Was Franklin Graham Right to Call for a Disney Boycott?

Whatever we do, let’s do it with consistency. Otherwise our critics will have every right to call us hypocrites.

By Michael Brown Published on March 8, 2017

As soon as the news broke last week that Disney’s new Beauty and the Beast movie would feature an “exclusively gay moment,” Franklin Graham called for a boycott of Disney in a Facebook post that has since been shared almost 100,000 times.

The next day, a drive-in theater in Alabama announced that it would not show the movie, while, even before Franklin Graham’s comment was posted, the conservative group One Million Moms called for a Disney boycott, with a clear warning: “Alerting all parents! In a first for the Disney Channel, a Disney XD show subtly displayed several gay kisses in an episode that aired a couple of days ago.”

Over at LifeSiteNews, a petition to boycott Disney has already amassed over 100,000 signatures in just five days, carrying this headline: “SIGN THE BOYCOTT: Tell Disney ‘NO’ to LGBT agenda in Beauty and the Beast – #BoycottDisney.”

Should we applaud Graham and the movie theater and One Million Moms and LifeSiteNews? More specifically, should we join the boycott?

Christians Accused of Hypocrisy 

Writing an opinion piece for USA Today, Jonathan Merritt, known as a more moderate conservative (and himself admittedly same-sex attracted), addressed what he described as the “Flaming hypocrisy” in evangelical calls for a Disney boycott, also arguing that “Avoiding the subject of homosexuality will not prepare kids for the real world.” He wrote:

Conservative Christian outrage over any positive portrayals of LGBT people in film and television is a tale as old as time, but this effort seems particularly misguided. It risks making Christians look like antiquated bigots, and it reeks of moral hypocrisy. And worse, it diverts energy from a more worthwhile effort: teaching Christian children to co-exist in a pluralistic society.

John Pavlovitz, a left-leaning pastor who often confronts the “white evangelical church,” rebuked the boycotters in very harsh terms, speaking of “the naked hypocrisy of a Christian Disney boycott.”

In his words, “Conservative Christians have crawled out of the church pew woodwork to rend their garments and beat their breasts, at word that Disney’s live action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast will feature an openly gay character.”

He speaks of us as “opportunistic, self-righteous Bible-thumpers” who are guilty of “unprovoked jerkery,” stating that this “is what we now expect from the American Religious Right, who have long since jettisoned the loving, compassionate, redemptive justice work of a poor-loving Jesus — and gone all in with the glossy, homophobic pulpit bullies who arouse their passions.”

Over at The Huffington Post, Brittany Mancuso states that “Boycotting ‘Beauty and the Beast’ Is Not What Jesus Would Do,” explaining that “I’m all for freedom of religion … What I’m not for is freedom to hate and that is exactly what you are doing by feeding your children some [expletive] lines that our law tolerates the ‘gays’ but God’s law does not. Gay people are people.

How should we respond?

The Hypocrisy is There — But Not in the Way Others Suggest

For me, the issue is not whether a boycott will “work” or not (which some of these writers also discuss). Instead, the issue is whether a boycott is right and fitting and proper. As Martin Luther King once remarked:

Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular?

But, conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.

(In quoting King here, I am not claiming that the decision about boycotting this movie is on a par with the challenge of injustice during the Civil Rights movement; I’m simply evoking the principle of doing what is right because it is right.)

That is the question we need to ask ourselves: As followers of Jesus, it is right for us to boycott Disney in general or Beauty and the Beast in particular?

Christians are being hypocritical in calling for a boycott. But not for the reasons that Merritt, Pavlovitz and Mancuso allege. 

Before answering that question, let me address the question of hypocrisy. Are we, as professing Christians, being hypocritical in calling for a boycott of this film (or of Disney in general)? My answer is absolutely yes, but not for the reasons that Merritt and Pavlovitz and Mancuso allege.

Merritt questions how anyone who voted for Trump could turn around and boycott this movie, but he fails to realize that: 1) many of us who voted for him were primarily voting against Hillary; 2) we believed that he was becoming more conservative than he had been in his prior, hedonistic days (of which he is not proud); and 3) we were voting for someone who would be tough-nosed enough to take on the Washington establishment and other major strongholds, meaning that this human wrecking ball might also have some serious shortcomings.

That being said, there’s nothing hypocritical in people voting for Trump as president while not wanting their impressionable kids and grandkids to be exposed to an “exclusively gay moment” in a Disney movie. (Regarding Merritt’s argument that we need to expose our kids to gay relationships because they’re all around us today, so also are things like polygamy and polyamory, not to mention fornication, adultery, drug use, rape, racism, and so on. Do we expose our kids to all those things at the most tender ages possible, since they’ll inevitably encounter some of them later in life? The question answers itself.)

As for Pavlovitz’s charges, I find them reeking of the very sanctimonious, broad-brushed, overstated hypocrisy of which he accuses others, something for which some of his readers have strongly (and rightly) taken him to task. (For the record, he has never responded to my invitations to discuss his positions with me on the air, but John, if you’re reading this, let’s have a civil but candid discussion on my radio show.)

It is not hate to say, “I don’t want my kids to witness a gay kiss or a gay romance,” any more than it is hate for a gay parent to say, “I don’t want my kids exposed to Bible verses that speak against homosexuality.”

As for Mancuso’s statement that she’s for “freedom of religion” but against “freedom to hate,” it is not hate to say, “I don’t want my kids to witness a gay kiss or a gay romance,” any more than it is hate for a Jewish atheist to say, “I don’t my kids to listen to a rabbi’s sermon,” or for a gay parent to say, “I don’t want my kids to be exposed to Bible verses that speak against homosexuality.”

Why must all moral or spiritual differences be attributed to hatred? This is one of the most glaring (and self-disqualifying) aspects of LGBT activism: It is so blinded by the alleged rightness of its own position that it cannot see any rational reason for anyone to oppose it.

Why, then, do I believe that many of those calling for a Disney boycott are being hypocritical?

It is because so many of us are morally compromised in other ways, watching all types of foul entertainment (with lots of gratuitous violence and sex), allowing the TV (or internet) to babysit our kids, practicing no-fault divorce in the church, and not lifting a finger to address other, pressing social ills (like abortion, for one). But when it comes to one gay scene (which some involved with the film are claiming has been overhyped and overstated), we are up in arms.

Christians: Be Consistent

That being said, I don’t believe the boycott is wrong.

After all, we’re talking about impressionable kids, and we’re all too aware of a very intentional, hardly covert, LGBT agenda in Hollywood. (As Elizabeth Taylor famously remarked, “If it weren’t for gays, honey, there wouldn’t be a Hollywood.”)

Just consider how much Hollywood has already influenced our culture in terms of acceptance of LGBT activism and then ask yourself if we’re not overreacting when a children’s movie will subtly (or openly) promote homosexuality?

Two influential gay strategists writing in the late 1980’s called for the “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media,” and their strategy, which reflected wider gay strategies of the day, worked with stunning success. (I document this in detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

Don’t stop here. Be consistent in your convictions across the board, and be sure to have teachable moments with your kids when it comes to LGBT issues and people.

Disney has already introduced gay couples into their TV programming, and when the producer of Beauty and the Beast announces that “there will be a surprise for same-sex couples,” how should we respond? It’s quite natural that many parents and grandparents will say, “Let’s sit this one out.” My only critique would be to say: Don’t stop here. Be consistent in your convictions across the board, and be sure to have teachable moments with your kids when it comes to LGBT issues and people.

I’m quite aware that boycotting companies that support gay causes would basically mean that you can’t drive a car, fly on a plane, use a credit card, or own a cell phone — just to give a few examples — and the goal is not to put Disney out of business. But when a company loudly announces its immoral or amoral stance — for example, let’s say your cell phone provider makes a big announcement that it will now give 1 percent of its profits to support Planned Parenthood — that’s the time you say, “In conscience, I’m going to take my business elsewhere.” (For a related principle, see 1 Corinthians 10:27-30.)

Other Christian voices, representing the older generation (like Tom Gilson) and the younger generation (like Liberty McArtor) have suggested different ways to respond to Beauty and the Beast, with Gilson writing that “in our public conversations we have to keep pointing back to the better way [meaning the way of Jesus]. We need to learn to paint the picture better, to show the truly beautiful way, the way of strong and lasting marriages that unite in godly love to build the next generation.” And McArtor reminds us that “The only way to really change culture is by fulfilling the Great Commission and introducing sinners to Jesus, which must be a neighbor-out, not corporation-down initiative.”

I absolutely affirm these words and this approach. At the same time, I support those who say, “I’d rather pay money for my kids to be exposed to something else right now.”

Whatever we do, though, let’s do it with consistency. Otherwise our critics will have every right to call us hypocrites.

Surely, in Jesus, that is not who we are.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Hannah

    Initially, I was quite upset upon hearing about the “gay scene”; this is my favorite Disney film and I was so looking forward to having a dream come true. However, upon reading Liberty’s, Tom’s, and now your article regarding this debacle, I’m willing to wait and see if it is indeed overinflated nonsense. I won’t go to the theater if it’s as bad as people are saying (I don’t feel right supporting them financially when they’ve made it clear in other ways that they couldn’t care less about varying opinions regarding same sex unions), but I’ll at least keep a more open mind. Thank you all for the reminder that while truth is not objective, that doesn’t mean we as Christians should become self-righteous.

  • Gary

    I don’t watch any movie or TV show that features homosexuals, bi-sexuals, or trangenders. I don’t believe that my refusal to watch will make anyone change their mind, or put anyone out of business. I refuse to watch because I detest perverts, and their supporters. Simple as that.

    • David G

      Your comment that you “detest perverts” scares me. What is one of those “perverts” were in your family or your church? God didnt call you to detest people. And as a forgiven sinner yourself you make yourself a gross hypocrite. SMH

  • Bob Brooke

    I boycott Disney in general because of its support of the homosexualist agenda. It is sickening to hear of Disney’s revision of a wonderful children’s movie to give the homosexualists legitimacy. But such is the downward spiral of our culture.

  • margaret jaeger

    #1. Protests about Disney films is Way Too Late. Disney productions haven’t been strictly for innocent children for a LONG time. Even the former productions of popular fairy tales contained inferences that Biblical morals were not all that is acceptable in the world. I saw them as a child myself then again with my own children. Those things which might have puzzled me as a child were obvious when the adult me viewed the films. # 2. And…as noted,,children haven’t been that innocent for a Long time…since the Entertainment morality board was done away with; tv and movies have all been outrageously insistent on showing the worst of reality. We have all become inured to the basest of behaviors because of its commonality in shows…that most of us watched, with kids too. Not that I approved of tv or movies which did eye rolls of judgement at different lifestyles then or now,,they do exist. There has been a lot that were against Biblical morality presented since then as…okey or just some people’s choices same as has the violence and promiscuous sex. These themes were also presented in older movies but not so explicitly, the camera angles were often swung up to the sky view when certain scenes were obviously entered into. But they were there…and not innocent movies or tv shows at all.

    In my now mature estimation, Disney should be boycotted altogether…no matter what scenes are included.

    In my estimation, we who are Christians still have the right to choose too, whether we want God’s views presented or World views presented in movies or tv. Letters and boycotts seem to be the only avenue left open to us.

    And, imo, Yes, Jesus would have boycotted this movie because of sex scenes of any kind, especially representations which do Not follow God’s Word,,especially to children, no matter what they’d been exposed to elsewhere. But,,He would Not teach anyone to hate those who do present other lifestyles but to pray for them that they may see God’s word as the best lifestyle for the preservation of humanity. And to Not join with them.

    I agree with Dr. Brown’s assessments,,obviously.

  • As one pastor put it, “It’s time for Christians and churches to stand up!” Why should we support things that go against how we believe and why do these liberals think they can tell us how to express our faith? As long as we give them our money they will assume that we agree with their cultural stand.

  • Paul

    The deviants always cry hypocrisy, doesn’t matter what a Christian does, so I couldn’t care less what they think of me.

    However, the difference between a deviant and a fellow believer pointing out hypocrisy is that the deviant is trying to justify their deviance by delegitimizing their detractors while a believer is helping me improve my life and walk.

  • Timothy Horton

    The REAL gay agenda

    1. Do laundry
    2. Walk the dog.
    3. Buy groceries
    4. Spend quality time with loved ones.
    5. Be treated equally and with respect.

    🙂

    • Louis E.

      It’s very important to impress upon the “gay” their equal obligation shared with all of humanity to completely refrain from all forms of same-sex sexual activity,rather than disrespecting them by treating them as helpless slaves of their weakness for that indefensible practice.

  • Louise C

    I don’t think it’s that deep. Christians have a right to boycott like everyone else and it does send a message. As for being consistent that would be great. The problem is that the church is worldly. Until we, as the body of Christ, rise up and actually be Christ in the world we will act like hypocrites.

  • Timothy Horton

    Please, by all means those of you who think minorities you don’t like should be hidden from your delicate view, boycott all Disney movies. That way the rest of us won’t have to listen to your self-righteous proselytizing while we’re waiting in line.

  • Jim Walker

    I blame all these on Obama. He opened the Pandora’s box.

  • Amy T

    I’m so tired of the Christian church choosing what sins to vilify. How about divorce, lying, lust, greed…you’d have to boycott every channel!! If the church follows the Bible in the teachings on homosexuality, then it should follow the teachings on re-married divorcees being adulterers! That won’t happen though, because too many churches would lose half their congregants. It’s all or nothing my friends…you don’t get to cherry-pick?l! No wonder the world thinks we are a joke!

    • Triple T

      I speak only for myself, but I’m no fan of the other sins you mention either, and it is getting exceedingly hard to find decent things to watch on TV that aren’t filled with them.

      • Autrey Windle

        I watch George burns and Gracie Allen a lot. I ask myself if Jesus was hanging out with me would he be enjoying my programming choices for our entertainment. I have learned to enjoy all sorts of other books, music, movies, and especially TV. I’m not really quite old enough to talk to myself without raising eyebrows, but I spend a lot of time talking and laughing out loud with Jesus anyway. My secular pals are starting to get used to it!

      • Wayne Cook

        Try choosing other fare. There are tons of archives on Youtube. I shut off my TV five years ago and switched to the internet so I could manage and archive our family’s media. It is about the Christian deciding what to watch and from which source to procure it.

    • Timothy Horton

      LGBT folks make a good target because they’re a relatively small minority. Being non-hypocritical and going after the other groups would cost the local congregations money, and that can’t be allowed to happen.

      NOTE: I’ve taken to saving all I write because some spineless coward at TheStream has been going around various threads and without attribution selectively deleting my posts.

