`

To keep track of the other weird things Peter La Barbera says; check this site out .

Looked at the site...Pretty bizarre.

I read the Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey and I don't remember anything in it about homosexuality at all? Granted it's been quite awhile since I read it and I lost my copy of the book, but I'm pretty sure it didn't say homosexuality was Satanic.

The Satanic Bible is considered definitive. Have you read it? If not then any other source is HIGHLY suspect and probably very wrong from what true Satanists believe. Do some research XX.

The Buffet Christian strikes again. I'm running out of couches for Jeff's drama.

Why would some Christians reject homosexuals when Jesus said that God made them that way ?

Personally, I don't feel that God would create a group of people, just so he could condemn them.  But that's me...

Homosexuality is satanic because it is a complete rejection of nature -- the natural design, order of one's body, male or female -- and an attack on the natural world (biology) that was created by God to function in a specific way. The principal entity that rejected God and His creation from the start was Satan, Lucifer. As he said, "I will not serve." 

The perfect way to undermine God is to convince people that it is actually his will that they do so. Two separate sexes exist so that we can procreate and our organs are clearly designed for that purpose. Homosexuals cannot procreate so sex between them is a misuse of their organs. Rather than seek treatment for their aberrant behavior, they embarked on a mission (fueled by junk science) to convince the world that they are born that way. The purpose was to transform a behavior into an immutable characteristic like race. Once it was (improperly) viewed as an immutable characteristic, they began asserting that treating their behavior differently should be as unlawful as discriminating against black people for being black (even though race is not a behavior at all). 

The next step was to loop that into the BIble to argue that opposing the homosexual cabal is not just hate speech under the law but also contrary to the will of God because God preaches love. That, of course, ignores the fact that God doesn't love sin and that the Bible declares homosexuality to be so sinful a behavior that it rises to the level of an abomination. In any event, the argument takes the traditional view that you should "hate the sin and love the sinner" and essentially twists it into the preposterous view that "you can't love the sinner without loving the sin." 

Now they take it even further with transgender nonsense that eviscerates the very distinction between men and women. I recently read an article about a mother and son who both realized (through mutually reinforced insanity) that they were in the wrong bodies so they transgendered to become father and daughter. Marriage is now a complete mockery and nature, itself, is under assault. 

I don't see how it could get any more fucked up than this if Satan had done it himself.

Adam and Eve were created perfect in the image of God and were the first marriage.  There can be no doubt that had sin not occurred on this planet by mankind that homosexuality would not have either.  

Adam and Eve were created perfect in the image of God and were the first marriage.

Who performed the marriage, and, after Cain killed his brother and went east of Eden … and met his wife … where'd she come from along with all those other people?

If you take the Bible literally …

Bravo!

At least one day of the week, on a Sunday, don't y'all think we could leave the hateful disapproval behind and be nice and kind to one another?  Isn't that what Sunday is supposed to be for?

At least one day of the week, on a Sunday, don't y'all think we could leave the hateful disapproval behind

Unfortunately hate is on the rise in America....

Everywhere You Look, Americans Are Spreading Hate

So why should a few "mentally challenged" people on NT be any different...?

Is there a more segregated time than a Sunday morning in America?

Step away from that mirror...

Step away from that mirror...

The Bible doesn't mention everyone who ever lived.  Cain, Abel, and Seth played key roles in the struggle between good and evil and the plan of salvation.  None of Adam and Eve's other children played such a role and they were not named in the Bible.  God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and they did so.  

 God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and they did so.  

He also told Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. By defying Him, she brought into question the idea of being perfectly created in His image.

My point is, and I'm sure you understand it … that if one is going to take the Bible literally, it is hypocritical to do so selectively, particularly to justify a political agenda under a pretext of morality.

I find it strikingly ironic that those who will call any information that fails to suit their politics, "fake news," yet, will use the Bible as a kind of "ultimate news/fact source" as long as the parts that are politicly inconvenient are treated as if somehow "fake" or irrelevant!

