Christian faith guides America on homosexuality

"On the other hand, if your faith allows for behaviour that induces division among families, creates exposure to disease and death, influences children to question their own identity, and a host of other attributes - Are you contributing to the potential hazards that stem from immoral behaviour or not? Are you an advocate for harm?"

Are you talking about interracial marriage, which is also prohibited by a "literal" reading of the Bible?

Same divisive rhetoric, different scapegoat. This too shall pass.

Mocking the Christian faith

is it acceptable to be biased against an entire religion based on the behaviour of people?

although hatred for Christianity in America has many forms, it really boils down to

hatred of hypocrisy
&
hatred toward God.

we all hate hypocrisy, and in one way or another, we all hate God....

childishly, we mangle each other to make clear of our offendedness, which is followed by a convenient rant that reduces everything down to "us" and "mine".

But as it pertains to the Christian faith

in this TOPIC the real question is not about whether we agree with each other, or not.

for the believer, it is about whether you disagree with God.

and one cannot
disagree with God and be an obedient Christian -

on the other hand

non-believers (non-Christians) have that luxury...but it must be stated that it is not without consequence.

This is the "On Faith" forum.

So, if your faith calls you to avoid behaviour that causes seperation from your God - abide in that faith....

On the other hand, if your faith allows for behaviour that induces division among families, creates exposure to disease and death, influences children to question their own identity, and a host of other attributes - Are you contributing to the potential hazards that stem from immoral behaviour or not? Are you an advocate for harm?

Non-believers are not excused because of their faith, or lack thereof.

I love the brutal irony that Mr. Jordan "Constitutional Conservatives R Us" believes that we should jettison Section VI and Amendment I of the Constitution. As a faithful Christian, I am glad that we are not a "Christian nation", since the state religion would likely not look like my beloved Presbyterian Church. We believe in predestination AND we baptize infants! The horror!

Fortunately, our President follows in the time-honored tradition of his office of affirming that we are not such a nation, as John Adams said in the Treaty of Tripoli, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Signed by Adams and ratified by Congress (there's that pesky Supremacy Clause again, better axe that next).

In misusing Scriptures for his purposes, Sekulow fascinatingly leaves out any mention of two women engaging in sexual activity. As John Fugelsang notes, the Bible apparently has the same policy as Vivid Entertainment.

More to the point, Sekulow takes out of context (quel suprise) the quotation from Romans, skipping Paul's continuing to include in this group all those who gossip or are boastful, then reversing the narrative to say "therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Rom 2.1 NRSV)

For all the crowing about this being a "Christian nation", Sekulow forgets to mention that Jesus Christ himself never uttered a word on the subject. The closest conservatives can get is by circular logic--"Jesus could have said something here, but he didn't, so his silence is a comment on that something".

All this simply and simplistically ignores the fact that faithful Christians can disagree on things, even some important ones, and still be faithful Christians.

And yes, because I am a Christian, I do not "believe in the Bible". I believe in Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals God in Christ to humanity. It is not God itself.

Christian Agent 187 is right that all (or most all) people have a conscience and it is working all the time. ChristianAgent187 is very wrong, however, on where conscience comes from and why we differ in what our conscience tells us is right and wrong.

Our conscience is not something implanted by God, not something that contains a universal and infallable code of morality. Rather, each person's conscience is the product of that person's unique heredity, environment, and circumstances.

I am a moral person (usually) because I have discovered that moral action usually makes me happier, makes others happier, and that it is a good thing. I do not behave morally out of fear of God or Fundamental Christians.

ChristianAgent187: "Its interesting that the battle line here isn't just about homosexuality. Its drawn up between those who believe in Christ and the Bible (and its moral laws) and those who don't believe in Christ or the Bible, and don't care about morality.