    • Timothy Horton

      LGBT folks make a good target because they’re a relatively small minority. Being non-hypocritical and going after the other groups would cost the local congregations money, and that can’t be allowed to happen.

      NOTE: I’ve taken to saving all I write because some spineless coward at TheStream has been going around various threads and without attribution selectively deleting my posts.

    • Autrey Windle

      Amy, I’m guessing you have some point of reference for equating the other sins you mentioned with the alphabet radicals trying to change every person’s way of life to include public approval of their worthiness to flaunt their sins in our faces and sue people who disagree with them or don’t want them confronting their children with the permissibleness, in their opinion, of their sin. I am also pretty sure that based on your assertions of the world’s opinion of ‘us’ you probably mean the secular politically correct world where if Christians and other people of faith are not marginalized and vilified then you don’t deserve the equality of being part of ‘this world’. I hope to never call you a joke in the world I live in…it’s called God’s creation and you are part of the same race as all of God’s children; the human race.; where 2 sexes were created to populate and bring more joy into the world as you and I both undoubtably came from in a similar fashion and we will die in a similar fashion. It’s what we do in the middle that counts and ALL sin is forgivable if sincere repentance is followed by action to stop behaving in the sin follows; I have a lot of very first-hand experience with being blessed by this escape clause in God’s plans for me! In The real world, we are all governed by the same rules and all forgiven by the same authority. We are all God’s children; if one of us ain’t none of us are. This includes you, Angel. Please go with God and reconsider your condemnation of Christianity.

    • Jon Yau

      Ideally, we should be preaching the gospel with our lives: loving people, showing mercy, giving grace, and telling people about our Lord and Savior. We need to put worldly nonsense behind us and just love people.

  • Jones Howell

    Dr. Brown. When you use the words “gay” and “LGBT people” you are legitimizing their behavior. This undoes any argument, because it now looks like you are coming against a minority or protected group.

  • Triple T

    I still don’t understand how this even makes any sense. Beauty and the Beast was written almost 300 years ago. This is change for its own sake. If they insist that they need their “exclusively gay moment”, let them write a new story with new characters. Of course, this would require Hollywood to come up with a new idea, something they haven’t done in about 30 years.

    • Joseph

      I agree with you.

  • Joseph

    why does everything nowadays have to be gay? and why mess up a classic? couldn’t they just make their own story with their own characters instead of doing this which originally had nothing to do with gayness?

    • Gary

      Perverts pervert everything. That’s what they do.

    • Jon Yau

      Disney is doing it because they are an evil company. A lot of movies, recently, have been against religion and God himself. It takes a little thinking regarding their messages to discover just how wicked Disney is.

  • Timothy Horton

    If seeing a film with a depiction of a minority you don’t like offends you then don’t see the movie. Not having to listen to a lot of self-righteous chirping will be a relief to the rest of the folks waiting in line.

    NOTE: I’ve taken to saving all I write because some spineless coward at TheStream has been going around various threads and without attribution selectively deleting my posts. How about it you Christians here – is such craven and despicable censorship the only way you know how to “win” an argument?

  • Joseph Matthews

    It just means nobody wants you here

  • Joseph Matthews

    no one is born homo

    • Timothy Horton

      Tell us how and when you made the conscious decision to be hetero. Tell us how you could consciously switch orientations and start feeling same sex attraction if you chose. Not switch behavior, switch your innate attractions.

      • Joseph Matthews

        when you say ”science has proven homosexuality is genetic” It’s all LIES. no one can prove someone is born homosexual. not you and not these ”scientists”

        • Timothy Horton

          I never said sexual orientation is all genetic. I said it has a heritable genetic COMPONENT, which it does.

          I see you dodged the question of how you consciously chose your orientation. No surprise there either. Anyone else want to share their answer?

          • Triple T

            I’ve got a legitimate question for you here, Horton. What’s your deal? You willingly, I assume, regularly frequent this website, where you know most of the other commenters will have opinions that differ from yours. You’re obviously welcome to have any opinion you want and voice it, but it seems that all you’re interested in doing is making the same point or two over and over again, trying to get people to take your bait and rile them up, with some juvenile name calling thrown in for good measure. Now you’re announcing in every post that you’re saving everything you write because some of it is being deleted, as if anyone is interested in that, so you can make yourself out to be some sort of victim. If you want legitimate debate, try discussing your point of view like an adult, and you’ll find plenty of other adults here willing to talk. Enough with the games.

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, we’ll put you down as being if favor of censoring points you can’t answer too. Every time I try discussing like an adult I get threatened with eternal damnation and hell fire or my posts get deleted. Why don’t you speak up about the censorship?

          • Triple T

            I already told you, I don’t make the rules. If you have a problem with censorship, you’ll need to discuss that with a moderator to find out what the problem was. I never said every person here was interested in rational discussion with you, but plenty would be. Another part of acting like an adult is learning to ignore certain others

          • Timothy Horton

            Again, it’s impossible to hold a conversation when half your posts get deleted with no sign. My missing posts weren’t vulgar or insulting, they broke no board rules. They were vanished simply for arguing against the position in the OP articles. It’s especially hypocritical when Stream says right in the header that dissenting opinions are welcome.

          • Austin Roscoe

            Timothy,

            As I mentioned in my direct email to you yesterday evening, The Stream does not censor opposing points of view. As long as posts follow our Comment Policy, they may remain on our site.

            We do rely heavily on community-driven moderation, and it appears that certain users are abusing that to block other commenters. The Stream is keeping an eye on it and is working to restore those comments that do not violate our Comment Policy.

            I encourage all commenters to read the policy to ensure that their posts do not violate our rules. If ever a comment is not showing up, you can check the comments feed on your Disqus profile to see why.

            Thank you.

          • Timothy Horton

            Austin,

            Thank you for looking into the mystery and restoring my posts which were improperly removed. I tip my cap to your commitment to open uncensored dialog even if posters here strongly disagree on issues. As long as we’re talking there’s still hope for this country. 🙂

          • Triple T

            There’s a link to click on entitled “More detail is available here”. Did you familiarize yourself with that information in addition to the two things you mentioned?

          • Timothy Horton

            First thing I did. This is censorship based on not wanting opposing views expressed, nothing more.

          • Triple T

            RtbRgus makes posts that are in line with your way of thinking. How come none of those have been removed, if censorship of opposing views is the goal?

          • Timothy Horton

            Give them time. I suspect it’s not all of the mods, just one or maybe two ultra-religious thin skinned ones.

          • Triple T

            And why are many of your posts from days ago still here, undisturbed? One would think that if censorship were the goal, your entire account would be blocked.

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s speculation but this “vanishing post” thing started when I began interacting with one particular poster with mod powers, Gilson. I’m guessing he or one of his buddies is the culprit.

          • Triple T

            Then that’s the person you need to have a conversation about it with. Continuing to cry about it in the comment sections of other authors’ articles isn’t going to get you satisfaction, and may indeed likely have the reverse effect.

          • Timothy Horton

            I just wanted to make others aware of the nefarious actions of this “fair and balanced” web site.

          • Triple T

            Where do you see a requirement for the site to be “fair and balanced”? The articles are written by Christians and intended mostly for a like minded audience. Like it or not, these people also enjoy the freedom of speech that you’ve been complaining of being denied for most of the past two days. If you insist on continuing to be a regular visitor to the site, you can be assured of continuing to see viewpoints with which you disagree. You can then choose from the following: continue to visit the site and present your opinion in a respectful manner, or stop visiting the site if you find your experiences here to be so unbearable.

          • Timothy Horton

            When I read this at the top of the Comments column

            “The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not.”

            I assumed they were being sincere. My mistake.

          • Triple T

            They probably should have specified “respectful comments” You probably should have expected that comments like many of yours accusing the authors and fellow commenters of being “bigots” and the like, would not be well received.

          • Timothy Horton

            They were respectful as well as being accurate. That’s what made them so scary they had to be erased I guess.

          • Timothy Horton

            To get the conversation back on topic: can you describe when and how you made the conscious choice of your sexual orientation? Or did it just sort of naturally “happen” with no conscious though or effort on your part? The latter is how it happened with me and every other person I’ve gotten an answer from.

          • Triple T

            As far as I know, the latter is how it happened for me as well. I never said anything to the contrary, unlike others. But the key phrase is “As far as I know”. Modern science and understanding have not yet determined what causes this. But for you to say that a person is born a certain way thus far holds no more water than somebody else saying that some factor made you this way. Maybe we are all born a certain way. Maybe something makes us the way we are. To say you know for a fact one way or the other is incorrect.

          • Timothy Horton

            That sexual orientation is not a conscious choice is a scientifically verified fact. It’s as much a fact as any knowledge in science can be deemed factual. That orientation is caused by a combination of factors including heritable genetic ones is a fact also. I suspect like many Christians (not all) you remain in denial because 1) you haven’t studied the evidence and 2) you have a built in bias towards rejecting the conclusion.

          • Triple T

            Point me in the direction of this evidence you say you know of, and I’ll take a look. Specific examples, please. Don’t tell me to find it myself.
            On a side note, I appreciate your newfound tone of civility, but your use of terms like “in denial” and “built in bias” are going to continue to rub some people the wrong way. Remember, you’re the minority around here, but decent people will engage with you if you act accordingly.

          • Timothy Horton

            There isn’t any one study which conclusively demonstrates the fact. It’s the combined knowledge from hundreds of studies which formed the almost universal scientific consensus. If you go to Google Scholar and search for * sexual orientation causes * you’ll get thousands of references. Limit the search to the last 5 years or so to get the most up-to-date-research.

          • Louis E.

            I am not nor have I ever been a Christian.
            No rational basis exists for treating homosexuality as other than a disorder of no relevance to universal responsibility to never engage in sexual acts with any partner not of the opposite sex.
            Any assertion that it is not a disorder is based on a bias toward figuring out how to reach such a conclusion.

          • Louis E.

            Again,none of us have the slightest moral right to engage in same-sex sex,that is a simple consequence of our species being sexually dimorphic.No “orientation” can excuse anyone from that obligation any more than pyromania can entitle one to engage in arson or kleptomania serve as a license to steal.

          • RbtRgus

            It doesn’t matter whether it is nature or nurture. We should protect gay peoples rights anyway.

          • Timothy Horton

            I know that. But by pretending sexual orientation is a conscious choice it’s easier for the bigots to demonize the group and justify denying them basic civil rights.

          • RbtRgus

            Religion is learned behavior and a lifestyle choice, yet it is protected. I don’t think nature or nurture is relevant to LGBT rights. They should be protected either way.

          • Louis E.

            Their persons protected,that is…including protecting them FROM their tendencies toward certain behaviors that must NOT be protected.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Born homosexual is just an excuse for people to accept this perverted lifestyle and an excuse for people to be perverts without being criticized for it, there is nothing true about it. if you believe that a person can be born homo than prove it to me. show me a gay baby or a gay kid

          • Timothy Horton

            Soon as you show me a hetero baby or a hetero kid.

          • Joseph Matthews

            In other words. you have none. case closed.

          • Timothy Horton

            Sexual orientation usually doesn’t manifest itself until puberty. Keep running from the question of how you consciously chose your orientation Brave Sir Joseph.

          • Joseph Matthews

            No one is born to be homo. sorry, it’s just a myth. you’re not born liking the same gender

          • Timothy Horton

            Keep running from the question of how you consciously chose your orientation Brave Sir Joseph.

          • Louis E.

            The false claim that “basic civil rights” are involved,and the false claim that one is a “bigot” for not being fooled,of course go hand in hand.But standards of conduct are not “bigotry” against a class defined by sharing the desire to violate those standards,and that violation is not the “civil right” of anyone.

          • Gary

            I disagree. There is no reason to protect anyone for engaging in perversion.

          • RbtRgus

            It’s not perversion. It’s ok to be gay.

          • Gary

            God says it is perversion. And I agree with Him.

          • RbtRgus

            God is Bronze Age bull$hit.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Prove it

          • RbtRgus

            Prove that any supernatural entity is real. That is the challenge. I just say I don’t believe the stories. I use the word “bull$hit” to demonstrate that I feel it is a ridiculous unproven and unprovable old story — really nonsense like the Mohammed story and the old mythologies of Greece and Norse and others.

          • Triple T

            It is an unproven and unprovable old story. You are 100 percent right about that. But that’s what faith is. It’s the belief in something that cannot be proven. It makes sense to those who believe and does
            not need to make sense to those who do not.

            But I disagree with the lumping in of Mohammed with this. Whether or not one believes he was a holy man, there was a person named Mohammed who existed, much the same way that there was a person named Jesus who existed, whether one believes He was God or not.

          • RbtRgus

            Jesus has as much evidence in support as Mohammed on the supernatural side. Basically, none. I do not believe in things unsupported by evidence, and I think religious faith is similar to gullibility.

          • RbtRgus

            Doesn’t that make Jesus and Mohammed about the same — a probably historical person who people claim was a prophet or part of god?

          • Triple T

            Yes it does. One group holds Jesus in that esteem, while the other does the same for Mohammed. But there isn’t really any doubt that both of those were real people.

          • RbtRgus

            They were probably real. I don’t know about Mohammed, but as for Jesus there is no contemporary evidence that he lived at all, let alone performed supernatural feats. There is just not enough information surviving from those days to be sure that he was a real person. The most any historian can give you is a “probably”.

          • Gary

            Reality differs from your opinion.

          • RbtRgus

            Any evidence of your god in reality? I doubt it.

          • Aaron Brown

            Would you be interested( or maybe I should say open) to hearing any evidence for the truth of theism?

          • RbtRgus

            Sure

          • Aaron Brown

            Ok, I think that there are other good arguments for God’s existence but here but here’s one I think is good and happens to be one of the most discussed.

            1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
            2. The universe had a beginning.
            3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

            Ok, let me start out by saying that this argument is logically sound; if the premises are true than the conclusion follows necessarily. But are the premises true? I think that the first premiss is obviously true. I mean things don’t just come in being completely uncaused. Some atheists accuse Christians of believing in magic because they believe that God created the universe. But to deny this first premiss is worse than magic! At least with magic you have a magician, but to say that the universe popped into existence uncaused is like magic without a magician! Now, I could elaborate more on why I think this premiss is more plausible than not, but I think you get the point. Now to the second premiss; there has been in recent times a great amount of scientific evidence that the universe( meaning all of space and time) had a beginning. To give an example, the discovery that the universe is expanding seems to provide good evidence that the universe is not past eternal. But I also think that there is pretty good philosophical evidence that the universe is not past eternal. For example, the very fact that I am writing this post on March 9, 2017, indicates that the universe is not past eternal. How so? If the universe was past eternal then there would be an infinite number of days before today. But if there was an infinite number of days before today, how could today(March 9, 2017,) ever have gotten here? Now at this point you might be thinking “this all might be true, but that doesn’t prove god!”. For this I think hat it is important that we look back and reflect on what it this first cause of the universe must be. The first cause must be timeless,(because it existed before time) spaceless,(because it existed before space) immaterial, (because it existed before matter) personal and (in order to choose to create) extremely powerful. (in order to create the universe out of nothing) So, technically this doesn’t prove the existence of God, but an atheism(or agnosticism) that accepts the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and extremely powerful being that cerated the universe seems hardly worthy of the title.

