act of hate-to ensure that the person knows that. I was once a drunk, and friends who enabled that behavior did me no favors. The ones who told me I was messed up and had a problem were the ones who really cared about me.

                Likewise, we have an obligation to make sure homosexuals know of the moral and physical dangers of this behavior. We also have a duty to protect society-and its most innocent and defenseless members (children)-from the ravages of anything that undermines the unique sanctity of family, and counterfeit marriage does just that.

                Be a man. Do the mature thing and put the needs of others before your own petty desires.

              • Daws7 says:

                Do you intend to rewrite all of the human biology chapters on sexuality to say that the back passage now has two “natural” functions?

              • WXRGina says:

                You mean that just now, in the 21st century, after thousands of years never even “going there,” and finally bowing to intense pressure from the demented, militant homosexual lobby, “experts” are now claiming that “sodomy” is “natural”? And, that makes it “true,” how, exactly? I don’t give a rip how many deluded people claim otherwise in “human biology” chapters or elsewhere, homosexual behavior will always and forever be unnatural, unhealthy and immoral.

              • Coxygru says:

                Gina, Gina, Gina… Poor, Gina…
                Denial will not make scientific facts go away.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                That is absolutely true. You should look up the scientific facts about the dangers and aberrant nature of homosexual behavior (they’ve been provided on this page), then go look in your mirror and inform yourself: “Denial will not make scientific facts go away.” Maybe then you can summon the integrity to accept reality.

              • Daws7 says:

                I concur with your views Gina…I am saying the human biology books got it right and there is only ONE (duh) natural function for that part of the anatomy in humans. The homosexual lobby would have us believe otherwise and will at some stage try to impose a new definition on all of us….

              • WXRGina says:

                Oh, I see. You’re right, and they’re already doing this. They’ve successfully lobbied to have the mental illness classification of homosexuality (1973 revision) and “transgenderism” (2012 revision) removed from the APA’s DSM.

        • alasandra says:

          Gina’s rants never have any meat to them. She inhabits a fantasy land where SCIENCE doesn’t matter, and hateful screeching invoking the name of God or the Bible makes whatever she is ranting about gospel. Those who disagree with her are viciously attacked and she alone gets to determine who is a Christian, Good Republican, American etc., and her followers gleefully agree with whatever nonsense she comes up with.

          Classic example of someone with paranoid delusions and a persecution complex.

          • Bob Ellis says:

            Actually, it is liberals who live in a fantasy land where science doesn’t matter.

            After all, it is liberals who deny the clear scientific truth that an unborn human being is living, is genetically distinct from its mother or father, and is thus entitled to the same human rights as any human being.

            It is liberals who deny evidence of massive climate change going back thousands of years, yet insist that modern climate change (that is mild in comparison to that of past ages) is somehow caused by evil capitalists.

            It is liberals who deny the very obvious lessons of science that a penis and vagina were made to function together in complimentary fashion…while the penis and the anus most certainly were not (I could go on regarding this topic, but anyone even remotely reasonable gets the point).

            Science and the Bible agree, while science and liberal fantasy almost never meet.

            It’s hard to get more delusional than to have a multitude of historical and scientific facts available, yet reject them in favor of a fantasy where you get to do whatever feels good with no consequences and the forced-accolades of society.

            • WXRGina says:

              Bob, Sandra has almost worn out the comments section on my Facebook page. She will never listen to reason, but I’m glad she came here and gets to get your wise instruction. 🙂

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Just glad to help. You know, there IS a way to block commenters on Facebook, if it gets too old and tiresome. I’ve had to do it a few times.

              • WXRGina says:

                Oh, yes, I’ve blocked almost a hundred of them in the past few days-mostly ones calling me profane names, telling me I’m insane, you know, the usual “intelligent, thoughtful” contributions of leftists. But, Sandra is a local here, and she and I regularly get our letters to the editor published in our local fish wrap (although from opposite world views, of course), so I hate to block her, but I have warned her to be a little more rational, or I will cut her off.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                I know what you mean. I always hate to do it, but a person ought to be able to have the final say/control of the message on their own site, and a lot of Leftists are so insistent on promoting their fantasies they make a nuisance of themselves.

