New ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding ‘True Love’ With Farm Boy

We get what we allow

By William M Briggs Published on March 29, 2017

Here is a short argument to keep in mind as you read about a new “children’s” book that promotes homosexual relationships.

If there is nothing morally wrong with same-sex relationships, then there is nothing wrong with exposing children to same-sex relationships. After all, kids will see same-sex relationships around them in our culture. And some kids will go on to form same-sex relationships. So, if there is nothing wrong with such relationships, why not show kids stories about men in love?

This was the implicit reasoning used by authors Adam Reynolds and Chaz Harris who wrote Promised Land. This is a picture-book about how “a young Prince and a farm boy meet in the forest and their newfound friendship blossoms into love.”

The Prince’s mother is divorced and has taken up living with an evil man. The evil man covets Farm Boy’s land. The land sits, as expected, in an Enchanted forest.

The book ends with a lovely picture of the Prince and Farm Boy smacking each other on the lips over the words, “They got married and started their own family.”

That is, of course, impossible. Two men cannot marry. And two men certainly cannot start a family. That is biologically impossible. These are not only theological truths. They are scientific realities as well.

Well, nobody expects Reality in a children’s fantasy. Magic isn’t real either, but that didn’t slow sales of, or enthusiasm for, Harry Potter. We shouldn’t therefore be critical of fantastical elements. But can we say anything against positive portrayals of homosexual love?

We cannot. Not if we cannot also say, out loud and in public, that homosexual love is immoral. Now love between two men, or two males, need not be immoral. A father loves his son. A man loves his friend. But if homosexual love is different than the love of two friends, what is that difference? It is sexual desire. Yet that desire is objectively disordered. The desire, if one indulges it, often leads to homosexual acts, which are immoral and sinful.

But if we cannot say that, then we cannot say that Promised Land should not be shown to children. And we cannot say that it should not be shown to children in schools. The only argument we can muster against it would be based on some bad effects of doing so. “We cannot show the book,” the utilitarian might argue, “because we do not want to pay for it.” What happens when a generous soul then donates copies?

We have reached a point in our culture where we could teach Promised Land in schools, but we could not teach about the Promised Land!

“And God almighty bless thee, and make thee to increase, and multiply thee: that thou mayst be a multitude of people. And give the blessings of Abraham to thee, and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather” (Genesis 28:3-4).

What an inversion.

The press is in love with Promised Land. Huffington Post says the book is about a place “where all people are equal no matter what they look like or who they love.” It’s obvious the author of that sentence has not thought through all its implications. Should men who love children be celebrated? Doesn’t Equality demand such a thing?

Harris told Huffington Post a truth: “The [kinds of media] we consume as kids and young adults form our attitudes towards those around us. … Most importantly, they influence our attitudes towards ourselves. … If we can be heroes in stories, we’re seen more positively in the real world.”

That homosexual relationships will be seen in a more positive light is just the effect Promised Land will have.

Teen Vogue calls Promised Land “required reading” and that says that the book “smashes any taboo around the subject” of homosexual relationships. It does, too.

The book has already set off a debate in New Zealand (home of the authors). Women’s Weekly asks, “Should children be taught about homosexuality in school?” The question was, as you might guess, mostly rhetorical.

What this book is doing is no different than what Disney did in Beauty and the Beast. That’s the new movie that made a point to show “an exclusively gay moment.” And they did it in a charming way. Kids who saw the movie would, as calculated, look with a kinder eye on homosexual relationships.

As they should, if there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.

Update: Santa Claus to be “Gay” Too

Just in is news that another picture-book will feature Santa Claus in a homosexual relationship with a black man. Time reports the book will be titled Santa’s Husband and will go on sale on 10 October.

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.
  • Christian Cowboy

    Glad I don’t have children or grand children that might be exposed to this garbage!

    • climate3

      I think I agree There. I’m glad that you have no children.

  • Autrey Windle

    REPENT FOR THE END IS NEAR/ and it just got nearer…

    • ImaginaryDomain

      The end is not near. Paul thought for certain he was in the end times…We have no idea when, but my guess is Christians will be made to suffer a whole lot more before then.

      • Autrey Windle

        I didn’t mean to offend your assurance that the end is not near. I believe it may be nearer than you can imagine, though I don’t know the day or the hour. I do hope you agree that it is never too soon to repent.

        • ImaginaryDomain

          No offense at all. None of us know, right? Best to be prepared…

    • Liz Litts

      No man knows the day or the hour but The Father.

      • Autrey Windle

        Each day and each hour we are at least that much closer to whenever it is. And you may disagree with me that it is near, but to your and ID’s point, I have as much chance of being right as I do of being wrong. My real point was that these nutty people need to repent now. I think all we who believe know that repentance is the first step toward the benevolence of the Father. I am urging the lost to catch up to the line moving down the right road. I’m reasonably sure most of ya’ll agree with that. God bless!

  • Mike Painter

    “homosexual love is immoral.” No love is immoral.

    “that desire is objectively disordered.” The idea that it’s disordered is subjective. I’m still in the dark as to where Christians believe the desire comes from. Does everyone “struggle with it” every now and then? Because the experience of the average person says otherwise. The Christian idea of why someone would be attracted to the same sex seems to never be consistent, as if they make it up different reasons on a whim.

    “The desire, if one indulges it, often leads to homosexual acts, which are immoral and sinful.” Why are they immoral and sinful? Why the assumption that a same-sex relationship is about nothing but sex?

    “Should men who love children be celebrated?” Children can’t give consent. You cannot love a child if you rape them. So no, we shouldn’t celebrate that. Why a consensual same-sex relationship is considered analogous I still have no idea.

    “Should children be taught about homosexuality in school?” Yeah. They should be taught not to hate gay people. We shouldn’t be teaching anyone to be gay, I agree. But it isn’t possible to do that, at any rate.

    “Kids who saw the movie would, as calculated, look with a kinder eye on homosexual relationships.” Good.

    “As they should, if there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.” And there isn’t.

    “Santa Claus in a homosexual relationship with a black man.” I don’t like the idea of rewriting Santa mythology, so that’s kinda dumb, actually.

    • Aliquantillus

      “The idea that it [homosexual love] disordered is subjective”. It would be easy to rejoinder this with the claim that the idea that it is not disordered is subjective as well. But in fact it is completely rational to say that homoseuxal acts are objectively disordered. The objective structure of the human body points to the mutual complementarity of the sexes. It is the pro-homosexual position which is in fact purely subjective, elevating the domain of subjective feelings above the domain of reason and the intrinsic order of nature.

      By the way, the exists no “homosexual love“. Homosexual attraction is not love. It is attraction to destructive behaviour, and it an attraction contrary to the true interests of the persons involved in it..

      • Mike Painter

        “There exists no homosexual love.” How many gay people have you met? How do you know they aren’t in love if you haven’t witnessed their relationships? I fell in love with another guy. I’m a virgin. I’m in my 20s. What I felt for him was not simple lust. If I could be with him under the condition of no sex, I would be okay with that. I really don’t care if I ever have sex. This is not all about sex. That’s what you’re not understanding. And you still aren’t answering where homosexual attraction comes from. Did I do something to make me gay? Even as a virgin? I’d like to know that.

        “It is the pro-homosexual position which is in fact purely subjective, elevating the domain of subjective feelings above the domain of reason and intrinsic order of nature.” So the validity of a relationship is based on whether or not the couple can have vaginal/procreative sex? What they feel for each other is useless? Well isn’t that…spiritual.

