The Gay Bullyboys Want You Jailed

A goofy guy named Adam Weinstein writing for a goofy website called Gawker has called for the jailing of those who deny global warming. Weinstein says, “there is the body of purulent pundits, paid sponsors, and corporate grifters who exploit the smallest uncertainty at the edges of a settled science.” Those who disagree with Weinstein on a scientific and political point are criminally negligent and should face not just fines but even prison.

As goofy as he is, he’s not the only one.

Just this past weekend serial adulterer Robert Kennedy Jr., who may have driven his second wife to suicide—and who also attended the New York march on climate change—also called for the jailing of those who disagree with him.

In an interview with something called Climate Depot Kennedy said those who are skeptical of global warming are “treasonous” and ought to be treated that way. A few years ago a memo was put up at agenda-setting left wing site Talking Points Memo—since taken down—saying those who disagree about global warming should be executed.

In recent days, the President has said that global warming is one of our top national security concerns, even more pressing than Islamic radicalism. After all, climate change affects the whole planet, while Islamic radicals are only beheading a few lousy Christians.

Climate change and the call for prosecutorial punishment for disagreement is a glimpse into the modern liberal imagination but it is not the only area where the modern left wants not just to bully opponents but punish them. Walking in goose-step with them is the LGBT left. A new report from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) shows the same frightening glimpse of the increasingly dangerous bullyboys of the hard left.

The report is called The Export of Hate and features attacks on many of my friends and colleagues.

It sure is a scary report. It looks that way and reads that way. “There exists a network of American extremists who are working tirelessly to undercut LGBT people around the world at every turn.” Undercut. Yes, you read that right. They undercut. And it does not get any more evil than that.

The report says that their “vicious brand of bigotry is currently finding little traction in the United States” and so they have cast their evil eyes overseas where they find audiences with Parliaments, heads of state “and their wives” and where popular opinion against the homosexual agenda is widespread.

The report features scary mug-shot drawings of their enemies—the scarier the better, so as to frighten every LGBT donor from here to Timbuktu.

Have you ever heard of Scott Lively? Likely not. He runs a teeny tiny group with an annual budget of less than $100,000 but he is the bête noir of the bullyboys. They credit him for instituting the new “draconian” laws in Russia against homosexual propaganda in grade schools. They credit him with the new anti-LGBT laws in Africa.

According to the report, Lively’s crime is suggesting there is a global battle going on between “Christians and homosexuals.” You would be forgiven if you considered that the new HRC report is all about that battle but from the gay side. For Lively, though, saying such a battle exists is a crime. The report says Lively is active—cue scary music—in Uganda, Eastern Europe, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

The report targets Peter LaBarbera, who runs Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (that has a whopping and truly scary annual budget of $110,000). LaBarbera’s crime is saying that kids are better with a single parent than with a gay couple. He is exporting such hate to Jamaica and, you won’t believe this, Canada. Actually, LaBarbera was stopped at the Canadian border some months ago and not allowed in because of his political views on homosexuality.

And then there’s Paul Cameron. You have not heard of him either. His Family Research Institute exists on $54,494 a year. His main claim to fame years ago was to look at obituaries and determine that gays die earlier than others. He’s been to Moldova, Russia and Poland.

Sharon Slater of Family Watch International is a close and long time UN ally of mine. The report lists her annual budget as $26,569. Slater’s crime, according to the Human Rights Campaign, is denying there is such a thing as “sexual rights.” Of course, there isn’t such a thing. It has been debated for years at the UN and repeatedly rejected. But, in this case, agreeing with the UN is tantamount to a crime.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage is listed. His group is larger than most with an annual budget, at least during campaign season, north of $11 million. Brown was tagged because he said man-woman marriage is a core pillar of society.

The fabulously wealthy, powerful and politically connected HRC has even put up some super-scary videos showing how super-scary their political opponents are. They are shot in black and white with super-scary music and a super-scary editing technique that makes you think they were shot surreptitiously. In hers, Sharon Slater is shown saying the super-scary thing that there’s no such thing as “sexual rights.” This is what passes for thought and speech crimes by the hard sexual left.

Scott Lively believes he is being targeted for murder. An exaggeration? Two years ago a homosexual activist loaded a backpack with Chick-Fil-A sandwiches and loaded a pistol with bullets and shot his way into the lobby of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. His intention was to kill as many employees as possible (this is where my wife works) and stuff their dead mouths with the bigoted chicken sandwiches. At trial he said he was inspired to murder by a report from the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center that said FRC was a hate group exactly like the Skin-Heads and Nazis.

Since the HRC report came out, Lively has received several death threats which he has put up on his website. One guy wants to rip out his throat. Another wants him raped in prison and then killed.

This is nothing less than the criminalization of political differences. And worse than that, it is a call for vigilantism. Peter Wolfgang, who runs the Family Institute of Connecticut, was repeatedly threatened with murder by a gay activist who was later convicted and imprisoned. Wolfgang gets death threats all the time.

Sarah Palin put crosshairs on pictures of her political opponents and was accused of causing the shooting of Congressman Gabby Gifford. Our moral betters tell us repeatedly about the importance of civility in political discourse. Yet, here is a $50 million a year gay group putting up mug-shots of its political opponents and nary a peep of complaint from anyone except their targets that what they are trying to do is bully, shout down, marginalize, criminalize and even victimize those who disagree with them politically.

And here’s the thing. To suggest that Lively or any of these folks, myself included, have in any meaningful way affected the Russian parliament and the entire government of Uganda or any other government in any way is simply laughable. They are bogeymen created by the sexual left to intimidate opposition and to scare dollars from donors. That is all.

It should be noted that public support for same-sex marriage is finally eroding, according to a new poll from Pew. Could it be that the bullyboys and their tactics are finally catching up to them? Who really supports closing down Catholic adoption services because they refuse to violate Church teaching? Only the bullyboys. Who supports prosecuting small businessmen and women who exercise their own freedom of conscience in resisting same-sex marriage ceremonies? Only the bullyboys.

Perhaps people are finally noticing that the bullyboys have been incapable of convincing voters and consumers with the strength of their arguments and have had to resort to force either from the courts or from corporations. They are weaklings on the beach getting bigger and stronger boys to fight their fights.

After years of failing to get to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, they finally won only after great big and strong NBC and Guinness Beer intervened for them. A conservative Governor finally vetoed the Freedom of Religion bill in Arizona only after the NFL came to their rescue by threatening to withhold the Super Bowl. In recent days, the HRC has asked Big Daddy Barack to prosecute the World Congress of Families for attending a family conference in Russia.

This is hollow ground upon which to build a longstanding consensus. To coerce only builds resentment and not agreement. The polls have gone their way for a while but they don’t win votes and now even the polls are drifting away.

Something wicked is afoot in America and it is not just a disagreement over politics. Let us engage them in the public square both here and around the world. But they do not want that. They want their opponents silenced, jailed and even worse.

This madness has to stop but it is impossible to see how or when. For starters, all the mainstream politicians who appear at HRC dinners and help them raise an annual $50,000,000 should denounce this new report. But they won’t because they like these bullying tactics.

It is enough for now that every mom and dad in the land comes to know the bullyboy tactics and how it is Christians who are their targets. So, get to work.

(Photo credit: Courtesy of Shutterstock.)

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. His forthcoming book Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data—out this summer from Regnery Publishing—contains a chapter on marriage and family. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ just published by Tan Books.

  • Vinnie

    Understatement of the century – “Something wicked is afoot in America and it is not just a disagreement over politics.”

    • Trazymarch

      Not only in the America….. However in America bigotry of the LGBT activists seems to be at highest.

      • DE-173

        I thought it was LGBTQ, now. I think the polyamorous P is on an exposure draft.

        • Trazymarch

          I heard about “Q” letter before but it doesn’t seem to be widely used so maybe not yet?

      • ForChristAlone

        Let’s give equal time to LSMFT (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco)

        • LT Brass Bancroft

          These days, smoking a pack of Luckies will get you more dirty looks than cross-dressing would.

          • Orson

            You raise an interesting point, could you legitimize the Luckies if you smoked them while cross dressing?

            • LT Brass Bancroft

              Not Luckies. Maybe Virginia Slims.

          • Gay Man Dan

            Thanks for your support.

        • david

          Outstanding! and they are mild!

        • FW Ken

          I’m old enough to laugh at that. 🙂

          And I did need a good laugh.

      • Speak the Truth

        How about LGBTAMBIFCO?

        A=Animal sex (Couldn’t use the “B” again for Beastiality)
        MB=Male+ Boy sex
        I=Incest
        FC=First Cousin Sex
        O=Orgy people Sex

        I wanted to write circus sex but the “C” is already taken.

        Yep, this is the road we are heading folks!

        • Speak the Truth

          Ohhhhh, I forgot to insert “clown” for “circus clown sex.”
          Darn it!

          • Martha Renner

            Ha! I’m sure we could add to that… What about (N)ecrophilia? or (P)edophiles… let’s keep going, I bet we can cover the alphabet, all the way to (Z)oological attraction. Or (X)-straight. 😉

            • Eve of Destruction

              FYI They now call it “zoophilia” for “animal love.” These people are sick and getting sicker.

            • The Truth Will Set You Free

              There is always Greek alphabet…

        • LGBTQROFL

        • Gay Man Dan

          Add any letter you want, as long as that activity makes you happy.

      • Speak the Truth

        Yes, yes, sex, sex, sex …..LIBERAL you are a sex addict CLOWN. If people don’t agree with your destructive lifestyles you want them in jail. So this is what the sexual revolution and generation porno gave us……Sex 24/7 and murdering of babies in the womb.

        No nobility and self-sacrifice coming from you liberal!

        • Gay Man Dan

          The population of gay men us growing every day, it’s a fact, get used to it. The acceptance by the general public is undisputed as is same sex marriage.
          School districts on the west coast are already assembling alternative life style classes to show middle schoolers there is a choice.

          • FW Ken

            So it is a choice, eh. 🙂

          • FranklinWasRight

            That doesn’t make it healthy.

            There is a reason that those gay men and women in homosexual relationships are more likely to smoke, drink, experience depression, commit domestic violence against partners, eschew monogamy, divorce, and gay men are much more likely than straight men to suffer from anal cancer and HIV/AIDS.

            It is not because of lack of societal acceptance, that scapegoat won’t hold up much longer. It is because homosexual relations are psychologically and physiologically unhealthy. You could rid the world of every “homophobe,” and that fact will still remain. Eventually you will have to stop focusing on “haters” and look in the mirror, then you’ll have to face the total dysfunction of the “gay community.”

            • Gay Man Dan

              But after all you mention, it still continues to grow in both acceptance and numbers. It’s funny how many so called “straight” men practice a more open lifestyle.

              • TERRY

                numbers, maybe. Acceptance – never

              • pdxcatholic

                Lots of things grow . . . like cancers, and stupidity, and hatred.
                So your point is . . .?

              • Baron Kaza

                Hoping for a new strain of AIDS to finish the job

          • Guest

            So self-destructive behavior is growing and even being promoted by an increasing number of people. Woooopee! Not exactly something a sane person would want to have happen or enjoy seeing happen.

            • Gay Man Dan

              Gay men will govern this country one day and eventually rule the world.

          • Baron Kaza

            Means little we will always hate you..,.

          • AnneM040359

            All this is based on a sinful lifestyle choice.

  • Vinnie

    Not to worry, just a sexual fantasy – “One guy wants to rip out his throat. Another wants him raped in prison and then killed.”

  • lifeknight

    (that should be than–In recent days, President……) Sorry, Austin, I proofread a lot!
    I am not aware of the Kennedy family’s machinations, but “driving” someone to suicide is a low blow and doesn’t make a real point.

    Not surprising that all of us are targets. We won’t be able to outlast them unless we outvote them. That means having a fair number of children and raising them to know the truth. Now there is a real budget struggle!

    • DE-173

      “but “driving” someone to suicide is a low blow ”

      You’re right. Ted wasn’t really driving when his car went into the water. He was car-diving. But hey, he had a Catholic funeral and was the Lyin’ of the Senate.

      • ColdStanding

        Different Kennedy, Abaum. But apples, trees, falling etc.

        • DE-173

          Well, none of them are driving Miss Daisy.

          • Speak the Truth

            Don’t be calling me a troll we’re on the same side dummy!
            Apologize!

    • MillerJM

      Then I guess you are not familiar with the research that demonstrates the majority of suicidal behavior in LGBT individuals is due to their relationship conflicts with each other – a study done by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention. As a psychologist, I can verify that the suicidal behavior of those LGBT individuals I have worked with is most definitely due to relationship issues. So if you are REALLY interested in helping LGBT individuals, you would want to focus on the truth. But my guess is that you don’t actually do anything to help them – you just talk about it on websites.

      • Vinnie

        If people can have relationship issues or conflicts then abnormal and deviant relationships certainly would cause problems.

    • John O’Neill

      Robert Kennedy Jr. along with his siblings conducted a media barrage of trashing his dead second legal wife after her suicide was discovered. His sisters put out that she was crazy back in school where they were class mates. HIs wife’s family refused to attend the Kennedy manipulated funeral because they knew that the media was under orders to spin a positive light on Kennedy by referencing the so called “Kennedy tragedies” a series of events which usually happen to other people usually young females. Defend the Kennedys if you must but at least be honest.

      • lifeknight

        Truly, I am not defending the Kennedys. However, suicide is a complicated matter. It is not fitting in this otherwise good article.

  • Kevin Hughes

    Just googled to check my memory, and I was right. Sarah Palin never put targets on pictures of her political opponents. She put targets on a map, showing the location of the races she was targeting.

    • BillinJax

      When lying is your form of attacks,
      You must ignore the facts.

    • FW Ken

      Which democrats were doing too.

  • finishstrongdoc

    One way to cut down on the carbon footprint would be to abstain from unhealthy sexual practices which lead to expensive and resource-consuming medical treatments.

  • TERRY

    “Let us engage them in the public square both here and around the world. But they do not want that. They want their opponents silenced, jailed and even worse.”

    Precisely the point – They know that their arguments wouldn’t stand up in any reasoned debate so they avoid it. By loudly denouncing, even demonizing ANY person who disagrees with them they have created the current atmosphere of our ‘culture’ today.

    They are fast running out of people to attack on our side and are down to attacking their own in some cases. More and more people are realizing this and our day is coming

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Who was it who said when they start burning books soon they are burning people. Curiously enough, the sadistic and insane destruction of Paula Deen (for once using the ‘N’ word twenty years before) is the turning point. So bizarreI still cannot grasp the implications. Political Correctness gone mad is now in the Gay Mafia’s hands.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      „Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. „

      (“Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.” — Almansor, Heinrich Heine, 1821)

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        Dank!

  • Bill Guentner

    There is much in this article that is true. There are those who want to demonize homosexuality to the point where they may be jailed or worst. Now having said that, what value is the following quote to the content of this article…”Just this past weekend serial adulterer Robert Kennedy Jr., who may have driven his second wife to suicide”? None. So why say it?

    • Augustus

      On one hand, there is a difference between personal sin and disagreement over public policy. On the other hand, if so-called polluters can be imprisoned for their “sin” against nature, why not punish the sin of adultery? What makes Kennedy morally superior to climate skeptics? The self-righteous should be careful what they wish for.

    • DE-173

      Despite being a collection of second rate minds, Kennedy (all Kennedys) share much of the moral cretinism of the individuals profiled in Paul Johnson’s locus classicus “Intellectuals”. (Marx, Sarte, Hellman..) All were lauded for their great reservoirs of compassion to abstractions, but they were self-aggrandizing monsters to real people.

      Then again, RFK is only following the the family business of warring against women.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      Because we loathe Joseph Kennedy and all the fruits of his loins.

    • The Lovely One

      “Kennedy said those who are skeptical of global warming are “treasonous” and ought to be treated that way.”

      The point is Mr. Ruse is showing us the the self-righteousness of R. Kennedy Jr.
      (an adulterer) who shouldn’t be passing judgement over a debatable issue such as global warming.

  • DE-173

    And in the background, one hears the buzzing of the bees, swarming to protect their queen.

  • thebigdog

    Climate-phobes are in denial that carbon footprints are born that way. The religion of Leftism attracts people with a victim mentality and produces imbecilic sociopaths.

    • ForChristAlone

      You’ve said a mouthful (apologies to the homotrolls)

  • Tom

    Austin, you have written in support of Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, which punishes those who engage in pro-gay marches and hold pride parades. You have said that there is not right to parade your sexuality. Paul Cameron has said that the death penalty is not an unreasonable punishment for same sex sexual activity. Peter Labarbera went to Jamaica and spoke in support of retaining their anti-sodomy laws – threatening prison sentences for people who engage in same sex sexual activity. Scott Lively himself claims some credit for the Russian law, he is in fact quite proud of it. C-FAM has opposed UN resolutions calling for an end to anti-gay violence because you were worried it would open the door to gay marriage. You have written in support of Russia’s crackdown on pro-LGBT speech, just a fee articles ago on this site. It would seem that you, Austin, support bullying people who disagree with you politically.

    • DE-173

      Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    • MillerJM

      So is putting people in jail for committing financial fraud a form of bullying?! I agree with you that perhaps jailing people for sodomy is not a just way of dealing with them; HOWEVER, you use no logic in your argument that jail=bullying. You are guilty of using a catchword to ignite the emotions of people. The lowest form of debate is name calling. You offer no intellectual critique – just bomb throwing and unreferenced claims (my guess is some of them are leftist twistings of the truth). The definition of bullying is being habitually cruel to others who are weaker. In order to call someone a “bully”, you would need to demonstrate: 1) it is habitual (I can hardly imagine these people being uncontrollably nasty to every LGBT individual they encounter), 2) it is cruel (meaning hurting others without feeling sorry about it – again, REALLY hard to demonstrate as the folks you cite often feel great pity for LGBT individuals), and 3) it is directed toward others who are weaker (given the power of the LGBT lobby, REALLY hard to demonstrate). I think you will have a hard time supplying empirical evidence supporting all of these assertions. You are guilty of inciting – nothing more, nothing less. It is not even worth debating someone so incapable of actually doing so.

      • Tom

        Firstly, Austin started the name calling with “bullyboys”. Secondly, it is Austin that is asserting that seeking to jail someone is equal to bullying, hence why he argues that seeking to imprison people like him for their views is bullying.

        1) it is habitual. Austin and co are committed to i, and some dedicate their career to that end. The laws they support result in gay and pro-gay people being harassed or imprisoned. I can no more prove that Austin is nasty to every LGBT individual then he can demonstre that ” gay bullyboys” are nasty to every Christian. But the laws he supports do target every single person engages in public pro-gay speech, or engaged in same sex sexual activity. That is the nature of the law.

