Citizens approve Same-Sex Marriage in four States

This past election cycle was significant for reasons other than re-electing President Barack Obama.  The citizens of four states: Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington voted on and approved ballot measures legalizing same-sex marriage.  In only one other instance has this issue been put to the people and was supported by the electorate, but was quickly overturned.  Up until now, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been done in spite of the will of the people (who vote to preserve natural marriage by an average margin of 2:1), and not at their behest.  Thus far, state legislatures have taken it upon themselves to approve such changes to marriage without the consent of the people, and many of those politicians have paid for it with their office.

It should come as no surprise that I oppose such legislation.  This however, is a different story.  In the past the will of the people had been ignored and even dismissed by elected officials who were put in office to represent the will of their constituents.  But this time the people themselves spoke.  And though I have my moral and civic objections to same-sex marriage, our government and laws have been instituted to reflect the will of the people.  So while I believe the citizens have made the wrong moral choice, I firmly respect that decision was made by the will of the people and not the by an activist judiciary or legislature whose arrogance declares they know what’s best.

And though this is not a time to rejoice in the decision, it is an occasion to appreciate the process which allows for the people’s voices be heard.  So many times the government takes it upon itself to disregard the will of the people.  Whether it’s banning large sugary drinks, removing salt from restaurant tables or which light bulbs we should use, to redefining marriage.

All too often the government behaves as though it is the caretaker of the people.  This needs to stop and the people need to put their foot down.  Legislators need to understand they work for us, not the other way around.


For a complete list of all marriage amendment ballot measures CLICK HERE.


  1. The people supported it because they were brainwashed for so many years into thinking it was the “fair” and “equitable” thing to do, without even considering what marriage really is.

    • Glenn, I don’t disagree. But at least it reflects the will of the people, not the agenda of an activist judge or legislator who acts in opposition of the people.

    • Glenn

      Same-sex marriage was passed because Christians chose not to vote. They failed to be the salt and light. I blame them. You can’t expect non-Christians to think and act like Christians.

  2. Hear, hear, John.

    I read the title and I thought, “Uh oh. He’s gonna contradict himself.” But you didn’t. Good!

    I respect the will of the people as well. But the reality is that America can only become more liberal now. Social conservatism is dying.

    I also did find it funny that the electorate would be fine with babies being slaughtered, but were so opposed to SS-M. Weird, I always felt. But it looks like they support both now. Immorality has won the day!

  3. This issue, to me, seems to be a matter of religious liberty, as much as anything.

    You want the right to think that homosexuality is a sin and not to be forced to marry a guy. And you’ve got that right.

    Other people want the right to determine for themselves what God thinks about homosexuality and marriage for gay folk. They want the right to choose for themselves the person they wish to marry.

    They deserve that right, too.

    I would think that those who support religious liberty for ALL (and not just everyone’s religious “liberty” to agree with you/some smaller group) would support marriage equity. That is, you may disagree with someone choosing to marry within the same gender, but that is between them and God and not a matter for you to enforce by weight of law.

    Consider this: You do not want to be told, “You HAVE to wed gay folk in your church!” You want your church to have the religious liberty to decide that for yourselves. And I want you to have that religious liberty, too. I don’t want the state to tell churches what they can and can’t do (as long as it’s not harming anyone), even if I disagree with the practice of a given church. I am supporting your religious liberty.

    It’s just that we want and expect that SAME religious liberty that we’re affording you. As a matter of fairness and justice.

    Considering it that way, don’t you want everyone to have the same religious liberties?

    • It’s not just religious liberty; it is PERSONAL liberty. The government forces people to either sanction same-sex fake marriage, as well as homosexuality in general, or else you will be punished.

      Same-sex fake marriage will open up more corruption of our children by being force-fed that crap in school, and by being forced into being adopted by same-sex couples. It is detrimental to society as a whole to sanction homosexuality.

      And for those heretics like you who claim God approves of homosexuality, they will reap their rewards for corrupting children by their lies. The Bible is very, very plain in what it says about homosexuality being an abomination and yet you pretend that Christians should decide for themselves what it says.

      The issue of homosexuality isn’t just a religious subject, it is a societal subject. Homosexuality corrupts society, and that is a fact you don’t want to accept.

  4. Glenn, you are welcome to all of your bizarre and unsupported opinions you want. You are not welcome to your own facts. So, when you make a ridiculous statement like “homosexuality corrupts society, and that is a fact” it demonstrates that you don’t really understand the difference between opinion and fact.

    It is for reasons such as this that you all lost this argument. You don’t know how to have a respectful disagreement over opinions.

    As to this…

    The government forces people to either sanction same-sex fake marriage, as well as homosexuality in general, or else you will be punished.

    …again, factually, it just isn’t true. We have not stopped even the horrible Westboro people who denounce homosexuals in horrible ways rejected by even most of their conservative brethren. Even they have not been punished for their crazy beliefs. They have not had to “sanction” marriages they don’t approve of.

    Asking/demanding that you respect others’ civil rights is not the same as sanctioning your beliefs. You have the right to be as hateful and disagreeable towards others as you want to, SO LONG AS you don’t begin to infringe upon THEIR rights.

    Again, this is pretty simple: YOU have the right to say “homosexuality is a sin.” YOU have the right to marry who you wish. It is all part of your civic and religious liberty.