        “The objective structure of the human body points to the mutual complementarity of the sexes.” Then why does homosexual attraction exist? It does not come about by the person’s will. It is natural in that it is naturally occurring. Give me a good explanation as to how someone “chooses” it, please. I understand the point about “the parts not fitting.” That is a good point. But I hardly thinking how well the parts fit together is greater/more important than the quality of a couple’s love. What about the heterosexual couples having non-vaginal sex? Some heterosexuals can’t, in rare circumstances. Do you condemn them as well? Is their love not real?

        • ImaginaryDomain

          Homosexual behavior is a disorder. It’s not love at all, it’s narcissism and lust. The “gay” community has hijacked that word to make it sound acceptable.

          • Mike Painter

            I am not a narcissist. Did you even read what I wrote? I know what love is. I’m human. Are you?

          • GPS Daddy

            Mike, the deepest love is not a feeling. The love the world needs most is not a feeling. Love rejoices with truth. Love not does rejoice with falsehood. Lets look at some examples of how this works:

            Lets say that a person has a really fast and hot sports car. They find themselves on a highway where they do not know the speed limit and its not posted anywhere they can see. They feel like it OK to drive their car as fast as they can for there is no one on the road anywhere and they love the feeling of driving their car as fast as they can. Does the decision to drive very fast come from love? I hope that you see it does not. Love would not rejoice with the decision to drive the car as fast as you can in that kind of road.

            Lets look at a different example. I’ve been married for a number of years. The feeling of love in marriage can come and go. Lets say I’m not “feeling” it at this time in my marriage. Another woman comes along that I am really attracted to. We hit it off great. I decide to pursuer a relationship with her. I claim that I love her. Is that love? No, it is not. Love does not rejoice is falsehood. I committed my live to my wife. Whether I feel it or not love compels me to stay with her. For to do anything else is not love.

            So how does this apply to you? Well, the truth is that human sexuality is binary. We have male and female. As you know they are made for each other. It is not love when we ignore this truth. Feelings ans desires change and can be changed. its a lie of the LGBT movement that same-sex attraction cannot be changes. It can. BUT, and this is a big BUT, that does not mean that changing a desire is easy. It may not be. You can fan into a flame inappropriate sexual attractions. Or any inappropriate attraction sexual or not. Take my marriage example above. That is a common mistake that people make in marriage. If I were to do that I would allow and fan into a flame by the way I think the attraction to a woman who is not my wife. I can also undo that attraction.

            Feelings and desires can be deceptive. The only thing they tell you is what your attracted too. They are not your identity. This is a very important point. Your identity is not determined by your desires or attractions. You must learn to manage them and control them. Remember, love rejoices with truth. You do not have truth when you violate what nature clearly shows by design.

          • ImaginaryDomain

            Mike, we can all agree that same sex attraction is a real thing. Something in your past is causing this unhealthy same-sex attraction. The problem is when you act on it.

          • Mike Painter

            “Something in your past is causing this unhealthy same-sex attraction.” My childhood was unremarkable and free of trauma, actually. I hit puberty, I started liking guys. You don’t have to believe me. Tell yourself whatever you need to to keep the world black-and-white like you like it. “The problem is when you act on it.” You don’t get to dictate my life. I may act on it, but I will act on it monogamously. You may say this is impossible, but I’ll dare to prove you wrong.

        • Aliquantillus

          The difference here is between the definition of love and its consequences. If the object of love is the pursuit of one’s desire, then you are right. But if love is the pursuit of the interests of the one loved, then this person’s true interests have to be considered. And these interests can never contradict the fundamental make-up of his human nature.

          As to the question why homosexual attraction exists, I would say that the same question can be asked about every disordered emotion or inclination. From a purely natural viewpoint it can be said that emotions and inclinations, including the so called good ones, always need to be ordered by reason. Otherwise, they go astray and create chaos.

          As to your remark that quality of a couple’s love is more important than the fitting of the sexual parts, I agree, but my position is that the fitting of the completementary parts is a precondition for true marital love. This is because marital love is naturally and objectively ordered to procreation and this order should always be preserved, because it is itself part of marital love. Marital love is not just the sexual love between two persons. It grows into fulfilment when it expands to the love of children and family, and thus transcends the narrow sexual domain. So to my mind the quality of this love is exactly its potential for becoming the basic building block of family and society.

          From a philosophical perspective I would say that it is difficult or impossible to defend a type sexual love which can never express itself in a manner that agrees with the intrinsic destination of sexuality, which is procreation. So from this perspective it would be difficult to comprehend how homosexual unions can be even sexually fulfilling, if the end-goal of sexuality is necessarily and a priori excluded. The lower powers of man are ordered to be in service of the higher ones, and that’s why the vegetative and animalistic forces in us have to be subjected to the power of reason.

          • Citizen sTans

            Well said.

          • Mike Painter

            And yet there are plenty of heterosexual couples who do not love one another and still produce children. Producing children does not always equal love. And what of heterosexuals who can’t have kids? Does the quality of their love go down? “The vegetative and animalistic forces in us have to be subjected to the power of reason.” So homosexuality is an animalistic force in everyone? Is this really true?

          • Aliquantillus

            Agreed that many heterosexual couples do not love one another and still produce children. But this fact doesn’t take away that they follow the order of nature and following the order of nature is a precondition for true love. This doesn’t imply that true love is always there where the order of nature is followed. But the point is that true love can only be expressed within the confines of this natural order. A sexual act expressed contrary to the order of nature is always and inherently wrong (e.g. homosexual acts, or masturbation). A sexual act expressed according to the order of nature can be wrong accidentally, e.g. if a man copulates with a woman who is not his wife, or if he copulates with his wife without truly loving her.

            Whether the homosexual inclination exists in everyone more or less is difficult to say. Many people have occasionally experienced some kind of homo-erotic attraction. But this doesn’t really matter, nor does it matter how strong the attraction is. It is always wrong because reason has to conclude that it is contrary to the order of nature, and this is decisive.

          • climate3

            Actually masturbation is not sinful. The sun of Onan was not impregnating the woman when God told him to. Be did have sex with her but pulled out and spilled his seed on the ground.

          • Aliquantillus

            Masturbation is certainly sinful, both in Jewish and Christian tradition. And there are NT texts alluding to this sin. For example Mt. 5:27-30, where our Lord says:

            “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: fot it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body be cast into hell.”

            If sexually desiring a woman which isn’t your wife is already mortal sin, then masturbation, which is a way of acting on sexual desire, would certainly count as mortal sin, leading to hell. And this is the more clear by what is said about unclean touching — “if thy right hand offend thee”.

            Even by natural reason, without divine revelation, it is clear that masturbation is against nature. It is using one’s sexual organs for a purpose not intended by the Creator.

          • Eve

            I think you are confusing circumstance with principle. Principle means by definition. Principles are thus to be understood and applied generally. Milk is a food product, rubbing alcohol is not, that some people are lactose intolerant does not change the principled idea that Milk is food and if you found someone who drank rubbing alcohol to get high (I don’t know that this would cause a high but for the sake of this argument let’s suppose) that would not mean rubbing alcohol is now food. Rubbing alcohol would poison the body, it has no ability to nourish the body which food is oriented to do. Now I may drink milk because I like the taste, another person may hate the taste and choose not to drink it, and a third may be lactose intolerant, nevertheless milk is food. Sex is like food, we may do it because it feels good but ultimately it serves the purpose of keeping the human race going by producing babies so if you engage in acts that “feel like sex” but are unable to produce babies in principle (not due to circumstance) then you are not having sex and are experiencing the sexual feelings in a disordered manner like you are making the end goal of sex feelings be they romantic feelings, “in love” feelings, (which are similar to the high drugs provide) or orgasmic feelings nevertheless the end goal of sex is not feelings just like the end goal of eating is not tasting something good does that make sense?

