The following is my reply to this comment (opens in a new tab/window): http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/12/11/how-male-homosexuality-might-highly-likely-start-and-increase.html#comment-737922909
First of all, don't you know that it is dishonest, evil, a sin, to hack into other people's places, to break in via devious means, such as after having been told that your level of commentary is not welcome in my house and after having been banned from my house under the name you used that to then change your name to regain entry to once again spew ridiculous and wholly uninformed, illogical conclusions? Are you without any honor whatsoever? Are you an advocate for amorality and even immorality? Yes, you are. That is clear by your behavior.
Whatever your religion or philosophy, if you are holding to it when behaving as you are here, your religion stinks or your philosophy stinks, as the case may be. Change your behavior by changing your thoughts by changing your feelings! Dump your religion or philosophy if it tells you to do as you have here. My religion doesn't allow such wickedness. Change. It's possible if you can overcome. Are you given to be able to do that, or are you a weak slave to depravity, the selfish lust of your flesh?
Of course, it is always also clear to me that when someone creates a new user to be able to post on this site and does so using a new user where the person's common and legal identity is not immediately clear on its face (image and name) of the user's profile that, that user could easily be someone like you, an immoral hacker. You were banned for clear cause here. That is always the case. I never ban reasonable people. Once it has been established that all sides have exhausted their side of any debate, I don't expect that others will use this site as if it is their blog and post numerous and endless comments adding nothing to what they have already said. In other words, I make clear that reasoned, rational, and reasonable posting on this site is okay, but unreasonable posting is not. The site is not a forum for pro-homosexuality. This site is anti-homosexuality and will stay that way so long as I'm in charge of it.
Now, you posted yet another comment on this site three comments above, in which you made the ridiculous claim that, that new study proves that everything in my posted article is false. Let me try to make it plain for you. People who are knowledgeable about it on both sides know full well and readily admit to each other that even if genetics and epigenetics play a role in predisposing an individual to the temptation of homosexuality, especially where homosexuality is heavily promoted, as is the case now, that, that in no way in general renders homosexual behavior beyond the conscious choice of said individuals. The kids would say, "Deal with it." It's called the truth. It's called fluidity. It's called choice. Try it. You might like it. It might feel good to you. It might feel better than taking it up your rectum. It better because if righteousness doesn't feel better to you, you are mentally ill. Fact.
Furthermore, I directed your attention to the study while you came back with what the article to which you linked says or doesn't say. Read the study. Don't stop at some business site's cursory, inadequate article. It is a computational-epigenetic hypothesis (theoretical modeling) and report based upon the work of two fallible men, and I don't know that it has been adequately verified (peer-reviewed and reproduced, etc.) and neither do you. For you to chisel into granite its tentative conclusions and the interpretation of the two authors as the end-all-be-all of the homosexuality "debate" is frankly asinine.
You are an embarrassment to vastly more intelligent homosexuals, who will tell you that I am right.
To be completely clear, even if the modeling is fair, it in no way proves that nurturing, socialization, conditioning, etc., cannot change a person.
Lastly on the subject of epigenetics, per se, if epigenetics proves highly helpful in fighting cancer, what difference would it make were epigenetics to make in proving that homosexuality is not a disease, as cancer is a disease? There are cancers that are not fatal. There are cancers that do not interfere with one's daily functioning, yet cancer, all cancer, remains a disease that would be better to be gone. However, in no case has it been proven by homosexuality advocates or fence sitters that homosexuality does not negatively impact upon the flesh causing various clear symptoms to one degree or another depending upon the person and his or her circumstances. My side maintains that the burden of proof is on the homosexuals, as we have shown more than ample evidence of a host of such symptoms and the homosexualists have so far completely failed to disprove any. Every attempt by them so far has been more than met by evidence showing their supposed refutations to be standing on quicksand. The reason for that is because homosexuality is inherently immoral and unhealthy. It will never be proven okay, never! Your position is eternally futile.
As for your equally ignorant comment on Christianity, don't use Jesus out of context against Jesus in context. Don't be such a fool. Don't tell someone who is a Christian who knows Jesus's divine laws what Christianity requires when you are ignorant of what it requires, and you are ignorant:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Cause! I tell you what I tell you in an attempt to wake you up. It's called love. If I didn't care, I'd not waste my breath. Jesus knows exactly what I'm doing. He knows exactly what's in my heart. You can't come in here and alter that. A person is in danger of hell fire when his heart is wicked, immoral, rationalizing sin; he has no cause; he thinks he's perfect before he is; when he thinks he can't also be foolish and is even still being foolish in God's eyes. I am not being foolish telling you what I am telling you. I'm being right. I am not perfected yet. I am being perfected. I trust God's lead. You do not. You do not know my God, period! If you knew my God, you would be with me, not against me.
Now, go away and don't come back under any name unless and until you can converse in an intelligent manner. Coming here to proclaim what you did and in the manner you did is unacceptable here. Let me give you a clue, if you asked, "Tom, what do you think about this article?" and then had allowed me to answer and then had said, "Oh, I can see that," it would have been acceptable even if you are an atheist homosexual. Get it? If not, as I said, don't come back! In addition, it would be required for you to repent here of what you did – your utter dishonesty and foulness, which reflects your mind and the fallen and falling condition of your soul!
Grow up! Be a real man.
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)