Happy Easter! Even during Holy Week political cynism via political cartoons still rolled on. Here were my top five favorites this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Bob Gorrell at Townhall.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m voting for #2 on this one.
Could someone help me out with the tanks?
There was a man who stood up to Chinese tanks in Tiannamon square. He stood in front of the tanks with no fear. Think it was 1988 or about that time. Same as Clive Bundy stood up against a much larger, better armed foe recently. It is about standing for freedom and liberty.
No. 3 says it all!
Sydney, I haven’t heard many reasons as to why Mr. Bundy shouldn’t have to pay to graze his cattle on public property. It seems pretty simple to me that if you’re feeding your animals on land someone else owns and maintains, then you should be fined, whether that land is owned by a person or a government. Could you fill me in on alternate points of view?
I find it amazing that a lot of conservative-leaning people agree with arresting/fining homeless people for sleeping in public parks or on sidewalks, but apparently believe that Mr Bundy is in the right to use any property he likes for his cattle grazing, and shouldn’t have to contribute monetarily to fix the damage his livestock cause the property. That Bundy guy is one entitled dude.
And comparing Tank Man to this guy? That’s out of line in my opinion. Tank Man stood up against the oppressive Chinese government, who murder political dissenters and put people in forced labor camps, among other crimes. Comparing that to some entitled rancher who thinks he should be able to use whatever land he likes to graze his livestock is just… so ridiculous.
To Alexandra
There was a comment from Mr.Bundy’s son that I read close to when this whole thing started, and he said his dad did pay the fines for a few years until he found out the feds weren’t using the money to maintain ranches as they had promised, but rather were using the money to buy off other ranches. So he stopped paying and used the money to maintain his own ranch.
#1 — The deadly intolerance of liberals toward those who defy their dogmas.
@Rogue 10:15pm -
So… you can use property that doesn’t belong to you and not pay any fines/fees if you don’t like what the owners of the property do with the money? Imma gonna refuse to pay a hotel if I stay in one because I don’t like how much they pay their housekeepers. ;)
But anyway, that’s not why he didn’t pay his fees. It’s because they restricted grazing to protect some endangered wildlife in the area, and he didn’t like that. He wanted to graze the amount of livestock he wanted to graze, regardless of what the regs were. To pay the fees for the permit you have to sign on to agree to the restrictions of usage and he didn’t want to agree to use his forage rights correctly.
I don’t know why people can’t see that killing off even more American wildlife isn’t a good idea, and there are reasons the grazing restrictions exist. And Bundy makes bank and isn’t playing fair, considering that the other ranchers in the area are paying their fees and abiding by the restrictions. So, they are paying a lot to graze their animals and protecting the area, and he thinks he can just graze his livestock as much as he wants and not pay into it like other people are.
I think it’s awful to raise animals to kill them anyway, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, lol. It might be slightly biased. But I really do think it’s incredibly entitled that Bundy thinks he gets to forage off that land and not pay his fair share and not follow the regs that protect wildlife.
“#1 — The deadly intolerance of liberals toward those who defy their dogmas. ”
Well, considering no one gets murdered for being anti-gay marriage, but people have and still are on occasion been beaten, raped, or murdered for being gay, I think the “deadly intolerance” has pretty exclusively not been on the liberal side in that particular issue. If you were talking about abortion, sure, there’s been millions slaughtered for that dogma.
Rogue, like Deluded pointed out, I’m not really sure why that would justify refusing to pay the fine? It’s not the business of anybody fined where the money goes. This is not a tenant/landlord relationship where the landlord has responsibilities to the tenant in exchange for rent. This man was using land that belonged to someone else for his own benefit. As a result, he got fined. He owes money. He is not owed anything in exchange for his money. It’s a penalty, not a business arrangement.
I like the first one – but wouldn’t go so far as to kill people who disagree – just would vote them out of office.
Deluded Lib Pro-Lifer says:
April 21, 2014 at 3:30 am
“#1 — The deadly intolerance of liberals toward those who defy their dogmas. ”
Well, considering no one gets murdered for being anti-gay marriage, but people have and still are on occasion been beaten, raped, or murdered for being gay, I think the “deadly intolerance”… (yada yada yada)
You are talking about two different issues. Don’t confuse them.
People have been beaten, boycotted, fired and discriminated against for defending natural marriage. Their property has been vandalized. Death threats were made.
The people who understand what natural marriage means to our culture and its future are overwhelmingly tolerant toward homosexuals. We are not bullies. We know that homosexuals deserve jobs and housing and healthcare and every natural human right that comes with our natural human duties.
Marriage is a primordial human right that assists families in their natural duty to bring forth children. Marriage is serious business then — there are good reasons why there was punishment for adultery.
We no longer understand marriage or take it seriously. People who advocate for contraception, no-fault divorce and abortion don’t get understand the importance or marriage. Our culture embraced those things, and that is why we are so foolish as to imagine that same-sex couples can be “married.”
Government should stay out of the marriage business entirely (except to incarcerate adulterers).
I don’t recall anyone being decapitated just for denying facts. So no. 1 is really silly.
There is no such thing as ‘natural marriage’ to be defended. People get fired etc. because they are being discriminatory and unjustifiably impede the rights of others. Bleating about vandalism and threats in light of what our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters have suffered for centuries is a bit cute.
The people who understand what natural marriage means to our culture and its future are overwhelmingly tolerant toward homosexuals. – I call BS. ‘tolerant’ means a little more than ‘we won’t actually hang you’. And there are those who wish they didn’t have to offer that!
We know that homosexuals deserve jobs and housing and healthcare and every natural human right – no you don’t. You wish to deny them a ‘natural human right’ that you claim for yourself.
our natural human duties – what are those? Who says?
Government should stay out of the marriage business entirely – that’s not the attitude that you display.
(except to incarcerate adulterers). – wow, you really do hanker for a medieval theocracy don’t you.
Del I don’t care to discuss whether gay marriage is “right” or not. What I said is demonstrably true regardless of how you would try to spin it, the violence in the gay rights issue is overwhelmingly on the conservative side. It’s not even close.