After all, if your living in sin; then you naturally don't want to believe that your accountable to God in the future judgment."
***************************************************************************************
Just because I'm not Christian doesn't mean that I have no morals.
I'm not Christian, but I don't go about stealing, murdering, raping, boffing my neighbor's spouse, or spreading lies about my neighbors. I refrain from doing these things, not because I fear judgment and/or punishment from an all-powerful deity who is keeping track of such things in his/her/its little black book, but because such actions are cruel and detrimental to all - the direct victim, myself, and society at large.

Your religion and mine define sexual sin differently. According to your religion, sex between members of the same sex, or between members of the opposite sex who aren't married to each other is a sin.
According to my religion, the only time sex is a sin is if all parties are not consenting adults or if a trust is being broken by the act.

I always enjoy being "a voice in the wilderness." Truth is not a democracy!

Mr. Sekulow's comments pretty much describes the basic conflict between biblical morality and homosexuality in a nutshell.

Its amusing to me why so many unbelievers and/or liberals would be interrupting their "facebook" time to be here commenting in a religious section of the Washington Post. If I were an unbeliever, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with Christians; I'd be to busy "doing my thing."

It's somewhat easier to ignore the Bible than it is your "conscience." Everywhere you go, your conscience is there with you. The Bible says that the conscience is the voice of God; that is His laws written on your heart. You have free will to choose to obey the Lord, or to choose to rebel against His will. But your conscience constantly convicts you of sin or else praises you for obedience to His voice.

In spite of what you might think about the Bible, christianity or whatever; your conscience is one thing that you cannot influence or negotiate with; because it never bends to your will. It will convict of sin and tell you that what you are doing is wrong every time. The more you listen to your conscience, the more sensitive it becomes. The more you ignore and rebel against your conscience; then it will weaken until the Spirit of God stops "striving" with you and turns you completely loose to your own devices (in the case of serial killers and those with no conscience at all).

Its interesting that the battle line here isn't just about homosexuality. Its drawn up between those who believe in Christ and the Bible (and its moral laws) and those who don't believe in Christ or the Bible, and don't care about morality.

After all, if your living in sin; then you naturally don't want to believe that your accountable to God in the future judgment.

Apart from the Bible and God, there's no justification for morality. There's no reason to be good. Every man can just do "what is right in his own eyes." The best definition of liberalism is: whatever.

Praise God! He is willing to save all who will repent and call upon Him.

For those who assert that homosexuals have a "right" to marry, I have a question. From what root does that right arise?
Posted by: edbyronadams

From the same root as the right of heterosexuals to marry.

"Maybe someone should have reminded President Obama that 76% of the US population self-identifies as Christian. Before you start commenting about how broad the classification "Christian" is, keep in mind that "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" makeup an influential 34% of the American electorate."

And in recent polls, almost (in some more than) half of Americans support gay rights including marriage equality. Which means at least a third of Christians have no moral problem with homosexuality.

And even *that* ignores the fact that a majority of Americans support the Constitution. And if the Constitution says equal rights under the law (it does) and if those fundamental rights include that of marriage (they do), American's have already agreed to a framework which, like it or not, will and must lead to equal marriage.

Jackass.

This mental midget is just angry that his last name "Sekulow," sounds like Barney Frank pronouncing "Secular." LOL.

I can't believe people are so concerned about a "mosque" near Ground Zero, when we have members of the Christian Taliban like this guy trying to make this country into a country as backwards as Iran.

If you believe rights are part of nature, "endowed by the Creator" what your faith tradition says about vice and virtue have a tremendous effect on what you might view as a right. It is as simple as that.

For those who assert that homosexuals have a "right" to marry, I have a question. From what root does that right arise?

Mr. Sekulow completely misses the point of his own question --- Why does religion play such a central role in debates about homosexuality?

Part of the answer is that, besides naked bigotry, religion is the only refuge of those that work against the equal treatment of our gay brothers and sisters.

Religion is faith, faith is belief without proof, unsupported belief is irrational, and only irrational arguments support homophobia. Therefore, ONLY religious arguments can favor irrational invidious discrimination for their essential irrationality.

Now if your faith provides comfort or guidance for you, that's fine, but you must acknowledge that faith means belief without support, and that your faith is beyond the rational.

