Fight GLBT Fascism

Phil Jensen


fascismBy Woodrow Wilcox

Like the fascists of earlier times, GLBT supporters want to silence their critics. But, federal and state constitutional provisions for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association protect those who believe that homosexual, bisexual, and transvestite life choices are evil, immoral, wrong, or negative in other ways.

The GLBT fascists seek to deny others liberties and rights which are guaranteed to all citizens. If you don’t like the behavior of GLBT people, or you don’t want to associate with them, they label you unfairly as a “hater”. Their warped minds can’t reason well.

Rick Kriebel 2016


Freedom of association cuts both ways. When I choose to associate with people that I like, I am choosing not to associate with people that I don’t want to be near. It is my right to choose. I don’t want to be near people with behavior that I believe is rude, negative, distasteful, vile, or violent. I don’t need to hate those people. I just want to protect my family and me from people who have bad behavior patterns because I want to avoid the problems that those people could cause to my family or me. It is not hate of the GLBT people that causes me to want to avoid them, but love and my desire to avoid harm to my friends, my children, my relatives, and me that motivates me to prefer not to associate with GLBT people.

The GLBT people have chosen a behavior pattern which I find as negative. How often have people told you to avoid negative people? Race and often religion are the result of being born into a family. Discrimination against people for being born into a particular family should not be allowed. But GLBT people have chosen a behavior that they know many others do not like or approve. So, GLBT behavior is in the same category of negative behavior as drunkenness, smoking, rudeness, public cursing, illegal drug use, and violence against the innocent.

It is a chosen behavior and everyone in our society has natural and constitutional rights to avoid association with GLBT people.

Woodrow Wilcox


Woodrow Wilcox is a Democrat who works in the health care industry from Indiana.



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.

Similar Posts:

Guest authors at American Clarion hail from a variety of sources and backgrounds. Their work is featured because we believe they have something important to say that our readers will appreciate. If you'd like to see a guest author become a regular here, please let us know!
Guest Author
View all articles by Guest Author
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    “It is a chosen behavior”

    I know it’s popular to say that, but let’s face it: no one wakes up one morning and decides to be “gay.” The roots of same-sex attraction are deep and tend to involve factors that occur early in life — so much so that many can honestly feel they were “born that way.”

    Where choice really comes in is in the difficult, but right, choice to walk away from that kind of life (kind of like overcoming an addiction). But many have done it, and have been far better off for it.

    • I didn’t wake up one day and decide to be a drunk, but the fact remains that I chose to give in to my inclinations toward that behavior. There was more than enough evidence to tell a rational person that such behavior was not normal or morally acceptable, but I chose to do it anyway.

      Then, some years later, I made the decision to stop behaving in that manner.

      I believe that’s what Woody meant when he said it is a chosen behavior.

      • DCM7

        No doubt you’re right. I just feel that statements to the effect of “it’s a chosen behavior” need to be used with caution. They can send the unintended message that “anti-gays” think people *do* just “wake up and decide to be gay,” and that homosexual attractions are easily walked away from. Actually, some “anti-gays” probably do think that way — and they’re mistaken. And gays (and ex-gays) know it.

      • thriver7

        Your analogy of alcoholism and homosexuality really isn’t supported by any professional, academic or scientific cohort of -oh I dunno - the last 40 years.

        • DCM7

          We’re well aware of how the “experts” arrived at their current position on homosexuality. And, in the light of that knowledge, anyone’s attempt to cite that position as being a reputable scientific conclusion comes off as nothing short of ridiculous. (Hint: “Science” that’s dictated by political pressure is no science at all.)

          • thriver7

            Science is a democratic process. People come together and discuss, compare and contrast one another’s work based on precedent. Like law it evolves. But some truths are closer to the truth than others.
            Thousands of people studying the phenomenon of homosexuality the world over for decades must all be wrong and you’re right.

            • DCM7

              “Science is a democratic process. People come together and discuss, compare and contrast one another’s work based on precedent… Thousands of people studying the phenomenon of homosexuality the world over for decades must all be wrong and you’re right.”

              In the light of what I referred to — i.e., “science” regarding homosexuality being dictated by political pressure, rather than being led by the scientific method — your entire attempted point is meaningless.

              • thriver7

                Though I agree that science is a moving thing and that it’s important to question it. I also think you’re pretty outnumbered by folks who have a lot more knowledge than you do. I’m guessing you think yours is superior to those which makes discussing anything with you sorta tough.
                Which social institutions then do you believe/trust to be telling you the truth?

              • DCM7

                “I also think you’re pretty outnumbered by folks who have a lot more knowledge than you do.”

                You’re demonstrating exactly why the concept of “science” is so heavily subject to abuse: because once something is popularly considered “scientific,” regardless of whether it actually is, it’s nearly impossible for anyone to argue against it.

                As I said, it’s well known, and well documented, that the current “official” position regarding homosexuality was arrived at by 100% political pressure, and 0% based on evidence. That reality makes all your attempted counterarguments involving “science” inescapably irrelevant, as hard as you may try to avoid it.

              • thriver7

                So let’s try it from a different angle: a couple live in your town. They are of the same sex. They own a home, pay their mortgage, commit no crimes.

                What legal argument might allows us to ban them from doing that in a 21st century constitutional republic?

              • DCM7

                “a couple live in your town. They are of the same sex. They own a home, pay their mortgage, commit no crimes.”

                Fine. Let them do that. They have the right to live together that way if they choose.

                What they don’t have the right to do is demand that their arrangement be considered as having the same unique and irreplaceable value as the joining of opposites — a value that even many who participate in it utterly fail to grasp.

                And that doesn’t even get into what same-sex attraction really is: not some natural variation, but a deep-seated paraphilia, frequently recovered from by people who are vastly better off as a result. (That last point is another of those hard realities that will remain no matter how loudly you or anyone else tries to deny it.)

              • thriver7

                “What they don’t have the right to do is demand that their arrangement be officially considered, and rewarded,…

                I’m afraid not only do they have this right but they exercised it and prevailed. As for “reward” I’m not sure what you mean but equal application of fiscal policy could be seen as a reward.

                “as having the same unique and irreplaceable value as the difficult but precious joining of opposites — a value that even many who participate in it utterly fail to grasp.”

                I think this is a fear of folks who don’t know gay couples. My anecdotal evidence shows that they have great respect for family units, deeply understand how heterosexual parenting is different from them, how it is vital and they hope to do their very best. (though they are not deluded either in believing as you infer that heterosexual = good parents and homosexual = bad parents).

              • DCM7

                “I’m afraid not only do they have this right but they exercised it and prevailed.” — A “right” that has been granted based on falsehoods.

                “I think this is a fear of folks who don’t know gay couples.” — I’m not even talking about parenting. I’m talking about the unique meaning and value of the male/female dynamic. Your response shows that you don’t even know what I’m talking about. Unfortunately, neither do many heterosexuals.

              • thriver7

                Do tell. Why did the word “Love” go into quotes? You are saying it’s not possible to love someone of the same sex?

              • DCM7

                “Why did the word ‘Love’ go into quotes? You are saying it’s not possible to love someone of the same sex?”