Whether you admit it or not, it’s LGBT children who make up 40% of the homeless kids, because the good Christian mom and dad decided they can’t love a gay kid. It’s funny you bring up employment discrimination, seeing as it’s still legal in most states to fire for homosexuality but NOT religion. That’s not even getting into the violence against LGBT people.
But I’ve had plenty of these conversations. I know it’s pulling teeth to get any of you to admit that Christians have historically and currently, in general, treat LGBT people like crap. I could give you about a million true stories and you wouldn’t care about any of them so I won’t waste the energy to type them out again.
Hi Reality!
Sorry Del that was way ruder than I intended, it just boggles my mind that people preach to me about how loving everyone is towards gays when I’ve seen so many abuses. If y’all could just admit that there’s a problem among conservative Christians on how they treat gay people In general (not ALL conservative Christians, but there’s certainly a large part that are just plain old cruel) then you might get some real understanding going. Instead it’s forever denial and obfuscation.
I’ll always know what I’ve seen and experienced and assurances that this stuff doesn’t go on are always going to ring hollow.
For what it’s worth, DLPL, I think Christians for the most part treat LGBT people like crap as well.
Bonjour Monsieur Jacque :-)
Since gay folk aren’t telling others they can’t have their religion, get married or be straight why do so many straight religious folk feel the need to tell gay folk they can’t get married or live their lives with full equality. What is it they think they’ll actually lose?
There is a difference between a state allowing adults to confer inheritance, durable power of attorney, property rights, etc. to each other with legal versus the ”attempt” to redefine marriage . The act of marriage intended to emotionally, physically, anatomically, mentally, hormonally, spiritually, and sexually complementarily bring together a husband and wife to bond in a stable, life-long sexual union that is the safest, healthiest, environment for children (no, I am not talking about abusive 2 parent homes read The Case for Marriage, Why Marriage Matters and The Ring Makes All the Difference). We have spent the last 50 years destroying stable, healthy homes on the altar of the hedonistic, sexual revolution, free love, no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand, it’s all about me mindset. The rates of sexual partner abuse, child abuse, child neglect, inner-city gang violence, dysfunctional home life are precipitated by fatherlessness. The rates of domestic violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, sexual assault and suicide in the homosexual “gayborhood” communities are staggering (ask a law enforcement officer or healthcare provider who has worked in these communities) where homosexuality is embraced and celebrated never condemned. As marriage is intentionally destroyed so goes the destruction of men, women, children, and the nation. Marriage cannot be redefined no matter how politically correct promoted, media-embraced, presidentially evolved, Hollywood endorsed, Christian black-listed and attacked by the thought police it may be. The purpose of marriage the bedrock of civilization, the optimal, healthiest, safest environment for a child is the committed, stable, healthy marriage of his/her mother and father. “Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron there never will or can be “same-sex” marriage and we are going to destroy our kids more for a social experiment of political correctness. A editor for a pro-homosexual newspaper was admitting on CNN how they are planning to go after everyone in California who backed Prop 8 not just the Foxfire ex-CEO. If you don’t think homosexual marriage will affect you, your children and the future of this nation you are ignorant of the real agenda. It is not tolerance it is celebration or else.
What I am concerned about is that soon enough the liberal nutcases will bring posthumous marriage to this country. We will truly than degenerate quickly and decisively lose all reason and meaning behind marriage :)
Sources on how much more evil and abusive gay people are than their straight counterparts? Preferably sources that aren’t from an “institute” like FRC that’s specifically put together to fit their agenda of making LGBT people look like the worst “humans” (I’m pretty sure they don’t think we’re actually human) on the planet.
“For what it’s worth, DLPL, I think Christians for the most part treat LGBT people like crap as well.”
Thanks LB, I know you do acknowledge the issues in the church. And a lot of younger Christians are acknowledging such as well. And I’ve met a couple people at my church who I think might be okay. It’s mostly the people who grew up in a time period where hating, hurting and ostracizing LGBT people was completely socially acceptable, and how do they long for those days!
There was this one thread about Nelson Mandela where he was criticized for being “pro-gay”. I wrote that actually gay people get murdered and attacked in South Africa all the time, and when Mandela was alive he tried to put protections into place for LGBT people so less of them would be slaughtered. There was exactly one Christian who actually expressed any horror about the treatment of the gays in South Africa, and about ten who felt obliged to tell me how wrong homosexuality was (people, I know! and that wasn’t the subject anyway). So I think it’s more just a lack of empathy and uncaring. A lot of conservative Christians don’t express any sympathy for gay bashing victims, don’t care about the LGBT youth homeless rate, etc. They simply don’t care. They certainly do have time to tell use that we’re awful all the time though. I’m sure that’s totally what Jesus would want. I know a few who don’t do this, maybe they could actually start calling people out for this kind of stuff, make churches actually safe for LGBT people to go.
Jack, I don’t think I recall being on that thread but that does break my heart. That makes me so upset.
And what’s hard is when a young Christian comes out as being “pro being human to other humans who happen to be attracted to humans who share their gender” they are ostracized too. “Oh that’s bad! But homosexual agenda (what the what?!) is going to ruin marriage.”
I don’t understand it. I thought we were supposed to LOVE all people. and no, not turn a blind eye to sin. But i mean, I don’t have people all up in my life telling me that, oh i don’t know, drinking or whatever else I might do is a sin. Or that lying is a sin. People who get divorced aren’t ostracized. We don’t talk about them like “Well, I suppose we ought to befriend a divorcee to win them to Christ.’
But, like, the Bible LITERALLY states that God hates divorce.
So what i guess i don’t understand is how or why the generation before me randomly picked homosexuality as THE SIN that is disgusting. I don’t get it. yes, it is a sin. But we’re not hounding unmarried people who live together (which is also a sin) or, like I said, divorcees. so what gives?
i just think we need to start treating people like people. Homeless people too. I am totally horrified about the number of gay teens who are homeless. I’m thinking about writing a novel about it, actually, to try to shed some light on it. It breaks my heart that these precious people are so ostracsized, yet we sort of laugh of spousal abuse, or emotional abuse in marriages, or porn, or divorce.
