Tuesday, February 21, 2012

You GO Maryland...In God We Trust!

Now, Illinois, are YOU afraid to fight? I'm not!

In The White House:

President Obama, while implementing his version of the doctrine of plurality for America, consistently refers to "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of many one" as if it were the national motto of the United States. In reality, the Official National Motto of the United States is "In God We Trust", which was adopted in 1956. Of note, the effort by the homosexual and anti-religious and atheistic right has failed at every attempt to have our official national motto removed, repealed or replaced.

Why would anyone want it removed or changed, because it's only a motto?

Because the very notion of "God" not only acknowledges the shared American heritage and history of the reason that America was founded, but it also suggests that transcendent and objective moral values exist. If transcendent moral values exist, then there is first, a such thing as inalienable rights, (which was acknowledged by American's Founding Fathers) and those truths cannot be legislated or delivered by the whim of the state. Those values and rights transcend the state. In other words the state or government of men cannot and does not validate or dispense such personal freedoms, rights and values as they can only be given by the lawgiver of transcendent values. To state it differently, truth exists without the validation or sanction of the state or the government. 

As it pertains to marriage, the truth of the institution is self evident and perversions of it are manifest. No single individual on this earth arrived by process of a homosexual union. To the contrary every one alive today arrived by process of a genetic pairing of a male and a female. This is a transcendent truth. The foundation of American society rests upon this truth and should not, and does not, deserve to be threatened by what can only be considered a perversion of truth and at best a social diversity demanding the exaltation to transcendent truth which it does not deserve. It demands establishment within the construct of the law. Although law may establish social rights, it in no wise establishes truth or right moral values. 

In Illinois:

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn
Civil Unions are already the law in the State of Illinois adopted under Governor Pat Quinn. Recently, openly gay state Reps. Greg Harris, Deb Mell and Kelly Cassidy, introduced the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act that would provide that all state laws "applicable to marriage apply equally to marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples and their children" and granting them "the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law," according to the Huffington Post Chicago by way of The Windy City Times.

As you can see, these reps are not only openly gay themselves, but they are also blind to the fact that homosexual marriage isn't about an equal access issue. It's a moral issue. It's a truth issue. This is about transcendent values, rights and personal freedoms that the state or government cannot confer or expand without effecting and attempting to remove and eliminate the same standard of values that they claim to hold so dearly. If marital rights anywhere can be expanded or denied by and by an act of legislation then marriage is not a transcendent value or right. It is simply something delivered by moral relativists acting within their time based on their subjective opinion of the way things should be. 

However, the evidence and testimony of history, empirical evidence of genetics and arguments of philosophical morality all vie in favor the existence of transcendent objective moral values and truths and  marriage between a man and a woman as an institution itself. As stated, values and truths are not and cannot be delivered by the state, but can only be delivered by God. Since that is the case, these values cannot be conferred by men. The boundaries can only be delivered by acknowledgement of what we already know to be the truth. That:

Marriage is and only should be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. 

This is a transcendent value which our generation cannot afford to compromise no matter what power hungry, immoral and greedy politicians and a legislating judiciary wish to assert. All men have a right to exist and enjoy personal freedoms. However, we can easily and readily acknowledge that all institutions are NOT open or accessible to all men simply by virtue of their existence. To assume that all men have access to all institutions simply because they exist is like setting up an endless amount of dominoes that when pushed, will only continue to cause more and more to fall. In this case, if we accept that homosexual marriage is a transcendent moral right, accessible to all men simply because they exist, then the flood gate is opened to any arrangement deemed to be essential to the existence of any man. Arrangements such as that of polygamy (which has a longer history than homosexuality), polyamory, pedophilia and a host of other deviant sexually diverse relationships would have to be acceptable institutions because men exist and demand acknowledgement of such actions. It would only be a matter of time and political meandering before these acts and others are legislated by moral relativists giving in to whims, feelings and desires as well.   

Proverbs 16:25 ~ "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."



  1. Pastor Harvey, I can't tell you how uplifting it was to see and hear those in the video! Channeling through the different tv news outlets (so I can recognize spin) day after day, I had come to the conclusion that this country had completely lost its moral compass. But wait... There it is! Voices passionately speaking what we know is truth, and giving God His due glory.

    It is our faith that has held us together as a nation, and we have enjoyed the blessings of God. It takes courage to speak out against the bully minority, and even more courage to speak out loudly, yet we must!