            So to conclude I think that there are good reasons to think that both of the premises true and we should therefore accept the conclusion. I know that I have typed a lot here but I hope that you will read through all of it with and open mind because I’m sure that we can both agree that the truth matters and it is important that we accept what is true rather than that which is easy.

          • Aaron Brown

            Ok, I think that there are other good arguments for God’s existence but here but here’s one I think is good and happens to be one of the most discussed.

            1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

            2. The universe had a beginning.

            3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

            Ok, let me start out by saying that this argument is logically sound; if the premises are true than the conclusion follows necessarily. But are the premises true? I think that the first premiss is obviously true. I mean things don’t just come in being completely uncaused. Some atheists accuse Christians of believing in magic because they believe that God created the universe. But to deny this first premiss is worse than magic! At least with magic you have a magician, but to say that the universe popped into existence uncaused is like magic without a magician! Now, I could elaborate more on why I think this premiss is more plausible than not, but I think you get the point. Now to the second premiss; there has been in recent times a great amount of scientific evidence that the universe( meaning all of space and time) had a beginning. To give an example, the discovery that the universe is expanding seems to provide good evidence that the universe is not past eternal. But I also think that there is pretty good philosophical evidence that the universe is not past eternal. For example, the very fact that I am writing this post on March 9, 2017, indicates that the universe is not past eternal. How so? If the universe was past eternal then there would be an infinite number of days before today. But if there was an infinite number of days before today, how could today(March 9, 2017,) ever have gotten here?

            So to conclude I think that there are good reasons to think that both of the premises true and we should therefore accept the conclusion. I know that I have typed a lot here but I hope that you will read through all of it with an open mind because I’m sure that we can both agree that the truth matters and it is important that we accept what is true rather than what we prefer.

          • RbtRgus

            And those three premises say nothing of a god and don’t get you any closer to a god. We don’t know what was before the big bang, but you just don’t make up a story or believe obvious folklore like the Bible to be a factual account.

          • Aaron Brown

            Hmmm, seems like some of what I wrote didn’t get into the post.( I had some trouble and was forced to copy and paste what but apparently I added more text after I copied it)
            “And those three premises say nothing of a god and don’t get you any closer to a god.”

            Allow me to address your objections one at a time. While it is true that the premisses don’t explicitly mention and sort of god, I think that after we reflect on what the first cause of the universe must be. The first cause of the universe must be timeless,(because it existed before time) spaceless, (because it existed before space) immaterial, (because it existed before matter) personal (in order to choose to create) and extremely powerful. (in order to create the universe from nothing) All of these attributes are ones traditionally attributed to a theistic god.(note I didn’t set out to prove the God of the Bible, only that a god exists) Now you could just bite the bullet and admit that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and extremely powerful being that created the universe exists but remain an atheist; but that seems hardly worthy of the of title of atheism.(or agnosticism)

            “We don’t know what was before the big bang”
            What do you mean by “know” in this sense?
            Do you mean we don’t know enough about the big bang to know that it was really the true beginning of the universe? Just to clarify things, do you think that the universe is eternal? Also as a side note, i gave a philosophical argument for why I think that universe cannot be eternal which made no mention whatsoever of the big bang. Do you think that the argument if faulty? If you think that it is how so?

            “but you just don’t make up a story or believe obvious folklore like the Bible to be a factual account.”
            As for this I will just reiterate a point that I made earlier clarifying that I wasn’t trying to show that the Biblical account of creation is true.

          • RbtRgus

            We don’t know what was before the Big Bang, or if there even was a “before”. Nothing is known about the universe before then and we know of no other universes. We have to say that e just do not know. Idle conjecture about causes without evidence is pointless. You mentioned that something must have existed before time and before space, but the fact is we just don’t know anything about “before” the big bang.

          • RbtRgus

            There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and extremely powerful being that created the universe. We just don’t know where the universe came from, so yours is just an exercise in mental gymnastics with no evidence. Since there is no other evidence of such a thing, it is not worth considering. What is wrong with saying we don’t know?

          • Aaron Brown

            Again, let me address your objections one by one.

            “There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and extremely powerful being that created the universe.”
            If this argument is valid then it would be evidence for such a being so I’m rather unsure how this objection really applies. Furthermore, it seems to me that you are giving up a great deal of ground to say that the universe even has a cause.

            “We just don’t know where the universe came from, so yours is just an exercise in mental gymnastics with no evidence.”
            Again I must ask you what you mean by the word “know”? More importantly I think it is important to understand that if the universe had a beginning then that is all science can tell us. Science can’t tell us what happened before the big bang because that is the area of metaphysics not science. So it is impossible for us to get scientific evidence for such a thing. All we can do is reflect on the matter and see what the cause must be.

            “Since there is no other evidence of such a thing, it is not worth considering. What is wrong with saying we don’t know?”
            i have already addressed the “no evidence” objection so I want go into that again. We’ve been getting into the weeds a lot

          • RbtRgus

            This is Kalam cosmological, right?

            Did you say that no evidence is evidence?

            The Big Bang singularity is the farthest back we can postulate at this point. We don’t know if there was a “before” or if that was the beginning. That knocks out number 2. Number 1 is out because we don’t know if or how universes begin.

            Nice god of the gaps argument.

          • Aaron Brown

            “The Big Bang singularity is the farthest back we can postulate at this point. We don’t know if there was a “before” or if that was the beginning. That knocks out number 2.”

            What do you mean by “we don’t know if there was a before or if that was the beginning”? Are you saying that we don’t know if the universe began with the big bang?

            “Did you say that no evidence is evidence?”

            I don’t believe I did could you show me where in my post I seem to imply this?

            “Number 1 is out because we don’t know if or how universes begin.”

            Even if we don’t exactly how universes come into being, I think we can rule out certain ideas( like it popped into being without a cause) as certainly false.

          • RbtRgus

            I have heard lots before. Give me your single best piece of evidence.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Prove to me it’s ok to be gay

          • RbtRgus

            Because most people in our society say so. They cause no harm to themselves or society. And they are better members of society by being open and respected as gay.

          • Joseph Matthews

            If society told you it’s okay to rape. would that make it true? no, it is not okay to be perverted. you’re okay with this because you yourself are perverted. perverts defend perversion

          • Timothy Horton

            Rape causes demonstrable physical and mental harm to the victim. The only demonstrable physical or mental harm in being non-hetero is done TO the non-hetero folks because of the effects of unfair discrimination.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Homosexuality is unsafe. to humanity and those involved in this

          • Timothy Horton

            Another unsupported, ignorance-based made up “Trump fact”.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Check out CDC and AIDS website

          • RbtRgus

            I’m not perverted. You’re perverted. 😉

          • Joseph Matthews

            I’m not the one supporting a perversion

          • UlaireToldea

            I will have to differ on you when it comes harmfulness of homosexuality. According CDC, 85% of all males receive AIDS through homosexual contact. Also, they have an HIV infection rate of 60 times more then the general population, cause 60% of all syphilis cases, have higher incidences of colon and rectal cancer and suicide rates even in areas that are gay affirming and have many anti discrimination laws in place, and finally have a 8-20 year shorter life span then the rest of the population. It appears to me that homosexuality is typically not a beneficial behavior to engage in.

          • RbtRgus

            If we get those health problems under control, then no problem with homosexuality? And lesbians are AOK?

          • UlaireToldea

            Lesbians still have some of the issues I listed, as well much higher rates of breast cancer, Cervical cancer, and Hepatitis C. although their risks are not quite as severe as the ones for gay men. I really do not see many benefits when it comes homosexuality so I don’t see any particular reason for the government to endorse it.

          • RbtRgus

            On the contrary, there is no reason to discriminate against them. They cause no harm to society, and normalizing their sexual orientation will help solve the problems of stigma and ostracism this group faces. This will in turn help improve on the health problems you mention. As I asked before, a healthy well adjusted LGBT married couple is ok, right?

          • Joseph Matthews

            Perversion should not be normalized. homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder and should still be classified as a mental disorder because it is a mental disorder. there is nothing normal about a woman lusting after another woman or a man lusting after another man. you believe this is normal because you have been brainwashed by the media to believe this is normal. there is nothing normal about it

          • RbtRgus

            No, it’s just okay to be gay. That’s all.

          • Joseph Matthews

            ”married” lol

          • RbtRgus

            If any same-sex couple can go into your town or county office and get a marriage license, that is marriage.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Call it whatever you want. it’s not a marriage

          • RbtRgus

            Tell yourself it is not a marriage if you want. It is a marriage to everybody else, including all levels of government. 😉

          • Joseph Matthews

            Government is just being PC. they know it’s not marriage. you imbecile

          • RbtRgus

            There is no difference between a govt issued same sex and opposite sex marriage license. A good thing.

          • Joseph Matthews

            What is your proof homosexuals are born that way?

          • Timothy Horton

            What is your proof they’re not? Of course you’ll never explain when and how you consciously chose your own orientation. Brave brave Sir Joseph.

          • Joseph Matthews

            I didn’t ask you but anyway. homosexuals are not born that way. there is no evidence that they are. there is only lies. but there is no real evidence that some people are born that way. their DNA structure is the same as ours. there are no brain differences either. no one is born homosexual. it’s all lies, it’s bogus and the sooner you realize that the better.

          • Timothy Horton

            All you keep doing is mindlessly repeating the same canard “not born that way!!” but with zero evidence. The fact you nor anyone else here didn’t consciously chose your own orientation is evidence it isn’t a choice.

          • Joseph Matthews

            And all you keep doing mindlessly repeating the same canard ”they’re born that way” but with zero evidence. everyone who is homosexual chose to be that way. nothing forced them to be that way. it was their own choice.

          • Joseph Matthews

            What is your evidence that they’re born that way? and don’t give me any links to any sites. I want YOU to give me YOUR evidence that they’re born that way.

          • Timothy Horton

            You are the best evidence.

          • Joseph Matthews

            And you are a moron

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! The child admits his arguments have lost.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Do a brain scan on a homosexual and see if you find anything different. I bet you won’t

          • Timothy Horton

            You lose that bet. Google the scientific study

            “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men”
            S LeVay – Science, 1991

          • Joseph Matthews

            Simon Levay Is a homosexual so I won’t take his word for anything

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Too afraid to read the scientific research he claims doesn’t exist. Here’s another paper:

            “A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality”
            JN Zhou, MA Hofman, LJG Gooren, DF Swaab – Nature, 1995

            You going to run crying from that one too?

          • Joseph Matthews

            They’re lies, you reject Christian scientists but yet have no problem with homosexual ”scientists”? no one is born homosexual or transsexual.

          • Joseph Matthews

            “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain – Simon LeVay

          • Timothy Horton

            Psst – hey dopey – you bet there would be found NO DIFFERENCES IN THE BRAINS. There were difference found. You lost. Your ignorance of the science did you in again.

          • Joseph Matthews

            There are no differences. what you have is a delusion. okay? that is what is going on with your brain. why do you keep believing what others tell you? there is no science here just lies. I can make up anything too. I can write an article use fancy sounding words and label it science. Simon LeVay and all homosexuals are liars.

          • Joseph Matthews

            You’re so brainwashed and dumb

          • Joseph Matthews

            ”There were difference found” again. I ask you, how do you know this? how can you be so sure? you’re relying on what someone else told you but how do you know that what that person is telling is the truth? I suggest you start doing your own research instead of relying on what other people tell you

          • Timothy Horton

            I posted two papers with evidence. Two papers in Science and Nature, arguably the top two science journals in the world. You ran from them both. Your willful ignorance is not my problem.

          • Joseph Matthews

            What you post is pseudoscience

          • Timothy Horton

            How would you know? You’ve never taken a science class or read a technical science paper in your life.

          • Joseph Matthews

            any ”science” backing the homo agenda is pseudoscience

          • Timothy Horton

            How old are you and what is your educational background?

          • Joseph Matthews

            You’re just as deluded as the homosexuals are thinking the’re born that way when that’s obviously not true. born homosexual is just a way to get acceptance from society. they are not born that way. before the born that way lie came into existence. homos were shunned from society and then after that when they invented the born that way lie was they started getting more acceptance from other perverts in society. this is just an excuse for people to be accept as perverts and to be perverts with the same sex without criticism. pretty soon pedos will say the same thing. they’re going to start saying they were born that way and society will start accepting them. no one is born pedo or homo. both are lies and both are choices.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Are you saying scientists can’t be liars? although I don’t consider any of these people scientists

          • That study has been roundly discredited from within the neuroscience community.

          • RbtRgus

            Nature or nurture doesn’t matter. Religion is definitely a learned behavior and lifestyle choice, and we respect people’s choices. Same for sexual orientation and gender identity.

          • Joseph Matthews

            ”there is no reason to discriminate against them” wrong. perverts and perversion should be discriminated against.

          • RbtRgus

            They’re not perverted, you pervert.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Yes they are. pervert

          • UlaireToldea

            Sorry, I sort of forgot about this response. First, we need to make an important distinction between attractions and actions. As far as I can tell. there is not much you can do about attractions, but you can certainly control behavior. All heterosexuals also have attractions that they ought not to act on. As the CDC and FDA statistics I posted appear to show, homosexual behavior tends to be destructive. The law is great teacher, so with same-sex marriage promoted beside heterosexual marriage, we will be promoting destructive behavior, which I hope we can agree is not a good thing. If acceptance leads to better overall health, then why do gays have the same health problems in countries that are gay affirming, and have anti-discrimination and hate speech laws? However, if same-sex marriage gives society benefits, then I can see reasons for the government to promote. Could you give me any specific benefits that same-sex marriage brings?

          • Timothy Horton

            “All heterosexuals also have attractions that they ought not to act on”

            And why the heck not? Physical and emotional health issues arise much more from the negative effects of discrimination than they do any sexual actions. Sex of any sort is as healthy or as dangerous as you make it. Since every sex act same-sex couples do is also done by hetero couples that argument for denying same-sex couples equal rights is as weak as they come.

            “Could you give me any specific benefits that same-sex marriage brings?”