        2) I think supporting laws that result in the imprisonment of people for same sex sexual activity or pro-gay speech, is cruel. What they feel is irrelevant – it is still cruel to support laws to imprison people for this activity. Or do you really think whether an act is cruel or not depends on whether the person performing it believes it is cruel?

        3) In the nations where Austin and his ilk are most active (Russia, Uganda etc) LGBT people and the “LGBT lobby” are weaker than them. Or will you argue that gay people in Russia are more influential and powerful than Christians?

        • Objectivetruth

          Tom,

          You are choosing to post on a devoutly orthodox Catholic website. You therefore, are commenting with posters who take Christ’s teachings very seriously, and the doctrinal teachings of our Lord which comes through His Catholic Church.

          Out of love and charity for you and all children of God with same sex attraction, below is the teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and the gravity of homosexual acts. I’ll encourage you to contemplate and pray on this teaching, and make the choice to turn from mortal sin that will destroy your soul:
          Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)”

        • Austin Ruse

          I would say almost anyone would agree that seeking to jail those with opposing views to yours is a form of bullying, a pretty extreme one, too…

          • Tom

            So, you oppose jailing or fining people for holding pro-gay marches?

            • Austin Ruse

              So, you do favor jailing your political opponents? Just for holding views distasteful to you?

              • Tom

                Nope. I fully support the logic of http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_SkokieSkokie

                So Austin, I’ve answered your question, you answer mine, for the recors. Do you support laws that ban, or are interpreted to ban, pro-gay marches and pride parades? Do you think such bans violate the human right to free speech?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Then, you support my piece. I thought you opposed it? I am now confused.

                  • Tom

                    Come on Austin, answer my question. I answered yours first. Do you think bans on gay pride parades,and marches, violate free speech?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Time, place and manner.I have no problem highly limiting “gay pride” parades. Marching through Greenwich Village at 10 pm on Halloween, which is a huge night there, fine. Marching in front of my daughter’s school when school’s letting out, no.

                    • Tom

                      So you dont support blanket bans on pride parades or marches? You do appreciate that the
                      Russian law you support has been used to ban pride parades and fine people for holding pro gay signs.

                      Also, do you also support bans on street preachers based on time, place and manner?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I am not aware that gays cannot march in Russia. In fact, I am aware that they can and do without arrest or harassment and with the protection of the police. There is a remarkable amount of nonsense spouting by guys like you about Russia.

                    • Tom

                      Really? Care to link to a story about that? I would also point out the police are hardly diligent in their duties.

                      http://www.themoscowtimes.com/advertorials/arts_n_ideas/LGBT-Festival-Hit-by-Gas-Attack-in-St-Pete/

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I read here that they intervened. I thought you said they don’t?

                    • Tom

                      I said they were not diligent. Allowing such activity to go on for a while is not particularly diligent, is it?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      The article you reference Tom says nothing about the Russian government not allowing the gay festival. In fact, it reads that the gay festival was allowed, but it met with opposition and protestation ( unfortunately, with violence which I disagree with.)

                      But it appears from the article you reference that the festival was allowed by the Russians.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      These guys tend not to know what they are talking about.

                    • Tom
                    • Austin Ruse

                      You iknwo you hear a lot about the terrible press censorship in Russia, right? did you know the Moscow Times is available in most hotel lobbies?

                    • Tom

                      Lol, not for much longer if the recently passed law against foreign ownership of the press goes ahead. Moscow Times is foreign owned. See, every move you make to try and excuse the little dictatorship Putin is setting up is thwarted.

                      See also:
                      http://rt.com/politics/155580-russia-internet-blogger-bill/

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28583669

                      http://libertarian-party.ru/blog/an-appeal-to-western-libertarians-about-the-war-in-ukraine#.U_N2mFLvCqo.twitter

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Tom,

                      It seems you’re playing an endless game of “Gotcha!” Why?

                      In all seriousness and sincerity my friend, why are you spending so much time on an orthodox Catholic website? If you have total conviction and certainty of your gay lifestyle and beliefs, why would you care what the Catholic Church thinks or teaches? At its core, if you truly believe what you are doing is right, and the Catholic Church is wrong, aren’t we then a waste of your time?

                      I’m not trying to be provoking or agitating Tom, and hopefully this post does not come across that way. But what is your goal in spending so much time here?

                      If you want to learn more about the Church and it’s teachings, and why Jesus is the cause of our joy, I’d be more than happy to help you.

                    • Tom

                      //It seems you’re playing an endless game of “Gotcha!” Why?//

                      Oh I absolutely am. I’ve wanted to do this for a while. Watching Austin wriggle and squirm is amusing to me. Why am I doing it? Because I think Austin is a great example of the evil that certain Christians propagate on the world. Plus he annoys me with his dissembling half truths. Like playing at being a champion of free speech, then supporting Russian laws that firstly, in intent, restrict pro-gay speech to children, and secondly, restrict pro-gay speech in application. Despite the fact he has admitted the ADF has warned that these laws risk infringing on free speech.

                      I enjoy challenging my beliefs by arguing with those I disagree. I find it challenging. I am also concerned with the influence that C-FAM and FWI is seeking to have at the UN in combating measures in defence of sexual rights.

                      And finally, by providing links, I am hoping to show others who look below the line some of the deceptions Austin engages in.

                      Does that answer your question?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Yes, it does answer my question. Thank you!

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Another question, if I may: do you believe in God, Tom?

                    • Tom

                      An interesting question; generally not. Though I think there are some interesting points raised by Aquinas’s five ways which I have not fully resolved. But I am not a Christian.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Good! You are I see a young man, and willing to pursuit the truth where it leads you. I commend you on Aquinas, not easy sledding! As an older man myself, I strongly recommend and encourage your life long questioning, edification and pursuit of divinity. It truly is worthwhile. Read up on others such as Augustine, C.S. Lewis, much beneficial reading there. Even current day authors such as Peter Kreeft, one of my favorites.Thankfully there are giants that came before us and did a lot of the heavy lifting on the subject, on whose shoulders we midgets can stand on and see the horizon!

                      Must run, Tom. Good luck and God bless! Good weekend!

                    • Tom

                      You to. Thank you for being more civil than many here. Kind regards.

                    • fredx2

                      “…restrict pro gay speech to children…”

                      You really believe that people should have the right to discuss sexual matters with other people’s children? You believe that someone who wishes to restrict that is “evil”? It seems to me that it is a normal thing to protect children from being exposed to sexual matters at too young an age. I think you have the full right to talk to adults about these matters, but to claim you have a right to talk to children about this stuff seems to go too far.

                    • Tom

                      I think parents who don’t mind their children being taught pro-gay things should be able to do so.

                    • Gerald

                      Tom, Tom, you’re confusing the poor dear even more.

                    • Tom

                      Okay, so why should you object to liberal people censoring street preachers reciting the Bible around those children. Do liberal parents not have a right to demand that their children not hear things they disagree with?

    • ForChristAlone

      The call has gone out for the weirdos to lock step.

    • The Lovely One

      Now now Tommy perhaps they are jailed because of public health reason: Anal sex is filthy sex. People have died from gay sex, perhaps liberals have short term memories. In the ’80 the gay community was devastated because of anal sex:

      “An estimated 90% of men [homosexuals] who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. .. The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing. ..The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.” – WebMd.com

      • Tom

        Still wouldnt excuse arresting pro-gay people, any more than it is acceptable to arrest people for pro-cannabis marches, or pro-abortion marches, or pro-smoking marches. Also, many of these laws don’t only relate to anal sex, but also oral sex, which is actually less likely to transmit disease than vaginal intercourse.

        • DE-173

          Also, many of these laws don’t only relate to anal sex, but also oral sex, which is actually less likely to transmit disease than vaginal intercourse.
          How the hell would you know?

          • Tom

            You know, science, statistics, empirical evidence.

            • DE-173

              If you were so into you know, science, statistics and empirical evidence like, you wouldn’t write such abject idiocy.

              But obviously your the drone dispatched from toll HQ for this article, not really to make a point, but to deface.

              • Tom

                You dispute that oral sex is less risky than vaginal intercourse for transmission of diseases?! Whoa. Okay.

                • DE-173

                  Oral sex is covaried with the incidence of oral cancers. Yes.

              • Tom

                http://www.avert.org/oral-sex.htm

                “The risk of HIV transmission from an infected partner through oral sex is much smaller than the risk of HIV transmission from anal or vaginal sex.”

                • DE-173

                  There wouldn’t be “infected partners” without the gay lifestyle. Of course, neither my wife or I are infected, so it’s not a worry for me.
                  Good luck playing viral roulette.

              • Tom
    • Tony

      We too had anti-sodomy laws. Much depends on what the laws are and how they are enforced. Sometimes a law is on the books not to be enforced, but to teach, to uphold a moral truth. And no, there is no natural human right to hold a parade to promote a moral evil. You see, we must return to the crucial question, which is whether sexual activity between consenting adults can nevertheless be evil and destructive of the common good. All you have to do to answer that question is to keep the homosexual angle out of it. Should swingers have a right to throw a parade to promote swinging, or porn stars, or bigamists? Is all public obscenity allowable? If not, then it is up to you to argue that the promotion of sodomy does not fall into those other categories. Good luck with that — because it implies the goodness of fornication, easy divorce, swinging, porn, and bigamy.

      I won’t justify the particular laws in question, because I don’t know the details of the laws or the social circumstances. I do know that under the guise of protection against violence, the LGBT groups are doing great damage to children in schools in the United States. I’m not going to buy an advertising tag. Just because you call yourself the Campaign for Human Rights, that doesn’t mean that you aren’t going about destroying humanity.

      There are laws already against beating people up, for any reason. I’m sure there are such laws in Russia, too.

      • Tom

        //I’m sure there are such laws in Russia, too.//

        Yep, unfortunate that the police stand by as harrassement occurs.
        http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/russia-gang-storm-gay-festival-release-gas-16-hospital190914

        //Should swingers have a right to throw a parade to promote swinging, or porn stars, or bigamists? Is all public obscenity allowable?//

        Yep. In the USA Nazis have the right to march through Jewish towns. That is what free speech means. If Austin wishes to appear as a champion of free speech against tyranny, then he ought to support this right as well. He doesn’t. He is a liar. He claims to support free speech while advocating for its restriction.

        • DE-173

          Anybody have a can of RAID?

          • Joe Daddy

            Why not ask for Zyklon B instead? It’s more in keeping with your kind of “tradition” against people you don’t like, right?

        • Tony

          Sorry, but you are wrong.

          The Supreme Court has upheld, with great inconsistency, the right to speak freely. That is not exactly the same thing as the right offensively or aggressively to assemble. It is one thing to write, or to speak, in favor of swinging. It is another to demand the go-ahead to promote it by a public parade. The Supreme Court has totted up a sixty year history now of robbing local jurisdictions, including local pre-political or non-political institutions, of their role in building up and safeguarding the common good. The Westboro lizards have the right to write and say what they want. I do not believe in their “right” to disturb the peace by parading or demonstrating at a soldier’s funeral.

          The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The First Amendment binds the hands of Congress: Congress shall make no law. It has absolutely nothing to say about who gets a license to parade in Anytown. What we have now is judicial tyranny — in the old Greek sense of the word tyrannos, someone who rises to power by illegitimate means. It should not be up to some judge a thousand miles away to determine who gets to engage in a mass demonstration in Mayberry. It should certainly not be up to a coterie of bureaucrats or judges from The Hague.

          That is democracy in action. If you want to persuade the people of Anytown that a swingers’ parade is a good thing, go to it, persuade them. Don’t assert a so-called “right” which amounts to none other than an assertion, compelling everybody to live with an open sewer in their midst. Argue for it on its merits.

          • Tom

            I said that Nazis have been awarded the right to march through Jewish towns; that is true. You asked me if those people had a right to do those things; I think they do, because I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of protest. What you describe as “democracy” is actually majoritarianism. It is what leads to Christians in Muslim countries being censored and executed. Is it really your position that a community has the right to determine what goes on in its streets? Do you believe in freedom of religion?

            • Eve of Destruction

              Tom when you say that democracy is actually majoritarianism you are absoulutely correct. That is the reason why our Founders rejected democracy, which always devolves into tyranny by the majority and created a Republic. That is why we have an electoral college and 2 senators from every state, so that the minority is always represented.

              • Gerald

                Yes, that’s how the gay minority got to be represented. Thanks for pointing that out.

            • Gerald

              I agree with Tom. I may disagree with what someone says but support their right to say it.

            • Trazymarch

              “I said that Nazis have been awarded the right to march through Jewish
              towns; that is true. You asked me if those people had a right to do
              those things; I think they do, because I believe in freedom of speech,
              freedom of assembly and freedom of protest.”

              Do they have right to do that even if they want to completely demolish any right the individual being have and trample on everything they can? And even if they get into the power and do whatever they want to? Remember of Weimar Republic and how National Socialist German Worker’s Party got into power in Germany by…. voting.

              “What you describe as
              “democracy” is actually majoritarianism. It is what leads to Christians
              in Muslim countries being censored and executed. ”

              Is there any “democratic” country in your meaning in the world? Or is every “democratic” country just “majoritarian”? Also: Majoritarianism is democracy too.

              “Is it really your
              position that a community has the right to determine what goes on in its
              streets? Do you believe in freedom of religion? Do you think states
              should be able to ban certain religions, like Islam or Judaism, based on
              the will of the majority?”

              Just one thing that should be clarified: What do you mean by “community”? People with the right to vote? Elite? And what means “right to determine what goes on in its street”? Does it mean being capable to change law? Or what exactly?

            • Watosh

              I question giving the Nazi’s the right to parade through a Jewish section of town. Why is this considered a right? This march was a deliberate provocation of a group of citizens who certainly have a right not to be harassed. I think we treat the word “right” as some absolute. Rights can be abused. It is one thing to have the right to giving the right to a group of provocateurs out to insult a group of peaceful citizens in their homes. Further, someone said above that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I am not so sure that it isn’t.

            • FranklinWasRight

              Just because a municipality gave a Nazi group permission to march does not mean that it is a right.

        • Austin Ruse

          I’m a liar? Hah. Show even one little man.

          • Tom

            You claim to support free speech, do you not? Yet you support laws that curb speech, namely the Russian law.

            • Austin Ruse

              Free speech is not without limits. The Russian law is aimed at protected the young from “non-traditional sexual relationships.” You do not have a right to ram your lifestyle down my daughter’s conscientiousness.

              You also may not cry fire FALSELY in a crowded theater. You may not put pornography on NBC ever. You do support limits to free speech, do you not?

              • Tom

                I have the right to march publicly in support of gay rights, and to kiss my partner publicly. Newspapers and magazines have the right to print pro-gay messages on their covers. You have a right to control your daughter. You do not have a right to dictate that all children should be taught anti homosexuality views. So you agree that liberal Russian parents ought to be able to teach their children that gay is okay?

                Do you think Christians have a right to evangelise to children?

                And the theatre example is solved through property rights.

                The only limit I support is where there is an active plot to murder someone or violate property. But it must be a very high standard and immediate threat. I am a Rothbardian in that sense.

              • Gerald

                “You do not have a right to ram your lifestyle down my daughter’s conscientiousness.”

                What right do you have to ram your views down MY children’s consciousnesses? I find bigotry and discrimination against gays very offensive. Should I have the right to censor you? I thought your whole article was about how wrong it is to legally censor your political opponents? And that only liberals did this?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Exactly how do I impose my views o your children. Be specific.

                  • Gerald

                    By trying to make the world safe for bigotry. How much damage could someone like you do to a child who is struggling with his or her sexual orientation? I’m referring to all children here.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The only bigot here is you who hates Christians and want to drive us from the public square. Guess what. Ain’t gonna happen…

                    • Gerald

                      So devout Catholics are bigots who hate Christians and want to drive them from the public square? Because the Catechism opposes discrimination against gays and you are actively supporting discrimination. BTW, a good Catholic would not wish to drive bigots from the public square. A good Catholic would avoid anti-bigot discrimination while speaking the truth in love. Pope Francis recently called on all Catholics to oppose discrimination and exclusion.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The church opposes unjust discrimination. Can you be specific about the unjust discrimination I want to inflict on lgbts? Be specific.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Gerald

                      The Catechism states that homosexuality must be accepted with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” How are you showing these qualities when you call Tom “little man” and “grasshopper”? What if MY daughter should read that and think this is the way all Catholics behave to those who disagree with them? How is that not unjust discrimination? And then you talk about “gay bullyboys”? How can you defend someone like Paul Cameron who admits he is open to the death penalty for gays? What sort of example is that to children? And defending Scott Lively from condemnation when he makes bizarre and irresponsible claims linking Nazism with homosexuality and claiming the only people beating up gays in Russia are other gays? How is this showing “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You lie about what I’ve said. Liar.

                    • Gerald

                      No, Austin, you said the website “Export of Hate” featured “attacks on many of your friends and colleagues.” You then referenced Scott Lively, Paul Cameron, and some others and minimized what they have actually done. You said that Cameron’s “main claim to fame” was to say that gays tend to have shorter life expectancies than straights, but that isn’t true. Isn’t “Export of Hate” correct to call attention to Paul Cameron when he asserts that he is open to the death penalty for homosexual acts? You threw in your lot with Cameron either because you agree with him or because you didn’t do much research about his background. Either way, you offered Cameron and others some protection when they espouse deeply anti-Catholic views that are in no way “respectful, compassionate, or sensitive.” If you disagree with Cameron about the death penalty for homosexuals, I suggest you try to recover some credibility by saying so and by offering some sort of apology to the “Export of Hate” website. As for the name calling, it’s more small than sinful, but it lacks charity and detracts from your gravitas.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      you are a liar. And this will likely be my last exchange with you.

                      1. Yes, many of my friends and colleagues are in the report. I do not know Paul Cameron and only have met Scott Lively once. My friends in the report include Larry Jacobs, Sharon Slater, Brian Brown and a few others.
                      2. Paul Cameron’s main claim to fame IS his use of obituaries to determine the typical life span of active gays.
                      3. I did not “throw in my lot with Cameron”, liar in any way shape or form.
                      4. You deliberately misinterpret, indeed lie, about my work
                      5. you do so anonymously. Step out behind your anonymous post, liar, coward.

                    • Gerald

                      You call the authors of the “Export of Hate” website “bullyboys” for calling out some virulent, extremist bigots. Someone who, like Paul Cameron, is open to the death sentence for homosexuals fits that category and is himself the bully. He also takes a stance that is anti-Catholic and discriminatory. Much of your essay is taken up with making fun of the “Export of Hate” website. Now you prevaricate and say you weren’t really defending these people from the “bullyboys”? ‘Doesn’t make sense. All the name calling sounds odd from someone who claims not to like bullying. As for calling me a liar, the only person who has lied is you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      They are calling out a bunch of people who have no effect whatsoever on the status of gay people anywhere, including Paul Cameron and Scott Lively (are you hiding under your bed over scary scary Scott Lively. LOL), including myself (as I say in the piece).