As for the argument that nature reproduces itself in a context of male and female, organisms like earthworms are anatomically bi-sexual, so are many flower species … some organisms reproduce asexually … 

The point … once important ideas regarding reality are based on incorrect suppositions, much can go wrong.

In short, I summarize by suggesting that THINKING is a wonderful alternative to what otherwise causes great consternation and a troubled world.

By the way, XX … I think we are having a fine debate!

If you take the Bible literally …

In my opinion, the Bible creates a hierarchy of sin and appropriate punishment just as criminal law recognizes the distinction between jaywalking and murder. It also recognizes the difference between church and state when Jesus recognizes that people must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Death sentences (among other things) are, therefore, left to the government. Just because some subjects are within the control of Caesar doesn't mean that people have to abandon their beliefs. Therefore, they can believe homosexuality is wrong no matter what Caesar thinks.

But this video only proves what xx said. If Satan's plan is to turn people from the word of God, then that is accomplished by telling them that you can feel free to discard any part of the Bible that interferes with having fun. Debauchery becomes pleasing to God, serving God and serving Satan become indistinguishable from each other, and Satan wins. 

Just because some subjects are within the control of Caesar doesn't mean that people have to abandon their beliefs. Therefore, they can believe homosexuality is wrong no matter what Caesar thinks.

Abandoning beliefs is not synonymous with imposing them on those who don't share those beliefs. 

The term "wrong" is often totally subjective.

I haven't stated one way or another what my views are on homosexuality … but whatever my views, I view them as human beings.

Abandoning beliefs is not synonymous with imposing them on those who don't share those beliefs. 

They have as much right to impose their beliefs on others (by voting) as others have to impose their believes on them. 

They have as much right to impose their beliefs on others (by voting) as others have to impose their believes on them. 

Does that mean if one of the outcomes of a particular election results in the appointment of SCOTUS Justices who uphold same-sex-marriage that you will honor such a decision?

Every election, by virtue of your statement, can result in the imposition of certain tenets of law by which its citizens are obligated to abide.

Before I go on, I need to know if you agree or disagree.

They have as much right to impose their beliefs on others (by voting) as others have to impose their believes on them. 

Does that mean if one of the outcomes of a particular election results in the appointment of SCOTUS Justices who uphold same-sex-marriage that you will honor such a decision?

I'm already doing that. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has deliberately misinterpreted the constitution to redefine marriage in all 50 states. I have to abide by the ruling until such time as a majority of the court is appointed that will reverse that decision. So, yes, I will abide by the decision but, no, I will not acquiesce to it . . . if that's what you mean by honor. 

I'm already doing that. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has deliberately misinterpreted the constitution to redefine marriage in all 50 states. 

This is where our disagreement resides, my friend. The Constitution does not speak to marriage per se and the SCOTUS Ruling is consistent with the Establishment clause.

Government can not compel anyone to adhere to, embrace, practice nor accept the tenets of any religion on a solely religious basis; however, where a religious tenet is consistent with law, while personal conflicts may arise, legality must have the last word … and that is the "tie breaker" by virtue of constitutionality.

In you personal life, you need not honor the Constitution … as a public citizen, you are legally bound to do so.

Just a hunch, but I think we're at an impasse.

This is where our disagreement resides, my friend. The Constitution does not speak to marriage per se and the SCOTUS Ruling is consistent with the Establishment clause.

The constitution is not a panacea for every ill. The clear intent of the document is to limit federal authority not for some judge to expand federal or judicial authority by making up rights where non existed. The fact that the constitution does not speak to marriage and the fact that sodomy was illegal in every state means to me that the drafters never remotely thought that anyone would be any more entitled to a same sex marriage than they would be to a marriage with an animal or a broomstick. The issue should have been left up to each state under the 10th amendment.

Government can not compel anyone to adhere to, embrace, practice nor accept the tenets of any religion on a solely religious basis; however, where a religious tenet is consistent with law, while personal conflicts may arise, legality must have the last word … and that is the "tie breaker" by virtue of constitutionality.