            Removing the stigma from discrimination placed on same-sex marriage will have a huge positive effect in the overall physical and emotional well being of the LGBT population, something that will benefit all of society. We’ve already seen a statistically significant decline in the suicide rate of LGBT teenagers in states where SSM was made legal.. As an added bonus, allowing SS couples to marry will result in an immediate increase in the businesses which provide marriage services – catering services, limos, wedding halls, etc. This isn’t blowing smoke as many states have done studies showing the local ecomomy would be boosted be several million dollars a year from legalized SSM.

          • UlaireToldea

            The bad heterosexual attractions I mentioned were things such as lusting after another persons spouse. I think we can agree if you are attracted to someone who is already married, that is an attraction that should not be acted upon. As for the health problems, I don’t see how having someone discriminating against you will give AIDS, Syphilis, Hepatitis C, or Colon Cancer. I could see that reasoning being perfectly compatible with higher rates of depression and suicide I could be wrong with reasoning, however, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Also, in the countries that have had same-sex marriage for a many years and have enacted anti-discrimination laws, the negative health effects have not noticeably improved. As for the financial benefits of same-sex marriage, in the other countries that have enacted same-sex marriage, only 3% of the gay population got married. When only 3% of a small minority is getting married, I don’t see how hat could make a large enough fiscal impact to warrant much consideration. Thanks for the courtesy extended in this discussion thus far. It makes this much more fruitful and enjoyable.

          • Timothy Horton

            “I don’t see how having someone discriminating against you will give AIDS, Syphilis, Hepatitis C, or Colon Cancer”

            Hetero people get all those tings too but we don’t make their marriages illegal.

            “Also, in the countries that have had same-sex marriage for a many years
            and have enacted anti-discrimination laws, the negative health effects
            have not noticeably improved. As for the financial benefits of same-sex
            marriage, in the other countries that have enacted same-sex marriage,
            only 3% of the gay population got married.”

            Can you please provide references for these two claims? I know when SF was one of the first cities to enact a law making SSM legal a few years back over 1500 couples showed up the first day wedding licenses were available. The line went around a city block.

            Also you seem to be hung up on having SSM “pay for itself” in revenues to the state in order for the state to make it legal. that is patent nonsense. Providing civil rights to all citizens doesn’t hinge on wheter or not those rights enrich the state’s coffers. How much money did interracial marriages earn when they were fist made legal? What percentage of all marriages are interracial?

          • UlaireToldea

            Yes, they do, but they suffer from them at astoundingly lower rates. Since the only difference is between the two groups are their sexual actions, I think we can reasonably conclude that avoiding homosexual acts could effectively prevent people from obtaining most of these diseases. Since usually only extremely reckless heterosexual behavior leads to these diseases, they should not be considered a threat to heterosexual marriage. Since the government promoted only heterosexual before the Obergefell ruling, I don’t believe the government should have promoted same-sex marriage as well due to the potential risks.

            I believe those statistics came from either the respective governments, or a study done on the subject. I will try to find the exact sources and get back to you. As for the economic impact, of course factoring economics into marriage is ridiculous. I asked what benefits same-sex marriage would bring, and you responded with financial aspects. I don’t think that is worth factoring in, so I responded with a section in my last post explaining how I don’t think same-sex marriage will bring any noticeable extra revenue. As for the civil rights aspect, didn’t the previous marriage laws treat everybody equally?

          • Timothy Horton

            There are no such thing as “homosexual acts”. The sex acts practiced by hetero and non-hetero couples are the same save for penis-vagina intercourse. You can’t ban marriage based on sexual behavior for either unless you ban marriage for both. A large part of the higher health risks for same-sex couples are the direct result of the discrimination they face. Groups with more depression and lower self esteem tend to practice more unhealthy self-destructive behavior like unsafe sex and multiple partners. If you’re truly worried about gay health issues start with the root cause, not the symptoms.

            “As for the civil rights aspect, didn’t the previous marriage laws treat everybody equally?”

            No. Before the 1920’s it was illegal to have an inter-faith marriage. Before the 1960’s it was illegal to have an interracial marriage. .Couples were not free to marry the person they loved unless the person met the strict eligibility requirements.

          • Timothy Horton

            test

          • Timothy Horton

            There are no such thing as purely “homosexual acts”. The sexual acts practice by hetero and non-hetero couples are the same save for penis/vaginal intercourse. To be fair you can’t ban marriage in one group for sexual acts unless you ban marriage for both. The reason for non-hetero higher rates of sexual health issues stem largely from the discrimination they face. Groups with more depression and lower self-esteem tend to have more self-destructive behavior like unsafe sex and multiple partners. If you’re truly worried about gay health issues start with the root cause, not the symptoms.

            “As for the civil rights aspect, didn’t the previous marriage laws treat everybody equally?

            No. Before the 1920’s inter-faith marriages were illegal. Before the 1960’s interracial marriages were illegal. You could only marry if both partners met the strict requirements for eligibility.

          • RbtRgus

            But monogamous and healthy gay people are AOK?

          • UlaireToldea

            Well, those problems still occur among monogamous gay people, but not to the degree of more promiscuous ones.

          • RbtRgus

            Promiscuity is a problem gay or straight. But a well adjusted monogamous openly gay married couple are no problem, right?

          • UlaireToldea

            Yes, I agree promiscuity causes lots of problems regardless if you are gay or straight. Monogamous gay couples still have much more health problems then their straight counterparts. I do believe the government has no compelling interest to support same-sex marriage because they do not bring the same benefits that heterosexual marriage does. The government’s role shouldn’t be to promote marriage between two people who love each other, but to promote marriage that brings benefits to society. As far as I am aware, same-sex marriage doesn’t bring enough to the table for the government to recognize. Of course, I am open to any reasons you can inform me of.

          • RbtRgus

            It is definitely good for the LGBT married couple to be recognized as married. And their kids are better off having married parents than single parents. Ssm can bring plenty of benefits to society. Probably all the benefits of opposite sex marriage.

          • Joseph Matthews

            It doesn’t bring anything

          • Timothy Horton

            There a huge amount of legal benefits that are granted to married couples which are unavailable to non-married couples. Things like tax advantages of filing married, Social Security benefits, health insurance benefits, inheritance / legal guardian (especially of children) in the case of accidents or death of one parent, hospital visitation rights only available to a spouse. Married couples on average tend to live longer, healthier lives because of the presence of a full time legal partner.

            Granting those rights to SS couples wouldn’t affect the rights of hetero couples one iota.

          • UlaireToldea

            First, we do need to recognize that same-sex relationships do not procreate, so the only way same-sex couples can have children is through adoption (this excludes lesbians, as they can become pregnant through artificial means). I believe children are much better off with a mother and a father – I don’t believe either is expendable. In same-sex relationships, the children in question have to grow up with either a missing mother, or a missing father. I don’t see how this is in the best interest of the child. Of course, this is also true with children in divorced homes and children of single parents, but that is a separate problem warranting debate. I am just interested in your perspective, what specific benefits does same-sex relationships bring to society? I am open to any reasons you bring. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to share my views, and I am looking forward to hearing more of yours.

          • RbtRgus

            It has been found that children brought up in stable households are better adjusted. Two parents, same sex or opposite sex, make the household more stable, supposedly. Only one study has ever shown that children raised by same sex couples have extra problems, the Regnerus study. When it was examined in court the judge (appointed by Reagan) said the study was so flawed as to not warrant serious consideration. It was never used in court again.

          • UlaireToldea

            Your first statement certainly makes sense to me. However, I am not in complete affirmation with your second statement. If there is no difference between the sex of the two parents, that would mean the two sexes are interchangeable. It seems to me that the two sexes bring different benefits to parenting. Also, many of the studies finding no difference between same-sex parents and heterosexual parents use flawed data; they often compare the well being of children from divorced and broken homes to the best results from same-sex parents. This can result in a rather misleading conclusion. On the Regnerus study, what were the obvious flaws that where in that study? I am interested in knowing for future references. It has been nice to have a civil discussion without any name calling and personal attacks.

          • Timothy Horton

            “If there is no difference between the sex of the two parents, that would mean the two sexes are interchangeable.”

            No one said the sexes are identical but the differences in raising children in a M-F home vs. a same-sex home have been shown to be negligible. Again what is by far the most important thing in a child’s development is having a stable, loving, supportive environment. Same sex couples can and do provide that just as well as hetero couples.

          • RbtRgus

            Look up the Michigan 2014 case.

            “Regnerus appeared as an expert witness in a 2014 federal court hearing regarding Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage. Citing widespread criticism of NFSS methodology, Judge Bernard A. Friedman rejected Regnerus’ testimony, alleging the arguments derived from methodologically flawed data were “not worthy of serious consideration”

          • UlaireToldea

            In your quote, it mentioned criticism of the study’s methodology. Could you give me more specific information on how exactly the methodology was flawed? Like I said before, I would just like to better educate myself about the flaws of that study.

          • Timothy Horton

            Google * Regnerus flawed study * and you’ll get dozens of articles from professional science and medical organizations rebutting the work. Basically Regnerus cherry-picked his data so badly in an effort to come up with his pre-decided anti-gay result the whole study is worthless. Even his own university, UT Austin, issued a statement denouncing the work.

          • RbtRgus

            That was a copy and paste

          • UlaireToldea

            So I figured. I did notice, however, that you did not quite answer my question. What went wrong with the methodology they used in that study?

          • RbtRgus

            The study was flawed top to bottom. Google it.

          • Timothy Horton

            What benefits do infertile or childless hetero married couples bring to society that childless non-hetero couples don’t?

          • Timothy Horton

            Many if not most of the health issues come directly from the long history of being an oppressed minority. If you check the medical research you’ll see all discriminated minorities have more physical and mental health issues than average. Depression and anxiety lead to all sorts of bad things – drug use, alcoholism, higher suicide rate, more likely to engage in dangerous self-destructive behavior since “if society thinks I’m worthless maybe I am worthless”.

            You need to work on the root cause, not the symptoms, if you want to make a better world.

          • Joseph Matthews

            Homosexuality is an unsafe act.

          • Timothy Horton

            Homosexuality is a human sexual orientation, not an act. Any sexual act can be as safe or as dangerous as you make it. You’ve never had sex, have you? I mean with another person.

          • Joseph Matthews

            homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle not a sexual orientation. no one is born homosexual

          • Timothy Horton

            Keep running from the question of how you consciously chose your orientation. RUN JOSEPH RUN! 😀

          • Joseph Matthews

            All you speak is lies. parroting what you heard in the media. you have no proof of anything

          • Joseph Matthews

            i Chose to be straight and I choose it everyday. I choose to be with women just like how homosexuals choose to be with the same sex. it’s a choice. you are not born homosexual

          • Joseph Matthews

            Loser

          • Joseph Matthews

            But do you know what people are actually born as? black. woman. short or tall. but no one is born homosexual. that’s a myth.

          • Joseph Matthews

            no one is born homosexual. that is just an excuse to make this filthy perverted lifestyle more acceptable to society. if it were not for the born that way lie most of if not all of society would have been against homosexuals. homosexuals just want to be perverted with the same sex without being criticized for it. no one is born that way and if you had a brain in your head you’d know that

          • Louis E.

            And they have a RIGHT to protection FROM their own homosexuality,regardless of their DESIRE for protection OF it.

          • RbtRgs

            What?

          • Joseph Matthews

            Born homosexual is just a theory. it’s a belief. not a fact. you BELIEVE homosexuals are born that way. but that doesn’t make it true. they’re not born any different than rest of us. Lady Gaga promotes the born that way but I bet she has no evidence of what she promotes. they chose to be that way later in life or something happened to be for them to be that way. such as molestation or fatherless homes

          • RbtRgus

            Whether or not they’re born that way is irrelevant.

          • Timothy Horton

            You dodged the question again of when you consciously chose your orientation. Why does answering the question honestly frighten you so?

          • Joseph Matthews

            I choose be to straight everyday just like homosexuals choose to be that way everyday

          • RbtRgus

            Ok. LGBT deserve protection anyway, just as your heterosexual orientation is protected.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still afraid to describe how you conscious chose your orientation, i.e your innate sexual attractions. NOT your behavior day to day.

            Seems all the anti-LGBT civil rights folks are afraid to answer. I wonder why?

          • Joseph Matthews

            I’m answering you right now aren’t I?

          • Timothy Horton

            No, you’re still dodging the question of when and how you consciously chose your sexual orientation.

          • Gary

            All behavior is a choice. Homosexuals choose to engage in homosexual behavior.

          • Timothy Horton

            I’m didn’t ask about behavior. I asked about choosing your sexual ORIENTATION. You already told me in another thread you didn’t consciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. For some reason no one else here will admit it.

          • Gary

            Orientation is irrelevant. Everyone chooses what they do. We are not robots.

          • Timothy Horton

            Orientation is extremely relevant because no one should be denied civil rights for the orientation they were born with.

          • Joseph Matthews

            ”for the orientation they were born with.” prove it

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s been done to the satisfaction of the scientific and medical communities. The only dissension comes from religiously motivated quacks trying to justify their prejudices.

          • Joseph Matthews

            You mean POLITICALLY CORRECT ”scientific” and medical communities? who were obviously paid to lie and make things up?

          • Timothy Horton

            Provide your evidence scientists and doctors were paid to lie and make up things. Sounds like childish Trumpian excuse making.

          • Joseph Matthews

            They were paid lied do i have evidence of it? but I know it happened because it is impossible for someone to be born that way. no one is born that way. no one is born homosexual. born homosexual is a myth invented to change attitudes towards this perverted lifestyle and to make this perverted lifestyle more acceptable to society. it has nothing to do with truth. no one is born homosexual. it’s all LIES. get that through your head and quit believing what others tell you when you have no real evidence that what they’re telling you is the truth, you have no real evidence that they’ve proven that homosexuality is inborn. ”someone told homosexuality is inborn so it must be true” hook line and sinker.

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, you have no evidence. You were the one making things up and slandering scientists and doctors in the process. Typical.

          • Joseph Matthews

            They’re not ”scientists” or ”doctors” they’re liars. what is your evidence that what they are telling you is the truth?

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re still dodging the question of when and how you consciously chose your own sexual orientation.

          • Joseph Matthews

            I said I choose it everyday

          • Joseph Matthews

            Do you have any evidence of your own that they’re born that way? instead of relying on what others tell you?

          • Timothy Horton

            Yes. Read the primary scientific literature or visit the website of any major medical association.

          • Gary

            I disagree. Without behavior, no one would ever know that someone likes to engage in homosexual behavior. Sodomites cannot be protected from rejection without denying freedom of religion and freedom of association to others. There are no civil rights for perverts.

