moonbattery.gif


« Roland Emmerich: Another Hollywood Hypocrite | Main | And Now for Something Completely Different... »


November 3, 2009

Teh Gheys Against Free Speech

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at November 3, 2009 12:17 PM

The State of Maine is voting today on a referendum on the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage will be protected, or whether marriage will be redefined to include same-sex couples. A high school guidance counselor made the mistake of exercising his First Amendment right to free speech by appearing in an advertisement supporting traditional marriage. Gay Marriage Activists responded by filing a complaint with the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation alleging that the counselor “does not have the right as a licensed social worker to make public comments that can endanger or promote discrimination.” The counselor must respond to the complaint in writing, and faces disciplinary action from the department.

The Progressive Left claims that hate crimes laws will never, ever be used to censor Free Speech. Why should we believe them?

Update:

The complaint also charged that Mendell has a “long history of being unsupportive of GLBTQ issues” and was “very vocal” in opposition to a homosexual student group. It cited a student who thought Mendell’s participation in the ad showed him to be “racist against gays,” and claimed another student thought the counselor’s actions would make students who believe they are homosexual feel Mendell is less accepting of them.

I note that in Washington state, teh gheys are suing to have the names of everyone who signed pro-traditional marriage petitions made public. Clearly, the objective is to subject anyone who stands in their way to harassment and intimidate them into silence.


Comments

Never believe what the left says watch what they do. What a leftist says is almost ALWAYS 180 degrees from what they do. Leftists say they want a debate, they actually want a monologue and you to just shut up and agree with them. Leftists say they support freedom of speech, only if you agree with them. They say hate isn't a family value, well if you watched what they did to the Palin family it's pretty obvious hate is a family value, if you are a progressive. Need I say more?

Posted by: Moonbat Skullcracker at November 3, 2009 12:45 PM


Speaking of free speech...

Go to this NPR link to vote on The White House vs. FOX News:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.html

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 12:49 PM


It's almost unbelievable that this happened in the state of Maine. Must be some moonbats spilling over from Vermont.

Posted by: Son of Taz at November 3, 2009 1:04 PM


If government is given the power to restrict a right, it will always restrict that right, eventually.

The only solution is a strong and well-respected Constitution that prevents abuse, regardless of which party may be in power.

Politically-motivated speech restrictions frequently work to the disadvantage of the group which passed them, as soon as that group is removed from power.

If the far left got their way, and all these extreme hate speech laws made it on the books and were upheld by the Constitution, the militant homosexual movement would be one election away from finding themselves under arrest for the vile hate spewed towards religion - all because they wanted to criminalize hate or "hate" coming from religion.

This sword cuts both ways, which is why free thinkers such as our Founding Fathers recognized that liberty is only possible when people of all persuasions refrain from wielding it.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 1:08 PM


If you think that it is something that is just happening in maine. I'll point this out, Stephen King had bought a radio station just so he could stop Rush Limbaugh being played on that station.

Now, remember what I said about the left? See the left at work. I can only say this is that the left would love nothing more than to shove anyone who isn't just like them into a gas chamber with a sharp sieg heil. So much for the tolerant and openminded left.

Posted by: Moonbat Skullcracker at November 3, 2009 1:45 PM


The voter referendum is simply another way that the Communists make deeper inroads into changing the PUBLIC mind into the misconception that the USA is a DEMOCRACY. Soon enough we will be voting for every little thing and ultimately a DEMOCRACY is merely a transitional means to, in this case get from a REPUBLIC to a Communist structured OLIGARCHY. When asked the typical Jane or Joe in the street will explain to you that the USA is and always was a DEMOCRACY. All of this is part of the Communist system of population control foisted upon us decades ago. I’m sure I do not need to tell you the Communist goals for the USA are along with the destruction of the FAMILY UNIT!

Posted by: AlphaOmega at November 3, 2009 2:15 PM


Nothing wrong with Stephen King buying up a station to fit what he wants. Only problem is if the government does it.

Posted by: I'm A Lasagna Hog at November 3, 2009 2:19 PM


I'll note that many state works have as part of their contract a clause that prevents them from discussing pending legislation. If he signed a contract that he's in violation of (which seems to be the case) it's his own fault.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 3, 2009 2:28 PM


What happened in the market where king bought the radio station? I wouldn't be surprised if another station serving the area jumped in and picked up Rush. It's the profitable thing to do.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 3, 2009 2:38 PM


Any real legal marrage is between one man and one woman same sex marrages are imoral amd what liberal moonbat dingbats approve of

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 3, 2009 2:40 PM


I am re-posting a couple of posts I made yesterday as they are pertinent to subject of this thread:

Jesus did not condone homosexuality...

Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. - Matt 11:20-24 (KJV)

Not to mention:

"And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,' and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH?'" - Matthew 19:4-5 (Also see Genesis 19: 1-29)

Jesus' ministry was primarily directed to the Jews, and in the first century, homosexuality was just not an issue for them. Sure, it occurred, but it was seen as evil perversion. It was not a part of Jewish contemporary debate.

But Jesus did discuss the many issues related to homosexuality, as He taught us our most basic Christian principals.

And Jesus was quite clear that marriage is only for a man and a woman. When we study the Biblical teachings concerning marriage, a man and a woman making a commitment for a lifetime, we also know that sex is a wonderful gift that God has created for a husband and wife to enjoy. But sex outside of marriage is always wrong in God's eyes, be it premarital sex, adultery, or homosexuality.

While Jesus never specifically spoke about homosexuality, His Word certainly does. And the Word is absolutely clear: sexual intimacy is God's gift for a man and woman in the context of marriage only.

Further:

God wants everyone to be saved and to know the truth – 1 Tim. 2:4
Jesus died for everyone – 1 John 2:2; Col. 1:20; John 12:32
But not everyone will be saved – Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:15
The only basis of salvation is Jesus Christ – Acts 4:12

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM


Heres the thing. It's not discrimination. I prefer marijuana to tobacco but im not yelling that im being discriminated against for my inate feelings on marijuana.

Posted by: Dante at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM


Heres the thing. It's not discrimination. I prefer marijuana to tobacco but im not yelling that im being discriminated against for my inate feelings on marijuana.

Posted by: Dante at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM


I am re-posting a couple of posts I made yesterday as they are pertinent to subject of this thread:

Jesus did not condone homosexuality...

Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. - Matt 11:20-24 (KJV)

Not to mention:

"And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,' and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH?'" - Matthew 19:4-5 (Also see Genesis 19: 1-29)

Jesus' ministry was primarily directed to the Jews, and in the first century, homosexuality was just not an issue for them. Sure, it occurred, but it was seen as evil perversion. It was not a part of Jewish contemporary debate.

But Jesus did discuss the many issues related to homosexuality, as He taught us our most basic Christian principals.

And Jesus was quite clear that marriage is only for a man and a woman. When we study the Biblical teachings concerning marriage, a man and a woman making a commitment for a lifetime, we also know that sex is a wonderful gift that God has created for a husband and wife to enjoy. But sex outside of marriage is always wrong in God's eyes, be it premarital sex, adultery, or homosexuality.

While Jesus never specifically spoke about homosexuality, His Word certainly does. And the Word is absolutely clear: sexual intimacy is God's gift for a man and woman in the context of marriage only.

Further:

God wants everyone to be saved and to know the truth – 1 Tim. 2:4
Jesus died for everyone – 1 John 2:2; Col. 1:20; John 12:32
But not everyone will be saved – Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:15
The only basis of salvation is Jesus Christ – Acts 4:12

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 3:09 PM


I'll note that many state works have as part of their contract a clause that prevents them from discussing pending legislation. If he signed a contract that he's in violation of (which seems to be the case) it's his own fault.

Except for the fact that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Since the school district (even if incorporated as a not-for-profit entity) is considered a government actor, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will trump any contractual language.

Since we are dealing with a First Amendment issue, the courts will apply the strict scrutiny test to determine if the prohibition is valid. For such a prohibition to be valid, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

First, we must look at the compelling interest. The state can make a claim that a compelling interest is served by preventing state employees from making personal comments on pending legislation where such personal comments directly interfere with the execution of their duties. For example, an district attorney trying a medical marijuana case shouldn't be marching in the local NORML rally on the weekend. That would be a valid restriction.

A compelling interest would not be served if the law sought to restrict all speech "detrimental" to current government policy, since the state can't show that such an interest is so overwhelmingly necessary to the functioning of society as to permit an intrusion on First Amendment rights.

In the case of the teacher, the law is also the least restrictive means of achieving that purpose, since it isn't possible to restrict detrimental speech without restricting speech.

However, in the case of the teacher, such a law would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to speech that has nothing to do with the execution of the teacher's duties within the classroom. It may also fail Constitutional scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment, since overbroad laws violate a citizen's due process rights.