Jack, LibertyBelle, thanks for the good words. I have said on here before that I have known many Christians who left their marriages for unhappiness (not unfaithfulness — Scripture says unfaithfulness and desertion are different); and on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriage point to gay marriage advocates and say, “They’re making a mockery of marriage!”
“I am totally horrified about the number of gay teens who are homeless. I’m thinking about writing a novel about it, actually, to try to shed some light on it.”
The worst part about it is these kids are not remotely prepared for life on the streets as a teenager. They mostly grew up sheltered and in strict homes, the kids like me who started running around at age twelve and had chaotic and horrific home environments were more prepared. The LGBT kids from sheltered homes end up getting even more taken advantage of and abused than the average street kid, in my experience. But no, it’s the liberal contingent who is “deadly” on gay rights.
“I have said on here before that I have known many Christians who left their marriages for unhappiness (not unfaithfulness — Scripture says unfaithfulness and desertion are different); and on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriage point to gay marriage advocates and say, “They’re making a mockery of marriage!””
Yes, thanks for this. It’s ridiculous. A person on their second marriage (if their first marriage ended for non-Biblical reasons) is just as wrong and living in sin as a gay couple. Actually, I’m pretty sure that the Bible focuses on divorce much, much more than it focuses on homosexuality. And seeing the damage divorce does to children I can see why.
But you know, divorced and remarried people are very much accepted and coddled while LGBT people get bashed on and insulted and vilified for simply being gay, even if they aren’t in a relationship half the time (though that part is getting a lot better in my opinion). It’s a really apparent bias and hypocrisy, seems like the Pharisees would approve.
I have been gone a lot working on projects encouraging, working with and loving youth and their parents. It is awesome to see them grow stronger in their faith and their family relationships. Pretty awesome stuff.
I am not concerned about being politically correct, actually loving people enough to tell them the truth in love is what can makes the difference in their lives. An ex-lesbian who I heard give her testimony said (I am paraphrasing) ”people need to know that Jesus Christ is in the business of transforming lives. He loves you and me so much that he died so we can be a new creature in him.. I lived the lesbian lifestyle for over 18 years and was active in the gay rights movement, no one ever wants to talk about the high levels of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide in the lifestyle because it is not “gay” to tell it. If you had met me on the street I put on a mask in public but I was miserable and I had no peace. I masked the depression with lots of drugs and alcohol for years. It was not until I was transformed by Christ that I found true peace.”
I think Paul wrote in one of the epistles to give hope after listing various sins including homosexuality, adultery, etc. ”and such were some of you”. There is hope in Christ for all of us, including me. If Christ cannot break the power of ALL sin then we are indeed ALL lost. But I know he can break any bondage.
And so it begins, the reverse psychology against someone who does not bow at the image of the homosexual mandate. I have no hate, no homophobia, don’t have time or energy for it, too much work to be done but since BHO came “out of the closet” after lying to Pastor Rick Warren to get elected the first time (oh excuse me he “evolved”) if you don’t embrace homosexuality you are a hate-filled and homophobic and you want LGBT teens to be bullied, battered, homeless, thrown out on the street, and taunted. (NOT) Actually those of us in our youth ministry have worked with teens who were struggling with bullying and some were dealing with same-sex attraction, we never maligned any of these kids loved and ministered to their hurting hearts.
Pretty silly logic to me that since heterosexuals commit the sins of adultery, cohabitation, ignore Biblical commandments and commit serial divorces that is a good reason to redefine and dismantle marriage and the family more.
I hate bullying and mistreatment in any form no matter what race, culture, sexual identity, religion, etc. it is being directed against. Every child and adult should be treated with respect no matter what. However it is being kept hushed up but there is reverse bullying of teens who are not part of the “gay-pride” crew at some schools and it is getting out of hand (just talked to some teens the last few weeks who expressed that are afraid to go to the bathroom, locker room and certain areas of their public schools because they are being accosted by inappropriate sexual behavior the “I dare you to say something or you’re a homophobic bigot” rainbow flag is being waved and if they tell the teachers they are considered a “snitch” and the bullying can get worse. Right now the Christian kids are being told to “shut up”. So this is what we have come to. Reverse bullying. BTW no one mentioned the ex-CEO being ran out of his new job because he was for traditional marriage in 2008, (the same year BHO said that was his position). The “thought police” are out in force.
“”people need to know that Jesus Christ is in the business of transforming lives. He loves you and me so much that he died so we can be a new creature in him.. I lived the lesbian lifestyle for over 18 years and was active in the gay rights movement, no one ever wants to talk about the high levels of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide in the lifestyle because it is not “gay” to tell it. ”
Research shows that closeted LGBT people have more psychological issues than those who are open about their sexuality (big, huge surprise).
Funny thing though, the African-American community and other minority communities tend to have higher rates of psychological issues, addiction, promiscuity, etc…. is being black inherently mentally unhealthy? No, most experts agree that along with socioeconomic issues (disproportionately affects the black community), bigotry and marginalization contribute to the higher rate of mental health problems in the black and other minority communities. It’s similar in the gay community. If you continually marginalize a population of people they are going to have mental health issues, it’s pretty much common sense. Getting called a fag every day at school or being beaten by your mother for being “fruity” takes it’s toll.
“Pretty silly logic to me that since heterosexuals commit the sins of adultery, cohabitation, ignore Biblical commandments and commit serial divorces that is a good reason to redefine and dismantle marriage and the family more. ”
No, the point is that Christians sit on their high horse and judge gays and scream about the destruction of the traditional family… all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that Christians divorce at the same rate secular people do, and that pretty much all churches allow divorced and remarried couples into service and positions of leadership with nary a peep from the defenders of “traditional marriage”. I know why, though I can’t prove it. It’s because there are so few LGBT people comparatively. It’s easy to pick on 5% of the population, it’s much harder to look at your brothers and sisters, the “normal” people, and tell them that 40% of them are living in sin by being divorced and remarried. Small groups are always easier to focus on and pick on. And plus gay sex is icky and easy to be grossed out by if you’re straight, it’s harder for people to realize that there’s really no difference sin-wise according to the actual Bible to be remarried or in a gay relationship.
