Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Stop The Agenda - Vote Yes on Question 1


Item one on the homosexual agenda is: “There is no homosexual agenda and anyone who says so is homophobic.”

A coalition of two dozen homosexual activist groups met in Kansas City in 1960 calling themselves the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations. According to a favorable, left/liberal history of “Gay Liberation” at Religioustolerance.org:

A radical faction surfaced [and] called for a change in tactics. Item 4 of their manifesto stated: Our enemies, an implacable, repressive governmental system; much of organized religion, business and medicine, will not be moved by appeasement or appeals to reason and justice, but only by power and force. . . . The homosexual agenda emerged at this point.

Item two on the agenda was to decriminalize homosexual acts in liberal states, then set up bacchanalian “bath houses” in which homosexuals “celebrated” their sexuality with orgies of anonymous sex. Soon, the “bath houses” in New York City and San Francisco would incubate and spread a horrible new disease initially called GRID, or “Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease.” More about that later.

Item 3 was to bully the American Psychiatric Association (APA) into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in the “Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM). This they accomplished by breaking into the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC to disrupt the 1973 APA Convention. Homosexuals in drag shouted down speakers, stormed the dais, seized the microphone, and the APA folded. The decision was based on intimidation, not science. That’s how homosexual activists operate when they’re not playing the victim role.

Item 4 was to persuade America that people who still considered homosexuality disordered or perverted were themselves disordered. They invented the clinical-sounding term “homophobia” and propagated it everywhere, calling anyone who criticized homosexuality “homophobic.”

When GRID surfaced in the early eighties, it looked like their agenda would go off the rails. Hence Item 5: Revert to victim mode. Pressure the Centers for Disease Control to change the name of this terrible new disease from GRID to AIDS, scare the hell out of heterosexuals by telling them they’re going to die next, and blame President Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush for spreading AIDS. More than a quarter-century later, the bath houses are still open, homosexuals still comprise the majority of AIDS cases in America, and they control billions in government AIDS spending. The agenda stayed on track and picked up steam.

Item 6 was to establish homosexuals as a protected class by passing “Gay Rights” statutes. Activists stayed in victim mode and jumped on the civil rights bandwagon. With this came a subtle change in nomenclature: Substituting “sexual orientation” for “sexual preference,” they would persuade America that homosexuality is biological and not a choice. Homosexuality is just like race, they claimed. That there’s no science to support this is irrelevant. Most Americans believe it, and, in politics, perception is reality.

The notion that people are born homosexual and cannot change had become the keystone of the homosexual agenda. Remove it, and everything collapses.

It may be that some have an inherent proclivity for homosexuality. Evidence exists, however, that many - male and female - become homosexual after being being molested in childhood. Due to enormous pressure by activists, virtually all research funds granted for decades look for a biological origin and ignore other possible causes. Evidence that homosexuality could be caused by environmental factors is scoffed at, and activists make sure nobody gets money to study it.

As long as Americans believe homosexuality is innate, they’re sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. They’ll allow activists and their propaganda into schools and other venues, figuring that if their children weren’t born homosexual, there’s no chance they’ll be influenced to become so. If, however, parents were to suspect otherwise - that their children might be changed by homosexual propaganda - those doors would surely slam shut.

That people can change their sexual preference is poisonous to the agenda and Dr. Robert Spitzer, Chief of Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center, has earned the wrath of activists by claiming it. Ironically, as a young psychiatrist Spitzer was instrumental in persuading the 1973 APA Convention to drop homosexuality from the DSM, and thus became the darling of radicals. At the 2001 APA Convention, however, he said: “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change,” and he published a study supporting his belief.

“It's snake oil, it's not science,” said David Elliot, homosexual activist with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - as if activists like him ever paid attention to science.

Item 7 was to sue for homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts, claiming marriage laws “discriminated” against homosexuals based on the above-mentioned “Gay Rights” statutes. The liberal Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered its legislature to pass homosexual “marriage,” and then blocked a people’s referendum to repeal it.

Voters in California, however, were able to reverse what their liberal court and legislature did and they repealed homosexual “marriage.” Next Tuesday, Maine voters will have the same opportunity.

Stop the homosexual agenda. Do it for the children.

Vote Yes on Question 1.

174 comments:

Anonymous said...

fantastic and right on point!

Sami said...

It's terrifying that you actually work in such close proximity to children. If anyone threatens our youth, it's cretins like you.

Anonymous said...

Right on as usual, Tom! Keep up the good work.

Harvey in North Baldwin

Tom McLaughlin said...

I'll bet you are terrified Sami. Some of us refuse to be brainwashed by the NEA. Not many, but some.

Anonymous said...

Great article Tom. Cant wait to see all of the comments from the "tolerant" liberals who disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for telling the TRUTH....Laurie from Bartlett

Anonymous said...

Tom, you have been proving for a long time that you are a very poor columnist and plain god-awful at making coherent, rational arguements, but this one may take the cake! When I got to the last line of "do it for the children" I nearly spit out my coffee!! That article and it's hilarious non sequitur ending would have gotten a huge laugh if delivered by Stephen Colbert! I'm starting to convince myself that you really are a good guy and are printing your satire to point our the inaneness of these "conservative" viewpoints.

Somewhere in your rambling nastiness you forgot to mention any reasons how gay marraige will harm our children. It is obvious that your attitude will HURT many children (such as any gay children that you "teach') but what exactly is the counter-arguement? Is it that if we teach acceptance in schools that it will turn children gay??!!??

There are millions of young Americans who are living tortured, painful lives because they are gay and do not fit in. They do not fit in because of people preaching that what they are is "bad". A teacher telling them this in a public forum is disgustingly horrid - you are a cretin indeed.
One of my friend's daughters is gay and she went through horrible turmoils because of it. She wished and prayed that she was "straight" to make her life easier. How shameful that adults work at keeping her miserable instead of accepting her as god made her.

Tom, here is my plea. Stop teaching and writing columns. Do it for the children.

Anonymous said...

"Rambling nastiness?" That was a well organized and sourced column.

"You are a very poor columnist and plain god-awful at making coherent, rational arguements[arguments]" The article was itemized into 6 very coherent points refuting the homosexual agenda. Because you disagree with the points does not make them incoherent.

Dawn said...

Every daughter needs a mom and every son needs a dad. We were created that way for a reason.

To go against that pattern is to hurt the children. While they can survive without a parent to model themselves after it's not the optimum.

Good article Tom.

Anonymous said...

...quiet day in the blogs eh Tom?

-tomax7

Homosexuality is a choice.

Anonymous said...

Hey tomax - being an ignorant "know-it-all" is a choice. Why did you make that choice?

Anonymous said...

Allowing gays to adopt children is an entirely different arguement than gay marraige, Dawn.

Anonymous said...

Tomax - care to explain the daughter of my friend who wished to god she was not gay?

Anonymous said...

Incoherent - lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought.

This article had NO intelligibility.

I noticed you did not try to argue this article being "rational". Your silence spoke volumes.

Anonymous said...

The article blathers on about "THE homosexual agenda". What makes it so? Oh, because a few dozen gays got together about 50 years ago and said so at a meeting!

I guess I can use the same rationality to state that the "Caucasion agenda" is to lynch blacks and burn down houses because about 50 years ago a few dozen Klansmen got together and said so at a meeting.

Anonymous said...

Anyone interested in what Tom is trying to talk about should do some research on their own. His mistakes in facts,dates and other information are many.

Anonymous said...

"Intelligible: capable of being understood or comprehended."

If you cant understand or comprehend this article maybe you should ask Tom a few questions to clear up your misunderstandings. It would be a lot more civil to do that than spew your hatred at Tom and some of the other people posting here.

You do help demonstrate the adage that people fear what they do not understand.

Anonymous said...

EXACTLY!!!!! You guys fear what you don't understand!!! Take some time to understand homosexuality before using hateful, hurtful words.

btw, I DID ask Tom a question...and I asked tomax one. I'm awaiting responses.

Funny that you are lecturing me on being civil. If you are a regular reader of Tom's then surely you read about HIS disregard for civility. Why should his blog be different?

Anonymous said...

I don't think I've ever been called a know-it-all, thanks eh.

I don't profess to know it all, but am I not entitled to my views?

For the daughter, it is a fight and goes deeper than wishing.

-tomax7

Just a side note, can the anon types at least put a pen/nickname after their posting? I don't use my real or blog account name here because it is the same name as the host.

Anonymous said...

"btw, I DID ask Tom a question...and I asked tomax one. I'm awaiting responses."

Umm, who's "I"? Read previous post.

-tomax7

GBA said...

"EXACTLY!!!!! You guys fear what you don't understand!!! Take some time to understand homosexuality before using hateful, hurtful words."

Seems like an "I know you are but what am I" argument to me.

Anonymous said...

Great job as usual Tom! I think the folks who are confused should learn what the word "rational" really means and consider reading on the subject of rational thinking. The NEA does their best to brainwash the teachers who are training a nation (our youth) thanks for standing up for what is right. Oh yes, I do believe in a right and a wrong and that we will each be accountable for our actions in this short life in the end.

To those of you who know youth that are “gay,” there are recovery ministries available out there I even found a youtube video on the subject! If youth feel bad about their temptation to the gay lifestyle there is help available, go to a local Baptist or Catholic church, they will most likely have free counseling available. I would also like to point out that there is a large pop culture glamorizing the gay lifestyle; maybe some of the mentioned youth are saying one thing to mom and dad and another to their “friends.” Some youth may think that choosing the gay lifestyle is cool, taboo and will get them special attention. We all have struggles with sin and there is hope for those in pain. Check out the video I found on this site:
http://realchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/is-it-possible-to-stop-being-gay/

The moment of truth could be the one you are in right now.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that comes to mind is narrow minded ignorant fool. To forbid something only makes it more appealing. Gays are not going away and hiding or trying to deny their existence is a fool hardy venture. You are preaching a hatred that we used to reserve for people of color. Grow up and wake up, this is the 21st century not the dark ages.

Anonymous said...

OK, I'll put my name after my posts because not all the "anons" are me. Sorry for the confusion.

tomax, you say that the daughter is in a fight which goes deeper than wishing. But why would she be fighting over something you claim she could just choose? I've known this girl since she was a baby and goes to school with my daughter. She is NOT telling different stories to her friends than her parents. She tells my daughter how unfair it seems to her that she was made this way. She is NOT treated like she is "cool" because of it at school - she is often teased and humiliated because of attitudes learned from adults and even a few horrible teachers. Her parents did some heavy investigating into so called "treatments" because they desperately wanted it to be true that she could be "cured". Do yourselves a favor and take a close look at all sides of this arguement. They did so and chose to instead support her. This issue is one which really angers me because of the naive attitudes and the harm they do to people I care for such as my friend's daughter. It seems downright evil to me for people to treat yong people this way.

www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cure.html


***Stephen Casper***

Dawn said...

Stephen

There is absolutely no proof they were "made" that way. Having sex with the same gender is a CHOICE. You can't choose your sex but you can choose whom to have sex with.

We need to put emotions aside and look at the facts. The problem, especially with this issue, is we are making laws according to our emotions and throwing the facts right out the window.

BTW...I had a gay uncle (now deceased)and he came from a very dysfunctional family with a very strong domineering mother and absent father. He wasn't born gay, he was looking for that strong father figure he never really had.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, there is also no proof that gays have a "choice" - so keep an open mind and try to avoid words and actions that may be VERY hurtful to people who sob and cry themselves to sleep because of their "infliction". Surely you are not claiming that you know for 100% that you are right in your "chose" theory. I know for a FACT (all emotions aside) that in case of my friends daughter she has/had no choice. Of course it is a choice for her to have sex with another of her gender, but that is beside the point.

I think that for 99% of all straight men, the mere thought of sex with another male makes them shudder and their skin crawl. I'm assuming that for those of you claiming it is a choice that this thought is actually plausible as something you could choose to do.

xxx said...

dear Tom, your post was hurtful and miss-leading. I am a lesbian, and i was appaled by your post. Being gay was not a choice. The choice was to embrace who i am or to hide. your lies are cruel and hurtful.

Anonymous said...

I still believe it is a choice.

As well I do know of some who have 'come out' of that lifestyle.

I know as well it is a very seductive way and "cool" for now.

No, homosexuality will never go away, if anything it will increase, ironically the Bible stated this many years ago. Romans 1:27 etc, so who am I to argue with it?

I don't hate homosexuals, I feel for them. I love them like I love anyone else. It is the ones who demand my rights restricted is the issue here.

Akin to an alcoholic, what you do with your life in your private home is your responsibility, but don't force me to approve it.

Nor flaunt your 'sexual freedom' on me either. Come on, please tell me that the way some undress or contort during a pride parade is normal.

- tomax7

Tom McLaughlin said...

Tomax is right. The objections to what I wrote above are based on feelings, not reason.

If homosexuality is inborn and not a choice, where is the evidence? Where's the science? It doesn't exist. If you know something I don't know, please point it out. If ever I see an article about this, I read it.

Meanwhile, I feel for the daughter of your friend, Steven, and I hope she works out out. Most deep psychological problems take years of enormous effort and the support of family and friends to work through. Dr. Spitzer's study offers strong evidence that it's possible with highly-motivated patients.

However, homosexual activists have been lobbying hard against any licensed therapist even offering to help somebody like your friend's daughter, calling it "malpractice." That's based on politics, not compassion or science. Some graduate schools of social work flunk out interns who believe as Spitzer does.

Meanwhile, let's not redefine the basic civilizational institution of marriage to avoid hurting somebody's feelings.

xxx said...

Dear Tomax7 or anybody else who agrees with this artical. Maybe i am missing your purpose, but why is it so important to you all to deny people like me marriage? last time i checked all people were created equally.and should have equal rights.

Ralph said...

The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.5 (5. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275. )

Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population. they constitute about a third of child molesters.6 (6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet. ) Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), "since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent or pedophile victims are boys who have been molested by adultmales.7 (7. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, IU.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia, op. cit., p. 2. )

A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)8 (8. Patrick Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1994), p. 3l6. )

Ralph said...

More?

A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged In homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.9 (9. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336, cited in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't Want You to see," Colorado for Family Values Report, Vol. 14, March 1994. )

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads.10 (10. Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of 'The Advocate,"' unpublished manuscript p. 18, quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't WantYou to See," ibid. ) The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual activist Larry Kramer that the work, "like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.11 (11. From "Lany Kramer's Reading List," The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in "Status Report," The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characteristics as a Reflection of More Sexual Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January l995.)
In a 1985 study of the rates of molestation among homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexu1 pedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:

153 pederasts had sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years.

224 pedophiles had molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.

The average pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5 to one. 12 (12. Dr. Paul Cameron, “Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil,” Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-1236.)

xxx said...

Dear Tom, you really need to stop with this lying! Stephens friends daughter DOES NOT need any phycological help! did you ever think maybe the reason she crys about being gay is because it is constantlytreated like a problem? try making her feel accepted

xxx said...

Ugh! will this ever end! as i was about to leave the discusion i see Raulfs comment...you have crossed the line. calling gays molesters and pedefiles?you discust me. that is the result of f'cked up people not gay and lesbian.

Ralph said...

@ xxx

We all HAVE equal rights. Namely the right to marry a person of the opposite sex!

With the "hate crime protection" that our cardboard president just extended to you gay folks, you even have MORE rights than any hetero.

I would appreciate you dealing with the facts described in my previous posts instead of having to listen to your whining.

Ralph said...

Ahhh, there it is, the name calling and personal attacks.

Isn't it funny, how liberals and protected minorities ALL work the same way?! You give them facts and they start screeching and spewing bile.

xxx said...

No ralph, its not equal and it may never be. excuse me for wanting to get married some day and to someday be treated like a reguler person. Is it to much to ask for equality? marriage isnt something some people get, it is a right all people should have.

Ralph said...

More FACTS anybody?

Anonymous said...

Dear xxx,

I accept you, and as long as the government recognizes your marriage, I recognize it as well.

I also recognize common-law relationships.

However I do not recognize it as a Christian definition of marriage nor do I recognize that religious leaders be forced to marry homosexuals.

Now, please tell me, does any of this change the fact that you made a choice to be homosexual?

- tomax7

xxx said...

Thank you tomax7, it is nice to feel accepted after reading the link Ralph posted. But for the 100th time, being a lesbian was not a choice! i realized i was attracted to woman when i was younger, before i had even slept with one.

xxx said...

The choice was to embrace these homosexual feelings just as you and other choose to embrace heterosexual feelings and act opon them. because i know i could never be happy with a man, just as you may never be happy with a man eaither.

Anonymous said...

...you knew you could never be happy with a man?

Interesting, that denotes feelings.

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

"because i know i could never be happy with a man, just as you may never be happy with a man eaither"

Interesting, you "know" yet compared to me, I just "may"? Don't mean to strive at words, but interesting how you worded your statement.

You probably didn't notice that slip.

Anonymous said...

...oh on a side note, feelings can be controlled.

As in who is leading who.

Some feelings are wrong too, but I don't think they teach that any more.

- tomax7

Jim said...

Great column Tom. Very coherent and rational.

@ xxx

Your equality argument is without merit. We all have the equal right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

Irregardless NH said...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2

Thomas said...

Tom,
You have it all wrong, the 1st item on the gay agenda, is we deserve full equality. No one- let me repeat that- no one is trying to claim there is no gay agenda, except folks like you saying that.

My partner and I have been together for 10 years. 10 years lis long that many heterosexual marriages. We simply want to be rerated as we deserve, fairly and with equity.

If people stopped worrying about gays and marriage and started to focus on helping families be stable and thrive, it would do great things for everyone, gay or straight.

Anonymous said...

I was appalled to read your piece in the Conway Daily Sun today. I am very frightened to learn that you are teaching children with your biased and ignorant thoughts!

I know you do not believe this but in every class you teach there are gay children trying to come to terms with their identity. Each one, that is unfortunate enough to have you for a teacher, has to rebuild their sense of self after listening to your ignorant "facts." Those youths that come into contact with you, and other who think like you, are at a high risk for suicide. Please think about how you are effecting someone before you put your pen to paper or open your mouth!

As a psychotherapist (straight) who specializes in assisting gay and lesbians to accept their sexual orientation, I can tell you that the majority of EDUCATED therapists and counselors were very pleased when the APA removed the disease label from homosexuality! Every change that has come about in the US from the earliest times has been brought about by revolition. Why is it different that the gay community picketed the APA convention vs the Boston Tea Party or the Civil War, the right of African Americans or women's rights to vote?? Rebellion and revolution are the American way to change things that the MAJORITY does not agree with.

I also think it is very interesting which pictures you chose to run in your blog! I wonder why you chose these pictures! You could have run statistical graphs or even taken the space to cite sources but you chose pictures of scantily dressed men. Maybe YOU are confused!

Anonymous said...

Tom, you asked to have information that you don’t know pointed out to you. Here goes, although it is a shame for me to have to do your research for you. Shouldn’t you have done it yourself before printing your rubbish?

The truth about Spitzer’s study is quite easy to find online – I have to believe that you simply chose to ignore anything that didn’t fit your agenda. Very dishonest journalism. Shameful, in fact. The study you refer to, that you are claiming offers “strong evidence” has, IN THE WORDS OF SPITZER HIMSELF, been “twisted by the Christian right." He goes on to say that it is "totally absurd" that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
Now that I have totally blown your “strong evidence” out of the water, I eagerly await your response – an apology perhaps that you missed such easily researchable information?

Here is a website for you to spend more time with:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm

Here are some more excerpts:

Various professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have stated that an adult's sexual orientation cannot be changed by reparative therapy.
A very small group disagrees: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). It was founded in 1992 as a "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality." It currently consists of "more than 1,000 mental-health professionals." -- fewer than 1% of the number of therapists who belong to either of the APA's
In later interviews, Dr. Spitzer said:
"Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don't know how common that kind of change is. . . . I'm not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it's quite unusual."
"I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation."
"...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... "[only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation." He expressed a concern that his study results were being "twisted by the Christian right."
He told the Washington Post in 2005 that supporters of reparative therapy have misrepresented the results of his study. He said:
"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right...What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare."
He noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious. He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.

***Stephen Casper***

Anonymous said...

I too found his choice of pictures interesting....I can see him at home downloading these photos in a dark room, telling his wife..."uh, oh...er...these are just for, um, research purposes, honey"

Anonymous said...

To the Appalled Anonymous poster:

I sat in Mr. McLaughlin's class as a student nearly ten years ago. Perhaps it would be wise for you to consider doing the same before voicing your concern over the welfare of his students' mental health.

Although it has become standard practice amoung many teachers to abusively use their positions as a political platform, Mr. McLaughlin was never one to impose his views on his students within the classroom. If a student chooses to read his column outside of the classroom, that is their own concern.

I have several former classmates who have since "come out" as being gay, and I assure you their sense of self worth was not compromised by being taught US History in the classroom of Tom McLaughlin.

-Amanda

Anthony Tiani said...

Hello again, Tom. Since I received such overwhelming positive responses to my article lambasting your adoration for Sarah Palin, I feel it only makes sense that I respond to this one as well. I hope you and many others in the community will read my next rebuttal. See you in the 'Sun'!

Amy said...

Thank you for who you are,what you do and what you stand for.I am a former student and I'm very grateful my children now get the same privilege.

These are dark times we are living in.Thank you for not hiding your light under a basket.

DAWN said...

Regarding the daughter who cries herself to sleep because she's gay..could it be she's crying because deep down she knows how wrong this is? Could it be her conscience is not yet seared to the ways of the world and she is convicted of her wrong behavior?

I've known alchoholics who cried themselves to sleep as well because they had a hard time disassociating themselves from a very bad habit seeing how it was hurting their families. I also know myself that I went thru a period where I cried at times because I found myself doing things I shouldn't be doing. It was only when I stopped that I could feel good about myself once again.

Sin brings heartache and tears. God knows this and is the reason he said many times..."thou shalt not." He wasn't trying to ruin our fun, he was trying to protect us knowing exactly where we were heading.

Alice said...

Great article, Tom! Telling it the way it is. I am disappointed, however, that the Bridgton News chose to censor you out of the paper this week. I guess they just didn't dare. And put my piece about yellow jackets and butterflies in your place. I apologize. But if they think they got a neutral article, they did not. Its point is the same as yours.

Ralph said...

Very interesting article about special rights for gays HERE

Anonymous said...

Here's a question(s).

What constitutes a homosexual?

...and how does that apply to the big picture called humanity?

pinko said...

The photos are the icing on the closet cake! Miss McLaughlin - come out already.

Anonymous said...

Funny how ever since Mr. Mclaughlin's "evidence" has been debunked that he has nothing to say. Perhaps he is too busy downloading more picture for "research" purposes!! lol

Tom McLaughlin said...

Thanks Amy and Amanda.

Anon: A homosexual is a man who has sex with another man, or a woman who has sex with another woman. I thought that was obvious.

As for your other question? That's pretty broad, but lets just say it's a perversion our nature as humans.

Robert Spitzer MD is suffering from "battle fatigue" in his own words. He operates in a larger venue than I do and I can only imagine what he's had to deal with. His resolve is weakening in the face of people like you can read above. Mine hasn't.

You anonymous folks will have to get into a long line of those who have accused me of being a self-hating homosexual. It's one of the default accusations people like you make when you run out of arguments, when accusations of "homophobia" have no effect. The pictures posted above are from "Gay Pride" parades and the mainstream media never shows them. They only show the ones of sedate-looking, ordinary-looking homosexuals because that furthers the agenda.

I could have posted much more damning photos, but I choose to maintain certain boundaries on this site. I leave up your accusatory posts because they speak for themselves.

I've been busy at a press conference for Stand For Marriage Maine, and I'm on a weekend with my wife celebrating our 38th anniversary. I have much more to say on this issue and you'll be seeing it here in the next few weeks or months.

Anonymous said...

wonderful. The anticipation for your next articals is killing me.....)sarcastic)

Anonymous said...

Spitzer's "resolve" is weakening!!?!! lol

Face it, you got caught and called out for your dishonest journalism - now you are just making yourself look worse and worse with such lame excuses!

Why would anybody care what else you have to write on the matter? You've already proven yourself to know nothing and to make up what you need.

You have been trounced in the debate - I will not be back for anything else you have to say...your whole foundation crumbled with Spitzer.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Bye-bye. Watch out for that door knob.

pinko said...

Do all of you homo haters remember the day you made the choice to become heterosexual? Was it after the heterosexual classes you took in grade school?

Anonymous said...

pinko: "Was it after the heterosexual classes you took in grade school?"

Umm, we didn't have those classes or sex ed I guess is what you are inferring when I went to school. Oh and it was an all boys school too.

xxx said...

Hey Tom, i was just wondering, can you give me three good reasons why gay and lesbian couples shouldnt be able to get married?

Tom McLaughlin said...

XXX - Interesting name, that. A way of rating yourself perhaps?

Homosexuals are free to get married to members of the opposite sex. What I'm opposed to is redefining marriage.

Anonymous said...

How about 3 reasons why you are opposed to redefining marriage then?

Anonymous said...

"can you give me three good reasons"

How about one?

It isn't natural.

xxx said...

so thats why. Your opposed ot redefining marriage. Well im not sure i see a point to that, because your already married, and it doesnt affect you. And then there are lots of gay/lesbian couples who are waiting ot get married, and some have been together for years, but because of people like you they may never get to in there life time.
and for you last sentence in the artical "do it for the children" im not sure where you got that from, if anything its people like you who are hurtneing the children! Making them feel as though being gay is something wrong...you discust me.
FOr your interest in the username i chose, it becuase i wanted ot reamin anonymous, becuase belive it or not i was a former student of yours. suprise!

Dawn said...

Three reasons for not legislating homosexual marriage? How about 5?

1. We should never legislate sin. Having sex with the same gender has always been a sin issue. It's a choice.

2. It's not good for marriage. A wise society will protect marriage.

3. It's contrary to the law of nature.

4. Children will suffer.

5. It's not good for society.

Tom McLaughlin said...

xxx:

On this web site, my posts have my name on them. I'm not anonymous. That was someone else.

If homosexuality is okay, why are you anonymous?

Society has an interest in promoting marriage because:

1. The population is sustained or increased.

2. Children are raised with a mother and a father who are committed to each other and have declared so to the community. If the man should abdicate his commitment and abandon his wife and children, he would be shamed. Many men need that societal pressure. Unfortunately, it's been diminished in the past fifty years or so since the sixties. Divorce rates have skyrocketed. Some women have abandoned responsibilities as well, but it's mostly men.

3. A stable marriage is best for everyone involved. Children turn out better. Life spans of married men and women are longer. A family with married parents is the basic unit of society. It's health is the measure of society's health. That's why every society since the Neolithic Revolution has sanctioned marriage.

4. Abandomment of the above principles by many in America has resulted in horrific destabilization of our whole culture.

Homosexuals want to get "married" because they want society's approval for their sexual behavior which is intrinsically disordered.

I could go on, but I have another column to write.

Anonymous said...

For those of you claiming that Mr. McLaughlin is influencing the children he teaches with his extremist views, I disagree. I am a former student of Mr. McLaughlin, and I have to admit that I enjoyed his class; I consider myself a liberal. Mr. McLaughlin teaches every aspect of his classes the way he has to. He does a fine job of it, as well. Whenever he brought up politics, he described both sides, and encouraged the students to have the debates. He only entered his opinions to help the students think. So tread carefully when condoning another's teaching abilities based only on their views. It is arguments like these that take away from our side's integrity.

Here are my feelings. Dawn, all 5 of your "arguments" are baseless, and make no sense. Number 1 (regarding sin) refers to religion. What gives you the right to determine what is "sin" for the millions of other Americans? The very idea of "sin" is fundamentally religious. It is intensely hypocritical of all of the proponents of homosexuality to claim that they "need scientific proof". The basis of your argument (religious beliefs) has no proof whatsoever. Your entire argument is FAITH!

Number 2 says that it is not good for marriage. At this, I scoff. I am the son of two people who never married, and didn't know my father until I was 8. The majority of heterosexual marriages today end in divorce (On a brief tangent, congratulations Tom, on 38 years). With the exception of those like Mr. McLaughlin, most marriages fail! Except for homosexual unions. The strong love shared by two persecuted individuals is stronger than any hate-driven bond that you have.

Number 3 deals with nature. Again, there is no proof on either side. While it is true that males and females procreate, are we not destroying this earth by over-reproducing? And isn't it odd that many species in nature exhibit homosexual tendencies?

Number 4 says that children will suffer. HUH? I just don't understand this. A child needs someone who will care for them, support them, and love them. This does not mean that it needs a definitive mother and father. And I am proof that this argument makes no sense.

I will not even answer Number 5.

Alex

Anonymous said...

Sin. While one can call it religious, is not the US based in a belief of God and His son Jesus dieing for our sins?

To deny sin is to deny the very foundation of your great country.

Sin defines a culture. Sin defines all that is evil in a man's heart.

Man can freely choose to sin just as much as he can freely choose to avoid it.

Sin isn't a number game but a heart game. Your heart.

Thoughts of murder, thievery, adultery, and/or homosexuality all reside in a heart full of sin.

Sin does not arbitrarily exist in a vacuum. It needs to fester first in the heart. A heart darkened from knowing the true love of God because of greed, lies, and false hurts.

To ignore sin and pass it off is Non Sequitur is to very much admit defeat.

Sin is very real my friend, question is, are you willing to face and fight it?

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for xxx

You said "Making them feel as though being gay is something wrong"

If homosexuality isn't wrong, then please, define to me then what the word "wrong" means.

-tomax7

emily davidson said...

excpect us.....

Anonymous said...

WRONG:
1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

There you go tomax - so tell us what is wrong with homosexuality.


I detect from your goofy posts that you are, to put it politely, a religious nut. No wonder you have your beliefs - you probably don't believe in dinosaurs.

lol

Anonymous said...

Tom, your 4 reasons are as dumb as most of what you write.

1. You are trying to overpopulate this world even MORE!???!!

2. You say "Children are raised with a mother and a father who are committed to each other..." Well, sometimes they are. Many aren't and grow up fine.

3. Yes, a stable marraige is good. What does this have to do with gay marraige?

4. see above

Anonymous said...

"I could go on, but I have another column to write."

Ooooh, I can't wait...let's see if I can guess the topic!

Why children who choose to get polio should not be allowed out at recess?

The joy of clubbing baby seals?

Dawn said...

"2. You say "Children are raised with a mother and a father who are committed to each other..." Well, sometimes they are. Many aren't and grow up fine."

"Number 2 says that it is not good for marriage. At this, I scoff. I am the son of two people who never married, and didn't know my father until I was 8."

I don't know if the same "anon" said both of the above but I'd like to address this.

I just inherited a High School Sunday School class in a very rural part of Florida. There are 12 very sad cases of teens in this class. Not one comes from a traditional family home.

One has a court case next week and missed his whole senior year last year because he has anger issues. He beats up other kids. His dad has had at least 3 wives with kids by at least two of them. I've never seen any of these wives at church. This 18 year old kid follows me around and I sense he needs mothering.

Another teen just got out of juvie hall after being there a year and a half. The deep red scars on his arm show where he was pushed thru bullet proof glass by his stepfather. Another boy has what he describes as a very angry step-father that he tries to lie low from. Another boy, Justin who sits in the back has hardly said a word to us the whole time but we found out the next day he was so interested in our subject matter (who knew he was even listening?) that he pulled a man who works with the youth out of church for a half hour chat about his anger issues. We spoke in class about being slow to anger, and quick to hear. It made an impression on him

Another, a girl, lives with her married sister who is 22 years older than her was complaining about how harsh her brother-in-law is in raising her since he's not her real father.

The overwhelming common denominator in all these kids is anger. Look around our world. What are we seeing? Anger. Why? Because we adults are NOT living how we were created to be and our kids are paying the price. Every child needs a mom and a dad that are committed to each other. I have been married 27 years. I have three upstanding sons that are up and coming leaders in our society. All three are married having a great model of marriage in their mom and dad.

I feel for all those sad cases out there who have no such model of what a real family is supposed to look like. I agree the heterosexuals have done a lousy job in the last 30 years when it comes to marriage but homosexual marriage is NOT the answer and is only going to add fuel to the fire. Marriage is already under attack as it is. This is just adding fuel to the fire already out of control.

Anonymous said...

Dear Goofy Anon:
"I detect from your goofy posts that you are, to put it politely, a religious nut. No wonder you have your beliefs - you probably don't believe in dinosaurs."

Does this distinguish me from a religious person, or do you lump all religious persons as nuts?

Oh I believe in dinosaurs, probably as much as you believe in God.

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I made one of the comments you refer to and you miss my point. I agree absolutely, 100% that a solid marriage that includes loving, caring relationships is VERY, VERY important for children.

And what is your evidence that says same sex couples cannot provide this?

I was raised by a single mother since the age of 6 and I believe she did a tremendous job. While I would have loved to have had my father in my life I was left with no damage nor issues involving this matter.

What it comes down to, Dawn, is feeling loved and protected by your parents (or parent if that is all you have).

However Dawn, you are off topic to begin with. This is about gays getting married, not about gays adopting. GAYS CAN ALREADY LEGALLY ADOPT CHILDREN in 48 states. By not allowing the parents to marry you are simply saying that you believe children are better off with gay UNWED parents than with gay legally wed parents.

Is that really what you think?

Anonymous said...

Would it be more permissible to have gays "marry" or be legally "in union"?

Really what is the difference?

Anonymous said...

"Does this distinguish me from a religious person, or do you lump all religious persons as nuts?

Oh I believe in dinosaurs, probably as much as you believe in God."

-tomax7

No tomax, I do not lump all religious people together as nuts.
My step-brother is a minister whom I respect tremendously, as I do all people who do not try and force their irrational, narrow views on others. Only when people start claiming that others will burn in hell for not believing what they do, or trying to claim that there were no dinosaurs or evolution do I classify them as nuts.

But I guess that you DO believe in dinosaurs, because I certainly believe in something much bigger than myself, which I call god.

Anonymous said...

"Would it be more permissible to have gays "marry" or be legally "in union"?

Really what is the difference?"

Good question. There is no difference to me, but that may be because I am not gay. If gays got ALL the benefits that come with marraige then it seems that they would be happy calling it a union instead of a marriage. But who am I to speak for them? It is probably just a matter of principle - why should they be excluded? Because that is the way that marriage has always been? That is no excuse at all. For a long time in America it had "always been" that women couldn't vote.

Dawn said...

"I made one of the comments you refer to and you miss my point. I agree absolutely, 100% that a solid marriage that includes loving, caring relationships is VERY, VERY important for children.

And what is your evidence that says same sex couples cannot provide this?"

My point is marriage is already in trouble. We need to fix it not add another dimension to it. Homosexual marriage is not helping the cause.

There hasn't been a huge case study yet on how kids are affected by two homosexuals parenting because it's still a fairly new concept. Give it time.

I'm expecting to see just as many problems with anger as I do here in the SS class. Why? Because these kids are being deprived of one parent. It's not natural to have two dads or two moms.Besides that, there have been cases already of homosexual divorces and they seem to be just as ugly if not more so than the heterosexuals.

Now you've got two moms fighting for visitation while they engage in relationships that bring in two more moms. Now the kid(s) may have 4 moms and no dads. Crazy not to mention that two homosexual moms can biologically give birth to a multiple of children and it just gets crazier. Can you imagine how this affects the grandparenting?

A daughter naturally needs a mom to model for her everyday what it's like to be a wife/mother. A boy needs a dad to model for him everyday what it's like to be a dad/father. It's one thing not to be able to have this because of extenuating circumstances, it's quite another to legislate it as ok.

mary ann said...

I believe in equality for everyone,but I will be the one to explain what homosexuality is to my nine-year old son. This is my parental right to do so. Why is this topic so important that it has to be taught in our schools? What happened to the "nuclear family"?

Anonymous said...

But again, Dawn...this is not about gays and kids, it's about gays and marriage. You ignored the question - since gays CAN legally adopt children, do you think it is better for the children that the parents are NOT married?

Anonymous said...

mary ann, can you tell me what school teaches kids about gay marriage? thanks.

Dawn said...

"since gays CAN legally adopt children, do you think it is better for the children that the parents are NOT married?"

I don't know all the laws concerning homosexual adoption. I know some states allow it and some don't. Do I think it's better for two men to raise a child unmarried instead of married?

It doesn't make a difference. You still have two men bringing up children without a mom forget about the whole moral issue here. It's just inadequate. You are depriving the child legally to be motherless, and I think that's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Dawn,
I am the other person who you referenced in one of your posts. No, the two of us are not the same person. We are just rational, caring people. Rationality and caring are two things that you happen to forget about when you are scared. Just like you are scared about homosexual marriage. It is really an issue regarding fear. Tell me Dawn, are you scared of the unknown? Are you scared of those not like you? Is this why you cling to religion so ferociously?
I commend your efforts in working with those children less fortunate. But I have to disagree with your points. These children are not the way they are because they lack a parent. Like I have mentioned, I live in a single-parent household. I am first in my class, have received near-perfect SAT scores, am applying to Harvard and Yale, and volunteer most of my time with my community. What makes me different from these kids? My single parent cared for me. She loved me. She supported me. It doesn't make a difference that I didn't have a father, nor would it have made a difference if I had had two mothers. Children need at least one person (regardless of sex) to support them, and inspire in them the will to achieve. In most of your cases, I am sure that the children would be the same way even if they lived with both of their parents. That is because their parents have no idea in how to love, how to care, or how to support. Perhaps they don't know how to love because they have been pressured into relationships by a callous community that values "tradition" before logic.

Alex

Dawn said...

Alex,

one question for you...are you gay?

Anonymous said...

Dawn,

No, I am not gay. I am a heterosexual white male, the type that Mr. McLaughlin defends so vehemently.

Dawn, I am interested in why you asked that. Would my opinion have held a different meaning if I were gay? Do you believe that because I was raised with just a mother I would be pressured into liking other men? Believe it or not, and you probably can't believe this, your ideas are false. It is impossible for you to realize this because you were probably raised in a religiously-fanatic, upper class, "perfect" nuclear family. Well, it's time to face the facts. The "perfect" family you defend so strongly doesn't exist. A real perfect family is where the members feel respected and loved.

The genders of those in the families does not play a role.

Alex

Dawn said...

Alex,

Be careful about making assumptions. Not one of your assumptions was true about me. I was not raised in an upperclass religious family. My mom stayed home and my father was a fireman who worked two jobs to support the family.

Neither are you correct in your statement that I'm "scared" of homosexuality. I am not. There is no phobia involved.

I asked you because you seem to be very heated about this subject and I was just curious where you were coming from. I do think it is interesting that you are fatherless. Do you think that may have something to do with your opinion?

As far as your statement about me having false ideas..I don't think so. Every single "gay" person I know personally had family issues that usually resulted in one absent parent either emotionally or physically. Every single one of them. So I don't think it's far fetched at all.

You're not fooling anyone to say that you have never missed having a dad in your life. I'm glad you had one good parent that loved and cared for you but no matter how hard your mom tried to be both mom and dad, it just can't be done. She could never take the place of a loving father and I'm sure being in a one person household has alot to do with your feelings here on this issue.

Someday you will be married and have children. I just hope that your children will enjoy the benefit of having both a loving mom and dad. It's good for you, your children and for all society.

Anonymous said...

Dawn,
I appreciate your calm and rationality. You are showing a maturity often lacked by your side.

I apologize for my assumptions, and am grateful for your respect. But I still do not agree with you.

You have also made an assumption that I have missed having a father. Yes, it would have been nice to have learned how to change the oil in a car, or how to throw a football; but those are societally "masculine" things. I can ask any of the responsible, caring adults in my life any question I have. But that is besides the point. I believe that my example provides an antithesis to your argument. Not only was I raised with just a mother, I was sexually molested (by a man) as a young child. Still, I have no homosexual tendencies. Frankly, I find the idea of sex with another man to be as large of a turn-off as making love to a ceiling fan.

My arguments are heated because the issue directly influences one of my best friends. He has been one of the best role models in my life, and is currently attending Williams College on a four-year full ride scholarship. Once, I went to dinner with him, his boyfriend, and another one of my friends (female, for those of you still wondering). The strength of the love demonstrated between the two of them was immense. I believe that if any two individuals love each other enough to be inseparable for the rest of their lives, they deserve the right to celebrate that love with marriage.

What any two people do in the bedroom is their own business. When two people of the same sex share an indestructible bond of love, they should be considered equal to those who are "straight". Unfortunately, my argument means nothing now, as the bill has been repealed. I only wish that I could have voted.

Thank you, all of you, who voted Yes on 1. Because of you, my friend (along with hundreds of others) can never feel welcome in Maine again.

Anonymous said...

Dawn,

Similarly to Alex, I was raised by a single parent. In this case my father, and I assure you I hold no eros for other females. Yes, I've kissed a girl, and didn't like it, at all. But I don't think that my story really, as Alex put it, is 'antithetical' to your point.
However, my friend, Ash (nickname), and I have been best friends for 5years since we met at a camp down the street from my house. Ash is a girl from the Brunswick area and she intends to go on to UMF next year. Her boyfriend (now ex- sadly) is attending UMF this year and they too had met at camp. She is the happiest, healthiest and most nurturing young lady I know. She has been raised by two mothers. Ash loves her biological father too, but not like she loves her moms. Her house is still balanced, happy and whole. With this sexuality situation in society, Ash and I say we are each other's wives as a joke, despite our heterosexuality. We understand that love is love, weather it is between a man and a woman, a man and another man or a woman and another woman.

Love is what makes a family, not the genders.

Anonymous said...

The equilalent of not wanting gays to marry to me is not wanting people with brown eyes to be able to drive.

Amongst all this babbling I have not seen even ONE reason stated as to how a gay couple getting married harms anybody. Yes, I've heard people go on about gay parenting, but that is another topic (also something that is already legal).

These people are arguing on pure feeling rather than any logic or reasoning.

Dawn's lumping every gay in the world into one group based on several gays that she knows is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I was taught by you. The entire column made me feel sick, even sicker than the "because the bible says so" argument. It's so hard to grasp that some people are so ignorant as to believe there is actually a "homosexual agenda." You fear what you do not understand. Try having some compassion.

--Straight girl for gay rights

Anonymous said...

"It's so hard to grasp that some people are so ignorant as to believe there is actually a "homosexual agenda."

Gadzooks, didn't you teach these kids anything Tom?

;-)

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

C'mon straight girl - of course there is a gay agenda and every old radical, far right curmudgeon will tell you so. What's the matter with you - are you trying to resist the propaganda?

lol

Dawn said...

"The equilalent of not wanting gays to marry to me is not wanting people with brown eyes to be able to drive."

To the Anon who wrote the above:

Good Grief! There's no comparison. I have brown eyes. I was born with brown eyes. A homosexual is one who CHOOSES to have sex with another of the same gender.

Don't tell me you were BORN that way. There is absolutely no scientific proof of that. Besides...you can CHOOSE to have sex with a female, a male or in the case of the very perverted...an animal..but you CANNOT choose the color of your eyes.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, please show me what proof there is that one can "choose" to be straight or gay. If you can't, please keep an open mind to the possibility that perhaps one CAN'T choose. And if they can't, please be aware that attitudes and comments like I've seen posted here can be very hurtful to a young person who cannot help it.

I think that if you did some honest research you will find that there is more evidence than not that it is not a choice. Either way, we can't be sure for certain. Because of this we should not do or say things that can be hurtful. Do you disagree with this?

Anonymous said...

Yes Dawn, anyone can choose to have, or not have, sex with someone of the same gender (whether they are homosexual or not) but that is different from BEING a homosexual. There are gays that are celibate, just as there are straights that are celibate.

You say "Don't tell me you were BORN that way. There is absolutely no scientific proof of that" and I say back to you:

Don't tell me they choose to be homosexual. There is absolutely no scientific proof of that."

Anonymous said...

Dawn, if you are truely interested in investigating all sides to this, here are some links:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519

http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html


http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6612


http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641


http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/

pinko said...

Tom said:"Homosexuals are free to get married to members of the opposite sex. What I'm opposed to is redefining marriage."

Not every woman is as understanding as your wife is, Tom.

Tom McLaughlin said...

All right, Pinko. I give up. Your point is . . .?

Dawn said...

To the anons who responded after my last comment.

Let me first say, I believe in absolute truth. I am coming from a biblical world view. The Word of God is truth and in it God says homosexual sex is a sin. And God isn't going to tell us that if He is ok with us making this choice or if He made us this way.

We can "choose" to sin or not. That's the real choice. Many say they are born angry, or born alcoholics etc. Some say alcoholism is a disease. It's not. It's a sin. Same with uncontrolled anger.

In the end, you will have to take this up with your creator. It's always between you and Him anyhow, not you and me nor anyone else.

In the meantime people like me are trying, in love, to tell you the truth. I know it doesn't seem like love but it really is.

And if you don't believe in absolute truth, you are absolutely false :)

Anonymous said...

Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.

MY FIRST PREMISE:
Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.

As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.

This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. Often people who love and trust God's Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality.

For example, many Christians don't know that:

Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.
Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God's gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.

And Dawn - Do you believe these following words of the bible should be followed?

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Dawn...do yourself a favor and research more about the bible here:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Dawn said...

I really don't think you want to get into a debate with me over the bible. Not only have I been reading/studying/meditating on it for over 40 years...I teach it as well, both the OT and the NT. And I do research in the Hebrew and Greek as well.

Jesus made it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. You may want to read his own words in Matt 19:5, Mark 10:7.

You are trying to argue using non-evidence to make your case. While there is plenty of evidence (I could fill a page easily with scripture quotes) that marriage is only between a man and a woman, there isn't anything in scripture to show that it's ok for man to be with man or woman with woman.

Homosexuality being an abommination to God was made clear both in the OT and the NT. In fact, it's a direct rebellion against what God had purposed for man and woman.

GBA said...

Robert P. George, a professor of politics at Princeton and founder of the American Principles Project, observes: "Maine is a northeastern liberal state with a significant student population. There are few blacks and very few Mormons. There is not a large Evangelical Christian population. The forces working in the state for the abolition of the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife had the strong support not only of the media, but also of the state's governor and other leading political figures. They had a significant funding advantage. On Election Day, they got the large turnout that they believed would assure them of victory. Yet, when the votes were counted, the people of Maine came down solidly in favor of restoring the conjugal conception of marriage that the state's legislature and governor attempted to abolish."

31-0 when citizens vote. Power to the people!

Jim said...

My family and my marriage are not defined by any government entity. If the government collapsed tommorrow I'd still be married and my family would still exist.

If you think your future is dictated by government sanction you are not only mentally ill, but a complete loon.

My marriage is not defined by the government, in fact I couldn't even tell you where my government issued marriage certificate is. I'm sure its in a drawer somewhere with other legal documents that hold no meaning other than they need pulled out for a beaurocrat once a decade or so, but it certainly does not define my love, my marriage or my family.

In fact I don't want the government involved in my relationship at all, and the only reason that it is tolerated is that there is a legitimate argument that the government has a vested interested in offspring, that traditional marriage produces. Homosexual "marriage" cannot produce offspring naturally, so there is absolutely no reason government should have any involvement in those relationships.

My marriage is an institution before God, not the state. The state could abolish its recognition of my marriage tommorrow and it would have absolutely zero impact on my life or my marriage.

Homosexuals are free to be with whoever they want, they are free to find some pastor or other relgious group willing to "marry" them, but they cannot offer one legitimate secular or non-secular reason why the state should have any interest in their relationships, and its frankly frightening and insane that they want the state involved in them at all.

Anonymous said...

Dawn - you avoided the question about the following passages. Do you believe them?


DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Anonymous said...

GBA- as to the Maine election, it is only a matter of time before the people vote to allow gay marraige. It is inevitable. Blacks had their early setbacks in their quest for equal rights as did women. Gay rights are getting a larger and larger percentage all the time. Their day will come - fairly soon.

Anonymous said...

So Dawn - did you read about the issue in the website that was given?

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I too believe in absolute truth. And I believe that the absolute truth is that people can be born gay. Most scientific studies support this. But I suppose you don't have much use for science, what with the pesky issues (known as FACTS) of evolution, dinosaurs, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Dawn - you avoided the question about the following passages. Do you believe them?"

I didn't avoid anything. I told you..you don't want to debate me scripture. I know each and every scripture you put up there.

To answer your question you have to first understand bible hermeneutics and I can tell you don't by your question.

The first thing to understand is to whom were these scriptures given and for what purpose? Answer: They were given to the Jews and the reason was to keep the tribal lines pure not to mention they were representing to the rest of the world Jehovah God. They were chosen to be God's ambassadors to a very sinful world.

Now..go to Acts 15 (first Christian council) when the new Christians, (all Jewish) after the death of Christ, were wondering what to do with the new Gentile converts. Do these new Gentile Christians have to adhere to the Old Covenant laws (like you cited) such as circucmision and the rest?

James, as the head of the council said NO. Only two requirements were to be kept by the new Christians (Gentiles). You will find them in Acts 15:29.

Now to the Anon (same one as above?) wondering if I would go to a gay website to learn about the bible? Why would I? I can open up my bible and read it. I don't have to go to a man to tell me what the bible says or look to a man's opinion when I have God's revelation to mankind.

Always...go to the source...not what others say about the source.

DAWN said...

"Dawn, I too believe in absolute truth. And I believe that the absolute truth is that people can be born gay. Most scientific studies support this. But I suppose you don't have much use for science, what with the pesky issues (known as FACTS) of evolution, dinosaurs, etc."

First off, I forgot to put my name on the last entry that I just wrote. I hope I don't confuse anyone.

Now..you don't understand what absolute truth is then. There is a diff between fact and opinion. There are no facts that support one can be born homosexual but many opinions wish it to be. And to attack me doesn't change this fundamental truth.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, you said:

"you don't understand what absolute truth is then. There is a diff between fact and opinion. There are no facts that support one can be born homosexual but many opinions wish it to be. And to attack me doesn't change this fundamental truth."

Please explain to me why your belief that gays have a choice is not an opinion. In otherwords, what are the FACTS that support this opinion of yours?

Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly, a textual analysis of the Bible reveals that the Christian condemnation of homosexuality is unwarranted and baseless. Perhaps the Austrian economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises put it best when he said, “Each epoch has found in the Gospels what it sought to find there, and has overlooked what it wished to overlook.”

How I wish Jesus Christ would return to earth to set you straight!

Anonymous said...

Dawn - you talk of "absolute truth" and then state opinions as if they were fact. You have given NO proof that people are not born gay. You base your opinions on an old book that directs people to be executed for having sex during a women's period and you ignore scientific evidence, facts, and reality. This is like having a debate with somebody in the loony bin who has an imaginary friend who whispers "absolute truths" to them in their ear.

Anonymous said...

After 120 posts, here is what we have:

Not ONE reason how gay marraige would hurt anybody.

NO scientific evidence that gays have a choice in the matter (except for one lone study which, according to the doctor who DID the study, actually provided a stronger arguement to the side which says people are born gay).

LOTS of religioun fueled opinions.

Lots of links to studies that show that gays are probably born that way.

Lots of off topic comments, such as gays adopting children.

Which all goes to show that if you strip away all the emotional responses and leave the rational facts you are left with a complete and utter trouncing in this debate in the favor of gays being born that way.

I hope Tom picks a topic next week in which he can defend his opinions with facts instead of emotion.

*Stephen Casper

Anonymous said...

"Homosexuals are free to be with whoever they want, they are free to find some pastor or other relgious group willing to "marry" them, but they cannot offer one legitimate secular or non-secular reason why the state should have any interest in their relationships, and its frankly frightening and insane that they want the state involved in them at all."

This on hasn't been answered either. You must have overlooked it.

Anonymous said...

"Homosexuals are free to be with whoever they want, they are free to find some pastor or other relgious group willing to "marry" them, but they cannot offer one legitimate secular or non-secular reason why the state should have any interest in their relationships, and its frankly frightening and insane that they want the state involved in them at all."

"This on hasn't been answered either. You must have overlooked it."

Hasn't been answered? It didn't appear to be a question.

Yes, they find somebody to "marry" them, but that would not give them all the legal benefits that come with a legal marraige.

DAWN said...

A few comments were made in my direction so here's just a quick response to a few of them:

"Yes, they find somebody to "marry" them, but that would not give them all the legal benefits that come with a legal marraige."

Of course you can have legal benefits without marriage! You can name anyone as your beneficiary to your will/insurance. You can put two names on a mortgage, etc.

"Perhaps the Austrian economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises put it best when he said, “Each epoch has found in the Gospels what it sought to find there, and has overlooked what it wished to overlook.”

How I wish Jesus Christ would return to earth to set you straight!"

ok... here you quote from a man but not Jesus and you want Jesus to set me straight? Your counsel is coming from man and you want Jesus to set me straight?

You may want to open up a bible to the exact center and read Psalm 118:8. Nuff said!

"You have given NO proof that people are not born gay."

First off..the proof is not on the heterosexuals...the proof is on the homosexuals to show they are born this way. To date they cannot.

Besides, I already told you I'm coming from a biblical worldview. I hold that the scripture is quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Can you prove otherwise?

Consider this...if it weren't for Eve, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!

Anonymous said...

Dawn - as to civil union benefits, you are flat out wrong thinking they are equal to those of a marraige.

Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren’t permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.

Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.
States that have made civil unions legal, including Connecticut , New Hampshire , New Jersey and Vermont , have granted state benefits to same-sex couples. These include state tax benefits, better access to family health plans, co-parenting privileges, automatic preference for guardianship and decision-making authority for a medically incapacitated partner, as well as protection under state divorce and separation laws. While each state law is somewhat different, they are similar in that they convey these state rights to gay couples; they do not and cannot grant federal rights and benefits.

Anonymous said...

Dawn - you claim that the burden of proof lays on the gays to prove that they had no choice in the matter. (and you won't take their word for it). However, you say that their "choice" is a sin.

Do you not believe in one of America's greatest principles -
innocent until proven guilty?!?

You say they are guilty of a sin.

Prove it.

Anonymous said...

Hi...I'm Mary


I am always struck by one glaring omission in the arguments of those who cite the Bible in order to support civil condemnation of gays (or anyone else they disapprove of). The basic issue, avoided by those who cling to Leviticus and other Mosaic laws for their condemnation of homosexuality, is that citing a verse in Leviticus or elsewhere to underpin their theological arguments can only be meaningful if they really adhere to all the other laws and rules contained in the Old Testament (or for that matter, in the New). And they, with few exceptions, do not. They pick and you chose to suit themselves. Do they really believe the Bible arrived on golden tablets delivered by angels? Those of us who look upon the Bible as it really is - a historical collection of sacred texts, written by spiritually inspired men - and an incomplete, and over time changed and corrupted collection at that - readily see that it deals with moral and theological issues, but also with societal and historical issues, melded together and often impossible to disentangle. And what about the many contradictions in Biblical texts which should, to any rational mind, make one question their literal divinity? If fundamentalists really want to live by their historical version of the "Bible" - their collection of these texts, incomplete and diverse as they are, and treat them as the literal "word of God", then they should start doing so literally and completely before they tell others what the Truth is. In the meantime, they should also recognize the freedom of others to disagree and to live in peace.

DAWN said...

Mary

I do take the bible literally but you have to understand biblical hermeneutics before you begin. The bible is made up of the law, history, poetry, prophecy and in the NT letters to the churches and again prophecy.

You can't take poetry literally. The bible is both symbolic and literal depending on what you're reading. The best rule to follow is when you can take it literally you do. If it's symbolic you find out the meaning behind the symbols because they are there for a reason.

All thru scripture marriage is between a man and a woman and to deviate from that is outright rebellion against God. It's very simple and very true. You can debate me, Tom or any fundamental but it's really between you and God in the end. And there's not going to be any debating or explaining when you stand before your maker.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I agree....it is between you and god in the end, whoever that god may be. I find it horrible that many people DON'T leave it to god and spend their days condemning others because what was written in a book that they chose to put all their faith in.

I truely believe that gays that lead a good life will be accepted by their maker much more readily than "believers" who do not treat all equally.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, your silence implies that you realize your mistake about civil union benefits.

It also looks like you have no rational response to the burden of proof issue.

Blind faith can only get you so far. One also needs to take into account truth, facts, science, and rationality.

DAWN said...

"I find it horrible that many people DON'T leave it to god and spend their days condemning others because what was written in a book that they chose to put all their faith in."

God always has used people to deliver his message. In the OT it was the Jewish Prophets in the NT it's the Christians who were to "go and tell."

That book is not just any book. It's the revealed Word of God. My faith isn't in any book. My faith is in God who wrote the book.

It's not about us condemning anyone. We shouldn't. It's about us telling and there's a difference. I tell and I walk away. If they don't wish to hear, so be it. If they're open, I show them. But that's not condemning. Truth is hard to take, it's hard to follow because it's a battle between flesh and spirit. What we want to do and what God wants for us many times can be two diff things. We make a decision. We follow God or we follow man.

"I truely believe that gays that lead a good life will be accepted by their maker much more readily than "believers" who do not treat all equally."

No disrespect but you're not making up the rules. It's not about what you believe that's important. It matters what God declares.

Eternal life has nothing to do with our being good anyhow. The bible says "all have sinned." ALL. "None is good, not one." It's not about what we do or have done. It's all about what God has done for us that matters. It's not our righteousness, but HIS that matters in the end.

DAWN said...

"Dawn, your silence implies that you realize your mistake about civil union benefits.

It also looks like you have no rational response to the burden of proof issue."

or maybe it has to do with time issue on my part? You're making assumptions.

We're not talking civil unions, we're talking redefining marriage.

I told you the burden of proof is on you. I can just point to the mechanics of the human body as proof. What do you have? Like I said you have to go outside the parameters to circumvent what God has ordained to make it work FOR YOU!

"Blind faith can only get you so far. One also needs to take into account truth, facts, science, and rationality."

Who says I have a blind faith? I agree with everything else you said here but I certainly don't have a blind faith. My faith is based on all that you listed.

It's very reliable, truthful, and rational. Science hasn't debunked it. In fact, Science and the bible go pretty well together. God isn't opposed to Science. Neither am I. My son is a Scientist working on his Ph.D and he's a very strong Christian.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, if not blind faith then what exactly is your proof that God transcribed the words of the bible?

How do you know it wasn't simply writings from ancient people?

And how exactly does science and evolution go well together with Adam and Eve?

DAWN said...

"Dawn, if not blind faith then what exactly is your proof that God transcribed the words of the bible?"

Have you read it? That right there might help you out. I love how people debunk scripture that has been around longer than any of its critics yet they've never even read it for themselves.

For something that says it comes from God it should meet certain requirements. First..it must be accurate. It must be correct when it deals with historical events and persons. Also any revelation from God should be without any scientific absurdities.

The testimony of the historical evidence written in scripture shows that the bible can be trusted as an accurate document.

That's just the beginning. It is unique from all other books. It's one unfolding story written by 40 men over a period of 1500 years from many walks of life. And there are NO contradictions whatsoever.

No human author(s) would be able to do this. It has more manuscript evidence than any 10 pieces of classical literature combined.

The Bible is unique in its survival. It survived thru time, persecution and criticism. I like this quote from Bernard Ramm:

"A thousand times over, the death knell of te Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put. No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scruitinized and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and skepticism? with such thoroughness and crudition? upon every chapter, line and tenet?"

The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions and studied by millions.

DAWN said...

"And how exactly does science and evolution go well together with Adam and Eve?"

I'm trying to be as brief as I can in my answers and this one is easy!!

ex nihilo

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dawn, I've read the bible and consider it to be an interesting piece of fiction. You gave NO proof that the book is a work of god. You claim there is proof in it being "historically accurate" (and I'll pretend that is true for a moment for the sake of arguement).
So? Does that mean that a well researched history book is a work of god if it has no mistakes?
Because it survived and is still read is PROOF??!!??

But lets get back to the acccuracy and contradictions.

I have a question concerning Biblical historicity...first, there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

In addition, what are we to do with the wide variation of chronologies in the Gospels, different placements of pericopes in the timeline of Jesus' ministry (i.e the healing of the paralytic in Mk. 2), and the substantial disagreement of John with the other three, in terms of historical outline?

A third question concerns authorship - mainly, the authorship of the Gospels and of the Pentateuch. Both sets are anonymous, textually - furthermore, the earliest date we even have for a name being applied to the gospels is in the very late first century, with quotations by Papias (transcribed by Irenaeus), and that only to Mark and Matthew (if we are to understand him to refer to the texts we now know: I am content to do so). Moses' name wasn't applied to the Pentateuch until long after the exile...as in, more than a millennium after the latest events which it describes! True, Moses is the one whose name has been traditionally attached ever since - but why do we need to "believe" in Mosaic authorship as a cornerstone of faith?

As for contradictions, I could go on forever...

It's nice you have faith, Dawn, but pretending that there is proof to the bible being god's work is plain silly.

Anonymous said...

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:

"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men."

Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":

"Not so the New Testament . . . There is condensation and editing; there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history."

Yet there are still those who believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!

DAWN said...

Moses' name wasn't applied to the Pentateuch until long after the exile...as in, more than a millennium after the latest events which it describes!

Just to show you how absurd everything you just wrote is I just took this one example.

Since the time of Joshua (way before the exile) the Pentateuch was attributed to Moses. Go read Joshua 8:31-35. Even Jesus himself verified this in Mark 12:26

Evidences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was a highly educated man who had been a long time resident of Egype which Moses did and an eyewitness to the Exodus which he was.

Where in the world are you getting your information from?

And btw I can tell you haven't really really read it. I don't mean picking it up to tear it apart...I mean really read it. You're not fooling me.

DAWN said...

"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men."

This is true. But he was not saying it wasn't divine either. What he was saying was that God used the diff personalities of the men he used to write this book.

They were his instruments he used. It's like when we sit down with a pen to write. The pen is our instrument. We can pick up a blue, black, red or green pen to write with. It's still me using the pen and my thoughts but I am directing the pen what to write and using the diff colors and textures to do so.

Anonymous said...

Whatever Dawn...carry on with your fantasy. it makes you feel good and I suppose it is not doing anybody much harm...except for those archaic, hurtful attitude towards gays and others who don't meet the conditions of approval of your book.

Anonymous said...

"except for those archaic, hurtful attitude towards gays"

In this country homos have exactly the same rights as all other citizens. In Islamic Iran things are a little different...

NEW YORK (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran.
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad said to howls and boos among the Columbia University audience.
"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," he said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw

Anonymous said...

Dawn,I know it's easy to get caught up trying to explain yourself and your beliefs.But they have a veil over their eyes.They wont see the truth.It is foolish to them.
Just know you are right in the eyes of God,and He is pleased with you.Keep on in your faith,and remember Who you need to please.
Amy

Anonymous said...

There are some wonderful aspects to religion...it certainly has it's good points. But I raise my daughter to do and be good because in her soul she knows it is the right thing to do, NOT because she should please a god who will burn her in hell if she sins. The idea that somebody could lead an exemplary life, devoting their life to doing nothing but good, and they would still burn in hell if they didn't believe in god is nuts. How anybody could pray to such a vain god is beyond me.

DAWN said...

Yes Amy what you said is quite true, but we still have to always be ready for an answer to those who have questions. Keep the faith as well.

"NOT because she should please a god who will burn her in hell if she sins."

We all sin. There isn't one sinless soul but yet the bible teaches us that while we were still sinners that Christ died for us. He died for sinners. He said the sick need doctors and the sinners need salvation which he provides. So if you burn in hell or your daughter does, it comes down to your choice to do so.

Don't blame God.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Thank you Dawn for your thoughtful posts. I'm inspired by your patience, your knowledge of biblical teachings, and your persistence in this venue.

I look forward to reading them when I see them pop up in my email and hope you continue.

Also, I get a break.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, neither I nor my daughter will be burning in hell. However, despite your good intentions, I believe you to be a wicked person to believe that even if my daughter lived a good life she will burn in hell if she does not believe in your cruel and vain god. If there IS a hell, I believe you will be in it way before me or my daughter.

DAWN said...

"If there IS a hell, I believe you will be in it way before me or my daughter."

Is that a nice thing to say? You say I have good intentions and then say I'm going to hell? Hello? And I'm the one that is going to hell? Why is that? Because I tell you the truth?

It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what God declares. When all is said and done, he makes the decision where you will spend eternity. Not me.

Tom, thanks for your confidence and invite. I can see you have your hands full here.

Anonymous said...

Were YOU being nice, Dawn, when you implied that my daughter would burn in hell despite leading a good life?

That is a vile and disgusting thought.

Anybody that believes a good person should go to hell because they have different beliefs should go there themselves.

Anonymous said...

"my daughter would burn in hell despite leading a good life?"

Works don't get you into heaven. For starters define good works?

The reason people go to hell is rejection of receiving what did Jesus and His death on the cross did for YOUR sins.

The rest (sins name them) is just window dressing.

Anonymous said...

Neither me, you, or my daughter were around when Jesus died on the cross, so he sure didn't die for OUR sins.

Who mentioned good "works"? I said no decent god would send somebody to hell who lived a good life - no matter what they believe when it comes to spirituality and religion.

Dawn said...

"Who mentioned good "works"? I said no decent god would send somebody to hell who lived a good life - no matter what they believe when it comes to spirituality and religion."

Hello? That is good works. Living a "good" life is all part of good works theology.

I don't know what you believe but if you think living a good life all by itself gains entrance into heaven and God's presence you are being deceived.

If you have access to a bible I suggest you read Eph 2:8-9.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, what an awful thing to believe that being and doing good is not enough.

Being good is it's own reward...I have no desire at all to enter a heaven and be in a god's precence who believes the things you believe.

Are you saying that if Charles Manson is "born again" in prison and does all the mumbly jumbly stuff that you believe is required, then he will go to heaven?

But a good person who doesn't believe what you believe won't.

How absurd.

DAWN said...

"Dawn, what an awful thing to believe that being and doing good is not enough."

Think about it. What kind of a God would leave us here with no instruction on how good is good enough? How could you possibly know if you're good enough?

Also think about this...do you just let anyone into your home? When you go to the door, in order to let a person in don't you have to know them first? Jesus said many are going to come to him in "that day" seeing entrance into heaven and he's going to say to them..."I don't know you."

It's not about what you do, it's about who you know that's important. Jesus said, "follow me." It's not about US being good. It's about HIM being perfect enough to pay for our sin debt.

DAWN said...

"Are you saying that if Charles Manson is "born again" in prison and does all the mumbly jumbly stuff that you believe is required, then he will go to heaven?"

I don't know if Charles Manson is "born again." But if he is, yes he will go to heaven. Only God reads the heart. God will not be mocked nor can he be deceived. He knows what's in the heart of man.

To say otherwise is to say that Jesus didn't die for all sins but only some of the lesser ones.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, you seem to be saying that the only thing that makes one “good enough” to enter heaven is if they are “born again” or not. You say under these conditions Manson could enter heaven, or even Hitler if he was “born again” inside his bunker shortly before he died. But somebody like the Dalai Lama would burn in hell despite being a spiritual person and living an exemplary life because he has a different set of beliefs. How can you not see the insanity in that?

The following statement that you made says it all:

“It's not about what you do, it's about who you know that's important”

YIKES!!!! You are telling me that heaven is like some la-di-dah Hollywood nightclub? It’s no wonder Bush got the Christian vote!!! He is the epitome of it not being about what you do but about who you know!

If you are right (and I'm quite sure you are not) then have fun in your vain god's private little Club Heaven....have fun mingling with Manson if he makes the cut.

Me? I much prefer a place where who you know means diddly squat and it is all about what you do. Sounds like paradise to me!

DAWN said...

"because he has a different set of beliefs. How can you not see the insanity in that?"

It's not about our beliefs. It's about God's glory and his declarations to mankind. You can believe anything you wish but that doesn't mean it's right.

What's insane is the fact you believe you can work your way into Paradise with no paremeters. Many Muslims believe that they're doing good deeds when they blow up the infidels. Who says that isn't right? That's what they "believe" after all.

"Me? I much prefer a place where who you know means diddly squat and it is all about what you do. Sounds like paradise to me!"

It doesn't matter what you prefer. You're not in charge. God set the criteria not you. If you're really interested you'd read his instruction book. It's all in there.

you know the saying..."when all else fails, read the directions"

It's not about "what" we believe...it's about "who" we put our trust in.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, you can believe anything you wish but that doesn't mean it's right.

"What's insane is the fact you believe you can work your way into Paradise with no paremeters"

Not what I said, Dawn. I believe the parameters are being good. You believe the parameters are "who you know".


Many Christians believe that they're doing good deeds when they blow up the abortion clinics or claim that being gay is a sin. I say that god is the judge of what is right and I believe that god does not care who you know, or does not care if you are "born again".

Am I right? Are you right? We both think we are and there is no proof either way.

You keep trying to get me to read the "instruction book". Tell you what Dawn, if you can show me any proof that the book was not simply written by humans then I will read it over and over.

DAWN said...

"if you can show me any proof that the book was not simply written by humans then I will read it over and over."

well the proof is in the pudding. You have to eat it to know. The same with the book. You have to read it to see that it reads like no other book ever written.

"Many Christians believe that they're doing good deeds when they blow up the abortion clinics or claim that being gay is a sin. I say that god is the judge of what is right and I believe that god does not care who you know, or does not care if you are "born again".

More likely many Christians don't believe blowing up abortion clincs are a good thing. In fact, I would say that blowing up a clinic is a sin. Being gay isn't a sin but practicing homosexuality is a sin because God made that quite clear. A man with a man and a woman with a woman is an abomination to God, because it flies in the face of how he created us to be. It's a direct defiance against God's creation.

God does care because Jesus said himself..."you MUST be born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Anonymous said...

In other words, Dawn...you have absolutely NO proof that the bible was not written by man. Many people have read the bible and gone away believing that it was written by men so obviously reading it is NOT proof.

“Faith... Must be enforced by reason...When faith becomes blind it dies.”
Mahatma Gandhi



“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
Albert Einstein

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry”
Richard Dawkins

DAWN said...

who said anything about blind faith?

Are you assuming my faith is blind?

Anonymous said...

If you are putting your faith in something that you can't prove is true, then it is blind faith.

DAWN said...

For some evidence isn't needed...for others there is never enough evidence.

Look around you. God's fingerprints are all over the place!

Anonymous said...

God's fingerprints or mother nature's?

You say for some evidence is not needed....my point exactly - only blind faith is needed with NO evidence.

Dawn said...

Who's mother nature?

There's plenty of evidence but only God can give sight to the blind. Ask him yourself. He says any who seek him will find him.

Anonymous said...

Who is god?

Sorry if the "mother" part through you. I would have just said Nature but I thought you liked to personify things....like god.

Believe me, I've looked for evidence that god exists.
I'm not blind...just the opposite - my eyes are wide open to the beauty and magnificence of nature. If I saw any evidence that there was a being (which you call god) created and oversees it all I would be glad to believe - it seems like a very reassuring belief to have. Until that happens I will continue to call the creator of nature "Mother Nature".

You asked me to read the bible. I'd ask you to read the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson - a book with beautiul words of wisdom. No threats to get you to believe in him.

Dawn said...

You're talking physical sight.

I'm talking spiritual sight. We are physical and spiritual people. Only God can open your eyes and he will only do that if you're willing and searching....not rebelling and resisting.

That's why I asked you to read the bible because only then can you understand what I'm speaking about. Read Chap 3 & 4 of John...Nicodemus and The woman at the well. They too struggled with the whole idea of spiritual sight and then...they got it!

There's nothing wrong with Emerson. But he was just a man who wrote beautiful poetry. The words of scripture are even more beautiful when you understand the meaning behind them.

You sound like you're into pantheism; worshipping the creation instead of the creator.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I am not resisting. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person. I open myself up to all possibilities, I meditate, I ponder our existance. My I sincerely ask you what it was that made you "see the light"?

Anyways, it is interesting what you say about pantheism; worshipping the creation instead of the creator. I guess in a way you are right. For example I love certain music almost to the point of worship but I do not worship the creators of the music - Billie Holiday, Bod Dylan, Mozart, etc.
Why should it be different with god? I wouldn't think a god would want to be "worshipped" - it seems quite vain. And to say "worship me or burn in hell"!?! C'mon, I will never believe god would act that way. That is why I believe the bible was written by man.

DAWN said...

Nature worship has always been a popular religion. For millennia, people have worshipped the sun, moon, and stars. They've made sacred trees and standing stones into objects of worship. Many people visit the world's natural wonders to "feel close to God," or they believe that God and Nature are more-or-less synonymous. But the Bible warns against worshipping and serving "the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever" (Romans 1:25).

God gave us this world to enjoy. We live in a created universe, and we revel in the beauty of God's creative genius. But we must distinguish between the Maker and the made.

"My I sincerely ask you what it was that made you "see the light"?"

It's a journey really. I looked around, as you're doing and went on a search. When I read the scriptures, examined the evidence (historical, archeological, scientific, testimonial etc) I knew that there's something big here outside of creation. Only then did God open my eyes and perform heart surgery on me. I was a changed person from that day forward. It's walking in the spiritual, not the physical.

DAWN said...

"I love certain music almost to the point of worship but I do not worship the creators of the music - Billie Holiday, Bod Dylan, Mozart, etc. Why should it be different with god? I wouldn't think a god would want to be "worshipped" - it seems quite vain. And to say "worship me or burn in hell"!?! C'mon, I will never believe god would act that way. That is why I believe the bible was written by man."

As far as I know Dylan became a Christian, having his eyes opened to the truth as well.

We were created to worship. If we don't worship God, we will replace that with a substitute as you mentioned, music, nature etc.

The reason we are in such turmoil as a people today is because we are NOT doing what we were created to do. We have turned our backs on the Creator and onto something else.

It goes back to the garden..."did God really say?"

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dylan went through a Christian phase, but it appears he didn't stick with it. Here is a quote of his:


"Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light"—that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs."

He says that he subscribes to no organized religion.

I think it is malarky that we were born to worship. I'm afraid that the more I hear about the bible and what it asks of us I dislike it more and more. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this Dawn. I am happy for you and what religion gives you...it is a shame that you do not feel the same for those that disagree.

DAWN said...

He says that he subscribes to no organized religion.

me either. It's not about a religion. It's about a relationship with the God who created you.

Yes, let's just agree to disagree then.

Anonymous said...

Good, I'm glad we can leave it on friendly terms with each of us happy wtih our relationship to our creator.

Anonymous said...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_same-sex_marriage_debate_g/samesexmarriage.php

Carlos Rivera said...

It's funny that you seem to repeatedly state that homosexuals ignore science to support the "Agenda", but you yourself seem to selectively ignore studies that provide biological proof that sexual orientation is innate; if studies that homosexuality is related to being raped at a young age (which offer shaky evidence at best) are taken into account, how come studies proving the contrary are not?
Also, there's the fact that you seem to believe homosexuals make up the majority of people infected with HIV, I would recommend you update your records a little bit and not just post what you think. In fact, the largest percentage of people infected with HIV are currently heterosexuals. So, since being a majority is so important to you, why instead of naming AIDS back to GRID, why don't we rename it HRID, given that most people infected are Heterosexual?
You know, I really pitty ignorant fools who grasp at straws to prove ignorant points, and make up fearful stories of evil minorities cohercing them into acceptance.
Poor you.