Government cannot ask you to broadly check your rights at the door just because they sign your check.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 3:26 PM


Wow. I didn't realize "gay" was a race.

Posted by: Seamus at November 3, 2009 4:01 PM


I don't get this who identify as a 'gay' thing. For example, aren't you a woman before you can 'be' a 'lesbian'? So which is more fundamental to identity?

It seems to me to be about behaviour more than identity. Nothing like skin colour, eye colour, gender, etc...

This whole thing is about the despicable practice of disagreeing with someone's behaviour. Apparently, that's a thought crime.

Posted by: Stephan at November 3, 2009 6:04 PM


Sorry, anti-spelling ray-gun was set to stunned. First line should read...

I don't get this whole identify as a 'gay' thing.

Posted by: Stephan at November 3, 2009 6:06 PM


Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM

Really? Do you really think that the Jesus that happily dined with Imperial oppressors, prostitutes, lepers, and criminals, would reject homosexuals? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 3:26 PM

I'd think you'd agree that the main responsibility of a teacher is to educate and inform, and that it would be irresponsible of a teacher to advance his own particular political standpoint to his students. I can inform you that doing so can get you in trouble quite easily. Perhaps the worse case I've heard of is a teacher who taught that the holocaust did not happen to his high school kids.

The counter-argument to your point would be that advancing his political views in a public forum does harm the execution of his duties. He can no longer be a neutral advocate of learning and the truth. I might agree with you that this is a bit silly, but it's the way the public has been swinging for the last two decades. Teachers don't have private lives any more.

"I don't get this whole identify as a 'gay' thing."

Well, don't you identify as an American and a Republican (I presume)? If you don't, why would it matter who was in power?

Update: I know I'd be upset if a person in my school was letting his personal views interfere with his professional duties.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 3, 2009 6:36 PM


Really? Do you really think that the Jesus that happily dined with Imperial oppressors, prostitutes, lepers, and criminals, would reject homosexuals? Really?

And did Jesus tell the prostitutes, criminals, and oppressors to keep on sinning, or did he tell them to go and sin no more?

Posted by: V the K at November 3, 2009 6:40 PM


Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM

Really? Do you really think that the Jesus that happily dined with Imperial oppressors, prostitutes, lepers, and criminals, would reject homosexuals? Really?

Christianity doesn't reject gays (people) they reject the SIN of homosexuality. Homosexuals insist on their sin being acceptable to mainstream society when Scripture, in both the OT & NT, says that it isn't acceptable to God or his people.

The people of Jesus' time knew what his allusions to Sodom and Gomorrah referred to. As I said, it wasn't a part of contemporary Jewish debate. Their society understood that homosexuality was a sin, a wicked perversion.

As with science, stop pretending you actually know something about Judeo-Christianity until you have actually acquired some knowledge and some experience.

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 6:42 PM


Stephan, do you identify your heterosexuality as a "behaviour"?

I long time ago I moved from the city to a small rural community where everybody knew everybody. Soon after I moved there I went to a community dance and the whole town was there. The elderly couples, the teens, the working stiffs, the hippies, the rednecks, everybody. At that dance I met a lesbian couple who lived there. They were obviously in love, they smooched on the dance floor, they were friendly and outgoing, smart and community aware, and everybody seemed to know them. The fact that they were a lesbian couple was cool. Nobody cared. And that's the whole point. You can do what you want, let others do what they want.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 6:55 PM


Clearly, Communists have infiltrated both parties but have simply had more success with the Democratic Party as a host vessel. We even get another “Color Party” being GREEN in exchange for RED. Now the fact is that one of the main Communist Goals for the USA is the “Destruction of the Family Unit” and what better way to destroy the family than to help homosexuality to gain status. The same people seek to paint the “Founding Fathers” as nothing more than a group of TERRORISTS. Light becomes dark and wrong becomes right!

Posted by: AlphaOmega at November 3, 2009 7:11 PM


The fact that they were a lesbian couple was cool. Nobody cared. And that's the whole point. You can do what you want, let others do what they want.

I think most of us are on-board with that. God can deal with the sinners in His own time and His own ways.

Live-and-let-live is fine. The problem arises when some segment of the population uses the power of government to criminalize dissent and criticism of a lifestyle. There's a HUGE difference between "what I do in the bedroom is my business" and "you will look at the way I live and call it good." Yes to the first, no to the second. Mere tolerance of behavior does not equal endorsement.

This distinction is critical. There are too many people who seem incapable of making it.