Where’s your proof of the widespread bullying of Christian children? Are Christian kids committing suicide at highly disproportionate rates, are they being kicked out of their homes by their gay parents, where’s it happening?
People can be fired in at-will states if the boss doesn’t like the color of your car or the sound of your voice, or any such reason. Unless they can prove the firing was because of their status as a protected class (religion, gender, NOT sexual orientation because it’s not federally protected), people fired in at-will employment states have little recourse legally. Which, everyone is fine with if a lesbian gets fired from a Catholic school or if a pregnant woman gets fired because she’s not married, it’s just when it’s your particularly views that get someone fired you actually care.
Anyway, I haven’t argued about whether gay marriage is right or even if homosexual behavior is right. I’ve simply argued over the ridiculous notion that the “deadly intolerance” is on the liberal side in the gay rights issue. It’s demonstrably not, no matter how you try to claim it is so.
And anyway, as some long, dramatic threads on this blog show, it’s not enough to just agree homosexual behavior is wrong, you always have to agree that you’re wrong as a person if you happen not to be straight. You have to agree you’re unnatural, and perverse, and that you’re less likely to be moral than straight people, and all manner of things. You have to agree to that or people simply won’t leave you alone. Now that’s bullying. If you want to be suicidal try being around that your entire life, it’s not exactly fun.
the ”attempt” to redefine marriage – marriage has been constantly redefined over the centuries. No single group ‘owns’ it or a specific definition of it, religion included.
The act of marriage intended to emotionally, physically, anatomically, mentally, hormonally, spiritually, and sexually complementarily bring together a husband and wife to bond – that’s the religious ‘rite’ which has been added to it it, for some. It isn’t exclusive. Its origins were a little more political and property focussed than that.
Marriage cannot be redefined no matter how politically correct promoted, media-embraced, presidentially evolved, Hollywood endorsed, Christian black-listed and attacked by the thought police it may be. – quite obviously this is wrong. The miscegenation situation is an instance of the redefinition of marriage. Other cultures, other times, have seen various definitions.
“Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron there never will or can be “same-sex” marriage – it is not an oxymoron. There is nothing about it which indicates such. There has been, there is, and there will be, same-sex marriage. You do not own the definition.
and we are going to destroy our kids more for a social experiment of political correctness. – all the legitimate assessments undertaken so far indicate otherwise.
no one ever wants to talk about the high levels of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide in the lifestyle because it is not “gay” to tell it. – we know what contributes to these problems. Anti-gay rhetoric and behavior.
Pretty silly logic to me that since heterosexuals commit the sins of adultery, cohabitation, ignore Biblical commandments and commit serial divorces that is a good reason to redefine and dismantle marriage and the family more. – the two are not connected.
Does anyone remember the Brady Bunch TV show? It was about a reconstituted (blended) family. What a mischaracterization that show was. If they only did some research on the issues that affect this type of a family instead of this fake image. What a disservice it was to such families. Oops, sorry to be off topic :)
Homosexual acts are an abomination and homosexuals actively work against God’s plan for the family.
Yes Thomas, I’m well aware that a lot of conservative Christians have no problem with positive portrayals of some sinful lifestyles (like remarried people after a non-Biblical divorce), but scream and cry if you say anything about LGBT people that’s positive. LGBT people are supposed to be ashamed and dislike themselves forever unless they are “cured”, there’s no such requirement for remarried individuals.
“Homosexual acts are an abomination and homosexuals actively work against God’s plan for the family.”
But the people are people and no different from anyone else.
Divorce and remarriage is basically spitting in the face of God’s plan for marriage if you want to go that route. Trade your spouse in for a model you like better and tear your children’s lives apart because you’re “unhappy”. (I obviously don’t think this way about remarried people, I’m just trying to make a point).
“Homosexual acts are an abomination” – you have proof of this?
“and homosexuals actively work against God’s plan for the family” – homosexuals have no impact on you following what you believe is ‘god’s plan for the family’. And there is no reason your belief in what you consider ‘god’s plan for the family’ should impact on anybody else.
If you believe god tells you to live a certain way you are welcome to do so. Your way just doesn’t apply to others.
This conversation is just turning into word for word like the other ones. I’m out, I can’t let myself go down that rabbit hole again, it’s terrible for my mental health.
Deluded lib. Your ‘point’ is as nonsensical as trying to justify homosexuality by pointing out that heterosexual relationships can lead to abortion.
Declaring someone’s natural state an abomination is what is nonsensical. Why don’t you pick on red-headed folk or left-handers?
Homosexual acts are not a ‘natural’ state. Men and women were created with complimentary body parts by nature.
Quite obviously homosexuality and homosexual acts are both a natural state. It would appear the body parts fit together in quite satisfactory ways. Homosexuals don’t do anything that heterosexuals can’t.
:( Ugh! These conversations always make me so sad.
Yes, the whole point is Jesus Christ can make you a new creature. But that ought to include everything. EVERY SIN in EvERY PERSON. And before they come to Christ (and even after) EVERY PERSON is to be loved and treated with grace. The crazy thing about the gospel is that it transforms over time. It is a growth process. We need to trust that christ will transform these people – not us. we don’t transform people. Just like the young couple who comes to Christ and are still living together. Okay. that’s okay. it’s a sin, but they’ll get there. They are new, baby Christians.
what Jack and I are saying is that gay people are marginilized by many christians. Even the supposed “grace” message many give still is basically “You’re gross cos you’re gay so you need Jesus.” When really it should just be “Hey you’re human so you’re a sinner but Jesus offers your grace.” Boom. end of story.