More and more religious congregations embrace an exegesis that favors the golden rule and thus stand against homophobia. These are churches such as United Methodist, Lutheran ELCA, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, UCC, Presbyterian, MCC, Quakers, Reformed Church, Reformed Judiasm, etc.

Jordan Sekulow is NOT a human rights attorney. He is a right-wing christian apparatchik. What an insult to actual human rights attorneys.

Gay Rights opponents are entitled to their opinions as anyone else in this country; however, we have to tone down the hateful and violent tone by which most homophobic ministers rant their position.

Enclosed is an article which hit the Internet this morning concerning Bishop Eddie Long and the rumbling that's going on in his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church over allegations he had sex with four young men in his church.

Bishop Eddie Long Scandal Takes Toll on Church Members:
http://www.sandiegocountynews.com/2010/10/12/bishop-eddie-long-scandal-takes-toll-on-church-members/

I concur with so many here - nonesense. We are not, and probably never were, a Christian nation. Most "self-identify" as Christians but, as the recent poll on religion shows, have little to no idea what Christianity is all about. If they did, they wouldn't be Christian. Many - or most - who self-identify that way equate it with being mral - or at least reasonably so and being a good American - patriotic, willing to kill enemies ("what would Jesus do" though?), and all that goes with that. True Christianity is counter-cultural, it says we cannot worship money and God, it says we are to love our enemies and pray for those who abuse us, it sets up an alternative king and kingdom to earthly ones to whom we are to pay homage, it preaches that we are to welcome the stranger among us, that we are to love the "least," (funny that Jesus never gay bashed?). All-in-all, not your American form of "Christianity" at all. Certainly not the kind of narrow-minded and bigoted stuff you hear from most "Christian" bloggers on this site! I keep wondering - if we are such a Christian nation, where are they all? I see a few in my community, and a few around, doing acts of kindness and mercy, but not a lot.

Nonsense. The Bible also teaches that the consumption of shellfish is an abomination (see Leviticus 11:9-11), but I have yet to see a single Christian protest a Red Lobster or a Joe's Crab Shack. The demonization of homosexuality gets more attention than something like shellfish because utilizing bigotry against homosexuals can be politically effective.

Posted by: S_in_Durham
___________________________________________

Are you kidding me Mr. Sekulow himself, probably loves the lobster, or his buddy Dobson. These pond scum isn't dumb. they know they would be laughed out of town and would be relegated to selling pencils out of a tin can, if they did something stupid like that. Lets close down all the BBQ places since they sell pork ribs, because it is also prohibited one of those stupid books. They won't, they pick and choose their battles, against the vulnerable. Just a bunch of cowards, and bed wetters.

Nonsense. The Bible also teaches that the consumption of shellfish is an abomination (see Leviticus 11:9-11), but I have yet to see a single Christian protest a Red Lobster or a Joe's Crab Shack. The demonization of homosexuality gets more attention than something like shellfish because utilizing bigotry against homosexuals can be politically effective.

This ‘Christian Nation’ stuff really bothers me. I have e-debated many Christian nationalists and have yet to find out exactly what that label means.
For the sake of argument lets say that okay, sure, this is a Christian nation. Now what? What does that label actually imply? If it means that legislation should mirror Christian doctrine, then why didn’t the FF’s just say that, ever? And what about non-Christians in this Christian nation? Are they to be treated as equals among the citizenry? Or are they to genuflect to Christian rites, rituals and codes?
And BTW, which version of Christian are we talking about anyhow? None of the denominations have a majority of the ‘christian’ population on their rolls though the Catholics seem to be in a slight lead. Would Evangelicals be content with Catholicism as the version of Christianity that makes the rules, sets the standards? Goodbye birth control! All hail the Pope!

“The president downplayed Christianity's impact in America when he called the Christian population "very large."

‘Very large’ isn’t good enough? Man you guys are tough to please. Maybe he should have tried to be more accurate and referred to the “Shrinking Christian population” (Those claiming to be Christian was down from 86% in 1990 to 78% in 2001.)