    All we’re asking is for the same respect, the same religious and personal liberty we grant you. I, for one, gladly take a stand for YOUR religious liberty on this issue. Will you take a stand for OUR religious liberty on this issue? OR is it the case that “religious liberty” means, to you, “the liberty to agree with me on matters of personal religious preferences/beliefs…”? If so, I hope one day you’ll recognize how preposterous that position is and contrary to our core values.

    • Dan,
      You can deny it all you want, but it is a proven fact that homosexuality and other sexual immorality does indeed corrupt society, and is one of the reasons the Roman empire fell. Try reading something besides homosexualist literature.

      The Westboro cult speaking out against homosexuality will be charged with hate speech before long, but I’m talking about bonafide cases which have already ended with the punishment of people by fines, loss of lawsuits, and loss of jobs for nothing more than rejecting same-sex fake marriage. I can provide you with plenty of cases if you are too lazy to check for yourself, but we’ve had this discussion previously and you justify all the punishment meted out already. Well-known is the photographer who didn’t want to photograph a fake marriage and ended up fined big-time for “discrimination.” B&Bs have also been fined for refusing to allow same-sex couples to use their facility in the same way they refuse to allow unmarried couples to use it. THIS is being punished for refusal to sanction same-sex fake marriage.

      There is no civil right to redefine what marriage is, nor is there a civil right to force deviant sexual behavior to be sanctioned. It is not hateful to point this out, nor is it hateful to state the fact that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God.

      You demand the right to “marry” the person of choice, but only if it meets YOUR agenda, because you are not ready to allow a mother to marry a son or a Father to marry a daughter or a brother to marry a sister, etc. Marriage is defined as the union of members of the opposite sex, and there is no right to redefine that word or institution just to satisfy sexual urges.

      I will not respect your “liberty” to lie about what God has said, nor will I respect your “liberty” to force me to accept the homosexualization of society.

  5. So your answer is, “no, I do not stand for religious liberty. I want MY religious liberty and everyone else can have the ‘freedom’ to agree with me…”? Thought so.

    As to your claim about your “losing” religious liberty… you have cited ONE case, a photography business who refused to serve a gay couple. From a news story…

    That decision against Elane Photography upholds a lower court ruling that said the photo studio is considered a public accommodation, similar to a restaurant or store.

    The case dates back to 2008 when New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled the studio violated the state’s Human Rights Act and discriminated against Vanessa Willock because of her sexual orientation…

    The FACTS are that Christians retain the right to believe as they wish. However, in our country, we have said that public accomodations – like restaurants, stores and photography businesses – do not have a right to discriminate based upon skin color, religious belief or sexual orientation. That business owner STILL has a right to believe as they want, but if they want to run a business, they can’t legally discriminate.

    If you WANT to be able to discriminate in your business against black folk or Jews or gay folk, then I suggest not going in business because discrimination is against the law. And yet again, it is a matter of religious liberty. YOUR right to believe as you wish ENDS at another’s right to believe and BE as they wish. You don’t get to say, “HEY! Yer Muslim! We don’t serve yer type in our restaurant! GET OUT!” That would be a violation of THEIR religious and personal liberty.

    So, you retain all the freedoms you want UP TO forcing your views on others. You don’t get to force others to accept your views. And us saying you don’t get to force others is not the same as “forcing” you to “accept” gay folk or Muslim folk or black folk.

    That’s just the law, and a just one, too, if you believe in religious liberty.

    But as we already have established, you do not. Right?

    • Dan,
      You again brought in “religious liberty,” which I wasn’t discussing. I was discussing personal liberty and what I as a person should be forced to sanction.

      The only part of “religious liberty” I was discussing was that I would not grant you the right of “religious liberty” to distort the Christian faith and lie about God.

      It doesn’t matter what the court says when it comes to the facts. The facts are that the photographer had a whole string of subject she would not photograph due to personal moral beliefs, and the judge had no problem with the other subjects. He only had a problem when the moral belief was against sanctioning perversion. And that is a violation of personal liberty.

      Do not dare to compare sexual behavior with skin color. Skin color is innate and no one choses what skin they are born with. Sexual behavior is always chosen; no one has to have sex. We can indeed legally discriminate against immoral behavior, which is why we discriminate against thieves in our business establishment.

      No one has ever suggested discriminating in any business serving homosexuals or Muslims. What we do not want to have to do is anything which gives approval to what they are doing. I should not have to worry about a lawsuit if I am asked to play music for a same-sex fake marriage.

      You bring in way too many red herrings and straw men trying to obfuscate the real issues. The real issue is the redefinition of marriage and the forcing of societal acceptance of homosexual behavior as something right and proper. The forcing of children to learn that it is a just another lifestyle choice, etc. It is THEY who are forcing their views on the rest of us and yet you think that is all well and good and if we don’t like it, well it’s just because we “hate”. You are despicable.

      You are a liar. I am all for religious liberty. But I am not for people claiming to be Christian while misrepresenting the Christian faith as you do. You are a tool of Satan.

      Oh, and there is a big difference between serving sinners in a business and sanctioning what they do. No one is forced to accept adultery or fornication. No one is forced to provide photographic services for two adulterers, or a pedophile, but you want to force us to sanction homosexuality. You are such a hypocrite! Typical liberal.

      And quit being such an ass discussing the idea of my emotions and needing a vacation. I’m as calm and cool as a cucumber as I shake my head at your asinine statements.

  6. And, as I have asked before, IF you are a business owner that doesn’t want to serve sinners, who will you serve? Where in the Bible do you get the justification for not serving sinners?

    T’ain’t there. The Bible’s a pretty radical document, my brother, you ought to read it some.