    1. Amen Laura!

      I was glad to see the people exercising their right sin a vocal manner. See the homosexual right wants to shame people into cowering down to their arguments. They try to create a stigma attached to the resistance of their demand for marital acceptance. This is why the word "homophobia" was made up. At the same time, they claim that certain words are "hate filled" they create and make up words to throw at people who disagree with them. This is simple manipulation of the mind and public opinion.

      So what they try to then do is play on public sympathy, claiming that the process of homosexual unions are so difficult under the law, that marriage is necessary to correct the disparity. This is yet another lie. There are already bona-fide instruments in law which are recognized in every state which facilitate the the administrative process of any relationship...There are things called Wills, Living Wills, Power Of Attorney (POA), Durable Health Care POA, Trusts, and a whole host of instruments that transfer property and deliver medical care between couples and families for years that could be used at any time and any place. What they want is exaltation to normalcy. I refuse to give that up because at the end of the day, it's not "normal" for two men or two women to be laid up together.

      Are they worse than anyone else? Not because of that. Paul claimed, before he met Christ that he was chief among sinners and there was certainly no hint that he was gay. Sin is not and should not be accepted as "normal". especially when we are talking about sin that has a direct effect on all issues of moral value. This effects all people, all the way to kindergartners who must be told that homosexuality, bisexuality, being a transsexual and all these type of arrangements are beneficial and to be desired.

      Remember what the our President said that he wanted to be remembered for:

      "My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women, are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."~President Barack Obama 10/10/2009 Address to The Human Rights Campaign

    2. I'm always amused how conservatives disregard reality in favor of what bible-organizers "SAY" God says. Marriage, for the record, is a civil matter. It's implications are CIVIL and FAR-REACHING. Affecting financial matters, such as inheritance rights,and also life and death matters like hospital visitation, hospital care decisions amongst other concerns. I don't have a problem with you using your superstitious belief systems to guide your life. However, when you purpose to use your excruciatingly painful (and limited) philosophy to guide MY LIFE and thus MY existence, I draw the proverbial line in the sand and tell you to go to the hell you are trying to send everybody else. Your way IS NOT the only way. Your [limited] understanding of a God that created all that is... IS NOT the only way. Like it or not, America is a pluralistic society... many, many different ways of being. If the conservatives religious fascists have their way, America will be theocracy, like Iran where Homosexuals can be KILLED for merely being gay.. and you wonder why Christians are hated.

    3. Anthony,

      You make several red herring arguments that aren't worth their salt. First name a christian imperative or directive that has ever promoted a destruction on homosexuals? Name a war in the modern era or otherwise that has been waged against homosexual individuals on the basis of Christian values? Name a time when homosexuals had to go underground to survive and live. While I can name a secular attack against not only homosexuals, but also other "non favored races" in which moral relativistic arguments were used to promote dominance, racism and totalitarian forms of government I can't seem to find one, especially regarding this issue, that was ever sparked or inspired by Christians and Christianity.

      With that I can also name systems in which oppression of freedoms exist, and many of those systems are based on human moral relativism. Those systems seek to destroy religion and faith as if it is nonessential, because it it rooted in materialism and naturalism.

      So far as your understanding of Pluralism, if it is like President Obama's, is merely window dressing. Talking and seeking to understand, but imposing a set of moral values contrary to those held by the diverse groups and yielding to philosophies geared toward the "greater good" (once again based on moral subjectivism) is proving to not be worth a thing and only diminishes the values of all groups and issues that can be readily compromised.

      You don't have to adopt my philosophy of life. No Christian is making that case...on the other hand YOU and others like you are DEMANDING that Christians acknowledge and ACCEPT your way of life against our freedom of both religion and personal choice. This is unconscionable!

      UNESCO states the following definition of tolerance: "Tolerance is respect, acceptance, and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and our ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference."

      You see the homosexual advocate, such as yourself, cannot stop with respect(which is not in question) nor is it satisfied with the "appreciation of cultural differences or expressions of humanity"...It wants the ACCEPTANCE, and that means that everyone MUST embrace what you like and what you CHOOSE to do with and in your life. You want normalization. Well it's NOT normal.

      100% of EVERYONE living today got here by NORMAL means, not the abnormal process of homosexuality.

      Now which way breeds tolerance? Your insistence that I and everyone else accept your actions and lifestyle choice, or my living and teaching what I KNOW is beneficial to society? That there is a right way and there is a wrong way?