The government cannot compel a religious belief but, as a voter, I can compel the government to disapprove of any particular behavior and I can base my decision on anything I choose to base it on, including religion.

 I can compel the government to disapprove of any particular behavior and I can base my decision on anything I choose to base it on, including religion.

Not if you are trying to compel the government to reject and violate the very document upon which it is based you can't … you can try by bringing suit if you are deemed to have the standing to do so … and, ironically, if the judges are politically aligned with your litigation -- which you object to in principle -- you could win/compel the disapproval you seek … but then, because it was based on religion, you will have eroded the Constitution whose very authors you revere as a conservative.

You can object to homosexuality on moral/religious grounds and be on solid RELIGIOUS grounds … but you cannot viably argue against it on Constitutional grounds because your issue is the "moral/religious impropriety of homosexuality" which, in and of itself is not a 14th Amendment issue … and IMO, THAT IS the issue.

The government cannot designate a particular "group" of individuals in order to deny that group "equal protection under the law".

A non-Christian is unlikely to share all of your Christian values … and regardless of which ones he does not share, as long as those values do not lead to his illegal behavior, on that basis alone, you cannot deny him his Constitutional rights.

Not if you are trying to compel the government to reject and violate the very document upon which it is based you can't … you can try by bringing suit if you are deemed to have the standing to do so … and, ironically, if the judges are politically aligned with your litigation -- which you object to in principle -- you could win/compel the disapproval you seek … but then, because it was based on religion, you will have eroded the Constitution whose very authors you revere as a conservative.

The Supreme Court has already violated the document by legislating from the bench to invent a right that doesn't exist. Turing the decision around would not be eroding the constitution but rather interpreting the constitution consistent with its intent (which was never to endorse anything as ridiculous as a same sex marriage). 

You can object to homosexuality on moral/religious grounds and be on solid RELIGIOUS grounds … but you cannot viably argue against it on Constitutional grounds because your issue is the "moral/religious impropriety of homosexuality" which, in and of itself is not a 14th Amendment issue … and IMO, THAT IS the issue.

I can absolutely argue against it in moral grounds. I can also argue that the constitution was never intended to turn a sexual perversion into a constitutionally protected civil right. This is actually not a constitutional issue at all other than under the 10th amendment, which states that all authority not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Marriage is entirely a state issue. By redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has usurped the power of the states and violate the constitution. And congress could undo this nonsense by striping the federal court of the jurisdiction to entertain any issue based on the assertion that homosexuality is a constitutional right. They can do that for any reason and there's nothing the court could do about it. 

The government cannot designate a particular "group" of individuals in order to deny that group "equal protection under the law".

The government does it all the time. You can't be married to more than one person at a time and you can't marry your children or an animal or an inanimate object . . . no matter what kind of an equal protection argument you make (although the court may have a hard time explaining why a same sex marriage is a constitutional right and polygamy is not). 

A non-Christian is unlikely to share all of your Christian values … and regardless of which ones he does not share, as long as those values do not lead to his illegal behavior, on that basis alone, you cannot deny him his Constitutional rights.

Fine, return to making sodomy illegal. 

I can also argue that the constitution was never intended to turn a sexual perversion into a constitutionally protected civil right.

Except that it is not a sexual perversion.

Except that it is not a sexual perversion.

To you. I see it differently. 

The SCOTUS sees it differently then you do, so do most Americans, so you are in the minority. Perhaps it is you who is wrong?

homosexuality is a sexual perversion acted upon by people who are moral deviants.  It is not entitled to civil rights protection because it is a choice a person makes to act upon such desires.  That said, no one has a right to harm one who does engage in such or discriminate against them in providing services that don't violate the service providers devout religious beliefs.  

Actually being gay is neither a sexual perversion nor a choice. Which is why the SCOTUS has decided that they deserved equal protection and rights under the law. Notice that I said equal, not special, because they have never asked for special rights, just the same rights as other Americans. It is the fair and American thing to do.

