Is it OK to be Gay? Why?
As more and more people know someone who is gay or lesbian (a family member or friend for example), and because gays and lesbians can be seen within society looking and acting pretty much like ever...
As more and more people know someone who is gay or lesbian (a family member or friend for example), and because gays and lesbians can be seen within society looking and acting pretty much like everybody else, it seems society is beginning to accept them as just another part of a diverse society. Is this good? Bad? Neither? Not sure?
(more)
(more)
Top Comment
View thread
-
None of the above
My view is that the question is not if it is okay to be gay but what should be the response of straight people to other people being gay.
In the first place, there is one's emotional response, what is sometimes called your gut reaction. Mine is pretty bad, I find "flaming" gays offensive, I find public or photographic displays of gay affection unpleasant, I find confrontational gay rights advocates alienating. But I am old and most younger people do not have such negative feelings.
Secondly, there is one's personal experience with gays. I have found them to be conscientious, capable co-workers. I have found them to be law-abiding, non-violent citizens. Macho straight males are the offenders in almost all cases where there is an injured victim. I worked in a county jail for eight years with all types of people with all types of offenses. The gays I saw were almost always arrested for male prostitution. I do not regard the "straight" men who used these gays for oral sex (and paid for it) as victims. The macho straight men were in for many reasons, but they included murder, rape, wife abuse, child abuse and violent robbery. The only man charged with molesting boys I dealt with was a babysitter who repeatedly raped a little girl he was supposedly looking after. When ... My view is that the question is not if it is okay to be gay but what should be the response of straight people to other people being gay.
In the first place, there is one's emotional response, what is sometimes called your gut reaction. Mine is pretty bad, I find "flaming" gays offensive, I find public or photographic displays of gay affection unpleasant, I find confrontational gay rights advocates alienating. But I am old and most younger people do not have such negative feelings.
Secondly, there is one's personal experience with gays. I have found them to be conscientious, capable co-workers. I have found them to be law-abiding, non-violent citizens. Macho straight males are the offenders in almost all cases where there is an injured victim. I worked in a county jail for eight years with all types of people with all types of offenses. The gays I saw were almost always arrested for male prostitution. I do not regard the "straight" men who used these gays for oral sex (and paid for it) as victims. The macho straight men were in for many reasons, but they included murder, rape, wife abuse, child abuse and violent robbery. The only man charged with molesting boys I dealt with was a babysitter who repeatedly raped a little girl he was supposedly looking after. When she got old enough to defend herself, he moved on to her two younger brothers until the girl reported him. He in no way considered himself gay, he was just an opportunist child molester. Of the men who preyed on little girls, I particularly remember a big, tough, muscled man who raped a seven year old girl and then tried to kill her three ways. Many of the men I worked with in the jail were drug-dealing pimps who kept young women as sex-slaves by giving them cocaine. Between them and the many men who could not understand why they had been arrested for non-payment of child support, I came to have a pretty dismal image of straight men. If I were asked which I think is the better human being, the average straight man or the average gay man, I would have to say I think the average gay man is better.
Taking the issue of acceptance versus discrimination as the third point, I think each case needs to be looked at separately, on its own merits. I sympathize with Boy Scout groups that do not want gay scoutmasters taking boys camping. But I honestly think the boys are more likely to be molested by someone whois thought to be straight than they are by an openly gay man. My gay friend who is a special education teacher working with kids who are extremely uncooperative and have no interest in learning anything in school is more patient and tolerant than I (a straight male) could ever be. As I have said before, which would you rather have next to you, praying with you, in church, masjid or synagogue, a law-abiding homosexual in a committed monogamous relationship or a straight pimp.
My fourth issue is gay marriage. I say it does not matter whether one approves of gay marriage or not, one still should support legalizing gay marriage. If gays can adopt and raise children, I would prefer that the children be given the security and stability of a family based on marriage. Also, promiscuity (in either gays or straights) spreads disease, including HIV-AIDS. If marriage can help make people more faithful and less promiscuous, then we should encourage gay marriage for public health reasons. Even a small decrease in disease transmission could save millions of dollars in taxes.
So my position is we should recognize gay rights and legalize gay marriage because it will benefit us. Try looking at prohibition (outlawing alcoholic beverages) to see what happens when we try to prohibit large numbers of people from doing what they are going to do anyway. It does not work, it criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it seriously erodes respect for the law. If I were the Creator, I would make people so they would never want to be homosexual, but since people do want to be gay, I will support gay rights and gay marriage out of pragmatic self-interest.
If you are interested, I have written articles on homosexuality and gay marriage from a Muslim viewpoint. They are at http://www.geocities.com/mika... (more)
Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
People are people and it's about respect. Gays pay taxes just like everyone else and should be entitled to all rights just as str8 people.No, it's not OK to be gay because ...
the bible states thou shalt not lie with mankind as thou lie with womankind,to doso is an abomination. men and women were created for each other to procreate. you cannot make a baby with someone of the same gender as yourself. I in no way mean for this to come across hatefully.So to refer to a passage of the Bible that Christians ignore in their own lives is at least hypocritical, at most invalid and completely irrelevant.
First, it can't be assumed that the Bible is an authority about anything. That needs to be made clear. I personally think that the Bible is _not_ a holy book, is not "the word of God," and is not an authority.
Second, please don't use the phrase "homosexuality is not natural," because it _is_ natural and occurs in a wide variety of species, not just us Homo sapiens. However, unlike homosexuality, the Bible and religion are _not_ natural. If anything is "unnatural" in this debate, it is Christianity and religion in general.
Thirdly, my questions were only in the nature of questioning your use of the Bible, when in reality I question the Bible itself, Christianity and religion. So arguments based on the Bible are not persuasive nor even relevant in my opinion, and I don't see why they should with anyone else.
No, it's not OK to be gay because ...
no its not okaWhy?
Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
gays are mostly good people.None of the above
My view is that the question is not if it is okay to be gay but what should be the response of straight people to other people being gay.In the first place, there is one's emotional response, what is sometimes called your gut reaction. Mine is pretty bad, I find "flaming" gays offensive, I find public or photographic displays of gay affection unpleasant, I find confrontational gay rights advocates alienating. But I am old and most younger people do not have such negative feelings.
Secondly, there is one's personal experience with gays. I have found them to be conscientious, capable co-workers. I have found them to be law-abiding, non-violent citizens. Macho straight males are the offenders in almost all cases where there is an injured victim. I worked in a county jail for eight years with all types of people with all types of offenses. The gays I saw were almost always arrested for male prostitution. I do not regard the "straight" men who used these gays for oral sex (and paid for it) as victims. The macho straight men were in for many reasons, but they included murder, rape, wife abuse, child abuse and violent robbery. The only man charged with molesting boys I dealt with was a babysitter who repeatedly raped a little girl he was supposedly looking after. When ... My view is that the question is not if it is okay to be gay but what should be the response of straight people to other people being gay.
In the first place, there is one's emotional response, what is sometimes called your gut reaction. Mine is pretty bad, I find "flaming" gays offensive, I find public or photographic displays of gay affection unpleasant, I find confrontational gay rights advocates alienating. But I am old and most younger people do not have such negative feelings.
Secondly, there is one's personal experience with gays. I have found them to be conscientious, capable co-workers. I have found them to be law-abiding, non-violent citizens. Macho straight males are the offenders in almost all cases where there is an injured victim. I worked in a county jail for eight years with all types of people with all types of offenses. The gays I saw were almost always arrested for male prostitution. I do not regard the "straight" men who used these gays for oral sex (and paid for it) as victims. The macho straight men were in for many reasons, but they included murder, rape, wife abuse, child abuse and violent robbery. The only man charged with molesting boys I dealt with was a babysitter who repeatedly raped a little girl he was supposedly looking after. When she got old enough to defend herself, he moved on to her two younger brothers until the girl reported him. He in no way considered himself gay, he was just an opportunist child molester. Of the men who preyed on little girls, I particularly remember a big, tough, muscled man who raped a seven year old girl and then tried to kill her three ways. Many of the men I worked with in the jail were drug-dealing pimps who kept young women as sex-slaves by giving them cocaine. Between them and the many men who could not understand why they had been arrested for non-payment of child support, I came to have a pretty dismal image of straight men. If I were asked which I think is the better human being, the average straight man or the average gay man, I would have to say I think the average gay man is better.
Taking the issue of acceptance versus discrimination as the third point, I think each case needs to be looked at separately, on its own merits. I sympathize with Boy Scout groups that do not want gay scoutmasters taking boys camping. But I honestly think the boys are more likely to be molested by someone whois thought to be straight than they are by an openly gay man. My gay friend who is a special education teacher working with kids who are extremely uncooperative and have no interest in learning anything in school is more patient and tolerant than I (a straight male) could ever be. As I have said before, which would you rather have next to you, praying with you, in church, masjid or synagogue, a law-abiding homosexual in a committed monogamous relationship or a straight pimp.
My fourth issue is gay marriage. I say it does not matter whether one approves of gay marriage or not, one still should support legalizing gay marriage. If gays can adopt and raise children, I would prefer that the children be given the security and stability of a family based on marriage. Also, promiscuity (in either gays or straights) spreads disease, including HIV-AIDS. If marriage can help make people more faithful and less promiscuous, then we should encourage gay marriage for public health reasons. Even a small decrease in disease transmission could save millions of dollars in taxes.
So my position is we should recognize gay rights and legalize gay marriage because it will benefit us. Try looking at prohibition (outlawing alcoholic beverages) to see what happens when we try to prohibit large numbers of people from doing what they are going to do anyway. It does not work, it criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens, and it seriously erodes respect for the law. If I were the Creator, I would make people so they would never want to be homosexual, but since people do want to be gay, I will support gay rights and gay marriage out of pragmatic self-interest.
If you are interested, I have written articles on homosexuality and gay marriage from a Muslim viewpoint. They are at http://www.geocities.com/mika... (more)
No, it's not OK to be gay because ...
God says it is evil. In Leviticus, we are told to take homosexuals to the pillory at the edge of town and stone them to death, just like prostitutes. Now, Jesus saved the prostitute from being stoned, saying "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." So by the gentler justice of the New Testament, a case can be made for not stoning homosexuals, but that does not mean we should accept them into our society and allow them to practice their depraved perversion in our midst. St.Paul is clear that homosexuality is not acceptable in Christianity.The Bible is not God, and I would assert that you really don't know what God thinks or says, and never have.
I don't believe that Leviticus says what you mention about stoning homosexuals to death. I think that's an outright lie. I have never seen that in Leviticus and you would have to cite a particular verse. But Leviticus does say that eating pork (roast or bacon) is forbidden, and eating shrimp, crab or lobster is an abomination. Also, men are prohibited from shaving. Do you (as a presumed Christian) abide by those rules and the many other strict rules of behavior mandated by the Levite priests of the ancient Israelites? If not, why not?
Of course the big issue for some people is what should be included and what should not. The Vulgate Bible of the Roman Church includes many books excluded from most Protestant Bibles. Mostly, they were excluded because they were written in Aramaic. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew before the Macedonian conquest. The New Testament was written in Greek after the death of Jesus. During the nearly four centuries between these events, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, was used. Jesus actually quoted some of the Targums, Aramaic editorials in the Bible of his time. So I have no problem with including a book like Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach).
The big problem for the modern reader is getting a reliable translation into the present day language so it can be understood. Unbelievable as ... The Bible is the Word of God. It is the Truth, it is inerrant (preserved free of error by God's will). It was written down by humans over centuries, with the limitations of human language. Language changed, words changed in meaning, there is confusion. The tone changes. Yes, the "law of the desert" in Leviticus is harsh and overly detailed. Yes, Hosea is gentle and forgiving when compared with Isaiah. The needs and attitudes of those being addressed changed.
Of course the big issue for some people is what should be included and what should not. The Vulgate Bible of the Roman Church includes many books excluded from most Protestant Bibles. Mostly, they were excluded because they were written in Aramaic. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew before the Macedonian conquest. The New Testament was written in Greek after the death of Jesus. During the nearly four centuries between these events, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, was used. Jesus actually quoted some of the Targums, Aramaic editorials in the Bible of his time. So I have no problem with including a book like Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach).
The big problem for the modern reader is getting a reliable translation into the present day language so it can be understood. Unbelievable as it seems, most translations are by unbelievers who favor Judaism over Christianity and whose translations are designed to lead people away from a Bible based faith. A quick test of whether one has a reliable Christian translation or not is to look at Isaiah 40:3. "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'establish the way of the Lord.'" The Jews translate this as "The voice of one crying, 'in the wilderness establish the way of the Lord.'" This makes the way in the wilderness, not the voice. Since all four Gospels quote this passage to show that John the Baptist was the voice in the wilderness, this is used to "prove" that the Gospels are in error and there never was any voice in the wilderness. So my advice is to take any Bible translation that says the way was in the desert and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.
As to what of the Old Testament law applies to Christians, only that which is confirmed by the New Testament. But on homosexuality, the prohibition is confirmed by St. Paul. Homosexuality is not acceptable, it is evil. (more)
That is just your belief, not necessarily a fact. Moreover, this is exactly what extremist Muslim terrorists and the Taliban believe about their holy book, the Quran.
This fact, considered along with your previous comment, "... take homosexuals to the pillory at the edge of town and stone them to death ..." is very revealing and disturbing.
You are saying (evidently) that your holy book not only justifies the murder of homosexuals, but encourages or mandates it. It sounds as though you are suggesting that our country institute a kind of Christian Sharia Law to--among other things--execute homosexuals.
You are a dangerous religious extremist very much like the extremist Muslims who are willing to behead people using their beliefs as both motivation and justification for such cruel and inhuman behavior. You yourself would apparently be willing to do horrible things to other people likewise because of your beliefs, things that you would never consider doing nor be able to reconcile within yourself if you were a normal person with even a small amount of human empathy or real Christian love.
In other words, a completely nonreligious person or atheist is a better person than you are (as you are now) despite all your religious beliefs and principles.
Liberal Christians who try to follow Jesus and his message of love think like the above. Conservative Christians who follow Paul more than Jesus do not agree. RushSchlafly is not wrong about the Law of Moses, see below.
2. Homosexuality is sexual activity between members of the same sex. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." (The Hebrew word "abomination" means loathsome, repugnant, abhorrent to God). Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts also, "If a male lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
The usual met... A brochure on the door of the Episcopal Chaplain's office at Stanford University reads, "What did Jesus say about homosexuality?" When the brochure is opened the inside is completely blank. Episcopal Chaplain Penelope Duckworth explains, "For we, as Christians, pay particular attention to the words of our savior. Jesus said nothing regarding homosexuality, and in his ministry spoke more about the sins of the spirit than the sins of the body...Our reading of the Bible in its entirety is one of a loving, forgiving and nurturing God who wants us to help create a world that accepts and empowers us all."
Liberal Christians who try to follow Jesus and his message of love think like the above. Conservative Christians who follow Paul more than Jesus do not agree. RushSchlafly is not wrong about the Law of Moses, see below.
2. Homosexuality is sexual activity between members of the same sex. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." (The Hebrew word "abomination" means loathsome, repugnant, abhorrent to God). Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts also, "If a male lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
The usual method of execution was indeed stoning them at the town's pilliory.
I am not a gay but I am a Melungeon, a fairly sizable ethnic minority in VA, TN, KY and NC. Dr. Placker of the Virginia state government had many Melungeons sterilized because our existence offended God. Since we were a result of our ancestors sin of miscegenation, which somehow violated Noah's curse on Canaan, we should be eradicated. Ignorant hillbillies we may have been but that did not make us an abomination unto the Lord. Our survival in large numbers is largely because of the difficulties in catching hillbillies in our native mountains.
Anyway, the threat of bigots with the book behind them is real and fearsome, and it will take a long and bitter struggle for freedom. Melungeon kids were not allowed to go to school with white kids in TN until after 1967.
My quotes above are from "Jesus and the homosexual" by Lambert Dolphin at http://ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml (more)
I am a Christian, I believe in the Bible, I believe in Salvation through our Lord, Jesus Christ. I do not want you speaking for me. I do not want you speaking for Christians. Christianity is a religion of love and inclusion. Please stop attacking people in the name of my religion. Thank you.
King James:
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
New International Version:
A voice of one calling:
"In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.
New American Standard Version:
A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
Amplified Bible: A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God!
New Living Translation:
Listen! It’s the voice of someone shouting,
“Clear the way through the wilderness for the Lord!
Make a straight highway through the wasteland for our God!
English Standard Version
A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Contemporary English Version
Someone is shouting: "Clear a path in the desert!
Make a straight road for the LORD our God.
New King James Version
The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “ Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the deser... RushSchlafly says to throw any Bible that says the way was in the desert in the garbage. Let us take a look at some versions.
King James:
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
New International Version:
A voice of one calling:
"In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.
New American Standard Version:
A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
Amplified Bible: A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God!
New Living Translation:
Listen! It’s the voice of someone shouting,
“Clear the way through the wilderness for the Lord!
Make a straight highway through the wasteland for our God!
English Standard Version
A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Contemporary English Version
Someone is shouting: "Clear a path in the desert!
Make a straight road for the LORD our God.
New King James Version
The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “ Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
New Century Version
This is the voice of one who calls out: "Prepare in the desert
the way for the Lord. Make a straight road in the dry lands for our God.
21st Century King James Version
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: "Prepare ye the way of
the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
American Standard Version
The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way
of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for our God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
A voice of one crying out:
Prepare the way of the LORD in the wilderness;
make a straight highway for our God in the desert.
New International Reader's Version
A messenger is calling out,
"In the desert prepare the way for the Lord.
Make a straight road through it for our God.
New International Version - UK
A voice of one calling: In the desert prepare the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.
Today's New International Version
A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (more)
Three versions say the voice was in the wilderness:
King James, New King James, and 21st Century King James.
Twelve versions say the way was in the wilderness.
That is a lot of Bibles you would throw away just because
they admit the four writers of the Gospels made a mistake.
I think you probably know that this old dispute between
Jewish and Christian translators was finally decided when the
Dead Sea Scrolls were found with Hebrew versions older than
the Greek Septugint version used by the Gospel writers, showing
the Jews had been right all along. So the Gospel authors were all
four mistaken about John the Baptist being the voice wilderness,
there was no such voice. And the Bible is clearly not inerrant.
Those words in the New Testament that you refer to are Paul's words, not God's. They were addressed by Paul directly to the ancient people of Rome and Corinth, not to us, and they were not written for inclusion in the Bible, which of course wasn't created until much later.
In short, your "explanation" sounds like an excuse to continue to condemn homosexuals while ignoring the "inconvenient other laws" in the texts you quote from.
I am so glad that you represent only a radical fringe of an extreme, false kind of "Christianity," and not real Christianity.
Would I attack a homosexual just for being homosexual or would I like to see people inspired to do so by my words? No, of course not. I think they are much more likely to provoke attack themselves by their arrogant, flamboyant behavior. I do think it is very wrong for courts to deny the defense for those charged with attacking homosexuals the use of the reason that they were solicited by the homosexual. Any homosexual who comes propositioning me can expect a violent reaction.
I know the vast majority of Bible translators uphold the Jewish version of Isaiah 40:3 and the vast majority of recent translations show it that way. That does not make them right. God would not have told the Gospel writers to write falsehoods.
JulieMay, you do not understand me. I am not attacking homosexuals as people, I am attacking their campaign to destroy our Christian culture. I love homosexuals as individuals and want to save them from their sinful ways.
xscd, You are partly right on Paul. His letters were written to individual churches and addr... I have not got time for this. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is eternal. That is well known and widely accepted a priori knowledge. The Quran is the rantings of an ignorant polygamist and pedophile. To compare them is disgusting.
Would I attack a homosexual just for being homosexual or would I like to see people inspired to do so by my words? No, of course not. I think they are much more likely to provoke attack themselves by their arrogant, flamboyant behavior. I do think it is very wrong for courts to deny the defense for those charged with attacking homosexuals the use of the reason that they were solicited by the homosexual. Any homosexual who comes propositioning me can expect a violent reaction.
I know the vast majority of Bible translators uphold the Jewish version of Isaiah 40:3 and the vast majority of recent translations show it that way. That does not make them right. God would not have told the Gospel writers to write falsehoods.
JulieMay, you do not understand me. I am not attacking homosexuals as people, I am attacking their campaign to destroy our Christian culture. I love homosexuals as individuals and want to save them from their sinful ways.
xscd, You are partly right on Paul. His letters were written to individual churches and addressed local problems. They give us no real idea of his personality. Which, of course, is the answer to Mike's suggestion that Paul had sexual problems. We do not know anything about his private life. But he was a man of God and he taught us how to live. And part of it is to not tolerate homosexuality in our midst. (more)
"A priori" knowledge? Hardly. It would be just as truthful to say that it is a priori (self-evident or obvious) knowledge that the world is flat, or that God doesn't exist. Actually, that last statement is more believable than yours.
Your beliefs are just beliefs. They may have absolutely no validity at all, no matter how many people share the same delusion.
Using your method of ridding society of "evil," we might as well just outlaw religion and execute Christians--not good Christians, but your kind. Why should we be tolerant, as a country and society, of intolerant extremists like yourself?
You only approve of your own beliefs because they are turned outward toward and against others and not toward yourself.
Phyllis Schlafly - http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/
The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today - http://books.google.com/books...
Alliance Defense Fund - http://www.alliancedefensefun...
The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation - http://books.google.com/books...
Click on "Preview this book" to read much of it online.
Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity
By David Limbaugh (brother of Rush) - http://books.google.com/books... Again click preview.
Understanding Homosexuality: Perspectives for the Local Church - http://books.google.com/books...
The Agenda By Louis P. Sheldon - http://books.google.com/books...
The Gay 90s: What the Empirical Evidence Reveals about Homosexuality By Paul Cameron - http://books.google.com/books...
The Truth is out there, you just have to look for it because the liberal establishment and people like xscd try to ... Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along. You people (straight or homosexual) in the homosexual conspiracy to implement the homosexual agenda are trying to stop us (righteous, patriotic Christian Americans) from speaking, from warning society of what is being done to it. Read for yourselves, people: Eagle Forum - http://www.eagleforum.org/
Phyllis Schlafly - http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/
The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today - http://books.google.com/books...
Alliance Defense Fund - http://www.alliancedefensefun...
The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation - http://books.google.com/books...
Click on "Preview this book" to read much of it online.
Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity
By David Limbaugh (brother of Rush) - http://books.google.com/books... Again click preview.
Understanding Homosexuality: Perspectives for the Local Church - http://books.google.com/books...
The Agenda By Louis P. Sheldon - http://books.google.com/books...
The Gay 90s: What the Empirical Evidence Reveals about Homosexuality By Paul Cameron - http://books.google.com/books...
The Truth is out there, you just have to look for it because the liberal establishment and people like xscd try to suppress it and keep you ill-informed. Read for yourself, think for yourself. (more)
I'm the bad guy? I'm arguing for tolerance; you're arguing for intolerance. I'm arguing for humanity; you're arguing for inhumanity. I'm arguing against religious extremist violence (the same kind that motivates Islamic terrorists); you're arguing for it.
I'm guessing it will be pretty clear to most readers who's on the better side of this fence.
RushSchlafly says: "Read for yourself, think for yourself."
Yes, I hope people do that instead of listening to you (or me). I think that most people who read the texts you suggest will dismiss most of them almost immediately, and easily see the them for what they really are: inhumanizing, desensitizing, vilifying anti-homosexual hatred propaganda created by people with an antisocial agenda of their own.
It is _they_ who pose a threat to society.
Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
its jus like your straight but you love a man than a womanYes, it's OK to be gay because ...
is ok because thats who you are and no one can say shit about it!!!Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
moderated...Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
I'm for it ALL the way!!!....as long as your happy thats all that matters!!Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
You can't pick if you're gay or not.http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Click this link, It goes to "If you were gay" from the Broadway puppet show Avenue Q. The song is synched up to characters from the hit anime/manga Death Note.
Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
u r being who u wanna be!!!Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
they're just regular folks.Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
That is being true to yourself, It is how you are bornYes, it's OK to be gay because ...
Gay's are no diferent than us so why should anyone even have to ask this question unless they are ignorant or totally bigotedNone of the above
moderated...Yes, it's OK to be gay because ...
Thats what I was going to say Scarecrow!!