                      I do not defend them in any way shape or form. They may have said and done things I do not agree with, but they are really of no account in the international debate.

                      Also, you seem not to understand that attacking the bullyboys at HRC is not the same thing as defending those they attack.

                      the bottom line is their “report” is silly and not worth anyone’s time. They wrote it to get their base going. The same reason the Southern Poverty Law Center switched from Nazis gay stuff…there’s money in them that LGBTs!

                      The thing is, you know what the column is about but it is your interest to twist my meaning to make your tiny ideological points.

                      Go to confession…if you believe in it any longer.

                    • Gerald

                      As far as I can see, the HRC was doing much what you were doing, viz., calling out what you both see as “bullyboys.” The difference is that the HRC was calling out people like Scott Lively and Paul Cameron, who have expressed extremely discriminatory and un-Catholic views, while you are calling out HRC for calling out those views. Your name calling is childish, tedious and an attempt to play the “bullyboy” yourself. You’ve been caught in logical inconsistency (a.k.a. hypocrisy.) You respond with insults, slurs, and judgments. You have attacked my own faith, which is something you have no right to do. I would suggest you try to learn from some of the exchanges here. Can’t you see how arrogant and petty you sound? I fear you will chase good Catholics away with your blustering and finger-wagging. Perhaps you could learn from Pope Francis when he warns against being a querulous “sourpuss.” I’m done arguing with you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The point of my piece, dear boy, is that 50 million dollar a year HRC hardly has anything to worry about from the likes of little Scott lively.
                      I do hope you are chased away. You are not needed here. Be gone. Scat.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Gerald

                      It’s very clear that the point of your piece is to claim victimization from “bullyboys.” If the point was merely that Scott Lively is not a threat, you would be assuming that HRC has picked on something very trivial. If that is the case, why would you call on mainstream politicians to denounce the HRC report? What you are saying makes no sense.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The thing about bullies is they like to pick on those that are littler than them. Hence they go after Scott lively who doesn’t have two dimes to rub together and they’re sitting on tens of millions and a fancy high rise in DC. Sheesh. Somebody’s got to stand up to them. They’re bullies plain and simple.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • pnyikos

                      “You have attacked my own faith, which is something you have no right to do.”

                      He has that right, far more than gays have the right to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. With this allegation, you have revealed yourself to be yet another bully boy.

                    • TERRY

                      “The Catechism states that homosexuality must be accepted with ‘respect compassion and sensitivity.’

                      Wrong – it states that homosexuals must be accepted with ‘respect compassion and sensitivity.’ It does NOT state that their lifestyle must be accepted. The lifestyle is sinful.

                    • Baron Kaza

                      Gays deserve no compassion, they deserved to be burned at the stake

                    • Baron Kaza

                      Shut up faggot…

                    • pnyikos

                      ‘How much damage could someone like you do to a child who is struggling with his or her sexual orientation? I’m referring to all children here.”

                      You actually think all children struggle with their sexual orientation? Do you think parents who take their children to psychiatrists to help them resolve their struggles in favor of heterosexuality, should be punished, and the psychiatrists who help them should be outlawed, as they are in California and New Jersey?

            • Norman

              Tom I’ve read this thread and support for speech without limitations is like supporting freedom so radical that its anarchy. In Russia the band “Pussy Riot”‘s freedom to disrupt a mass in a church while partially nude disrupts the church goers right to assemble – those rights conflict as much as the free speech your touting can’t be “fire” in a crowded theater. Which should be supported?- if the ideal is the same as “my thinking”?- that’s going to get chaotic, as we’re starting to see! Speech in America cannot incite violence, there’s another limitation to “free speech”, and for very good reason. (what is good?)
              Nazi’s having a right to march is much like this black mass in Oklahoma, just because its legal doesn’t make it good. Its legal to cheat on your significant other if you’re not married, its legal to pray to money and wish every second of every day that someone dies, its legal to hate– it doesn’t mean these things are good. Officers not doing their job (prevention of assault), doesn’t mean that those victims then get to wreck a mass…
              I’ve been called inhumane for not supporting homosexual marriage by friends, but I have a gay brother who I love dearly that would never label me that way; don’t become what you despise by supporting violence or violent language against those who disagree with you.

        • FranklinWasRight

          Marching is not speech.

    • Martha Renner

      It’s not about disagreeing, Tom, it’s about natural and moral law.

      Sodomy used to be illegal, just as adultery, divorce, and abortion. These things are immoral, and therefore should be illegal. This country claimed to be Christian, and these are Christian values. I understand that some people like to commit sodomy and adultery… heck, people like burning things and stealing, too.

      The point is not ‘I should have whatever makes me happy!’ The point is, we should only allow whatever is most beneficial to society, it’s functioning, civility, and health. When one plays the morality-means-nothing-to-me card, one must be very careful to examine where that will ultimately lead.

      I am as against divorce and remarriage as I am against sodomy. You are not singled out, not matter how victimized you’d like to feel. If the ‘we love adultery’ crowd wanted to march in the parade, I’d be upset about that, as well.

      If you want to have a same sex partner, we can’t stop you. We cannot agree with its normalization, however.

      • Tom

        So, you support censorship and restriction of speech, with penal penalties if violated? According to Austin, that makes you a bully. Sorry.

        Also, don’t you believe that being a non-Christian and blasphemy are immoral? Should they be illegal?

        • Martha Renner

          I most certainly do, if something is against God’s laws. I am a Christian, and my ultimate authority is God.

          My question really is, why do you want to be in a parade? Why are you seeking approval? Do you really need that pat on the back to make you feel good about yourself? If you think I’m a know-nothing crazy, archaic Catholic, fine. Why do you keep trying to convince me, then? Why do you care? I care about you because, as a spiritual work of mercy, I want to warn you against the dangers to your soul. If you think I’m a nutty, laugh and walk away.

          Go do your thing. It’s true, it’s not a cause we need to particularly rally against, like abortion. *Until* you shove it in our face and try to make us say ‘uncle.’ We can’t.

          • Tom

            Well, pro-gay marches are trying to change the law in particular respects, such as instituting same sex marriage etc. Just like pro-life marches have a political element as well as a demonstration of conviction. Also, people like Paul Cameron explicitly do want to prevent gay people engaging in same sex sexual activity. Indeed he thinks the death penalty is not an unreasonable punishment. This is the person Austin is defending!

            If you knew someone was racist, would you not try and convince them they should not be? Would you be content to let them have their bigotry? Or would yountry and change their mind. That is what gay and pro-gay people want to do.

            So you think being a non-Christian should be illegal? So you don’t agree with freedom of religion?

            • Speak the Truth

              “If you knew someone was racist, would you not try and convince them they should not be?”

              Hey, if you knew people spreading diseases through anal sex should you not try to convince them that they shouldn’t?
              This is public health reason Tommy.

              Look dude, EX-GAY are everywhere on YOUTUBE!

              The gay stuff has to do with mental illness/addiction to male sex, dude!

              • Tom

                Lol you clearly do not appreciate the gap between “convince” and “threaten with prison for noncompliance”. Rather like trying to ” convince” someone not to smoke, by throwing them in jail for smoking.

                • Speak the Truth

                  Dude, tell me why are EX-GAYS everywhere on YouTube?

                  See, your cause is a …….JOKE!

                  Now tell me why would two guys holding hand at a parade have to wear sunglasses?

                  Perhaps a song from Kajagoogoo will enlighten you:

                  “You’re too shy shy hush hush eye to eye. Too shy shy hush hush …….[I know why]. Because of ANAL SEX baby!

                  Do it in the ass is filthy baby and freaky…Anakin leave the darkside.

                  No more, no more be strong baby, get help baby!!!

                  • Tom

                    Nurse, he’s out of bed again.

                    • DE-173

                      Orderly, he’s out of restraints again.

                    • Tom

                      Warden, he’s out of his cell again.

                    • DE-173

                      Troll HQ apparently dispatched the “JV team” today. Truly unimaginative.

                    • Trazymarch

                      *Sigh*. Instead of provoking Tom just try answering him. He is one of the few people on this site from different side of barricade who appears to want discussion instead of just writing “bigot” and “homophobe” every second word.

                    • DE-173

                      “Nurse, he’s out of bed again.”
                      Yeah, that’s seeking discussion.

                    • Tom

                      And Speak the Truth’s replies were constructive and non-combative?

                    • DE-173

                      He’s a troll here to jam, just like you.

                    • Speak the Truth

                      Hey dude I ain’t a troll, I post public service announcement:

                      Did you read my post DE? You got some nerve, you don’t attack someone on the same side as you…what is wrong with you?

                      I am posting my PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT (see I ain’t a troll)!:

                      “An estimated 90% of men [homosexuals] who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. .. The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing. ..The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.” – WebMd.com

                    • DE-173

                      Just like this gem way above:

                      “In the nations where Austin and his ilk…”

                    • Speak the Truth

                      CAPS are fun!!!!!
                      Don’t be sad Tommy…. why are you promoting this, it’s not even a Cause,,,,it’s mental illness!

                    • Trazymarch

                      Also: I don’t refer to you but to everyone who does that. (unnecessary provoking)

                    • Speak the Truth

                      LOL, now who really needs a nurse or a doctor or whatever…THE GUY WHO PROMOTES ANAL SEX!

                    • Ben

                      Your own doctor probably “promotes anal sex” by your standards unless you found some special backwoods doctors office.

              • Ben

                Statistically you’d have the greatest impact with your anti-sex crusade going to a college campus, perhaps the frats, and preaching to them. Sure they might have a lower rate of STDs but there are also a ton more of them in a smaller area. I’m sure you’re going to go out and do this because it’s about public health and not about hating gays right?

                • Speak the Truth

                  Freaky, immoral sex (fornication) gay or straight is bad. Period!
                  Yeah benny, I do public service announcement for all people. Real Dumb!

            • Trazymarch

              @Tom “Well, pro-gay marches are trying to change the law in particular
              respects, such as instituting same sex marriage etc. Just like pro-life marches have a political element as well as a demonstration of conviction”

              I wonder what this “particular respects” are. My guess is that this particular respects are: 1. Same marriage rights as people with standard sexuality. 2. Right ( and maybe even preference in the future) to adopt children. 3. Total acceptance of the way they live and no matter what they do like: no right of hotel/hostel owners to refuse gay “couple” if they want to stay over. And throwing “homophobe” insult whenever someone dares in any way disagree with them. Repressive tolerance at it finest. 4. Privileges, Privileges, Privileges and “heterophobic” things like homosexual clubs only for gays. http://www.thepeel.com.au/letter.html. Of course it doesn’t go both ways and if club would reject gay entry the outrage would be gigantic.

              “Also, people like Paul Cameron explicitly do want to prevent gay people
              engaging in same sex sexual activity. Indeed he thinks the death penalty
              is not an unreasonable punishment. This is the person Austin is
              defending!”

              Where and when did Paul Cameron did “think” or said that homesexuals should be penalised by death penalty? And how do Paul Cameron explictly wants to stop gay people from having “sex”? I don’t really know his ideas so I would be grateful if you clarified it for me.

              “If you knew someone was racist, would you not try and convince them they
              should not be? Would you be content to let them have their bigotry? Or
              would yountry and change their mind. That is what gay and pro-gay people
              want to do.”

              So when gay people will be satisfied? How many “rights” and “privileges” they want be granted and when can they say “It’s enough. We are full tolerated now. Let’s stop our fight”?

              “So you think being a non-Christian should be illegal? So you don’t agree with freedom of religion?”

              There is third option between illegal and considering non-Catholic religion having the same value as the Catholic one ( I assume that’s what you really meant by the “freedom of the religion”? Or what exactly?): its “tolerance” which means tolerating other religions/etc. even if they are wrong and not persecuting them. Whether non-Catholic religions should be illegal or tolerated I don’t know. I know for sure they cannot be put on the same level as the Catholicism.

              • Tom

                //Where and when did Paul Cameron did “think” or said that homesexuals should be penalised by death penalty? //

                He said it was not an unreasonable punishment.
                http://youtu.be/ADDee9HbK_0

                You don’t think being open to the death penalty for same sex sexual activity is motivated by wanting to stop them having sex?

                • Trazymarch

                  Thanks for the link. No idea what really motivates Paul Cameron. I would need to research his works and thoughts.

                • Speak the Truth

                  Ohhhhhh, Tommy boy wants to play video posting game, okay I will play your game.

                  Let’s hear what the EX-GAY gentleman has to say.
                  Oh and you folks out there type in Ex-Gay on YouTube they are so many videos, I cannot count!

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE_BRc_lIuo

                  Listen to this Ex-gay gentleman:

                  • Tom

                    What relevance is this? I don’t dispute the existence of “ex-gays”, like a don’t dispute the existence of ex-Muslims, ex-Christians, ex-two-legged people.

                    • Speak the Truth

                      You are lame! Of course there are ex-Muslims and ex-Christians and ex-gays because those are beliefs, duh!@#$

                      Have you ever seen an ex-Irish, ex-Chinese, ex-African American!

                      Dumb! You are not a worthy opponent!

                    • Tom

                      No, they are not immutable, just like having two legs is not immutable. And there are ex-black people, people who undergo akin lightening and cosmetic surgery to seem white.

                    • Speak the Truth

                      You are NUT in the HEAD. So you condone SELF-MUTILATION?
                      Lord Jesus have mercy on Tommy’s promotion of self-mutilation!!!
                      So guys should cut off their penis, if they want to be girls?
                      Why don’t you and your friends get mental treatments, before cutting off the organs?

                      You are not a worthy opponent!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Really? So you don’t believe that same-sex attrition is immutable?

                    • Tom

                      Not immutable necessarily. Just not “changeable’.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You really must read up on the literature. Even folks on your side understand that same sex attraction is particularly plastic, particularly but not limited to lesbians.

                      If you ever get tired of the things you do and the emptiness you feel afterwards, there is a way out.

                    • Tom

                      I understand it is plastic, I just dispute it is changeable through will and treatment.

                • Speak the Truth

                  Tommy playing video posting game, I can play that game too!
                  Watch the Ex-Gay gentleman speaks (ex-gays everywhere on youtube man):

                • Austin Ruse

                  “I have no particular stance on [the death penalty for child rape].”

                  • Tom

                    And…?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Now, i do oppose the death penalty for child rape. Even multiple child rape.

                • Gerald

                  Cameron is entitled to his deluded views, and I’m entitled to think he’s a primitive psychopath. If Austin Ruse is to be logically consistent, he must condemn Cameron, Ann Coulter, some of the posters here, and all for wanting to bully or jail those who disagree with them.

                  • pnyikos

                    Cameron, you are indulging in a flagrant form of distorted rhetoric all too common on the Left: “wanting to bully or jail those who disagree with them.” You would be crazy to think Cameron or Coulter would want to bully or jail anyone who disagrees with them on anything, but that’s what your rhetoric seems to say.

                    Such idiocies of the Left are easy to see through. Not so easy is the out-of-context claim that Cameron is open to the death penalty–for what? I told Tom the real low down on that, right in reply to his opening post.

                    I wonder whether anyone else will read these words. Blogs like these seem to have a life of about three days, and then everyone seems to move on to other things.

                    • Guest

                      //You would be crazy to think Cameron or Coulter would want to bully or jail anyone who disagrees with them on anything, but that’s what your rhetoric seems to say.//

                      Well, Miss Coulter does support imprisoning people for wearing the burka (at 2:40).

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIQV9T_J-EU

                    • Augustus

                      Not quite. Maintaining standards of dress is not equivalent to imprisoning someone who disagrees with you. You may happen to think that there should be no prohibition on wearing the hijab, but Coulter never said she would prevent you from saying so. Nice try but no cigar.

              • Tom

                Allowing those religions to proselytise and grow? To convert Catholics and Christians?

                //Whether non-Catholic religions should be illegal or tolerated I don’t knowknow//

                Well at least you are honest about not know whether freedom of religion should be legal or not. Based on that principle, Muslim countries that treat Christianity as second class have in fact got freedom of religion. Excellent.

                • Trazymarch

                  Read again what did I write and stop copy pasting the way it serves you.

                  • Tom

                    You wrote:

                    //Whether non-Catholic religions should be illegal or tolerated I don’t know//

                    • Trazymarch

                      That’s my whole paragraph “There is third option between illegal and considering non-Catholic
                      religion having the same value as the Catholic one ( I assume that’s
                      what you really meant by the “freedom of the religion”? Or what
                      exactly?): its “tolerance” which means tolerating other religions/etc.
                      even if they are wrong and not persecuting them. Whether non-Catholic
                      religions should be illegal or tolerated I don’t know. I know for sure
                      they cannot be put on the same level as the Catholicism.”. And you didn’t answer what you meant by the “freedom of religion”.

                    • Tom

                      And I quoted the bit where you were unsure whether other religions should be legal or not. My reply is perfectly harmonious with what you wrote. By freedom of religion I mean everyone free to pursue their own religion, provided it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. And yes, religions treated equally. So taxed (or not taxed) equally, no mandated respect for any religious tradition, no blasphemy laws etc.

                      So, you are open to the idea of banning non-Catholic religions? What would be your suggested punishment for heresy or apostasy?

                    • Trazymarch

                      I am closed to the idea of the “freedom of religion”. That’s 100% sure. And instead of banning non-Catholic religions banning of building mosques and not allowing radical fraction of islam like Salafites right to get inside the country or strictly controlling them. Also: Does critique of homosexual act as sin during the sermon infringe rights on the others or not?

                    • Trazymarch

                      Meh. I missed some words… Full version here: I am closed to the idea of the “freedom of religion”. That’s 100% sure.
                      And instead of banning non-Catholic religions banning of building
                      mosques and not allowing radical fraction of islam like Salafites right
                      to get inside the country or strictly controlling them is enough. You don’t really think that such radicals like Salafites should be allowed to have any freedom of religion right? Not only Catholics but also and maybe even more LGBT members very physical existence will be endangered. Also: Does
                      critique of homosexual act as sin during the sermon infringe rights on
                      the others or not?

                    • Tom

                      So, you don’t support banning of other religions? Earlier you said you were unsure? So, should existing mosques be bulldozed? Or should they be put on a state register like Churches in China? What penalty would you like to see for building unapproved mosques? Fines, prison sentences? Execution?

                      No, criticising homosexual acts does not infringe on rights. Free speech.

                      Edit:

                      I think that nonviolent speech should be allowed. Salafites have the same rights as Nazis to their beliefs.

                    • Trazymarch

                      “So, you don’t support banning of other religions? Earlier you said you were unsure?” Cause I wasn’t. “So, should existing mosques be bulldozed? Or should they be put on a
                      state register like Churches in China? What penalty would you like to
                      see for building unapproved mosques? Fines, prison sentences? Execution?” Status quo. No need to bulldoze existing mosques. Prison sentence for converting existing buildings to mosques or building them.