                I’m saying that love does not equal sex. And that there is a correct name for love between people of the same sex: friendship. One does not “love” someone of the same sex sexually any more than one “loves” a child sexually or a too-close relative sexually.

              • thriver7

                oooh there’s a not so subtle slipper slope - well played

              • thriver7

                Ugly, disdainful, ignorant comment - with a nasty little spin at the end correlating homosexuality with incest and child abuse.
                Your ignorance is stunning. Try reading a book published in this century.

                PS the “standard” you suggest is not inscribed in law- our government’s standard has to do with age of consent and consanguinity.

          • thriver7

            And by “we” who do you mean? What exactly is the name of this association of citizens who think that scientists are “scientists” and the laws only emerge from the legislative branch?

        • True, it is not supported by so-called professionals or academics who have surrendered fact, logic and common sense in favor of mindless obedience to politically correct Leftist orthodoxy.

          Nevertheless, drunks choose to give in to self-destructive tendencies, and they sometimes choose to stop behaving in this manner. Likewise, homosexuals choose to give in to their self-destructive sexual tendencies, and they sometimes choose to stop behaving in this manner.

          Therefore, the analogy is a good one. Both behaviors are immoral and self-destructive, and both behaviors can be embraced or rejected.

          • thriver7

            We live in a democratic Republic. The title of your blog is American. Citizens are free by law to engage in the behaviors they choose provided they cause no harm.
            Morality and law are two separate things - morality is not arrived at by debate, voting, or courts of law..
            If you would like to see your version of morality made into law I strongly encourage you to use the tools at our disposal as citizens: assemble, petition, fundraise, debate, enroll powerful allies, etc.

            • Yes, citizens are free by law to engage in behaviors of their choice, so long as they cause no harm.

              Homosexual behavior causes harm to the individuals involved, and causes deep harm to the society in which it occurs. Here is a brief summary of the ways in which homosexual behavior harms society:

              People can attempt to separate law and morality, but this is ultimately impossible. Laws are based on moral precepts. For almost all of America’s history, our law has been based on Natural Law (revealed to us through the Bible), and because of that, we have been the most free and prosperous nation in history.

              We are now in the process-through ignorance, laziness, cowardice, and deception-of abandoning this formula for success in favor of a value system that has produced mediocrity at best whenever tried, and usually results in suffering and tyranny in direct proportion to the level of dedication applied to those anti-Natural Law principles.

              We already have “my version of morality” in law. It is exemplified in the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution which all guarantee a republican form of government (i.e. where judges and executives do not make law), limited government, and freedom of religious expression. It is only through the direct violation of these highest laws (i.e. the U.S. and state constitutions) that the homosexual agenda has found advancement. We must return to the rule of law, or we will become a lawless land where no one’s liberty or property is secure.

              • thriver7

                So in the states where gay marriage was passed by legislators and/or referenda - it’s acceptable since it wasn’t handed down by the executive or judicial branch?

                All of your arguments and more no doubt suggesting that allowing homosexuals to marry in our country were presented over and over again to legislators and judges. Reams of paper were filled arguing both sides (another example why your silly argument that opposition to homosexual marriage is not allowed because of some vague fascist) and the arguments on the side you don’t agree with were considered to not be strong enough when comparing personal freedom to state interest - to protect society from harm.

                The judges and legislators who did side with your opinion generally offered the argument of because “it’s how we’ve always done it”.

              • Actually there were extremely few states where counterfeit marriage was authorized by constitutional means, and only then after the way was paved, so to speak, by judicial activism to make it somewhat palatable to amoral legislators.

                No, when people abandon objective moral truth, and especially the rule of law, nothing is usually considered “strong enough” to stand between society and an agenda of hedonism.

              • thriver7

                Aaah you’re on a slippery slope there Bob.
                Earlier you talked about the power of constitutional law and now you’re saying that even if these laws are passed by methods you respect they are still counterfeit.

              • That’s not what I said at all.

                Marriage is not an area for which the U.S. Constitution provides authority to the federal government. It isn’t in the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else in the constitution or any of its amendments. There is zero authority for the federal government to dictate anything with regard to marriage-certainly none whatsoever to redefine it.

                State constitutions also have no authority to redefine marriage, and in fact, none have attempted to do so. State laws and state constitutions have only articulated what was, until recently, instinctively understood by every society on earth throughout history: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

                Marriage is a human relationship that transcends governments and nations. It was established by the creator of the human race, and can only be redefined by the one who owns and created it-the same Creator cited as the authority in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

                When we attempt to pass something off as something it is not, that is rightfully called “counterfeit.” Fraud is another word for attempting to portray something as something it is not. Marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman (it’s rather obvious that only a man and a woman have the correct body parts with which to create the UNION that is physically and essentially what a MARRIAGE is). To call anything else “marriage” is akin to calling a man and his barber a father-son relationship (when they are not related), or calling a gum wrapper a $20 bill, or calling a fireman an accountant when said fireman has no accounting certification. In other words, it is counterfeit, or fraud.

              • thriver7

                Oh god - here we go. So many tired old arguments.

                Well I’m guessing by “creator” you mean God. And god is not a citizen of the US so therefore has no right to petition nor run for office.

                Marriage equality became law by application of the 14th amendment - the court considered that governments can’t treat two separate groups of people differently by offering them.

                Defined. Redefined. Natural Law. All of those arguments were presented -no doubt by folks as equally repulsed by gay citizens as you — and the court felt that the equal application of the law as laid out in the 14th amendment prevailed over those. Bummer for you.

              • Yes, here we go, once again delving into an area that is very clear, yet as a Leftist you find unpalatable.

                God is the creator of the universe and everything in it, and as such, is the rightful rule maker of everything in it. He is also the ultimate founder of the United States (if you don’t believe me, look at the multiple statements made by the human founders of the United States that attribute the creation of the nation to God).

                No, the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow for the counterfeiting of marriage. According to the 14th Amendment, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

                Homosexuals are not being deprived of life, liberty, or property. Homosexuals have the same right to marry, subject to the same requirements as everyone else: that their marriage partner be a human being, consenting, of legal age, not a close relative, and a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing whatsoever about marriage, and at the time of its passage, virtually every human being on the planet understood and did not even question that marriage could only be formed by a man and a woman.



                The rogue Supreme Court majority glanced at the arguments of the rule of law, and rejected them outright because they condemned their immoral and lawless agenda. It came down to a tyranny of a majority, in complete violation of our nation’s highest law: the U.S. Constitution.

                A bummer for anyone who cares in the slightest for liberty.

          • thriver7

            I”m guessing we can just stop this discussion.
            What I call professionals you call “so called” professionals, what I call citizens implementing their constitutional rights you call fascist agenda, what I call a free choice to engage in the sexual behavior of one’s choice in the privacy of one’s home you call destructive.
            I get that you are free of alcoholism. Does that give you the right to ban others from drinking alcohol. I get you don’t like homosexual behaviors. Your arguments that others shouldn’t engage in them are more akin to evangelism than to republican principles - in that respect I could argue you are happy to exercise your rights to choose the sexuality of your liking you just don’t want certain others to do it.

            • Probably so, since you’ve made it abundantly clear that you aren’t interested in the facts, or what’s good for society.