          • m flight

            Your line of reasoning is a false dilemma. Heterosexuality is the natural, normative state. Homosexuality is an aberration. Procreation is the natural biological outcome of heterosexuality. There is no biological reason for homosexuality just as there is no reason for other divergent forms of heterosexual sexual intercourse that you can see widely displayed in pornography today. At this point in time there is no scientific evidence that a person is “born” homosexual.

          • Timothy Horton

            The scientific literature is filled with research showing human sexuality is not a conscious choice but rather a complex mix of inherited genetic, in-utero hormonal, and external developmental factors. I pointed Triple T to the literature below.

            Why don’t you explain how you consciously chose your own sexual orientation. Not your behavior, your innate attractions. No one else here will step up to the plate.

      • Louis E.

        Since we are born into a two-sexed species,that obligates every last one of us to only regard those of the sex opposite to our own as potential sex partners.We are not entitled to treat same-sex partners as eligible for selection.

    • RbtRgus

      Nobody is born religious, yet we protect their lifestyle choice and learned behavior. So nature or nurture for gay people is irrelavent.

  • RbtRgus

    I think the moderators here delete a lot of posts they don’t like. Surprising they don’t just ban people like other Christian sites do.

    • Timothy Horton

      Sadly I’m finding that out.

    • Austin Roscoe

      As I mentioned in another comment, The Stream does not censor opposing viewpoints. As long as a post follows our Comment Policy, linked at the top of the comment section, it may remain on our site.

  • Jon Yau

    At this point we need to educate what homosexuality is. Boycotting something ain’t gonna do poopdidly.

    • Laurie Higgins

      Boycotting this children’s movie that will introduce little ones to positive images of homosexuality accomplishes two things: 1. It makes Christians good stewards of the money God has provided them. 2. It prevents little ones from being exposed to positive images of homosexuality. Children from the ages of say 4-12 do not need to see such images. Education about homosexuality does not need to include a Disney movie, and most pre-pubescent children do not need any education about homosexuality.

    • Timothy Horton

      What do you think homosexuality is? I’ll wager your definition is completely different from the accepted scientific one.

      • A Cater

        It is one of the worst sins noted in the Bible and which go against the law of nature and of God. God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah for committing such sins with fire and brimstone and will do the same to America with nuclear fire. It is also a sign of the End Time according to Jesus in Luke 17: 29 & 30

        • Timothy Horton

          Silly non-answer noted. Any more?

          • Triple T

            You asked what his definition was. He answered, “It is one of the worst sins noted in the Bible and which go against the law of nature and of God”. Neither silly, nor a non answer, if that’s the way he feels.

          • Tribtrooper

            More importantly, it is the way GOD feels! Our feeling mean nothing compare to those of a Holy God. HE gets to make the rules in and with His creation!

          • Timothy Horton

            Actually I asked Jon Yau what his definition was since he brought it up. Cater’s answer wasn’t a definition of homosexuality, it was his opinion of what he thinks will happen to homosexuals. Not even close to the same thing.

          • A Cater

            It’s appears that you have no interest in what God has to say on the subject, so any further comment seems pointless, however I strongly recommend that you read Romans chapter 1 verses 24 thru 32 to be better informed.

  • Several comments from more than one commenter have been flagged here for violating Stream policy regarding defamatory statements and profanity. Please review that policy before continuing your conversations.

    • Wayne Cook

      Thank you.

  • MT

    Yes, consistency is the desired position.

    It’s a life process and culture that we knit into the fabric of our lives. This blog post almost makes it all or nothing, so if we are not consistent (by whose measure?) then, since we are not, consistent, then what’s the problem, go see the movie because we are not consistent. That is not a good place to be in my humble opinion.

    We are all a work in progress and so are our lives. If we use this movie as another place to demonstrate to our children and discuss this with them, that doesn’t make us inconsistent, it makes us family.

    My parenting style has grown as I’ve had my five children and what I do now is also developed from what I did in the beginning with my first two children.

    I am being consistent. I’m consistently growing in my ability to parent my children and what that looks like does change over time. Someone viewing me from the outside will see what appears to be inconsistency, but they are looking not at the culture of parenting that is developing over time but at discrete moments, that can appear to be inconsistent.

  • Mr. M

    I think it’s really odd, and sad, that some Christians believe it would be better that LGBTs have no relationship with Jesus than a relationship, even if you believe it’s flawed. I mean, if someone is gay and refuses your “truth in love” isn’t it still better they come to church than not? The likes of Denny Burk and Michael Brown would say, “no”. Un-Christian if you ask me.

    • Gary

      God won’t accept sodomites, so there is no possibility of a “relationship” between them and God. Going to church won’t change that.

      • Mr. M

        God won’t accept sanctimonious blowhards like yourself either. Again, the question is: is it better or worse that a gay person have a relationship with Jesus. Your answer is no. I have a feeling Jesus would disagree.

        • A Cater

          The only way they could have a relationship with Christ is to repent of their sins including Sodomy and be born again of God’s Holy Spirit. The Christian faith is built upon the Word of God. “The ungodly shall not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous, for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish” Psalms 1:5 & 6 What fellowship has light with darkness?

          • Tribtrooper

            Absolutely right! We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and we all must repent and turn from our sin. If people thing for one nanosecond they will take their sin into God’s presence, carry on with a homo lifestyle, claim it’s okay with God who says it abomi action, they are very sadly mistaken. God is Holy and evil cannot be in His eternal Kingdom.

          • Mr. M

            So the ONLY way to have a relationship with God is to be perfect? Not sin?

          • A Cater

            All are born in sin and shaped in iniquity, and we can only find forgiveness through Christ who paid the price for our sins by His death on the cross. By accepting Him and that pardon for sin can mankind be brought back into fellowship with God. All Christians are expected by God to warn the disobedient of the consequences of sin. It is an act of mercy and love from God when He warns us of the danger we are in. Similar to the loving mother who warns her child not to swim in alligator infested waters because of her love for the child, God warns us out of love. Love is corrective. The greatest honor in life is to hear the voice of God calling us to pardon and eternal life. When we are in right standing with Him we have a peace and joy that passes understanding.

        • Tribtrooper

          It is obvious that yon haven’t the slightest idea of what the Bible clearly and unquestionably teaches…..better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You need to read Leviticus and Romans for starters re sexual perversion.

    • Wayne Cook

      Mr M…Michael Brown has publicly invited gays to his church, so that argument is without basis in his case.

      The problem is, that LGBT’s don’t just want to come to church, but fake their interest in it, so they can have access to young people. That happened in fact, in my church, resulting in a child being raped outside the church one Sunday evening and a man being sent to jail. He was gay. The child and his family left the church and sued, understandably.

      Church is for sick, not well people and there is only one way for the church to deal with it…invite the sick into be evangelized, but guard children more closely. Not a popular notion at the very least…but asking WWJD without honesty and love only results in further fakery and the same sins of judgemental arrogance as the outside practices now.

      • Timothy Horton

        “The problem is, that LGBT’s don’t just want to come to church, but fake their interest in it, so they can have access to young people”

        What an absolutely ridiculous thing to claim. You take an example of ONE individual committing a crime and use it to smear ALL individuals in the minority group. How do you think Christians would react if a story about ONE Christian rapist was used to argue ALL Christians are rapists?

      • Mr. M

        Do you have any citation for this crime? If true, that is absolutely terrible. Horrific. The man should be castrated in my honest opinion. But are you really going to lump all gays trying to have a relationship with Jesus as people “faking interest” to get access to children? That’s as offensive as saying all Catholic priests are child molesters.

    • Judy Atwell

      Love without truth is not love!
      Our witness needs to be with love and truth without compromise. Trust in the Holy Spirit to convict.

      • Mr. M

        Your “truth” and my “truth” are two different “truths”.

  • bbb

    Absolutely Franklin Graham is right to stand for God’s Word and will.
    My children and I grew up at a time when Disney was the label for cleancut, fun, charming animated stories.
    Now for grandchildren suddenly what was considered good is bad, and bad is good.
    No, Christ and God and the Holy Spirit are eternal and infinite and do not change.
    So, I am happy at this time to be provided a gentlemanly warning to those of us who did not get the memo that Disney has gone to the Dark Side. I do appreciate anyone with the courage to let us know the truth.
    Truth.
    Truth.
    Truth.
    That seems not to be popular in the US or Hollywood today. It might be worth looking up.
    I am proud to be a Christian and I would be proud to die if necessary for God’s inerrant word being lived every day of my life.

    • Tribtrooper

      Amen and AMEIN!!!!

  • pescher

    Somehow we’ve lost sight of the fact that Disney is an entertainment corporation and has a product to sell. Anyone who shops for anything boycotts many, many products every day but usually are not public about it, for example preferring one brand over another. Those who claim that Disney is educating our young (or preparing them for the future/reality) are confusing entertainment with informing; this latter being the exclusive right of parents. It is true that the entertainment industry does/can have some influence on the public -see pornography as an extreme example- but for those who object to specific ‘lessons’ should be congratulated for being informed and willing to not just follow the crowd but voice their opinions. For those who link any Christian criticism with blind adherence to religious doctrines either are revealing their ignorance or bias as I have met many highly educated and reasoning people in the churches as well as in secular society.

  • Terry Mather

    How many Christians boycotted Macys over their support of Planned parenthood when the selling of baby parts came to light? I did but I didn’t post it for the world to know about it. I understand if you are disappointed that Disney had to add to this classic movie but when you look at how our world is you can not be surprised. I disagree that voting for Trump was not a moral slippery slide for Christians and I think will haunt their argument for “right living” for years to come! Do what you think is best for you and yours but why drive more wedges between us and showing Christ love to the world by having a revolt? Disney is a business that may not make all the right choices but they make many good ones also.

    • Many good points to consider here.

      • Triple T

        The best of which, to me, is “Do what is best for you and yours”. I don’t agree with what’s presented in this movie, so I won’t take my children to see it. Maybe somebody else doesn’t care and will take his children. That’s his business. Maybe the country wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in if everybody would just “do what is best for you and yours” and not worry about “what’s best for him and his”.

        • Hmm. That’s a pretty relative way of looking at things, in my humble opinion. God gave us a Law for this very reason, my friend, because we could not be trusted to just do what is right for ourselves, etc.

          • Triple T

            Oh, you’ll get no argument from me about the need to follow God’s Law. But if my neighbor decides not to follow, that’s his business. He can live with the choices he makes and their repercussions. That’s what I meant by that.

    • CbinJ

      I agree with you. I am a strong advocate of boycotts, but you have to be smart about it. I boycott Target knowing that the other big block stores are just as supporting of progressive causes as Target. However, Target has specifically taken time and energy to declare that they deny biology and don’t care who their policies alienate. If we boycott Disney, we must only target the offensive products and services. If we generally boycott the entire company (which is basically impossible anyway because they own almost everything), Disney isn’t going to be motivated to make anything that we can support. They’ll just build their business model to count us (conservatives) out. I’m not even saying boycotts work in this day and age, living in a materialistic oligarchy, but they certainly won’t work if they aren’t clear/concise in message and specifically targeted toward certain products or services.

  • Jay Hall

    I and my family backed away from Disney many, many years ago. Their pro homosexual agenda started decades ago. Now they’re just more in your face with it. JC Penney tried to go after the gay community a couple years ago, and they’ve still not come back from that choice. So has Target been hurt in sales with their Transgender stance. I guess my question is this…why would CEO’s of large corporations choose to alienate about 35% of the purchasing population for the sake of less than 3% of the purchasing population? Stupid is as stupid does I guess.

    • Timothy Horton

      ” I guess my question is this…why would CEO’s of large corporations choose to alienate about 35% of the purchasing population for the sake of less than 3% of the purchasing population?”

      It’s an investment for the future. Disney knows the older demographic favoring legalized discrimination against minorities is slowly but surely dying out. The Gen-Xers and Millennials replacing them, Disney’s future customers, are much less narrow minded and much more aware of how diversity and inclusion of minorities helps all society. Disney will be seen as one of the leaders in the battle against the unfair prejudices.

      • Triple T

        Are these the same millenials who were going to help sweep Hillary Clinton into the White House in an historic victory? You may not necessarily want to believe everything you read about this age group and the way they think as a whole.

        • Timothy Horton

          Yep. Look at the latest Gallup poll on the topic. The overall support for LGBT equal civil rights in such areas as same-sex marriage is 61%. For the age group 18-34 it’s 73%. Old prejudices die hard but eventually they do die.

          • Triple T

            Unless they asked every single person in the age range their thoughts on the matter, which is impossible, the results are limited only to that particular group. It may be a good indication, you may be right, but that’s all it is.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! You have a lame hand-wave for every piece of data I present which you don’t like. 🙂

            P.S. Go research sampling theory as it applies to statistics.

          • Triple T

            And how do you know that study wasn’t conducted entirely in Greenwich Village in Manhattan or Haight Ashbury in San Francisco? Don’t you think the results might then be different than if it were conducted in middle America or the South? I think you’re the one who may need to open your eyes and realize that studies can be skewed, biased and cherry picked to say what the presenter wants them to say.

          • Timothy Horton

            I had you pegged as someone who wouldn’t offer wild woo woo conspiracy theories in order to deny reality. Are you going to prove me wrong?

          • Triple T

            What “conspiracy theory” have I suggested? All I’m asking is that you consider all possibilities for why things are the way they are instead of pulling some statistic from Google that you know nothing about and blindly accepting it as fact

          • Timothy Horton

            The Gallup polling organization is one of the oldest and most respected in the country. Now suddenly just because you don’t like the nationwide poll results the poll must be bad. What a weaksauce cop out.

          • Triple T

            There you go again, making things up to suit your purposes. Point out where I said that the results “must be bad”. They may be skewed, they may not be. But you refuse to even accept that there’s a chance that they may be. There was an old Simpsons episode in which Milhouse exclaimed “If it’s in a book, it’s gotta be true!” Is that how you think as well?

          • Timothy Horton

            You keep offering the opinion “if it contradicts what I want to be true about the non-hetero population it must be false”. Like I said, that’s the weakest weaksauce cop out. You sound like a YEC arguing that all the scientific evidence we have on an old Earth gathered in the last 300 years must be wrong.

          • Triple T

            There’s that word “must” again. For the last time, I never said that anything I disagree with “must” mean anything. But you refuse to at least accept that people write things and conduct studies from their own points of view. According to your logic, you must accept everything you see in an article on this site as the unvarnished truth because somebody says it is.

          • Timothy Horton

            If you have any evidence the 2016 Gallup poll on attitudes towards LGBT rights was somehow erroneous or skewed then present it. Otherwise you’re just blowing gas.