                    • Tom

                      But presumably a state register of existing mosques to ensure that you could keep track of how many there were? If a mosque was gutted through fire or destroyed, would you allow it to be replaced? Do you think Muslims should be allowed tp proselytise? What about people converting to Islam? Is that to be allowed?

                      How long in prison? 20 years for building a house of worship?

                    • Trazymarch

                      Application of the solution depends on the country. Also what’s the point of such detailed inquiry? And hopefully you will ask answer the rest of my post too.

                      @Tom “Well, pro-gay marches are trying to change the law in particular
                      respects,
                      such as instituting same sex marriage etc. Just like pro-life marches
                      have a political element as well as a demonstration of conviction”

                      I wonder what this “particular respects” are. My guess is that this
                      particular respects are: 1. Same marriage rights as people with standard
                      sexuality. 2. Right ( and maybe even preference in the future) to adopt
                      children. 3. Total acceptance of the way they live and no matter what
                      they do like: no right of hotel/hostel owners to refuse gay “couple” if
                      they want to stay over. And throwing “homophobe” insult whenever someone
                      dares in any way disagree with them. Repressive tolerance at it finest.
                      4. Privileges, Privileges, Privileges and “heterophobic” things like
                      homosexual clubs only for gays. http://www.thepeel.com.au/lett…. Of course it doesn’t go both ways and if club would reject gay entry the outrage would be gigantic.”

                      “If you knew someone was racist, would you not try and convince them they
                      should not be? Would you be content to let them have their bigotry? Or
                      would yountry and change their mind. That is what gay and pro-gay people
                      want to do.”

                      So
                      when gay people will be satisfied? How many “rights” and “privileges”
                      they want be granted and when can they say “It’s enough. We are full
                      tolerated now. Let’s stop our fight”?

                    • Tom

                      I think the UK is pretty perfect for gay people. I want the entire world go be like the UK for gay people. I am a cultural supremacist.

                    • Trazymarch

                      There’s no need for gay parades then anymore no?

                    • Tom

                      Yes. Firstly, to raise money and awareness for the plight of gay people in Christian nations like Russia and Uganda, and Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Secondly, as an act of celebration for being free of the restrictions of the past. To celebrate being free of anti-gay laws. Like Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ, so Pride celebrates the casting off of old chains.

            • Martha Renner

              Actually, I really don’t agree with freedom of religion, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. I believe in Truth. Only Truth has rights. Oh, and as for the very famous ‘What is Truth’ question, well, that’s easy. Just ask the Baltimore Catechism.

              A perfect country would be governed by a benevolent, very Catholic monarch, and the law of the land would (imagine that!) coincide directly with the laws of the Catholic Church, as they are God’s laws. No, one wouldn’t be allowed to worship a heretical religion. All those laws, especially the restriction of heretical sects, would be for the salvation of the most possible souls.

              What did you expect? You’re the one reading Crisis magazine! 😀

              • ponerology

                Isn’t the teaching actually that no one would be permitted to PUBLICLY engage in heretical worship?
                Interesting comments all around…very entertaining but I don’t think Tom is seeing the light.

                • Martha Renner

                  Of course, thanks for the clarification. 😀

                  It is an entertaining discussion, isn’t it?

              • Gerald

                So you want to replace the Constitution with the Baltimore Catechism. Good luck with that.

            • FW Ken

              I always thought Gay Pride Parades were about shocking the breeders.

              It does seem odd to me that marching around naked simulating sex acts in public is an odd way to demonstrate that you are just like the rest of us.

          • Ben

            “Go do your thing. It’s true, it’s not a cause we need to particularly rally against, like abortion. *Until* you shove it in our face and try to make us say ‘uncle.’ We can’t.”

            Go do your thing and be a Catholic in your Church until *until* you shove it in our face and try to make us say ‘uncle.’ We can’t.

            It cuts both ways, if you cannot tolerate gays in the public square then I can’t tolerate Catholics in the public square. In reality I think both of these views are insane, and that both gays and Catholics should be free to do what they want.

            I find it hilarious that you guys are starting to whine about “persecution” when people face consequences for having anti-gay beliefs after you spend decades oppressing LGBT people, you’re getting a taste of your own medicine and you clearly don’t like it. It doesn’t have to be this way, I don’t want it to be this way, but fundamentally too many people want to “win the culture war” rather than get along.

            Unfortunately for you it’s our side that won.

            • GG

              Christianity is not equal to deviant desires and deviant behavior. Why equate unequals?

            • Objectivetruth

              I’m confused. What is it your “side won?”

          • Gerald

            So obey your God and your interpretation of what God says. You have the freedom to do that but you have no right to make everyone else follow your personal beliefs. You cannot overrule the majority. Popular views on homosexuality have changed radically over the past 10 years. Get over it. Nobody is trying to make you have gay sex or fitting cameras in your bedroom. Why do you feel the need to control and monitor homosexuals?

            • Martha Renner

              I don’t feel that need, Gerald; just trying to hold back the complete washout of immorality that our nation has become.

              My point was exactly what yours is: why are homosexuals feeling the need to shove their agenda down our throats? They’ve always been around; they’re the ones who should mind their own business, but no. They must be seen as normal, in order to make themselves feel alright with what, deep down, they know is not. Go back and reread my comments, and you’ll find that your reply makes no sense.

        • Speak the Truth

          Sorry, you are the bully, (LIBERALS HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS WITH SEX-ED PROPAGANDA) you and your liberal clones will find ways to enter the classrooms to teach kids gay experimental sex, so that kids can get illnesses. You are sick in the head Tommy.

          • Tom

            Because putting RANDOM parts of your REPLY in all CAPITALS never makes you look UNHINGED. The modern day green ink letter.

            • Speak the Truth

              What ever dude…promoting anal sex is insane and you are the one promoting this filth so you are the one who is UNHINGED!!!

              Please, you got no arguments!

              What kind of civil right is this when guys IN THONGS march in a parade? The right to anal sex? What have you been smoking Tommy?

      • Joe Daddy

        Martha, I find it hard to believe you’re sincere here, and even if you are, you’re in the vast minority, otherwise we would see socially conservative Christians coming out in droves to try to ban divorce in the same way they assault same sex marriage. We don’t see that. As a matter of fact, a lot of the people who get on their soapbox against same sex marriage are adulterers and divorcees themselves.

        • DE-173

          One is illicit, the other invalid. EPIC FAIL.

        • Martha Renner

          I am sincere. The key phrase in your comment was ‘conservative Christians.’ I am a Catholic, (and a practicing one at that, which is quite a minority). That can be a very large difference, as Protestants do not hold to many of the beliefs Catholics do. I believe both acts offend God, while they may differ in gravity, and are both worthy of fighting against to save souls.

      • Gerald

        “Sodomy used to be illegal, just as adultery, divorce, and abortion. These things are immoral, and therefore should be illegal.”
        According to … whom? You? You don’t get to make this decision for society as a whole. Are you saying you alone, based on what you alone believe, should get to make law for everyone? Don’t you think that’s a bit narcissistic?

    • Austin Ruse

      You say I support something called the anti-gay propaganda law. I actually support no such thing. You say such a law prevents parades. I know of no such law. You say C-Fam has opposed UN resolutions calling for an end to anti-gay violence. I know of no such resolutions.

      I cannot speak for any of the others you clearly want jailed but if your knowledge of their “crimes” is similar to your knowledge of mine, then you don’t have much knowledge at all.

      • Tom

        You have explicitly said there is no right to parade your sexuality. You support the Russian law which has been used to ban pride marches, as well as people holding pro-gay signs in the streets. You opposed the mere study of attacks on LGBT people.

        http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cpac-austin-ruse-condemns-efforts-stop-violence-against-lgbt-communitycpac-austin-ruse-condemns-efforts-stop-violence-against-lgbt-community

        http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/putin-is-not-the-gay-bogeyman/2/

        • Objectivetruth

          Catechism of the Catholic Church. Turn from your sinful lifestyle, Tom:


          Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)”

        • GG

          There is no absolute right to deviant propaganda.

          • Tom

            If Austin believes that, and supports restrictions on speech and public demonstrations, with possible prison sentences (bullying as he calls it) then he ought really not cast himself as a champion of free speech.

            • GG

              Free speech is not a license to say anything anytime.

              • Tom

                It is in the public square, which is exactly where Austin wants these restrictions in place, to protect children, of course.

                • GG

                  No, it is not. Just because you have a disordered desire is not proof you have a “right” to publicly foist it on others.

                  • Tom

                    Yes it is. That is free speech, freedom of assembly etc. Indeed, Austin Ruse, though dissembling, says that he wishes to confront these things in the public square, ironically at the same time wanting to literally ban pro-gay marches from public squares.

                    • GG

                      You are confusing freedom with license. The State has a right to limit behavior that offends public morals.

                    • fredx2

                      You are confusing US constitutional rights with the rights available in Russia. Trust me, they are much less there.

            • ForChristAlone

              there are no rights that accrue to sin

        • Austin Ruse

          Well, there is no right to parade your sexuality. Duh. The Russian law that I know forbids propagandizing school children. You are likely not aware that gays appear on Russian TV both news and entertainment all the time. Moreover, there are numerous gay bars on Moscow, two gay beaches in St. Petersburg, and I have personally seen gays holding hands unmolested right near the Kremlin. Really, the fear mongering of the gay set is too too much.

          • Tom

            Ah yes, this gay http://queerussia.info/2014/03/15/4683/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerussia+%28Queer+Russia%3A+Live+LGBTQ+News+%26+Views+Feed%29#sthash.365tIx2A.dpbs

            Of course there is a right to parade your sexuality, as much as your religion. It is called freedom of expression and speech.

            So you support laws against children receiving any pro-gay information? Is that not a restriction on speech?

            • Austin Ruse

              Sorry. You are wrong about the rights.

              Absolutely support laws forbidding propagadizhing kids about immoral behavior. yes. In fact, there are laws in this country that forbid it.

              • Tom

                So, you do support censorship of views you regard as immoral? You think that liberal parents should not have their children taught liberal ideas about homosexuality? What about Muslim parents? Are they allowed to teach their children about the evils of Catholicism? Is that not immoral according to your beliefs?

                • Austin Ruse

                  You really think it is censorship to say you cannot talk about anal sex with my daughter? Really?

                  • Tom

                    No, I think it is censorship for you to support a law that imposes this standard on all Russian children, despite the wishes of their parents. InI fully support your right to control the curriculum taught to your daughter. It is one of the problems with common core. You do not have the right, however, to demand that the public square, and the private spaces of magazines, TV etc, are similarly constructed (eg, your complaints about Time magazines cover). The world and society is not your crèche.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You have a basic misunderstanding about free speech. Free speech does not include what is said or shown to children. The poiis has every right to determine what children are taught. for instance, in CA homosexualtiy is mandated to be taught to kids.

                      Not Time Magazine…USA Today…so i don’t get to publicly complain about the cover of USA Today. Really?

                    • Tom

                      You don’t get to ban pro-gay covers of magazines.
                      Also, you wish to encompass everything that might be seen by a child – hence wanting to ban pride parades outside schools. Tell me, would you support banning the construction of mosques outside schools? After all, they teach things you think are immoral (that Jesus was not the son of god etc).

                      //The poiis has every right to determine what children are taught. for instance, in CA homosexualtiy is mandated to be taught to kids.//

                      So, the polis does have a right to teach your daughter about anal sex, if it so chooses? What about banning children from learning Christianity?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And I guess I don’t get to complain about newspaper covers either. At least in your world.

                      I don’t think Islam is immoral. Where would you get that idea?

                      I guess you have not noticed — jeez, don’t you read the papers? — Christianity is already banned in schools.

                    • Tom

                      So, you can go to heaven if you reject Christianity? If you don’t accept Jesus as your saviour? The Vatican would disagree, I think. Rejecting Jesus is not a sin? Whoa!

                      Yes, but according to you, the banning of Christianity in schools is within the legitimate remit of the polis, as the polis has every right to determine what children are taught.

                      I didn’t say you don’t get to complain about them. I said seeking laws to ban covers you disagree with is wrong.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, the Church teaches that anyone may go to heaven who has lived a righteous life, has not formally rejected the claims of the Catholic Church, and who makes a perfect act of love to God before they die. Anyone who seeks the truth is actually seeking Christ even if they do not know his name.

                      the really cool thing is that such a Muslim or Jew or Protestant — as I describe above — who dies and goes to Heaven or Purgatory, as the case may be, learns immediately he is a Catholic.

                    • Tom

                      But a Protestant has rejected the claims of the Catholic church. They reject its claim of being the one true universal and apostolic church. Also, when Pope Francis says that atheists get to heaven, the Vatican was quick to correct him.

                      http://m.christianpost.com/news/vatican-corrects-pope-those-outside-the-church-cannot-be-saved–96851/

                    • Austin Ruse

                      First you must understand the claims. Most people who “reject” the claims of the Church do not know what those claims really are. For instance, you think the Church teaches only Catholics can go to Heaven.

                      Athiests can’t go to Heaven unless they make a perfect act of love (contrition) to GOD before they die.

                    • Tom

                      “All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body,” Roscia wrote in the official statement published on Zenit.com. “Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

                      So, someone who converts from Catholicism to Islam cannot be saved?

                      No, I think that the church teaches that denying the divinity of Christ is immoral. So you deny that?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Anyone who formally rejects the claims of the Church cannot be saved. That is correct. But, there is much packed into that.

                    • Tom

                      So, we agree that it immoral to formally reject the claims of the Church? So a committed, intelligent Muslim who rejects the Church, would be condemned to hell? Does that not mean Islam is immoral, as it is rejects Catholicism’s claims. Indeed, it has done so while Catholicism exists. As has Mormonism, Scientology etc etc.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You are being too simplistic because you are trying to catch me out. Let me repeat. Anyone may go to Heaven if they 1) live a righteous life by their own best lights, 2) do not formally reject the claims of the Catholic Church and 3) make a perfect act of contrition before they die. They may die a faithful Muslim but they wake up a Catholic.

                    • Tom

                      But being a faithful Muslim requires formal rejection of the claims of the Catholic church. What do you think the Shahada is? Indeed, if you are to grant agency to Muslims, you ought to respect their rejection of the Churches teachings. In any case, you agree that heresy is immoral? So would you oppose a religious heretical organisation setting up across from your daughters school? How about a sign saying “reject Jesus, worship Allah!”.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Most Protestants “reject” the claims of the Catholic church but, like you, do not really know the claims of the Church. You cannot reject what you do not understand. Even to be a garden verity anti-Catholic does not qualify you for formal rejection of the Church and Her Claims.

                      the Cathoilc Church is much broader is her understanding of Salvation than the Protestants, the Muslims and most others.

                    • Tom

                      But I asked about a specifically heretical religious organisation setting up shop across from your daughter’s school. You are quibbling about which Protestant sects are actually heretical. You agree heresy is immoral, so would you want your daughter exposed to it?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      All Protestant sects are heretical. Islam is a Catholic heresy. So what?

                      It does not prevent their adherents from achieving the beatific vision.

                    • Tom

                      Because earlier you said Islam was not immoral. Yet heresy is immoral. The Catholic church teaches this.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Can you cut and paste where i said what you say I said?

                    • Tom

                      //I don’t think Islam is immoral. Where would you get that idea?//

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Heresy does not equate with immorality.

                    • Tom

                      Yet the Catholic church teaches that heresy is immoralt. If it was not, why avoid it? If morality is derived from God, and the teachings of your Church, how is dissenting from that not immoral?

                      So, are you stating here that the Catholic church does not teach that heresy is immoral?

                    • Tom

                      Also, I find it interesting that a Mormon, someone who has added things from Catholicism, can be considered as not rejecting the Churches teachings, given the fact that by choosing knowingly believe things the Church rejects , is to say the church is wrong.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Again. Go and learn the difference between formal and material heresy. My mother is a methodist. She is a material heretic. The man who founded Methodist was a formal heretic.

                    • Tom

                      So the founder of Methodism is in hell? Excepting grace of god. So is Muhammed, and Brigham Young?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      We cannot know for sure who is in Hell.

                    • Tom

                      That is why I said excepting the grace of God. According to the rules as you know them, about heresy and intentional rejection of the church, Muhammed and Brigham young are in hell? I understand your reticence on this point – I imagine saying you think Brigham Young is in hell would make conversations with Mormon pro-family allies awkward. To say nothing of your Muslim/ Islamist friends at the UN!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      We don’t even know if Hitler
                      Is on hell.

                    • Tom

                      So, you think Hitler might be in Heaven? And, presumably, the Jews he had murdered might be in hell? What a lovely belief system you have.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      We do not know who is in hell. Neither do we know who is in Heaven except those so named by the Church. Even those Jews who suffered at his hand, needed to forgive, could not have died with hate in their heart. Heaven will be full of surprises.

                    • Tom

                      Again, what a wonderful ideology to have. Hey, it could be great though. All the gays might be in heaven, and you and your kind might be in hell!

                      But seriously, believing Hitler or Stalin could be in Heaven. Pretty sick religion Austin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      All we know for sure is that you must die in a state of sanctifying grace to get to Heaven and that you cannot die in a state of mortal sin.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      Yep, murder, rape, genocide. All permissible for those in heaven! And this is where you hope to go? Again, I say sick.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      If you die in a state of mortal sin, ie, having murdered, raped etc, you are absolutely hell bound.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      So wait, Hitler and Muhammed (both who murdered) are in hell?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin is damned

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      But earlier you said you didn’t know if Hitler was in hell or not. Either you think Hitler and Muhammed murdered or not, or you think that unrepentant murderers can get into heaven.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      What we don’t know is if they died in a state of mortal sin or of sanctifying grace.

                    • Tom

                      So Hitler and Muhammed could be in Heaven? Again, sick. Anything that you say that admits the possibility that Hitler (or Muhammed) is in Heaven, I am going to regard as repulsive. Bizarre I know.

                      Anyway, it is coming up to 3am here, and I think I have done enough highlighting your dissembling about your alleged support for free speech and free protest, as well as the inaccuracies in this article. I must away.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There is a purely human impulse to punish but only God can judge a soul.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Austin Ruse

                      What, are you in Iceland?

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      No, the UK.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Tom from Iceland?

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      UK

                    • Tom

                      Incidentally, you do know that the anti-gay law in Russia you support has been used to fine a newspaper? And yet you still support the law? You dissemble constantly.

                    • Tom

                      But material heresy is still a sin, a venial sin, and therefore immoral. And formal sin is immoral, but a mortal sin. Also immoral. So, when I say that heresy is a sin, I am correct.

                      http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/archive/index.php?t-3543.html

                      http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/was-burning-heretics-alive-immoral.html

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There you go. A venial sin, one that you cannot be damned for. I wouldn’t call it immoral. Gay sex, on the other hand. Deeply immoral and damnable.