          • Mike Painter

            Yes. But I would very much like you to go out and say the same to heterosexuals who have non-vaginal and/or non-reproductive sex. Foregoing having kids through birth control or non-vaginal sex as a heterosexual is the same as doing so by having gay sex as a homosexual, is it not? What is frustrating is I’m not seeing consistency. I don’t see straight couples get beat up for not having kids by their own volition. I don’t see infertile couples getting called out for having sex in spite of it being useful only for pleasure in their situation. And I still am not on board with the idea that sex for pleasure and pleasure alone is wrong or is incompatible with love. You seem to downplay love, saying relationships are about making babies, and that’s it. And that not doing so somehow makes a couple’s love fake and their relationship invalid. I wouldn’t be comfortable saying, “You’re not in love” to a gay couple of 50 years or a man who is paralyzed from the waist down who married a woman despite being unable to conceive with her or have traditional sex with her in any manner whatsoever. Would you?

        • Eve

          “So the validity of a relationship is based on whether or not the couple can have vaginal/procreative sex? What they feel for each other is useless? Well isn’t that…spiritual.”

          No the validity of a MARRIAGE is though. Marriage is a distinct type of relationship in which sex, romance, etc.. are appropriate and loving as compared to say a parent child relationship where sex and romance would be totally inappropriate and unloving in fact we call that abuse.

          There are many different kinds of relationships. Two men can love each other, be best friends, know each other, even die for one another, without it being romantic or sexual in any way. I think this is a problem of accepting homosexuality as normal. It perverts friendship, like you just showed in your comment that two men in a valid relationship has to be sexual like you can’t even conceive of men loving one another without it being gay. Remember those “no homo” jokes or the term “bromance”? Accepting homosexuality in our society has brought this tension and suspicion around what used to be just normal friendships between men and boys.

          • Mike Painter

            “Like you can’t even conceive of men loving one another without it being gay.” No. I understand completely that platonic love can exist between two men. And romantic love can exist between them also. And romantic love often involves sex as its form of expression. And I don’t see why we need to freak out about that. Romantic love is not a choice, and it transcends gender. You say making babies is what qualifies you for marriage, yet are you disturbed at childless, married heterosexuals? If no, then you’re being hypocritical and inconsistent. Can you conceive that there can be platonic love between a man and woman? And what is with the “it perverts friendship” talk? Last I checked, romantic partners, in spite of whatever gender they may be, can be friends. Friendship goes along with both platonic and romantic love. “Accepting homosexuality in our society has brought this tension and suspicion around what used to be just normal friendships between men and boys.” A romantic relationship is not a “normal friendship” when it’s between males? Okay then. And “no homo” and “bromance” is a form of joking. It’s saying, “We’re so close, it’s like we’re gay or something. Hahaha.” The tension and suspicion you speak of are not real. It’s clear what is platonic (bromance) and what isn’t (boyfriends).

      • ImaginaryDomain

        Well stated…Homosexual acts are not love. It’s narcissism (pathological love of self and things like self) and lust (unhealthy and destructive sexual desires).

        • Mike Painter

          Lust is defined by an insatiable appetite for sex with many partners. There are monogamous gay couples. What about them? And you fail to mention the fact that heterosexuals go after partners that look like them all the time. They narcissists as well?

          • ImaginaryDomain

            I don’t believe it. I keep hearing this nonsense of some strawman monogamous “gay” man. They don’t exist. The gay lifestyle is all about random hook-ups and multiple partners. It is the nature of the disease.

            These “monogamous” gay people you keep referring to are 1) lying to each other about how faithful they are to each other and/or 2) cheating on each other to satisfy their lust.

            And, yes, homosexual acts are narcissistic.

          • Citizen sTans

            “The gay lifestyle is all about random hook-ups and multiple partners. It is the nature of the disease.”

            –You are absolutely correct, and the reason is, ultimately, because lust constantly seeks new forms of arousal and because a sphincter loses its elasticity after repeated abuse.

          • Mike Painter

            “Lust constantly seeks new forms of arousal.” I was never aroused by women. And you could not be aroused by the same sex if you wanted to. I’m gay, you’re straight. There is no “choosing.” We are what we are; our licentiousness or lack thereof has nothing to do with which gender we prefer.

          • Citizen sTans

            You’re choosing to act upon your homosexual feelings with acts of sodomy. That’s the choice.

          • Mike Painter

            I’m a virgin. I’m still attracted to guys. If you want me to single for life, fine. Whatever. If it makes you feel better. This is all about you, after all, isn’t it?

          • Citizen sTans

            “I’m a virgin”

            –Then you aren’t gay. Or should I say, not a sodomite. You might be happy, and I hope you are, actually.

            “I’m still attracted to guys”

            –These are temptations, and everyone has them for all variety of things, not just homosexual acts. What makes you a real man is choosing–CHOOSING–not to act on them, because doing so will only harm you in the short and long term. The fight isn’t easy, but each victory makes you stronger.

            “If it makes you feel better”

            –This is the lie, that feelings mean anything. They are always changing for us all of the time, and are thus subjective. If we live our lives based on them, we live a chaotic, every-changing life filled with contradictions. That is why we must use reason, and base our lives on Objective Truth that will stand firm even when our emotions and passions flare and the whole world seems to be falling apart.

            “This is all about you, after all, isn’t it?”

            –No, this is about the truth versus the lie. Mike, I hope you can believe me that I’m not trying to be cruel here, I’m just trying to be very, very straightforward. True love is about sacrificing yourself in the best interests of the other, the ones you love. Sexuality is not a necessity to love, and neither are emotions.

          • Mike Painter

            “Sexuality is not a necessity to love, and neither are emotions.” Okay then! Then how about you break up with your significant other (if you have one). And if you are single, NEVER have a relationship! It’s just sex and deceptive emotions and passions. You’ll live.

            In all seriousness, in spite of your attempts to not be cruel, I don’t know how you think you’re totally correct and justified saying these sorts of things to me. Why is a same-sex relationship inherently selfish? How do you know it will lead to short and long term harm? You speak of “Objective Truth,” yet you won’t look at things you don’t like objectively. Look, my being attracted to guys began when I hit puberty, and despite your assumptions, I tried to rid myself of them for years without success. That isn’t simple “temptation,” that’s an enduring pattern of sexuality that I did not sign up for and that is sticking around no matter how I act or what I do. My options are be single and celibate or have a relationship that fits my sexuality. Your implication that I cannot have a relationship as a gay guy and be in love and make sacrifices for my significant other or my family and friends because I will be some superficial, sex-obsessed, self-harming freak by default is nothing but pure prejudice on your part. I’m gonna do what is best for myself, and that may involve a relationship. If that offends you, that’s your problem.

          • Citizen sTans

            “Why is a same-sex relationship inherently selfish?”

            –Because, like any type of sex that separates the procreative potential from the sex act itself (yes, this includes using contraception in normal relationships, all homosexual acts and any other type of abnormal sexual deviancy), it is done solely for the pleasure of the persons involved.

            “How do you know it will lead to short and long term harm?”

            –In this life, it will damage your body (feel free to look up the CDC stats on sodomite diseases). Male and female bodies are biologically complementary. Male and male or female and female are not. Homosexual males are at an even higher risk of disease and body injury than lesbians because the acts themselves are so destructive and demeaning to those involved. In the long term, we all die, and we all will be held accountable for what we’ve chosen to do on this earth.

            “You speak of “Objective Truth,” yet you won’t look at things you don’t like objectively.”

