Gay RightsWhether or not you want to, you are being forced to deal with an agenda that seeks to mainstream homosexuality, same sex attraction, gay marriage and various other related initiatives.

“I am not being forced to deal with it.” You may say, “I have chosen to simply ignore it.” A passive approach is still a way of dealing with the issue. Simply “ignoring” the issue just means that you have decided to forfeit your rightful place in the discussion and thus, will be forced to accept the results minus your input. Is that what you want? Have you convinced yourself that this movement is benign and doesn’t really have an effect on you, your children and grandchildren? Think again!

Consider this: The key target that this movement seeks is our youth. This can be seen in this chilling and disgusting piece written by “gay revolutionary” Michael Swift and printed way back in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record:

“We shall sodomize your sons, we shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable…. We shall raise vast, private armies…to defeat you. The family unit….will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory….All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

Thirty years ago, when the “gay agenda” was still being written, I was told to watch for the incremental stages of the movement. At that time, we seemed to be in the initial phase of “tolerance.” As a society, we were told that it was only right and proper to “tolerate” the homosexual lifestyle even if we disagreed with it. And so we did.

I was told that the second phase would be “acceptance.” Homosexuality may not be our cup of tea but we must acknowledge that this lifestyle is just as viable as our heterosexual lifestyle. My lifestyle was not superior to theirs and theirs was not superior to mine.

The third phase of the movement would be “promotion” or “celebration.” This was the phase in which those who lived and/or sympathized with the lifestyle would come out of the shadows, grab the bullhorn and glorify, almost deify the brave souls who courageously and publicly live this life in such a hateful, disapproving and judgmental world.

We seem to have been in this third phase for some time now. The issue is all around us. It has infiltrated almost every facet of life. It is hard to think of a television show that does not have a homosexual character in their cast and the writers seem to be very careful to make sure these characters are all above reproach. They almost always seem to be attractive, kind, smart and witty. Any deviation from these polished and sanitized character traits might be looked at as hateful and homophobic. Yet, on the rare occasions that Christian ministers or believers are written into a script, they are routinely portrayed with one or more characteristics that show them as devious, greedy, hypocritical, dishonest, insincere and sexually promiscuous.

The promotion of this lifestyle is now woven throughout the public school curricula all across our country. Last summer, school officials in Montana’s capital unveiled new guidelines for teaching about sexuality and tolerance. They proposed teaching first graders that “human beings can love people of the same gender,” and fifth graders that sexual intercourse can involve “vaginal, oral or anal penetration.” This approach, in one form or another, is being repeated in a growing number of public schools in the United States.

Same sex marriage is being legalized in state after state. Michigan is the latest example as one of those states that preemptively, through ballot initiatives have sought to declare and protect the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman have won the day nearly 100% of the time, only to have their vote nullified by a single individual, wearing a black robe and declaring the new law as unconstitutional.

Jason CollinsWe saw this promotion phase played out last year when basketball player Jason Collins of the Boston Celtics publicly came out as a “gay man.” He was instantly bestowed “hero” status by many in the media with newspaper headlines and magazine covers. In the most recent State of the Union speech by our president, Mr. Collins was a special guest of the First Lady. One would have thought that this man had discovered the cure for cancer or some similar feat.

The New Year’s Rose Parade is perhaps the most famous, most watched parade in the United States. This year’s Rose Parade was highlighted with a gay “marriage” performed on one of the floats.

Gay WeddingGay advocates have long desired a representative of the gay community in the manly rough and tumble National Football League. So when University of Missouri all-conference senior, Michael Sam publicly announced his desire for men and men only, supporters toasted their newest “out” athlete and the prospects that he would be drafted into the NFL. In fact, team owners were already being tacitly warned that by not drafting Sam, they risked being labeled a homophobe.

What I wasn’t told was that once this movement hit the “promotion stage,” that it all flowed back in the other direction against those with whom they disagree. The tolerance and acceptance that was so vigorously demanded by those advocating for the gay agenda is now being strongly denied by this same group to those who may oppose same sex marriage or any other issue dealing with homosexuality.

No doubt, you have heard about the lawsuits being filed across the country against bakeries, photographers and wedding reception venue owners who have, based on religious convictions, refused to offer their services in association with the celebration of a same-sex “marriage.” Legislation and the courts are telling these privately owned businesses that they cannot exercise their personal and religious rights.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the filers of these lawsuits are bringing legal action against these businesses because they cannot find a business that is willing to provide the service that they desire? Of course not! They are purposely targeting these businesses as a tactic in their war against dissenting opinion. Tolerance and acceptance are no longer important to them.