                    • Tom

                      So now sin is not immoral? Of course it is. Why else would one need to go to purgatory for venial sins if it was not immoral? It may not be as immoral as a mortal sin, but sin is immorality.

                      Now, are you going to answer my question about preaching heresy to your daughter? Is that a right?

                      And, you have still not admitted that the anti-gay law in Russia, which you support, has been used to fine newspapers, and conduct raids on private property. It has also led to people being arrested for holding “pro-gay” placards. Do you agree with these things?

                    • Tom

                      A link tp the stoey about the newspaper being fined as a result of the gay propaganda law you support.
                      http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/01/russia-gay-rights

                      And another one:
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/dmitry-isakov-charged-russia-anti-gay_n_3868060.html

                      Though that one was outside a school, so you are probably fine and dandy with that one.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      This is pretty good and succinct..

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_heresy

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I dontl really get your obsession with “immoral.”

                    • fredx2

                      You are getting horribly confused. You are confusing many things, Suffice it to say that you really don’t have a good understanding of what the church teaches in this area.

                    • fredx2

                      Tom, like a lot of people that reject the church, you have a very superficial knowledge of what the church teaches.

                    • Tom

                      I have also found it interesting how many people here (of the small number here) are open to the idea of getting rid of freedom of religion, or don’t believe in it.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There is an old school of thought that “error has no rights.” However, the “erring” do.

                    • Tom

                      Only people have rights. So erring and correct alike have the same rights. There is a right to err. Do you believe in freedom of religon, contra what some commenters here have said? Indeed, they believe Catholicism requires a benevolent Catholic dictatorship, banning heresy. Is heresy a human right?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Doesn’t my previous comment make my position clear? God does not want his people forced. I am for a radical freedom when it comes to religion. We must be free to utterly reject our Maker.

                    • Tom

                      But Aquinas supported laws mandating the death penalty for heresy, as a measure to prevent the spread of heresy.

                      So, is heresy immoral?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Are you under the impression that St. Thomas was infallible?

                      Radical freedom in sexual matters is ordered to what? Religion is ordered to God. You should try it out. He loves you and wants you to stop doing what your doing.

                    • Tom

                      No, I’m saying that a far finer mind than yours believed it. Which of you to think is correct? Hmmm?

                      But radical freedom in religion is not ordered to god. I am not a Christian, and actively oppose the Catholic church.

                      Further, there are people who believe that god smiles on their same sex sexual activity. Restricting it is a restriction on their expression of that conviction. And, if Jews and Muslims can justify cutting off parts of their children because they think God wants them to, I doubt the weirdness of engaging in same sex sexual activity as a “holy experience”.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      LOL…it is not my belief. It is the teaching of the Church.

                      The bible clearly condemns same -sex activity. Repeatedly.

                    • Tom

                      Irrelevant. The bible repeatedly condemns not worshipping Jesus and witchcraft. Yet you support those under radical freedom of religion. Or, do you not support Satanism?

                      Then the Catholic church should take it up with their saint.

                      I ask again; is heresy immoral, aka a sin?

                      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_IV

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Go and learn the difference between formal and material heresy and then come back.

                    • Tom

                      But both are sins, and therefore immoral.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Wrong. Go and study, grasshopper.

                    • Tom

                      Okay, well if you are just going to ignore the citations and evidence I submit, I guess there is nothing a can do. Fancy heresy not being a sin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Again, ho and learn the difference between formal and material heresy and we can proceed.

                    • Tom

                      Oh dear, you have ignored again the citations I gave that specifically talk about the two kinds of heresy.

                      Anyway, we were actually arguing about your support for censorship and banning of pro-gay marches and pride parades in public areas around children. That is censorship Austin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Give them to me again then.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      Nope, I’m on my phone now, in bed, so don’t have the links to hand. In any case, formal heresy is certainly immoral and a sin.

                      Notice you gliding over the issue of you supporting censorship of pro-gay parades and marches Austin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      This is much more interesting than that. Did you know that your sins can be forgiven? All the weight you carry an be washed away through a good confession. You’ll walk out feeling seven years old.

                    • fredx2

                      Aquinas, for all his brilliance, was a man of the thirteenth century. Men of the thirteenth century assumed a world that existed at that time. Never in his wildest dreams would he have dreamed up the freedoms we enjoy here in the US, and I assume he would alter some of his teachings if he were transported to our time. And he would keep most of his teachings unchanged.

                • fredx2

                  All sane parents, from the beginning of time have objected to the premature sexualization of their children. I hope you do not seriously argue that your right to talk about certain sexual practices overrides parents rights to protect their children from an aggressive, early sexualization. Talk to adults all you want, but leave the chldren alone.

            • fredx2

              Again, it does seem a bit odd that you insist on talking to children about sexual matters. Certainly it is true that most parents want to control the nature and extent of how their children come to learn about sexuality. Why the insistence on talking to children about such things? They should be protected.

              • Tom

                I think children should be protected from religion, yet Christians insist on believing that they have a right to evangelise.

                • DE-173

                  Why can’t we be protected from you (and your ilk)?

            • DE-173

              No, you aren’t free to “parade your sexuality”. Pedophilia is a crime (as it should be) and bestiality can get you a charge of abusing animals.

      • Tom

        Do you think it is a human right to hold pro-gay marches and parades? Do you think laws against them are legitimate?

        • GG

          There is no right to vice.

        • Objectivetruth

          Let’s change a couple words in your post, Tom:

          Do you think it is a human right to hold NAMBA marches and parades? Do you think laws against them are legitimate?

          • Tom

            Yes I think there is such a right, as there is a right to hold Nazis marches, or pro-Sharia marches.

            • Objectivetruth

              Have you ever explored the Catholic apostolate Courage, Tom? Look in to it. There you will find peace.

            • GG

              The unprincipled hold all manner of erroneous views.

            • Objectivetruth

              Couragerc.org

              You will find peace and fellowship here, Tom. And most importantly, Jesus Christ.

              • Tom

                I do not need Christ. I have not come here for that, but to call Austin out on his lying, dissembling ways.

                • Objectivetruth

                  We all need Christ. We all sin, Tom. Christ’s mercy endures forever.

                  Give Courage a chance. Contact them via their website. Go to a couple of meetings, see what they’re all about. What do you have to lose?

                • Objectivetruth

                  But the mind blowing, incredible, shocking, scary yet unbelievably beautiful Truth is:

                  Christ has led you to this website, Tom.

                  Whether you believe this or not, it’s true. Jesus wants you to start your journey back to him, one small step at a time. He loves you that much.

                  Say yes, Tom. Take advantage of it, discover the Truths of Christ!

                • ForChristAlone

                  Your presence is not welcome if you insist on advocating for a life of sin that is antithetical to the purpose of this site (see masthead). But please do try Courage (the support group for those struggling with same sex attraction).

                  • Tom

                    Austin is engaging with me. If the comments section is just for mutual appreciation, then what is the point?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Again, read the masthead. This is a website for orthodox Catholic laymen and women. You are welcome to ask questions of us and be open to being instructed about what it means to be an orthodox Catholic layman. But you are not welcome to come here and try to argue against the teachings of the Catholic faith. I hope I have made myself clear young man. If you want to do otherwise, go elsewhere.

                    • fredx2

                      Really? If we cannot defend the faith against one lone person, and do so with grace, generosity and understanding, we are awfully poor Catholics. We should welcome the opportunity to engage Tom, as you have done so well. The great problem of Catholicism today is our inability to engage with, and persuade others of the truths we hold so dear. Every comment like Toms is an opportunity to evangelize and persuade. Tom is acting pretty civilly, and he should be welcome. He really seems open to discussion. I disagree with much of what he says, and I believe some of his sources are faulty, but let’s not wimp out and try to shove him away from the site because he says things that we should easily be able to refute.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Please don’t misunderstand my intent. Defending the faith is all well and good. But we have to avoid the temptation to subject the tenets of our faith to endless dialogue. The truth is what it is, We state our truth claims as accurately as we can but at some point we must recognize the willful intransigence of another to remain in their deceit and then wish them well. Homosexuality is just not open to discussion. Rarely do I hear from the homosexuality lobby an earnest desire to learn more about the Church’s position and further clarification. It sometimes just comes down to a game of :”uncle.”

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Christ to the apostles: “if they do not listen to you, shake the dust off of your sandals, and move on to the next town,”

                      I agree, FCA. We can only express to others the “cause of our joy”, and invite those living out their homosexual desires to find out what we’ve found. They can decide then. In John 6, Christ spoke the Truth on the Bread of Life, and thousands walked away from Him.

                      The “gay” posters that come on this website, out of love invite them to learn about Jesus. But don’t engage in gutteral level “arraigning the deck chairs on the Titanic” conversations. Keep giving them Christ. If they don’t want Christ, Shake the dust off your Nikes/wingtips, say a prayer for them, and move on……

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Thank you, Objective. As Christ said, “You are either for me or against me.” There does come a point when all of us have to make a decision for Christ or against Him.. I see no evidence that this endless “dialogue” has produced any fruit.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Agreed.

          • Gerald

            You are trying to equate sex between consenting adults with sex between an adult and a child.

        • fredx2

          It certainly is a right under the US Constitution. however, whether it is a “human right” is an entirely different question. And since there is no real definition of “human rights” people tend to think that whatever they personally like should be a human right, and what they don’t should not be.

      • Tom

        Furthermore, in this article you dissemble on the reasons Paul Cameron was selected. He was selected for saying that death for gay people is not unreasonable.

        • Austin Ruse

          The quote about that is so chopped up, i really don’t trust it.

      • Tom

        You have also dissembled in this article:
        http://c-fam.org/en/issues/human-rights-system/7944-uganda-laws-on-homosexuality-set-aside-for-now

        Where you characterise the law only regards predatory homosexual activity. You know as well as I do that the law bans pro-gay speeche and assemblies. Hence a recent court case where gays were prosecuted for holding a pro-gay meeting.

        • Objectivetruth

          You are a better person than the gay lifestyle, Tom. There’s a better way, Tom. It’s Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church. Come experience Christ’s incredible love, in the Catholic Church. You will never look back.

        • Austin Ruse

          I accurately described the most draconian part of the law.

          • Tom

            No you didn’t. You said that the laws against certain predatory homosexual activity had been struck down. Ignoring the fact that all the rest of the law had been struck down, those parts not related to “predatory homosexual activity”, that it included pro-gay speech, and repeated consensual homosexual sex. Do you think it is acceptable to imprison people for pro-gay speech, which is part of what that law required?

            • Austin Ruse

              So, you think getting jailed is worse than getting killed? Weird.

              • Tom

                I said you were dissembling. You were characterising the law as only targeting “predatory homosexual activity” when it also proscribed pro-gay speech and consensual sex.

                • Austin Ruse

                  I did not say it only did that. It is what i led with because that was the most draconian and offensive part of the law.

                  • Tom

                    You did not say it only did that, it was implied in your sentence. The entirity of the law was struck down, yet you chose to focus on the predatory part. Also, the life sentence part also applied to “repeat offenders”, people who has same sex sexual relations frequently. Do you consider that ” predatory “?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I oppose the Ugandan law.

                    • Tom

                      Well that is something at least. Do you think it violates human rights?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have tried to organized a joint statement of pro-family groups to condemn the law. That’s something at least…

                    • Tom

                      Pity that it has not come to anything. Opposition from other pro-family groups?

        • Elena0411

          Homosexual activity has proven to be a serious public health threat. Perhaps THAT is why it is illegal in many countries and used to be illegal here.

    • M

      Tom, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The author is clearly contradicting the principle of free speech when he demands that it be allowed only for his side but not for the other. Remember when questioning the invasion of Iraq, which has turned out to be a complete disaster based on false information, was “treasonous”? And that Ruse himself once suggested that liberal professors should be “taken out and shot”? Ruse believes in freedom of expression but for his own views only. Sorry, Austin, it doesn’t work that way.

      • fredx2

        Here’s the full quote. Obviously, he was not being serious. But what bothers me is the attempt to use any quote, no matter if it is made seriously or not, to cast aspersions on someone.

        “That is the nonsense that they teach in women’s studies at Duke University, this is where she learned this. The toxic stew of the modern university is gender studies, it’s “Sex Week,” they all have “Sex Week” and teaching people how to be sex-positive and overcome the patriarchy. My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot. “

    • pnyikos

      “Paul Cameron has said that the death penalty is not an unreasonable punishment for same sex sexual activity.”

      That is monstrous half-truth. He said it for SOME very dangerous sexual activity, such as a person knowing he has AIDS, having unprotected sex with another person. And he stopped short of saying that it is reasonable; he only said that an Ugandan law sentencing such people to 14 years prison is reasonable.

      Your kind preys on the lack of time people have for checking out what you say; I had to listen to a ten minute video before I could figure out just how much truth there was to your propagandistic statement.

      • Tom

        In another comment I also quote an article from the Family Research Institute where he says that the death penalty for persistent homosexual activity is not unchristian or unreasonable.

        And I explicitly say he says it is not unreaaonble. And even supporting a 14 year prison sentence would still be abhorrent.

        Also, even the death penalty for having consensual sex where both partners knows one has HIV, is totally barbaric.

        You people constantly make excuses when your kind are caught out making abhorrent statements. It really is quite pathetic.

  • ForChristAlone

    Let’s get a few things straight: the Left care not a damn about global..warming or so-called climate change. The Left care nothing about women’s rights. The Left cares nothing about war or the killing of innocents. The Left cares nothing about nuclear proliferation. And lastly, the Left cares nothing about gays and their so-called right to saddle up to the nearest guy with a penis.

    What does the Left care about? POLITICS! which means the accumulation of as much power over other people as they can possibly get. They just use these so called “causes” as the means to an end.

    To prove my point: Where is Code Pink and all the other Leftists now that Obama is bombing ISIS in Syria? Not a peep out of these idiots. Why? It doesn’t fit their power template. They are playing the rest of us for fools for even taking any of these issues seriously and debating them.

  • John Albertson

    AIDs is the only disease whose known cause has not been prohibited. Even smoking is banned in most places now, but not buggery. – And how does one explain the moral collapse of Cardinal Dolan on this issue ?

    • Speak the truth

      Cardinal Dolan is a Joker (always laughing)!
      I don’t know if you’ve heard the news but the Pro-life Irish group that wanted to join the Parade was BANNED by the St. Patrick’s Day Parade committee, so here we have the Cardinal NOT STANDING with the Pro-life group.

      This Cardinal should just resign and work for Walmart or someplace….let the secular world feed him. Cardinal Judas should never steal from the money box that belongs to Jesus, don’t you think?

    • DE-173

      Even smoking is banned in most places now, but not buggery.
      Good point, and I hate smoking.

  • Sede Diplomat

    Adam Weinstein

    -Weinstein

    not surprised.

    From the Washington Post:

    Jewish leaders in the media are in large part responsible for
    American acceptance of gay marriage, Vice President Biden said Tuesday
    night.

    “I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or
    social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry,” he
    said. “The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might
    add, it is all to the good. ”

    The vice president also praised
    Jewish contributions to immigration reform, the civil-rights
    movement, the arts, the law and to feminism.

    “I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation,” he said. “We’re a great country because of the contributions and most
    importantly because of Jewish heritage and the values you brought.” The praise was so profuse that New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait found it worrisome, noting that white supremacists are already taking Biden’s speech as evidence of a secret Jewish conspiracy

    The article by Rachel Weiss

    Jonathan Chait is also religiously jewish.

    Will and Grace was created by the jew David Kohan.

    I think we of the right ought to fess up to the fact that the tv, cinema, and law are distinctly jewish and liberal and therefore our greatest enemies must be named as jews and masons.

    • DE-173

      Pelosi, Biden, O’Malley, Cuomo, Kennedy, (Senate), Kennedy (SCOTUS) and backbenchers like Casey are as Catholic as the Hollyweirders are Jewish and equal partners in this.

      I smell a troll…

      • Sede Diplomat

        A consistently right-wing poster is indistinguishable from a troll.

        I can assure you that I am sincere as is my hatred for the synagogue of satan.

        These “Catholics” you talk about are not “Catholic” in any sense but as long you do indeed recognize the jewish fifth column as I think you suggest by refering to Hollyweirders, then we have no disagreements.

        No doubt there are many Shabbos who aid the Talmudists.

        IMO Pelosi, is a Jew doing what jews do -infiltrating and leading “Catholicism” (but really the Vat. II Counter-Church.

        • bonaventure

          If these Catholics are not Catholics, as you say, then these Jews are not Jewish either. Hence, your anger at them should not be directed at all Jews, but only at liberals — whether they be from a Catholic or Jewish background.

          If not, DE-173 is right and you’re just a troll

          • Sede Diplomat

            Sodomy is pushed by Judaism because Judaism is freemasonry and freemasonry is sodomistic.

            (A link to jew-mason connection: http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/16-03.html. A good quote:

            Jews were actively involved in the beginnings of Freemasonry in
            America. There is evidence they were among those who established Masonry in seven of the original thirteen states: Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia.)

            But it is also a supporter of sodomy because it wants to make the goys degenerate and therefore easier to control; Jews train perverts, perverts are consumerists, so consumerists fuel Jewish business & interests.

            Jews will lie about this because their Talmud teaches them to lie to non-Jews.

            Even the non-Catholic and originally Jewish (and as such not totally to be trusted) “Bro.” Nathanael states some of these points in his video linked below & in this case I can’t conceive of a motivation for him to lie:

            http://brothernathanaelfoundation.org/news/157-brother-nathanael

            I also think that it is incredibly (and I don’t mean this to annoy you) dense to say that I am a troll when the comments here are totally shitted up by “Tom” and others. Although we have irreconcilable differences, there should be cooperation between all elements of the right as there are between leftist elements.

          • Sede Diplomat

            I’m surprised my reply to you is no longer here.

            Essentially, the Jews in their satanic malice, push homosex onto gentiles to corrupt them. Though they may appear to be equally affected by liberalism is only a clever ploy to deceive people since the Talmud encourages jews to lie to non-jews and as our Lord stated, the Jews are epic hypocrites.

          • Sede Diplomat

            As usual, my reply to this comment keeps being erased. An occurrence which only makes it seem as if Jewish power really is THAT vast and the followers of the Vatican II sect truly compromised by that power.

            If this uncharitable shit keeps happening, then I will have to end my diplomatic outreach or as some would have it “trolling”.

            • Crisiseditor

              Crisis is not a forum for anti-semitic rants. It’s one thing to point out what we already know, that many Jews are secular and some religious Jews are liberal. But they don’t all think alike and they don’t all have the same influence as you think they do. Your treatment of the subject is conspiratorial and intellectually shallow. Even though you discredit yourself, I don’t want readers to think that your claims are endorsed by us in any way. If you can’t behave yourself by showing some restraint and a greater sophistication of the subject, then you are free to go somewhere else.