              When people who are supposed to behave in a professional manner, and are supposed to put fact and the well-being ahead of what’s easy and convenient, instead do the opposite, I can’t call them anything more charitable than “so-called” because they have proven themselves to be very UN-professional.

              When people leverage the power of government to force people to surrender their religious liberty, their property rights, their right to freedom of association, and other liberties, and especially do so using unconstitutional methods that are illegal according to our constitutions, it cannot be legitimately called anything other than fascism because, as I pointed out by definition, it IS fascism.

              A critical difference between the use of alcohol and homosexual behavior is that one can use alcohol responsibly, without behaving immorally, without harming one’s self or harming others.

              Homosexual behavior is by definition immoral. Because it is contrary to the obvious scientific design and function of some rather special body parts, it is also dangerous and harmful to both participants-and this is without even getting into the astronomically elevated risk of disease that runs rampant in the homosexual community. It also violates the Natural Law upon which our nation’s legal and governmental system is founded.

              And as I pointed out in the article link I provided before, homosexual behavior, when openly tolerated, is tremendously harmful to any society.

              There is just no “good way” to engage in dangerous, immoral, aberrant behavior.

              • thriver7

                You said “Homosexual behavior is by definition immoral.”
                Can you cite that one for me Bob?
                And you said because of an “Obvious” (a pretty subjective notion) “scientific design”? Who designed these things Bob?

                And surely a smart man like you understands the difference between a vector and a causation. Suggesting that male homosexual sex causes harm instead of the fact that that particular population is a vector for a virus is quite a leap there Bob. You get that the same virus is spread among heterosexual folks predominately in the rest of the world right?
                Are they immoral too?

                Bob why don’t you just flat out say you don’t like homosexuals? Why not just own that homosexuality disgusts you? That way we can separate out your own repulsion from law. Because like it or not LGBT folks are citizens - with the same protections as you and me. The same ones. They don’t get to tell you what you can do in the privacy of your own home and you don’t get to tell them - even though you really like to.

                The state of Texas sued two men for sodomy and lost (it cost them a pretty penny I imagine). The US Supreme Court recognized that same sex folks have the same rights to privacy and intimacy as opposite sex folks.

                I wish you luck luck trying to change that policy.

              • Yes. Every major religion in the world recognizes homosexual behavior as a violation of God’s design for the expression of human sexuality.

                Since I am most familiar with what the Judeo-Christian religion says about homosexual behavior, and since that is the belief system upon which the United States was founded, I will cite what it says about homosexual behavior and marriage:

                – 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”

                And yes, science makes it obvious that homosexual behavior is aberrant, unnatural, and counterproductive.


                Must I really spell out the harm in sticking a penis up an anus-a bacteria-filled waste disposal organ that is rather delicate and intended as a one-way conduit? I don’t think I need to go into particular detail about that for rational people.

                While it is true that the same viruses can be passed among heterosexuals, it is particularly telling (it practically screams) that over 70% of new AIDS cases in the United States come from the homosexual community which makes up less than 3% of the population. Stop and think about that for a minute: 3% of the population accounts for nearly 3/4 of new AIDS cases. Many studies around the world have found that homosexuals suffer from AIDS at rates 10x to 40x that of prostitutes-you know, people who sell their bodies multiple times a day.

                The same astronomically elevated rates apply to virtually every other sexually transmitted disease, including gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, and HPV.

                Homosexuals also experience greatly elevated rates of anal cancer, hepatitis, substance abuse, depression, suicide (human beings can’t behave immorally for long without paying a mental and emotional price) and domestic violence.

                I have known many homosexuals over the years, and most were likable people. I don’t like homosexual behavior, because it causes great harm not only to the society in which I live, but also to those same likable homosexuals-physical harm, mental and emotional harm, and spiritual harm.

                Anyone who really gives a rip about his fellow man at all tries to warn his fellow man about dangerous behavior. Those who hold the welfare of their fellow citizens in contempt will remain silent when they see others in danger, or pretend the danger isn’t really a danger.

                Either way, it’s not hard to see who really cares and who doesn’t.

              • thriver7

                Oh that’s very nice of you.
                You twist all these things to conform to your beliefs because “You care” - and of course you infer that I don’t.
                Just one thing.
                Just one.
                Look at global HIV statistics and read about vectors. Your silly notion of cause and effect between “Immorality” and some silly Judeo-Christan notion of “paying for immorality” just float out the window.
                You know nothing about me and the benevolent (or malevolent for that matter) things I do in the world.

                I definitely think one of the ways I care about humanity is to make sure when I can that people who spout “the truth” get their feet put to the fire a little bit.

                So easy to sit back and type away flicking off any kind of questioning of one’s absolutely conviction of one’s higher moral authority like flies on crap.

              • Only an irrational person or a liar could deny the correlation made apparent when a segment of the population less than 3% of the whole accounts for nearly 3/4 of the disease cases, and that 3% segment all share a particular BEHAVIOR in common that is central to the transmission of that disease.

                You’re free to bury your head in the sand and pretend reality doesn’t exist, but people like me will continue telling the truth until the rest of society becomes informed and you are revealed for the flat-earther you are.

              • DCM7

                “why don’t you just flat out say you don’t like homosexuals? Why not just own that homosexuality disgusts you?”
                I can answer that one: I can’t say those things because they’re flat out not true. I don’t consider my past sins any better (or less “disgusting”) than the sins of a given homosexual; the only difference is that I have taken the tough but necessary road of leaving them behind.
                I don’t like homosexuals? No, I don’t like homosexuality because of what I’ve seen it do to homosexuals. I had family friends who died young due to highly typical male “gay” lifestyles, and who were clearly deeply troubled all the way to the end due to their issue (much more than by any poor treatment received from “haters”). I would have pulled them out of that life; you would have just left them in it.

    • Thisoldspouse

      It’s true when you consider that “gay” has taken on an entire novel meaning in the past few decades. It used to mean effeminate, or mearly experiencing same-sex attraction, whether embraced or acted upon or not.

      Today, “gay” is almost entirely a political stance. In this respect, it is most definitely a choice.

    • The gay community would do well to rethink its attitudes about casual sex and infidelity. I’ve lost one friend to AIDS and know others who acquired HIV infection through anonymous sex.

      At the same time, not all gay lives are equal. I know a number who have been partnered for years and are living monogamously. They may be in the minority, but they do exist. From all appearances, they are thriving, successful and happy (as are their families). You can’t really compare their lives to that of a drug addict or murderer or something to that effect. It’s just not analogous.

      How do you tell these folks to just “walk away”?

      • DCM7

        “I know a number who have been partnered for years and are living monogamously. They may be in the minority, but they do exist. From all appearances, they are thriving, successful and happy”

        I think the key word here is “appearances.” It’s been well-established that the appearance of monogamy in the gay community — as rare as it may be — is still far more common than the *reality* of monogamy.

        And as long as we’re talking about appearances, my closest “gay” friend, had he not contracted AIDS, might very well have appeared to you as “thriving, successful and happy.” Perhaps it took the disease to crack his façade, but even then others could have easily missed what I was able to see. And what I saw was someone deeply damaged inside.