And I guess a lot of people on here have no clue what if feels like to live under the burden of hating yourself. That is such a heavy, hard, damaging burden to bear. I suppose because i have been through a lot emotionally and I’d want people to deal gently with me, I (try to) deal gently with others. After all, that’s how Jesus treats me: a gentle, loving shepherd. So I don’t see why I have any right to march around telling people they are especially gross because of a particular sin that I don’t like.
“Deluded lib. Your ‘point’ is as nonsensical as trying to justify homosexuality by pointing out that heterosexual relationships can lead to abortion.”
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Denise in a while? I wonder how she’s doing.
“Pretty silly logic to me that since heterosexuals commit the sins of adultery, cohabitation, ignore Biblical commandments and commit serial divorces that is a good reason to redefine and dismantle marriage and the family more.”
From a Scriptural perspective, the sins of adultery, cohabitation, and ignoring Biblical commandments on divorce are already redefining and dismantling marriage and the family as much as homosexuality.
Talk about mis-reading the ex-lesbian said “she was living the lifestyle for 18 years and a gay activist and was doing drugs and alcohol and had no peace”. She was out of the closet and flaunting it not “in the closet” suppressing it. Good grief Jack disagree but don’t change the woman’s story she did not attribute her drug and alcohol use to being mistreated she lived in the gay community where she was being affirmed for being a lesbian but to her sinful condition. Call her a liar if you want to but don’t change what she said. I heard her say in her testimony the LGBT activist says “she never was a lesbian in the first place” but she lived it for 18 years. When Christ transforms your life from homosexuality you are labeled a “liar” when someone turns from straight to homosexual it is celebrated now they are not lying anymore. I am out of here too. Got lots of work to do with teens and parents.
Nothing that I said was hateful because I don’t hate anyone but that is the game now any dissent to homosexuality, you are a hater. Libertybelle I agree that the grace of God can make anyone a new creature and it is a process for most of us. I am definitely a work in progress and a sinner saved by His amazing grace.
I agreed that ALL kids need to be protected from bullying no matter what, then you totally discount what I said. Why would you discount what I said about reverse bullying happening as if it only happens if you see studies when this crap just started happening against straight or Christian kids after BHO evolved 1 or 2 years ago and it became PC to label anyone who does not celebrate homosexuality as a hater. You say you are a defender of LGBT teens, why not ALL teens no matter what.
I will continue to pray for you.
Eric you make a good point but my point is which I may not have stated very well is that you don’t justify sinful behavior with more sinful behavior. Disagree if you wish, it was still a free country the last time I checked.
Yes Eric, seems its a 50/50 thing. We need to own up to those shortcomings, fix house and maybe then…….
Prolifer L, I don’t think I or Jack were attempting to justify homosexuality by pointing to divorce. I’ll speak for myself, though — I don’t think I made my point clear either — I think many Christians are defending traditional marriage and family values against homosexuality while ignoring divorce / adultery / cohabitation, which are detrimental to the family. Appears we may be on the same page that both are against Scripture and are damaging to what has been defined as the traditional family. Thanks for the dialogue :-)
Thomas R, well said.
From a life perspective, I would be interested to see if anyone knows of studies whether children raised in homes of homosexual parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, etc are at different statistical risks for unwanted pregnancy rates or abortion rates. Anecdotally many women I have known who have had abortions came from broken homes.
It sounds like some of you that recognize the importance of family and how our current culture is harming families might enjoy this documentary, which will be in theaters on May 6 only:
http://www.irreplaceablethemovie.com/
I heard someone involved in the film (producer maybe?) on the radio and it sounds fascinating. I look forward to seeing it.
No, Prolifer L, she wasn’t talking about her personal issues. She was claiming that there are higher rates of depression, alcoholism, etc in the gay community. And she’s right, though the imbalance is getting better now. Thing is she attributes it to being gay, when the research indicates that it corresponds with poor treatment by society at large and being “closeted”. Like I said, it’s similar to the reasons there are higher rates of these things in the black community (along with poverty, another factor). She can claim what she wants about herself, but if she’s claiming something about the community people can correct her. And I didn’t call her a liar. I hope she’s perfectly happy with the choices she’s made. If she could stop making up things about everyone who makes different choices that would be great.
And maybe some people can switch their orientation, most can’t. Exodus admitted this before they closed down, most of the people they “cured” were just hiding their continuing same sex attractions, including the leaders of the organization! The reason I harp on this so much is because I don’t think any of you realize what self-hatred you inspire when you insist that Jesus will “fix” the homo/bisexual orientations. Sure people can manage their behaviors and choose celibacy or opposite sex relationships, but the vast majority will remain gay or bi. Which is okay. It’s not a sin to be homo/bisexual, there’s nothing unnatural or perverse or wrong about someone with same sex urges. And telling people there is and that they aren’t “transformed by Christ” unless they are straight is incredibly damaging and really does make you hate yourself.
I do think all kids should be protected from bullying. If I saw someone bullying a Christian kid I would make them stop. I’ve literally never seen that, ever, but I’ve seen a lot of Christians bullying gays. So…. triage. I’ll put my attentions to the majority of the problem (overweight kids and gay kids, mostly).
And it’s not “PC” to treat gays like humans, but it is Christian. I don’t know why you guys can’t see that focusing a ridiculous disproportionate amount of attack and attention on LGBT people when they make up a tiny percentage of the population and affect “the family” much, much less than straights getting married and divorced and having out of wedlock kids, is why people think you’re picking on LGBT people. Because you are. Clean up your own house and churches, then maybe people will take Christian’s opinions on marriage seriously. As it stands now, it just looks like bullying to me.
Okay I really am done, I tried so hard!
Don’t go far Jack. There is this new thread on that Brit “model” and you can help me have some fun with that nutcasy female’s issues :)
“Homosexuals don’t do anything that heterosexuals can’t.”
Reality,
Homosexuals could rub their male parts on each other and heterosexuals can’t do that.
Wow. Is that it truthseeker. You could rub your male part on another person if you so wished.
Not much of a reason for gay-hate is it.
We all understand the liberal’s tendency to change the definitions of things, It’s not difficult to understand that there are things homosexuals do that heterosexuals cannot do if you are willing to start with clear definitions.