      I'm not in your face doing that, but when I'm presented with alternatives I tell you readily what i believe and why. Guess what? YOU do the same...why is it intolerant when I do it and so "right" and "caring" when you do?

      Listen, you can tell me to go to hell all you want...I KNOW what it takes to go to heaven and I choose to go IN SPITE of your intolerance and hate of truth!!! If there is a TRUTH, which I know that there is then all paths cannot and are not equal, neither do all paths lead to the same destination. My destination IS NOT confusion, it is a straight path that leads to life.

    4. Burnett,

      Not once have I advocated for disallowing you (or your ilk) to practice your austere, fundamentalist viewpoints. In fact, I'm clear you have a right to express your innermost conviction. My issue, sir, is the audacity with which your religious (unscientific) convictions guide your [earth and/or reality-based] life, and thus, by political extension, the lives of perceived 'enemies' of your religion.

      Furthermore, I take exception with any demographic having the 'power' to alienate, or subordinate another demographic from the basis of its perceived superiority. You substantiate your anti-homosexual propaganda based on unscientific, mythological, and acculturated views born inside of coalesced groups of indoctrinated believers - which of course is your right. However, religion has NO place in the patently 'secular' reality-based rule of law. Religion is a deeply personal journey. When people use God as a platform to force their philosophical position on others (by way of the ballot box), religion because something horribly different; a political weapon of mass destruction - and a very efficient one!

      If you contest such an assertion, which religion would you have be the foundation of our multi-religion, pluralistic, undeniably philosophically diverse society?

      As for gay people trying to FORCE our existence on you, that's rubbish. We are however, exercising our right to exist; to exist free of religious tyrannical forces who's ancient texts deride us as sexually deviant, hell-destined abominations, unworthy of a God, whom you might claim is pure undefiled love. This is by and large the way Christians (on the austere right)view us. So to be clear, we are operating with the reality-based framework of the U.S. Constitution with respect to fundamental tenants of American democratic ideology: the right of personal autonomy, individuality, and self expression. We don't care to much for silencing your religion, as many self-loving gay people want nothing to do what such austere, mythological, judgmental, hate-mongering institutions that contradict the original legacy of Jesus which quite radically, was about love and brotherhood.

      The writing is on the wall Superintendent. Fight as it may, the fundamentalist church is on the losing side of this issue. I liken the struggle to another hideous period of persecution in your churches history: the dark ages. The church exerted its considerable power to silence (murder) "heretic" voices. This went on for more than 800 years. Thank God in the final analysis, human civilization and philosophical evolution WON out and we are a more evolved species with religion being subordinated - not removed from the American experience - rather, put in its proper place as a personal journey in understanding and relating to an infinite and ineffable God.

    5. Anthony,

      You said: "Furthermore, I take exception with any demographic having the 'power' to alienate, or subordinate another demographic from the basis of its perceived superiority."

      You may take exception to that notion, but that is the notion that gay advocacy proposes by it's insistence on "acceptance" as opposed to existence, but I'll get to that red herring argument in a minute.

      You said: "You substantiate your anti-homosexual propaganda based on unscientific, mythological, and acculturated views born inside of coalesced groups of indoctrinated believers - which of course is your right."

      No, but since you go there let's get specific and be truthful...There is NO SCIENCE that references any genetic proof of a gay gene. NONE! Most scientific associations agree by "CONSENSUS" that gay is natural or genetic and presuppose that one day a gay gene will be identified. The science that currently exists claims that being gay is more closely associated with an ACCIDENT or in-vitro deformity which is something no rationally sane person would EVER suggest, but gay advocacy, following the demands of their irrational leaders, claim that everyone should acknowledge this speculation because they are so desperately seeking some sort of genetic or in-vitro link. Further there are still others studies that attempt to blame homosexuality on the female's, or mother's chromosomal make-up. All of this garbage and junk science is flawed, based on subjective opinion making and bogus consensuses tantamount to saying, "it is because we say it is". That's not science, that's politics, deceit and imposition of a moral world-view.

      You said:However, religion has NO place in the patently 'secular' reality-based rule of law. Religion is a deeply personal journey."