    In Christ,


    (And seriously, consider a vacation. You seem all emotionally distraught…)

  7. Well thought out! Brilliant.

  8. Glenn…

    You can deny it all you want, but it is a proven fact that homosexuality and other sexual immorality does indeed corrupt society

    Okay, Glenn, rather than ignoring your painting-with-your-own-feces nuttery, I’ll give you a chance to support your insane opinions about “facts.” Offer one supported FACT (independently observable and demonstrable, not somebody’s opinion) that homosexuality – a sexual orientation – corrupts society.

    IF you can provide ONE SINGLE OBSERVABLE FACT that supports your claim, I will call you a scholar and a man of God.

    IF you can not, then you will be invited to apologize for misspeaking and making a mistake and I will forgive the insane-sounding claim and we can part friends.

    But if you can’t demonstrate this FACTUALLY (ie, not somebody’s opinion) and yet you won’t back off your false claim, then understand, you will be dismissed as just another nutjob, along the lines of those who opposed “miscegenation” – someone to pity and ignore.

    Ball’s in your court. Or rubber room.

    • Dan it has been provided to you many times in the past and you deny it. I’m finished discussing the subject with you on this string because you are behaving as a jackass as usual.

  9. Actually the MN vote just opened the door for folks to try to legalize “SSM”. It was fascinating watching the “No” campaign. Not much for facts, lots of emotional appeals. Especially stuff like “Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want” I especially liked the billboard supporting “marriage” for any and all who want it.

    I suspect that like many who support “SSM”, marriage for all is a bit more problematic.

  10. I had to skip the back and forth of Dan and Glenn this time, due to time constraints. I’m sure I know where it was going on both sides. I KNOW Dan distorts the issue. It is not a religious liberty issue yet, but it will be as evidence to which Glenn was alluding has shown. The only manner in which it will be a religious liberty issue is when the faithful of those states are forced to choose between living their faith and altering their lives to accommodate that which is sinful. There is no way the faithful will be able to speak out against the blatant and obvious sin of homosexual behavior with the state pretending unions between them are no different than normal marriages.

    There has been no state since Lawrence v Texas that has been able to deny homosexuals from living together and marrying each other. There are plenty of ways to commit to one another. There are plenty of corrupt houses of worship where they can pretend God will bless their detestable unions. Trying to argue that the state is discriminating by not providing to them the same regard as normal marriages, which the state also doesn’t do for unmarried heteros, cannot be defended with rational/factual/logical arguments and never has been yet. The argument against enabling these sad and lost souls, regardless of religious basis or otherwise, has not been proven faulty. It is ignored, dismissed as religious bigotry and hatred. The enablers face reality and to its face call it a liar.

  11. So, NO, you can’t/won’t provide even ONE piece of FACTUAL evidence to support your clearly false claim? And, I guess by your belligerent response, you are not prepared to apologize for your false claim? Then, that just leaves the third option. I repeat:

    But if you can’t demonstrate this FACTUALLY (ie, not somebody’s opinion) and yet you won’t back off your false claim, then understand, YOU WILL BE DISMISSED as just another nutjob, along the lines of those who opposed “miscegenation” – someone to pity and ignore.

    Let the pitying and ignoring begin…

  12. I read your first link, Glenn. There was not a single word or the very first fact to support the outrageous lie that “homosexuality corrupts society.”

    You would think that if you had all this huge quantity of “evidence,” that you could offer up even just one single shred of factual evidence. I’m not even asking you to provide a link, I’m just looking for the claim. Like this…

    “We can factually know that homosexuality corrupts society because…” and just a sentence saying HOW one sexual orientation can corrupt society (and why does homosexuality corrupt society while heterosexuality doesn’t??).

    It’s just completely devoid of reason and dispassionate proof. But, as always, IF you have a shred of proof – JUST ONE SINGLE FACT – I’ll consider it.

    Until then, though, I have only pity and disdain for you and you are someone whose irrational and emotional positions are to be ignored, in favor of more reasonable and moral thinking.

  13. It has already corrupted society by virtue of the fact that a seemingly growing number of people see no harm in it, see no wrong in it, see it as no better or worse than normal marriage. What more proof is needed than this?

  14. Okay, so since people are changing how they see it that makes it immoral? I don’t think so. It isn’t hurting anyone to simply be exposed to it. Just because you have to acknowledge that gay people exist, it isn’t hurting you in any way. Just because they teach people in schools that gay people exist, it isn’t hurting them in any way. No one is going to get a terminal illness from it, no one is going to die from it (unless someone decides to kill them for it), no one is going to be any less able to practice their religion because of it.
    Gay people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex as much as you or I chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.
    I haven’t heard any of you say a single thing about homosexuals that wasn’t laced with hate and prejudice.

    • Katie

      If it were simply teaching that gay people exist that would not warrant objection. Unfortunately that’s not what happens. Sure it begins with Gay people exist. But it becomes “and you had better be OK with it and believe its just fine or else” it become a topic where a different view licenses supporters to berate, insult, and publicly attack detractors. Opponents of samesex marriage are called hateful bigoted homophobic Neanderthals who want homosexuals stoned, regardless of the persons reasons for disagreement.

      Homosexuality is sacred in the secular world. It can’t be discussed in a negative way, it must be embraced, accepted and championed.

      I really don’t think its honest to say that all that’s being done is making children aware gay people exist, as if it has any place in school.