            –Mike, that comment itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of objectivity. To be objective means to look at everything through the lens of truth regardless of whether I personally like it or don’t like it. Any sexual activity outside of marriage (or even done within marriage where the possibility of life is blocked) hurts the individuals involved, hurts their families, hurts their communities. Sex is a very powerful act–it gives life when applied correctly, and it causes death when applied incorrectly–which is why giving people freedom to engage in whatever sex they want, whenever they want, causes so much pain and chaos.

            “Look, my being attracted to guys began when I hit puberty, and despite your assumptions, I tried to rid myself of them for years without success. That isn’t simple “temptation,” that’s an enduring pattern of sexuality that I did not sign up for and that is sticking around no matter how I act or what I do.”

            –Then that’s your cross to bear, brother. That’s not something to be ashamed of, but proud of so long as you fight it. Everyone on earth who has lived, is living, or will live suffers from temptations of a variety of things. We all do. That absolutely includes myself, but giving into those temptations doesn’t actually make them go away. It only paves the way for greater temptations to take their place and lead you into a life where you are a slave to your own passions.

            “My options are be single and celibate or have a relationship that fits my sexuality.”

            –Your sexuality is hetero, by default, because you’re a male. We are all inherently heterosexual by nature. Your homosexual desires could be from a lack of testosterone, father issues, or even sexual abuse in your youth. Despite what is making you think that way, it’s wrong. Just like an alcoholic predisposed to want to drink, it doesn’t mean giving in and drinking is the right answer. The right answer is to get help, avoid areas of temptation, pray, and distract yourself with more beneficial things.

            “I’m gonna do what is best for myself, and that may involve a relationship. If that offends you, that’s your problem.”

            –Mike, you should do what’s best for yourself, but that doesn’t include sodomy. If you do so, it becomes your problem far more than mine. You’ll be in my prayers, and I hope all the best for you.

          • Mike Painter

            Citizen sTans, thank you for wanting to me sympathetic. Here are my thoughts. You assume that should I have a relationship, it will inevitably lead to STDs, as if I have no concept of protection and prevention and won’t be monogamous. You lay on me a cross that is impossible for most anyone to carry, and it is easy for you to put it on me because you personally don’t have to lift it yourself. This isn’t all about sex. I couldn’t care less about sex. I want to share my life with someone, someone I can feel intimately connected to emotionally and physically. Sharing your life with someone, helping the other through life no matter what when you could just give yourself everything (including sexual pleasure) and them nothing. That’s selfish? That’s similar to being an alcoholic? Yes, relationships like these often include sex, but at the end of the day, simple sex is not what a relationship is all about. The reason this sort of bond would not be achievable for me with a girl is because I simply lack the special emotional attachment to girls necessary. Say that’s because of daddy issues and sexual abuse, but I have neither of those in my history. It may be a testosterone issue, but it stands that if something went wrong on the assembly line while I was in the womb, it isn’t my fault. When it comes down to it, if I had a non-sexual romantic relationship with a guy, you’d probably dismiss that as well, because I don’t think gay sex is ultimately where your concern lies. You say non-procreative acts done by heterosexuals are wrong and selfish as well, and yet, if everyone you knew didn’t use birth control, it’s likely they’d have 10 kids at least. They don’t. And yet you aren’t giving them lectures, I assume. Heterosexual sodomy, to use your term, is more common than you think. Several do it. From what I hear, super religious girls often use it as a substitute for “real sex” in order to “preserve their virginity.” And yet, no condemnations for them. No visible, substantial backlash. It frustrates me that if I commit a “crime,” others who do the same crime in a heterosexual manner get no reprimanding 99% of the time. I think this is because people don’t want to see me hold hands with a guy, not because they particularly care about my sex life. They don’t like seeing in public what they can’t relate to because different = bad for them. It’s not fair of me to say that you don’t really care about me. But I ultimately do not care if I disappoint you. You may say it is God and not you I would disappoint, but I just can’t buy that the creator of the universe would throw out everything good about me and hurl me into a fiery abyss over a sex act, especially if I was not using said sex act to abuse or manipulate others. You say gay sex, even under the condition of monogamy, will harm me and everyone around me and is selfish. Tell that also to the heterosexuals who do sex acts any gay person would do with a steady partner. Regardless of what sex is being had, I don’t see how it harms others if it is monogamous sex and if the participants use protection and take necessary precautions. But as I said, sex doesn’t mean much to me. I desire it as most everyone does, but I want to emphasize my dream is simply to not die alone and have a life with someone I can call something more than “friend.” I don’t want to die of heartache, nor STDs, but going on a path different from what you proscribe would not result in STDs necessarily, and taking your advice would mean a life wasted, a life of loneliness. Some people are cut out for perpetual singleness. Me? I don’t know if I can make it. It is a cross to bear that crushes me every day.

          • Eve

            I think the other commenters are being a snide and rude and not really attempting to understand. I myself am not a supporter of LGBT agenda that is “gay marriage” and “gay families” etc… however I definitely do not think people “choose to be gay” (that is generally speaking, I’m sure one could find an individual who did choose to engage in homosexual acts). I think it’s quite facinating actually like what causes someone to be gay to have that type of attraction when the whole body is heterosexually oriented (like even a gay man produces sperm and has a penis so his body is obviously designed to mate with, actually can only mate with, a woman)? It’s a strange phenomenon indeeed problem is we can’t even look into it because there’s an agenda to make it appear that homosexual desires are totally normal and not at all strange I think it’s actually obvious they are disordered and we have the stats showing it is rare so by definition these desires cannot be reasonably defined as “normal”. If we placed homosexual desire in it’s perspective we could probably get to the bottom of it and help homosexuals (same sex attracted people) but we have this gay agenda in the way. Now I could go on all day as to why the gay agenda exists (it all goes back to ubiquitous use of contraception, the acceptance of fornication and no fault divorce aka adultery and lastly feminism the idea that men and women are “the same” or interchangeable) but as to why people are that is a difficult one, I just hope some of them wake up and realize they are being used by an agenda that far bigger the LGBT, all this pro gay propaganda is about the “sexual revolution” not about helping people who have homosexual desires. It’s sad many of these gays will simply become victims to the life style without true intimacy or a real family, when these gays turn 40,50,60 most will have no children no marriage and perhaps some life long STD symtoms (literally the stats consistently show LGBTs to have higher rates of STDs more sex partners and far lower marriage rates even where it is legal and accepted)

          • Mike Painter

            Eve, thank you for at least trying to understand and be reasonable, but I think your connection of “the gay agenda,” as you call the push for gay rights, to a sexual revolution, divorce, adultery, and unfettered sex with lots of people is entirely unfair to so many gay people. You admit people don’t choose to be gay. But why do you think wanting gay people to be treated equally means promoting sexual recklessness? The “gay agenda” hardly says, “Go have lots of sex with whoever.” And not every gay person aspires to engage in a lewd and promiscuous “lifestyle.” I know I don’t. Why do you assume I can’t, as a gay person, be monogamous and have real intimacy, marriage, and a family? Is family about love or is it about adhering to gender roles and gender stereotypes? Why do you assume it is the “gay agenda” and not people putting down gays that is the source of their problems? Saying, “Since you’re gay, you can’t have what straight people have” is not exactly encouraging. And that’s what you’re saying. If the only solution is for us to be “cured,” then show me the “cure.” The “cure” to being same-sex attracted is simply not out there; it’s not that “the gay agenda” is standing in the way of it.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “Why do you assume I can’t, as a gay person, be monogamous and have real intimacy, marriage, and a family?”

            “If the only solution is for us to be “cured,” then show me the “cure.”