            • Objectivetruth

              Like all of us, you are a “house guest” here on the Crisis website. So like any good house guest, behave. Someone that gets drunk and lewd at a party will always be escorted to the door.

    • bonaventure

      There is no difference between a Catholic liberal (Pelosi, Biden, etc) and a Jewish liberal (Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, etc). Both have betrayed the biblical & Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation.

      • Sede Diplomat

        It is a heresy to believe in “Judeo-Christianity”. Christianity is Christianity & Judaism is at best, a heresy of Christianity.

        Our nation was demonstrably not founded by Christians (by which I mean traditionalist Catholics) but by liberals. That’s why Catholics must reject this Masonic Republic.

  • Woodstock

    Austin Ruse’s comments are retarded!!!!

    • GG

      Mirror. Look.

    • Austin Ruse

      All of them?

  • Brian Harvill

    of cou

    • Austin Ruse

      It is not relevant what Scott Lively said he did.

      • Brian Harvill

        Oh no. Its not relevant that Scott Lively bragged about writing a portion of the laws. We should simply ignore the fact that the guy admitted having influence and admitted having a hand in the law’s creation. We should ignore all of that factual information just so that we can PRETEND that Scott Lively is innocent of any possible involvement in a law that is barbaric in both its intent and its practice.
        In order for your opinions piece to hold ANY weight, we have to actually deny any real world situations and we have to ignore the people in question themselves. What they have to say on the matter doesn’t count, only this narrow opinion that is based on fantasy.
        Sorry but the real world doesn’t work that way. When a person states something, truth or fabrication, there are consequences. Scott Lively among others are on record having much to say about the Ugandan laws. Therefore hold them responsible for their OWN speech. Either they are lying now when they say they have nothing to do with the anti-gay laws in Uganda or they were lying then (as well as fabricating videotapes showing their persons in Uganda with sound showing their speech).
        So which are you claiming is the truth lying then or lying now? You cannot have it both ways. AND once a liar, then your credibility is shot. SO in the end, regardless of the spin-job you are attempting, these “gentlemen” have zero credibility and cannot be trusted on ANYTHING that they say. AND by extension, now that you have been shown to have lied concerning your information, YOUR credibility is shot as well. WHY should we believe you?

        • Austin Ruse

          First, j don’t know if he ever said that. Second, even if he says it doesn’t make it true. Third, to suggest he had this kind of influence is absurd.

          • Brian Harvill

            Well First, it is rather easy to find the information where Scott Lively made the claims.
            Second why would Scott Lively lie and claim something that was not true? According to you Scott lively is a nice old Christian that is just minding his own business. and finally Third, to think that religion has no place in the world of politics is what is absurd. In fact history shows us time and again that religion has exerted control over politics. Uganda, being a VERY run down nation that relies on the good graces of others, especially the religious, it actually makes sense that Scott Lively would have influence enough to facilitate the establishment of laws.
            Things do NOT happen in a vacuum. The realities surrounding the establishment of the Ugandan laws has been documented quite well for anyone with half a brain to find out the realities. for starters, lets see the driving force behind the legislation…

            • Austin Ruse

              Why would someone exaggerate their influence? Hmmmmmm…can’t figure out why, can you?

              • Brian Harvill

                Austin,
                There is one overwhelming fact that you simply cannot get around or explain away and that is the matter of public record that deals explicitly with Scott Lively and his role in the Ugandan laws against homosexuality.

                The issue of exaggerated influence is a nice attempt at explaining away tje issue but only if you ignore the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Scott Lively mentioned it himself, Ugandan officials have mentioned i

                • Austin Ruse

                  He looms large in his imagination and yours. That’s all.

                  • Brian Harvill

                    Austin, the only one with the active imagination here is yourself. I have remained true to the facts of the matter and have even given out the actual linkage to my references so that others can check the issue for themselves and decide on their own. You however haven’t provided anything but a simple opinion piece that is completely unsupported by the realities. Next time do your homework before making statements that you cannot defend or back-up with the truth. Its that simple. I don’t have a problem with people that have opinions or religious beliefs, only those that decide that their opinion has more weight than the reality of a situation.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Some people need bogeymen. You do. Ok.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      Yes some people need bogey men and they invent them, much like the church, Uganda and yourself have done with gay people. Some others tend to rely and live in the real world and deal in facts and actual information. Its a safe bet that you haven’t even looked at any of the information that exists surrounding the issue of Uganda and its laws against homosexuals before writing your opinion piece. It is simply too simplistic and easy to destruct for you to have done any meaningful research into the matter.
                      Next time, do everyone a favor and fact check your work before attempting to state your opinions as if they were the God’s honest truth. That way others wouldn’t have to do your homework for you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Poor fellow. You are not aware that I oppose the Ugandan law.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Brian Harvill

                      @Mr. Ruse.
                      As to your personal position on the Ugandan laws, there is no basis for me or anyone to know your stance since you never state that in your opinion peice. However, that still doesn’t change the reality of the errors in your op ed. In fact your position on the issues have little to do with the matters of Scott Lively or the matters of homosexual repression that you have tried so hard to whitewash.

                      Besides which, why should I believe your protestation? You have been caught lying many times already, why not on this as well?

                    • Tom

                      As far as I am aware Austin, you have not written an article dedicated to criticising the Ugandan laws, nor to saying that they are a violation of Catholic mercy. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but it is hardly a big failing for us not to know your thoughts when much of what you have written on the subject has tended to minimise the depravity of the laws – such as only referring to the parts relating to rape and molestation, and not to the parts relating to consensual adult sexual activity, or pro-gay speech. It is a neat rhetorical trick to take the most serious acts a law punishes and omit any of the other acts, in order to leave in the uninformed mind the impression that the laws only punish the most serious of acts. Combined with the way you write about the laws generally, and the West’s reaction to them, it does not seem unreasonable to draw the conclusion you support them.

                    • CyrusTwombly

                      Tom, you are brilliant. It has been a treat reading you make Austin Ruse squirm. It is telling that he hasn’t engaged in almost any of your direct questions or requests for clarity–this guy’s rife with hypocrisy. He’s a fierce advocate for freedom of speech, except when that freedom is denied to LGBT advocates. It seems to me, any sort of speech related to gay rights is really just about anal sex and therefore it’s okay to censor because “think of the children!”

                      He decries the “gay bullyboys(?)” but most of his responses have been completely belittling. Plus, he’s the most annoying user of lol I’ve ever seen. My favorite part so far has to be when he accused you of racism. I look forward to continue reading you take this hypocrite to task.

                    • Tom

                      Thank you, it is nice to know some friendly eyes are watching, though I do it mostly for my own entertainment. It helps to have points thoroughly sourced with available links to contradict any claims he makes.

                      Best wishes.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      As for lgbts. You are the richest, best educated, most powerful cohort in America. Yet still you whine. And Now you want to punish those who disagree with you. Look in the mirror bully.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      The same could be said of Jewish people, who incidentally make up a similar proportion of the US population as gays, and less than LGBTs combined.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      @Mr. RUSE

                      I highly doubt your assesment of “the most powerful cohort” rhetoric. As befote, this is mere exaggeration and fantasy than truth. Also it is not the truth that gay people are “the richest” since it is easy to see that the richest Americans are mostly heterosexuals. As for educated, there too homosexuals run the entire gamut of educationall levels. So yet again it is to b ed exxaggeration and invented boogeymen for the basis of your argument.

                      This is exactly why you have no credibility. The inability to make your case without the need to resort to invention.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I mean really, to be skeered of Scott lively. Lol.

                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Brian Harvill

                      @ Austin Ruse

                      Who is “skeered” of Scott Livelyy? I am merely keeping you honest about Scott Lively. Rather than the innocent bystander you try to paint him as, there is adequate reason for the pushback he is receiving.

                      Just keep your opinion truthful and there is no problem. When you create a false image of the problems so you can blame others then you are being dishonest and need to be corrected.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      False choice alert! I Perhaps you can show me where I said he was an “innocent bystander”? Oh, I know I IMPLIIIIIIIED it. Right.
                      No, what I said was he not responsible for all this things he is accused of or takes credit for.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      @Austi Ruse
                      You are seriously going to try saying that when you are here saying that Scott Lively is not responsible for these things that you are not Implying him to also be innocent of these things? That is after all what innocent means. The facts are straightforward and no amount of tap dancing or distraction on your part will change that. The man himself claims responsibility, there is both video and written evidence of his actions, and then there is the testimony of many Ugandan government officials naming Scott Lively. Three strikes buddy.

                      Give it up. Your oped is nothing but a loose grouping of fabrication and persecution complex fears presented as if they were in any manner the truth.

                      You’ve been caught, you’ve been provided the actual evidence of your dishonesty, and yet you choose to remain blind. If that’s your choice then be mature and own it. But instead here you are, still attempting to salvage your lies and deceptions as if they had any remaining value as viable arguments. Well as I said before, I am content to let others decide for themselves based on the actual evidence. On one hand we have the unsupported collection of statements of your oped and on my part, the links to the actual recorded evidence of Scott Lively doing ecactly what I said he was doing. HHMMM wonder if any rational jury would base a decision merely on an opinion opposed to provided evidence.

                      Yes, you have implied innocence and yes, you have implied that Mr. Lively is being bullied for something he did not do (evidence not withstanding), now you’re upset that someone has the nerve to call you on it… worse, provide proof.

                      Anything but admit that you simply got it wrong. Of course it’s understandable because it’s one of the main planks in your victim argument. Too bad, time to just accept that you didn’t do the research needed and leave out the entire issue of Scott Lively.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Did Scott Lively go to Uganda. Sure. Russia. Sure. HE IS GUILTY OF GOING TO THOSE PLACES! He went to those places and made speeches against homosexuality. But that is not really the issue. The issue is does he rate a mammoth hate report from the gay bullyboys. Is Scott Lively responsible for the laws of Uganda or Russia. To suggest this is simply laughable. He may like to think so. You may like to think so. But that doesn’t make it so.
                      Swatting you away is remarkably easy.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      You have yet to “swat” anyone, let alone me. Your tapdancing again…

                      The issue has never been his trips to Uganda, nor is it his “preaching”, (if you can call the dispersal of known lies to be preaching). The issue is his influence and participation in the antigay laws.

                      You say it is impossible for Mr. Lively to have any influence, even knowing that oration is proven to be of immense value in influence peddling (think Hitler and influence of an entire nation), even knowing that the man himself claimed fsuch influence AND that he is mentioned specifically by the Ugandan government as being primary to the law existing and passing. All of these people MUST be lying then.

                      It stretches reality past belief that all of these people, who actually would have cause to know, are wrong and some insignificant oped peive must therefore be correct. Sorry charlie… you’re hust not that important or knowledgeable about the matter to make that determination.
                      If it were just the one person, even a handful of people stating his role then you MIGHT be able to chalk it up to arrogance, but when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against you, there comes a time when to maintain your validity merely comes off as haughty.

                      Your case is shot. Scott Lively is guilty and deserving of the derision he has garned with his callous actions.

                      Swatting indeed… think a little too highly of yourself is more likely.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Nonsense. The “Ugandan government” did not credit Lively with a darned thing.
                      Get over it. This is hilarious. Are gays really so skeered of a little mouse? Eeek!
                      You really must work on your daddy issues…

                    • Brian Harvill

                      Actually, the Ugandan government did credit Lively. So now your not simply content with inuendo but are given to actually lying yourself.oh well, so much for “Christian values” like honesty.

                      And again with the “skeered” remark? We’ve already established the fact that this isn’t fear but is about being honest. You’ll have to try a little harder than this if you want to rattle me.

                      It is telling though that you insist on trying to insult and demean me personally ratjer than keeping the conversation about it he issues. If this is the kind of “leadership” you provide for an organization, then its a shameful display.

                      Go figure that someone like myself could rattle you so much as to merit this childish and feeble attempt at

                    • Austin Ruse

                      LOL, rattled. Right. Ahuh.

                      Eeek, a mouse!

                    • Brian Harvill

                      Like I said, really showing your lack of maturity, what are you? Five years old?

                      If this is all you’ve got in your arsenal, I feel sorry for the people that have put their hopes on you.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sure, whatever gets you through the day.

                      Shall we draw this to a close?

                    • Brian Harvill

                      The subject has been closed for me for a while now. It was after all, mee that had not responded for over six days until I witnessed your last villey of personal attacks.

                      I stand vindicated and proud of standing for the truth. I will always do so regardless of the names you may try to throw at me.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I stand by my column. You haven’t touched it or me.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      If that’s what you need to think. The truth is that I have given adequate evidence to refute your oped and if one section is proven false, the entire article is suspect.

                      The article is typical rhetoric. It has no grounding in fact so it must be as colorful as you can make it. I don’t blame you for your sense of frustration, just your erroneous verbiage. Surely, if this “bullying” is as widespread as you claim, it should be easy to find factual information to base your oped on. Try again, maybe you will actually stumble on the truth next time.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The closest you’ve come to prove any point is that the “Ugandan government” has said Scott lively is responsible for the Ugandan law. Hey wait! You didn’t offer any proof! Oh well.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      Laughable!

                      Oh well, so you keep your head firmly rooted in the sand. What else is new. The evidence has been posted in our little conversation here and all know it. If you choose ignorance that’s your prerogative, but anytime you remain ignorant expect to be called on it. So I will let you get the last word,(we both know you’ll try to),. The case has been made and supported and the result is that you’ve been revealed as a fraud.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I just scrolled through your pathetic screeds and saw no such proof. Perhaps you’d repost?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      For the life of me I cannot find anyplace where you have offered any proof of your assertion that the Ugandan government has given Lively “primary responsibility” for the lgbt law. Perhaps you can repost…I suspect that you can’t. or what you will offer is some junior parliamentarian thanking lively for a presentation sometime or other and this transmogrifies into your sex-addled brain as “primary responsibility”. But, give it a go, old sport.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have gone back and looked at every link you have provided and none of them show the “Ugandan government” giving “primary responsibility” to Scott Lively for the Ugandan LGBT law.

                      Do you want to dial back your hysteria? Or maybe provide a link to make your point? Now, understand, I know, I know that the sexual left is all in a lather about Scott, so I don’t need another link of gay fellow quoting other gay fellows about how awful Lively is and how he practically is pulling the switch on gays in Uganda. It is largely a fantasy. But, if you can provide, I don’t know, like a presidential letter from Uganda or, say, a joint resolution of the Ugandan parliament giving him credit, then you might, I say might, be onto something.

                      but, you really might want to dial it back, old chum.

                    • Brian Harvill

                      okay, since I have a life outside of this forum it has taken me a while to get back in touch.
                      here is a few evidences that you will need.
                      1) Found at:

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Found at…..?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      This is hilarious! Now show me proof that the “Ugandan government”, as you insist, credited “Scott lively with PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY” for the law. This link dudn’t do that, bub.
                      By the way, the story is wrong about David Kato, yet another “gay martyr ” like Matthew Shepard, who was killed by a gay prostitute and not by a wild homophobe.
                      Keep trying!

                    • Tom

                      Notice how Austin is putting words in your mouth, saying that you said that Lively has primary responsibility for the law, whereas you actually said he was primary to the law. As I remark above, Scott Lively is the Gavrilo Princip of these Ugandan laws; the immediate driver and instigator, but in the grand scheme somewhat insignificant.

                    • Tom

                      The problem with people like Scott Lively is that they spread lies and deception to a population already pretty anti-gay. Am I personally scared of Mr Lively? No, because I know that he would have no influence or standing in the UK. However, were I a gay Ugandan living in Uganda, then yes, I would be scared of Mr Lively. I would think his preaching to my my fellow Ugandans would agitate them, and influence their views about gay people. This would be a pretty reasonable judgement I think. An analogy would be to someone saying a Catholic is a cannibal for eating the host. In an enlightened society, such comments would be jeered at. However, in a society rife with anti-Catholic fervour, it could stir up a great deal of antipathy, especially if the person saying it was perceived as having knowledge. Clearly the Ugandans who went to his conferences must perceive him to have some opinion or ideas worth listening to, or they would not attend.

                      Austin, I find your determination to believe that Scott Lively had absolutely no influence over the perceptions of Ugandans about gay people to be quite absurd.

                    • Tom

                      Brian never said “primary responsibility”. He said “primary to the law existing and passing”. They are similar, but distinct claims. Someone can be the immediate and primary driver of something, while also being small in the scheme of things. For example, Gavrilo Princip was primary to the start of World War 1, as in the immediate cause of it. This in no way requires one to believe that Mr Princip was the only, or even the major, cause of World War 1. Mr Lively is the Gavrilo Princip of the Ugandan laws.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Your movement needs bogeymen to help explain why most people oppose gay “marriage”, “adoption” etc. And you’ve come up with…..dah dah dah dah…..Scott lively! Hilarious.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      No, what we are saying is that Scott Lively, by his actions and activity in very anti-gay countries, has helped produce laws that further persecute LGBT people. There is nothing particularly hysterical or histrionic about that belief, as it is well supported by evidence. I do not think that Scott Lively is responsible for the anti-gay sentiments existing in places like Russia and Uganda, but I certainly think he has contributed to the situation deteriorating for LGBT people by his lies and misinformation to an already anti-gay population. The reason why HRC draws attention to this man, and others like him, is not because Lively is a threat to American gays or British gays, but because he threatens, by his activity, the freedom and liberty of gay people in other countries. Furthermore, by drawing attention to some of the things he says abroad, it helps to show that he is a liar, as you are, because you wear the mantle of “free speech” and “freedom of expression” to US audiences, but are happy to support measures that restrict it for gay people abroad (your continuing support for the Russian propaganda law which has been used to ban pride parades, fine newspapers, and raid private homes). You have also confirmed that you are happy to restrict pro-gay marches to locations where they have reduced influence (such as quarantining them in places which are already fairly “pro-gay”). As it happens, I think you Austin would have made a far more appropriate addition to the HRC’s dossier than Paul Cameron, as you are active at the UN against pro-gay resolutions, decision, and language. Cameron, though his position on the death penalty for gay people is revolting, I see no evidence that he has a greater influence in the international sphere then you or C-FAM do.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, the lgbt hysterics go further than you try calmly to explain. Scott lively has had no real influence anywhere. He’s had more influence with mother jones, the nation, HRC and you than anywhere else. You won’t see lester Feder, perhaps the preeminent American reporter covering the LGBT INTERNATIONALE for buzzfeed jumping on any chairs and squealing about little Scott lively.
                      The real story here is how the American funded lgbt Internationale is forcing its agenda on reluctant populations.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      Well, as I’ve said, I think the Lively has had more influence then you credit him. Your attempt to misinterpret Brian as saying that Lively has primary responsibility for the Ugandan laws is a misunderstanding of his meaning, as I have explained above. I think there is adequate evidence from members of the Ugandan parliament crediting Lively to support the assertion that Lively has influenced these nations laws. And, as I have said, HRC’s aim is also to highlight the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the claims of people like you.