There still isn’t anything that homosexuals do that heterosexuals cannot do. They may not wish to, but they can.
I know that something has brought you to believe that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are no-no’s.
Guess what? You don’t have to undertake either.
They aren’t compulsory.
But there is not a single reason in the entire universe why you should be able to in any way prevent others from doing so.
“Homosexuals don’t do anything that heterosexuals can’t.”
The writer of this statement obviously approves of anal sex. Women have been humiliated throughout ages by this act and yet some amongst us have no issue with this form of sadistic intercourse.
I’m not accusing you specifically of hating.
And I’m not approving homosexual marriage or whatever. I know that it is a sin – I pretty clearly stated that.
But the language that we use surrounding this “issue” (though I kind of dont like this word either as it denigrates people into issues) is very condescending and oppressive. I can see how it would make gay people hate themselves. And like I said earlier, that’s a really heavy burden to live under and I’d not want to wish it on anyone.
I’m not saying we accept sin, I’m saying we welcome people. I’m not telling you to celebrate being gay, I’m telling you to love people.
“The writer of this statement obviously approves of anal sex” – well if we follow your logic here you obviously approve of abortion.
How do you know all women are been humiliated by it? How do you know it is necessarily ‘sadistic’?
I was about to unsubscribe from this thread, but thought I’d throw two cents in here.
It doesn’t matter what anything thinks of homosexuality. What matters is that the government has decided that first and foremost, the institution of marriage is a legal arrangement that defines rights. Given that, any two people should be able to be legally married – even siblings.
This is the issue with the church taking what they see as holy and making it public – it takes on different meanings then they would like it to. Put prayer in public schools and you’ll see the same thing.
The collective church would be 1,000 times better off defining marriage like baptism, and letting the government do what they need to for defining rights (hospital visitations, taxes, etc…).
What a joke. Just be done with it and abolish marriage as a legal entity.
I don’t have time to get into it now. Lots to do.
Did you just endorse incestuous “marriages” Ex-gop? Wow!!
Maybe I can get back here next week sometime. Busy loving and ministering to teens and their parents about God’s amazing grace (hmmm guess I’m considered too narrow-minded to love ALL kids). It’s ok. I think Mother Teresa said something about “love people anyway”. God bless.
“How do you know all women are been humiliated by it? How do you know it is necessarily ‘sadistic’?”
One does not have to know (to necessarily have experienced it) “reality.” It is obvious but too graphic to go into on these pages. I will let you figure it out.
There are some issues worth taking up. I will speak against this perversion as long as I can. Its better than the alternative….
I bet Ex is also for posthumous marriage…
I’m not quite sure how two people, seemingly educated, could take the statement “abolish marriage as a legal entity”, and one person says I’m for posthumous marriage, and one says I’m for incestuous marriage.
What about the word abolish is difficult to understand?
The government has no right to take what is holy and try to fit it into the secular world in which we live. Is anybody arguing that baptisms should be regulated by the state? Or that little Johnny should go to the courthouse to register his first communion?
Given the mess we’ve made by trying to make marriage something that defines rights, we should have all sorts of open doors as to who can be in that defined right relationship.
Marriage as a term though shouldn’t be given to the government.
This should be exhibit A for the nut jobs that yell about getting prayer in public school – if you take something that you think is holy, and give it to the world that doesn’t care about it being holy, don’t be surprised when you end up with results you don’t like.
“One does not have to know (to necessarily have experienced it) “reality.” – if you don’t know “thomas r.”(even without experiencing it) how can you know at all? Can you describe the taste of a food you’ve never seen let alone tasted?
“It is obvious but too graphic to go into on these pages. I will let you figure it out.” – it may be graphic but it isn’t obvious. Sounds like it’s no more than your personal distaste of the idea. How do you figure it otherwise? What makes it humiliating or sadistic?
“There are some issues worth taking up. I will speak against this perversion as long as I can. Its better than the alternative….” – that is nothing but your personal opinion, obviously there are those who think otherwise. What’s the alternative? You don’t have to participate so why bother about it?
The origins of marriage aren’t holy Ex-GOP. It isn’t something which belongs to ‘the church’. Baptisms and communion are. There’s a vast gulf between one person being ‘recognised’ or passing a religious ‘stage’ and two people entering into whatever they deem marriage to be). The holy element of marriage is an added rite.
It is something which needs to be government regulated, otherwise there may be odd churches who decide that things such as polygamy and incestuous marriages are quite ok. How would you feel if everyone had to adhere to that type of marriage.
We don’t allow motoring clubs to issue driver’s permits. Some may deem that only people who drive certain vehicles are eligible, sound familiar? :-)
Marriage is pretty much universal. Religious rites are not.
Perhaps churches can have ‘holy matrimony’.
What’s the alternative? You don’t have to participate so why bother about it?”
So you prefer not to bother about anything since there is that choice not to participate “reality.” I see. So just shot up and not speak up against anything because its not my business. Well, where would we as a society be if that were the case?
I have an idea: why don’t you not bother and stop promote women’s abortion “rights.” Obviously you don’t participate and yet you run your mouth on this blog every day in support of abortion.
Let’s make a deal “reality.” The day you stop supporting abortion “rights” will be the day I stop speaking against anal sex “rights.” You game?
“So you prefer not to bother about anything since there is that choice not to participate “reality.” – that’s not the reason why. The reason you don’t need to bother about it is that it isn’t harmful in and of itself and doesn’t impact on you. Got any valid reason for your claim of humiliating and sadistic (you know, like heterosexual sex can be) in any way different to how any other act or deed can be the same? Didn’t think so. So what reason is there for you to speak out against it? Any?
Homosexuality between consenting adults causes no more harm than many other widely accepted behaviors. There is no rational or justifiable reason to speak out against it or try to impede those who may wish to participate. It’s just you not wanting others to do things that you don’t like, nothing more.
I have to promote women’s reproductive rights because, as with homosexuality, there are those who wish to needlessly impose their own personal opposition to it on others.