            To answer your questions above. Queers cannot reproduce. They must recruit. You cannot have a “family” Queers are not married. It is fake.

            The “cure” is to come to Jesus. He forgives all and makes all things new. You can be recreated in His image. Real Christians love enough to be brutally honest with you. Being queer is sin. Committing adultery is sin, getting drunk is sin, etc, etc.. God Himself provides the power to overcome sin. He has for me, and He will for you.

          • Mike Painter

            Kevin, I am not interested in “recruiting” anyone. I want everyone to be the sexual orientation they are. You don’t love me. You don’t want me to be openly gay because my being gay offends you for not rational reason. Your idea of family is sadly narrow. Family is not about slamming a woman onto a bed, shoving her into a kitchen, and putting the resulting offspring on a metaphorical trophy shelf for the neighbors to be jealous of. Family is not about who you are related to or who you have sex with or how well you fit gender roles and stereotypes. It’s about love. If you feel the need to call gay marriage fake, it’s because you’re insecure about your own marriage (assuming you have one or will have one). I tried to ask God to rid me of same-sex attraction for the past 10 years since it began at puberty. Did it work? No. Am I not trying hard enough? Do I just need to stay single? Because I have no obligation to you to do so. I don’t care how “offended” my life makes you. Get over it.

          • Eve

            Lust can exist in a monogamous setting usually referred to as “infatuation” which is not love.

          • Mike Painter

            Eve, look up this YouTube video: “First Gay Couple to Get Married in Dallas Waited Over 50 Years.” No one is merely “infatuated” with someone else for 50. Years. Even if a gay man sacrificed himself to save his partner’s life, you’d still say “that was out of extreme lust” or something like that because you’re hellbent on gays being evil for some reason.

    • Billy Chickens

      You say “no love is immoral”. That isn’t true because love of evil is immoral. Love of unnatural sex is immoral. Love of killing children in the womb is immoral. Love of pornography is immoral….and so on.

      • Mike Painter

        This has nothing to do with abortion. And why do you assume I’m pro-abortion? “Love of unnatural sex is immoral.” Read what I said before – not every gay relationship is about just sex. Loving a person is not immoral. Doesn’t matter if it is expressed physically. Straight couples do the same sex acts as any gay couple all the time. Are they “unnatural”? Are their relationships about nothing but sex? “Love of pornography is immoral” I agree. But please don’t imply that I love pornography or that all gay people love pornography.

        • Billy Chickens

          The examples are objective, not subjective in relation to you personally.

        • Eve

          You hold the new age
          View that love sanctifies or justifies. This is based on love the emotional state. In this way the word love has been so debased and misunderstood. In reality there are different kinds of love and objects of love (ex the love a parent has for their child vs their spouse) and thus different ways of expressing said love (ex it is loving to have a sexual relationship with one’s spouse it is not at all loving to have sexual relations with one’s child). In the context of homosexuality true love is not there because sodomizing someone is not loving, the appropriate love between two men would be a friendship or some time of “brotherly” or “fatherly” love which brings me to another good ex, it is not “loving” for a brother and sister to have sex even if they “love” each other it’s not loving because it is disordered and no that is not a matte of subjectiveness.

          • Mike Painter

            “Sodomizing someone is not loving.” Still waiting for you to condemn heterosexual sodomy. When you say, “If you are a married, heterosexual couple who does non-vaginal things sometimes, you are not truly in love” I will take you seriously. But I suspect there are too many people in that category for you to pick on them. “it is not at all loving to have sexual relations with one’s child” Yes….and molesting your own child is like doing some “non-traditional” stuff in the bedroom with your adult partner how? Sleeping with your sister out of selfishness and convenience without a care in the world as to the side effects of inbreeding is like an adult couple doing non-vaginal how?

    • m-nj

      you stated “that desire is objectively disordered.” The idea that it’s disordered
      is subjective. I’m still in the dark as to where Christians believe the
      desire comes from. Does everyone “struggle with it” every now and then?
      Because the experience of the average person says otherwise. The
      Christian idea of why someone would be attracted to the same sex seems
      to never be consistent, as if they make it up different reasons on a
      whim.

      not sure if you are just trolling or are really “in the dark”… the fundamental reason any Biblically literate christian believes homosexuality is disordered is simply because homosexuality goes against the created order of male-female. the underlying reason for the homosexual desire is a fallen/broken nature which is opposed to God’s plan for man/woman, which leads to sinful desires and practices.

      hope than “sheds some light” into your “darkness”

      • Mike Painter

        If we are all “fallen and broken” and all subject to temptation and all have sinful desires, as Christianity teaches, then why don’t you ever find yourself attracted to the same sex sometimes? The Bible says “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind.” (1 Cor. 10:13). So does everyone feel a bit aroused for the same sex sometimes, or is Paul wrong? And if he’s wrong, what does that say about your belief in Biblical infallibility? What I’m getting at is this is “gay” is simply an attribute of some people, not a temptation. Most people do not find homosexuality alluring. If it was temptation, it would be universally tempting, at least according to the Bible/Paul. So why isn’t it?

        • Eve

          You misinterpreted that passage not everyone feels attraction to young children so does that mean it’s not wrong or disordered or sin. What Paul was saying is that “nothing is new” if you are tempted by something know that other people have been tempted also not every single last person on planet earth obviously just someone else

          • Mike Painter

            Yes, but I would hardly call one’s pattern of sexual attractions “temptation” that comes and goes or could be changed if one changes their behavior. Temptation can be defeated with discipline, right? And yet gay people who avoid gay sex, gay clubs, rainbows, and all things gay STILL are attracted to the same sex. And I’m still not clear how they came to be tempted by the same sex if everyone is naturally heterosexual. Who goes after a gender they weren’t attracted to to begin with? Or are you saying people are naturally gay, but must resist their sexuality? I’m not even going to touch on your pedophilia example, since it’s an off-topic false analogy. Yes, child molestation is evil and wrong and attraction to kids doesn’t justify it.

          • m-nj

            I concur with Eve’s response… the verse you cited is saying that sinful desires in general are nothing new, so no one can say “Lord, You just don’t understand what I am struggling against….” as an excuse to yield to the temptation.

            As to the “why” of same-sex attraction… i refer back to my previous response… we ARE sinful by nature, spiritually dead in sin as Ephesians 2 describes, prone to all variety of sinful desires as Romans 1 lays out. There is no making sense of it… sin is not rational or logical per se.

            As to the christian with same-sex desires who does not “act” on them… i would say he is no different from the christian with opposite-sex lust or gluttony or any other myriad sinful desires… he is a sinner, saved by grace, and he is being transformed by that grace into the image of Christ as he makes himself a slave to righteousness as opposed to a slave to sin (Romans 6).

          • Mike Painter

            I hope you can at least understand that the reason it is so difficult for same-sex attracted people is because at least with those with “opposite-sex lust,” they still have the option to have a partner. A same-sex attracted person must remain alone. It is not easy going through life by yourself. Not all same-sex attracted people who yearn for a relationship have such a desire simply for reasons of lust and sex. We all want someone we can call more than “friend” and share our lives with. But because, for whatever reason, someone happened to find themselves same-sex attracted and not opposite-sex attracted at all, they are to be set on a path of loneliness with a cross to carry almost no one can bear. I don’t know if you think we can just turn ourselves opposite-sex attracted if we’d just “try,” but it hasn’t happened for me. If the sex is the problem, would you object to a non-sexual same-sex romantic relationship? I’m genuinely curious. At any rate, I still cannot comprehend that every gay relationship, no matter how loving, no matter how faithful, no matter how self-sacrificing, amounts to lust nonetheless because gay sex is just this huge problem that can’t be gotten around. It doesn’t add up to me.