        Finally, not all negative things can be declared “negative” simply based on their visible effects. A serial adulterer may be “thriving, successful and happy” by any tangible measure, but does that mean his actions are right? No, it is not right that he would desire adultery, or that he would give in to it. And — for many reasons you may have a hard time understanding — it is not right for someone to desire same-sex activity, or to practice it. Where there is not a clear basis for certain definite sexual boundaries, there is no real basis for *any* sexual boundaries. That, perhaps, is the hardest part for someone to grasp without a Biblical basis for morality.

        “How do you tell these folks to just ‘walk away’?”
        Anyone who really wants to be right with their Creator is going to have to “walk away” (or crawl away, or fight their way free, or whatever it takes) from something at some point — something they wanted more than anything, something that may have seemed very right. I’ve had to, and many, many others have had to.

  • corsair82

    TL;DR - Someone whose sexual behavior in no way affects you was rightly someone to be oppressed or punished. Now that you noblonger have the force of law behind your prejudices, you would like us to all accomodate your desire for segregationist policies against LGBT people, and if we don’t, you’ll complain about feeling oppressed because you can no longer force your personal religious beliefs on others.

    How sad for you.

    The best part about this writ of homophobic prejudice is that in order to maintain his unfounded bias, the writer needs to do more than avoid LGBT people. He must also never have a conversation with someone who has actually met or cares about an LGBT person. But his actual goal of completely avoiding “the GLBT people” is laudable. None of us would want to interact with an immoral and degenerate bigot like him, anyways. I thank him for saving us the trouble of having to go out of our way to avoid him, since he’s already offered to stay the heck out of our way.

    Anyone want to talk about something other than the imaginary LGBT boogeyman who is out to recruit your children? (Not how it works, but points for the fear-mongering and throwing in the classic anti-gay fallacy that we’re sexual predators and a danger to children.)

    • Unfortunately, aberrant sexual behavior DOES affect others, and in negative ways.

      For those emboldened to engage in dangerous and self-destructive behaviors such as homoseuxality, it places them at additional physical, emotional mental and spiritual risks.

      We have also seen it demonstrated many times that the radical homosexual agenda will foster no quarter for dissent, not even constitutionally protected religious liberty.

      Anyone who truly cares about a homosexual or homosexual will tell them the truth: that it is an unnatural, immoral, dangerous behavior that should be avoided. Anyone who pretended that dangerous behaviors such as smoking, alcohol or drug abuse were not dangerous would be demonstrating contempt for the safety and well-being of others; the same is true of those who pretend homosexual behavior is normal, natural and healthy.

    • DCM7

      “Anyone who truly cares about a homosexual or [transsexual] will tell them the truth”
      That nails it. The greatest disservice that can be done to a “gay” or a “trans” is to let them go on thinking everything is OK with them, and the greatest service that can be done to them is to help them get on to the path toward health, wholeness and normality.

      Your entire post pretends that our position is based on none of us here having had any real contact with LGBTs. I can tell you that my position is based very much on having had contact with such people. And I’d just like you to know how empty and hollow your assumptions and accusations sound in the light of what I learned from them.

      No one here wants to force any beliefs or prejudice on anyone. We just know we need to keep telling the truth, regardless of how unpopular it gets.

  • thriver7

    Pretty sure LGBT citizens are supportive of any other citizen’s constitutional right to associate with whomever they choose. I can’t really think of a time where they’ve wanted to limit someone’s freedom to associate or freedom of speech (outside of the free market).
    Calling someone a “hater” is not denying that person their freedom of speech. It’s a response to speech. The other party is free to reply however he or she cares to. It’s no unlike calling someone an abomination.
    By the way - the word fascist is a real form of political organization. It has a real definition historically and the flippant use of it in this article is not really in line with history.
    One can toss it around ad nauseum: Fascist Catholics, Fascist Grandmothers, Fascist Democrats, Fascist Baptists, Fascist Taxi-drivers. The more we mis-use it the less real meaning it has.

    • DCM7

      “(outside of the free market)”
      And why should they have the right to limit it within the free market?

      “It’s no[t] unlike calling someone an abomination.”
      How about calling actions (not people) an abomination? That’s what anyone has actually done.

    • While I’m sure some are, the agenda and the movement as a whole is not. And yes, that includes the free market. The “free market” is nothing more than free and private individuals and their property.  If a person who owns property is not free to control access to his own property and to control what his property is used for, he is not free at all.

      The dictionary defines fascism as:”a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.”

      It is clear homosexual activists are fascists because they seek to leverage the power of government to dictate and control the lives of people, refusing to allow people to disagree with the government approval of homosexual behavior and counterfeit marriage.

      Leftists in general and homosexual activists specifically oppose the freedom of private business owners to exercise religious freedom and freedom of association if that freedom involves rejecting immoral behavior.

      The word “fascist” and “fascism” fit the homosexual agenda perfectly, as demonstrated by the behavior of the homosexual movement in recent years.

      • thriver7

        poppycock. You are simply bending words to your liking. You just said fascism is about dictatorship then you said gay folks are a citizens group influencing a government to dictate. Those are not the same thing. Go live in a dictatorship for a few months and tell me how different it is from a citizens movement that influences policy in a country where people elect their representatives.
        You are babbling nonsense preacher boy.
        Same for your BS ideas about right to assemble. As a person I can protect my property from anyone. As a business owner I must adhere to many levels of legislation that tell me what I can and can’t do. I enter into these agreements knowingly.These laws vary from state to state, from town to town. To suggest that somehow the “Agenda” (which you attribute with human characteristics as if it were some poly-headed animal) is making all of the happen - that til now every business person was able to say “I don’t like you eye color - get out”. “I saw you drinking a beer and I oppose alcohol get out” is preposterous.

        • No, I even provided a link to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary definition of fascism.

          If you think a group of citizens influencing government cannot constitution fascism, you missed out on a lot of history. This is precisely how fascism springs up and grows in a society-a group of people finding a way to leverage power and gain control of government authority, to then force their will on others. Examine what happened in Nazi Germany, or any of the other dozens of examples of fascism seen throughout the world in the last century alone.

          A business owner has an obligation not to cheat or deceive people, i.e. basically not to commit fraud against their customers. When someone attempts to force them-in violation of their God-given property rights, right of conscience, and right of freedom of association, to engage in behavior that they consider fraudulent (i.e. attempting to lend credibility to a counterfeit marriage), then THAT is a violation of the obligation of a business owner. You are not obligated to allow people into your home, and you are not obligated to exchange your property or your labor to someone against your will. That liberty does not change nor is it morally surrendered simply because you also OWN a business where you, of your own choosing, sell goods or services to others.

          If you don’t understand these basic concepts of liberty, you have a lot to learn about what it means to be American.

          I’ll leave you with some enlightening material from a black economist who is dedicated to liberty.

          • thriver7

            You said “a group of people finding a way to leverage power and gain control of government authority, to then force their will on others.” = fascism

            You just described precisely how many policies and laws happen in a republic. Is the religious right then fascist for having influenced laws at various points in the history of the US? Is the Chamber of Commerce then fascist for having influenced policy? What of Grover Norquist and people who’ve signed onto his no-tax policy? According to your definition they’re all fascists.