The Supreme Court has already violated the document by legislating from the bench to invent a right that doesn't exist. Turing the decision around would not be eroding the constitution but rather interpreting the constitution consistent with its intent (which was never to endorse anything as ridiculous as a same sex marriage). 

Violating a right that does not exist under religious tenets does not extend to law …this falls under the Establishment Clause.

I can absolutely argue against it in moral grounds. I can also argue that the constitution was never intended to turn a sexual perversion into a constitutionally protected civil right. This is actually not a constitutional issue at all other than under the 10th amendment, which states that all authority not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Marriage is entirely a state issue. By redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has usurped the power of the states and violate the constitution. And congress could undo this nonsense by striping the federal court of the jurisdiction to entertain any issue based on the assertion that homosexuality is a constitutional right. They can do that for any reason and there's nothing the court could do about it. 

You can argue on moral grounds and you can hypothesize about the intent of the authors of the Constitution … but arguments based on religion and hypotheticals do not negate the Establishment Clause … and I differ with you regarding the 10th Amendment. A state no right to violate Constitutional law … if states had such a right, we'd still have slavery throughout the South!

The government cannot designate a particular "group" of individuals in order to deny that group "equal protection under the law".

The government does it all the time. You can't be married to more than one person at a time and you can't marry your children or an animal or an inanimate object . . . no matter what kind of an equal protection argument you make (although the court may have a hard time explaining why a same sex marriage is a constitutional right and polygamy is not). 

The constitutionality of bans on polygamy has been so well accepted that it’s been used in recent years as an argument against gay rights. According to Antonin Scalia and Rick Santorum, court rulings allowing LGBT people to have sex or to marry will inevitably undermine bans on polygamy because there’s no way to distinguish between the two. A fundamental right to gay marriage, they say, will put us on a slippery slope to recognizing a fundamental right to polygamy, bestiality, and prostitution.

Gay rights however do not inexorably lead to the legalization of polygamy. While the ability to choose one’s sexual partners is an important element of constitutionally protected privacy, the government may have stronger reasons to ban polygamy than gay sexual or marital relationships. Polygamy has long been associated with unique harms: the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into marriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated communities. Gay rights don’t pose any of these problems. Rather, they are about the very opposite: reducing the oppression of minorities, allowing adults to engage in consensual sexual activity, and minimizing the social and psychological displacement caused by anti-gay discrimination.

As for marrying of close relatives, I believe there is a genetic basis for making that illegal … and the animals and inanimate object analogies are specious.

And you did not respond to the comment about individuals in traditional marriages who cannot have children … you cite that as a reason for banning gay marriages … but individuals can feel love for one another without that love being related to sexuality.

Violating a right that does not exist under religious tenets does not extend to law …this falls under the Establishment Clause.

By your own admission earlier, the constitution doesn't even mention marriage. Two same sex people marrying doesn't have anything to do with the establishment clause. The right is entirely invented by a liberal court through a misuse of judicial authority. 

You can argue on moral grounds and you can hypothesize about the intent of the authors of the Constitution … but arguments based on religion and hypotheticals do not negate the Establishment Clause … and I differ with you regarding the 10th Amendment. A state no right to violate Constitutional law … if states had such a right, we'd still have slavery throughout the South!

We did have slavery under the constitution and the south seceded from the union to preserve it. That's what the civil war was all about. To eliminate any state right to maintain slavery, we enacted the 13th amendment. So to be clear, slavery wasn't eliminated by judicial chicanery but by amending the constitution.

Gay rights however do not inexorably lead to the legalization of polygamy. While the ability to choose one’s sexual partners is an important element of constitutionally protected privacy, the government may have stronger reasons to ban polygamy than gay sexual or marital relationships. Polygamy has long been associated with unique harms: the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into marriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated communities. Gay rights don’t pose any of these problems. Rather, they are about the very opposite: reducing the oppression of minorities, allowing adults to engage in consensual sexual activity, and minimizing the social and psychological displacement caused by anti-gay discrimination.

