“There is no homosexual agenda!”

Uh, except for this one, that the gay lobby, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and liberal “Christians” follow to the letter.  I encourage you to read and share the whole article.  As much as its proponents try to deny there is an agenda, the truth is there for all to see.

Some samples:

On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

As seen recently with the Miss USA Pageant, they define “homophobia” as even the mildest disagreement with their views.  Calling someone a “dumb b*tch” and later wishing you had called her the “c” word is OK in Liberal-land, but agreeing with Obama that marriage is for a man and a woman is unforgivable, you hateful bigots!

And as always, the real homophobes are those who are so scared of the homosexual lobby that they abandon their common sense, their morals and their God rather than get called a name.  Eek!

On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

This is the inevitable conclusion of “hate crimes” laws.

On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

On “same-sex marriage”:“Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

Hey, at least they were honest on that one.

On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

I doubt that will be very effective when they face him one day.  And they will face him one day.  I seriously pray that they repent and believe before then.

More of their strategy:

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

Sadly, theological liberals execute that approach all day, every day.  What tools.  All the varieties of pro-gay theology are horribly flawed.

Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.

I expect it from the media and entertainment industries, but not from “Christians.”  People like Tony Campolo try to blame authentic Christians for addressing the issue and say that we should just focus on our own sins.  He completely misses the point, but it is a clever way to avoid the topic while the homosexual agenda rolls on.

Again, this isn’t about bashing gays as individuals.  I know plenty of gays and we get along well.  We don’t need to convert them from a particular sin before sharing the Gospel any more than we’d require anyone else to be sin-free before they get to hear the Good News.  But as a political issue, we should stand up for the truth. 

Don’t be fools, people.  Recognize what the agenda is and speak up!

0 thoughts on ““There is no homosexual agenda!””

  1. Of course there’s a homosexual agenda:

    Homosexual Agenda

    1. Meeting opens. Apologies.
    2. Minutes of previous meeting.
    3. President’s report.
    4. Treasurer’s report.
    5. Corrupt the world’s youth and turn them to a life of sordid sex and death.
    6. General business.
    7. Confirm date of next meeting.
    8. Close.

    (shamlessly copied and pasted from another blog; so thanks and apologies to Eric TF Bat, whoever you are).


  2. I suppose that if someone came up with a clever fact-free reply and you can copy and paste it here, then of course my whole post is completely rebutted. And all the things detailed here, for example, must be complete fictions — http://www.massresistance.org/ .

    Not all homosexuals are activists, but there are many activists and they do target school children as young as kindergarten with their messages.

    And while this may not apply to you, I’ve found that the people who most strenuously deny the existence of an agenda are the ones doing the most to advance it.


  3. Great post Neil. Not sure Obama really agrees with us on the definition of marriage though. The man would have said and did anything to get elected. Now that he is elected let’s see what he really does, and I have a feeling if he has a chance he’ll destroy the sanctity of marriage.


  4. Timothy, call me Pedantic Pat if you will, but I don’t know that the bible ever uses a word that can be translated thus, when referring to homosexuals in general. Genesis 19’s “men of Sodom” specifically refers to the residents of the town. The word “sodomy” comes from a church Latin expression, ie it originates from later Christian tradition.

    Use emotive words if you must (you and Fred Phelps) but don’t just assume the bible will back you up.


  5. Racing Boo,

    There is no need to use “emotive words” at the gay activists usually do. I agree that the Bible never calls those who practice homosexual behavior “sodomites,” but the term “sodomy” was developed to define a particular sexual deviance, the type practiced by the men of Sodom.

    Fred Phelps is demonstratably not a Christian for all his claims contrary-wise. He is the leader of a small “church” made up mostly of family members – it is a cult. Nothing he teaches is Christian.

    The Bible does in fact back us up with our claims that homosexual behavior is wrong, as I demonstrate on my blog http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/

    And you know in your heart that such behavior is wrong!


  6. The Bible very clearly says that homosexuals should be put to death. Can I assume that as good Bible-believing Christians you all support this directive?


  7. Hi Ken,

    Are you really interested in what the Bible has to say and in the context it was originally written? I’d be glad to address how that command was given to an Israelite theocracy. The command against homosexual behavior is indeed universal but the punishment was only for the Israelites.

    If you’d point out to me which verses you are referring to I’ll show you what I mean. Your argument is a common one, but sadly most of those offering it just use it to attack Christians and deflect attention away from the real issues. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are sincere. The ball is in your court.


  8. Neil,

    OK, cards on the table. I’m 57 years old, and I’ve been an atheist for almost 42 years. I am not gay, but my wife and I both support equal rights for gays, as well as same-sex marriage. I’ve had this discussion with many Christians over the years and have a pretty good idea about what you’re going to say. I think I can save us both a lot of time by cutting to the chase: To me, all the arguments about the various dispensations and changes in Jewish law are just furious 20th century tap-dancing to try to rationalize the blatant bigotry and cruelty reflected in the Old Testament. Nothing you can say can convince me that there was ever a time in human history when it was moral to put homosexuals to death solely for their sexual orientation. So let me put it as simply as I can, and we can decide if there’s any point in continuing our discussion. Answer the following question without waffling: Does the Bible at any point say that homosexuals should be put to death, and, if so, do you believe there was ever a point in history when that practice would have been moral? Notice I am not asking if it is moral now. Was it ever moral?


  9. Hi Ken,

    Thanks for the time-saver and the candor about not really caring about what the Bible really says. I had a hunch that you were just trotting out a false sound bite and using the Bible out of context to demonize Christiains.

    Yes, what God commanded was moral.

    Now you can rant all you like, but if you are an atheist it would be utterly ridiculous of you to expect me to care what you consider moral or not. If there is no universal lawgiver then there are no universal laws. You can claim that homosexual behavior is “moral” if you like and try to get people to share your views, but you have no philosophical or logical foundation to make any moral claims about any topic, including this one.

    So the only point in continuing a discussion would be if you could convince me why in an atheistic worldview you think there is a true thing called “morality” that all people everywhere should adhere to at all times.

    I hope you reconsider your atheism. Eternity is a mighty long time.

    All the best,


  10. all the arguments about the various dispensations and changes in Jewish law are just furious 20th century tap-dancing to try to rationalize the blatant bigotry and cruelty reflected in the Old Testament

    Not at all. If you actually read the Bible you can see where God is giving universal commands and where He is speaking specifically to the Israelite theocracy. It isn’t that difficult if you are really interested in what it says and aren’t just twisting it into a straw man argument.


  11. Keep tap dancing, my friend. I’m not masochistic enough to waste my time debating someone whose mind is as hermetically sealed as yours is. I read the Bible for what it actually says, not what I want it to say by looking throught the rose-colored glasses of faith. That you can’t imagine a moral system without a supernatural law-giver tells me all I need to know about you. Clearly you have no real interest in finding out the answer to your question of morality without revealed truth, but on the off chance you could pry your mind open, there are many excellent books available now on the evolutionary basis of morality. I recommend Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds.

    I feel sorry for you. A stifled mind is a terrible thing to behold.


  12. Of course there can be moral systems, but you can’t explain why they would apply to everyone at all times and in all places. That is why your conclusions are all illogical in light of your worldview.

    And gee, Ken, since you called me names and insulted me instead of addressing the facts and logic you must be right. Have fun in stereotype land.

    But hey, at least you didn’t deny there was a homosexual agenda.


  13. Ken,

    If you had actually read the Bible you would have realized that the OT punishment was not for homosexual orientation, it was for homosexual acts. Rarely does the Bible suggest death, or any other punishment for what amounts to temptation.


  14. I tend to get long winded on topics such as this, so I’ll leave it alone.:)

    Great post Neil.

    To our athiest friend, I’m curious how you can immediately assume close-mindedness in strangers based soley on your perception of their beliefs, yet ignore the irony and hypocrasy of your own commentary in the same regard.

    I have a few athiest friends who claim to be so because they are in search of truth and believe God is not a part of that. This is a discussion we can have in honest dialogue however, because it’s rooted in honesty at the very least (misguided as it may be…as I’m sure they’d say of me:)).

    You’re attempt at dialogue (or rather, the bottlenecking of honest dialogue) seems nothing more than intent to incite argument and meaningless back and forth.

    Despite that, and while I know you don’t care, I honestly pray for your soul and hope you come to see the blessing your choices are likely shielding you from.

    I’m sure you’ve been wronged by some Christians before (Surely, your clear bitterness wouldn’t be directed at people without reason), but wouldn’t lumping all of us in with people who “tap-danced” and had distorted views of the bible, be as rooted in bigotry as you claim our views on homosexuality are?

    Or is bigotry only a circumstancial offense to your non-biblical morality? I’m asking mostly honestly (I do admit to a wee bit of snarkiness though), as this is the inconsistency I’m having trouble grasping…especially since you seem to despise such inconsistency yourself.

    Neil tried, from what I read, to give you an accurate and honest response as to what the Bible said in context (I’m sure you understand the concept of reading in context, right?) and you apparently ignore it.

    How does this promote honest discussion (if, as I said earlier, you are really seeking it)? Or better yet, how does it paint your own views and points?

    Also, I’ve read a bit on “eveolutionary morality” and I’d be curious to hear your specifc views on it, since the varience in the specifics are a bit sketchy.

    Basically, according to such theory, it can be chalked up to what resembles a form of instinct or natural survival mechanism. Yet, there’s no real answers given on why people go astray from such rigid science (other than a blanket, “stunted growth via upbringing” argument).

    My point in that being, that isn’t it a bit odd to counter something you feel has holes or inconsistencies with a theory that haseven more (and essentially covers them with it’s own “tap dance.”)?

    Oh well. I’d honestly be interested in your thoughts.

    As I said, my prayers for you and yours.


  15. Please don’t compare me to Fred Phelps. No comparison there.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

    1 Timothy 1:9-11 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

    OK, so I have shown that the Bible does call gays, sodomites. Apologies please!


  16. Timothy, I think what he was getting at was that the Hebrew and Greek don’t have the word “sodomites” and that we just translate it that way. Leastways that’s how I understood him when I agreed the Bible doesn’t have that word. But even the word “homosexual” didn’t exist 200 years ago (or maybe 100?) so I don’t see the problem with his complaint. The Hebrew/Greek words describe a particular behavior which we have translated to words we associate with that behavior, even if the words didn’t exist back then. Hey – we’re translating to ENGLISH!


  17. I do apologise for the implied comparison to Phelps. Actually I threw his name in there for a reason, and it only took about 5 seconds for someone to come back and say he’s not representative of Christianity.
    Just as the WBC is on the lunatic fringe of Christianity and should not be taken seriously, I would suggest that those advancing this agenda should also not be taken seriously.


  18. Racing Boo, the comparison to WBC and the so-called fringe of the gay movement is not good. WBC is nothing Christian in any way shape or form. The gay agenda on the other hand is promoted by those who indeed do represent what those who practice homosexual behavior want. Gays of all stripes want social approval for their perverse behavior and they accept all representation that fosters that agenda. They may not like some of the methods, but they want the end result.


  19. @ Ken: reading the bible is one thing.

    Living it is quite another.

    If you want to crow, try the latter then come back and talk. See you in about 70 years, ok?


  20. Additionally, the words and actions of a select few do not represent those of all. Not every gay person believes in the same thing, obviously. There are extreme chapters for every demographic, including Christians. This site is proof of that.



  21. Yes, but those words and actions reflect many, many people in the pro-gay community. They are following the agenda to the letter. I saw it in spades on a recent thread at Marshall’s place, where a Christian would deny the agenda then do exactly what it says (demonize anyone opposing gay sex clubs in schools, because if you oppose those you “obviously” don’t care about “gay” kids getting bullied). Then he’d deny the agenda, then he’d follow it with his straw man / ad hominem attacks, then the cycle would start again. Pathetic.


  22. “Gay sex clubs?” I can’t counter your statement unless you elaborate on that a little. If you’re referring to the GSA, the Gay Straight Alliance, then people like you are exactly the reason why such a club exists: to end the fallacies which are being spouted off by (mostly) the religious community, concering homosexuality.


  23. Yes, the GSAs have no business in schools. They are just thinly veiled pro-gay propoganda (more here — http://www.massresistance.org/ ). They pretend to be just about the prevention of bullying, but that is a lie.

    As I’ve said before, here’s the only anti-bullying message you need to give to all kids, and then enforce: If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay / straight / fat / thin / smart / dumb / pretty / ugly / etc., or if it is just because you are a jerk. Zero tolerance. Training over. Now go to class and learn something.