      Almost nothing more ridiculous can be said! The very basis of the western rule of law IS concept coming from RELIGION and most specifically CHRISTIANITY. That's what the whole concept of restitution, facing accusers, serving time and etc is all about. Left up to materialists, there is no right and wrong and everyone is simply acting out their genetic path because physics says that all laws of science are deterministic. this means that a thief is only acting out his program he/she cannot change and never will. In addition freedom FROM religion is not the foundation of the American rule of law. There is countless and abundant material that supports my statements.

      You said:"When people use God as a platform to force their philosophical position on others (by way of the ballot box), religion because something horribly different; a political weapon of mass destruction - and a very efficient one!"

    6. Anthony,

      The problem is when people use their views to impose a different standard of morality on others such as the homosexual right is doing.

      How about this one...in new Jersey a state with a Governor who has vowed to VETO any gay marriage bill, Kindergarten teacher Laraine Gaunt from Tower High School in Red Bank, says that she not only distributes gay affirming books to her students like "The Paper Bag Princess" and "William's Doll and My Princess Boy" plays a little game with her 4 to 5 year old students called "What's In The Bag". She places clothes that usually identify males and females in the bag and children randomly draw out. When they pick an article, she asks them if they want to wear the clothes. Then she tells the students to honor the choices made by each student. At the end of the day you have some little boys dressing like girls, playing with dolls and some girls dressing like boys, playing with items usually associated with boys. In other words she teaches them to feel comfortable cross dressing and changing gender roles and makes all the others students accept it as good and equal choices. You'll find this on Pg. 16 of the Spring 2012 issue of "Teaching Tolerance" magazine.

      Now, NAME ONE class that has ever done this sort of garbage and told the student that heterosexual choices are to be rewarded? Such things don't exist in public schools. But to the contrary the acceptance of homosexuality is CONSTANTLY being SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS of those who have no regard for the lifestyle and clearly see it as a moral issue.

      Who is INTOLERANT??? You can't possibly, with a sane mind, look at the evidence and say that the religious folk are the ones.

  2. There has been only spotty passion coming from those defending traditional marriage. And the liberal news media (including so called conservative FOX) will not show something like this. But this put fire in my bones. I was crying because I have been so vexed at the passive, seemingly unconcerned response to this reckless tragedy going on in our nation.
    These men and women stepped up to the plate and knocked it out the park without the slightest hesitation. It wasnt a dog and pony smoke and mirrors, it was deep substance and Godly anger which lit a fire in the hearts of those of us who realize we must fight, never give up if we are to win.

    Biblical marriage supporters everywhere should view this video and get inspired!
    Thanks Pastor Burnett for your stirring commentary which accompanied it. Not one single person on this earth arrived without the pairing of one man and one woman! These truths are indeed self evident.

    1. Thanks Gcmwatch,

      That did charge me up as well and I was wondering the same. I think the homosexual movement thought they had created such a shame and stigma that noone in any significant manner would rally against their wishes. These folk offered multiple reasons and there are yet more reasons that this should be rejected as an establishment of law.

      Fact is that there is no evidence that homosexuality is either genetic, nor inborn. It is highly evident that heterosexuality is both or else we would have no human species. What these folk have done is dig in through political process and made this an issue of the extension of rights and laws. There is no law or politician that establishes truth. The founding fathers said "we hold these truths to be self-evident"...If that's the case, then homosexual marriage and relationships can never be a "right". There is no self evident truth by which they are established.

      Then the activists, especially in the black community, twist it all up to make it an issue of "equal access" and "minority oppression" which is once again totally off base. That's what a snake does...he twists and slithers himself into position to either strike his victims or choke them to death...

    2. Burnett,

      If the "issue" of Homosexuality is not a matter of equal access, what is it then? This is patently about an oppressed demographic (gays, in this instance) demanding the right of personal autonomy. Your religion, and its inherent legalism prevent you from seeing this. God undeniably gave humankind freewill. God could FORCE everyone to do the 'right thing'. Yet, God doesn't FORCE you to not cheat on your taxes (or your wife!) - God, instead lets you hang yourself. Christians on the austere right, are purposing (ironically) to NOT follow God's design. God let's humans do as they please - EVEN to their detriment eternal. Stop playing God and let gays live their lives. You have no authority to force your will/desires onto another human being's journey - as to how they should live it. Clearly, homosexuality bothers you, so stop considering it. If your God is into the terror business, and if homosexuality is indeed such an affront to His holy nostrils, then gays will be tortured in hell by your 'benevolent God' - who, mind you, is pure, undefiled love. #Go figure. Let people live their lives and let your God do the [torturous] judging. You just worry about your sinful nature.