    • Katie,
      How people see things is not what makes them immoral. What makes them immoral is what God says about them.
      No one is complaining about “being exposed” to homosexuality. We’ve all been exposed to it for our entire lives. What we complain about is being forced to give it sanction or be punished. What we complain about is that our children are being told it is no different than heterosexuality – and that is a bald-faced lie.

      From the many studies done, most “gay” people do indeed chose to be attracted to members of the same sex. But that isn’t the issue. As previously noted, being attracted to someone of the same sex isn’t the problem – acting on it is. I dare say you wouldn’t condone a pedophile’s attraction to little girls being okay to act upon. We all have sinful orientations, but no one has to act on them. And if we do act on them, no one should be forced to sanction it.

      I haven’t seen a single thing on this site by John or me or Marshall or anyone else which was prejudiced or hateful towards homosexuals.

      Change can indeed equal corruption, which in this case it does. You raised a straw man fallacy when you suggest anyone wants to live in Biblical times.

      And if you don’t think what John mentioned as the problem is really happening, then you are in denial or have your head buried in the sand.

      • No, I wouldn’t condone a pedophile’s action to do such a thing, because it is not between two consenting adult parties.
        I did not say that change could not equal corruption, simply that it does not necessarily equal corruption.
        You seem to be very keen to tell everyone that they are in denial, when you do not even attempt to see from a different perspective.

        • Katie, I fully see the different perspective, but it is immoral and perverse, so why should anyone give it sanction?

          What about an adult daughter and her father if the father has an orientation towards her – should he be allowed to act on it if she consents? What about a brother who has a desire towards his sister and they are both consenting adults – should we allow that? After all, it is in the name of “love.”

          But real love does not seek to cause harm. Homosexual behavior always causes harm, either of a psychological or physical nature, and the physical harm often causes death. Love does not abuse a human for self-gratification. Love does not seek to abuse human sexuality.

          • If you saw the other perspective, that first sentence wouldn’t be the one you chose.
            I already addressed this in the reply to John. Although I find incest to be gross, frankly it’s still not hurting anyone and I can’t see why it should be under my authority or anyone else’s to tell two consenting adults what they can or can’t do.
            Homosexual behavior only results in harm like that because of the stigma people like you attach to it. If you didn’t preach so adamantly that it’s wrong and that others should view it as wrong, no one would be made fun of for it or brutalized because of it. The only harm that comes from homosexuality stems from those who have a fear or hatred of it.

  15. Dan,
    I stated that you have been provided with sufficient evidence before, and then I only gave some newer links to bolster past ones which you deny ever having seen. And if you can’t understand how the first link connects to society being corrupted, then your are either lying, ignoring the connection, or else lack reading and comprehension skills. Of course, the way you twist scripture the latter is already been proven.

  16. By the way, corruption and change are not interchangeable words. Change does not necessarily equal evil. It sounds like someone wants to live in biblical times as opposed to a realistic world which in constantly in a state of change.

  17. Then frankly, that’s a matter of your opinion and not actually what’s happening.

    • Katie, that’s a bit vague. Can you elaborate a bit?

      • Sure, it is your opinion that all is being done is making children aware that gay people exist (especially since no such effort has been made in that past, probably a prime reason as to why children are confused when they see a gay couple, and also because gay couples are very outnumbered) but it is not fact that there is something else at play.

        I’m sorry but, it is bigoted to be against love between two consenting adults just on the basis that a very, very old holy book (which contents are often subject to interpretation rather than taking what is said literally) that says homosexuality is wrong.

        • Well that certainly doesn’t fit the definition of bigoted. But that’s a common insult. Anyway, there are lots of things in holy books. But that’s not a reason to reject the ideas. For instance, the same holy book prohibits murder. Should I hold fast to that one?

          But seriously, do you really think all adult consenting sexual relationships should be embraced and accepted as morally good? All of them? Parents and their adult children? Adult siblings? Really?

          I find it funny how my objection the the presence of gay themed things in schools is more than awareness, that it also comes with punishments for not towing the line, and that it also comes with name calling. You prove me right on both.

          • You should because it’s also a societal duty and moral obligation not to commit murder.
            Frankly, I don’t care who loves who as long as it’s a consenting relationship between two adults and no one being harmed or having their rights taken away. Just because I think it’s icky (at least in terms of incest) doesn’t mean I should be allowed to tell those people what they are allowed to do with it. But since straight couples are apparently not that great at marraige (50% divorce rate) then whose to say that the sanctity would be ruined?

            The only reason gay-themed things in school come with name calling is because of people like you who tell their children homosexuality is wrong. Then those children go to school and because children can often be vicious, they make fun of those who are different or live in different environments. If you wouldn’t attach such a needless stigma to it, the harm it does to those who live it would be gone. Punishments for not towing the line? I’m not sure what you mean here.

            • Parents tell their children homosexual behavior is wrong because it is. That is an absolute truth. Just because SOME children then misbehave with their mouths, that is no reason to force them to listen to tripe about homosexuality being just another lifestyle choice on a par with real love and sexuality.

              By the way, the “50% of marriages end in divorce” meme has been accepted for way to long without looking at where this statistic comes from. I read an excellent article a few years back that explained how they count marriage license applications and divorces per year, and divorces end up being half as much, ergo half of marriages end in divorce. Another problem is that part of the count also includes people with multiple marriages; one guy has five wives and that’s counted as five marriages and five divorces, when in reality it is all the one person!

              Now, I certainly hope they have better information than that to come up with such a stat, but from personal experience of the many people I have known in my 60 years of life, I would say probably 10% were ever divorced. Most marriages do indeed last, but when you have an agenda to push, facts are irrelevant.