          • Triple T

            There really is no point trying to explain this to you any further, because you will not listen, but here’s one last shot before I go to bed. No, I have no evidence to support that. That does not mean that none exists. The same way that a verdict of “not guilty” in a courtroom does not equal “innocent”. Good night.

          • Timothy Horton

            “Sure I have no evidence the Earth is only 6000 years old but some may exist, somewhere. Therefore we should doubt all scientific findings of an old Earth”.

            Anyone should be ashamed to offer reasoning like that.

          • Triple T

            No, I think you should be ashamed in continuing to try these ridiculous comparisons like this one or that silly statement you made a few days ago about how someone cannot be considered a murder unless he murders every person he sees. Of course there is evidence that the Earth is over 6000 years old. Anyone who personally doesn’t have the evidence can sped five minutes looking it up. The same cannot be done for what is in the mind of a person conducting a study.

          • Timothy Horton

            Actually it was you who made the silly claim a person couldn’t be prejudiced against LGBT people because he has sometimes interacted with LGBT people in the past. Now you’re willing to accept without question scientific studies which agree with your personal opinions but reject studies which don’t agree them. The word for that is hypocrisy.

          • Kevin Quillen

            are you aware that is NO evidence that queers are “born” that way? NONE. Do you believe without evidence?

          • Kevin Quillen

            actually it is wrong. carbon 14 in dino bones?????

          • Kevin Quillen

            they sure nailed the Presidential election of Hillary. oops. nevermind.

          • Tribtrooper

            Your secular, humanistic data means diddly to those of us who love and serve God. “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable, & disobedient, & worthless for any good deed. Titus 1:15,16

          • Tribtrooper

            You keep rattling off SECULAR, godless figure and philosophies. Those do not, cannot, and will never make filth acceptable to God. He tells us, “be ye HOLY for I Am HOLY.”
            It is just as pointless to try to convert those of us who belive God and it would be to hand a fishing pole to a quadriplegic and expect him catch fish.
            There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.

          • Timothy Horton

            “You keep rattling off SECULAR, godless figure and philosophies.”

            Statistics on equality beliefs aren’t secular or godless or philosophy. They’re simply values which represent empirically measured reality. Deal with it or not, it won’t affect reality one iota.

          • Tribtrooper

            Your loss, not mine..

          • Tribtrooper

            “Empirically measured reality” or not, sin is sin, right is right and wrong is wrong. God is still on the Throne, and He changes not. He destroyed Soddom and Gomorah for this perversion, and He has not changed His mind just because the PC police deem what is inherently evil as the new good. Reality is that He is returning for a spotless bride, not one soiled with sin and perversion. Reality is that it is He who decides what is right and what is wrong. He gave us His Holy Word as a guide for how to live and how not to live. LGBT is but one on the not to list.

      • Tribtrooper

        None of that matters! It is a matter of wrong is wrong, no matter what the PC morons choose to accept or deny. Walt Disney would come up outta his grave if he knew what they are doing to his company! This is not in th family values tradition that was the Disney studios under his direction.

        • Timothy Horton

          Times change, values change. People learn that tolerance and inclusion of minorities is better for society than intolerance and exclusion.

          • Tribtrooper

            Morality does not, however, change, and when we accept what is sin, or in the case of homosexuality, abomination in God’s eyes, we are leaving our first love, just as the church if Laodicea did. I am speaking of what is morally right and wrong, what is acceptable to God and what is not. I personally don’t give a fig abiut what society chooses to wallow in the mire with. When back away from God’s will, we fall into lock step with Satan. There WILL be recompense for this turning away.

          • Timothy Horton

            With all due respect Tribtrooper what you personally consider “immoral” has nothing to do with secular laws or acceptance by society of minorities as equals.

          • Triple T

            Our religious beliefs, and our sense of morality, do not change with the whims of society. That’s what religion is.

          • Timothy Horton

            That’s fine personally, whatever floats your boat. You need to accept however what works for you doesn’t work for the majority of your fellow citizens.

          • Triple T

            And I expect you to do the same.

          • Timothy Horton

            I’m OK to go with the majority who believe the non-hetero portion of the population deserves equal civil rights, the identical rights now provided to the hetero portion. How about you?

          • Triple T

            I’m good with the belief system I currently have, be it that of the “majority” or not. And whether it is or is not is irrelevant. You don’t change your morals and values base on what others think. People who actually have principles don’t, anyway. I don’t care if someday I’m the only person in the entire world who thinks this way, I will not change. What are you unable or unwilling to understand about that?

          • Timothy Horton

            “I’m good with the belief system I currently have, be it that of the “majority” or not.”

            You didn’t answer my question. Are you OK with going with what the majority thinks are moral and fair secular laws concerning the non-hetero population?

          • Triple T

            No, I’m not OK going along with what the majority thinks for no reason other than because they are the majority.

          • Timothy Horton

            You just said above you’d accept the majority’s decisions even if different than your own. Now you say you won’t. Which is it?

          • Triple T

            I accept their right to accept it for themselves. I will not abandon what I think is right simply because fewer people think that way.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! You berate a minority for not accepting the current laws which deny them civil rights. Then when the majority backs the minority’s requested improvements you say you won’t accept the new laws. Rather hypocritical, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Triple T

            These mental gymnastics of yours are becoming a bit much for me. What on Earth does this even mean?

          • Timothy Horton

            It seems to mean you don’t like when someone points out how you directly contradicted yourself in the span of 10 minutes.

          • Triple T

            Where do you see that?

          • Tribtrooper

            Exactly! True believers have always been a remnant, always will be!

          • Kevin Quillen

            would you agree with the majority if your property was to be taken and given to me by democratic vote? Or your life?

          • Tribtrooper

            God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. What was sin, what was abomination in Biblical times is still sin and abomination today. Satan is the temporary ruler of this world. He knows his time is short, and he is doing all in his power to take as many with him to hell as he can. Yon can choose the narrow path that leads to God and eternal,bliss, or yon can take the wide, comfy, crowded path thst may feel good and right now, but it will end in eternal damnation and he’ll. Your choice, choose wisely coz the end result is eternal, no reprieves once yon leave this life.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Here’s a hint. Threatening me with hellfire and damnation only affects me by giving me eyestrain from rolling my eyes. 🙂

          • Tribtrooper

            You won’t be rolling them when you stand before God one day…something to ponder.
            Sent from my iPad

          • Timothy Horton

            OUCH! There goes my eyestrain again.. 😀

          • Tribtrooper

            There is none so blind as he who will not see. Try not to strain your eyes, you will need them to dodge demons’ constant attacks when you reach your eternal destination — without repentance, that is…

          • CbinJ

            Maybe take a history class before you spout your religious belief in progressivism. The fact is values nor people nor times change. All of the great empires had an upsurge in (a tolerance of and inclusion for) sexual rebellion before they collapsed. There is nothing new under the sun; we are simply repeating history and you are on the wrong side of it. Because, while the world in their ways is corrupted and crumbling and will pass away, God and His Righteousness and Justice will endure eternally.

          • Timothy Horton

            ” The fact is values nor people nor times change.”

            That is so dumb as to be laughable. Does the U.S. still allow slavery like it did into the 1860’s? Does it still ban inter-religion marriages like it did into the 1920’s? ? Does it still ban interracial marriages like it did into the 1960’s?

            Only idiots stand still while the rest of the world changes and improves.

          • davidrev17

            Timothy:

            Personal, or subjective opinions, such as what you expressed in your last sentence – i.e., “Only idiots stand while the rest of the world changes and improves” – are purely values-oriented; and as such, have NO grounding in scientific or historical fact – particularly the scientific enterprise, whose sole interests are value-neutral. (Like “science doesn’t do God” etc.)

            And I certainly wouldn’t call the fact that the 20th-century being “by-far the bloodiest in recorded human history” – with well-over 100-million human beings now known to have been slaughtered, under strictly atheistic totalitarian regimes at that – anywhere near representing some sort of “evolving improvement” in the human moral character and/or condition either.

            Plus, that number of genocidally-related deaths doesn’t even include the cold-blooded heinous execution of almost 60-million innocent, defenseless, and voiceless UNborn members of the species Homo sapiens (just since Jan. ’73!); effected through and by the now legally institutionalized “medical procedure” called abortion, while mind-numbingly taking place in the very location thought safest for them – their own mother’s womb?

            And WE human beings characterize this form of genocidal slaughter as “personal choice”??? Now my friend: what’s wrong with this picture?

            “Thus says the LORD: The [human] heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked [Hebrew = “incurably sick”]; Who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind [or “most secret parts”]. Even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.”

            (Our Creator God speaking through the the Jewish prophet Jeremiah, some 2,600 years ago: 17:9-10)

            “Facts are stubborn things…”

          • Tribtrooper

            Actually, following the world leads to eternal separation from God….and in a location called hell. No thanks, I will stick with God and His will for my life.

          • CbinJ

            There is more slavery in the world today than there was in 17th and 18th centuries. Your other two points have nothing to do with anything. For example, before the 1960’s interracial marriage wasn’t banned. In the colonies and other areas of the West, white and Natives married, Natives and Blacks married, etc, etc. Laws have origins and contexts. You ignore both of those things in favor of utter ignorance. (BTW, I don’t think you want to start debating me regard this specific issue as I have a History degree and I studied slavery and colonialism, specifically.)
            Tell me the world changes and improves as people continue to blow each other up, murder their unborn children, enslave people, committ and perpetuate all kinds of sexual perversion, and worship at the altar of pagan ideas like radical environmentalism–just to name a few. Your progressive ideas are as regressive as one can possibly get. Only living a clean life in Truth progresses the state of an individual and humanity. To have cleanliness and Truth, you must follow the Natural Law. You are simply a fool until you acknowledge basic logic paradigms and basic historical, psychological, philosophical facts regarding the human condition.

          • Tribtrooper

            GOD, however does not change. Tolerance of evil will never be acceptable to a HOLY GOD nor should it be acceptable to anyone with a shred of morality and decency.

  • davidrev17

    Just why are professing Christian’s in this country so profoundly befuddled, decade-in, and decade-out, with the biblical reality – in time-space-dimension history – that fallen, thus unregenerate “sinner’s” have an irresistible inward compunction to engage in SIN…i.e., in thought, word and deed?? Why is it that we exhibit little-or-no opposition, or moral outcry/distaste when those of our own have been exposed by our Father, as representing little more than flaming evangelical hypocrites??

    I mean, it’s not as though Walt Disney has been known for its hefty production of Christian missionary-related, evangelistic movies etc. during the last several decades; even though we’ve all certainly been moved by their periodic forays into those touchy-feely-funny movies, of which we’ve come to refer as being “family-friendly.”

    “For Pete’s Sake”: Let’s get biblically real about these non-issues! The Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, has already given us His sound biblical counsel in this particular area (e.g., 1 Corinthians chapter 5); but more importantly, the issue he raises for we Christian’s in 1 Cor. 5:9-10 Re: the specific context of which Dr. Brown is emphasizing. “Let’s keep the main thing, the main thing,” while we’re “just passing through” this physical-life here on planet earth.

    Just because this movie is being shown throughout God Bless America now, surely doesn’t mean that so-called Christian’s are obligated to watch it – simply because the title Disney is associated with it.

  • Kristin Solo

    Christians cannot condone what God condemns >
    Leviticus 18:22
    ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
    it is abomination’.

    So how come it’s OK for Beauty to fall for the Beast ?!
    Leviticus 18:23
    ‘Neither shall you lie with any animal to defile yourself with it:
    neither shall any woman stand before an animal to lie down with it:
    it is perversion’.

    • Tribtrooper

      That is very true, but of course in the original cartoon movie, the “beast” was really a handsome prince who had been placed under a curse. he walked on two feet, spoke, like a man. The writers might have actually gotten the idea from the biblical account of Daniel of Nebucanizer in his Babylon captivity. It used to be that many movie writers had a good knowledge of Scripture and actually had respect for His Word and for believers. What a shame all that is gone and believers are now fodder for vulgarity and laughing stalks.

      • Triple T

        I started typing what you just said, went to answer the phone, and when I got back, your reply was here. Yes, the Beast was actually a person. Moreover, I don’t remember Beauty lying with the Beast to defile herself during any part of the story.

      • Kristin Solo

        Ha! it was tongue in cheek Trib re Hypocrites Y’all !

        • Triple T

          How so?

          • Kristin Solo

            Biblically speaking, it has to be acknowledged that some aspects of the Disney tales are as grim as the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, which feature aspects of the occult re fairies, elves, goblins, wizards, witches and their magic wands, deadly potions, evil spells etc … which are as insidiously harmful as Harry Potter and ET!

          • Triple T

            That doesn’t explain how what you wrote is “tongue in cheek”. Explain how it is to me if you think I’m missing something here.

          • Kristin Solo

            Of course the text @ Leviticus 18:23 is not literally applied to the tale of Beauty and the Beast yet the tongue in cheek implication cannot be dismissed since Beauty tells the Beast that she loves him, in his beastly form.
            Hence it is indeed hyocritical to focus with objection on the ‘gay’ agenda only , since the tale also involves aspects of enchantment and sorcery, which the Bible condemns…it was a ‘ fairy’ who turned the prince into a beast , was it not?

          • Triple T

            Well played. Thanks for taking the time to explain, it’s been a long day.

          • Kristin Solo

            You’re welcome ~ Iron sharpens iron !

          • Triple T

            Actually, what you describe goes to show that if you dig deep enough, you could probably find something contrary to the Bible anywhere you look. I certainly won’t be taking my children to see this movie, but the case could be made that an all encompassing boycott of Disney may not be necessary at this point. Of course, for those who feel that is the way to go, that is their prerogative as well.

          • Kristin Solo

            Satanic inroads are established through ways and means that initially appear harmless until put to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

          • Triple T

            It does seem as though the method of choice is to insert something seemingly small and innocuous at first where it will likely not be noticed or cared about, then gradually increase the amount and visibility until there is no going back.
            A is subtly inserted into a movie.
            B is inserted into another later, using acceptance/indifference for A as the justification (“Well, you didn’t notice/care about A, so why is B a big deal?”)
            C is inserted next, using B as the justification, and so forth, until total acceptance and normalization are the expectations.

          • Timothy Horton

            You mean like they did when introducing interracial couples in the movies and on TV in the 60’s? What a sneaky plan by Hollywood to force us to accept racial equality.

          • Kristin Solo

            Yes the devil’s modus operandi is a subtle mix of a seemingly harmless yet toxic brew by which people gradually become desensitised to the dangers involved.