    3. Anthony,

      You said:"If the "issue" of Homosexuality is not a matter of equal access, what is it then?"

      It's an issue of morality and an issue judged by it's moral values. Similar to Polygamy and any other sexual proclivity. There is a line that it crosses that says society should not endorse it because it is morally reprehensible. Not because the people involved don't sincerely have feelings for one another or because they can;t rationalize their activity.

      If homosexuality is endorsed by the state then ANY sexual proclivity should also be as well. There is no restraint and neither should there be. In fact to endorse and write homosexuality into the law would be the ultimate act of discrimination against any and all other groups who share and hold sexual "diversity" in common. This is in part why this is noplace close to an equal access issue. If it is, then the door is open like Paul said to bestiality and a host of other deviant sexual activities. Even those that I'm sure that both of us would deplore.

      You said:Christians on the austere right, are purposing (ironically) to NOT follow God's design. God let's humans do as they please - EVEN to their detriment eternal. Stop playing God and let gays live their lives. You have no authority to force your will/desires onto another human being's journey - as to how they should live it."

      This illustrated the problem. People have been gay for years and Christians should preach the truth to all. The problem that the homosexual agenda presents is not the will to do what they do...as I said they have been doing that without restraint. What they want is NORMALIZATION and the endorsement of law. That's where the line is drawn. It is the homosexual right that is trying to push acceptance of the agenda using the excuses of law, which is bogus as I have explained earlier in comments and trying desperately to solidify a scientific basis, which in the minds of those that are unlearned rings home. This is our and my issue. You CAN'T tell my children through the school system that homosexuality is normal or normative. That is a values issue as well as it should be. Do what you do, noone is stopping you, but PLEASE don't try to make it seem and appear that what you do should have room made for it in both law and social settings. That is unacceptable.

    4. Anthony,

      You said"Clearly, homosexuality bothers you, so stop considering it. If your God is into the terror business, and if homosexuality is indeed such an affront to His holy nostrils, then gays will be tortured in hell by your 'benevolent God' - who, mind you, is pure, undefiled love. #Go figure. Let people live their lives and let your God do the [torturous] judging. You just worry about your sinful nature."

      Homosexuality doesn't bother me. There are many good people, such as yourself, who are homosexuals. The people aren't the problem, at least in most cases. The problem is normalization and the desire of the homosexual right to subdue and subject everyone to homosexual immorality.

      Let's look at another issue. Drug use. How does it hurt me when a person gets high in his home before he/she goes to bed? It really doesn't does it? Now should either of us consider drug use to be right because it doesn't hurt us? Should the teacher in school be allowed to teach the virtues of illegal drug use as a diversity of behavior? Heck, SCIENCE have identified genes that facilitate drug use, cheating, smoking and all, but each of those things are condemned as bad moral and social choices.

      The same is considered of homosexuality. Harm morality does not address the issue. It is only a smokescreen. This is an issue of morality for and on many basis, the bible being ONLY ONE of them. This is what you miss. there are many, many good reason to reject homosexuality before one cracks open a bible or even becomes a Christian. Your faulty assumption is that only bible believers and Christians reject gaydom. That's not true. Many reject it as a moral issue based on many of the basis I point out.

  3. Did anyone besides me notice the absence of the many well known adulterous 'baby making' pastors that reside in the Baltimore/Maryland areas?! I'm talking about the ones that for the sake of popularity have grossly compromised the standard of God, they're all over the internet when it supports their agenda, but when it comes to taking a stance for the cause of CHRIST they're nowhere to be found!
    I'm speaking of the Inclusionists/Same Sex Affirming (FALSE)shepherds.....

    1. Yea, where is The Alpha Pimp now??? Where are these that like to talk all this smack on TV, but can't stand for nothing but their own ministries in public??? Him and a host of other, and I did notice they are MIA!!!! Sad state of affairs. I said Romey-Rome at first...that was another pimp-LOL!!!

  4. I am not sure why I cannot reply but I have to respond to anthony.

    If you are not trying to force your homosexual views on anyone then why do you have an issue with Christians advocating against it? (I am sure you know that it is not only Christians or people who believe in a god who are against it?)

    I can see it now, if a Church does not marry homosexuals they will be deemed to be homophobic (such a silly word).

    I remember taking a "homophobic" test and just because I said that I thought homosexuality was wrong I was one (a homophobe) according to said test.