You are anti-women’s reproductive rights and anti-gay rights. I support both causes. Your logic that I should not speak in support of abortion because you rail against homosexuality is faulty.
I am atheist yet I do not bother wasting my time and energy agitating against people having the right to read the bible, pray and go to church, even though negative things sometimes derive from them. So why do you agitate against homosexual acts? There simply is no reason to do so, it’s not harming you in any way. It simply isn’t a ‘bad’ act.
I did not rail against homosexuality and you have not done your homework reading the comments above, which specifically related to women being subjected to anal sex in heterosexual relationships. Seems you are as dishonest as always in spinning comments.
DO NOT lecture me about what I am to speak against and for as that is for me to decide. DO NOT minimize me just because you are for killing the woman’s own offspring in utero and I am not as that is the moral line that devides you from me. And I prefer to be me rathert than take on your proclivities…
I bet you sleep well at night for your beliefs that degrade women’s humanity (in the first instance) and their dignity (in the second instance).
“which specifically related to women being subjected to anal sex in heterosexual relationships” – how do you know they are ‘subjected’? How do you know it’s the woman who is ‘subjected’? Come on, you still haven’t explained why you make these uninformed negative generalisations. You still haven’t explained why you claim it’s humiliating and sadistic. Seems you are as dishonest as always in making lurid comments and refusing to justify them.
“DO NOT lecture me about what I am to speak against” – you started it.
“and for as that is for me to decide” – ?
“DO NOT minimize me” – you don’t need me to do that.
just because you are for stifling womens reproductive freedoms and rights and I am not as that is the moral line that divides you from me.
“And I prefer to be me rather than take on your proclivities…” – that would be your CHOICE.
“I bet you sleep well at night” – I do, how about you?
“for your beliefs that degrade women’s humanity (in the first instance) and their dignity (in the second instance)” – that’d be your cup of tea old chap. I fight for their freedom.
Reality
I don’t want to get in the way of the fun you and Thomas are having, but I did want to wrap-up my earlier thoughts you commented on.
If a space alien came down and tried to figure out what US marriage was only looking at the laws, they would declare that it is about ownership rights, visitation rights, and tax treatment.
The collective church, and many others in society think it means something much different.
I’m saying that at a legal standpoint, just recognize some sort of legal partnership for the things that need recognizing. Couples can then go through any sort of other ‘blessing’ that they’d like.
The issue, in my mind, is that people think marriage means one thing when it really means another. So they look for fulfillment in laws, and they aren’t going to find it.
Back to Thomas – you do have fun talking about anal sex.
‘The collective church’ is a broad church Ex-GOP :-)
There would be quite some variables and diversity of what ‘marriage’ is if left to that collective to decide.
I get the gist of what you are saying. I think that ‘marriage’ should be the legal status and, as I said before, ‘holy matrimony’ could be the religious rites aspect.
Thomas does seem a little obsessed about what other people may be doing. Opposing stuff that he doesn’t even know others are doing. I’m afraid he also appears to have a rather simplistic view of the realities of what people of all persuasions get up to on the sexual front.
Reality –
The three things I don’t get about the argument the traditional folks are making:
1) What do you do with the people who don’t neatly fit into male or female. Human sexuality is a bit more complex than people would like to admit.
2) Why barely a peep over the years of drive through marriages and divorce rates? Why is marriage all of the sudden under attack and threatened?
3) How does gay marriage hurt anybody else’s marriage? Who is harmed here?
The problem with the ‘traditionalists’ making an argument for ‘traditional’ marriage is that marriage has always been a shifting landscape.
1) pretend they don’t exist or are some sort of anomoly or demand they pretend they are ‘normal’
2) the ‘traditionalists’ feel they are losing ownership of something which pandered exclusively to them.
3) that’s a question I’ve yet to see answered.
Surely the more members of society can enter into marriage the richer marriage becomes within society. There are more and more folk such as myself who will never again undertake the institution so inclusiveness will help to keep the rate of marriage in society up. Surely that would please the ‘traditionalist’? Otherwise it might just f f f fade away :-)
Come on Reality, a shifting landscape? Now you’re talking crazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
From the judge! In the 50’s! And not even in the 1850’s…
Careful Ex, you’ll have some observers swooning in their pining for ‘the way it’s meant to be’. :-)
Don’t get me started…I “love” when people talk about the ‘good ole days when we were a Christian nation’.
Yes? When exactly was that? When we had slaves? Or when we repressed women and didn’t even allow them to vote? I mean, when exactly?
Okay – I’m done.
Well I think we should have stayed with windowless cars with cable-operated brakes. Ah, those were the days. None of this modern, liberal flim-flammery motoring! ;-)
Cheers Ex-GOP.
April 28, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Ex-GOP: “Back to Thomas – you do have fun talking about anal sex.”
No Ex – I am simply speaking out against the perversion of anal sex (which is obvious in all of my comments above), an issue that I take seriously as one negatively affecting heterosexual relationships.
You speak forcefully on political topics and chastise some commenters for their views and yet comment on some of my focus. Why is that Ex? Running out of things you can make fun of????
April 28, 2014 at 9:49 am
Thomas R. to “reality:” just because you are for killing the woman’s own offspring in utero and I am not as that is the moral line that devides you from me.”
April 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm
“reality” to Thomas R: “Just because you are for stifling womens reproductive freedoms and rights and I am not as that is the moral line that divides you from me.”
“reality:”
It is obvious to me that you have no ability to produce original responses and resolve only to parroting and cut-n-pasting. You plagiarized my original comment thinking it clever to use my own words as some type of a come-back?!?!?
Parroting is the lowest form of an intellectual response….
Well I think we should have stayed with windowless cars with cable-operated brakes. Ah, those were the days. None of this modern, liberal flim-flammery motoring!
Oh. My. I literally laughed so hard at this, Reality. Wow. Thank you for the laugh on a rainy Tuesday morning. Bahaha.