              But let’s say hypothetically that the figure is correct. The fact that some people abuse an institution is not the fault of that institution. It is also not a reason to abuse even more by redefining it to include what is perverse.

              If you want to leave out God, then take a look at the design of the human body, and anyone with any common sense can tell it was not designed for homosexual behavior.

        • Well Katie I don’t subscribe to moral relativism. It seems as though you’re saying anybody can do anything they want as long as they don’t upset my own moral sensibilities. All you are offering it seems as your personal preferences it also seems as though you think I shouldn’t be offering my personal preferences that’s kind of hypocritical

  18. Katie,
    Without God, you are only borrowing morals from the Judeo-Christian faith. Otherwise, you have no standard for your morals – all you have are personal opinions.

    Therefore, you have no standing to claim I am wrong for saying homosexual behavior is wrong. It’s just your opinion vs mine. And then you claim Christians want to “force” their beliefs on everyone else, yet it is homosexualists like you who are wanting to force your belief onto those who disagree!

    We call that, “hypocrisy.”

  19. Glenn…

    Parents tell their children homosexual behavior is wrong because it is. That is an absolute truth.

    Unsupported opinion. Not everyone agrees with this opinion. Not every Christian agrees with your opinion.


    All you are offering it seems as your personal preferences it also seems as though you think I shouldn’t be offering my personal preferences that’s kind of hypocritical

    God has not told anyone of us God’s opinion about marriage equity, so, factually, we all are offering our personal opinions. I don’t believe Katie is saying you shouldn’t be offering your personal opinion. I think she is only saying you shouldn’t legislate your personal religious views, removing religious liberty in our nation for those who don’t wish to agree with your opinion.


    But it becomes “and you had better be OK with it and believe its just fine or else” it become a topic where a different view licenses supporters to berate, insult, and publicly attack detractors.

    ? But Christian folk (see Glenn, for instance) repeatedly berate, insult and publicly attack detractors for disagreeing with their opinion. Are you coming out against people having the freedom to disagree even in a disagreeable, insulting manner? While I find those who disagree in a disagreeable manner to be ill-mannered, I’m not going to legislate that they must be quiet.

    The fact is, you still have the freedom to believe what you want. You still have the freedom to marry who you wish to marry. You still have the freedom to express an opinion about homosexuality.

    And I, for one, will continue to defend your personal and religious liberty to believe as you wish and state those beliefs if you wish.

    We’re just demanding that WE, TOO, have that same liberty.

    Will you agree to allow those who disagree with you the same liberty we’re allowing you?

  20. “Unsupported opinion. Not everyone agrees with this opinion. Not every Christian agrees with your opinion.”

    Every Bible agrees with this opinion (which is where the “opinion” originates). Not every Christian cares what the Bible says about homosexuality. THAT much is true.

    “God has not told anyone of us God’s opinion about marriage equity, so, factually, we all are offering our personal opinions.”

    But God has told all of us His opinion on homosexual behavior. He said it was an abomination to Him. To then try to twist Scripture in a way that suggests it might be OK in a particular context is intellectually dishonest interpretation. Based on all the Bible says about human sexuality, the family and the roles of male and female, it is nothing short of preposterous and outright wickedness to suggest that God would bless a union which flies in the face of all that revelation.

    “Will you agree to allow those who disagree with you the same liberty we’re allowing you?”

    More dishonesty. There has never been a desire to prohibit disagreement on the part of those who stand for God’s clearly revealed will about the reason He created male and female and His clearly revealed prohibition for homosexual behavior. But it is insulting to us to have to pretend those who disagree have anything akin to an honest argument on either a religious or political level. You call us bigots and haters for defending the truth and our concern for the souls of those you enable. Then, you dare suggest there is some ill intent on our parts to deprive you of any true rights, such as the expression of your opinions.

    • If Dan doesn’t like the truth, it becomes an “unsupported opinion.” It doesn’t matter what the Bible says because Dan just explains that away as wrong interpretations. The only “Christians” who think homosexuality is not condemned by God are false Christians or deceived Christians brainwashed by false teachers like Dan.

      Dan continues to deny that God has indeed told us what He thinks of homosexual behavior, as well as what HE thinks about marriage. But Dan doesn’t like what the Bible says so he refuses to accept what it really says and interprets it to fit his personal agenda. Which is why he is known as a blatantly false teacher and heretic, as well as not being a Christian in any sense of the word.

      And 90% of what Dan writes on these posts totally misrepresent the authors of the posts and the authors of the comments: it’s called bearing false witness.

      No matter how much evidence Dan is provided which proves that homosexuality corrupts a society (as well as causing much medical and emotional harm to the participants), he will continue to deny it exists. Just like Holocaust deniers no matter how much proof their given. He knows it’s true, but can’t admit it or his whole worldview will collapse.

      Then he claims the Demokratic party is all about diversity, but the liberals of the Demokratic party (the entire party) have no use for the Judeo-Christian worldview or the Christian faith, refuse to accept the diverse belief that homosexuality is deviant, refuse to accept the diverse belief that government should be small and not a nanny, refuse to accept a diverse belief which proves that the religion of Islam is nothing more but a terrorist organization, etc. He is such a blind lemming.

      He is a very sad and bitter man who truly needs the Gospel, but rejects the true Gospel in favor of his fake god and social gospel which is promoted by Satan.

  21. Katie,

    No one has suggested that change is corruption. We’re saying THIS change is a corruption, it is corrupting and it is evidence of the ongoing corruption of our culture.