  24. Fox, go read http://www.massresistance.org/ for a while. Go read stats on AIDS like what GCMWatch shared with you: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

    GSAs have no business in schools. They are unnecessary to accomplish the alleged anti-bullying measures. They promote destructive lifestyles and spread lies. They aim to shut down free speech for their opponents. Please move on and deny the existence of the homosexual agenda elsewhere.


  25. I already countered GCMW’s statement, but he appears to have deleted or filtered it. I’ll tell you what I told him: That statistic regarding the number of gays infected with AIDS? Yeah, that’s .4% of the gay community. Point four percent, not four percent. I could redo all the mathmatics, but that’d take time to type out. Instead, you can just ask GCMW to let you see the post I made.

    Also. Destructive lifestyle? Dude. You know what’s destructive? Being born gay, then trying to turn yourself straight because there’s a large portion of society that thinks your very existence is abominable. That is self-destructive, and leads to a lot of emotional and mental disorders later in life. Also, I never denied the homosexual agenda, I just said that isn’t what you people make it out to be. You can read what I said at GCMW.

    By the way, your tinfoil hat is a little crooked.


  26. As an addendum, you’re right: GSA shouldn’t have to be in our schools, since our schools’ health programs should be better teaching children and teens about homosexuality and what it really is, which is an orientation, like heterosexuality. But parents screech uncontrollably when teachers bring the topic up (unless they’re condemning homosexuality, that is), so for now we have to rely on student-run organizations like GSA to get the facts straight until the whining parents will kindly shut up.


  27. Homosexuality is not just an orientation, it is a perversion of human sexuality. If you claim the right to act on a sexual orientation, then you can’t deny those who are oriented sexually towards children. Or animals, or multiple spouses. We don’t need to teach anyone that it is a valid lifestyle choice any more than we should teach adultery or prostitution as valid choices. They are all sexual immorality that is socially, emotionaly, psychologically and medically destructive.

    For all the demands of tolerance from those who practice homosexual behavior, they give no tolerance to those who don’t want to participate in their deeds of darkness. What the agenda wants is the criminalization of Christianity. In Europe and Canada already people are jailed and fined thousands of dollars for merely saying homosexual behavior is wrong before God, or just plain saying true marriage is between one man and one woman. Even in the U.S. people are sued because they don’t want to take photos of gay weddings, are sued because they don’t want to print gay literature, are sued because they don’t want to artificially inseminate lesbians. And the courts all side with the gays. What happened to the right of conscience? Gays say it is invalid if it doesn’t agree with them. Tolerance???? Where?

    No, the homosexual agenda is about forcing all of us to agree with your behavior or else suffer jail and loss of material possessions.


  28. Edited for reduced snarkiness.

    Fox, folks like you come to rebut my posts then prove them out by their own words.

    You are trading on the myth that gays are “born that way.” I addressed 9 problems with that here — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/born-that-way/

    The short version: Your premise is without scientific support. And even if gays were “born that way,” an “is” doesn’t make an “ought.”

    Re. the stats on gays, you refuted a claim I never made. Even if it is correct your summary seems to be that AIDS is a minor issue for gay men, yet the facts are that their rate of transmission is roughly 66 times that of heterosexuals. Sixty-six times (Math: the CDC showed that roughly half the cases were gay men, and the non-gay male population is 66x the gay male population (e.g., 98.5% females and non-gay males vs. 1.5% gay males).

    That seems like a big deal to me and something worth warning people about. If not, then why is part of the gay agenda to say AIDS isn’t a gay issue while simultaneously claiming that to oppose more AIDS funding is homophobic? (That’s rhetorical, btw).


  29. Have you ever been put in the position where you had to respond to something, but there was so much to respond to, so much to correct, that you didn’t even know where to start? This is the position I find myself in now. With that, I will start with this:

    You are wrong. Verifiably, demonstratably, wrong. I will try to break apart your ambling, ignorant little work you’ve assembled here best I can.

    Homosexuality is not just an orientation, it is a perversion of human sexuality.

    Uh, no. Ha ha, no. Homosexuality is observed throughout virtually the entire animal kingdom, not just in people. It occurs naturally, though the causes themselves remain largely unknown. Some recent evidence points to genetics, but even then, it’s still believed that genes play a negligible role in a person’s sexuality. Point being here, it’s a naturally occuring phenomenon outside of a person’s control, not an intentional act.

    Neil said: You see it in the animal kingdom? Big deal. My female dog tried to hump another dog at the park today. Is she a lesbian? No, she’s an idiot. Dogs will hump almost anything that moves, or even things that don’t move. And you want to reference that as a norm for human behavior? Civilization is all about not doing every last thing that we think is “natural.”
    If you claim the right to act on a sexual orientation, then you can’t deny those who are oriented sexually towards children.

    This is hooey, and you know it. You can’t be “oriented” towards children, since children aren’t a gender. That’s like saying you can be oriented toward a race or hair color. Don’t confuse basic preference with orientation. If you’re going to argue that homosexuality is a preference, then guess what that makes heterosexuality, hm?

    Neil said: Nice try. You have a sexual preference that you want full endorsement of by all people, schools, the gov’t, etc., then in your prejudice, hatred and bigotry you want to pull up the drawbridge on other sexual preferences? That’s not very tolerant of you.

    Or animals, or multiple spouses.

    An attraction to multiple spouses? Yeah, not how it works.

    We don’t need to teach anyone that it is a valid lifestyle choice any more than we should teach adultery or prostitution as valid choices.

    Once again, homosexuality isn’t a choice. And yes, we do need to teach that it’s acceptable, otherwise the next generation will consist of more morons like you spouting faith-based drivel instead of fact-based, well, facts.

    Neil said: You keep saying that, but it is a lie.

    They are all sexual immorality that is socially, emotionaly, psychologically and medically destructive.

    Homosexuality by itself isn’t destructive. I am gay, and it’s not like disease just flocks to me or something. Now if I went out and had unprotected sex with a man that whose sexual history I wasn’t aware of, then I might be in trouble, but since I have never had sex with another male, it’s not like I’m just going to get AIDS out of the blue.

    Please tell me you knew that.

    For all the demands of tolerance from those who practice homosexual behavior, they give no tolerance to those who don’t want to participate in their deeds of darkness.

    No one’s telling you to become gay, if that’s what you’re trying to get across here. See, here’s the thing: homosexuality is not a contagious condition. And no, you don’t deserve any slack for getting in the way of the fight to get equal rights.

    Neil said: You beg the question regarding equal “rights.” Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

    What the agenda wants is the criminalization of Christianity.

    Christianity criminalizes itself. You do know that your “good book” actively condones slavery, yes?

    Neil said: Wow, never heard that one before. Please learn more about what you are trying to criticize — http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg82404.

    In Europe and Canada already people are jailed and fined thousands of dollars for merely saying homosexual behavior is wrong before God, or just plain saying true marriage is between one man and one woman.

    So, you like made this up like as you were typing this. That’s cool I guess.

    Neil said: You aren’t very well informed on your topics. You are doing exactly what you accuse Glenn of doing, which is just typing whatever you like and pretending it is factual. Part and parcel of the gay agenda. The media and schools let you get away with it, but not here.

    Even in the U.S. people are sued because they don’t want to take photos of gay weddings, are sued because they don’t want to print gay literature, are sued because they don’t want to artificially inseminate lesbians.

    They’re sued for discriminating against certain demographics, which is, you know, illegal in America.

    Neil said: So they would have to take pictures of bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? Of course not. Some “discrimination” is rationale and in line with true freedom.

    And the courts all side with the gays. What happened to the right of conscience? Gays say it is invalid if it doesn’t agree with them. Tolerance???? Where?

    It is invalid if you don’t agree, because you are factually wrong. No matter how many times you say one plus one is three, you will always be wrong, no matter how much you believe you’re right. And tolerance of what, imbecile? Your pathetic devotion to a savage faith from the bronze age? You have the right to practice whatever faith you please in this nation, but you do not have the right to extend that faith on others.

    Neil said: Ooh, name calling. That’s a surprise. “Bronze age?” What does the age of a teaching have to do with its veracity?

    Ironically, the whole point here is that the gay agenda is being extended to others against their will. We aren’t forcing our religion on you. I hope you do repent and believe, but Christianity does not teach coercion.

    No, the homosexual agenda is about forcing all of us to agree with your behavior or else suffer jail and loss of material possessions.

    Tinfoil hat, etc.

    Neil said: Fact free, etc.