          • Tree Man

            Except that homosexuality is punishable by death. Even if you think God somehow “changes” his eternal laws, Jesus never said so, and Paul repeats this is Romans 1. You can see (documented) results of this in the shorter lives of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders….abnormal lifestyles with poor outcomes.

    • Heterphobia is a kind of mental disorder.

      Heterophobia features a pattern of obsessions (repeated thoughts, feelings, ideas, sensations) toward others of the same sex and compulsions (behaviors that drive the acts) toward engaging in sodomy because of unreasonable thoughts and fears over opposite sex intimacy and adequacy.

      In spite of efforts to suppress queer thoughts or urges, the would-be homosexual eventually is driven to perform homosexual acts to ease stress. This leads to more ritualistic behavior. The would-be homosexual learns to become homosexual.

      Sexual obsession and compulsion becomes so pronounced in the homosexual that such behavior interferes with daily living and cause significant distress. The entirety of living becomes consumed with homosexuality identity.

      Heterophobia typically begins during the teen years but can happen much earlier. Neurobiologic conditions likely support environmental factors.

      Of course, political homosexists argue otherwise. Yet, if there were a straight genetic basis for homosexuality, as if it were a recessive trait, 25% of population would be homosexual. Yet, only about 3% of the population ends up being homosexual. This percentage seems more in line with those suffering from a mind disorder.

      Good luck confronting your mind disorder!

      • Mike Painter

        Uh, how could I have performance anxiety about having sex with girls if I was never interested in having sex with girls? I went through puberty, I started liking guys before I knew what sex was, that hasn’t changed. “The entirety of living becomes consumed with homosexuality identity”? My life does not revolve around me being gay, thanks. You’re the one who thinks that, not me. And no one said there was a straight genetic basis for homosexuality, only that it is partly genetic. If you really thought I had a disorder and needed help, you’d try to help me, not give me a backhanded, condescending “good luck.”

        • You (stupidly): “Um, how could I have performance anxiety about having sex with girls if I was never interested in having sex with girls?”

          Reality: That is the fallacy of red herring. Nothing was mentioned about sexual performance fears.

          You (stupidly): “My life does not revolve around me being gay, thanks.”

          Reality: And yet here you are blathering about your homo-ness rather than doing something else.

          You: “If you really thought I had a disorder and needed help, you’d try to help me …”

          Reality: Why? You’re not my relative. I owe you nothing. I have no duty to you.

          Good luck!

          • Mike Painter

            “the heterophobe suffers from unreasonable thoughts and fears over opposite sex intimacy.” Yeah and I don’t have that. Because I never had any desire for opposite sex intimacy. I don’t have interest in physical intimacy with the opposite gender, sexual or otherwise. I am not afraid of it. I’m not interested in it. I never was.

            “And here you are blathering about your homo-ness.” Maybe if there wasn’t stuff circulating around the internet slandering me and others like me, I wouldn’t have to defend myself. Have you posted pictures of you and your significant other on social media lately? Get your hetero-ness out of here and do something else yourself.

            “You’re not my relative.” Because Jesus only helped and reached out to his relatives. Who was it you worshiped again? Or are you an atheist who doesn’t like gays? (A rarity)

            Good luck with your irrational aversion to gay people!

          • You (stupidly): “Yeah and I don’t have that. Because I never had any desire for opposite sex intimacy.”

            You lack the means to recall your childhood. Like all heterophobics, you thought of yourself as awkward around girls. You became increasingly obsessed with other guys, which concurrent with your sexual development, drove you toward sodomy.

            You’re among the abnormal.

            You (stupidly): “Because Jesus only helped and reached out to his relatives.”

            Did you announce yourself as a Christian? Am I to read minds as well as explain reality to you?

            Clearly, if I took the time to write comments to you, I’m reaching out and helping.

            All the same, I owe you nothing. I have no duty to you.

            Better luck next time homo.

          • Mike Painter

            Look, you don’t have a right to say I lack the means to recall my childhood and commence to make up a childhood for me that fits your narrative. I actually got along quite well with girls. It was guys I was nervous around, naturally. I didn’t become “increasingly obsessed with guys,” I always liked guys. And I haven’t had sex; what is with the presumptuous “drove you toward sodomy” line? And you think there aren’t guys obsessed with girls who aren’t driven toward sodomy? Lol

            I didn’t say I was Christian, you’re right. I’m agnostic, if I had to say. Evoking Jesus doesn’t necessarily mean one is Christian. I only assumed you were Christian since you were on a conservative Christian site, and wanted to ask how you could think yourself following a Christian example. If you’re atheist, I’m sorry for making assumptions. But even an atheist would admit that calling me a stupid homo is hardly “reaching out and helping.” Do you call everyone who you assess as having a mental disorder stupid?

          • You: “Look, you don’t have a right to say I lack the means to recall my childhood …”

            Reality: It looks like I do since I have.

            As well, you don’t recall from your childhood every moment and every thought related to how you reacted in every moment. No one does. Yet, every thought about every reaction is what defines someone exactly.

            Your beliefs about your childhood are mere fantasy that you have created recently.

            You: “But even an atheist would admit that calling me a stupid homo is …”

            Reality: No where in my previous comments would you find that I had written stupid homo. Why do you lie? Also, are you not a homo?

            You: “I only assumed you were Christian since you were on a conservative Christian site… “

            Listen up stupid homo and tell your stupid homo friends who likely fancy themselves as smart.

            You thought you would play the you’re not very Christian card against me in an effort to make me feel guilty and force me to believe I have duty to behave in a certain way, which then would make me believe I have duty to be subordinate to you.

            That doesn’t work with me. I have told you already that I owe you nothing. Your stupid homo tactics have no force. Your methods are limp-wristed. It is as if you have sashayed in front of me in the most effeminate manner.

            It does not seem that you have ever read about the good news,the good spell, the gospels of the New Testament.

            Here is a clip when Jesus stepped up to heal a man on the Sabbath, an act that Jesus knew would incite the Jew Pharisees into rage.

            Then looking round upon them with indignation being grieved at stupidity of their hearts, He said, to the man, “Extend your hand!” He accordingly extended it; and his hand was restored to its natural condition.” Jesus in Mark 3:5

          • Mike Painter

            Dude. I can recall my friendships as a kid. Yes, people don’t recall every moment of their childhoods, but they can recall significant things like who they hung out with just fine and who they were more hesitant around. Define my childhood all you want so I don’t defy your expectations if that’s what it takes for you to feel secure. Whatever.

            Yes, you didn’t say “stupid homo” before, but you said everything I said was stupid with your “You (stupidly):” way of quoting me. And then you called me a homo. So I put two and two together: I’m a stupid homo, you say. And then you commence to directly use the term “stupid homo” and berate me because I called you out for insulting me. Were you not? Yes, I’m gay, but you were using “homo” as a pejorative. You meant it as an insult.

            I’m not trying to get you to bow to me, I’m saying insulting me isn’t doing anything in your favor and I don’t see how it reflects Jesus. Was I trying to make you feel guilty? No. I was saying you were acting like a hypocrite. And not that I have anything against effeminate people, but I am not effeminate, and, once again, your insulting me is revealing everything about yourself and nothing about me. Not every gay person is effeminate and limp-wristed, for the record. I guess I’m lying about my lack of effeminacy, just like my childhood, right?

            I have read the Gospels. In spite of Jesus’s (understandable) frustration, I don’t see him loudly insulting anyone in that passage. And I don’t see how a Pharisee not wanting a man healed on the Sabbath is similar to me telling you the general record of my childhood relationships and you getting mad because they conflict with what you want them to be.