Posted by: Anonymous at November 3, 2009 6:55 PM

Pick a name and stick with it, coward.

GREGORY, MAKE "NAME" A REQUIRED FIELD! STOP ALLOWING ANONYMOUS POSTS!

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 7:22 PM


Really? Do you really think that the Jesus that happily dined with Imperial oppressors, prostitutes, lepers, and criminals, would reject homosexuals? Really?

Why not? They're all God's creations. Jesus did this in order to help shatter the popular myth existing at the time that such people were not worthy of love or eligible for redemption.

Matthew 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."


Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 7:28 PM


The counter-argument to your point would be that advancing his political views in a public forum does harm the execution of his duties. He can no longer be a neutral advocate of learning and the truth. I might agree with you that this is a bit silly, but it's the way the public has been swinging for the last two decades. Teachers don't have private lives any more.

This is why the strict scrutiny test requires the law to be both narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of accomplishing the state's objective.

Government can require its employees to keep political views out of the classroom, treat all students equally and in a dignified manner, and prohibit the co-mingling of employment and personal matters.

This is the problem with the contract or law as it is written. If the goal is to maintain the classroom as an accepting and apolitical place of learning, then they need to ban specific instances of behavior within the classroom that impede the school's educational objectives.

What they cannot (and should not) do is impose blanket restrictions on speech outside the classroom in an attempt to avoid problems within the classroom. Both the law and common sense require that, if the goal is to prevent classroom problems, that teachers only be sanctioned for disruptive speech which occurs in the classroom.

The legal and logical problem with the counter-argument you present is that if a teacher is already biased, then squelching his speech outside the classroom is not going to remedy his internal bias. Biased people are biased based on personal views, not their ability to express those views. The only line of demarcation that may be drawn between biased employees is whether or not they allow their bias to creep into the classroom and hinder the execution of their job duties.

The pendulum can swing the other way. Imagine if Jerry Falwell were running the school board, and decided to insert a "morals clause" into contracts prohibiting teachers from cohabiting with members of the opposite sex, in an attempt to keep "promiscuous" teachers out of the classroom. That would be a violation of the teachers' Fourteenth Amendment rights, and I suspect that liberals and libertarians would be fairly annoyed with such a policy.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 7:31 PM


Clarification: There was only one sin that Jesus seemed to get really upset about - pride. Well, that and hypocrisy.

Homosexuality is on the list to be sure, but He had a lot more unpleasant words for the haughty than for hookers, tax collectors, or gays.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 7:31 PM


Cylar I love your presumption that you know who God will decide is a sinner. Your delusion is huge.

How do you like my new name??

Posted by: Cylaar at November 3, 2009 7:33 PM


Perhaps the worse case I've heard of is a teacher who taught that the holocaust did not happen to his high school kids.
This is a good example of behavior that may be specifically sanctioned.

Although that teacher has a right to his view, and to express it in public, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have no place in the classroom, and the school board would be well within its rights to fire that teacher for advancing propaganda over fact.

A properly crafted policy would require that all Holocaust education be based on academically-accepted historical fact. This ensures that the state's goal of educating children is met, without violating the rights of the teachers to be as unhinged as they please in their own personal views.

Since a hypothetical policy banning Holocaust denial in lesson plans is narrowly tailored to specific classroom behavior, and the least restrictive means of accomplishing the state's objective, such a policy would hold up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 7:38 PM


Posted by: AlphaOmega at November 3, 2009 7:11 PM

How does homosexuals having a binding legal relationship interfere with YOUR family unit in any way?

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 7:31 PM

You argument presumes that a strict separation can be maintained between job related and non-job related actions. This is obviously false, since students are coming forward to object to his positions and state that they are not able to respect his work as a result. He can say whatever he wants in private, but once he starts to make public statements it irrevocably damages his credibility with the students and his ability to perform his job. There is a compelling interest in preventing that.

I'm not advocating the law as a method of controlling thoughts. If this guy did his job without foul or favor, I wouldn't mind him believe and saying whatever he wants in private.