                      //The real story here is how the American funded lgbt Internationale is forcing its agenda on reluctant populations.//

                      Well, I am an unashamed cultural imperialist (though I prefer the term “cultural supremacist”). I believe that Western culture of free speech and sexual freedom is superior to what you desire, and what exists in Muslim and African nations. You seem to expect me, and other pro-gay people, to embrace a cultural relativism with regard to anti-gay laws. Ironic that it would be you and your kind advocating for subjectivism and relativism when assessing other cultures!

                      I also have no problem with advocating for freedom of religion in Muslim majority nations, even if such advocacy goes against the majority wishes of the population. Indeed, the constitution of Saudi Arabia is explicitly anti-freedom of religion. Does that mean that you, Austin, are not happy to encourage freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, even if the majority of the population abhor it? What about in Pakistan, where there are criminal penalties for blasphemy? Again, it is a neat rhetorical trick of yours; when you advocate for freedom of religion in some fly blown hell hole, against the wishes and culture of the local population, it is completely fine and just. When gays do it for sexual freedom, it is cultural imperialism. Even Putin is happy to criticise the internal politics of other nations in regard to religious freedom!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sexual freedom is not a western value. Hah. The sexual anarchist would like it to be. But all the Africans need to do is see the hash that sexual freedom/anarchism has made of our culture to know that folks that you are extremely dangerous to their body politics and to their bodies. Abortion is rampant. Sexual disease is rampant. Pornography is rampant. Yes, this is your sexual freedom, your sexual anarchy that the Africans and the Russians and others are rejecting and that we support them in rejecting. Your experiment has utterly failed, not only failed, has made things exponentially worse. The body count rises daily from your sexual freedom. Yes, the Africans look at that and say, not so fast. But the thing is that your sexual agenda is backed by the might of the US and the EU and nasty but fabulously wealthy foundations and NGOs. The Africasn do not want your agenda. This, and not little Scott Lively, is what you are experiencing in Africa and elsewhere.

                    • Tom

                      Well actually, I rather think it is, as it is an expression of individualism and individual liberty. It is certainly widespread in the West. And, I think that our cultures in the West are rather superior to those in Africa. Yes, we have problems, but all cultures do. One could equally point to suicide bombers, terrorists, and IS, and say that that is an argument against freedom of religion. That some people misuse their sexual freedom in ways which are harmful to themselves is no big surprise – what would you expect? There are people in the West who misuse their dietary freedom and grow fat and overweight. This is no more a reason for the government to impose regulations on what can and cannot be eaten, then sexual diseases are reasons to impose regulations on consensual sexual activity. And, of course, in the USA heart disease, not STDs, are the main source of illness.

                      // Yes, this is your sexual freedom, your sexual anarchy that the Africans and the Russians and others are rejecting and that we support them in rejecting//

                      So you do support laws against homosexual activity and pro-gay speech?

                      Let me state this as clearly as I can, Austin. Under freedom of speech, it is my right to advocate for sexual freedom (or sexual anarchy, if you wish, though I have yet to hear you condemn religious anarchy, dietary anarchy, or any other kind of anarchy), and to not be prosecuted for it. Indeed, if it were my wish to, I have the right to march in the public square in support of a Brave New World type system of baby factories and artificial reproduction. Now, you can either agree with that right, in which case I do not see how you can in good conscience support laws like those in Russia which are used to curtail that right, or you can disagree with that right, in which case you do not support freedom of speech. You cannot eat your cake and have it, Austin.

                      What the Africans want is not relevant, as I have said above. As I think that what the Saudis want is not relevant.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Exactly what restrictions would you place on sexual freedom that would prevent its widespread misuse?

                    • Tom

                      The consent of the parties involved. Other than for deliberate infection of another non-consenting party (which I would do for any disease), I would not have any criminal penalties. What restrictions do you suggest for dietary freedom to prevent its widespread misuse? Or religious freedom?

                      PS, really would like that link.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But consent of the parties is exactly what has killed so many, infected so many others. Your sexual fed don is deadly.

                    • Tom

                      Austin, I have not denied that some people have used their sexual freedom in ways detrimental to their health, as many more people have used their dietary freedom in ways detrimental to their health. My point is that sexual freedom, like dietary freedom, or religious freedom, is a right. That some people use that right in ways which are detrimental to their health in no way detracts from the fact that it is a right. Do you support restrictions on what people can and cannot eat? Do you think that state should restrict people’s calorie intake? Do you favour a return to rationing?

                      And Austin I can only assume that since you are not providing one, that there exists no article in which you condemn the Ugandan laws. For someone who writes for multiple websites, it seems odd that there would not be a single one in which you condemn the Ugandan laws, if you think they are such a gross violation of human liberty and dignity. Especially as you have actually written about the law! A single sentence would have been sufficient, yet to my knowledge it does not exist. Perhaps now you can understand people making the error that you support the Ugandan law.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Some people? It is part and parcel of the underlying principle of free sex as much and as often with the only limiting factor being consent. Sex is for married men and women. Anything else is s recipe for the disaster we are experiencing under your sexual freedom regime. Again. The disaster spreading out before us is yours and not ours. As a ” value” sexual freedom is a devouring monster. Congrats.

                    • Tom

                      No, there is nothing in “sexual freedom” that demands one have sex with many partners, or even with any partners. It does not even demand that people follow their appetites. Again, just because we have dietary freedom does not mean that people are wise or sensible to use that freedom to grow fat and obese. As a keen proponent of sexual freedom, I think people ought to restrict their sexual behaviour to a small number of partners, perhaps even ideally one, and to not engage in behaviour that is too risky. However, that is exactly the same attitude I take towards people eating food, drinking alcohol, doing dangerous sports, like boxing or rugby. I would also like to point out that their are several aspects of same sex sexual activity which are less prone to disease transmission then vaginal intercourse, so, on a purely utilitarian basis they ought to be preferred. To say that the value of sexual freedom is a devouring monster is like saying that dietary freedom is a devouring monster, because it has caused so much disaster in developed countries, or that freedom of religion is a disaster because it can result in the subjugation of women and the execution of apostates.

                      You are rather used to talking at people aren’t you? You do not bother to answer my questions, or engage in debate, but merely flap your jaw. If I were feeling cynical I would say it is because you have not come off the best in our earlier encounters. Your ill-judged attempt to argue against me that Islam is not immoral according to Catholic theology being a good case in point.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But of course sexual freedom allows for only one restriction, consent. If that’s the only restriction them how is it abuse to have ten a day?

                    • Tom

                      Sexual freedom relates to government and legal actions. As I said above, I support no criminal penalties for having 10 a day. The restriction I refer to when I talk of consent relates to what the government, the state, can legitimately ban, because having sex without consent is rape.

                      I think it is abuse to have sex with 10 different people a day because I think that such an action is unhealthy, and makes one prone to disease. It is the same reason I would say that having 10 cheeseburgers and fries a day is not a good thing, or 10 bottles of whiskey, where one cheeseburger and fries, or one bottle of whiskey, would be acceptable. There is also an epicurean reason not to do it; frequency of indulgence reduces pleasure.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You said sexual freedom is a western value. That does not limit it to what the government can say and do. Sexual freedom as a value means that the individual is free to have sex in any way shape or form based solely on consent. This is what we have. And the result? Disease and death. Congrats! Your program of sexual freedom, sexual license has won. All the dead bodies and ruined lives are in your column not ours.

                    • Tom

                      //You said sexual freedom is a western value. That does not limit it to what the government can say and do.//

                      Yes it does, in the same way that the value of religious freedom relates to what the government can say and do. Just like the value of freedom of speech relates to the lack of restrictions that governments can place on speech. Freedom of speech means that people can say what they want, including racist, neo-Nazis things, but that does not mean that people should say racist or neo-Nazis things.

                      //Sexual freedom as a value means that the individual is free to have sex in any way shape or form based solely on consent. This is what we have.//

                      I am astonished Austin. You have managed to entirely ignore my point. I do not deny that sexual freedom, like dietary freedom, means that people can do what they want within the boundaries of consent. However, that in no way translates into it being wise or sensible to do that.

                      //Disease and death. Congrats! Your program of sexual freedom, sexual license has won. All the dead bodies and ruined lives are in your column not ours.//

                      Much like with dietary freedom and license. Yet I have yet to read an article of yours supporting rationing.

                      Please think before writing your responses. As much as I do enjoy defeating you in debate, I would like you to put up something of a fight. There is no satisfaction in such an easy walkover.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Btw. Freedom of religion and speech are in the constitution. Of course the government is limited. Sexual freedom. Whatever that is, is neither in the constitution or the western canon. The government can make adultery illegal, as it is in many states. Gay sex was illegal until recently. Fornication, illegal in some states. Sexual freedom on par with religious freedom? Nonsense.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      Freedom of religion and speech are in your Constitution (which I am not party to), yes. Sexual freedom is the final expression of individuality and individualism from which derives free speech and freedom of religion, in rather the Lockean tradition. That sexual freedom has been adopted by so many Western nations would seem to indicate that it is part of the Western canon, as a logical conclusion of the process started by the Protestant reformation. There is a reason why many neoreactionaries hold Protestantism in such contempt you know?

                      //Sexual freedom on par with religious freedom? Nonsense.//

                      A one word argument. About your standard, and hardly worth a response, and yet I will. Sexual freedom grants the the individual the ability to make a free choice about ones sexual activity. It allows one the authority to make choices about how one uses one’s body, and in what context. It is also an expression of religion; how one conducts oneself sexually is an aspect of religious thought. This is no less true when someone eschews traditional sexual morality than when one adopts those traditions. Sex and sexuality are some of the most fundamental and personal aspects of one’s make up and identity. Were it not so, the Catholic church would not see fit to regulate it like it tries to. It is the very significance of sex that makes sexual freedom so important. As an expression of belief it is no less important than being able to wear the hijab or own a Bible.

                      In order to sneer at sexual freedom, as you do, you would have to believe that people do not have a right to decide how they can use their own bodies. That is a very significant statement to make.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Freedom of religion and of speech are also in the Universal declaration of human rights. Sexual freedom which exist neither of the Constitution or in the Universal declaration of human rights something else entirely.and given that there are no limits to it at all, the body count of your ideology continues to mount.this is nonsense.

                    • Tom

                      Well, there are no limits on freedom of religion, other than consent an not violating another person’s rights. Saying that there are no limits on something is not scary or untoward.

                      I would have to say though, that the UDHR does protect freedom of expression, and what is sexual activity but an expression of ones sexual desire? And your Constitution expressly recognises that rights listed are not exhaustive. There is no right listed in the Constitution to wear a hat, or not wear a hat. Yet I think it is certainly a right to be able to choose to wear a hat if I so wish. Also freedom of speech is protected, which would require pro-gay marches and parades.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sexual rights are regularly flogged by your crowd at the UN and such enormities are routinely rejected. We routinely warn the Africans against these notions. But they know. They are the first world when it comes to the family. We are the third.

                    • Tom

                      Yes well, I prefer my first world economy, life span, health and sanitation, living standards, lack of significant corruption, press freedom, technological superiority, etc etc etc. Clearly, the family is not that significant to civilisation when the best that Africa can produce is Ebola, eating albino people, killing witches, cutting the genitals off their women, Boko Haram, civil wars, the Rwandan genocide, and Robert Mugabe. Ha, that is the civilisation that “the family” produces is it Austin? I think I will make do with my barbarism then.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Only a few dozen comments and the sexual left shows its inherent racism. Nice.

                    • Tom

                      I told you I am an unashamed cultural supremacist.there is nothing racist about that, as it regards not race but culture. And I find it amusing you accuse me of racism, when it was you that introduced the issue of generalisation about an entire region. Also, do you regard Nicholas Wade as of the sexual left?

                      Now, it is half 12 here, so I must go to sleep. I look forward to continuing to besting you tomorrow

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well, you could try tomorrow!

                      Sleep well!

                    • Tom

                      So where were we? Oh yes, you were accusing me of racism after you yourself had imposed a generality about Africa. Now, as I said prior to my break, there is nothing racist about observing that Africa generally has significant problems with corruption, war, the treatment of women, disease, and economics. If your assertion that the family is the bedrock of civilization was true, it seems odd that those nations and regions of the world where the emphasis is most greatly put on family (Africa, the Middle East, Russia), to the exclusion of individuality and individual rights, are those which also seem to have the most significant and endemic problems with violence, corruption, tribalism, and censorship. Clearly the family is not a necessary or sufficient bedrock of civilization as the West (according to your formulation) manages to do quite well without it, and Africa seems to suffer despite its emphasis on family.

                    • Trazymarch

                      ” If your assertion that the family is the bedrock of civilization was
                      true, it seems odd that those nations and regions of the world where the
                      emphasis is most greatly put on family (Africa, the Middle East,
                      Russia), to the exclusion of individuality and individual rights, are
                      those which also seem to have the most significant and endemic problems with violence, corruption, tribalism, and censorship.”

                      So are you implying that emphasis on the family instead of individuality causes violence, corruption, tribalism and censorship? If you conveniently skip such minor events like several years of communism in Russia and neocolonisation of the many African countries ( Actually its similar case with Middle-East Europe) by the corporations/big capital of the West then you could arrive at this conclusion. Of course there’s way more to that than only issues I have listed. Also: Why do you include Russia as place with strong emphasis on family values when its actually very liberal? Very high divorce rates), Massive number of abortions (Russia had the highest number of abortions per woman of child-bearing age in the world according to UN data as of 2010).

                      Censorship – It does better on West than ever before. You don’t really think that there is something like “free press”? Or maybe we should start by defining what you mean by “free press”.

                      “Clearly the family is not a necessary or sufficient bedrock of
                      civilization as the West (according to your formulation) manages to do quite well without it, and Africa seems to suffer despite its emphasis on family.”

                      1. Family is most basic, natural and vital social cell and no collectivist social engineering will change that fact.
                      2. How West can do well without family when its still dominant social cell?
                      3. Of course Family alone isn’t enough to be bedrock of civilizations. State though is just overgrown family.

                    • Tom

                      Yes, I think that emphasis on the family does cause tribalism, hence violence, hence corruption, and censorship. I would also like to point out that the Communists in the USSR persecuted gay people – homosexuality was illegal, denounced as a decadent bourgeoisie attribute. And regarding your attitude to corporations in Africa, that is just a typical anti-capitalist, anti-free market sloganeering.

                      //Why do you include Russia as place with strong emphasis on family values when its actually very liberal?//

                      Not in terms of its attitude to homosexuality, and the increasing involvement of the Orthodox religion in politics is seeing a commensurate increase in focus on “pro-family” politics. In fact, many on the Christian right, such as Austin Ruse, Scott Lively, Don Feder etc see in Russia a great pro-family champion. I am taking them at their word on this, since they have been there, met members of the Kremlin, and hosted international conferences on the family there.

                      //Censorship – It does better on West than ever before.//

                      Well, in the UK you are allowed to hold a pro-Sharia march. In Uganda you are not allowed to even hold a private pro-gay meeting. In Russia, a newspaper can be fined for running a “pro-gay” story. In the UK, all manner of Christian publications exist.

                      //1. Family is most basic, natural and vital social cell and no collectivist social engineering will change that fact.
                      2. How West can do well without family when its still dominant social cell?
                      3. Of course Family alone isn’t enough to be bedrock of civilizations. State though is just overgrown family.//

                      Hey, I am just running with Austin gives me! If the West is really the 3rd world in regard to the family, and the family is so vital for civilization and success, then we should expect to see the West failing, technologically, politically, economically etc. And yet it is not. Likewise, if the family really is so very very important, then Africa and Arabia ought to be doing far better then they are. Indeed, I would go so far as to state that in all the vilest most despicable places in the world, you will find strong “pro-family” policies. From Saudi Arabia to Iran, from Uganda to Pakistan. Now correlation does not mean causation, but it does wink suggestively at it and flash its underskirts. “Pro-family” policies are linked, seemingly inextricably, with religious authoritarianism, tribalism, violence against women, and persecution of homosexuals.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The west is far more violent than Africa. After all, what is abortion but the killing of a human being now going on 100 million strong. What is pornogrpahy but sexual slavery of all participants. This is your culture not Africa’s and not mine. They have far more respect for young people, for the eldery, the family than we do in our violent atomized drug ridden, pornographied culture. You are welcome to your technology!

                    • Tom

                      //The west is far more violent than Africa. //

                      Ah yes, that would explain the rafts of African migrants trying to cross the Strait of Sicily into Italy; too little violence, corruption, poverty, and famine in Africa.

                      Okay Austin, put your family where your mouth is. If you are so sure Africa is far less violent, move your family to Northern Nigeria. I am sure your little daughters and wife would flourish under Sharia law, in the shadow of Boko Haram. Or, hey, what about the Central African Republic? Yeah, there has been a war going on there for 2 years, but it is certainly less violent then New York or London. No, wait a minute, what about Egypt? How I could forget. Yeah, the constitution has been suspended, and coptic Christians are being persecuted, but it certainly less violent than San Francisco or Berlin.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Hmmm. I suspect you devalue human life to such an extent you don’t count the killing of unborn children!

                    • Tom

                      I take it from that reply that you will be moving your daughters to Northern Nigeria soon, as it is a safer, more wholesome place for them to grow up. Or maybe move to Sudan? They might need a little clitorectomy to fit right in, but what is that really bin return for not seeing pro-gay magazine covers?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh yes much of Africa is a basket case. That does not mean they don’t have a deeper and more profound understanding of family. They do. I suspect you live alone? That’s considered strange and even harmful by Africans. Your individualism kills

                    • Tom

                      Ha, so Africa is not less violent than the West then, contra your previous assertion? They have a deeper a more profound understanding of the family which is compatible with mothers and grandmothers holding their daughters down and hacking off their genitals with knives? Or is that the more profound understanding of family which endorses and supports Sharia law, the inferior status of women? Or would that be the profound understanding of family which results in rape being used as a weapon of war in CAR? Yeah, a real “profound” understanding of family, Austin. Still, I suppose you have good Catholic Robert Mugabe for companionship there, aye?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I suspect you live alone?

                    • Tom

                      I suspect you do not think your daughters lives would be better in northern Nigeria than in the USA?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh I would prefer to live in the US than on even the UK!

                    • Tom

                      So the US is less violent than Africa?

                    • Tom

                      So perhaps Africa is not less violent than the USA or the UK?