    Now, it is obvious what is going on. It is not about simply having rights, it is about everyone having to sway to say that it is right.

    It what way has evolution won? how is our society better? wickedness is increasing daily, sexual perviersion is at its worst, women are being sold into slavery in the US (houston is the hub), people kill for no apparent reason, babies are having babies, homosexual's have the highest rate of HIV, homosexual's die younger and get certain diseases that heterosexuals don't get, homosexual relationship's are just as abusive and maybe even moreso (What is said is that it is about the same but most probably under reported due to shame).

    Now you may see that things are getting better because of your individual rights but it is clear that evolution has nothing positive to offer society, it is but a belief that has no moral value or merit at all.

    1. Paul,

      What Anthony espouses are nothing more than novel speculations and modern secular myths. The worlds greatest conventions, including freedom and the ability to live freely were spawned in and by the church. Look at history, every secular culture in which religion and religious freedom has been minimized or held as non-essential. They have reverted to some of the most absurd realities.

      For example, look at China. The poster child for secularism and repression of religion and religious thought. They have a "one child" policy and from current reports, they abort females at an epidemic rate. Is that a product of evolution? Why are not world human rights advocacy groups making noise about that? Because they have adopted a secular morality. However, is that right? If it were a "truth" we should be able to do the same in America right???

      Vocal and respected atheists such as Peter Sanger promote what is called utilitarianism. Because of his view that religion is only a construct of the mind and that we are purely material beings, he believes that when a person looses conscious self awareness, that killing them is an acceptable moral right. In other words, if granddaddy or grandma gets old and in some form of dementia that causes them to loose their identity, there is a moral basis for killing them. At the same time he says don't worry about abortion and the killing of children up to 6 months of age because they too are not consciously self-aware.

      Then what of pedophile rights? What are we to do when pedophiles who contend that they feel genuine love for the children they lust after, say that they want their right to marry as well? Look at Dr. Phil. He an other secular pluralists are slowly introducing the concepts to America and laying the groundwork. Then what of rights of polygamists and polyamourists(sp)? Are we to deny them simply because they cannot write the adoption of their sexual proclivities into law?

      This is evolution and what it does, has done and will do. Give rise to myths and totally absurd propositions. If there is WRONG, then there is TRUTH and RIGHT. If there is no TRUTH then noone has the right to criticize anything I or we say and or do. These advocates are quick to say that the church and Christians are wrong. If that's the case, they have by virtue of that confession stated that they believe that there is a right. Only difference is I hang my RIGHT on OBJECTIVE TRUTH. they hang theirs on subjective opinion and group think. Seeing that a scientific principle is that TRUTH lasts while that which is not truth dissipates and we can PROVE that their subjective opinions dissipate over time, I'll take the objective truth that I know to be sure, solid and steadfast everyday over their insistence to the contrary.

    2. Burnett,

      You certainly went off in left-field that time. To be clear, I think its fair to assert that no church will be fined, nor lose its non-profit (money-grubbing) status for not marrying gays. I certainly find the suggestion that it would preposterous. Secondly, the issue of Gay rights (I don't like the expression, but for want of a better term....) is about gays being protected from the majority who deem - because of nonsensical nonentities like the "Bible" - we don't have a right to exist as self-loving sexual beings. Granted, your grossed about by us; I get it! However, your repulsion and your austere religion have no place in telling me how to live MY LIFE. This is the key. You can believe whatever you want to believe - even if there is ZERO evidence for it. However, when you begin to use nonexistent, unsubstantiated, and illogical religion to tell people that can't "be", then you've crossed the line.

      When I look at the black community, which is being DECIMATED by AIDS, I find it to be a form of unfortunate justice. The black church tells gays they can "change" - only to be responsible for the emergence of the "Downlow" culture that is the purveyor - In my opinion - of AIDS on heterosexual black women. What's interesting and obviously well evidenced in the DL culture, is that no matter what the church says, an individuals homosexuality will always emerge and express itself. The victims will always be black women, when the church holds to austere, imaginative, and highly destructive doctrines born of a desire to "control" populations.

      Gay marriage, could statistically reverse long-standing (and quite upsetting) promiscuity in gay male communities. We will agree that marriage has stabilizing characteristics. Achieving marital parity with heterosexuals isn't about taking anything from you guys. After all, Christian divorce is the highest divorce in the American experience - so you apparently aren't taking your own marriages seriously. We aren't looking for special rights, just the acknowledgement of "our existing rights" of autonomy, personal liberty and expression. So stop lying by saying we want special rights. Its revolting to keep hearing the austere right perpetuate this nonsensical lie.