The state of Arizona recently took legislative action by passing Senate Bill 1062 that allowed private businesses an exemption from Arizona’s public accommodation law and the right to refuse their services based on religious conviction. You would have thought that Arizona had declared open season on homosexuals. Aided by willing accomplices in the mainstream media, the outcry was instantaneous and deafening. And with the looming threat of the NFL pulling the 2015 Super Bowl from its scheduled Arizona venue, Governor Jan Brewer wasted no time pulling out her veto pen.

brendan-eich-mozilla-firefox-squareOne of the most chilling and invasive tactics unfolded recently when Mozilla Firefox CEO, Brendan Eich, resigned under pressure after a gay group discovered and publicized the fact that Eich had made a small donation to California’s Proposition 8  campaign which sought to enshrine traditional marriage as the standard for marriage in that state. This donation was made in 2008. Ironically, President Obama held this same view in 2008 and stated such publicly numerous times. Shouldn’t Obama be facing the same pressure to resign his presidency?

As a Christian, I struggle with my rules of engagement in this battle. On the one hand, I want to vigorously fight against this well organized and well-funded propaganda war to mainstream what the Bible calls a vile lifestyle. But at the same time, I don’t want to reduce the dialogue to one of insults and name calling. Many, on both sides, have engaged in a petty exchange that focuses on the personal and ignores the principle.

The gay man is not our enemy. The lesbian woman is not our enemy. These are individuals with whom we should dialogue, build relationships and pray for.

Yes… we are in a battle, but the battle is not with people and organizations. The true battle is described in Ephesians 6:12 which says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

This does not mean that we cease our efforts to influence via the ballot box, the legislative initiatives, from the pulpit and using the written word in blogs and other forms of social media. These are legitimate venues for proclaiming the truth and expanding righteous influence. But at its core, this is a spiritual battle which requires spiritual armor and a clear line of communication with God.

If you are at all like me, it feels like we are a small pocket of resistance facing a massive tidal wave of culture changing propaganda constructed by a generation of a liberal controlled education, the mass media and the mainstreaming of sin by products coming out of Hollywood. And as a society, we have drifted so far from God that our national resistance struggles to fight against this virus of evil.

This fight fatigues our mind, spirit and body. It creates a sense of discouragement and hopelessness. And yet, we are instructed in scripture, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Galatians 6:9.

Surrender is not an option. I believe that we are to keep fighting the good fight with a sincere love and a strong faith. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. Why did you leave out the first line of the essay?

    “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”

    1. This is a major problem in my view of the social conservatives. They claim to have the moral high ground yet they seem to have no problem throwing out misinformation if it helps their cause.

      1. And social liberals are as clean as the driven snow.
        Who is claiming the “moral high ground?” And to what “misinformation” do you refer? The gay activist not being totally serious? He said it… it was part of the congressional record. The source I looked at didn’t say anything about it being a parody, so there was never an effort to use “misinformation” to prove my point. But even if we remove that small part of the article, the spirit of the piece and the information stands on its own.

      2. If you intentionally left out the first line, that is misleading.
        Most if not all social conservatives claim all morality comes from the Bible. I personally think religion gets its morality from man. Consider what was moral in the Old Testament and how it would be seen today, such as slavery or genocide for any reason.

      3. I did not intentionally leave out the first line. Even if my source included that first line, I probably still would have used the quote to show the vile language and thought pattern of this activist… and…. to show the prophetic nature of his despicable rant.

      4. I have known five gay people in my life (at least openly gay) and two of those were beaten up for being gay. Most everyone I have known in my personal life has been a Christian. I have never known anyone who was beaten up because they were a Christian.

        I can’t imagine what it would have been like if I were born gay? There are angry people who can be abusive on any side of an issue. When you are in the minority, you tend to get picked on alot more.

      5. I have a gay cousin whom I love very much. If I was EVER witness to someone berating him or physically attacking him… it would be on.
        I ain’t as good as I once was but I’m as good once as I ever was. 😉

      6. I am not doubting your sincerity. I don’t agree with you on this and probably more, but I do admire your willingness to talk it through. One reason I come back to Shane’s blog is because he doesn’t censor his blog like many others do.