  • Tribtrooper

    Read Revelation 21:8

  • CHASBAKER

    It is foolish to condone one thing because something else has been condoned just as it is foolish to condemn one thing because another has been condemned. One mistake doesn’t sanctify another anymore than one good choice means all choices are good.
    Bottom line, Christians should not support what the Bible rejects.
    The questions still remain,
    If not now, when?
    If not here, where?
    If not us, who?

    • davidrev17

      …Whose only logical answer, to your rhetorical questions clearly posed to the genuine “children of the Most High” – lies in the “Great Commission” found in Matthew 28:18-20!

  • Gary

    Boycotting Disney, Target, or any company that endorses perversion is the right thing to do. But don’t expect the boycott to change the minds of those who have made the choice to endorse perversion. If you are boycotting for the purpose of changing minds, you are wasting your time and energy. Making the choice to endorse perversion is permanent. People who go down that road never get off of it.

    • cagedvole

      O Gary – permanent humanly speaking perhaps – but thank God, his arm is not shortened, that it cannot save.
      If thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it?
      But there is mercy with thee: therefore shalt thou be feared.

      • Gary

        Perverts never repent.

        • Tribtrooper

          Not sure of that. I have read testimonials of former homosexuals who reformed, married and had families. With God all things are possible!

          • Kristin Solo

            Agreed ~ Nothing is impossible with God.

          • Gary

            I don’t believe those testimonials.

          • Tribtrooper

            It doesn’t matter whether YOU believe the or not. That is between them and God first of all, and secondly, unless you have proof someone lying, you are judging erroneously and you will be judged as you have judged them. Are yon prepared to be judged by how you judge others?

  • Travis Martin

    Praise God for Graham and others exposing and boycotting Disney. It wasn’t long ago, 3/2016, that Disney sent a message to Georgia that no new movies would be made there because of Georgia taking a stand against gay marriages by faith-based organizations. “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.”

  • Mr. M

    Yeah – you wonder why people are leaving the church in droves, this is why. Mocking LGBTS “he thinks he looks good in his pink bikini!” – again, even if you believe it – is so un-Christ like, who would want to join that kind of crowd?

    • Tribtrooper

      Tell me, how would you like for your children to observe a scrawny, hump shouldered, pot bellied, rotten toothed 60 somethings geezer they have known as a man out mowing in a pink bikini? As I said in a response from my email that I don’t see here, I have dealings with people in the LGBT community quite often. I am never rude to them or unfriendly. We actually have had some pleasant conversations, and I have found most to be respectful decent people…lost to a sinner’s hell, but mostly not obnoxious. There have been a few “flamers” who made my skin crawl over the years, however. They would be welcome in my church, but their lifestyle would not be accepted as normal and wholesome, nor would they have a wedding performed by our pastor., who consequently has a “gay” brother he prays will turn from this abomination. LGBTs, should nah find their way to my church, would, however, be gently led in a Biblical, Godly direction to turn from their perversion. I stand my by statements and will continue to speak out against perversion.
      God does not create something then turn around and label it abomination. This, as all perversion and sin, comes from satan and is among his attempts to destroy the people of God and usurp,the very throne of Gos. He has always failed, and he will continue to fail till he is cast into hell for all eternity along with all,who fell for his plethora of scams. Have you?

  • Tribtrooper

    Hi David. Hope all is well with you. Yes, so much of the church today has fallen into sin, accepting the unacceptable as normal. It is heart breaking to see this gross decline in values, even by the church, but it was all prophecied, wasn’t it! The great falling away is underway and has been growing exponentially in the last decade.
    Blessings to you and yours.

  • Kristin Solo

    Shabbat Shalom David!
    Always appreciative of your eloquent and inspirational posts!

  • markgiambrone

    John 15:10King James Version (KJV)

    10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

    John 14:15King James Version (KJV)

    15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.So where does Disney side with the love of God the Father and God The Son ? what does Conservative or liberal have to do with keeping the Loving commandments like God desires all people to do.when does Repentance from Sin Start or End ? where is Salvation in any Disney theme offered By Jesus ? If gay minions of Satan have drunk from the wine of babylon and being a Priest or Pastor lead people that its ok to live and promote this way of Sin to others and they don’t wake up then the God of Justice will be meted out and His Mercy as Well to those that Follow The Lamb where ever He goes . The world is fixed in Condemnation since Sin entered this world we are given a choice to choose to take the Pardon which was offered and the price paid in a Free Gift .to answer your question Jesus would not go to the movie but to rebuke it. he Loves us so much that he is willing to give all people a chance to change their minds.

    • RbtRgus

      Silly old folklore.

      • davidrev17

        By “Silly old folklore,” I take it that you’re referring to the still unimpeachable, and unassailable factual historicity of Yeshua/Jesus’ crucifixion – meaning the fully-human, yet fully-Divine Son of God – his resulting death, burial, thus physical/bodily resurrection from the grave “on the third day” – circa 30 C.E.??

        If not, please forgive me if I’m wrong in that.

        • RbtRgus

          Jesus resurrection? Yes, silly old folklore. There are no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus or any supernatural acts, and the Bible is not a reliable source as documenting historical events.

          • Tribtrooper

            Have fun explaining this to Him when you stand before God one day, and you will.

          • Kristin Solo

            Right on @ Tribtrooper ~
            ‘For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning against everyone who is proud and lofty;
            And against everyone who is lifted up, that he may be abased’. ~ Isaiah 2:12

          • Tribtrooper

            Exactly, and as a comedian said years ago, “I pity the fool” to which I add who denies God’s Son when he WILL stand before Him & give an account for his foolish disbelief. The fool says in his heart, “there is no God.”

          • RbtRgus

            Same thing a Ponzi schemer might say.

          • Tribtrooper

            You should know, as yon are acidic following a Ponzi scheme of the devil…good luck with that.

          • RbtRgus

            The devil is just as evidently fictional as Yahweh.

          • Tribtrooper

            Well….you will one day learn a very hard lesson. One yon are clearly not prepared to learn. Now, say bye bye, coz this conversation is finished. I cast no more Pearl before swine to be trampled under foot.

          • RbtRgus

            Are you worried about Muslim hell? Probably not. I am not worried about theirs or yours. Both religions are evidently false and worthy of ridicule. Good day, sir!!

          • Kristin Solo

            Clearly you have NEVER read the Bible MUCH LESS studied it!

          • RbtRgus

            Over thirty years a habitual/cultural church goer. Then I read the Bible and studied it. That’s why I am an atheist.

          • Kristin Solo

            It is indisputably ‘impossible’ for anyone who has genuinely studied the Bible to deny its impacting truth and disregard its prophetic accuracy, in respect of the historical record and current events, as they align with foretold future fulfillment, not to mention the spiritually enlightening revelation of GOD that comes to those who diligently seek His Face by immersing themselves in His Word.
            So RR, considering that God alone can do the ‘impossible’, it has to be said that you are foolishly dishonest with yourself and naively deceptive with others to flippantly claim that you became an atheist after ‘reading and studying’ the Scriptures.
            Anyone who HAS actually studied the Bible will be acutely aware that you don’t know the first thing about the profound perspective of God’s awesome revelation to Mankind contained therein.

          • RbtRgus

            Bible, bible, bible, blah, blah, bible, bible. Ridiculous. It is a book of folklore.

          • RbtRgus

            Look on YouTube for “The Atheist Experience”. Matt D. knows more about the Bible than most preachers. And is a former fundamentalist Christian, now an avowed atheist.

          • Kristin Solo

            So you are a duped fan of an avowed atheist, who is accounted as the most wretched among men, ensnared by vain deception, preaching heresy and error at gullible hordes of scripturally impoverished sheeple, being driven headlong to the edge of a precipice.
            Look in the Bible for ”The Born Again Experience” before your soul is required of you.

          • RbtRgus

            Talk about gullible. Religion is the pinnacle of gullibility.

          • RbtRgus

            Talk about gullible. Religion is the pinnacle of gullibility, believing a book of obvious folklore to be a factual account. Global flood? Never happened. 900 year old men? No. Child sex slavery commanded by god? He is a jerk.

          • Kristin Solo

            Spoken like an adolescent clown, devoid of informed intelligence, which means the joke is on you, jerk !

          • RbtRgus

            Well, the bottom line is that I just don’t believe in your vindictive and jealous Bronze Age monster god. That’s all.

          • Kristin Solo

            Me neither! My God is ‘Love’
            AKA
            YHWH Elohim, KING of Kings and LORD of Lords.

          • RbtRgus

            Silly.

            It’s a great country. We have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You can believe that stuff and I can safely and completely disregard it. And each of us is free from having his beliefs imposed on the other.

          • Kristin Solo

            Your inappropriate use of the feeble word ‘silly’ aptly represents your diminished perspective of spritual reality.
            I am inclined to ignore the relentlessly crass remarks of an avowed atheist past a certain point but not without first providing the alternative option, which leaves the ball in your court on the Day of Judgement . Good luck with that!

          • RbtRgus

            Your book is obviously a piece of bronze age folklore. I’m sure you are not worried about winding up in the Muslim hell, probably because you find their holy book to be misguided, fabricated, or just plain wrong. That is the same way I feel about the Christian hell and holy book as well as the Muslim hell and holy book. Just funny old stories — not a big deal.

          • Kristin Solo

            Only a hopeless atheist could confuse the knowledge of The Living God with a satanic death cult. ‘Silly’ huh!

          • RbtRgus

            That’s the same type of slander the Muslims say about your imagination-based mystery cult.

          • Judy Atwell

            What if you are wrong(rbtrgs) about eternity,and the Bible is correct.
            Eternity is to long to be wrong!

          • RbtRgus

            What do you mean by spiritual?

          • Tribtrooper

            Amen and AMEIN Kristin! Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Yeshua is Lord to,the glory of God the Father, even if he is forced to his knees, he WILL make this confession. If in this life, to eternal joy, if after death, to eternal damnation, but he will confess it.

          • Louis E.

            The Bible being wrong doesn’t speak at all to the absolute necessity of an Infinitely First Cause.

          • RbtRgs

            We do not know if there was a cause for the Big Bang. We have to accept that until we have more information. We may never have it — that’s ok.

          • Louis E.

            Whatever the answer is,is by definition “God”.

          • davidrev17

            “…They [apostates, false teachers etc.] went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19)

            * * *

            According to your own words, as well as the irrebuttable empirical evidence existing WITHIN the historical “Church” (or “called-out one’s”) during the last 2,000 years – or just consider Jesus’ powerfully compelling revelation in the “Parable of the Soils,” whose “truth” is perfectly consistent with the above passage from (1 John 2:19) – I would strongly suspect that you’d NEVER actually acquired the legitimately necessary “ticket,” to ride the train upon which you believed (by faith) you’d been traveling all those years?

            Or characterized another way my friend: according to your own testimony, you’ve gone from possessing little, or NO faith at all, in the very Creator God of ALL, or everything that exists within this “contingently existing” universe – including yourself – to having now curiously chosen to exercise GREAT FAITH, in absolutely NOthing…i.e., the utterly vacuous, meaningless worldview of the atheist?? And please correct me where I’m wrong in this!

          • RbtRgus

            Atheism is simply a disbelief in gods. It says nothing about a person’s worldview. For me, life is awesome and the earth is beautiful, no imaginary supernatural entities required.

          • davidrev17

            The Lord Yeshua/Jesus said that “out of the abundance of one’s heart, the mouth speaks…”

            So by far, the most tragically painful reality with which I struggle, everytime I attempt to dialogue with someone (either face-to-face, or in writing) who holds very similar “a priori” and/or “by-faith” worldview beliefs – and please don’t deceive yourself any further into thinking you “lack a worldview,” because ALL people retain such – I actually wonder if they’ve reached that stage of rendering one’s self “beyond redemption”; as in when Almighty God ultimately, and finally “turns one over to a reprobate mind,” to have things their way in this life, as well as eternity?

            I pray that’s NOT the case my friend; because if you could simply try to objectively comprehend the literal cluelessness that’s permeating your willfully blinded cynical, or flippantly God-mocking replies – to just those on this blog alone, who’ve lovingly, and with much concern, reached-out to you in “Spirit and Truth,” FROM our “Great God and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah” – I believe you’d humbly recognize your absolute moral bankruptcy as a human being, before an infinitely Holy God…just like I have, and countless others just like me!

            Yet your words seem to be rather indicative of one of whom neither knows, nor shows little-if-any concern about the ultimate consequences of their own “…sin, nor righteousness, and the judgment to come.” Because that critically necessary work upon the human heart, lies solely within the domain of the Holy Spirit. (See John 16:7-11) I sincerely pray that’s He’s not been finally & decisively FORCED out of your life for good – by your rebellion & rejection alone – until that “Day” you appear before Him at the “Great White Throne Judgment,” revealed in Revelation 20:11-15.

          • RbtRgus

            I am not without a worldview. I have not told you anything about my worldview. But I am without a belief in your imaginary supernatural entity.

          • davidrev17

            Does your atheistic “Worldview” possess any absolutely “binding,” thus objectively compelling universal answers for ALL HUMANITY (or even the resources), capable of resolving the still-UNANSWERED questions…by brilliant atheists themselves?

            1) What is your answer to the still-valid, and equally unsettling “Leibnizian conundrum,” aka “Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing”?

            Also, does your worldview provide a meaningfully rational, logical, philosophical & scientifically valid answer for the following questions; whose origins – for even strictly secular anthropologists – have been recognized as having cross-cultural implications for Homo Sapiens in general for millenia?

            1) To what, or whom, is responsible for the origin of the universe?
            2) Or, the origin of “life” itself?
            3) Who, or what, is responsible for the origin of “mind,” or “consciousness”?
            4) Why is nature itself “comprehensible” to we Homo Sapiens alone; and thus explicable, or amenable, to “purely elegant mathematical expression,” through scientific investigation?
            5) Why are “numbers” understood, or lend themselves explicable to we Homo Sapiens’ alone?
            6) Why are we rational/moral Homo Sapiens’ the only animal species capable of conducting scientific investigation?
            7) Where did I come from?
            8) Why am I here?
            9) What happens when I (or WE) die?
            10) What’s wrong with this world, and its inhabitants…namely the origin & resolution of evil?

            And that’s just the tip-of-the-iceberg, where those common “Ultimate Questions” are concerned.

          • RbtRgus

            You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is one thing, and one thing only only — the lack of belief in any god or gods. Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, and no established worldview. It is only an answer to the question, “Do you believe in a god or gods”. If the answer is anything other than yes, a person is an atheist. As for all of the “why” questions you ask, they are really interesting questions, but they cannot be answered referencing some sort of universal atheistic worldview, because there is none.

            I would be happy to discuss these from my own perspective. A couple of answers for you:

            — Where did I come from? I am evidently from stardust by way of pond scum. Isn’t that cool?