  22. There IS NO evidence of “homosexuality is corrupting.” There IS NO evidence that marriage equity is corrupting.

    You all are pushing people AWAY from your camp because of this sort of elitist, patriarchal, “listen to us old white farts, we know best little ones” sort of message. You could begin to help yourselves if you just moderated your tones. “Well, I certainly can’t prove it, but it seems to me that…”

    No one wants to be part of the Pharisee party and that is how you all are painting yourselves, to your own destruction. Do you not see it or do you just not care? Are you thinking, “If we just keep insisting WE are right and THEY are stupid and evil, then sooner or later, they’ll agree with us…” is going to work as a strategy? I have to tell you, my man, it ain’t working and it ain’t going to work.

    • Dan,

      What does race have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that ones race should have anything to do with political party affiliation? Sounds racist if you ask me.

  23. I’m looking at your demographics. I don’t want to be a part of a group of people who all look like me. The Democrats appreciate and cultivate diversity. It is not racist to want to cultivate diversity.

    If my party was nearly exclusively white, I would want to see that change. That is what race has to do with political party. Being a part of a party where there are few Muslims, black folk, Jewish folk, gay folk, with dwindling younger folk… that would, to me, be problematic and I would want to see that change. It’s problematic because a political party SHOULD represent American, not just one or two segments of it.

    I have many, many problems with the Dems (I’m more of a Green Party guy, myself), but when I see that sea of diversity on election night, I’m proud of them. Way to go!

    That’s what race has to do with it, for many of us. And wanting to INCLUDE as many races/groups as possible is sort of the OPPOSITE of racism, doesn’t that make sense? Doesn’t that make your charge ring rather false, John?

  24. And THAT sort of excrement is why you all are going the way of the whigs.

    “If you disagree with me, you’re evil and stupid. Why don’t you join my party?”

    John, shame on you, you should know better. Glenn has demonstrated himself beyond hope and wholly blinded by his worldly and emotional ideology. I believe in you though, John. Reconsider your words.

    Or not. Either way, THAT sort of silliness is why you all are losing the argument amongst the rational adult population.

    • Actually dan, I’m trying to adopt liberal ways of discussion. You see, when I believe samesex sexual relationships are wrong I am called a homophobe bigot hater who wants gays to die. I also know that noting the correlation between blacks and the Democratic party I’m racist. Therefore it follows that if you think its bad for my party to be monochromatic, then you’re a racist. Wow, this liberal way of discussing is fun!

    • Every argument I have ever presented to Dan has been rational, logical and factual, and yet because he is in denial (and I don’t mean that river in Egypt), he claims it is emotional! It’s the liberals such as Dan who act on their emotions 100% of the time. It’s all about feelings with them.

  25. John…

    You see, when I believe samesex sexual relationships are wrong I am called a homophobe bigot hater who wants gays to die.

    Not by me. I strive to treat you respectfully and as a brother in Christ. I have not called you a racist, nor a homophobe. You’ll have to take that up with people who are doing that.

    The facts are (as opposed to any half truths and lies) that I value diversity. I look at the Democratic party with all their problems and I see at the least a group that values diversity and has strived to be inclusive and they are relatively successful at it.

    I was merely making the RATIONAL suggestion that, in a diverse culture, if the GOP wants to be a serious second party, they will need to make the same efforts that the Dems have to be more inclusive. That is only a reasonable opinion offered by many Republicans, in addition to folk like me.

    Glenn, I am waiting for you to successfully complete this sentence:

    “One fact that supports the claim that homosexuality corrupts culture is…” and supply the fact. That is a factual argument. I’m waiting for the very first one.

    I’m not looking for a link to a rightwing nuthouse. I’m not looking for, “Well, I’ve said it before so you know!” I’m not looking for “If you really wanted to know, you’d know it…” I’m looking for one single simple factual statement to support your argument.

    It has not happened on this page. Instead, you keep engaging in rather emotional and ration-less ad hom attacks. For instance, WITHOUT A SINGLE FACT to support it, you make the false claim that I act on emotions 100% of the time. But no facts, just an unsupported and clearly false claim.

    If you want to be taken even just a little bit more seriously, all you have to do is complete the sentence and do so without the emotionally high-strung, unsupported false claims and ad hom attacks.

    I’m still waiting. If the arguments exist, it should be easy to do.

    And, if you can’t make that ONE SINGLE FACT response (and you can’t), that’s still no problem. All a reasonable person would do in that instance is apologize and say, “I misspoke. What I meant to suggest…”

    It’s okay to make a misstatement. It happens all the time, especially when we get all emotional about our cultural beliefs. But be man enough to admit it and everyone will respect you for it.

    Or not, and be dismissed as wholly irrational and unable to engage in adult conversation.

  26. Dan,

    Lie much? The GOP, to which I donate not a dime (for reasons this post does not require explanation) features Alan West, Mia Long, Marco Rubio, Nicki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Jan Brewer, Suzanna Martinez and there is still the Log Cabin Republicans. The right doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass about race, gender or even disordered sexual attraction in supporting superior conservative ideology and policies. This “diversity” crap is meaningless diversion and another tired attempt to demonize the right-wing. While we’ve transcended concerns for such things, the leftists like yourself pretend skin color means something and continues to see people as “groups” and categories. You know. You’re the “serious” student of Scripture and know Paul speaks of their no longer being Jew or gentile, etc. Try living it rather than proudly proclaiming a benefit in meaningless “diversity”.