I’ve mentioned before that I think we ought to go back to natural transportation – ie, walking, horses (that’s a stretch though), and, only in times of great necessity, hand crafted rafts. ;)
“Reality:”
April 28, 2014 at 7:49 pm
“Thomas does seem a little obsessed about what other people may be doing. Opposing stuff that he doesn’t even know others are doing. I’m afraid he also appears to have a rather simplistic view of the realities of what people of all persuasions get up to on the sexual front.”
How do you figure? Is it because I speak against what I consider be a perversion in heterosexual relationships that diminishes your liberal view of “anything goes?” Carrying on a conversation about me with another, attempting to draw him in so it could be two against one. Nice strategy LOL. Just watch out for it may backfire because I am just as capable to play that game…
I have been professionally involved with sex crimes/ offenses/perversions for years. My view of “what people get up to on the sexual front” is well-informed. I understand the realities because of this and it should be a clue for you that it is the reason I speak against this perversion?
Engaging in a sexual act does not normalize it, or is this too simplistic for your mind to wrap itself around. Just because the porn industry feeds this to the public, does not normalize it either, but that is too simplistic for you too apparently.
Nowhere did I ever state that I forbid people to engage in anal intercourse. I only speak against this sadistic act to educate the public so easily swayed by the sick liberalism running amok in this country. Perversions destroy marriages and relationships in general and some acts are a stepping stone to more severe perversions.
What do you do beside exclaim “choice” every five seconds? Choices always have consequences but it is obvious from your rhetoric that part is not important for you in terms of examining the path our humanity is on.
I am not a proponent of narrow focus.
Thomas –
I comment on your work selectively because I find your interests and depth of knowledge to be very selective. On things like health care, you typically take a bumper sticker slogan approach, but rarely move beyond the headlines and into actual content.
I’m just saying, I find it odd how you and our buddy truth like to jump so deeply into the mechanics of sex – borderline disturbing.
I wouldn’t say I’m running out of things to make fun of – I just feel like I’m in a battle of wits, and I’m having a hard time finding armed people.
That was a pretty good pat on the back you just did to yourself Ex. It won’t last long I assure you….
What do you mean “it won’t last long”. Is that a death threat? Or are you learning about health care and other items in this world, other than anal sex? What does your statement “It won’t last long” mean?
“I am simply speaking out against the perversion of anal sex” – that’s an opinion, not fact.
“an issue that I take seriously as one negatively affecting heterosexual relationships” – you still haven’t explained how. Are you going to?
“It is obvious to me that you have no ability to produce original responses and resolve only to parroting and cut-n-pasting. You plagiarized my original comment thinking it clever to use my own words as some type of a come-back?!?!?
Parroting is the lowest form of an intellectual response…” – you’re not very ‘deep’ are you “thomas r.”
“How do you figure? Is it because I speak against what I consider be a perversion in heterosexual relationships that diminishes your liberal view of “anything goes?” – you make certain claims regarding anal sex whilst repeatedly failing to provide any reasons why. It would also seem that you have a limited knowledge of the breadth of sexual proclivities, hetero or homo.
“I am just as capable to play that game…” – go for it ;-)
“I have been professionally involved with sex crimes/ offenses/perversions for years” – ever been caught? :-) since ‘crimes’ and ‘offenses’ are clearly defined by law perhaps you could cite the same for ‘perversions’? Or are you merely mixing facts with opinion?
“Engaging in a sexual act does not normalize it, or is this too simplistic for your mind to wrap itself around” – no? What does then? Your opinion? What clearly enunciates a sexual act as a perversion then?
“I only speak against this sadistic act” – there you go again! Where’s your valid evidence?
“to educate the public so easily swayed by the sick liberalism running amok in this country” – I already know your opinion on this.
“Perversions destroy marriages and relationships in general and some acts are a stepping stone to more severe perversions” – do they? Are they? How? Which ones are perversions? Why? If you are going to make these grandiose claims where’s your supporting evidence?
“What do you do beside exclaim “choice” every five seconds?” – freedom, equality and rights are up there.
“Choices always have consequences but it is obvious from your rhetoric that part is not important for you in terms of examining the path our humanity is on” – you are wrong. It’s just that you and I differ on what the consequences are and whether they are negative or not. The path our humanity is on is very important to me, that is why I rail against the things that I do. Such as people unjustifiably attempting to prevent others from doing certain things.
“I am not a proponent of narrow focus” – now that’s funny!
I have heard LIbertBelle, that if we used horses as our main means of transport our streets would be 20 feet deep in um, ‘organic fertilizer’. :-)
Kudos Ex-GOP :-)
That statement “it won’t last long” simply meant that when ACA falls apart (and it will) I will have so much fun making fun of you on this blog Ex. I stated this before. I will rub it in every single day!!!
So for now enjoy your pseudo-political analysis to your heart’s content. That’s the only thing you have….
You surely carry yourself as the know-it-all Ex. I have experienced more in my 45 years in the world than you have in your neck of the woods. My worldview is very well informed by actual experiences rather than empty rhetoric. Let me know if you want details….
Thomas –
I’ve offered you the option before of laying out how you think the ACA will fall apart. I offer it to you again. What’s interesting is, if you followed health care policy, and it is obvious that you don’t – that even the Republicans are considering this thing settled law. Have you not seen the rhetoric lately? Do some research.
The thing is, American corporations over the last few years have adjusted themselves and restructured for the law. There are roughly 12-14 million Americans now with insurance under the law. Health care plans have adjusted.
So you are telling me that the GOP is going to successful implement a plan to turn 12-14 million Americans into uninsured Americans, and completely flip the insurance market on it’s head? Believe me – I have ties into this industry – the internal planning has nothing to do with the ACA falling apart.
So you have the option again – how is it going to “fall apart”? Lay it out.
And on your second post – I’m far from a know-it-all – I simply rely on facts and building logical cases, so I do research and come to conclusions. I think you like to take Fox headlines and try to build cases around those with little knowledge of the subject, and then get frustrated when somebody like Reality or I present actual data.
You certainly have a right to your worldview – but when you’re not able to adjust to new data – your 45 plus years simply makes you a dinosaur.