          • You: “Yes, people don’t recall every moment of their childhoods, but they can recall significant things like who they hung out with just fine and who they were more hesitant around.”

            What you recall are smatterings of information often augmented by photographs and what others tell you what they recall.

            However, you don’t recall from your childhood every moment and every thought related to how you reacted in every moment and every thought about every reaction is what defines you exactly.

            You: “Yes, you didn’t say “stupid homo” before, but you said everything I said was stupid with your “You (stupidly):””

            If you were smart, you would see that stupidly is an adverb. As an adverb, the word describes how you have done something. It does not describe you. It is not an adjective.

            Stupidly qualifies your action and not your person. Someone not stupid would know this.

            You: “Yes, I’m gay, but you were using “homo” as a pejorative.”

            If you perceive homo as a pejorative, then you perceive homosexuality as a deficiency. This is the right perception.

            As a homo, you are the one deficient. You are the distorted one, the caricature, the one far from manhood, far from the ideal. You know this in your heart.

            In the struggle to overcome reality, homos have fought to control belief about themselves. They have fought to control language. They have fought to erase any beliefs about suffering from a psychological disorder.

            If you’re a homo, own it. If it is so good, own being abnormal and against the right design of the nature of mankind.

            You: “I was saying you were acting like a hypocrite.”

            Even if I were, so what? What is it to you? You do not get me a guarantee of everlasting life.

            I owe you nothing. I have no duty to you.

            You (stupidly): “And not that I have anything against effeminate people, but I am not effeminate, and, once again, your insulting me is revealing everything about yourself and nothing about me.”

            You suffer from reading comprehension problems. You simply do not understand English.

            You should learn to focus on important words and phrases, words that give hints rather than looking for being insulted. To help you, look at the phrases Your methods seem … and It is as if … Neither of those phrases are equivalent to you are.

            Homos look for the worst in hets. Homos always look to be aggrieved. It is a way to assuage themselves and justify their mind disorder.

            You: “And I don’t see how a Pharisee … is similar to me telling you …”

            You’re so self-absorbed. This is a trait of the homo. You have looked at it backward. You have looked at it from you to me rather than the way you should have looked at it.

            As already shown, you struggle with reading comprehension. Had only you comprehended this: Here is a clip when Jesus stepped up to heal a man … and had only you reflected upon the passage of the Gospel along with the entirety of this exchange, you might have seen something.

            Good luck!

          • Mike Painter

            Well, aren’t you a piece of work. I’m not ashamed of being gay and I don’t view myself as deficient. If you weren’t using “homo” as an insult, sorry. It’s just that you don’t often hear anyone except the likes of a rabid street preacher using that term and you never hear it used in a not-demeaning way. I didn’t know it was such a huge leap considering it a pejorative when the people who don’t have a problem with gays usually just stick with “gay.” And I was reading the implications of your comments along with what they literally said, and you went on to be direct after making implied insults. You said you weren’t calling me stupid with your use of “stupidly,” then commence to call me stupid. …Okay? You say I’m self-absorbed and looking to be aggrieved, and yet you’re giving me insults and telling me I want them when I don’t. Honestly, insult me all you want. Believe about me what you want without knowing me. I don’t care. I don’t have to prove my masculinity or my ideality to you or anyone. I’m not perfect, but I’m not a bad person. And no, I’m not God and do not hold your key to everlasting life, but excuse me for thinking insulting people and making assumptions about them based on attributes such as sexual orientation is a rude thing to do. Bu it’s in line with the Gospel, apparently. I guess I need all the luck in the world to understand that.

          • You are a mess in the mind, a total mess.

            Look at you. Here is your opening paragraph. In the first sentence you write a lame attempt at insult. In the third sentence you offer an unrelated apology.

            Sentence 1. “Well, aren’t you a piece of work.”
            Sentence 3. “If you weren’t using “homo” as an insult, sorry.”

            You (stupidly): ” It’s just that you don’t often hear anyone except the likes of a rabid street preacher using that term and you never hear it used in a not-demeaning way.”

            Clearly, you have never spent at night out in the Castro in a homo bar. You should listen to homos and how they speak to each other sometime. You will hear them say, You queen, You homo, and many other variants.

            Also, this bit of yours — “…anyone except the likes of a rabid street preacher…” is a lame attempt at ad hominem through innuendo.

            You: “And I was reading the implications of your comments along with what they literally said …”

            You lie quite a bit. Perhaps you are unaware that you do so.

            You failed to read literally. You did not comprehend at all what you read. Instead, you entertained fanciful hallucination in your mind about what you thought you read.

            You: “when the people who don’t have a problem with gays usually just stick with “gay.”

            Listen up homo. You don’t get to control language. As well, who cares what others do?

            You (lying): “You said you weren’t calling me stupid with your use of “stupidly,” then commence to call me stupid. …Okay?

            Reality: There were two comments. In the first comment, I wrote (stupidly). In your follow up comment, you cried about being called stupid. In my second comment, the follow-up to your follow-up, I wrote:

            No where in my previous comments would you find that I had written stupid homo. Why do you lie? Also, are you not a homo?

            Only after did I write the phrase stupid homo.

            Not even two hours have passed. Your memory is horrible. And yet you have implored upon me that you remember your childhood.

            You: “… but I’m not a bad person. “

            You have not been called a bad person by me. You hallucinate quite a bit.

            With only 45 comments written and likely many of those on this article alone, your Mike Painter DISQUS account is a troll account, which you have created to be belligerent with others.

            You: “Believe about me what you want without knowing me … but excuse me for thinking insulting people and making assumptions about them based on attributes…”

            Which is it? Am I to believe what I would like or am I feel sheepish for doing so after your lame attempt at rebuking and thus no longer to believe what I do?

            You: “I didn’t say I was Christian, you’re right. I’m agnostic … I have read the Gospels…insulting people and making assumptions about them … is a … in line with the Gospel, apparently.”.

            It has been shown repeatedly, that you have reading comprehension problems. Even if you have read the Gospels, as you have claimed, that does not mean you have understood the Gospels.

            Rhetorically, I ask, could you explain to anyone who is one’s neighbor?

            You should read the gospels with frequency, perhaps at least once a year. If nothing else, you will improve your reading comprehension.

            There is hope for you. You have come this far.

            Good luck!

          • Mike Painter

            “Clearly, you have never spent at night out in the Castro in a homo bar.” No and I don’t want to. Shocking, right? I suggest you not go there to get an idea about gay people as a whole. You say you never insulted me, correct? I did not intend to lie about what you said; I suppose I was mistaken about your intentions. You came to kindly inform me of my mental disorder and correct me about my childhood which I have no knowledge about, right? But if this is your idea of kindness, I don’t want to know how you act and what you say when you’re actually fighting and insulting people. Perhaps I should go comment some more somewhere else to avoid being accused of being a troll. Sorry I don’t spend all day commenting on things. Bye.

          • You: “I suggest you not go there to get an idea about gay people as a whole.”

            You lack standing to have your suggestions considered.

            You (stupidly): “You say you never insulted me, correct?”

            You’re assuming that I’ve claimed something. That is a lame tactic.

            If you go around feeling insulted, you are not going to do well in your living. Your mind is woefully weak.

            As I stated above,

            Homos always look to be aggrieved. It is a way to assuage themselves and justify their mind disorder.

            You: “You came to … correct me about my childhood which I have no knowledge about, right?”

            You hallucinate.

            You: “Sorry I don’t spend all day commenting on things.”

            You lie with great frequency as evidenced by every comment of yours. You have been here for two days commenting never mind one all day of one day.