    Now let me speak personally. I have what you don’t, and that’s personal experience in being gay. You can never claim to know more about homosexuality than I do, because you have not experienced it. I never chose to be gay, no one does! Every gay man and woman on Earth, except for the crazy denial cases (that means you, GCMW) will tell you that they never chose to be gay. Growing up, having to put up with the hateful sentiments from people like you, was far more destructive to my mental and physical health than being will ever be.

    Neil said: You keep claiming the “born that way” bit, but I’m not buying it. If it is true it will eventually be detected in utero and aborted virtually out of existence. Abortions are morally wrong, so I think that would be a bad thing.

    You didn’t read my link, because many people do choose to be gay and many successfully change. In fact, many say they are different things at different stages of life — http://www.narth.com/docs/concluded.html .

    I am sorry for whatever relationship trauma or abuse led to your perception that you are gay, but I assure you that there is a better way. Satan wants you to think that your sexual preference is more important than getting right with God, but that is a lie. Eternity is a mighty long time.


  30. Oh, so now you’re going to screen my posts from the public, too? I may be a fag but at least I can say with confidence that I am a better American than you ever will be.

    Neil said: You are off topic, repetitive and repeating lies. I put people on moderation who post comment after comment like that. No one called you a fag, so once again you are playing out the homosexual agenda to portray yourself as a victim. Nice try. I’m not buying it.

    Better American? Uh, yeah, sure.


  31. So does that mean you’re going to unscreen my post, or what.

    Neil said: I’m in the process of responding to it. But then you need to move on. I am under no obligation to post your stream-of-consciousness lies and perpetration of the exact gay agenda this post was about. You may want to get your own blog and see if you can get people to believe these things there. This is off-topic and a waste of my time. You’ve helped prove the premise of the post beyond all doubt.


  32. Lies? After all I said, and you casually write them off as lies? Do you do any research of your own? Do you even know who Alfred Kinsey is? I’ll admit I don’t know everything, and I’m sure I’ve demonstrated a few misconceptions, but I would never lie about something I take so seriously. Brute honesty is best in the face of your oppressors. (:

    Oh, and I’m not expecting you to pass this through. This can be our little secret.


    Neil said: Kinsey??!! Yes, I’m quite familiar with his work. What a joke. He is the grandfather of normalizing perversions. Start here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3704337510629412177


  33. Is “normalizing sexual perversions” your way of saying “stating that sex is natural and okay?”

    Neil said: Normalizing sexual perversions means trying to say that homosexual behavior is natural.

    Move on, Fox. You are way off topic and have used up your goodwill. You have written one random lie after another. You haven’t demonstrated any interest in reading anything that addresses your claims.


  34. Reading your responses, I see that you keep tossing the word moral around like it’s nobody’s business. I have a surprise for you, and I don’t think you’ll like it:

    Morals are subjective.


  35. Morals are subjective.

    Neil said: I don’t think that you really believe that. If you did, you wouldn’t be here arguing so strenuously about how right you are, and about how sexual preferences are “civil rights,” etc. If they are truly subjective you couldn’t argue any ultimate moral distinction between gay rights and gay bashing.

    But if you really believe that, you won’t be surprised when your subsequent comments don’t appear and won’t consider it to be immoral on my part to delete comments that repeatedly violate the commenting guidelines and are just profanity and hate-filled screeds proving the point of my post (I’m referring to your last comment).


  36. Fox, I read your comments and Neil’s replies all in one sitting. I got a different sense in your comments than I have in other people who oppose Neil. Unless I misread it, you’re fairly young? (I turned 50 a couple weeks ago, everyone is fairly young to me)

    I’m curious, how did you find Neil? After all he’s written, why do you come back here? It’s pretty obvious, you’re not going to change his mind. And the people who come here are typically either pro-Neil or anti-Neil. What brings you here?


  37. Randy, Fox has been gadflying on my blog with the intent —per him— to change our beliefs about homosexuality. I see his is spreading the love to Neil now.


  38. Personally, I welcome any sincere attempts to change my mind about homosexuality. As always, I blog to persuade AND be persuaded. As Fox has shown, there’s been no new arguments that haven’t been exhaustively and completely refuted and rebutted no matter how many times they’re rehashed and regurgitated. Just one more reason why those who try to be good Christians feel sorry for homosexuals.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s