“Before you start commenting about how broad the classification "Christian" is,”
Sorry, no can do. This is a significant number, it means that even though there are lots of 'Christians', the actual definition of that term varies, a lot. I won’t ignore it just because you see that fact as a problem with your argument.

“"Born Again or Evangelical Christians" makeup an influential 34% of the American electorate.”
34%= minority.

“Leviticus commands, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Oh yeah, bring on the Leviticus! Let the stonings commence!

“The Qur'an states. . . “
Really? I thought that book and that religion were abominations.

I really don't understand the Christians who want us to run the country like it was Iran.

Did you not notice last year when the religious authorities voided 2,000 candidates from the electorate, and then perpetrated massive fraud to get their candidate in charge, and then shot dozens of protesters in the street? And having roving bands of moral police that persecute people for their hair, clothes, and music? You cannot let religions run countries, or they will spend all their efforts to fight for the tiny rules they institute, and never for the welfare of everyone, because saving souls is always more important than saving bodies. And when you fight for souls, who cares how vicious you have to be.

No, no and no. The founding fathers came from a society that had been wracked from decades and decades of civil religious wars over who can divorce, and what spiritual benefit plans can be given. Screw that. You can do it on your own time, but the government has enough problems. Better that all should have equal rights, and no one should be able to put their ridiculous rules on people that don't want them.

I think that the reason that commenters are failing to address his point, is because he doesn't make a point. This article starts with a quote from Obama, then an assertion that the US is a Christian nation, then quotes from different holy books....

If you're against homosexuality, just say so.

The United States of America is not a Christian nation. The document upon which this country is based makes no mention of religion, except for the establishment clause, which separates religion and state, and the prohibition against a religious test for public office. The Consitution is a secular document. If you don't know that, you don't know anything.

Most of those who are taking offense to Mr. Sekulow's comments are failing to address his point. It's fine to disagree with the assertion that faith should guide your political choices...that's an individual decision. But the point that Christian values and motivations were at the root of our founding is a matter of fact, not opinion. It seems to me that Mr. Sekulow is simply trying to explain why so many people of various faith backgrounds engage on this issue. It's fine to say you disagree, but it remains helpful to understand and discuss why it is an important issue to so many.

LCarter, I agree with you. God gave us free will. I don't think he gave Mr Sekulow and his fellow right wingers dominion over the rest of us. He should worry about his own walk with Christ and let the rest of us to our walk (or not).

How would he like it if one day he woke up to a majority non-christian country and the majority tried to tell him how to live his life?

I come from a part of the world where Christians are in the minority. It gives an entirely different perspective on what is going on here. I cherish the freedom of worship and religion in this country, I cherish the separation of church and state, I cherish the ability to think for myself and choose for myself that me and my house will serve the Lord, because we want to, not because we are made to.

Mr Sekulow, are you familiar with the saying from Jesus that His kingdom is not of this world?
I am a commited church going Christian and I find you and your organization just insufferable with your legalism, your holier than thou attitude and your incredibly divisive politics.
The US is not a Christian nation. It is just as the president said, a nation with a majority of people that are Christians, though they often don't act as such.
Why so much focus on homosexuality and abortion when the 2 sins that get the most attention in the BIble are pride and love of money? Why aren't you going after the Wall Street bankers that almost drove the country to its knees?
Christ calls us to holy living, as individuals. He does not tell us to slam people over the head with our bibles and have them submit to our faith. Belief in Christ and His Teachings is a personal decision that has to be arrived to freely. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then don't be a homosexual. If you believe that abortion is wrong, don't have one.
The thing is, people like you use these wedge issues purely for power and in pursuit of money and position. By constantly bringing out the Big Bad Gays and their "agenda", and the abortion issue, you get people to vote against their own interest because they think they are voting for morality.
Well, I have been working in health care for 20 years, and I find no morality in people having strokes because they cannot afford their medications, or having a leg amputated because they cannot afford their insulin. So I vote for health care reform because it is the moral thing to do from my perspective. And I try to live my life according to the 2 great commandements and let others make decisions about how to live their own lives. If you truly are a man who loves Christ, I would suggest you do the same.