      7. Thanks Bruce. I enjoyed the dialogue.
        (This is the third time I have posted this sentence and it always seems to be gone once I come back)

  2. What a load of crap. Do you people really believe this stuff? Gay agenda? You better hope not.

      1. Shane, youre in violation of this site’s rules by lying and defaming. There is no agenda from gays except equality under the law…and they are gettign it . Maybe try praying?.

  3. If he had actually researched the ‘Mark Swift’ quote he would have found that the actual byline is ‘Michael Swift’ and that it was published as satire

      1. Ah, no. It still sounds as ridiculous as it did almost 25 years ago. If you want a true vision of the ‘gay agenda’, spend a week volunteering in an LGBT Youth homeless shelter and you’ll see the real damage done by ignorant and fallacious posts such as yours.

      2. Although we differ on the nature and intent of my article, I do sympathize with and wish the best for anybody who suffers such in life. I have spent many hours volunteering in rest homes, homeless missions and other state facilities. I have also contributed monetarily to such outreaches. But I still hold to my observations and assessments regarding this issue in general.

  4. As others have pointed out – and needs to be pointed out again – this article is misleading in that you left out the very first line of the essay:

    “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”

    Even if Michael Swift were able to speak for anyone but himself (which of course he is not) and even if his essay were meant to be seriously-taken and not satire (which of course it is not), it is misleading to pretend that his words speak to a larger “gay agenda” (which of course it does not) – except in the minds of a vocal minority which persists in demonizing and demeaning gay people in order to maintain its ever-shrinking influence in society.

    1. Ok… if you don’t like the quote by the gay activist, put your hand over that part and read the piece again. There’s a lot of good information in there.

      1. Not so much. Because your article is predicated on the false belief that there exists a broad “gay agenda” that is somehow nefarious when persons of homosexual orientation demand the equal rights, privileges, and protections under the law that are enjoyed by heterosexuals every single day in America.

      2. What might a few of those “equal rights” be that they are missing out on? Last time I looked, they, as a demographic, make more money than their straight brethren. Not only that… but they are given special protections because they are gay. And, of course, we are now in the “celebration” phase of the movement. That doesn’t sound like they are being discriminated against.

      3. Bart, look again. The rich gay belief is FALSE, disproven many times. In 29 states you can be fired for being gay. In 28 states, denied housing. Youre not really this ignorant are you? what special protections? Liek the ones afforded CHOSEN religious beliefs?

      4. Since the first “gay rights” demonstration happened in the 1950s, and we have heard not much else since, I’d say there exists a “gay agenda.” It has been moving along with the Leftist agenda in this country and is part of the sexual revolution. Have you missed all of the comments out of our Leftist president regarding gay rights?

  5. Bart bears false witness against his neighbors. I will pray for your soul, Bart. Actually, the turnaround in this country, and in much of the world, is that people have come to know us and they see through the lies. We are taxpayers, and we simply want the legal rights everyone else takes for granted. By the way, family values? Baptists have the highest divorce rate in this country. Higher than other Christians, higher than atheists, higher than gays. Clean up your own house, haters.

    1. Thank you for your prayers. I’m glad you pay your taxes. In what other ways should we grant the “legal right” to marry? Is it anything goes? Any sort of combination one wants to dream up? Father/daughter? Father/son? Polygamy? Pets? Adult/child? Who are we to tell anyone who they can love, right?
      Oh… and about those Baptists and their divorces. Yeah… it’s a terrible thing. We should be speaking out about that too.

      1. You must be consenting adults to marry, which eliminates pets and children. The basis of polygamy is from the Bible. How many wives did Abraham have? Science has shown that sexual attraction between close relatives is extremely rare (it actually has a name for it) so it’s not very likely.

        Like most things, marriage evolves over time. Just look at the last one hundred years. It once was common for your parents to pick who you married. No one would question a girl of 15 marrying a man pushing 30. You only married someone from your church or at least the same denomination. The man worked while the woman stayed at home (pre-washing machines, dryers, store-bought bread, etc)

      2. What is an “adult?” 18? 21? Criminal prosecutors charge teens as an “adult” all the time prior to their 18th birthday. Isn’t the age of adulthood just some sort of an arbitrary number? Other countries have a variety of ages they classify as adulthood if they even have them at all. Why should we allow this number… pulled from the air…. act as an impediment to love and the desire to marry?