    And BTW, to clarify, it is not homosexuality that is corrupting, but the support of the agenda that is corrupting. Our youth have been so corrupted, as John spoke of above, in that they are taught not only that homosexuals exist, but that homosexual behavior is not better or worse than heterosexual behavior. THAT is corruption.

  27. Can you make an argument against same sex marriage as a human or civil right without your biblical scriptures? The Civil Rights Act was done without the will of the people. Slavery was undone without consent of the will of the people. Women were granted the right to vote and eventually to hold public office without the will of the people. The SC gave a thumbs up to granting corporations the same free speech rights as you and I without the will of the people. Every single day Congress and state legislatures manufacture sugarcoated crap that never gets voted on. Why no issue with any of the plethora of examples such as the ones above?

    If your God is responsible for the universe and all in it and he “breathed life into us”, then he alone is responsible for homosexuals and gay marriage. Why not just let your god sort it out?

  28. R Nash, Here –>>> is where you can find my arguments against same-sex marriage, and not one used the Bible or any religious reasons at all.

    Second, being in a representative republic, legislators who create legislation and win re-election are reflecting the will of the electorate.

    redefining marriage to reflect the sexual desires of a few people is mind-boggling.

  29. R. Nash,

    There is nothing about slavery which is moral. Women having the right to vote is amoral. Rights denied based on skin color is certainly immoral as well as bigoted.

    BUT, giving people special rights, including the right to redefine marriage, just because of their sexual proclivities is certainly immoral, as well as being unjust to everyone else!

    By the way, it is not God’s doing which made homosexuals. God made two people and gave them the choice to obey him or not. They chose poorly and sin entered the world. God then allows people to make their own choices – you know, be responsible for their own actions. And then He will give them the judgment they deserve in the end.

  30. Sorry Glenn but the glaring hypocrisy in your response is what gives the rose colored hue to your cognitive dissonance.

    So slavery is “not” moral. I.e., it is immoral? Your precious tome of Bronze Age rubrics has no issue whatsoever about slavery being immoral. Are you saying that parts of the Bible are not “perfect”? Why if slavery is “not” moral wouldn’t it be included in the Ten Commandments? The same could be said for gay marriage. If these things have such righteous weight, are they not written about at any length in the Bible?

    May I ask where exactly “you” got your “special” rights to deem what is moral or not? How is it that you have a special right to say what marriage is? I have never seen your name in any of the Scriptures claiming any self righteous “rightness” from on high.

    And you are not abbreviating the book of Genesis for us are you? Your god created Adam and then Lillith. Only making Eve after the first female turned out to be a monumental failure, by Adams standards. Your god fabricated a subservient female for Adam after she discovered she was “equal” to him and would not be subjugated. You will no doubt argue that your modern sanitized “interpretations” of the Bible make hardly a mention of Lillith but no doubt that just a short time ago your fellow brethren would have made you an outcast for not believing the oral story of Lillith.

    So now onto the free will you mention above. If everything you see before you that you object to is merely the result of free will, why not ask yourself why not let your god cast the judgments and aspersions and stay out of other peoples business and affairs? If your god has the ultimate and final say on all things why not just live your life and let others live theirs? How do you square so much wasted energy and prayer regarding your social agenda with the fact that re-defining of marriage is here, gay marriage is here, abortion is here, atheists are here, people by the billions who do not share your narrow bandwidth, cognitively dissonant view of the world are here? How do you even begin to entertain the fact that your god has so flubbed his message that you now have to contend with over 30k different sects of Christianity? Many of which are unanimous in thinking that all other Christians are going to hell. This of course had to be dealt with in voting for Romney by the Fundamentalist base. What a hoot!

  31. R. Nash,

    Your claim to hypocrisy is nonsense. You have to demonstrate where I preach one thing and then do another, and there was nothing in any of my comments which would give anyone that idea. So you just made that up out of whole cloth.

    I thought it was pretty clear when I said “slavery is not moral” that I meant “slavery is not moral.” Much of the slavery noted in the Bible is what we’d call indentured servitude and has no resemblance to slavery in the world today. As for the rest, the Bible reports history without condoning it. For example, it reports that David committed adultery, but it certainly doesn’t condone it.

    The Ten Commandments did not cover every detail. And besides that, contrary to many people’s beliefs, it was meant only for the nation of Israel and no one else. But that’s a whole other topic. The point is, the 10C was not an itemized list.

    Same-sex fake marriage is addressed in Scripture in that the Bible addresses what marriage is, and it also states that homosexual behavior is an abomination. Therefore, the issue of same-sex fake marriage would never need to be separately addressed.

    My right to deem what is or is not moral is based on God’s word. But if you do not accept God’s word, then you have no right to challenge my moral standards because you have nothing with which to base your morality on – only personal opinions.

    Your asinine jokes about Genesis are a big failure. Genesis is not abbreviated and Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans, and they were perfect.

    God gives us the free will to choose because he didn’t make robots. But he demands that we obey him or suffer the consequences. But God knows the future and the past at the same time (having created time, he is outside of it) and knew what mankind would do. The Bible prophecies that what we see in society today was certainly going to be coming. It is the individual’s choice to believe him or deny him, and denial will bring about eternal damnation. Whether you want to believe that is your choice.

    Interesting that you found some statistic which says there are 30K different sects. Would you mind providing the evidence for this? Because it certainly has no truth to it.