Well, now that we know for a fact that the United States is a "Christian" country, a few minor administrative items need attending to:
Forthwith, all non-Christians will be identified as follows:
-Jews will at all times wear a yellow star prominently on their clothing; All synagogues will lose their tax-exempt status; all Jews must register with the local police.
-Muslims will at all times wear a green crescent on their clothing; all mosques will be destroyed and the printing of the Qur'an outlawed. (Burning is encouraged)
-All Hindus and Jains will wear orange clothing at all times; all Hindu and Jain temples will lose their tax-exempt status.
-All Wiccans will be burned at the stake.
-All Sikhs will be forced to cut their hair and beards; wearing of turbans will be forbidden; all Sikhs will have a picture of Guru Nanak's symbol in purple prominently displayed on their clothing.
-All Native Americans (non-Christians) will be deported "back" to Siberia
-Atheists and Agnostics will of course be dispatched as quickly as possible. The government will impose a $500.00 bounty on the scalp of each and every Atheist or Agnostic taken by good Christian citizens.

Furthermore, all self-proclaimed Christians will be required to pass a test on biblical literacy and correct thinking. All Christians will be classified according to their beliefs, with Catholics kept separate from (but equal to) Evangelical Protestants. Fringe groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Mennonite etc. will be judged by a regional religious authority.

Finally, no non-Christian will ever receive a visa to visit the United States. We have to keep the country as pure as possible and the first step is keeping the non-believers in their own countries,

I hope that clears everything up and we can finally get the America back that we fought so hard to secure from the vile unbelievers, especially here in Salem, Mass.

Our Christian faith does NOT and should NOT guide Americans on "homosexuality" or any other persons "sexuality".

Our Christian faith should guide all man and womankind on "free will" to make their own choices and freely.

The Christian God does not assert his/her power over individual will and choices, and man shouldn't either.

So, I ask you, why are you?

SAME SEXERS ARE CITIZENS THAT ARE MADE TO LIVE LIKE SLAVES(Financially and Socially which is self Evident in front of you )UNDER RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION(9,13,&14 AMENDMENTS Dred Scott Vs San Ford (1857) and "Plessy Vs. Ferguson (1896) US SCt cases)

IT WERE THE ATHEIST/AGNOSTICS GROUPS AND DEIST (a.k.a. Radical Republicans)that press for Abolishment of Slavery, Women Suffrage Acts and Civil Rights to Protect Minorities,

NOT the Religious They Mis-Used The Bible to Support Slavery and Anti-Women Suffrage Acts(Levi.& Deut.BOOKS which shows Women & Slaves thier Place religious Fought Tooth & Eye to OT Biblically Oppress others)Religion has US Citizens involved in Slave Trade AGAIN!

Since when did "JESUS" avocate death penalties???, YOUR THE SO-CALLED SATANIST NOW!!! PETER PUT AWAY THAT SWORD, YOU WILL DIE BY THE SWORD!!

PASTE THIS IN GOOGLE SEARCH:( CHURCH INVOLVEMENT IN US AND EUROPE'S SLAVE TRADE )

IT IS GENETICS BEING RE-ENFORCED BY NATURE ie ESTROGEN IN FOOD/ WATER/ AIR/PLASTICS etc.