        Tales of polygamy occurred in the Bible… such as Abraham… but Abraham was a sinner just like you and me. God never condoned polygamy. In fact, God is very specific about the institution that he created… one man, one woman.

        The common thread in your “evolution of marriage” paragraph is one man, one woman. So, although the actual arrangement and religious influence of marriage has “evolved,” the gender of the participants has not… until now.

        Oh… and the “pet” think… ok, you got me there. 😉

      3. Every state defines the legal age of marriage, although most allow exceptions if a parent or legal guardian signs off on it.

        Iowa is 18, 16 if you have parental consent.

      4. Every state defines the legal age of marriage, although most allow exceptions if a parent or legal guardian signs off on it.

        Iowa is 18, 16 if you have parental consent.

        Most people think Mormons when they think polygamy. They chose (justified?) polygamy based on polygamy from the Bible.

      5. I understand that but at one time, “every state” defined marriage as between one man and one woman until the SSM advocates, with a little help from the courts, changed
        that, right? They said, “We can’t allow the government and the majority of
        the populace to dictate who we can and can’t love.” Doesn’t the same logic
        apply to a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old whose parents oppose the union? Or to
        the guy down the street that wants to have several wives at the same time?

        My point is… if we allow gay people to redefine marriage, then what stops a couple dozen other shots at redefining the institution of marriage?

      6. The recent DOMA laws were passed in various states to define marriage as between a man and woman. It was because of the Iowa DOMA law being found unconstitutional that opened the door for gay marriage in Iowa.
        What’s to stop others? Each must be considered as they come up. I think I addressed the ones you brought up so far as to why they are not the same.

      7. youre a liar-marraige has been redefined numerous times-most recently 50 years ago to include any race. Before that, marraige was one man and multiple women…

    2. Oh… I know you’ve heard this before but I will say it again because maybe you will eventually catch on… my disagreement with you is not the equivalent to “hate.” I know… because I know me a little better than you know me.

    3. “Bart bears false witness against his neighbors” How so?

      FYI, I’ve not seen any divorce rate data that points to specific denominations, could you please cite your source. Also, we’ve written about divorce here as well so we’re consistent.

      1. For starters, he sliced up the essay he quoted to omit the fact that it is a satire.

        Omission to spin a narrative seems a bit “false witnessy” to me.

      2. I don’t recall seeing it from the source I grabbed the quote from. It was in the middle of an article. But again, even if it was a parody… I’d probably have used it to show the disgusting language and vile thoughts from this gay activist… not to mention the prophetic nature of some of his parodied predictions.
        Remove that one paragraph… the piece still stands on its own.

      3. You do also know that Michael Swift doesn’t really exist right? It’s a pseudonym.

      4. No, but in the infamous words of Hillary Rodham-Clinton, “At this point in time, who cares?”

    1. You obviously didn’t read, comprehend or believe the part about dialogue, relationships and prayer. When you respond to the extreme… as you just did… you leave yourself no space to move when you actually *DO* have a Fred Phelps-like statement. In other words, by attempting a check-mate on your first move… you already lost the game.

      1. If someone opposes marriage equality, then they have decided to stand with Fred.

        It is not OK to use the government as a vehicle for discrimination against minority groups. We do not want to live on Animal Farm – no matter how uncomfortable some of the other people’s behavior might make you feel.

      2. First you’re assuming government has the right to redefine a institution it didn’t create. Discrimination has always existed re. marriage licenses – age, relationship, number of people, etc. Secondly, lumping people who disagree with you in with Fred Phelps is unproductive hyperbole that just shuts down meaningful conversation. It also tells me you don’t have many tools in your toolbox to debate with. That reference puts you on the line of violating our comment policy (see the link above) so fair warning.

      3. The Government DID create the legal recognition of that institution. The government can’t make your church perform a gay marriage. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t join a church that performs gay marriages.

        Its not really hyperbole anymore. There isn’t a middle ground anymore on the issue. There is no reason to oppose gay marriage that isn’t blatant discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Either we are equals under the law or we are not. There should not be one law for them and one law for us.