              • WXRGina says:

                Yep. And, I’ll block her if I have to.

              • Coxygru says:

                Gina, rationality fails when you state in this article that gay activists are like communists and fascists. These terms are not synonyms. They have distinct meanings. How rational is it to fail to cite legislative bills before Congress, in state legislatures, or parliaments abroad, and, instead, evoke vague prophesies? This type of writing is sloppy, mendacious and outright calumnious. It falls short of journalistic ethics and ignores the Golden Rule. You can ban me from your Facebook page and censor me here, but you can’t erase the fact that you have publicly lied and slandered people.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Homosexual activists behave precisely like communists and fascists, in that they have complete disregard for the freedom of others, complete disregard for what is right and immoral, and will employ whatever means is necessary to silence and crush their opposition.

                The activities being carried out in various areas of American society (like the case in New Mexico, the atmosphere in the U.S. Air Force, etc.) clearly illustrate this reality.

                I would suggest you come to terms with the truth, or you will be blocked here as well.

                No one has the time to deal with an immature person who cannot come to terms with reality and truth, and no one is amused by it either.

              • Coxygru says:

                You’re right, Bob. I was instantly blocked from Gina’s FB page. It’s refreshing to see no censorship here… yet… I’m curious to know in what instances you don’t feel threatened by criticism or your statements and in which cases do you allow freedom of speech? And which texts in your moral authority green-light the use of blatant misinformation to blacken a minority’s reputation?

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Speaking for myself (and I think the same would be true for Gina), I don’t feel threatened at all for criticism of my statements. Over the course of my life, I have continually evaluated issues and circumstances, and have many times found that I have been wrong. When I did, I adjusted my opinions accordingly.

                I have done a tremendous amount of research into the nature of homosexual behavior, morality and ethics in general, as well as moral and societal codes, and I (and Gina) are not even remotely wrong here. It is YOU who is 100% incorrect, but you lack the integrity to surrender your desires to the authority of the truth.

                The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in America, which means the government is not authorized to limit your speech. However, private individuals do not have to listen to your speech, nor are private individuals or groups required to provide a platform for your speech.

                (You and most liberals seem to have a problem coming to terms with the fact that private individuals and groups are free to allow or not allow certain behaviors from other individuals within their sphere of ownership or control-which is precisely why the homosexual agenda presents such a very real and existing threat to freedom).

                Rather than being “threatened” by “criticism” such as yours, people like Gina and myself get pretty tired of talking to a fencepost after a while. When evidence has been presented, and in turn rejected because it is inconvenient to your fantasy, there is really no point in continuing a dialog. You’ve already demonstrated a hostility to the truth, and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is hostile to the truth. When people have a discussion, there has to be a mutual agreement that facts and truth will be accepted by all when presented. You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you are not willing to meet on those objective grounds.

                And free people have a right to (a) end a conversation with a person who is hostile to the truth, and (b) control the message of the platform they own or control.

                Gina has exercised that freedom with regard to her Facebook page, and I am on the verge of exercising that freedom on my website with you.

              • WXRGina says:

                You’re right. You were “instantly blocked,” because you and a hundred other practitioners of the religion of “tolerance” only offered venom and profanity, which I have no desire to tolerate. And since freedom of speech does not necessarily exist on my Facebook page, I blocked you “instantly.”

      • alasandra says:

        How exactly do anti-discrimination laws “outlaw Christianity”?

        That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.

      • franklinb23 says:

        It’s interesting how your “freedom” always seems to involve screwing someone else over. Quit crying because you can’t fire “fags”.

        It’s also illegal to fire Mormons or Catholics for their chosen lifestyle. Isn’t that an suppression of the rights of evangelicals who think both sects are populated by Hell-bound heretics that are going to be tortured by Jesus in His own personal Auschwitz for having the “wrong ideas” about who He is?

        • WXRGina says:

          Sorry, Franklin, your twisted “logic” doesn’t fly, and your false claims are just that-false. As usual for homosexual apologists, your comments bear no relation to truth. Christians are not “screwing” anyone over, nor are we “crying” because we “can’t fire fags,” nor is momonism or catholcism comparable to homosexual behavior. If you had taken just a few moments to read any of our explanatory comments here or even a column or two, you might possibly understand this. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

  5. alasandra says:

    What happens when you stand up to bullies? apparently they go bat shit crazy and develop a persecution complex.

    Having laws protecting people from discrimination isn’t persecuting you.
    Allowing homosexuals to marry in no way persecutes the minority of
    Christians who disagree with it. Thankfully the majority of Americans
    are sick of the hatred and vitriol spewed by Gina Miller, Westboro
    Baptist Church and others of their ilk. No longer will they be given
    free reign to impose their religious dogma on others.

    • thisoldspouse says:

      Talk about bat s**t crazy. Watch your filthy mouth or you’ll be banned.

    • WXRGina says:

      Sandra, you’ll have to watch your mouth here (your profanity), or your comments won’t be allowed. You’ve been warned.

  6. Sile Singleton says:

    I live in part in the U.S. because we do have freedom of speech….this is just so alarmist and -well from where I sit ridiculous — Im praying hard for the folks who really think believe this stuff. Wow! What fear your day must be filled with-that is sad. I rejoice in God’s presence and word everyday. And know to my core that when folks who spend their time trying to convince folks that God hates them or that there is no place for them at the righteous table — Jesus and his teachings are my reminder. Funny this type of rhetoric — seems to come directly our of the historical mouth of the Pharisees. How much more good could you do — if you stopped focusing on name calling, feeling fear and hate — saw ‘the homos’ as you see yourselves — God’s children. tsk tsk

    • Bob Ellis says:

      I don’t know of a single person outside of the Westboro nutjobs who try to convince anyone that God hates them.

      But God does make it clear that if we want a place at “the righteous table” as you called it, we have to surrender our will and our standards of what is right and wrong, and accept God’s standard.

      What is God’s standard when it comes to human sexuality and more specifically the violation of his design for human sexuality? I made that clear earlier:

      - 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.”

      - Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

      - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ” Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

      - 1 Timothy 1:9-11 “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

      So how do we find a place at “the righteous table?” We accept that God’s son Jesus died to pay for our sins (the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and many more), that our sins are what made Jesus’ sacrificial death necessary in the first place, and then we repent or turn away from our sins, and begin to keep God’s commandments.

      God made it clear in both the Old and New Testaments that the way we demonstrate our love for him and our acceptance of a place at “the righteous table” is by obeying him.

      showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. - Exodus 20:6

      showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. -Deuteronomy 5:10

      If you love me, keep my commands. - John 14:15

      God loves everyone-including homosexuals-too much to leave us wallowing in our sin. God wants so infinitely much better for us.

      Rather than lead people astray by pretending God is accepting of what he has clearly said he finds abhorrent, why not get right and lead people to the truth instead of leading them into the jaws of Hell? After all, Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) I HAVE led people the wrong way in my life, and thankfully I’ve repented of that and turned to God; I wouldn’t want to face my Creator with what I used to have on my conscience.

      How much more good could you do if you renounced your own standard and accepted God’s standard? How much more good could you do if you repented of your sins and decided to obey God?

      • alasandra says:

        But you assume that everyone’s religion teaches the same thing and it doesn’t. Not everyone shares your beliefs and frankly those of us who do not are sick and tired of those like you trying to force their religious dogma on us.