SIN INVOLVES A CHOICE, ESTROGEN IN THE FOOD -WATER-AIR SOURCES AND IN GENETICS IS NOT A CHOICE, ITS NOT A SIN OR "GOD" WOULD BE UNJUST IN THESE TWO MAIN AREAS ( FOOD/ GENES) :

GOOGLE/ YOUTUBE /Wikipedia the terms: "INTERSEX" AND "XXY /XXXY MALES " IT'S ALL SCIENTIFIC FACT, people ARE BORN with both fully, ENVIRONMENTAL ESTROGEN RE-ENFORCES IT
Complete AIS means that the person will look absolutely FEMALE OR MALE from the outside. However AIS is only one of about 75 KNOWN different intersex GENETIC conditions ,and 'INTERSEX/ XXY/ XXXY MALES" occurs in ALL RACES. (ADA) PROTECTS NORMAL HUMAN BIOLOGICAL GENETIC VARIANTS

SEEING THAT SCIENCE AGAIN HAS CLEARED THE WAY THEN, THEREFORE RELIGIOUS/ POLITICAL AND OTHERS etc MAY BE LIABLE FOR THEIR INHUMANE HATE SPEECH THAT BOTH INSIGHT TERRORIST VIOLENCE & CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS , SEE THE (ADA) FED LAW & KKK CASE LAW PRECEDENCE, THE US PATRIOT ACT AND NATIONAL SECURITY ACT FOR TERRORISM AGAINST ANY US CITIZEN

The Old Testament and the New Testament don't have too much to say about homosexuality. Sure, the Old Testament says men lying with men is an abomination, but the Old Testament says lots of things are abominations! The Bible consists of many books which say many things, and its interesting to see which ones get people's attention.

Abraham convinces God not to destroy Sodom if its destruction would be kill even ten righteous men, yet I can't recall ever hearing fundamentalists use this as a lesson about preventing "collateral damage" in war. Jesus seems to have some pretty strong words against divorce, but most protestant ministers don't seem to object to it these days. The Old Testament commands Jews to feed the poor and the New Testament decries the rich, but fundamentalists sometimes talk as if God himself is against welfare or socialized medicine or the estate tax, even though the Bible seems to hold the opposite point of view.

So what is it about fundamentalist Christians and homosexuality? In the US, almost all anti-gay sentiment seems to be concentrated among the religious. Yet if you were to list what religious values were important according to a reading of the Bible, anti-homosexuality would be far, far down the list (way below idolatry but above the mixing of wool and linen in clothing).

I am tired of these morons talking about Sodom & Gomorrah. Those books were written by ignoramuses and who had no clue what morality and ethics are. Those scumbags thought offering up the two virgin daughters to the mob, as though they were his cattle, was a pious thing. Besides in their opinion their deity would look at it kindly for doing that and sve the pond scum Lot's family. And what a pond scum Lot had turned out to be just like his Uncle Avram. While the pond scum uncle pimped his wife twice. The pond scum Lot gets laid by both his daughters and has no clue, drunken sloven that he was. This is the story the present day pond scum cite for their opposition to the Gays, is a case of pot calling kettle black.

Since I believe there is a God we will answer to, I will follow His plan as best I can. You can be your own god and make your own plan. I won't follow you.

Posted by: apbenlulu
_____________________________________________
By all means follow whatever you want, as long as you do not infringe on others beliefs that they want to follow. Again as long as their following their beliefs do not keep you from following your stuff, how silly it may be. So if two gay men want to fornicate it is none of your damn business, as long as they do not keep you from banging your redneck wench.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Sekulow, you are free to abstain from sex with another man, just as you are free to abstain from sex with a black woman. But you are NOT free to deny basic civil rights to gay couples any more than you are to inter-racial couples.

Posted by: lepidopteryx
___________________________________________

Fellows like Sekulow and his ilk actually are the kind of people who do not deny themselves anything be it be sex with a black woman or whatever. Just like their heroes Storm Thurmond or, Ted Haggard, etc, etc. It is that they deny the same to the rest of the folks.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

So if these churches are using a "literal" interpretation of the bible are they also OK with slavery?
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21:20-2
Luke 12:47-48

FYI A LOT SAME SEXERS AND BISEXUALS BOTH HAVE BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN OK (AKIN/ RICKY MARTIN/ CHENEYS DAUGHTER exp) THEIR ARE MANY MORE ,INDIA HINDI ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LEAST ONE CHILD THEN LIVE THEIR LIFE

GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY......YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE....REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTU TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

OLD JIM CROW MUST GO

Mr. Sekulow has a great foundation to base his conduct and that of the world he lives in. Just because people want to do whatever they want, does not mean it's time to question if marriage is flexible in it's definition, one man and one woman (this might help Romans 1:26-28). Since I believe there is a God we will answer to, I will follow His plan as best I can. You can be your own god and make your own plan. I won't follow you.