      4. Religion didnt create marriage-that’s absurd. Marraige was created by men for inheritance reasons.

      5. You can continue to use the “Fred Phelps” comparisons and you will continue to be wrong. Anyone can find a despicable human and find a single point of agreement that you may have with him and attempt to create an unbreakable link between the two of you but that is a very, very weak debate technique.
        To clarify, I assume Phelps was against SSM… and that would be about the only common ideology I shared with that demon.

  6. It needs to be said that Christians already fail to take most of the Bible seriously; when was the last time, for instance, that you heard a Christian priest inveighing against wealth, a la the Gospel of Matthew. So it shouldn’t be that much of a task to figure out how to accommodate “the gay agenda.” It does seem clear that homosexuality was not a major issue on Jesus’s mind; maybe he cared, maybe he didn’t. But it’s very hard, at this late date, to get particularly worked up about the issue, one way or the other, just on religious grounds. Poor Bart Munson seems to be straining at nothing.

    1. Please tell me where in the Bible it condemns wealth. Are you referring to the phrase “poor in spirit” in the Beatitudes? That isn’t what it means. Now the Bible talks about the love of money, but that isn’t the same thing.

      Now Jesus refers to sexual immorality, which is the Greek word porneia, which encompasses all sorts of illicit sexual behavior. He also affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman. So frankly you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      1. I always enjoy the theological lectures from those who fight the truth of scripture every chance they get.

      2. so which parts do you follow? I like the part in Mathew where jesus condemns chidlren to death for cursing their parents (Mathew 18)

      3. I assume he meant Mark 10:17 – 29

        Jesus taught that you should rid yourself of anything (money, family, etc) is you love it more than God, or at least that is how it was explained to me based on the above scripture.

      4. “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle…” “Give up all of your belongings and follow me”-have you read the NT?

  7. You have expressed with grace. Unfortunately, for those of us who support a Scriptural viewpoint and who advocate a respectful dialogue, we find ourselves being inundated with distasteful, hate-filled, (verbal and/or written), castigation. The need not only for us to be corrected, but also…punished! It seems we must be severely criticized and reprimanded!!! No wonder, we at times have feelings of hopelessness and discouragement. But, Mr. Bart Munson…think it not strange…we are living as in the days of Noah. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! A-men!

    1. religious kookery doesnt belong in law-sorry, moron. and your beliefs are ok, but dont push them on us!! its just nonsense that your parents brainwashed you with-no fact at all….

  8. It is a fact that the mainstream news media, both print & electronic is 100% behind pushing the most extreme version of the “gay” agenda,..ditto, the entertainment industry, movies,..TV,..& music are also in lockstep with this program, &, are also Jewish monopolies,..
    So i think that it is only fair to point out the Jewish connection here, & ask,,..What, exactly, is the Jewish motivation in pushing this agenda,.?

    1. “What, exactly, is the Jewish motivation in pushing this agenda,.?”
      Equal rights for all?

  9. Great & truthful article. The federal court system is our worst enemy. These new “gay rights” laws have NOT been voted in by the people!!

    1. LOL the court that will determine if the bans are Constitutional or not are your worst enemy….

      At least you know you are on the wrong side of history.

      1. Is it? You are invoking your religious views on someone who may or may not share those views. If all else fails, invoke a higher power and claim you won the debate.

      2. Yes, it is. We’re not invoking our views “on” anyone. You can choose to reject it. God made us free moral agents. We choose to believe in Him or we choose to reject Him. I’ve made my choice. Have you made yours?

      3. You as an individual have the choice to reject same-sex marriage. No one is forcing you to divorce your wife and marry a man, but if you wanted to you could. The choice is yours.

        What has changed is that now a gay man has the choice also. He can choose to marry the man he loves or he can choose to marry a woman for appearance or as an option to have kids.

      4. 1. I know this is my personal view, but you can assign any combination you wish and call it marriage… but it is not marriage in the eyes of the one who created the institution.
        2. The slippery slope here is that we have now opened the definition up to almost whatever somebody wants it to be.

      5. Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins. The purpose was to keep the wealth within the family

      6. The U.S.A., being the first nation in many ways, might have been first in having marriage licenses. We had the first modern census and the first public schools. Plus we had all sorts of first inventions. We were far ahead of decadent Europe as well as the rest of the world. Now we are trying to see if we can be first to get all the way into the sewer….before the Europeans. It’s called Post-Christianity or Post-Modernism, or Post-Capitalism, or Post-Common Sense…whatever it is, it is post…

      7. what an idiot-marriage predates all religion by thousands of years….your god didnt create it

      8. Ok god didn’t create marriage, and in fact the church only adopted the act of marriage. Marriage was and is a legal institution. It’s original purpose was to merge businesses or give them legal protection, or create trade deals etc between nations. Marriage in a church is meaningless as without the legal certification it’s not recognized by anyone but the church.

      9. Yes, you are. Jesus died for everyone’s sins (John316). Not just straight people’s sins.

        If God would hold support for gay marriage against you, then he would be a petty and vengeful god. The only ‘god’ that would hold that grudge against you is the one from down below.

      10. You are exactly right! Jesus DID die for the sins of all. But their is still a choice involved. John 3:16, the verse you reference, says “…that whosoever BELIEVETH in him, should not perish but have everlasting life.” That choice in favor of faith in Christ can be made by anyone as we all are sinners. Thankfully, our inheritance of eternal life is not contingent upon how closely we follow the rules. It is grace and not works. Ephesians 2:8-9

      11. So then why don’t we quit making homosexuals lives more difficult and quit fighting to discriminate and bully them via legislation?

        Accept ‘everyone’, not ‘everyone but homosexuals’. Its the Christian thing to do.

      12. How are we making their lives more difficult? Seems they are doing just fine to me. If you want to use legislation to give their “union” the same tax and financial benefits… go ahead. But it isn’t “marriage.”
        I “accept” homosexuals. I have gay friends and relatives. But 1) I cannot find biblical justification for their “marriage,” and 2) Any sexual activity outside of biblical marriage is sin… not unlike adultery or fornication by the heterosexual. I cannot change what the Word of God says.
        It’s not hate… it’s faith.

      13. It becomes hate when you deny them shared healthcare benefits, require taxation upon death and refuse to confer the same state offered benefits that are afforded to straight couples.

        And thankfully, thanks to the 1st amendment, you will never have to call it a marriage. For everyone else, it is a marriage and should be recognized equally as such. They should not be denied a certificate of marriage or given a ‘separate but equal’ state sponsored document because it makes you and your ilk uncomfortable.

        Your particular brand of Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word marriage.

      14. “It becomes hate when you deny them shared healthcare benefits, require taxation upon death and refuse to confer the same state offered benefits that are afforded to straight couples.”
        Did you gloss over my first paragraph?
        And, once again… I must correct you. It isn’t “hate” no matter how many times you say it is.

      15. So are you saying that making black people use different, separate facilities wasn’t ‘hate’ or rooted in bigotry?

      16. Two black men shouldn’t marry each other either. Do you have access to an anatomy book?

      17. Bart, no one wants to admit they are bigoted and hateful, but you are, Blanche, you are….you look at gay unions as less than straight ones, right?

      18. Bart, who is that ugly ginger in your profile pic? is he ok with beign associated for all time on the net with hate speech?

      19. Anybody can make a will and leave their possessions to their cats if they want to. Why would two grown men, unable to physically have children have to have their rights protected? They are already are.

      20. If a same sex partner dies and their union is not recognized as a legal marriage then the family of the deceased can override the wishes of the deceased and his or her same sex partner. I have personally witnessed this happen. A partner dies and before the funeral is even barely over the family of the deceased swoop in like vultures and take away or tear down everything the couple built together over the years. They leave the surviving partner with nothing even when they disowned the deceased years ago because he is gay. Still they barge in and take over with their callous greed and cruelty to the surviving partner and yes, theses people will tell you that they are christians as they gleefully drag the memory of their son or daughter and their partner through the mud. That is only just one of the many rights that need protecting for same sex couples. However as you are a self proclaimed christian I don’t expect you to understand concepts such as decency, morality, fairness and compassion.

      21. Are you trying to tell me a will can be invalidated just like that? I don’t believe you.

      22. Yes, it can because I have seen this happen even with the legal power of attorney granted to each partner in the event of death or medical emergency. This is the problem with States rights where one state may grant equal rights and protections to a gay couple but if they are in another state the state does not. A state that does not recognize their union can, and does, deny visitation rights in the hospital, any input into patient care for their partner and more. Especially if the partner’s family chooses to intercede over the wishes of the couple whether it’s legally binding or not.