        In the United States not only do we have freedom of speech we also have freedom of religion.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          The doctrine of every major religion teaches that homosexual behavior is aberrant and immoral. You can accept or reject that truth, but it doesn’t change the facts.

          Yes, the First Amendment guarantees our God-given right to freedom of religious expression. That’s pretty much Gina’s entire point. The radical homosexual agenda threatens religious freedom by forcing Christians to be silent about the truth, and to facilitate the counterfeiting of marriage and such, or be punished by our government. That is an egregious assault on religious freedom.

          • alasandra says:

            No it isn’t. The rest of us have freedom of religion too. Our beliefs are different then yours but we too are entitled to our religious beliefs. Marriage is a LEGAL institution. Your church doesn’t have to marry anyone that doesn’t meet their qualifications for marriage. And frankly I am appalled that you allow divorced people to remarry. I seem to recall scriptures in the Bible saying something like what God has joined together let no man put asunder. Maybe you should work on divorce and remarriage in your own church before you get bent out of shape by homosexuals marrying in the churches that permit homosexual marriage or at court houses.

            • Bob Ellis says:

              Yes, you have freedom of religion, too. No one is forcing you to violate your religion’s teachings, what ever that may be. Homosexual activists, however, are seeking to force Christians to violate the tenets of their religion by forcing them to participate in immoral acts, e.g. counterfeit wedding ceremonies.

              I, too, am appalled that many churches will allow divorced people who do not meet the narrow Biblical allowances for divorce, to remarry. Unfortunately, that practice was started by the same sexual anarchists who now want sodomy to be accepted as normal, natural and healthy, as well as force counterfeit marriage on society. Two wrongs will never make a right.

              Frankly, many of us are working to strengthen marriages and family, and sexual anarchists in the homosexual movement do us no favors by trying to create the impression that marriage is not a unique and specifically valuable institution.

              Maybe you should stop being so narcissistic as to expect society to bend to your will, with marriage, family and children the casualties of your campaign. Mature, healthy people put the needs of society ahead of their own petty lusts. This is apparently too much to ask of homosexual activists, however.

              • alasandra says:

                LOL you make a LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS and you know what they say about assuming things.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                No assumptions at all. You only wish they were assumptions, so that you could more easily dismiss them.

                Grownups grapple with and accept truth and reality. You really should give it a try. Isn’t it time to put away childish behavior?

            • WXRGina says:

              Sandra, you’re not going to “win” in the arena of ideas, especially here, where your false arguments will be met head-on with irrefutable truth. You are presenting bogus arguments and lies, and defending them with the fervor of the powerfully deceived, but you are still wrong. I hope one day you will be able to see truth, instead of believing lies. The Lord loves you beyond compare and died for you both, and He wants to see you come to a knowledge of the Truth and the free gift of salvation through Him. I very much hope that for you and Bo.

    • alasandra says:

      Very well said Sile

  7. Bob Ellis says:

    You’re trying to create a strawman and a distraction. I don’t think anyone here or on the side of Christianity is in favor of divorce, or is delusional enough to clam that divorce is somehow, normal, natural and healthy.

    There’s no picking and choosing here, except for your own picking and choosing in an attempt to create a false impression that homosexual behavior is somehow acceptable.

    • franklinb23 says:

      My point, Bob, is that if gay marriage imposes something on those who don’t agree with it, then so does legal divorce and remarriage (as does legal interfaith marriage).

      If divorce is, as you imply, “abnormal” and “unhealthy”, then where are the civil clerks conscientiously objecting to granting marriage licenses to divorced heterosexuals? Where are the Christian business owners complaining about having to recognize these marriages? Let me answer for you: they don’t exist.

      Why is that? Because you all act out of prejudice, not principles.

      Gay marriage imposes nothing new on anyone.

      • Bob Ellis says:

        Interfaith marriage, though unwise, does nothing to undermine the fundamental meaning and composition of marriage. Marriage requires a man and a woman, and both are present in an interfaith marriage. I also know of no one who is being forced to participate in or facilitate interfaith marriages, as homosexual activists seek to force Christians to facilitate counterfeit marriages.