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

Of course, YOUR interpretation is the only one that could possibly be correct, right? I have a person on my side with a degree in religious studies that says that the principle crime of Sodom was a lack of hospitality and that the Jews were historically more accepting of homosexuals then you guys. More then one interpretation.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 7:28 PM

Looks like we have a basis for agreement. Where I think we branch off; I know homosexuality is not a choice. I reject the Calvinist position that some people (homosexuals in this case) were created inherently sinful. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. I can still decry the excesses and carelessness of many homosexuals, but I am incapable of judging them all as inherently flawed. Therefore I must follow the example of Jesus and welcome them as I do all humans.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 3, 2009 8:01 PM


You argument presumes that a strict separation can be maintained between job related and non-job related actions. This is obviously false, since students are coming forward to object to his positions and state that they are not able to respect his work as a result.
Correct, but that isn't how the Constitution views it. If we moved to a British standard of sanctioning any speech which causes offense to anyone for any reason, even if that person exposes themselves to the offense, then it effectively strips every government employee of their First Amendment rights.

Consider the Proposition 8 (ban on same-sex marriage) campaign in California. The donor list was made public. Suppose that a student looks up his teacher using one of the easily searched websites, and finds that his teacher donated in support of Proposition 8. The student is free to take offense to the teacher's donation, and the argument can be made that, because of the donation, the relationship between the teacher and the student has become compromised. A similar argument can be made regarding a teacher who voted to defeat Proposition 8, if the student harbors strong feelings against same-sex marriage?

The same public donation laws apply to general campaigns.

Are teachers to be completely stripped of their ability to advocate any political position, or donate to any candidate or cause outside of the classroom? After all, these things can cause offense to those who wish to take it.

Suppose a teacher were to march in a gay pride parade, holding a sign supporting same-sex marriage. If a student sees the teacher in the parade, is that grounds for a sanction?

This is why our Constitution will not stand for such overbroad restrictions, nor for the ability of bureaucrats to selectively apply such restrictions.

The key here is that any laws which infringe the First Amendment rights of teachers must be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of keeping the classroom free of disturbance. It is unconstitutional to impose a blanket ban on liberty to stop some of the distant effects of the use of such liberty.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 8:14 PM


anon counter moonbat -

That teacher you were talking about is probably James Keegstra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra

He was quite rightly fired for teaching false history to his students, but of course the left didn't stop there. They had him charged and convicted of thought crimes, appropriately enough in the year 1984.

Posted by: fozzy at November 3, 2009 8:14 PM


Unfortunately, Canada is not a leader in free speech rights. Once you accept that offense is a basis for content-specific infringement, the laws will continue to constrict around free speech in a progressive fashion, criminalizing more and more, year by year.

The moonbats like to screech about hate speech. They would prefer to ban it, but since ideas can't be banned, they will be forced underground where they can fester.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 8:41 PM


Posted by: hey you guys at November 3, 2009 8:01 PM

That's the liberal/Leftist/PC interpretation of the events there. You hear every single so-called Christian spouting that and other lies in defense of their pathetic defense of immorality.

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 8:43 PM


To put it a better way, God is THE judge for sin.

Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy.

Changing societies do not dictate God's standards.

Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination. Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not “go with the flow.”

Sexual sins were rampant in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the origin of the word sodomy.) Despite warnings, they refused to repent. God destroyed those cities and it was recorded as a warning to all future generations. (Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 19:4-5, 2 Peter 2:6) Some additional scriptures on homosexuality are found in:

* Leviticus 18:22
* Leviticus 20:13
* Romans 1:26-27

The price paid for homosexuality and all types of fornication are told in:

* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
* Jude 6-7
* Romans 1:18

In spite of the growing secular humanist trend to think "it's ok to be gay," it's not a righteous lifestyle.

Most vocal Christians are not homophobic, but are trying to share Christ's love for homosexuals and trying to keep them from horrific judgment as a result of their sinful behavior.

God offers redemption from all sin and love for all sinners including homosexuals.

"And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV)

Posted by: SK at November 3, 2009 8:49 PM


Actually yes anon - I've never had sex, so how would I be classified? 'Heterosexual' or 'Homosexual' makes no sense as 'identity' in my case does it? And if you then want to reduce the definition to attraction only, why would you want to base a wholesale change in society based on attractions that can be resisted? And I'm also somewhat piqued that in my case, apparently, I have less of an 'identity' according to the logic of the activists.

But, I am a man. Have been male since the day I was conceived actually. Lots of XY chromosomes. I was 'born male'! How shocking!

I defy and resist even USING the language of the 'movement' - calling someone 'gay' is pandering to their skewed sense of their own male or female sexuality. A woman calling herself a 'lesbian' is predicated FIRST on the fact that she is a woman. Logically, the first thing is far more important, therefore the idea of associating identity (like gender, skin colour) with sexual behaviour as equivalent is fallacious.