        Imagine for a second if we lived in a world where christian marriages were not recognized by the law or voted on at the whim of state legislation. You’ve been together with your husband for over 20 years but you travel out of state and you husband becomes sick, he must be rushed to the hospital with a serious medical condition. Your christian marriage is not recognized as legal so only your husbands family are considered next of kin. Only your husbands family are allowed visitation rights and you are excluded from any and all decision making regarding his care on his behalf. Your husbands family never liked christians and disowned him because he became a christian and married a christian woman. They don’t like you and don’t want you there by his bedside so they have every right to keep you away from him because they have the law on their side. Your life together with your husband of 20 years means absolutely nothing. Everything you had, everything you shared, you laughed and cried and fought and loved over means NOTHING to these people who can waltz right in and take whatever they want that was his because to them YOU ARE NOTHING.

        That’s what many gay couples face every single day without equal rights and equal protections. That’s reality. That’s the real world we DO live in for people who are gay because of people like you who have constantly kicked and scorned and terrorized gays for generations simply because they are loving someone of the same sex. It’s insane and your flat dismissal of “I don’t believe you” says everything anyone needs to know about you. You are in denial. Pull your head out of the clouds and wake up.

      23. O.K., It hasn’t been too long since I read an article about this on aol news or the Huff Post. If you would like to tell your version of it, feel free. I can see where a family might contest a will, and many do. How would a family who disowned their son years ago even know when he died?

      24. What have you got against reality? We’re all supposed to be delusional by believing that a certain physical act between two men is equal to a different physical act between a man and a woman? The man woman act leads to children. It isn’t the same thing. I like Christianity, the religion of reason.

      25. You have already said in previous articles you think homosexuals are filthy. Not exactly a hate the sin – love the sinner approach.

        For your analogy to work here and be equal to all, anyone who cannot have kids or just doesn’t want to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to be or stay married.

      26. reason leaves your brain when you practice religion. they occupy the same part of the brain. one or the other not both…

      27. I guess that is why the schools in America were nearly all started by Christians. It certainly worked. All you have to do is go to a college and it is practically guaranteed you will not be able to think when you come out.

      28. What is marriage? Two men can’t physically get married. Missed the birds and the bees, did you?

      29. We welcome your input but name calling should be done in your own sandbox and not on Caffeinated Thoughts.

      30. Ok, well its legally defined as marriage her in Iowa. You don’t get to monopolize the definition of the word.

        Here are some other words with multiple meanings:


      31. oh you christians and your delusions. you didn’t invent or create marriage, it was usurped from the law practice at the time to marry to pass on a business or create trade between countries. besides that a marriage in a church alone is meaningless as it has to be validated by law to actually give you legal benefits.

      32. The only people who are making the “gay” lifestyle more difficult are the gays. They are ramming this issue down the throats of all people.

      33. Why not let them have what they want? What STATE interest is there in denying the marriage?

        There is ZERO state interest in the denial, which is why you theocrats are deathly afraid of the courts.

      34. Jesus said go and sin no more. Not to keep doing what you are doing. Thank you Tony 4516 for sticking up for what is right.

      35. Yes, Jesus died for everyone’s sins. So you are admitting that the homosexual life style is a sin. We are not to live in our sins…..we are to repent of our sins.

      36. Jesus said go and sin no more. He didn’t die in order for us to keep doing whatever we feel like doing. That isn’t Christianity. That is Universalism. Universalism is anti-Christian.

  10. Maybe in some bigger schools, but schools aren’t very accepting here in Missouri, at least. And maybe you think that’s good, but it’s not really good when you’re the one that people aren’t accepting. And when nobody else cares about this because nobody else is being affected.
    It’s not trying to “celebrate” or “promote” homosexuality, it’s just trying to get people to stop the hate. Love thy neighbor and everything. Just let people live their life how they want.

  11. Bart, You want to gird on the armor and fight the good fight, you’ll need to avoid the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and ‘Communists under the beds’ approach. You lead off with a completely bizarre quote that has no basis in any actual plan or conspiracy. Only the most foolish will fail to see how ridiculous is this concept. Worse, those who bite on it will discover later they’ve been suckered. You will lose the support of principled and faithful Christians because of it. I agree with Eph 6:12. That Scriptural call to arms requires us to be much more wise. Let’s do it.

  12. The racists and the misogynists tried to hide their prejudice under the Bible as well. Care to guess how well that turned out for them?