THE US CONSTITUTION ART6SEC13".....BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES" TO MAKE ANY TO PROFESS A FAITH AND OR FREEMASONIC AFFILIATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY......YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE....REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTU TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

SEE LUKE 17:30-34, TWO GROWN MEN "LYING" IN BED TOGETHER AT NIGHT, HE TAKES ONE AND LEAVES THE OTHER...IT DID NOT BOTHER "JESUS"

Men are told to KISS Each other!!! ( BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT ) ROM16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor13:12, 1Thes5:26 1Pet5:14

MOST SAME SEXERS DETEST ANAL BUT PREFER GIVING ORAL SEX WITH SOME PEROXIDE MOUTH WASH ITS MORE SANITARY

Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality.

Ezekiel (16:48-49) states: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Wisdom (19:13) states that the sin of Sodom was: "bitter hatred of strangers" and "making slaves of guests who were benefactors." Jesus said in Matthew (10:5-15) that the twelve angels sent to Sodom were sent with the following instructions: " Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah "

Further confirmation of this is found in Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. It is ironic that those who oppress gay people today are the true violators of the lesson of Sodom.

America WAS settled by Christians BUT the UNITED STATES was founded by men who Christian beliefs were much less restrictive than those of the Christians that settled America. Let us remember that the Puritans wer so narrow minded that they continually fought with each other over their relationship with GOD. Those that didn't hew the line were kicked out of the colony and banned. They were Christians BUT they did enjoy the odd massacre of the natives -- because they weren't Christian and GOD blessed those that massacred unbelievers. Gotta love them Christians -- or they'll kill you.

THE US CONSTITUTION ART6SEC13".....BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES" TO MAKE ANY TO PROFESS A FAITH AND OR FREEMASONIC AFFILIATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY......YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE....REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)

THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON'T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTU TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN'T BE COPY RIGHTED

SEE LUKE 17:30-34, TWO GROWN MEN "LYING" IN BED TOGETHER AT NIGHT, HE TAKES ONE AND LEAVES THE OTHER...IT DID NOT BOTHER "JESUS"

Men are told to KISS Each other!!! ( BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT ) ROM16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor13:12, 1Thes5:26 1Pet5:14

MOST SAME SEXERS DETEST ANAL BUT PREFER GIVING ORAL SEX WITH SOME PEROXIDE MOUTH WASH ITS MORE SANITARY

Sodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler - not homosexuality.

Ezekiel (16:48-49) states: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Wisdom (19:13) states that the sin of Sodom was: "bitter hatred of strangers" and "making slaves of guests who were benefactors." Jesus said in Matthew (10:5-15) that the twelve angels sent to Sodom were sent with the following instructions: " Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah "

Further confirmation of this is found in Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. It is ironic that those who oppress gay people today are the true violators of the lesson of Sodom.

"Leviticus commands, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." ... "

This is one of the commandments, right? Which one?

There is an assumption that it is directed towards men and not towards women. The assumption is that women are not going to hear about this, or read about this, and don't need to know about this; they only need to know what the men let them know.

There is also the phrase "to lie with mankind ... "

So what the heck does that mean? It is pretty unclear.

In the meantime, this rubbish has no place in the twentieth century. If a MAN wants to live in an imaginary Medeival yesteryear, then he is free to do so.

Gay people don't count, I guess.

Mr. Sekulow, you are free to abstain from sex with another man, just as you are free to abstain from sex with a black woman. But you are NOT free to deny basic civil rights to gay couples any more than you are to inter-racial couples.