Read it. Hyper-vanguard of homosexual-movement supporters on BlogCatalog duck (concede) fact that homosexual sodomy is inherently harmful.


All the statements in this discussion that homosexuality is not harmful are flat wrong, and you both know it. That's why that lie shouldn't be spread especially to the children and especially in the schools. Do you understand that? Do you love the children, or do you want them to come to harm? If you love them, you'll be honest with them that homosexual sodomy is harmful, period.

The following is the latest and perhaps the last installment in this series. You may want to start with PART 1.

Hi Anok,

As for fallacies, you haven't deconstructed any syllogisms.

Your statement that "Heterosexuals engage in all of the same practices," is impossible when we are discussing the difference between hetero and homo. Hetero sex is not practicing homo sex. I'm not speaking here of bi-sexuality or anal intercourse or what is often meant by attraction. I'm speaking about the original act designed for procreation. I hope that's explicit enough for you so you focus in. If we can't get any further along in using the language than this, well, what will all the sarcasm in the world do for you?

The rates of the diseases cited standout, because of the difference in the rates for heterosexuals.

Also, where heterosexuals fail is no proof that homosexuality is not harmful. You cannot excuse homosexual behavior based upon any harm done by a heterosexual. Are you following that logic? Wherever heterosexuals engage in some harmful aspect, that harmful aspect is wrong.

Here's the challenge to you. Homosexual activity is harmful regardless of monogamy. It is always harmful. You can't rightly say the same about heterosexuality. There are non-harmful active heterosexual relationships on the mundane, medical, scientific level (since that's what's being used here in this thread: Genetics, supposedly absent all things spiritual).

The difference here is that heterosexual monogamous relationships are by and large not harmful. The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior in any case.

There are reportedly wives who find out that they are literally allergic to their husband['s] sperm. If he were to insist, he would be sinning in the Christian's eyes. I dare say you would find his insistence offensive as well and obviously not by standing on Christian ground, although you might admit overlapping beliefs in this specific case.

Your point suggesting that lesbianism demonstrates that homosexuality, per se, is not harmful, is clearly a logical fallacy. That lesbian couples may "have the lowest rate of STD's out of all the groups (dramatically lower)" does not negate any point I made. Besides, STD's are not the only things that pertain. More to the point, the homosexual political movement is not confined to lesbianism. You know that.

"So many fallacies, so little time...." Find the time.

When you have a logical fallacy to show me that I committed in my post as it pertains to this thread, let me know. So far, you haven't done that. I'm not asking you to refute Christianity. I know the post is topically wide. I'm asking you to show a logical fallacy concerning the medical evidence showing that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful. That's as on-topic as I can make it for you.

It appears you've already conceded that at least male homosexuality is harmful and you are only appealing to the fact that there are heterosexuals who also engage in harmful behavior. You are confronted by the fact that not all heterosexual vaginal intercourse is harmful.

The whole homosexual political movement is on the crumbling ground you've been supporting without ever having been confronted with this fact.

Is that movement for known harm? I say it is.

Remember though that I don't hold with coercion. I'm standing against the lie that homosexuality is not harmful.

Hello timethief,

The same applies to you. Point to a logical fallacy. Show me a broken syllogism.

You didn't answer anything I put to you in my comment:
... ....

Furthermore, you started a discussion. You pointed to an article. The article is designed to support a political movement that suggests that homosexuality is not harmful. The article is presupposing that. It is suggesting that if homosexuality is genetic (which hair can be infinitely split even if the geneticists end up stating that there is no connection), then homosexuals should be a protected group on the same level as Blacks as a done deal - harm ignored.

You posted it for political purposes. I don't have a problem with people posting things for political purposes. I don't have a problem with people wanting to stay on-topic. I'm not discussing something far-a-field.

Also, if we were to return to every comment in this discussion, including each of yours, timethief, to determine whether the specific comment is as on-point in manner and degree you appear to want to apply to me, what do you think we'd find? How many of your own comments would have to go? Go back. Look for yourself. Does it embarrass you? It's hypocrisy isn't it? Why hold me to what you don't keep?

Also, if we each and all keep only to our own discussions, to whom will you be preaching? Your object is proselytizing. You're trying often to convince others of the rightness of your position. That's what a forum like this is about. If you are interested in speaking solely to people who already agree with you, there are methods on BlogCatalog to achieve that. There are discussions on groups where membership must first be approved. You didn't choose that method. You chose the most open-discussion type.

It appears that it isn't off-topic comments that bother you. It rather appears that comments in which you are unable to poke holes bother you.

I want to state emphatically, I'm not here to cause harm. You may think I'm wrong, but you would be wrong to think I have injurious motives. I'm not saying anyone said it. I'm only stating it in case any reader might contemplate it or be assuming it without writing so.

I won't go on here in this discussion until I see a comment showing a real fallacy in what I said - no short shrift but rather evidence of deep thinking. Then I'll admit the fallacy right here and post that as an update right in the post. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, just to say that all the diseases don't add up to harm and that anything to the contrary is a fallacy is as weak as weak can be.

If I'm dealing with people here who won't admit when they are wrong no matter what, I'll leave the discussion behind and take my peace with me. My words won't die though.


The replies I received:

You will find whatever angle you need to find to tell yourself it's OK to hate.

Just so you know, your reasoning is off, your logic is seriously flawed, and no one has tried to use the whole "OMG they have STD'S so they're harmful!" justification for bigotry in a long time.

Specially since AIDS is so prevalent in heterosexuals.


You are off topic ranting again.


My reply:


All of the following, which you posted in this discussion, is on-topic where you're concerned? It's hypocrisy. You thump "The subject of this thread" while you, yourself, have deviated time and again, by your own standard.

Also, you attempted to but failed to duck all my points. You should be convicted in your heart, but that's not happening. One of your comments, which establishes my point, is the following:

"On one hand, there is no evidence that a god or gods do exist. On the other, there is evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics. Meanwhile the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation continues to be championed by the church.

"Vatican attacked for opposing gay decriminalization
"The Vatican has come out against a proposal that the UN pass a resolution that encourages the governments of the world to decriminalize same-sex intimate contact between consenting adults.
... ....
"Church sanctioned for campaign against "sodomy"
"The Advertising Standards Authority says Church advert on homosexuality broke decency standards
... ....

"The central government, in a written submission before the Delhi High Court Tuesday, questioned the power of judiciary to legalise homosexuality in the country. "The court is not the authority to decide what should be the law or what should not be the law," it said.Additional Solicitor General P.P. Malhotra, in his 100-page written submission, said: "The court is not the authority to decide what should be the law or what should not be the law. These are the functions of parliament and its members will decide on the issue. They know the will of their people, the difficulties of their people."

"Parliament, not court, can decide on homosexuality: counsel
"The government's submission came on a public interest petition filed by gay rights activists seeking the court's direction for legalising gay sex among consenting adults in private.
... .... "


You wrote, "You will find whatever angle you need to find to tell yourself it's OK to hate."

I'm a Christian, and Jesus hates. If you don't know about that, do a search in the New Testament on the word "hate." Then you may perhaps begin to speak to the issue toward real Christians.

You also wrote, "Just so you know, your reasoning is off, your logic is seriously flawed, and no one has tried to use the whole 'OMG they have STD'S so they're harmful!' justification for bigotry in a long time."

Your appeal to how long it has been since anyone has held a certain position is a logical fallacy. For someone who throws around "logical fallacy," you don't bother to check your own work.

You didn't supply one broken syllogism, yet you say I failed.

In addition, I made the point that homosexual activity is harmful regardless of monogamy. Where in do STD's enter into this aspect? There are many diseases that arise on account of homosexual activity in so-called monogamous relationships. To shoot down that homosexuality is inherently harmful, you must shoot down every single fact I supplied. Attempting to shoot it all down by continually appealing solely on the issue of STD's doesn't work. It's illogical.

Why are there sexually transmitted diseases in the first place? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Would there be any such thing without selfishness creeping in?

Anyway, even with ample opportunity, you didn't argue against the fact that male-to-male sodomy is inherently harmful.

All the statements in this discussion that homosexuality is not harmful are flat wrong, and you both know it. That's why that lie shouldn't be spread especially to the children and especially in the schools. Do you understand that? Do you love the children, or do you want them to come to harm? If you love them, you'll be honest with them that homosexual sodomy is harmful, period.

Well, I did the best I could to help the two of you to see some light, but since you're not seeing it, I'll let what I've written stand and people can receive it or fail.

Peace and love, the truthful kinds, I was not allowed to leave with the two of you. You reject them.



The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Tabetha Burton

      If you are overcoming homosexuality all you need to do is say out loud now Jesus I believe and I receive please help me change my thinking and heal me a really good site is for a point of contact

      • Hello Tabetha,

        First, we will assume you are addressing site visitors. In which case, let's rephrase that to say, "If one is attempting to overcome homosexuality" or "To overcome homosexuality." The reason I say this is some readers might misconstrue your comment as being directed at me alone. I trust you'll understand this point.

        Second, Leroy Jenkins is exactly the problem, none of the solution. You may have come here directly from a search engine and not looked around but rather simply left a quick comment to promote Leroy Jenkins. I see that you did not hyperlink the domain That's something people do after having learned that many sites send all comments with one or more hyperlinks to spam for further processing. Perhaps that was not your thinking, but I say it because Leroy Jenkins types are promotional in the Madison Avenue sense (razzmatazz).

        This Leroy Jenkins person is a carbon copy of money-machine preachers. He's selling "miracle water" for the unrighteous mammon. He's a fake, a phony. He's about as Christian as Satan.

        If he can back up his claims to being a Christian while selling "miracle water" for the unrighteous mammon, tell him to come here and post up his comment. Tell him to support his position from the words and deeds of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels. If he can't do that, tell him to stop spreading his lies he uses to dupe naive, gullible, and often poor people. If he hears this and doesn't stop, then woe to him: The warning.

        By the way, anyone who is selling what he's pushing isn't tapped into God's healing power over and above the lowliest atheist.

        If you are following this guy, you're being led to Hell.

        Jesus doesn't hold with anyone selling "miracle water" for mammon, period.

        Now, re-read your John and start following the real Jesus. Turn off your TV set. Stop watching huckster televangelists. Realize that Jesus is against their preaching for sure.

        If you want to follow Jesus, then help with the Christian Commons Project. It is exactly inline with the Acts of the original Apostles. I can guarantee you that Leroy Jenkins has no such intentions at present. He's not about translating the unrighteous mammon into the New Earth. He's about gaining more for self apart from the oneness who is God.

        Finally, to your comment about accepting the healing of God to stop being homosexual, you are correct. One doesn't need to turn to a Leroy Jenkins for that, far from it. He is a major dramatist: Contrived and highly stylized. Who are the drama queens? Such are not next to God or Jesus.

        God is spirit and is over matter. All things may be transformed by God's will. Every homosexual can be transformed if he or she will believe in sufficient measure. The transformation may be permanent if he or she will believe without looking back.

        Bless you, Tabetha, with the whole truth. If you are not truly Tabetha (as represented here) but are actually a shill (which I have no reason to believe at this point although some souls are extremely good at acting as everyone should well know), then woe to you too if you don't turn.

        Tom Usher

        P.S. You aren't the first of Jenkins's followers to come here commenting.