            — Why am I here? To perpetuate my species, as all living things do.

            — What happens when we die? Probably nothing, just like before we were born. There is no evidence that anything happens, other than our bodies decaying. This dies not bother me, does it bother you?

          • davidrev17

            Since the Word of God admonishes WE mindless, flat-earth-believing intellectual simpleton Christians to reject, or cease striving with those of whom choose to remain divisive, or heretical – with regard to the “truth of the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah (e.g., Titus 3:10) – this will be my final statement to you my friend.

            “You do error, not knowing” the very strong ideological, or even “religious” implications surrounding one’s claim to atheism; of which naturally includes all of its (atheism’s) associated metaphysical baggage.

            All one need do is consult the most recent (2003) strong version of the “Humanist Manifesto” (having “evolved” from the ’33 & ’73 versions), containing those notably influential atheistic “signatories” – just like so many highly-regarded moral & religious philosophers have done in the past – and one’s discerning eye can typically recognize within its strictly a priori “by-faith” tenets, those four (4) transcendently-premised areas of inquiry that’ve long-since been inextricably identified with ALL traditional God-centered religious belief systems of Homo sapiens – i.e., statements, or beliefs surrounding “Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.”

            So if you’d simply try and be honest with yourself, or cease with asserting the duplicitously well-disguised (though now-revealed) camouflaged hypocrisy that’s part-and-parcel of the “atheistic worldview,” perhaps you’d finally see your worldview for what it actually represents: a truly tail-chasing (Sysyphean) intellectual endeavor, whose “swiss-cheese” foundational underpinnings represent little more than than an exercise in “pretzel-logic.”

            Ever thought about the image of a one-armed man rowing a boat?? Anyway, your Creator, Redeemer & Judge will certainly “honor” your choice(s) for eternity.

          • RbtRgus

            It’s not like you are wearing a tinfoil hat. And it’s on too tight. 😉

            Your book is obviously a piece of bronze age folklore. I’m sure you are not worried about winding up in the Muslim hell, probably because you find their holy book to be misguided, fabricated, or just plain wrong. That is the same way I feel about the Christian hell and holy book as well as the Muslim hell and holy book. Just funny old stories — not a big deal.

          • RbtRgus

            That is a clever defense mechanism — a way for the religion to keep you away from ideas that might make you doubt your superstition.

          • RbtRgus

            I don’t believe any of that silly stuff from the Bible.

          • Tribtrooper

            The fool says in his heart e is no God…. Guess your special day is April FOOLS day…

          • RbtRgus

            Faith is believing something that you know ain’t so.

            Every day is an atheist holiday. It’s great to be alive!!

          • RbtRgus

            Faith is believing something that you know ain’t so.

            — M Twain

          • Louis E.

            I see no justification for being an atheist OR a churchgoer.
            There absolutely MUST be an Infinitely First Cause,and there’s no credible evidence it writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.

          • Triple T

            No one is attempting to convince or force you to believe anything you don’t want to believe. There’s no reason for you to be insulting by referring to people’s religious beliefs as “silly folklore”

          • RbtRgus

            Silly ideas are open game. People deserve respect, even if they are silly. Silly ideas should be called out as silly and openly challenged — especially in a place like this.

          • Triple T

            What you consider silly is your opinion. I and many others here consider the concept of two men or two women being “married” to be a silly idea. We openly challenge that idea. So since you say that’s what should be done, I’ll assume you’re in favor of us doing it.

          • RbtRgus

            It’s fine for you to say that. You’re wrong of course. Nothing wrong with ssm.

          • Triple T

            And what is it that makes you think you’re the sole authority to make that decision?

          • RbtRgus

            I go with the Supreme Court on this one, sweet cheeks.

          • Triple T

            The Supreme Court decided that it would be legal. Something being legal and something being right are not always one and the same.

          • RbtRgus

            In this case it is right and legal and proper. And a no brainer. Ssm is the greatest human rights accomplishment of our generation.

          • Triple T

            Well, I disagree. I do not consider it right and proper. You don’t seem to realize that disagreement is still allowed, and doesn’t automatically make one “wrong”.

          • RbtRgus

            Yup. You are free to disagree. Good thing you are in the minority.

          • Triple T

            That’s open to debate. Spare me links to whatever survey you know of that says what you want it to say. It’s irrelevant anyway. As I’ve mentioned before, it wouldn’t bother me if someday, it’s a minority of one.

          • RbtRgus

            It’s a great country, ain’t it? Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

          • Triple T

            Couldn’t agree more

          • Louis E.

            Absolutely not.
            It’s about the worst miscarriage of Justice at the SCOTUS since Dred Scott vs. Sandford,which similarly declared an absolutely hateful form of human interaction to be Constitutionally protected against the discouragement the general welfare absolutely requires.
            I hope this one doesn’t take a war to overturn.

          • RbtRgs

            Same sex marriage? What’s the problem?

          • Louis E.

            “Same-sex marriage” is an absolute oxymoron…the only possible justification for the existence of civil marriage is as a means of recognizing the particular importance of the opposite-sex bond by securing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex (regardless of reproductive intent or capacity) entitles them.Otherwise it is merely invidious discrimination against the single.
            As a sexually dimorphic species,our ideal state necessarily includes 100% of our sexual relationships being opposite-sex,and what helps us toward that norm is good and what encourages failure to adhere to that norm is bad.

          • RbtRgs

            But we have also decided it is ok to be gay, and that gay marriage is good for gay people and does not harm society or anybody in any way.

            In other words, to use your language, we give opposite sex and same sex bonds and relationships preferential treatment.

          • Louis E.

            Any society laboring under the delusion that “it is ok to be gay” has in fact been gravely harmed by homosexuality.Any denial of being harmed is both symptom and proof of the harm caused.

            Homosexuality is defined as a disorder by the very nature of our species,and the best interests of those afflicted by it necessarily require its suppression rather than gratification.

          • RbtRgs

            What is wrong with homosexuality?

          • Louis E.

            Quite simply,if one sex were good enough we would never have evolved two.
            Evolution is a messy process,it’s hard for circumstances to arise where the effectiveness of physical stimulation is dependent on the karyotypes of those involved,but looked at rationally,only opposite-sex sexual acts/relationships serve a purpose for the species.Any individuals seeking gratification from same-sex partners are behaving unreasonably and ideally none ever would.

          • RbtRgs

            What about recreational sex? I am heterosexual and recreational sexual encounters outnumber procreational sex about 5,000 to 1 for me.

          • Louis E.

            That the persons involved are of opposite sexes is over 5,000 times more important than whether the sex is recreational or procreational.Within the context of an opposite-sex relationship recreational sex serves a good purpose…between any persons of the same sex it constitutes a bad one.

          • RbtRgs

            What’s wrong with recreational sex between two women or two men? Why is it bad?

          • Louis E.

            THAT IT IS BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX is what is wrong with it…and that is VERY,VERY wrong with it.

            The sexes are like the poles of a magnet or a battery,they exist for each other,and to defy this should horrify everyone.

          • RbtRgs

            That’s not a reason. That is just you saying so. My niece married a woman, and they are great together, the attraction is obvious, not like same poles on a magnet. Riddle me that, Batman!!

          • Louis E.

            The attraction is disordered.That people like doing something that is wrong,and have willing co-conspirators,does not make it right…this is the “High Morale in the Mafia Fallacy”.
            Similar to the “Crack Pipes for the Crack Babies Fallacy” (the claim that being born with a weakness for a bad habit entitles you to enablement of that habit),the “Honey,I Ate the Kids Fallacy” (that a behavior is observed in other species means it’s OK for humans),the “Fireproofing Murders Arsonists Fallacy” (that frustrating an unreasonable behavior is driven by genocidal hatred for those prone to that behavior),the “Only Murderers Read Murderers Fallacy” (that anyone seriously critical of homosexuality must be secretly homosexual)…I’ve heard all the arguments for accepting same-sex sex and they are all nonsense!

          • RbtRgs

            Are you worried about homosexuality driving our species to extinction? That definitely will not happen.

          • Louis E.

            No…just concerned with favoring rational over irrational behavior.

          • RbtRgs

            Well, believing in Islam or Scientology or Christianity is irrational, but people do it anyway and we accept it as a normal part of our society.

          • Louis E.

            Recognizing same-sex marriage is like subsidizing drinks for alcoholics…it encourages what may be legal but ought to be merely endured in the hope it will disappear.

          • RbtRgs

            Gay is never going to disappear. It has been with us as long as recorded history tells us. Same sex marriage is a great civil rights victory!!

          • Louis E.

            No,it is a catastrophe.
            Escaping deserved censure for wrongdoing is no one’s “civil right”.
            The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to require that those who refused to qualify for a license be treated as equally entitled to it with those who did qualify.The inclusion of same-sex couples transforms civil marriage from something whose existence helps human society into something that harms human society…I can never marry in good conscience in this country as long as same-sex marriage remains legal here.

          • RbtRgs

            How does ssm harm society?

          • Louis E.

            I just explained that.It encourages persistent refusal to work toward the definitively,necessarily ideal condition of absolutely 100% of our sexual relationships being opposite-sex.

          • RbtRgs

            Why is it definitively necessary to have all sexual relationships be heterosexual? Does this have to do with population or the plan of one of the various gods?

          • Louis E.

            Neither.
            It is a simple necessary implication of the fact that the species is sexually dimorphic.

          • RbtRgs

            We have males and females, yes. That has nothing to do with males getting it on with males or females with females. It is certainly physically possible, and some people find it desirable. It should only be prohibited if it is essentially harmful to the individual or to society.

            I am glad you did not take the population or religious arguments. Those are not good ones.

          • Louis E.

            That it is what it is defines and determines it to be harmful.Any society in which sexual relationships are not 100% opposite-sex is harmed to the extent that its sexual relationships fall short of being 100% opposite-sex OR to the extent that its members fail to understand that all its sexual relationships should be opposite-sex.Any individual who is in or exposed to a sexual relationship that is not opposite-sex is harmed by that relationship (the perpetrators by enabling each other’s bad instincts,those prone to following their bad example by being set that bad example,those who know better by the disgusting spectacle,those indifferent by being desensitized).
            Denial of being harmed is both proof and symptom of the harm caused.
            That the species is sexually dimorphic DETERMINES that only opposite-sex sexual relationships can ever be logically justifiable.

          • RbtRgs

            It’s bad because you think all sex should be heterosexual? That’s not a good reason. What harm does it cause?

          • Louis E.

            Nobody’s opinion has anything to do with it.
            The species has 2 sexes,THEREFORE all sex must be heterosexual to be logically justifiable.
            Any sex act being same-sex IS A HARM…and so is being led for any reason to believe that it isn’t.

          • RbtRgs

            Gay sex is very logical. Two guys or two ladies attracted to each other are having sex. It’s fun and it feels good. It’s perfectly logical and justifiable — “We want to get it on!!” What more justification do you need?

          • Louis E.

            Wanting to do something is never enough to make it right to do.
            Two people being of the same sex IS enough to define any and all possible sex acts between them as necessarily wrong.

          • RbtRgs

            But you haven’t given any reason that it might be wrong apart from body parts? That’s not good enough to prohibit such activity.

          • Louis E.

            That the persons are of opposite sexes (regardless of what body parts the sex act involves) is indeed both necessary and sufficient to make all the difference as to whether sex acts between them can be logically justified.(That is,some opposite-sex sex acts are justifiable and some aren’t…no same-sex sex acts ever can be).

          • RbtRgs

            Yes, same sex acts can be justified — both parties want to get it on. That’s all the justification they need to perform a sex act.

          • Louis E.

            WRONG.
            That they are of the same sex means their willingness is irrelevant to the innate unjustifiability of the act!

          • RbtRgs

            You are incorrect, sir!!! Gay sex is totally aok!!!

          • Louis E.

            If it is same-sex it therefore can not possibly be OK,regardless of anyone’s opinion.

          • RbtRgs

            Oh, yes it is!! Regardless if your opinion!!

          • Louis E.

            It totally ISN’T,regardless of yours.

          • RbtRgs

            Is!!

          • Louis E.

            NOT!

          • RbtRgs

            Yu-huh!!

          • Louis E.

            The 5 justices of the Supreme Court were catastrophically wrong.

      • Kristin Solo

        On what obscure premise do you base that erroneous statement?!

        • RbtRgus

          Belief without evidence is silly indeed.

          • Kristin Solo

            Precisely~ so be cautious in dismissing the terms of the Gospel of Redemption as ‘silly old folk lore’, by which you stand condemned already.

  • ShapeUp

    I thought we had a boycott on Disney from a few years back. Disney has pushed the limits to the homosexual agenda for years now. With the homosexual days at the park and their teaching employees how to work and accept them. This is the way you change the next generation. You get the parents to allow the children to be shown a sin is OK, they get taught nothing seems to be wrong since they are allowed to view it and it is show by people that are adults and should know what is right or wrong and then when they grow up, it is just like it has always been a part of their life and their parents and their kids they have. A thought is changed and made a permanent part of society. They are going to find out that it is a part of life but it not something we should show them is OK in cartoons and other things they watch and it is ingrained into their minds. Sure, as parents we should explain our values or,”God’s Values” into their minds but if they are shown over and over and over again that is everywhere when it is not near as many of them then they think that there is half the population that are homosexual.

  • Kevin Wirth

    “…So blinded by the alleged rightness of its own position that it cannot see any rational reason for anyone to oppose it.”. Well said, and, this “blindness” also finds similar expression in other anti-Christian debates as well, such as against those who challenge many Darwinianian arguments. Only an ignorant and uneducated person would oppose evolution. There is no possible sane reason to doubt the rightness of it. Such strongly held beliefs are designed to marginalize allegedly anti-science Christians and reinforce and applaud the popular back-slapping consensus. Such opposition to so-called “Christian” perspectives is seen as much more than a moral imperative, it’s also an effort designed to protect, promote, and preserve the clear rationality of a more clearly reasonable perspective. Providing reasons to dismiss a Christian world view is often regarded as value added sport, as anyone with political blinders on can see. Ironically, Christians are portrayed by the world as blindly following an outmoded and patently unreliable source of “rightness.”

  • Louis E.

    I wish you would evade use of “gay” in the homosexual context.What’s wrong with same-sex couples is that they are same-sex,regardless of whether either or both persons call themselves “gay”…to treat that identity as relevant is an unreasonable concession to the manner in which the advocates of undeservable acceptance misframe the debate.

    I am not religious,but completely oppose the acceptance of same-sex coupling.I try to boycott companies that make a public point of their alliance with the “LGBT” against the censure they deserve.

Inspiration
St. Paul Takes a Knee
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us