        I am also unaware of any civil clerks who might be conscientiously objecting to granting marriage licenses to divorced heterosexuals. Perhaps you know of some and you could enlighten us as to the specifics, but I have never heard of any.

        I also don’t know of any Christian businesses that are being forced to recognize remarriages to divorced people. If you know of some, please share those examples with us.

        If you can’t (which, it seems, you admit already), then you are attempting to create a strawman. You are trying to deceive people with arguments that are as ephemeral as your breath on a cold morning.

        Meanwhile, homosexual activists seek to devalue marriage, and thus undermine any society’s most important institution, and along with it the well-being of children who depend on a healthy, balanced home in which to grow up. Homosexual activists also seek to force Christians to facilitate and participate in their counterfeiting activities, as the examples presented here illustrate.

        It is therefore clear that, for all your flailing about divorce and interfaith marriage, there is no legitimate connection or parallel whatsoever to be made. You simply want to excuse the attack on religious freedom by homosexual activists.

        You are right, though, that divorce outside the Biblical grounds does often impose things on those who don’t agree with it. Frequently, spouses who still mean to keep their commitment are forced to have their marital union dissolved by a morally bankrupt legal system, and children who need an intact home are forced to have that ripped apart by self-centered people.

        People can be forgiven for unjustified divorce, just as homosexuals can be forgiven for their sin, but both practices should be discouraged and made as rare as possible because both are harmful to society.

      • gordiduk says:

        It imposes a male organ into another male’s anal orifice….

        • franklinb23 says:

          So, Gordiduk, you’re saying that relationships can be defined (and their value assessed) merely by the type of sex that occurs? You do realize that the act you are referring to comprises only the tiniest fraction of a percent of most relationships and is an act also engaged in by numerous heterosexuals, don’t you?

          Let me put this in as crude and as blunt of terms as you can understand:

          Are you married? I’m going to guess you’re a male. Is your wife nothing more than a vagina with legs? That is about what you’re reducing gay relationships down to.

          • gordiduk says:

            Homosexual. Desiring one of the same sex. Disgusting. Perverted. Queer. I rest my case!!!

          • Bob Ellis says:

            We are defined sexually by our sex, which is most obviously and functionally based on our sex organs.

            The simple truth is that males and females were designed to compliment one another relationally and sexually, especially in the environment of the family. Correspondingly, the penis and the vagina were designed to function together in a complimentary fashion which produces a biologically and scientifically positive and beneficial outcome. In addition to the misuse of some body parts, homosexual sex produces nothing useful biologically.

            This is something a homosexual couple can never under any circumstance achieve together.

            • franklinb23 says:

              I’m no longer Catholic, but the whole advent and easy availability of contraception has made sex no longer a purely utilitarian affair. What percentage of sex that occurs in the United States (or the world) is actually done solely with the intent of having children? What percentage is actually done explicitly NOT desiring children?

              I’m not saying that heterosexual and homosexual sex isn’t different (it is). I just think that the “sex is to make babies” argument is a difficult one to make when that’s not the attitude and practice of the vast majority of both single and married couples.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Scientifically and biologically, the function of sexual intercourse is still reproduction. Reproduction remains the natural outcome of sexual relations unless artificial means of interrupting that outcome are utilized. The nature and function remain the same.

                Marriage also remains the institution and environment for creating and raising the next generation of society in a healthy, balanced and stable setting.

                The creation and nurture of human life are far too important to undermine them by perverting and counterfeiting them.

              • franklinb23 says:

                Bob, what is your suggestion, then, to gay men and women who may share your faith to some extent? Do you think lifelong celibacy (with its solitude and lack of companionship) is a reasonable expectation? Do you suppose that we should find a heterosexual person to marry? Would YOU marry a self-identified lesbian?

                This is why gay marriage, to me, is the conservative option: it channels the sex drive to monogamy and commitment which benefits the couple and which, in turn, benefits society as a whole. The mutual support found in such relationships ultimately enables people to have to rely less on government largesse (and has been shown to make people overall happier and healthier throughout their lives).

                Further, commitment reduces the likelihood of the transmission of STDs and other problems.

                If legalized gay marriage could actually be shown to undermine heterosexual marriage somehow, I might be inclined to modify my opinion. I can’t think of a single heterosexual couple who was less likely to remain married or get married because two men or women were able to obtain a civil license. It’s a bizarre assertion, IMO.

                I don’t care what the “odds” are about my fidelity to my partner of three years, btw. Believe it or don’t believe it. I despise cheaters, and I have critiqued those whose selfishness causes them to seek physical fulfillment at any cost, including the health and well-being of those they claim to love. I know many other gay men who share my feelings on this, but we’re also not in New York or Los Angeles. Attitudes are undoubtedly more permissive in these larger cities.

                That’s all I’ll say for now. Our margins are shrinking as this thread extends into oblivion.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                The counsel to homosexuals who are serious about following Christ would be the same as that to heterosexuals. That would be to surrender the will and desires to God for him to help repair both. And as for sexual expression, that they reserve that for the marital union that can be formed only between a man and a woman. If one cannot find it in themselves to desire someone of the opposite sex (not unlike someone who DOES desire the opposite sex, but has not found a candidate agreeable to them for any number of reasons), then yes, the need to remain celibate until such time as they DO find someone of the opposite sex who is an agreeable marriage candidate. Many heterosexuals remain celibate for many years for various reasons, including both a simple lack of desire for sexual relations, as well as not finding a candidate suitable for themselves. IF heterosexuals can do it, someone with same-sex attractions can do it, too.

                Counterfeit marriage cannot, by definition, be called “conservative.” One might as well call sin “Christian.” Sin violates the tenets of Christianity, and the counterfeiting of marriage violates the tenets of conservatism, which is the preservation of marriage and family. You just can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

                What’s more, a growing number of studies are finding what was anecdotally known already: monogamy is almost non-existent in the homosexual community, even among “committed” couples. So no, the counterfeiting of marriage does little to channel the sex drive and even less to benefit society, since calling something that clearly is NOT marriage by that unique name undermines the credibility and value of that name/institution, thus undermining the environment children desperately need to grow up healthy and well balanced.

                Counterfeit marriage is a pretty recent phenomenon, but I have no doubt whatsoever that as time goes by, it will, like divorce and cohabitation, be revealed to be one more thing that is undermining the sanctity of marriage. Also, just as counterfeiting currency devalues the original article, so counterfeiting marriage devalues the original article. Any time we call something that does NOT meet the definition of something by the name for that something, it robs the original of its meaning because the meaning is no longer unique, and is less valuable. (Examples of this using living people would include the value of the role of “policeman” in society if people who clearly were not policemen were allowed to call themselves policemen, or firemen, or doctors, and so on. If you don’t have the prerequisites to be that “thing,” then it is disingenuous, devaluing and harmful to call yourself that “thing”.)

                Regardless, the onus is on activists who want to counterfeit marriage to make a case as to why something that clearly is NOT marriage should be allowed to be called by that same name. The onus is also on homosexual activists to demonstrate why such a thing is useful and beneficial to society. Not only is there no such foundation for such arguments, as I have already indicated, the opposite is true: there is great evidence that counterfeiting marriage is harmful to society.

                Here are a few things I’ve put together in the past which go into more depth on the points I have made here:






              • Alyssa Bryant says:

                You are submitting to a culture which has moved along. You need to catch up Bob! Quickly!

              • Bob Ellis says:

                No, your culture isn’t “moving along.” it’s moving downward into the cesspool.

                You should join the grownups in attempting to return to a responsible and healthy society.

            • Alyssa Bryant says:

              OMG, this gets funnier by the minute. Someone teach these people about sex before I bust a gut laughing!

  8. Maggie 4NoH8 says:

    Seriously? Don’t flatter yourselves…

  9. Alyssa Bryant says:

    “The homosexual movement is part of a larger push toward tyranny…” Oh, my. I think this is the funniest unintentional self-parody I have ever seen. Churches which are acting as PACs against LBGT rights get state sponsored tax benefits yet have the audacity to act persecuted?? Keep it up. Young people love this kind of hypocrisy. You are your own worst enemy.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      I don’t know of any churches which are acting as PACs against the homosexual agenda and getting state-sponsored tax benefits. Do you?

      Your propaganda (in addition to the hypocritical intolerance of the homosexual lobby) is your own worst enemy.

      • Alyssa Bryant says:

        They are political in advocating for heterosexual rights to the exclusion of the rights of GBLT. They are a “committee” in that they are gathered together with one purpose. They advocate. The tax exemptions they get cost the rest of us billions. You probably refuse to deduct your contributions to your anti-gay committee out of principle?

        • Bob Ellis says:

          They are a moral organization which advocates for moral behavior from society-something that is vitally necessary, as I have pointed out in other comments. That is the JOB of the church: to be the conscience of society. Perhaps you would like to live in an amoral society where morality is sanitized from public policy (actually you wouldn’t, if you stopped to really think about it for 30 seconds; you only want to sanitize the morality that interferes with the immorality you want to support), but normal, healthy people do not.

          Tax exempt status for churches and tax exemptions for contributions do not cost other Americans a dime; they are simply taxes not paid in, and if the federal government spent less on wasteful and unconstitutional programs, there would be even less need for anyone’s tax dollars. In return, churches help keep crime rates and other societal problems down (http://www.americanclarion.com/26533/2013/12/12/needed-a-war-on-divorce/).

          You have no idea how incredibly grateful you should be for churches that do their job and make America the best place on earth.

  10. Alyssa Bryant says:

    I am constantly amazed at how persecuted Christians manage to feel. There is only one open atheist in Congress, they get billions of dollars in Government tax benefits, yet they feel constantly under attack. It is a good way to whip up the morons and raise money.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      When there is an organized effort to sanitize our nation’s history and government of the Christian influence that has formed it for over 200 years, it is easy to see how Christianity is being persecuted. And when you add to that recent efforts to punish Christians for refusing to participate in immoral acts, all doubt about the war on Christianity is removed. For anyone even remotely objective, that is.

  11. Alyssa Bryant says:

    Boy the way Glenn Miller Played
    Songs that made the Hit Parade
    Guys like us we had it made
    Those were the days.

    Didn’t need no Welfare states
    Everybody pulled his weight
    gee our old LaSalle ran great
    Those were the days

    And you knew who you were then
    Girls were girls and men were men
    Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

    People seemed to be content
    $50 payed the rent
    Freaks were in a circus tent
    Those were the days

    Take a little sunday spin
    Tonight I’ll watch the dodgers win
    Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin

    Hair was short and skirts were long
    Kate Smith really sung the song
    I don’t know just what went wrong


    • Bob Ellis says:

      Alyssa, it’s clear after a dozen or so comments that you are merely a hateful homosexual activist who has no interest in the truth, no interest in the welfare of your fellow Americans, and has only contempt and mockery to offer.

      This is not a forum for you to spread your contempt and mockery, so I’m cutting you off. I have no time to entertain deception and spite, and the readers here aren’t interested in it, either.

      I hope you can reach the point in your life-the sooner, the better-when you can come to terms with the truth and become a healthy, well-adjusted person, for your own sake as well as that of your fellow Americans.

      • WXRGina says:

        Oops! I was wading through the massive volume of his/her spam comments and didn’t see this last one of yours, Bob, before I posted my last one. Good call!