    • Poor Glenn, Your responses are repeatedly predictable and further, your ill mastery of christian apologetics is poor at best. Without your stereotyped canned responses you can do nothing but fall on the old and worn out “faith” only argument that your moral authority is superior to any one else’s because yours is is based on a book of delusional fairy tales. How fantastically judgmental of you. Thanks again for perpetuating said stereotype. And I would love to have you support indentured servitude to your god. I wonder if your same blind arrogance and hair splitting would be used to give moral rightness to the varying types of slavery.

      As for all of the sects of your precious fairy tale here is a link:

      What a sad commentary that you are in the dark about your own christian history.

      • Nash,
        By what moral standard do you dare make moral judgments against me? You have no basis for your morals and yet you have the audacity to challenge mine! You are such a predictable secularist. Stating I am arrogant because I present truth is the normal tact for those who have no substantive argument.

        Individual assemblies being counted as “sects,” branches of denominations being counted as sects, cults being counted as sects = typical ignorance founded on the Internet.

        There certainly are NOT 41K denominations as the cited article claims. But then, We all know Wiki is the bastion of truth, don’t we?

        No matter how you define the slavery depicted in Scripture, there is no resemblance to it and the slavery in the world today. If you want to make them analogous based on your worldview, feel free to do so. But then you have to call prison slavery, as well as prisoners of war being slaves.

        Oh, and I am very, very informed as to the history of Christianity. But then, we’ve had this discussion before.

        Dan, in your total ignorance of what the Bible actually says, you have no right to even try to decide who more properly interprets the Bible. If you think Nash has good exegesis, that just demonstrate even more your own poor understanding. You have absolutely no credibility.

  32. Glenn…

    Much of the slavery noted in the Bible is what we’d call indentured servitude and has no resemblance to slavery in the world today. As for the rest, the Bible reports history without condoning it.

    More accurately, from a biblical point of view, SOME of the slavery in the Bible is forced indentured servitude (and selling of one’s children to pay debts), while OTHER slavery mentioned in the Bible is the enslavement of the enemy BY GOD’S COMMAND (the way you read it, anyway). It is the invasion of a nation, the killing of the soldiers and the forced slavery of the children or children and women. Or sometimes, it is the killing of ALL the enemy except for the virgin girls who are then kidnapped and brought back to Israel (by God’s command, in your interpretation) to be forced into sexual slavery/forced weddings.

    That is probably the biblical slavery that the R. Nash is speaking of. It does not serve you well if you substitute something different from the topic to try to downplay the obvious moral problems with your exegesis.

    What of the FORCED slavery of an enemy people or the forced selling of one’s children to pay debts, or the forced “marriages” of virgin girls of a slaughtered enemy… are these forms of slavery moral, in your estimation?

    • Since Dan has proven time and time again his inability to understand what the Bible says in context, accepting his explanation is as worthless as accepting Obama’s explanation of what the Constitution says.

  33. Glenn, it would appear the skeptic has a more solid understanding of biblical exegesis than you, the “christian apologist, called by God” does. Why would you not address the issues raised, rather than ignoring/hiding/running from the problems with your exegesis?

    If you can’t answer it reasonably, then just admit it. There is no shame in not being able to make your case. But to be unable to address the holes in your statements and then to be belligerent and antagonistic about your ignorance only undermines your belief system and makes you less credible.

  34. Perfect! Another christian in the bag. You answered zero questions. Your banter and “faith” are masqueraded as truth and fact and you are still punching away with your Old World moral superiority. If I have no basis for my morals why am I not a felon or a current convict? Where are all of my gross and egregious immoral behaviours being tallied? How do you go about picking and choosing what you will digest and believe via Wikipedia? Let me guess if it agrees with your slippery moral compass then it is good to go. But alas if it happens to disrupt your minor and narrow worldview then it is not to be trusted. What if it was only 30k as opposed to the possible 41k?

    Ans still supporting a day of rest for slaves on the sabbath I see. Just keep rewriting your history to get to sleep at night. Maybe thinking of the Salem witch hunts and puritans killing quakers will keep you warm and snug.

    • NASH,
      I never stated you had no morals – I said you had no foundation for them, no standard upon which to base them. You borrow from the Judeo-Christian faith.

      And you are as bad as Dan when it comes to misrepresenting people and what they say.

      By the way, all the laws about slavery in Israel were only for Israel as a nation, and not for anyone else. And that is a fact any proper exegesis would demonstrate. But atheist and skeptic talking points are much more fun than actually desiring to learn what the Bible really says.

      Giving examples of people who abused Scripture for their own purposes does not reflect what the Scriptures actually say. You cannot blame the Christian faith for those who abuse it for their own agendas. But then, you know that don’t you. But it is so much more fun to ignore such truth so as to build a straw man to knock down.

      Yeah, you really impress me with your intellect.

  35. Glenn…

    And you are as bad as Dan when it comes to misrepresenting people and what they say.


    Rather than ignoring the question and engaging in emotional screes and ad hom attacks, why not just answer the question? That, or admit you can’t really answer it and just back off?

  36. What exactly is/are “screes”?

  37. Hmm. I meant it as “rant,” but that is not in the MW definition. And yet, I’ve seen the word used in that sense before, as in this sentence…

    “Many interpreted Grohl’s scree as a rockist complaint about pop and electronic music…”

    Interesting. At any rate, my apology if I used the wrong word. Just substitute “high-pitched rant,” and you’ll get my gist.

  38. No problem, I was curious. As far as I knew the word scree refers to loose rock or gravel. Perhaps the word you were looking for is screed.

  39. No doubt… Thanks.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: