I posted the following on the article "Romney decries Calif. gay marriage ruling | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com":
Constitutionally, other than concerning religious free-choice, discrimination had always hinged upon whether or not the "minority" had a choice. The issue is still whether or not men, for instance, have a choice concerning anal sex.
If they are born that way, if they have no choice but to put their penises up each other's anuses, then that does impact upon whether or not keeping them from being lawfully married to each other would be unconstitutional. However, even if they don't have a choice, which certainly has never been demonstrated (and I suggest never will be), the question arises as to whether or not anal sex is proper and should be sanctioned by law.
Currently, the homosexual movement wants the world to misbelieve that such intercourse is fine and that sanctioning it is to sanction nothing wrong. The truth is that anal intercourse is an error. It always was and always will be.
Penises do not belong in anuses, period. It's an indisputable fact. Those who attempt to duck that fact are, at best, engaging in cognitive dissonance.
So, if people are going to support male homosexual-marriage, for instance, let them at least be honest that they are "granting" the right to be blatantly wrong in matters sexual.
This whole issue is about libertinism, and hundreds of millions of children have been, and are being, severely misled by the pro-homosexual agenda pushers.
I received a couple of ridiculous replies. I responded to the less asinine of the two as follows:
"Penises belong wherever the partners decide is pleasurable." That's an exceedingly selfish attitude and very short-sighted vis-a-vis unsuspecting children. If penises belong in anuses, why is it necessary that people use condoms or take other steps concerning bacteria? The anus and rectum are clearly designed for eliminating waste from the body and only that. Contrary to your false position, the anus and rectum are clearly not a vagina or sexual organ. This same point goes to the heart of anti-adultery in proper marriages that are solely between a male and female.
You say there is no natural law. Really, then where did you come from, two homosexuals having sex together? There are no "laws" of physics either then, right? Gravity isn't "natural" either then. Well, obviously, you're quite mistaken.
"And who cares if it's a choice or not? Why does that determine anything and why does it disturb you so that others make choices different from yours?" The issue concerns what is true or not. You claim penises belong in anuses, which is incorrect, not true, etc. If it doesn't matter what's a choice versus those things concerning which no one has a choice, then draw the legal line against any sexual activity. Do you also condone pedophilia? I don't condone it for a moment under any circumstances. Do you condone bestiality too? Some homosexual activists have claimed that it's fine if the animal likes it. Is that a "natural" act to you? Perhaps your law is Aleister Crowley's: "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
What's "gays"? It's nothing but a euphemism, a psychological ploy to lull people to sleep concerning the hazard that is the main homosexual act.
Are you suggesting that it's relevant that heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse? The fact that some heterosexuals do that doesn't make it healthy. It is unhealthy, you know. Yes, you do know it.
"People choose religions, and that fact doesn't deprive them of their right to claim protection for that choice." That's true under the US constitution. However, I'm a Christian; and that means that I believe people should be free to choose to be Christian. What I didn't say is that I believe anyone should be violently coerced by the power of the secular state regarding anything, including sanctioning homosexuality or in anyway being forced to remain silent that it is a fundamental, biological, anatomical, physiological, error: pathological, a disease of the mind, body, and soul. Choosing to follow Jesus Christ can hardly be a choice on the same level as deciding to fall to the misguided temptation to engage in homosex, and in particular male homosexual anal intercourse.
"If someone prefers their own gender to the other, why should you care? The only harm is to your narrow, outdated philosophical worldview, which is very useful if the goal is to define and control, but very ill-suited to promoting personal autonomy and freedom." I care for the reason that children are misled by people such as you telling lies about the consequences of anal intercourse -– acting as if there are no negative health consequences and that the only thing that matters is hedonistic result: "pleasurable," as you referred to it. It is certainly not harmless, ever. As for freedom, being enslaved to a disgusting and perverted habit such as anal sex is far from freedom. My desire is that the children be taught the truth of it rather than be led down the garden path by the likes of you.
The highly negative consequences of such behavior are well-documented.
Here is my reply to a comment below. My reply is too long for the commenting system for one reply.
How old are you? You aren't replying to someone who's in his teens. You actually think you are schooling me about sex? I may have children, maybe grandchildren, older than you are. Look, your logic isn't. It's pathetic. It's inept. My article clearly stated that condom use is a good argument for monogamy in marriage (which is by nature heterosexual, and don't try to argue the "scientific" points with me, as I've been at this for some time and have refuted much better than you). It is a very rare case where there are bacterial issues between husband and wife where neither has strayed and become an adulterer or adulteress and where they engage exclusively in vaginal intercourse. I suppose in your eyes that because I'm opposed to adultery, I'm therefore for it. I'll get to that below. Your whole opening paragraph is completely off the mark, as is the whole of your comment.
The issue isn't with whom you claim are "most homosexuals" concerning having sex with animals and/or children. You want to appear to be against non-consensual sex, so you must be for it. You're a closet rapist. I'm just applying your illogic, as you applied it to me and as all knee-jerk, totally unoriginal homosexuals do. Afterall, you didn't invent the ploy, nor are you the first to use it here or elsewhere.
Just to be clear, I started out addressing the issue of homosexuality on this blog without ever mentioning anal intercourse. The idea of focusing in on it because people deliberately avoid thinking about it when considering what it is that they are claiming is "fine" or about which they have taken to saying "there's nothing wrong with it," didn't occur to me until relatively recently. That's why I like to mention cognitive dissonance with it because so many heterosexuals don't want to think about it. If they are forced to think about it, they realize that they've been duped by lying homosexuals.
The issue is that there are plenty of homosexuals who advocate hellish anarchy. There are plenty of homosexuals who say the animal likes it or the child consented, etc. That's the point. The person I was addressing in my comments said what he said: that there is no natural law. Here you are acting as if that doesn't matter even though you are saying that animals and children can't consent. So, who's right and why or why not between you and that other person? The answer is that neither of you is right. I'm right, and the two of you are flat-out wrong and both highly deceptive and twisting sorts. Did you tell him he's wrong about it? I doubt it. It's bad for you either way. The homosexuals will splinter up no matter how hard they try to keep a unified front.
"However, I'm a Christian; and that means that I believe people should be free to choose to be Christian." - So we're not allowed to be Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or follow any other sort of philosophy? That's called suppression my friend.
That's a prime example of your horrendously poor reading and interpretation skills and shows why you can't understand that anal sex is unhealthy and, when it comes down to it, just plain stupid. When one says that "people should be free to choose to be Christian," it is moronic to conclude that, that one is saying that people should be coerced into it, that Christians should not allow anyone to choose not to be Christian. Do you know anything about Christianity at all? I even said in my article that I'm opposed to the secular state coercing anyone. My position is, and my article and comments are consistent with, the view that morality cannot be coerced. My desire is that everyone be free to choose morality. I'm not coercing people, unless the truth itself it coercive (works for me; certainly compelling; now that I know it, I don't have a choice), from being homosexuals and claiming they are married. I disagree with them and say that though and say it for the reasons I've outlined, which are completely valid and justified.
You further wrote:
"I care for the reason that children are misled by people such as you telling lies about the consequences of anal intercourse -– acting as if there are no negative health consequences and that the only thing that matters is hedonistic result: "pleasurable," as you referred to it. " - You really don't have a positive view on sex, likely because you actively suppress your homosexuality (and thus your preoccupation with anal sex). And if you really wanted "safe" intercourse, it would be between two women...and, by your logic, superior even to heterosexual intercourse.
Anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse are completely different things. You are attempting to get people falsely to believe that being opposed to anal intercourse is anti-sex. It's ridiculous. As for who has the "preoccupation with anal sex," it's the people who are repetitively engaging in it who are at least the most preoccupied with it. Your problem with me is that I get people who shun the thought about homosexual anal intercourse but nevertheless go along with the homosexual agenda to stop and think about what they are really doing. Your problem with me is that I'm not mesmerized by, or intimidated by, or fooled by all of your garbage-hype.
As for your notion of female homosexual sex being superior by my logic, you do what you always do, which pattern is already extremely clear here, and that's to jump to totally false conclusions because you can't yet do logic to save your soul, which soul is on the line here. Female homosexual sex is also naturally wrong. You don't have the ability to connect the actions of homosexual females with the downfall of males into homosex. You don't have the ability to connect evil with evil, but I do. It's all connected, falling, pulling itself down with itself, falling apart together, falling out from under itself, providing no Godly support. Regardless though, even if you had a point, which you don't, it would definitely not prove that male homosexual anal sex is proper, now would it. No, it wouldn't; and you actually know that, just as you know that I'm right here about everything I've said.
You are the one with the deep-seated mental/spiritual illness who needs to wake up from it. You are right here openly condoning a completely stupid and wrongheaded practice and doing so by desperately trying to deflect the attention away from your own utter stupidity about it.
I think, based on your unquestionably focused mindset on men penetrating each other, that you are a closet homosexual. You should really just accept yourself instead of living a lie and secretly going to male prostitutes. It's not safe dude.
I'm also accused of ranting against war, so therefore, by your moronic ploy, I'm really a war-monger, a closet hyper-militarist. Does it get any dumber? Aren't you the least embarrassed to expose yourself as so dumb? Unfortunately, you probably aren't, which is par for the course with homosexuals. I rail against hyper-greed, so I'm therefore a closet Wall Street bankster. Do you have any idea of how dumb you sound? Do you really imagine that I'm so weak-minded that I will back off because I'm afraid someone might actually believe you? You simply help affirm my point. You are a prime example of the trickster. The same Satanic mind/spirit Jesus spoke about has you by the balls, literally.
Not to mention that you came to your "conclusion" based upon seeing me mention homosexual anal intercourse once? That sort of shines the light on your desperation. Oh please, lord of darkness, don't let Tom Usher be heard. Please make him too afraid that people will believe my pathetic ploy. Please make all the heterosexuals be too afraid until it's too late for them. It won't work. It isn't working. You can feel it too. You know you are losing. You're falling...time to stop!
"Btw, the reason why it's obvious that you're a closet case is that the first thing that comes to your mind when marriage equality is even mentioned is two men buggerin' each other." What do heterosexuals do on their wedding night? Is this something that everyone doesn't know as adults? Well, contrary to your ploy, it was not the first thing. It took me awhile to realize what would cut through the bull you spew. I'm exactly right on about it. I've nailed it exactly. The prime homosexual act has always been male sodomy. Children are being taught in school to respect it, even celebrate it, without even knowing that, that's what's going on between so-called married homosexual men: sticking their penises up each other's rectums until they ejaculate there in vain evil.
Who doesn't know it's insane? You know it's crazy. You're just too conditioned to evil to admit it. You're afraid of the implications. You're afraid that you are too weak to quit being evil. That's the truth. You falsely imagine that if you pretend hard enough that there's nothing wrong with it, then you'll not ever be confronted by your failure to quit doing what is clearly wicked.
Anal sex is wrong. It always has been and always will be. There's nothing you can do to change that. It's a stupid, filthy thing to do, unhealthful in every way; and only people who are falling into idiocy fall to the confusion/lie/temptation and do it.
People fall for all sorts of things. Many of them come to realize it. Then they stop whatever it is. That's a good thing that they come to realize the error and stop repeating it. If you don't like it that I'm saying it, too bad. I'm still right.
What you want is for me not to be obsessed with saving souls from the sheer evil that is homosex. If I have to use the terms "anal sex" or "anal intercourse" and point out to people that such sexual behavior is stupid, then so be it. People like you aren't going to succeed in twisting the subject to suit your perverted ends. You'll just open your stupid mouths and continue proving my point.
As for homosex, it never occurred to me until someone else said what it is. I wish I had never heard of it. I wish it did not exist. Someday, it won't exist. That will be when the New Heaven and New Earth conflate and all homosexuality is extinguished once and for all. Thank God for that. I wish it were already here.
Also concerning homosex, it's the homosexuals who parade it. It's constantly in the news, etc. Exactly where and when is it out of the mainstream these days? I definitely do not think about it except that others raise the issue. I certainly didn't seek out the article on Romney about it. What I have done though is decide that along with greed and violence, I will speak out against sexual depravity -- of which homosexuality is a huge part.
"That's what I like to call an obsession, an obsessive urge to think of gay sex. And I can tell you that most people, unlike you, aren't going to picture that at all when reading this article. You, sir, have what we like to call homoerotic tendencies." What intelligent person isn't going to see right through you? You are banking on people being afraid to be called something so they will back off and not expose your stupidity. I don't fall for it. I don't buy into it concerning anti-Zionism being anti-Semitic or concerning all the "conspiracy theories" and many other things. I do not let others cow me into thinking one way or the other. So, you failed and, in fact, as I said, only helped to prove my point. The fact is, most people will read this and agree with me, even if they might be too afraid (for a bit) of the new homosexual fascism to pipe up about it. Many will change from that though. There will be a backlash.
"Lastly, its unfair to the person you were talking with to not tell them you were posting this and not allow them an adequate space to have a rebuttal; especially since you didn't even post his entire argument, just the parts you wanted other people to see... That's deception and not very moral; in fact, its highly immoral." Well, that just shows how un-thorough you are. The place where the back-and-forth occurred is clearly linked in the article. It's on a very public site and his comments and mine are both linked to, and posted on, our respective Facebook Profiles and others. I posted my comments on my blog without hiding a thing and with supplying the necessary link for anyone to follow to read whatever. For you to claim that, that is immoral while you are here defending the indefensibly immoral is the height of irony – just keeps proving my point about the devious homosexual mind: twisted by abuse and confusion....
By your false logic, the newspaper site was wrong not to get in touch with Mitt Romney to tell him that they discussed him and quoted him in their article. My DISQUS [meant Facebook (late-night answer); but it is true about my DISQUS profile as well] profile is full and real, with both my first and last names and with a link to right here, which is how you found me. I'm hiding from no one, and you have no knowledge of whether or not I would have supplied a link in my follow-up comment on that article or not. I've done such many times before but who doesn't know that too much of that is frown upon as being spammish if "overdone." So, you failed here again.
You are exactly the wicked soul Isaiah was talking about when he talked about those who put bitter for sweet. You are a severe twister because you are twisted inside. Get straight. Ask for God's help. Ask Jesus to help you if you can get free enough of evil for even a moment to do that.
You do know that there are single-issue people who dwell on promoting whatever, right? There are people who speak and write everyday for or against whatever. According to you, homosexuality and anal intercourse are the only things where if one is against, he's secretly for. It doesn't work. Try being honest. Can you? Are you afraid of what your "friends" might say? Are you familiar with the expression that "misery loves company"?
It isn't lost on people that you only posted your first name here. It's too late to post your last name here on your first comment too. Is it missing elsewhere? Perhaps you have some sense of shame. Perhaps you are not beyond redemption. We shall see. I'm not perfect, but I'm not going down with you. You aren't talking me into any of your evil sexual deviation.
By the way, aren't you the one whose asinine comment I didn't bother with on that article about Romney or did you just plagiarize him? What's the matter? Did you feel rejected? Did you feel the need for being defeated? What are you going to do now, stick pins in yourself, burn yourself, what? Maybe you'll be like Alfred Kinsey and tie your balls to a pipe in the basement and jump off a chair to punish yourself some more.
Rather than doing all of that, why don't you just quit all the perversion? Do you really think it's impossible? There are people who have done it with God's help – by their love of God.
May God bless you with the truth. If you can't accept it, it will be your own choice. Yes, I'm that kind of Christian.
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)