            Better luck next time, homo.

          • Mike Painter

            You won’t consider my suggestion to not judge all gay people based on what you see in a bar, of all places? Fine. I won’t consider your suggestion that I have mental disorder. If you don’t like me commenting a lot, stop complaining about how I don’t have enough comments.

          • You: “Sorry I don’t spend all day commenting on things. Bye.”

            And then later, you: “You won’t …”

            What happened? You kicked up your heels and trotted off. Now, you’re back? Why?

            You (stupidly): “You won’t consider my suggestion to not judge all gay people based on what you see in a bar, of all places?

            In your ongoing lame effort to try to score points, you have tried to imply that could be my only experience with homos, a queer bar.

            Give it up.

            You: “I won’t consider your suggestion that I have mental disorder…”

            Reality: You suffer from heterophobia. It is why you became habituated to be a homosexual.

            Better luck next time, homo.

          • Mike Painter

            Get more experience with homos, then. I came back because you refuse to leave me alone because you’re obsessed with getting the last word and take some kind of sick joy out of harassing people. I have a mental disorder, the world is 6,000 years old, Harry Potter is recruiting children into witchcraft, evolution is a lie, Halloween is the devil’s birthday, Planned Parenthood is coming for your guns in order to shoot babies. Happy yet? Believe whatever you want to believe, but leave me alone.

          • You: “I came back because you refuse to leave me alone because you’re obsessed with getting the last word and take some kind of sick joy out of harassing people. “

            Not only do you suffer from heterophobia, but also you suffer from a persecution complex.

            You: ” I have a mental disorder, the world is 6,000 years old, Harry Potter is recruiting children into witchcraft, evolution is a lie, Halloween is the devil’s birthday, Planned Parenthood is coming for your guns in order to shoot babies. “

            All of that is a fallacy of red herring.

            Better luck next time, triggered homo.

          • Mike Painter

            Congratulations on getting the last word like you wanted, little snowflake. You are very special.

          • Someone here is a triggered snowflake, but that one isn’t me.

            Here you are triggered about your homosexism.

            You: “Sorry I don’t spend all day commenting on things … Congratulations on getting the last word…”

            Better luck next time triggered snowflake homo.

          • Mike Painter

            I love how you criticize me spending all day commenting on things when you’re doing the same. I’m commenting because I have nothing to do today. I’m mad because you won’t leave me alone, not because you’re calling me out on hating straight people and heterosexuality, which I don’t. Let me guess: You “didn’t say that” and I have “reading comprehension problems” and don’t know what “homosexism” means. Someone who isn’t a snowflake typically isn’t obsessed with whether or not someone is gay and doesn’t feel a compelling need to assert that they are superior by comparison. Summer’s coming fast. Would be a shame if you melted, since you’re so fun to be around.

          • You: “I love how you criticize me spending all day commenting on things when you’re doing the same.”

            You (contradicting yourself): “Sorry I don’t spend all day commenting on things.”

            You have been here for two days commenting.

            You: “I’m mad because you won’t leave me alone, …”

            You suffer from a persecution complex as all homos do. Homos are the original snowflakes.

            You: “Someone who isn’t a snowflake typically isn’t obsessed with whether or not someone is gay…”

            You are obsessed with being a homo.

            Better luck next time little, melting, triggered, snowflake homo.

          • Mike Painter

            I am not obsessed with being a homo. I just am one. Leave me alone.

          • I love how this guy thinks he knows you better than you do.

          • Mike Painter

            That’s what I was thinking the whole time. Continuing the argument instead of leaving when it started getting ridiculous was a big mistake. He’s like that with most everyone, from the looks of it. Some people you just can’t reason with.

      • Gay people aren’t “phobic” about the opposite sex, we just don’t feel any desire for them. Lack of interest is hardly a disorder.

        • Homosexuals suffer from significant mind disorder.

          Heterophobia is the effect. The cause is a pattern of obsessions and compulsions toward the same sex because of unreasonable thoughts and fears over opposite sex intimacy and adequacy.

          Homosexuality is learned behavior as all behaviors are.

          Good luck!

          • You’re entitled to your opinion – however misguided it may be – but the overwhelming majority of legitimate medical/psychological/health organizations do not agree with you – not to mention most people generally. Good luck!

    • This is what I would’ve written! Excellent post.

      • Mike Painter

        Hey thanks!

  • brothergc

    hmmm. I would change the caption to “price Charming finding True Lust with a farmboy ” More accurate Yes ?

  • Billy Chickens

    As an antidote to calm your fears and know that real men are still out there, watch the movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi”. In May, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the Benghazi heroes will be speaking at our company’s annual function so I bought the movie and watched it a few days ago.

    These are real men, real heroes, real live warriors, patriotic, dedicated and every inch fearless MEN. No daintiness about these guys. While watching the movie, every now and then I wondered what lesbians and homosexuals would think of these highly masculine men – men in love with their wives, men who greatly missed their children and homes but nonetheless found themselves in a terrible situation in Benghazi with NO HELP from our state department. After trying to get to the Embassy and Chris Stevens, these seven (?) men defended the CIA complex that night where it was kill or be killed.

    No homosexuals were on the rooftops that night. Not a lesbian in sight. No “prince” and his farm lover boy. Just real men highly trained in military fitness and weapons….and two of them gave their lives defending the compound and the 25 – 30 Americans inside.

    I wonder if they will make a children’s book on 13 Hours so that little boys would want to grow up to be real men.

    • SophieA

      I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the children’s book. You make excellent points.

  • ImaginaryDomain

    The end game with the gay agenda is unfettered access to our children.

    • climate3

      I’m confused. I thought we were trying to imprison Christians. When did national headquarters make the change and how did you get my memo?

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    I suspect Disney is in negotiations w/Adam & Chaz for the rights for a children’s Sunday morning TV series.
    Hey, the characters look suspiciously “Disneyesque” already. Perhaps other fantasy characters of Disney legend
    can make guest appearances as well. You know LeFou is still chasing after an unrequited love. Maybe Farm boy has
    room in his heart for still another heat throb ? Why not bring a touch of reality to the kiddies ? Few practicing homosexuals are monogamous anyway. Could be an interesting twist – or just plain twisted as the case may be …

  • Some kids shall be molested. So why not set aside an hour a week in school to show kids what could be in their future by showing Jared Fogel’s video collection?

    Some girls will grow up to be women into threesomes into doubling up their backside inputs. So why not set aside an hour a week in school to show kids women in threesome porn?

    There are many things adults do that some of today’s children will grow up to do however degenerate. Why leave it until adulthood? Why not give children head starts?

  • Iseewhattheydid

    There really is no bottom with this stuff. Who the adults “love” is the only criterion. I fully expect a push to normalize pedophilia before long. And then I’m sure they’ll think of something yet more perverse. Legalized incest perhaps, or child murder–oh wait, we already have that one.

  • Doc3

    Stuff this gay crapola back in the closet where it belongs. Enough.

  • Twenty_Squared

    Actually I expected for Prince Charming to find true love with a farm animal!

  • climate3

    Lighten up. It’s just a fairy tale. I suppose a story about about a little girl talking to a wolf would have been alright. Or a witch using a gingerbread house to lure children so she can eat them? And no offense but Biblical stories aren’t all that safe either. Remember that David decapitated Goliath and the Israelites massacred the residents of Jericho when the walls came down.

    • BMcGNYC

      Yeah, and let’s not forget what Lot’s daughters did.

  • climate3

    One more thing. How can Santa be gay if he isn’t gay. Geez!

Inspiration
Christians, We’re a Team. Let’s Act Like One
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us