To me, the rationale against polygamy and in favor of same sex marriage is complete nonsense. People should be able to chose fully consenting adult same multiple partners of the opposite sex under the exact same rationale as somebody who can choose a partner under the same sex. 

As for marrying of close relatives, I believe there is a genetic basis for making that illegal … and the animals and inanimate object analogies are specious.

Under your earlier rationale, the ability to reproduce is irrelevant to the right to marry. So, if one partner in a kinship marriage is sterile, then they should be good to go. Same goes for animals and inanimate objects. After all, to you, love is what counts . . . not sexuality.

People have the free excercise clause protecting their religious beliefs so that they don't have to be in any way involved in a ceremony or event that is in opposition to or against their religious beliefs.  

No one says they have to. All they have to do is not prevent others from doing so.

and met his wife … where'd she come from along with all those other people?

Obviously she could only be one of his sisters and the rest also brothers and sisters, all children of Adam and Eve. Therefore if you take Genesis literally then God promotes incest since, unless someone else pulled off another creation in a nearby county.

Adam and Eve were created perfect in the image of God and were the first marriage.  There can be no doubt that had sin not occurred on this planet by mankind that homosexuality would not have either.  

If God had created Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve and populated the earth with same sex animals, creation would have ended almost as soon as it began. Maybe parents should be able to marry their adult children. Or fat people can marry their refrigerator because they love what's in it. Or people can marry their pets because God must have made beastiality if the practitioners exist. Or people can marry their hands because they love masturbating. And on and on. 

Or fat people can marry their refrigerator because they love what's in it.

Let's stay with living things and argue on that basis … whaddya' say?

Or fat people can marry their refrigerator because they love what's in it.

Let's stay with living things and argue on that basis … whaddya' say?

Why? It's no less a psychological disorder just because the object of affection is an inanimate object or an animal or one's own reflection (so a narcissist can marry himself). 

Or fat people can marry their refrigerator because they love what's in it.

Let's stay with living things and argue on that basis … whaddya' say?

Why? It's no less a psychological disorder just because the object of affection is an inanimate object or an animal or one's own reflection (so a narcissist can marry himself). 

If you cannot distinguish the similarities and differences between a human being and a refrigerator, I think this particular debate has reached an impasse. 

There are many reasons why two humans may love one another … and they are not all predicated on sexuality; if a sterile man loves a woman who has had a hysterectomy, should they not marry because they cannot procreate?

How about two unmarried elderly people beyond their reproductive years … should they forego marriage. Aren't human beings entitled to more in life than a relationship with a home appliance?

OIf you cannot distinguish the similarities and differences between a human being and a refrigerator, I think this particular debate has reached an impasse. 

The issue is not whether I know the difference but whether the guy who's in love with the refrigerator knows the difference. Disorders should be treated not accepted as normal.

There are many reasons why two humans may love one another … and they are not all predicated on sexuality; if a sterile man loves a woman who has had a hysterectomy, should they not marry because they cannot procreate? How about two elderly people beyond their reproductive years should they forefo marriage.

The point of marriage (in every culture bothe civilizedand savage) has always been for men and women to unite to form a stable family unit, whether or not a particular man or woman is infertile or sterile. 

Aren't human beings entitled to more in life than a relationship with a home appliance?

They can have any relationship they choose. It only becomes my business when they try and bend society to their delusion.

If God had created Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve and populated the earth with same sex animals, creation would have ended almost as soon as it began.

There was no Adam and Steve or no Adam and Eve. Genesis is a fairy-tale (or a decent rock band). Written as a way to try to (falsely) explain creation of humans to the illiterate of the time.

There was no Adam and Steve or no Adam and Eve. Genesis is a fairy-tale (or a decent rock band). Written as a way to try to (falsely) explain creation of humans to the illiterate of the time.

But the idea that homosexuality is genetic or an immutable characteristic is an urban myth. 