Posted by: Stephan at November 3, 2009 9:09 PM


btw, those who claim Jesus didn't have harsh things to say about homosexual behaviour clearly have not properly considered his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus specifically uses that as the premier example of the worst that human behaviour can get to before God has to come in and torch them. Except for one thing - having the Messiah standing in front of you and rejecting Him. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't get that chance, so that is why they can point to this very generation and judge it. Sobering.

Matthew 10:15, 11:23,24, Luke 10:12, 17:29

Also, if you don't think Jesus cares about sexual morality, read Rev 2:14,20. All biblical sexual morality is predicated on the fact that humans are born male and female. There is no room for any other ethos.

Posted by: Stephan at November 3, 2009 9:24 PM


I note the trolls led the board off the topic of 'faggots against free speech'.

California Prop 8 redo. Homos can't handle any one's opinion but their own, so they use threats and violence to shut people up. (YES, violence!)

Now tell me - how are radical faggots different than Nazis? They love to wear uniforms (with the back of the pants cut out), they hate free speech, they hate God, they hate heterosexuals, they hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

Any dipshit liberal troll who can defend radical faggotry is a sick, sick son-of-a-whore.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 3, 2009 9:34 PM


Posted by: hey you guys at November 3, 2009 8:01 PM- "I know homosexuality is not a choice... homosexuality is not inherently sinful."

Whatever gets you through the night, Jack.


Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at November 3, 2009 9:51 PM


Actually, Christian teaching is fairly clear on this one. According to Christian theology, homosexual inclinations are not a sin; homosexual acts are.

These discussions always get off topic because the word "homosexual" is used by some participants to mean "innate homosexual feelings" (not a choice, not a sin), whereas other participants use the word "homosexual" to describe those who consciously engage in homosexual acts (choice of free will, considered by Christians to be a sin).

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 11:05 PM


Cylar I love your presumption that you know who God will decide is a sinner. Your delusion is huge.

What's so delusional about that? The Almighty, acting in His capacity as Judge of the World? Seriously, who better qualified?

As to who the sinners are, the answer is "all of us." The only difference between Christians and everyone else is that the former have been washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb.

Seriously, HYG, spend less time on this board and more with the Bible. It's all in there, free for the taking.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Readers-Version-NIRV-Bible/


How do you like my new name??
Posted by: Cylaar at November 3, 2009 7:33 PM

Love it, "hey you guys." It's cute.

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 11:55 PM


Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 11:55 PM

Wasn't me. If I choose to insult you I'll do it right to your face. But, yes, it's easy to forget humility when we get caught up in discussions like this.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 3, 2009 11:05 PM

Ok, we almost agree. The question then becomes, why? Why did God create some people with such deep desires to perform sinful acts? Why place a harder burden on some then others?

BTW, sure, I'll agree with your position on strict legal grounds. That's what the letter of the law says. However, laws have always been judged in a societal context. I'm not saying that's right or fair; my original point, I guess, was that the man's opponents were being consistent with society as a whole.

"All biblical sexual morality is predicated on the fact that humans are born male and female."

Ok, then; what about the intersexed, people born with ambiguous gender? How about the transgendered, people born with the genetics of one gender and the hormones and brain chemistry of the other? Gender isn't strictly binary. Consider the case of Caster Semenya; is she defying god by identifying as a female despite having internal testes (as of last report)?

Posted by: Stephan at November 3, 2009 9:09 PM

Maybe you're asexual; I don't know you that well. That fact that you choose not to identify yourself in those terms does not imply that it is invalid for other people to do so. Human identity is (obviously) not the product of strict logic.

Ok, Sodom; Sodom wasn't a real place. It had to be a fair-sized town if Lot assumed he could find fifty moral people therein. There's no evidence of two towns that size being wiped out by brimstone (or volcanic activity) in Israel. So, much like Noah's flood, it appears to be another of the OT's morality tales. The men of the towns are like fairy-tale villains, completely and irredeemably evil in every way. When Jesus spoke of them he was talking about the worst behavior humans could possibly commit, not particularly about homosexuals.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 4, 2009 11:51 AM


Why are those of the tinkerbell persuasion so normalphobic?

Posted by: NCBob at November 4, 2009 3:19 PM


Hey 'hey you guys',

Sodom existed, and there is massive worldwide evidence for a flood. You quote Jesus, but then you don't accept that what He said was true? Jesus never saw Genesis as anything but actual history. If the Son of God says it's true, then it must be.

And I for one wouldn't want to mess with God.

Posted by: aussie-john at November 4, 2009 6:36 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)