            Dictatorial decision making, lack of free press, lack of due process, lack of the right to petition one’s government, citizens “disappeared” by the government — these are some of the quality of fascist. If you believe the LGBT movement in the US is fascist then so is AARP and American Medical Association.

            • That can bet how many policies and laws happen, but it is not how they are supposed to happen, especially in a constitutional republic based on Natural Law like ours.

              In a constitutional republic, any law must conform to the parameters outlined by its constitution. Any law that violates the dictates or limits of that constitution is illegal. Any edict that is not legally enacted law is also illegal, and the U.S. Supreme Court edict last year is illegal and unconstitutional because there is no authority granted for the U.S. Constitution for ANY branch of the federal government to attempt to redefine marriage, and no authority is granted to the judiciary to create law.

              Attempting to redefine marriage (something outside the purview of any government) is also a violation of Natural Law, upon which the law and government of the United States is based.

              Sir William Blackstone provides some enlightenment about Natural Law:

              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.


              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.

              Sir Edward Coke has also provided this insight about Natural Law:

              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.

              When we attempt to violate Natural Law, we violate the most foundational basis of the very American way of life. In doing so, we put all of the liberties uniquely recognized and enjoyed in America at great peril.

              • thriver7

                Afraid I’m not going to read your rants.
                Somehow the words of 18th century English aristocrats just don’t seem to be super important to me.

              • That’s your problem: in your childish arrogance, you consider people who are vastly superior to you in education and intellect to be unworthy of your attention. That is why you display such glaring and willful ignorance, and such total contempt for the rule of law.

              • thriver7

                Well there you have it - without knowing a thing about me, not a single thing - you assume you are vastly superior to me in education and intellect.
                Just like you consider yourself to be vastly superior to “homosexuals” for whom you have all the answers even thought they’re really not asking for your help.
                And you are not unworthy of my attention - I’ve given your silly, 18th century religiosity cum form-of-governance quite a bit of attention.

              • You made it clear that you are (in your own mind) so superior to the likes of Edward Coke and William Blackstone that they can just be written off as primitive rubes who don’t know anything.

                Edward Coke, who served in the British Parliament, served as Solicitor General, Speaker of the House of Commons, Attorney General, and was knighted for his service. Edward Coke, who contributed foundational works on law and liberty, and whose work directly influenced the foundations of the United States.

                William Blackstone, who served as a university leader and professor of English law. Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England profoundly influenced both British and American law and government for centuries (even to today), and were essential to the thinking of American founders like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, and John Marshall.

                These men did more thinking before they got out of bed than most people today do in 10 years.

                For someone to so casually dismiss such great and long-established wisdom and accomplishment…is to broadcast to the world that one is an immature child who isn’t anywhere close to being ready to play with big-boy ideas and concepts, including liberty.

              • DCM7

                “Just like you consider yourself to be vastly superior to ‘homosexuals’ for whom you have all the answers even thought [sic] they’re really not asking for your help.”

                Straw-man much? Speaking for myself, I don’t consider myself to be “vastly superior” to anyone. I’m just another sinner who needed to find THE answer, just like anyone else does. If someone doesn’t want that answer that’s their choice. But people like me at least have to put it out there.

              • thriver7

                “Have to put it out there”? Why’s that? And if you’re a sinner then you’re “flawed”. How do you know what you’re “putting out” isn’t flawed?

              • DCM7

                Just because I’m “flawed” doesn’t mean I’m stupid. In fact, I’ve learned an awful lot from dealing with those “flaws.”

              • thriver7

                Laws, policies and statutes come to us through a whole bunch of different channels - it’s that simple.
                It’s that simple.

          • thriver7

            “You are not obligated to allow people into your home, and you are not obligated to exchange your property or your labor to someone against your will. That liberty does not change nor is it morally surrendered simply because you also OWN a business where you, of your own choosing, sell goods or services to others.”

            Pure BS

            I work in the medical field Bob. I simply can’t decide one day to refuse to exchange my labor for someone’s money simply because I don’t like his hat or the color of his shoes. It’s illegal and unethical.

            • So you WOULD be okay with someone coming into your home and taking your TV, your phone, your decorations, your furniture, so long as they provided you with fair compensation? So you WOULD be okay with someone forcing you to labor for them, whether you wanted to or not?

              THAT’s the pure BS here.

              You just aren’t willing to afford the liberty to others that you expect for yourself. You know that to admit the truth would be to admit that your own arguments are bankrupt. That’s the behavior of a spoiled child. You should be better than that.

              • thriver7

                American law is very clear that there is a difference between private space and commercial space - between the home and the professional world.
                If you get a license to practice from your government you do it knowing that you must adhere to a slew of laws and policies.
                I have to have a ramp to allow disabled vets to access my services. I simply can’t say that I don’t care about them and won’t serve them.
                If I have to work with a patient with a big nazi flag tattoed on their back then that’s what I have to do.

              • Actually, there is no moral or constitutional difference between private property used by individuals, and private property used by those same private individuals for the purpose of commerce. Either way, the private owner OWNS the property, and morally can do with it as he wishes, so long as he doesn’t use it to affirmatively bring harm to another person.

                And if you have to get a license simply to provide goods or services to someone, then you aren’t really free. Certain life-saving and other services of critical importance have legitimate certification requirements to protect the public from fraud. No such licensing and certification is required for cake-baking, photograph-taking and other such services where tyrants have attempted to force their will on private businesses.

                Again, I would encourage you to read and consider the material I provided earlier from economist Walter Williams. If you’re willing to allow yourself to learn something, it could be extremely beneficial to you.

                The founders of this nation understood that limited government and property rights are of paramount importance to a free society. You would do well to learn from them and emulate their integrity.

                The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams

              • thriver7

                I don’t now a municipality or county government where one doesn’t need a business license to operate a business - indeed none of us is free according to you.

                I learn lots of things on a pretty regular basis - why would I accept reading recommendations from someone who is so disdainful of his fellow citizens?

              • Sadly, the liberty we enjoy today is a shadow of what it was only 50 years ago. And if we are going to insist that people must give up their property rights, their right of free association, and their right to religious liberty, then we aren’t free at all.

                This is only one of a growing number of examples where people are being forced to surrender the aforementioned liberties as a politically correct “cost of doing business”:


              • thriver7

                Ah I see - you really miss the days when women weren’t in the work place, black people knew their water fountain, pastors ran the town and homosexuals kept their mouths shut.
                I hope your candidate Trump delivers on bringing you back to 1957.
                The entire absence of a post-war industrial platform offering our middle class solid jobs and a retirement plan is going to make things a bit more complicated than the last time we were in 1957.

              • Yet again you broadcast your ignorance. It was not my people, but yours, the Democrat Party, that sought to deny people their liberty in the past. Conservatives and Republicans have since the American Revolution and before recognized that everyone is created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. It is Democrats and Leftists who have sought to tyrannize others for centuries:




                What’s more, I do not, nor have I ever, supported Donald Trump for anything. He is a liberal, nearly as bad as Hillary Clinton.

                Finally, it is not the job of government to provide jobs. Jobs spring from the free market, made possible when government is limited (as ours is, according to the U.S. Constitution) and freedom is allowed to flourish. And that model in the United States, unlike the Leftist model of centralization and state control, has performed wonderfully, producing the most affluent people in history. I’ve been around the world and seen REAL poverty. Our poorest people here (at least those who do not choose to make themselves poor by addicting themselves to dangerous substances, etc.) enjoy a better life than the vast majority of people around the world. I also know this, not merely from having seen how others live around the world, but because I also grew up on the poor side of American standards (my father chose to be a farmer, which is almost never a path to prosperity).

                Don’t believe the Marxist BS. Freedom is the path to prosperity, not government authoritarianism.

              • thriver7

                So do tell - what social institutions do you trust?
                Not “scientists” so I’m guessing that includes all of academia. Not the political parties. You’ve stated you don’t have any trust in the justice system since they’ve delivered a “counterfeit” marriage law.
                What institutions do you see as credible? (This is not a gotcha question - honestly. I am interested in understanding what civic -not ecclesiastic as it seems pretty clear your faith is important to you- institutions or structures you do you put your trust in?

                I personally believe in the justice system to mostly get it right. I believe in the power of democratic debate in our statehouses and federal house. I believe in the power of healthy journalisn.

                PS Finally and please let’s not open this up as a side stream - I’m not suggesting marxist notions of government as a way of creating industry I’m simply stating that nearly all agree we are in a huge industrial slump and have been for a while.

              • Sadly, there are virtually no institutions that can be trusted anymore. All have become filled with politically correct compromise, because it’s easier to go with the liberal mindset (it requires no facts, no logic, no consistency, no commitment, and no principle) and simply follow the herd.

                The scientific community has allowed itself to become slavish sycophants for every liberal dogma that arises which (seemingly) alleviates any and all from moral responsibility. From evolution (which is scientifically contradicted) to anthropogenic global warming (which has no significant scientific support and is contradicted by empirical and historical science in a variety of ways) and more, so-called “scientists” have decided to not only operate from a set of presuppositions, but doggedly refuse to consider any and all evidence which contradicts these presuppositions, and even punish those who do consider contradictory evidence.

                The medical community has also done the exact same thing, pretending homosexual behavior is normal and healthy when the evidence is overwhelming that it is neither. The medical community has chosen political intimidation, in the 1973 embrace of homosexual behavior as mentally healthy, over fact and reason. The medical community has also done this by, rather than helping people who are confused about their sex accept the reality visible between their legs, helping them mutilate their healthy bodies and inject themselves with hormones that do not belong in their bodies.

                The government has also sold out to the easy road of liberalism. For example, the government knows that homosexual behavior is extremely dangerous (both federal and state health agencies publish the data which proves this), yet they pretend the behavior is normal, natural and healthy. This is dereliction of duty in the extreme. Additionally, government has failed to protect its most important institution (marriage) from being counterfeited, and refuses to enforce the very first liberty mentioned in our bill of rights: religious freedom.

                Journalism long ago abandoned any pretense at fact and objectivity. Indeed, it was one of the first to go, and has contributed greatly to the pressure on all other institutions to abandon objective truth and fact as the standard. Journalists have the (now unearned and undeserved) public’s trust as agents of fact, when in reality they have become agents of propaganda.

                Even many Christian institutions have embraced these and other examples of Leftist propaganda, abandoning the clear and reliable teaching of the God they claim to follow, in favor of something that is easy, nonjudgmental, and won’t offend the people they are supposed to be trying to rescue from Hell.

                The silver lining in the betrayal of facts and objective truth by so many is that it forces those of us who are genuinely interested in learning the truth to not be lazy and allow institutions to do our thinking for us, but rather to investigate and think for ourselves. That’s rewarding in and of itself, even if taxing at times.

                Finally, I’m all for not opening up any side streams. However, you have been arguing for a powerful central government that ignores the constitutional limits on its authority-in fact, ignores its responsibilities to protect documented liberties such as religious freedom. Then you made a statement that (in keeping with that same mentality) seemed to advocate for government to provide jobs for people. Government control of labor, as well as a powerful central government, are key tenets of Marxism. I could therefore only logically conclude that you have bought into Marxism since you have been advocating attributes of government that are perfectly in line with Marxism since you began this discussion. It behooves us all to know where ideas lead, because ideas have consequences-often devastating ones.

              • thriver7

                So you again mostly made a list of societal institutions one shouldn’t trust. Basically you’ve told me in your various comments not to trust anyone or anything except you — which of course sounds a tad messianic and you call me childish when I don’t - ironically.

                What do you believe in? If you ran for president what would your platform look like?

              • DCM7

                “you really miss the days when women weren’t in the work place, black people knew their water fountain…”

                You’re clearly intelligent enough to engage in a reasonable discussion, which makes your massive straw-man statements — bordering on childish name-calling — all the more telling. Your position really doesn’t give you much of anything better to work with. It is frankly unworthy of your intelligence. But, as they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. Where you sit forces you to take that position. It’s place you have gotten very comfortable with. It’s not a place you would leave easily, and various people have certainly given you a negative picture of what’s outside of it.

                But many people have left it, and for them it was like leaving a cage with a 4-watt bulb — which was the brightest place they’d ever seen — to dwell in the sunlight.

              • thriver7

                Oh do tell - great and wise man who knows what is best for all humanity - where does that sunlight lie?

                PS You don’t know squat about me - stop the conjecture - it’s unbecoming.

              • DCM7

                Conjecture? I haven’t said anything that’s all that unlikely, or that depends on my knowing much more about you than I have evidence of.

                Read my note at the bottom of the comments. I have nothing else to say.

            • DCM7

              “I work in the medical field Bob. I simply can’t decide one day to refuse to exchange my labor for someone’s money simply because I don’t like his hat or the color of his shoes.”

              This is a fairly good example of the dependence of your arguments — indeed, your whole position — on the likening of things that are actually not alike at all.

              Your treatment of someone is not an implied *endorsement* of the color of their shoes, or even their swastika tattoo. But services that may be refused based on conscience *do* imply agreement and endorsement.

              • thriver7

                Oh you don’t think my treating people has to do with conscience?! But let me guess - a florist’s does?
                Get a clue.
                I set aside my conscience when it comes to treating people because it is both the law and the ethical code of my profession.
                A civil servant treats all citizens with the same regard provided they have not committed a crime - which puts them in a different status.

          • thriver7

            God-given property rights?
            How does this look on a legal level?
            Is it included in your deed or mortgage somewhere?

            • The founders recognized that property rights were a part of Natural Law. Like all rights, as recognized in our founding document the Declaration of Independence, they are endowed by our Creator. When God created humanity, he gave humanity delegated authority or dominion over creation (which is property). We see this reinforced in the law God gave to Moses, in the distribution of land to be held by certain people, and the protection of property of all kinds.

              As James Madison said, “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”

              As Samuel Adams observed, “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

              Noah Webster further elaborated on the source of the right of property in Natural Law, stating: “The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air, and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man’s property in the earth and in all its productions. Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the possessor the property of them. The labor of inventing, making or producing anything constitutes one of the highest and most indefeasible titles to property.”

              U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story elucidated: “The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary. What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity?”

              One of the chief functions of any government is to protect property rights.

              Or as James Madison recognized: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”

              Incidentally, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property” (James Madison).

            • thriver7

              Ah right - the old pre-1933, United Christian States of America you so dearly dream of.
              Well natural law remains a fringe read of the law for now. Perhaps you and your peers will manage to create a movement that garners majority support and then rid this country of every Supreme Court decision since then.
              I sorta doubt that will happen.
              And I for one will certainly fight against it with great pleasure.

              That was the last bit of your thinking that was yet unclear to me. Thank you and best of luck.

              • Natural Law remains the basis for the first of our nation’s organic laws (, the cornerstone of the United States Code. I and others who understand and appreciate this reason that we have been the most free and prosperous nation in history will continue to work to see this understanding restored to our country so that this unique blessing shall not perish from the earth.

                Know that if you choose to fight against Natural Law and our nation’s recognition of it as the source of our liberty, you fight not only against all that you enjoy in America, you fight against your very Creator-which will put you in a very bad place, if you don’t turn around before you step into eternity.

              • thriver7

                Sorry but the way you conflate christianity and modern law makes me giggle.

                As you now know I have a VERY different take on things. And I think the critical thinking you recommend includes thinking critically of your opinions as well - even though you suggest I believe everything you say without question.

                Thanks for looking out for me but I think I’ll take the risk for eternity.

              • Yes, you have proven over and over that you think the entire basis of all that you enjoy living in America is just a big joke. You continually behave like a spoiled five year old who insists on being allowed to behave in whatever manner enters your little heart with no thought to the consequences to yourself or others around you. Over and over and over, I have provided you with a wealth of information that points incontrovertibly to the Christian foundations of America’s law and government, and like a child you continue to behave as if sticking your fingers in your ears can change reality.

                It can’t.

                Please, do yourself and your country a favor. Stop denying reality, come to terms with the facts, accept them, and start behaving like a grownup so you can help protect liberty instead of urinating on it.

              • thriver7

                I appreciate your passion.
                I don’t appreciate your fear-mongering (ie your unswerving predictions of the future), and your not so insults (mostly childish). Both do a real disservice to democratic dialogue in my opinion.
                You encourage me to question systems and information - (which I appreciate) but you expect me to adhere hook, line and sinker to everything you say and believe which often references dead rich white men or the bible.
                What would you do with all the decisions that have been made since 1933? Do you also turn the Senate back into a non-elected body? Do you eliminate all government services - hospitals, libraries, trash collection, road construction, retirement pensions? Have you told the US government you’re not going to accept your Dept of Defense healthcare plan since it is an incursion of the government into the market place? Will handicapped crosswalks and parking spots become a thing of the past because you don’t support favoring one group over another? Shall police now be allowed to burst into people’s homes to ascertain who they are having sex with and what kind of sex? Will you imprison women who attempt to abort themselves because it is illegal? Or because they now have no healthcare - which you just eliminated? Will you increase or support tax reiief for families with kids? On the one hand you support good Christian families as the center of society but on the other you abhor government intervention in anything. What to do?

              • It doesn’t matter what you appreciate or don’t appreciate. What matters is the truth, and it’s profoundly disappointing that your’e so hostile to it.

                Again, don’t believe what I say. Believe what the people who created this country said, and believe the proof that’s in the pudding. Do you really think it’s an accident that this nation-the only one to be founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values-quickly rose from a primitive backwater colony to the most free and affluent and powerful nation in all of human history? Really?

                During the time this nation rose to power and prosperity, we adhered to our limited-government constitution. Government didn’t build roads (though there is provision in the constitution for postal roads); the private sector did that. Government didn’t start and run hospitals through most of our history; the private sector did that (almost exclusively Christians, going back nearly 2,000 years).

                You act like people are as dumb as an empty box of rocks without government to think and do everything for them (maybe cause liberals might just be that stupid?).

                This nation became the greatest on earth precisely because we limited our national government, we kept it out of everyone’s way, which allowed people to be free to innovate, to think, to experiment with better ways, to freely associate and exchange ideas and goods as they saw fit.

                Every planned economy and centralized government in history has proven to be mediocre at best, and almost always resulting in gross waste, inefficiency, suppression and tyranny.

                It never ceases to amaze me that ostensibly educated adults can have the vast amount of information available that we do today (which proves that freedom works and big government doesn’t), and STILL some people positively BEG for government to run everyone’s lives.

                If Americans 200 years ago had such an asinine attitude, there never would have been an American Revolution…and along with it, most of the prosperity and innovation the world has known as a by-product of American trail-blazing.

                God help us.

        • Thisoldspouse

          “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

          “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

          — Chai Feldblum, Obama’s pick for EEOC commissioner

          By Bob’s posted definition, there is not a more fitting example of fascism than this. This Fascist says that religious liberty should LOSE almost every time to sexual deviants demands. That is directly contrary to the religious liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment and by Natural Law.

          • thriver7

            From Ms Gallagher, author of the article:

            I would add that even in the interview it is clear this was not a settled position for her but a “movement of thought” on her part, i.e. she didn’t claim she could never find a case where religious liberty wins, but that she was having trouble doing so.

            Read more at:

            • Thisoldspouse

              I fail to see where Ms. Gallagher’s statement, or Ms. Feldblums statements, give us any reassurance about what she WANTS as a powerful head of a federal enforcement arm of the government.

              • thriver7

                LGBT citizens have been assembling, petitioning, fundraising, running for office, suing, and demonstrating for about 50 years to have their behaviors decriminalized. In short they used all of the tools available to all citizens to influence legislation in this country.
                The author of this article calls that fascism - a form of disdainful black and white thinking in my opinion that lacks subtlety (and is a misuse of the term).
                “This is not a settled position” is perhaps too subtle but she is basically saying this is her first impression and it is not cut and dry. It is not a response to a specific case. She said those things before the Hobby Lobby, Obergefell and Windsor decisions. The legal context has changed considerably because of these.

              • The fascism isn’t in the assembling, petitioning, fundraising, running for office, suing, and demonstrating . The fascism is in the unconstitutional usurpation of duly enacted law, which started happening with judicial activism in the courts several years ago and culminated in the unconstitutional Obergefell opinion last year.

              • thriver7

                So then the judges are fascist for siding with the plaintiffs in ways that you believe violate the laws of our Republic. That’s different from saying that LGBT citizens are fascists.
                Since Kennedy was the swing vote on Lawrence -which most analysts agree led to Windsor - that makes Kennedy a fascist.

              • No, the judicial activists are behaving in a fascist manner because they are violating our nation’s highest law, the U.S. Constitution. They are violating property rights and religious liberty, in direct contradiction to duly established law, state constitutions and the federal constitution.

                Homosexual activists are also behaving in a fascist manner by advocating for this lawless behavior on the part of government officials, and for partnering with those lawless officials in attacking the liberties of Americans who simply want to live in a moral fashion. And yes, Kennedy often behaves in a fascist manner like his fellow Leftists.

  • Those “things that have changed since then” changed precisely because of the precepts they articulated. Once again, I point you to the fact (not the opinion, not the idea, but the FACT) that our nation was founded on the Natural Law that these men recognized. And this nation became the most free and prosperous not by accident, but BECAUSE we recognized these truths.

    By the way, I don’t “name call,” per se. But I do call things what they are, and liberals have always hated that, because they don’t like accepting the consequences for their poor choices. If one lies, then one should be called a liar. If one steals, one should be called a thief. If one behaves like a child, one should be called childish. When rational people are labeled with a bad behavior of theirs they do not like, they correct the behavior. Spoiled children merely whine about being recognized for what they are, and continue the bad behavior.

    Finally, it’s no surprise you would champion a majority opinion (and opinion is all it is, since the U.S. Constitution provides no authority to the federal government to condone sodomy) which ignores Natural Law to open the door to an immoral and self-destructive behavior you like. This was only another example of judicial activism. Or as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it:

    It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

    It should be noted, in addition to the fact that the Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to overrule Texas law, and in addition to the fact that the Supreme Court is not authorized to make law, that a majority does not change the inherent morality or immorality of a behavior.

    Just ask 1930s and 1940s Germans, where a majority of those in power decided certain people didn’t have a right to their liberty, or their lives.

    When we trample our nation’s highest law-designed to protect everyone from tyranny-and ignore the highest law of all (Natural Law), everyone is in jeopardy.

    • thriver7

      The Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to over-rule the laws of a member state? You mean we’re all doing it “wrong”? What exactly is the role of the Supreme Court in your eyes then?

      • That is correct. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the right to overrule the laws of the individual states, and yes, we’ve been doing it wrong since around the time of FDR, who had nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution.

        If you want to know the role of the U.S. Supreme Court, don’t look to “my eyes;” read Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which lays out exactly what the role of the SCOTUS is (and by exclusion, is not).

        When you do, you should also note that it is the shortest of the three articles listing the powers of the three branches of the federal government. That means, if we were still obeying our nation’s highest laws, the judiciary, in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78,

        will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

        • thriver7

          so you would roll back the powers of the supreme court to pre-FDR days. what else?

          • If we resumed holding our government accountable to the limits of the U.S. Constitution (as was usually the case prior to the FDR years), that would solve 80% or more of our governmental problems-as well as freeing up a HUGE amount of economic power that is currently being wasted on unconstitutional spending.

            • thriver7

              pretty slim platform. education? healthcare? infrastructure? military? foreign policy? immigration policy?

              • I’m not going to go into that much detail on an off-thread topic. If you’re really interested, you can read what I’ve written about all of these topics at American Clarion.

              • thriver7

                Well then - I wish you all the best.

            • Well, that’s why we have judges: to determine whether a law passed is within the limits of the Constitution.

              Constitutional law is very philosophical and somewhat esoteric, however, and words are used that are very much up to interpretation.

              Take the Eight Amendment which prohibits excessive bail or “cruel and unusual punishment”. What’s “excessive”? What’s “cruel and unusual”? Some moral theologians would say hanging is cruel as is frying someone in an electric chair. If these are permissible, why not stoning someone to death?

              What about the Ninth Amendment? It basically says that just because they didn’t list something specifically as a right doesn’t imply that the act in question isn’t a “right”. Talk about vague!

              I’m not saying our Framers weren’t brilliant. They were.

              It’s just that all of this talk about adhering to the letter of the Constitution is easier said than done.

              All this being said, I’d agree that we are over-regulated. I recently watched a documentary about an inner-city hospital and how more and more time is being spent following bureaucratic procedures as opposed to treating patients … and it’s only getting worse. It wasn’t a liberal or conservative propaganda piece. It was just what these doctors were experiencing in the trenches.

              • The Constitution isn’t hard to understand at all. Even if it were, there is the extensive Federalist Papers which explains the function and intent at great length.

                Original intent should always be at the heart of any “interpretation” of any law. As the founders said:

                The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

                It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. - Alexander Hamilton

                The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. - Thomas Jefferson

                The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson

                The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

                “Cruel and unusual” isn’t hard to figure out either. What does the word “cruel” mean? It means “disposed to inflict pain or suffering.” In other words, something intended to cause the recipient to suffer. The intent of capital punishment isn’t to cause suffering, but to exact a penalty on the guilty perpetrator, and that penalty is the surrender of his life. That is why we don’t nail people to a cross anymore or some other slow form of killing, but rather choose a method of capital punishment that will end the perpetrator’s life in the quickest and most pain-free method possible.

                And if we still can’t figure it out, then look at what was considered permissible at the time of the passage of the constitution. Capital punishment was very obviously considered not only permissible but vital to the maintenance of a safe and just society, so Leftist anti-capital punishment BS is out.

                The Ninth Amendment isn’t hard to figure out, either. Can we possibly list every right that a person has? Maybe to the extent of listing the right to use Charmin toilet paper? Of course not. Nevertheless, knowing the propensity of fallen human beings for tyrannizing one another if something isn’t spelled out, the crafters of the Bill of Rights (primarily spurred by the Virginia Ratifying Convention and other anti-federalists) wanted to make it clear that a person’s rights aren’t ONLY those enumerated in the Bill of Rights; rather, that just because something wasn’t specifically mentioned as being protected doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have the right to do such a non-harmful thing. As James Madison put it:

                It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.

                Adhering to the Constitution isn’t nearly as hard as the Left would have us believe. The Left thrives on uncertainty. If they can make people believe something isn’t as plain as it really is (or more to the heart of the issue, if they can make people believe that something wrong really isn’t wrong), that allows them the wiggle room they need to work their evil.

                Don’t fall for the liberal propaganda BS. Seeking out original intent, for which there are almost always more than sufficient clues, will make things clear 99 out of 100 times-if not more.

              • Thisoldspouse

                Interestingly, the constitutional qualifications for Supreme Court Justice, a member of one of the three branches of our constitutional federal government, are… ZERO. That’s right, the U.S. Constitution does not require only “esoteric thinkers” to be Supreme Court Justices. Theoretically, ANYONE with a lick of sense can serve if appointed. That is because the Constitution was written for the common man, with common understanding, so that anyone with intellectual honesty should be able to interpret the Constitution’s application easily.

                The absolutely perverse idea that the only people qualified to serve as justices come from ivory towers of academic blindness is so foreign to the ideals of the Founders, it would be unrecognizable to them as gross elitism.

  • DCM7

    One last word to “thriver7”: In discussions like these no one ever concedes much of anything; but someone, in some way, has to be wrong. With all respect, I have to say that I see these things in your posts that are typical of people arguing from a false position.

    (1) In your responses, your attention is mainly focused on points which may not be particularly central to the topic but which you feel able to craft some sort of response to. At the same time, those you disagree with make crucial point after crucial point that you completely fail to respond to or acknowledge.
    (2) Where you do have responses, they are often of a clearly fallacious nature: straw-man (you are unable to counter your opponent’s point without couching it in ridiculous terms); ad hominem (you question your opponent’s credibility to avoid having to address his actual point); appeal to authority (you cite “experts” to support points you can’t logically defend yourself).
    (3) You have a personal stake in your position that is completely unrelated to whether or not that position is actually valid. (In contrast, your opponents have no personal stake in taking one position over the other, besides the desire to understand which one is actually more correct.)