People who are homosexual begin to realize it at about the time of beginning puberty. That's when they realize that they are more attracted to members of their own sex then to members of the other gender. This is a natural attraction over which they have no control over any more then when a person reaches puberty and realizes that they attracted to members of the opposites sex. This is also natural attraction over which they have no control.

It has nothing to do with the environment in which they were raised, nor is it something they were "led into" by another person, nor is it a choice that they have made.

It has nothing to do with the environment in which they were raised, nor is it something they were "led into" by another person, nor is it a choice that they have made.

I think exactly the opposite so we disagree. Some time ago, I was watching the Maury Povitch show and he was discussing homosexuality with a bunch of homosexual guests. At the end of the show, he asked each one (all men) when they had their first experience. Every single one said that they were molested. He looked surprised and said maybe that's the subject of another show. 

I was molested several times over a period of 4 months by a man, raped in my ass actually, when I was 7 years old and I am not gay. My son was never molested, yet he is gay. I don't see the connection.

To say it's a choice is the same thing as saying that a straight person sat down in their room or wherever one day and thought about am I going to get hot for women or for men? It really is that silly to say it is a choice. I mean did you sit down one day and think about if you were going to be gay or straight? Decide if you were going to be turned on by men or women? Of course not and neither do gay people.

I was molested several times over a period of 4 months by a man, raped in my ass actually, when I was 7 years old and I am not gay. My son was never molested, yet he is gay. I don't see the connection . . .

Many child molestors were themselves molested as children. Does that mean that you have to be a child molestor? Of course not. Some people will be susceptible but others are not. I respect your opinion but on this subject, we wwill have to agree to disagree. And I hope the guy who molested you was run over by the bus.

Actually he died a starving homeless heroin addict in an alley of exposure (he froze to death on an exceptionally cold winter night) in a rotten part of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He should have committed another crime and then he would have gotten life without parole under the three strikes law. Instead he died a horrible, horrible painful death and I don't feel a bit sorry him. I just wish I could have been there to watch. My late mother, his ex-wife, worked for Social Security and managed to get the details.

As for the other we will have to agree to disagree.

Impasse?

All of a sudden I need a drink...

But wait … there's more.

Do you simply pick and choose the parts of the Bible to which you defer?

What about …

John 13:34 King James Version (KJV)

" A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Who gave you the ok to eliminate some of those "one anothers"?

I am not a fan of organized religion, but I find much wisdom in the Bible … along with the contradictions.

What about John 8:7?

"All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

And where are you on the Republican budget? Meals on wheels, not caring for the sick and needy in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy? Do you know the one about "A camel passing through the eye of a needle?

Read the whole BOOK … not just the parts that right-wing politicians use to justify their hypocrisy.

(I had to cut and paste because I thought it would be presumptuous to post all the items below in my own words)

Read the whole BOOK … not just the parts that right-wing politicians use to justify their hypocrisy.

Many people hear the words you have quoted, but to them they are just hollow words that mean nothing to them that they have to listen to every Sunday, but they don't really listen. The words don't sink in and inspire any real thought in their brains and hearts and are completely forgotten as soon as they go out through their church's door. They are just Sunday morning words that they don't really think or believe that they have to apply to their everyday lives. In that sense they go to church, but hold themselves as being above and as smarter then the god they are pretending to worship in their lives outside of their church. Their god is only smarter inside the walls of the church, but outside in the real world they know better.

All Christians believe we have a responsibility to care for the poor, the ill, the hungry, the orphan, the widow, those in prison, etc.  some Christians will be left out of the kingdom because in their daily lives they did not care for the least of these.  The thing is that we have to be charitable as individuals.  We don't get a pass on this by delegating such care to the government.  In the judgement day no one will be able to tell God that they gave 40% in taxes so that the government could do it for them.  Perhaps we could all talk about the poor and charity / moral obligations in a seed about that topic.

You may as well try to fry ice rather than attempt to have a logical discussion with X4P.

For one of the few times, although XX and I disagree (as usual), we are currently having what, IMO, is an actual give-and-take discussion.

That's a positive for NT.