  13. BTW, here is the first line of Michael Swift’s essay (not surprising you totally missed the reference to Swift and his “Modest Proposal”):

    “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”

  14. Rebecca,

    You have already said in previous comments that you think homosexuals are filthy. Not exactly a hate the sin – love the sinner approach.

    You continue to bring up that two men cannot give birth. For your analogy to work here and be equal to all, anyone who cannot have kids or just doesn’t want to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to be or stay married.

    So far, all you have is homosexuals are filthy and men can’t have babies. Perhaps you have more?

    1. I did not say I think homosexuals are filthy. Don’t twist my words. The intent of marriage has been for one man and one woman of an age where they can reproduce to marry. With the man being the main breadwinner and the woman the main caretaker of the children. The words having to do with marriage, like husband, are related to growing things. In traditional marriages, when one member of the couple dies, the other one does not remarry if they are too old to have children. Part of family formation includes all of the in-laws. It is a social function of the group. The intent is to have children whether it happens or not. If fact, it is still on the books in most places, that if the marriage is not consummated, it is grounds for divorce. The marriage license is a contract. When you enter in to a contract, you are supposed to have intentions to honor the contract.

      1. Yes, I remember a couple of years ago when the “love” aspect was being pushed by the gay rights people.– What’s his name- the Hollywood actor, who had just finished the John Adams movie, used all his interview time to push the “love” in marriage so that would make homosexual marriage fit into his idea, and hopefully the general public’s due to the love aspect. It is too bad you don’t know the history of marriage in this country. This comment page is too short to go into it. But, marriage isn’t just about love, something which wears off…Then what do you do? It is about a long term intergenerational beneficial-we hope- relationship, and about different aspects of love. Did you marry a man or a woman? There’s a song from the movie Oklahoma called “Love and Marriage.” Cool, romantic song! But, it’s a movie.

      2. Don’t know why they are lost. Ever heard of Michael Servetus? A lot of your ideas are coming from people of today who liked him very much. Since I don’t think we are supposed to put websites in our comments, I will just say do a google search “uufcc” and see what you come up with and go on their site.

  15. basic christian ideology 101. Everyone must believe what i believe. if they don’t beat , brow beat them until they do. if that doesn’t work claim persecution to try and make them feel guilty because only non-sociopaths feel guilt.

      1. Morality exists just fine outside religion. It was considered immoral to murder, steal, lie, and commit adultery long before the Bible. It’s the Bible that teaches that genocide and slavery are ok, as long as you claim God told you to do it. Of course, claiming God told you to do it won’t get you very fair today.

      2. It was not considered immoral to murder, lie, cheat and steal and commit adultery outside of the Bible. You can read ancient history books and see for yourself. They are available. Genocide and slavery predate the Bible, and STILL go on….Are you aware of honor killings, and the general mistreatment of women around the world? There’s a new name for international child prostitution, and a movement against it.

      3. The oldest book in existence today is the Code of Hammurabi, a well-preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, This book predates the Jewish Bible by several centuries and covers all those.
        Civilization would not have survived without laws to live by. Tribes were brutal to other tribes, but within a tribe, they lived by laws.

      4. They didn’t have Modern Civilization in Hammurabi’s time. Why don’t you know this?

      5. I said they had laws, a requirement for any civilization. It would not be modern by any means. Civilization at the time of the OT would not be modern.

    1. Well, Jeremy, I certainly hope that you aren’t the professor behind the podium in that “Basic Christian Ideology 101” class because you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

  16. If you are a right wing conservative Christian today, something you may want to consider:

    Over 20% of people in the U.S. today compared to 1990 do not associate themselves with any one religion and the number continues to grow. They still believe in a higher power, but have given up on organized religion. Studies suggest this is in large part due to the rise of the religious right. Moderates and liberals do not want to associate themselves with their conservative counterparts. In turn, children who do not attend church in their younger years are very likely to not turn to religion at all as adults.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Islam Instruction an Opportunity for Conservatives

With the guidance of citizens, our children can again learn the historical significance of our Constitutional Republic shaped by Judeo-Christian principles.

Christians & Alcohol – My Thoughts

I wanted to follow-up yesterday’s post on this subject, and I am…

The Battle of Faith versus Science and Reason

Christians seem to be fighting a two-front war dealing with the questions of science and reason. Faith sits at the crux of both questions.

The Pope and A Bishop Walk Into A Bar…

…sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. And a couple of…