    3. Anthony,

      I wasn't in "left field" by any means. But certain facts exist. If there is a wrong as you are quick to point out then there also must, by virtue of that recognition, be a right. I mean that's what you are claiming...that homosexuality and the acceptance of it by society is right...

      The problem is on what basis you make the claim. If the claim is made on opinion, your opinion is no better than mine. If it is made by majority I think the numbers still bear out the majority against homosexuality...however, moral truth and value is not established by referendum. There are many laws that are unjust or that do not affirm moral truth.

      So the issue is the standard used to derive at truth. If god exists at all, he has and has issued the standard of truth and revealed it to the world by revealed order of truth and word. He has not hidden his truth. Among mankind 100% of ALL PEOPLE that have ever lived on this earth arrived by union of male and female or a genetic pairing between male and female. This is an ESTABLISHED and empirical truth that exists in the present world.

      You seek to make that truth a matter of diversity. That is a preposterous action and sentiment. This stems from unbelief. So all that you do in response to what he has revealed is because of unbelief. That is SIN. It is YOUR choice to make, but as I've stated, don't make a choice for you and then try to impose it on me and my children as if it is a good choice....IT is not!

      The LIE is believing that all sexual proclivities are normal and should have a place in law. If you are TRULY about equal access of those sexually oppressed, you'd MUST endorse all other sexual diversities or you face the ultimate logical inconsistency of special pleading, not to mention that you'd be a hypocrite.

  5. Another thing, to place this in perspective, our friend Anthony says this:

    "Marriage, for the record, is a civil matter. It's implications are CIVIL and FAR-REACHING. Affecting financial matters, such as inheritance rights,and also life and death matters like hospital visitation, hospital care decisions amongst other concerns."

    Now this is probably one of the greatest diversions and appeals to emotion that I am aware of when it comes to the normalization of the gay agenda.

    Fact: family planning tools such as Wills, Durable Healthcare Power Of Attorney, Inter-vivos Trusts, Limited partnerships, Living Wills etc, are accepted and acceptable in almost every venue in the United States without any proof or requirement of marriage.

    A Living Will, which determines the disposition of a persons medical condition at the worst possible moment to take care of and definitively handle any final decisions in a definitive manner without being overridden. Marriage is not required.

    A Durable Power Of Attorney will allow a person, ANY PERSON, to take care of all financial matters of a person without marriage...

    A WILL which is subject to probate provides orderly disposition of assets without the requirement of marriage.

    A Living or Inter-Vivos Trust transfers assets privately and in an incontestable fashion and no marriage is required.

    A Limited Partnership can be established and assets conveyed into it without any relationship
    or marriage. It is also perpetual in most states and thoroughly rooted in case law.

    These simple techniques give a person all the benefits of orderly asset transfer, healthcare decision making, control over financial matters all without invoking marriage. These instrument in most venues have no gender requirements.

    Further most other assets such as 401(k)'s and other retirement plans have named beneficiaries which normally don't require any evidence of insurability for transfer. Simply name a person...married or not.

    These are CIVIL matters that are easily and readily addressed without gender confusion or invoking marriage.

    Marriage is not a RIGHT of people wishing to do any of these things. To make the argument for such is preposterous and deceitful. Obviously, it has some success in an emotional appeal, but not a practical one.

  6. ahhhh!! great stuff Pastor!!

    Thanks for the knowlegde in that 2nd post!

    And what of Zoophiles? surely they should be allowed to marry their dogs or whatever kind of animal they want to. After all, this has been going on forever, dogs are man's best friends after all.

    If it is all about feelings, where do we stop?

    Anthony, please share your thoughts on this article.


  7. Maryland Senate President Mike Miller said this after the legislature voted to uphold same sex marriage in Maryland:

    "I don’t think this is civil rights, but this is history,”...“Am I on the wrong side of history? As a historian, there is no doubt about it. But I understand that I’ll deal with it in my own mind. I believe marriage is between a husband and wife and that is why I voted the way I did.”

    Senator, history will always record the courage of them that stand against the tide of immorality. What's more is taht heaven has it on record as well.

    Any dead fish can swim downstream.


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.