                      And, given that you admit that much of Africa is a basket case, and yet you also think they have a profound understanding of the family, it would seem that respect for the family is not the crucial building block of civilization that you and the Catholic church believes, since most of the West is not a basket case, and yet we (according to your belief) have a shallow understanding of family.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      In short, there’s no such thing as freedom of sexuality. Never agreed to in your country, and my country, by the United Nations, or as far as I know any other body. So yes you assertion is nonsense

                    • Tom

                      Oh please Austin, I am not talking about those rights that are expressly enumerated. That much is obvious when I talk of dietary or sporting freedom. The right to freedom of religion existed prior to the formulation of either your Constitution or the UDHR. It existed when Romans were throwing Christians to lions, when the Catholic church was persecuting Protestants, in existed when Catholics were persecuted by Protestants, it exists in nations like Saudi Arabia where the UDHR is not ratified, or areas under control of IS, which doesn’t recognise the UDHR.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The point is, your sexual freedom kills. It is poison. Sex is for married men and women. Anything else equals death and disease precisely because there’s no limiting factor. This is what your side hath wrought. Death by the thousands this is why teenage girls have herpes in their throats. You think this is because of traditional morality? Or perhaps sexual freedom?
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Tom

                      Sexual freedom no more kills then dietary or religious or sporting freedom kills. It is people who use their freedom in unwise ways, such as having unprotected sex with lots of partners, or eating mcdonalds every day, or by boxing from a young age, or blowing up cars because of religion.

                      And, I gave a very good limiting factor above, didn’t I? Namely to restrict your sexual activity, as you do your dietary activity, for your long term health.

                    • Tom

                      Excellent work skewering Austin; when the facts of the matter are ignored, and the language turns petulant, you can be sure to have landed a blow. Well done!

                      (Though Mr Lively was far more active in influencing the Russian law).

  • M

    “A goofy guy named Adam Weinstein writing for a goofy website calledGawker has called for the jailing of those who deny global warming.”

    This is misleading. In terms of legal accountability, Adam Weinstein distinguishes between the ignorant moron who denies global warming and the more sociopathic shyster who is promoting personal profit in an unprincipled way. Weinstein does not favor jailing the mere ignoramus. He is NOT “talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties.You all know that man. That man is an idiot. He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth’s atmosphere a little more with his Mr. Pibb burps …” No, he is talking about “a malicious, profiteering quietist agenda posturing as skepticism. ” He is talking about selfish profiteers who are threatening lives and livelihoods by knowingly and uncaringly contributing to climate change. In my state I have the right to work in a smoke-free environment. I think Weinstein wants something similar for the planet — an environment that does not disrespect life by allowing unbridled degradation of the atmosphere. We already have laws that regulate carbon dioxide emission standards for new cars, so we are already beginning to implement some form of climate protections. We may not agree with what he says, but we should agree with his right to say it. This is equally true for the odious Scott Lively.

    • fredx2

      You actually think your clarification makes Mr. Weinstein’s position any less odious? His position is “don’t jail the poor person in the street who believes what Rush Limbaugh says”, his position is “jail Rush Limbaugh”. You think that is better?

      • GG

        Yes, if you are a shallow ideologue.

    • Gerald

      Yes, that is true. Weinstein is fairly tolerant of the scientifically illiterate. It is those who are actively hurting others that he wants held accountable. I agree with the principle but not the practical application of that sort of regulation. It’s immoral to harm people by being callous or deceptive about climate change, but it’s not feasible to hold anyone responsible because the guilty party is so diffuse. It’s wrong that impoverished Bangladeshi farmers are losing arable land to rising sea waters and seeping salinity, but they can’t in all fairness sue anyone for it at this time. I believe history and hindsight will punish the misanthropic cultures. As MLK Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

  • John

    I seriously doubt public support for homosexual marriage is eroding, regardless of Pew polls. The popular culture just doesn’t really seem to care one way or the other. As long as you don’t openly murder someone, folks seem just fine with whatever kind of behavior.

    Marriage in today’s world is just a temporary contract to use one another’s property until the warm fuzzy feelings end (and anyone that’s been married for a while knows they end…) and then it’s a quick, no-fault divorce and on to the next sexual partner. Let the gays and whoever get married and soon enough nobody will want to get married and then we’ll be living in A Brave New World.

    When you run around for decades and tell children everything they do is golden and perfect you can’t be surprised when they want to do whatever they want to do however they want to do it because…well, everything they do is golden and perfect. This society has brought all of this chaos upon itself by catering to its own whims for years.

    The Church should pray for us all, expound the teachings of Christ and pick up the pieces of what’s left of our society when it implodes.

    • ForChristAlone

      Got that right indeed

  • thelastprophet

    So, if we go to convention and pass a constitutional amendment, then are we a hateful country? Does not a society have the right to define what forms customs and laws shall take?
    It is painfully apparent that male on male sex is unhealthy, doesn’t matter if the proponents of it say it is natural, rattlesnakes are natural also, same with the brown recluse. Statistics have consistently shown that gay sexual practices are unhealthy, the Red Cross will not accept blood from practicing homosexuals. children in these faux marriages can have only one natural parent, and on and on. There are so many things wrong with this picture it’s pathetic.

    And we haven’t even touched on Scripture.

    And it’s doesn’t stop with gay marriage, it’s the entire panoply, bodily mutilation because of a mental state, 59 different genders; this is madness, sheer madness, it insults nature and natures God.

  • Sygurd Jonfski

    That’s what happens when sexual perversions are raised to the status of “individual rights”. We live in an age of deadly idiocy.

    • AnnieRoux

      According to every association of medicine, psychology, psychiatry, social work, nursing, etc., homosexuality is not a “perversion”, but a normal variant of human sexuality.

      • GG

        Political groups with scientific names are still political groups. Homosexual desire is not normal.

        • AnnieRoux

          It isn’t the norm, but that doesn’t mean it’s not “normal”. If you have a homosexual orientation, it’s normal to have homosexual desire. Homosexual people and homosexual desire have existed since the dawn of time. Homosexual pairs also exist in many other species besides humans. Normal people understand this.

          • Augustus

            Just because humans are prone to engage in self-destructive behavior does not justify public approval of that behavior. The question is, Should society support or encourage–not merely tolerate–behavior that undermines public health and social well-being? In the beginning, the courts forced the public to tolerate homosexuality. Now the gay activists in union with our robed tyrants on the Court are forcing us to celebrate it, despite the harm such behavior causes to it’s practitioners and others.

          • ForChristAlone

            It is not normal. Case closed.

      • ForChristAlone

        No science there at all.. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that man on man and woman on woman is disordered.

  • Brian Harvill

    I find it rather interesting that the reply that I received on my post isn’t appearing here for others to read. according to Discus, (the opinion site that governs the comments here, I received the following reply.

    Austin Ruse •2 hours ago
    It is not relevant what Scott Lively said he did.

    Who exactly are we to believe then? are we to believe Scott Lively when he claimed involvement in writing the Ugandan laws or are we to pretend that Scott Lively simply lierd about it? OR are we to believe Scott Lively (which would then make any received blow-back appropriate)?

    If I am to ignore what these people say themselves and only listen to the author then does that mean that this is merely a forum for the author who is expressing his opinions?

  • Eddy J. Secco

    Sodom and Gomorrah has returned. This time with the backing of very powerful countries. Everyone should remember what happened to those two communities.

    • Brian Harvill

      E#ddy-
      Yes everyone should remember those two cities and especially thereasons for their destruction which the Bible CLEARLY states in Ezekiel

  • Daniel P

    A comment on the comments: of all human beings, the one who thinks that he is really driven by the truth is the most likely to be driven by vanity.

    People genuinely driven by truth show a desire to learn, not to win.

  • JoeMyGod

    re

    • Scott W.

      Source please.

  • I_M_Forman

    Hurrah! Some is fighting against the LGBT extremists! Thank God! Get a new administration in and cut foreign aid spending to include money for promoting Gay Marriage and Abortion! Get a Senate and House to match! Thank you Obama, and we all know it was Hillary that pushed this gay agenda and abortion funding in foreign policy! She loses this next election she is effectively missed her chance. Restore the true family and true Culture of Life!

  • Trazymarch

    So… its not about tolerance anymore but acceptance? And people considering homosexuality immoral is supposed to be bad too? I guess gays will never stop until every single person on the earth accept homosexuality as something moral, good, okay or at least neutral.

    “According to recent data from the Pew Research Center, the disapproval of homosexuality in many nations around the world remains deeply entrenched. In most of the 40 nations surveyed, more than 50 percent of respondents consider it “morally unacceptable,” with that number above 90 percent in seven countries.”

    • Tom

      //I guess gays will never stop until every single person on the earth accept homosexuality as something moral, good, okay or at least neutral.//

      Just as anti-racists will not stop combating racism, or Christians will never stop evangelising.

      • Trazymarch

        So you don’t believe in free-speech after all and don’t want tolerance but acceptance?

        • Tom

          Sorry, I realise I am not talking to a libertarian audience, but even so I think it quite obvious that one can find some views repulsive (eg Nazis views) but also hold that the expression of such views should not be illegal, and the people who espouse them should not be subject to violence. That is the essence of free speech.

          Of course ideally I would like acceptance. You wouldn’t want a world in which no one was racist?

          • Trazymarch

            If gays want acceptance and being gay or leading gay life deemed moral,good or neutral it’s e.g impossible for priest’s sermon condemning homosexuality. Why would he condemn it if he accepted it as moral? And it’s happening already: Some priests who condemn homosexuality are forced to resign like
            fr Donat Gonet who denounced homosexuality, abortion and cohabitation.

            • Tom

              /Some priests who condemn homosexuality are forced to resign like
              fr Donat Gonet who denounced homosexuality, abortion and cohabitation.//

              And some teachers who get gay married, or divorced and remarried, are fired from their jobs with Catholic organisations. What’s your point?

            • Tom

              I consider myself a libertarian, yes.

      • Elena0411

        Homosexuals don’t want anyone intruding in their bedrooms (bathhouse, bar, public park, etc.) but they want to invade our MINDS. Stop comparing a behavior with a race.

        • mitch64

          Come on…as if no straight person has ever had sex in a bar, a public park..so your little insult goes both ways. Also, those references are so outdated as places to have “gay sex,” that they are laughable. People who use those now are usually married “straight,” guys too much of a wuss to admit who they are. They have had their MINDS invaded for generations with rhetoric like this and “bullied,” into being people they aren’t with an end result of hurting their wives and children.

    • mitch64

      As one of the “gays,” let me say I understand where you and many people are coming from (even with your exaggerated claims of “gays,” wanting to take over the world…or as you seem to be lumping all the “gays,” together as if we all think alike) I too am sick of the media throwing “gay” into all of our faces and labeling people as such”Michael Sam,” is a “Gay,” football player, the “gay,” basketball player whom I can’t even remember his name. Both are just athletes (and mediocre at that) so why do we care about their sexuality? Hopefully some day it wont matter, but I can see where people come from now, even if they are part of the problem themselves (as they obviously do care if someone is gay.)

      From my perspective (as an individual who just happens to be gay) is that most people of any sexuality just want to be left alone to live their lives, and have the same access to opportunities and legal protections as everyone else. That means that I can live on a nice street in the suburbs, if the neighbors have an issue that is entirely their business (luckily none of ours do) they can snub us if they want but the first time you yell “fag,” out or throw something at my house Im going to come after you. That means I have the same legal protections for me and my family as anyone else, yada, yada yada. Problem was, no one was just going to give us those things so people had to go and fight for them and yes, get in your face.

      “I guess gays will never stop until every single person on the earth accept homosexuality as something moral, good, okay or at least neutral.” Naaw, not so much, I couldn’t care less what you might think of me, but try to stand in my way and my families way and I will definitely move you out of it. If a person tries to bring their religious beliefs into the public square or if someone tries to work out their sexual neurosis by trying to limit my protections or yes, rights, then expect push back.

      • ForChristAlone

        “From my perspective (as an individual who just happens to be gay) ”

        There is no such thing as “being” gay. You can be saddled with same sex attraction but that’s about it.

  • TERRY

    The lgbtq people want their opponents in jail.

    bobby kennedy wants those who disagree with him on climate change in jail.

    What if they were thrown in jail TOGETHER and then mated? (Male and female of course!)

    Talk about a house of horrors for their captors down the line!!

  • gullycat

    Let me interject something here, relative to the question of public promotion of deviant sexual practices: I recently had to go into San Francisco and had to change my route (not really difficult, I used to live there) because of the “Folsom Street Fair.” It reminded me that one of the reasons our family left SF was because we were sick of having our taxes support disgusting, evil and dangerous events like this one (to which, by the way, some people take their children!). Just google Folsom Street Fair images – warning: NSFW) if you want to see the results of the nihilistic amoralism of the LGB promoters. Where do you draw the line? Somewhere way before this becomes common or accepted, in my opinion.

  • Elena0411

    The FDA has had a ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men (MSM) and the homosexual lobby is fighting hard to lift this. Many people are banned from donating blood, including those whose relatives have had Mad Cow disease, who have traveled to certain places at certain times, etc. Only the homosexuals are up in arms about this. I can only assume (plus, I remember one of them saying it in the 80s) that they wish to make AIDS a mainstream disease. You know, equality, etc. The only way to do this is by injecting their infected blood, hoping some will be missed and enter the blood bank (which of course would happen, as there is a long time period between infection and blood detection).

  • AnnieRoux

    I wonder why this author has rejected Church teaching on treating gays and lesbians with respect and dignity?

  • GG

    I wonder why you mis-define respect and dignity? Those who push “gay” ideology push sin and act contrary to our Lord.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Another target of the Gay Bullyboys is Robert Oscar Lopez for his tireless fight against gay-parenting and the LGBT( IQQ,DB/S&M, and the soon to be attached “P”) takeover of academia: http://www.americanthinker.com/robert_oscar_lopez/

    AND THIS: What about the New Homophiles? Are they exempt from being bullied? Or, have they reached a concordant with the Bullyboys?

    AND THIS: Have the American Catholic Bishops acknowledged and voiced their support for the pro-lie & pro-family ascendancy in Russia? Have they publicly praised the Russian Duma for its recent pro-family legislation? If not, why not?

    Regarding Scott Lively, yes, the Gay Bullyboys have their nooses for him for his Eastern European and African appearances, but they are especially agitated (fire breathing, actually) because of his work documenting the the crucial homosexual origins of the Nazi Party. A source that, no doubt, has inspired the Gay Bullyboys brown shirt/black boot state of mind and M-of-O.

    Next time I round the corner and walk down Folsom Street, here in San Francisco, I’ll keep a lookout for jackbooters. We’re on to you, fellows.

    • Daniel P

      With respect to your comment about the “New Homophiles”: I’ve noticed vitriol directed at them by both sides. They’ve certainly experienced very strong pressure to stop opposing homosexual conduct.

    • mitch64

      No one is wasting their time “targeting,” Mr. Lopez or Mr. Lively, not should they. Rather they should allow them to speak. They do more to change peoples’ opinions (opposite then what they would like but still) by just keeping on keeping on. They are considered jokes to the pro gay people and most rational anti gay agenda people. Pick up Mr. Lopez book..”Johnson Park,” (I kid you not..) to get a peak into his mind..and his writing style, and his elaborate gay sex scenes!

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    NOTE TO READER BRAIN HARVILL:

    Please acknowledge that Mr. Ruse was interested in keeping your conversation with him going for an extended time – along with your active links. Does show that Mr. Ruse is not preventing anyone from taking a peek at any alleged “truth” within your favored (un-vetted) sources.

    Regarding Uganda (that is Black Africa, for Arab Africa is something other regarding homosexuality), the Gay Bullyboys are utterly ignorant of African history & culture. The abhorrence of homosexuality was well entrenched in Black (non-Muslim) Africa way before Mr. Lively pulled out his map. It did not take Mr. Lively, or anyone else, to push anyone government to an “extremist” position. Black Africa is reacting (protecting) its long held social mores from mperialist Western sex agitators – such as the Bullyboys from the Human Rights Campaign. I would think that you, as a multicultural leftist, should appreciate that! Maybe not. Maybe leftist you are not as multicultural & diversity adhering as you think.

    But, then, neither were the Gay Nazi Bullyboys!

    NOTE: The only possible exception to the above point about Black Africa is South Africa. But, that is because of the stifling strangulation which the Leftist/Marxists groups has over the African National Congress Party (ANC). Mandela was bought. As soon as he, and his Party, gained control they aggressively imposed full abortion “rights” and same-sex marriages. The first was immediate, the second a bot later in coming. Which explains why South Africa is the violent moral cesspool it is today. South Africa is burdened with many of the world’s highest rates of violence and social disintegration (minus the havoc of fully islamized societies).

    The point being, here is South Africa but there is Uganda (and Black Africa), The president, the people, and culture of Uganda sit across the border from South Africa. Their eyes are wide open; they are witnesses to the corrupting aftermath of the Gay/Abortion Bullyboys. It didn’t take Scott Lively to make them see.

    • Brian Harvill

      @cadavera verolnumero

      Actually being well versed in the ussues of historical homosexuality, I can state quite blatantly that afrian tribal society, much like the native American indians, supported homosexuality and homosexual unions and this is NOT limited to South Africa either.

      It is certain that Mr. Ruse wanted to prolong the conversation yet this doesn’t change the facts that his original opinion peice is full of errors and is unsupported by reality.

      Your blindness to the fact that the repression of Africa has occured from many outside forces uncluding the fundamenrist movements in western religion that has consistently forced its own ideas of morality on the indigenous peoples. Uganda is no different. This current attack on people is directly linked to Scott Lively and his associates. The evidence is there for all to see. I don’t have to do anything but post the evidence from VETTED sites.

      You may continue to deny the truth, that is yoyr choice, yet I and others that actually care about truth and human dignity, have the right to fight ignorance wherever and whenever it shows itself. You can believe what you want but when that belief becomes a tool to kill, destroy, and manipulate people, it has ceased to be of benefit to the public. Religion is used often as a weapon against the “enemy”. I am merely blunting that weapon.

      It is funny that when deprived of the ability to bully and discriminate, the right is trying to scream about being bullied as if it is their right to bully, terrify and kill homosexuals and any disagreement with that right makes you I to a vi tim. History and present day realities give that ideology the lie.

  • Jared

    Recently a Muslim couple walked into my shopping wanting to rent tuxedos for their wedding. As we spoke I learned that this was her second marriage and his 3rd. I told them to go else were.

  • Objectivetruth

    See the article below, on gay bullying in Philadelphia from someone who actually supports the “gay” community:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/U-TURN/Featherman-LGBT-community-shows-hypocrisy.html

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Whether Mr. Lopez is an effective writer or not is besides the point. His activism is – even if some Catholics may find it difficult to work alongside him. His fight against gay adoption is to be lauded. He is quite open about his (non-active) bi-sexuality. One would think the so-called “gay community” would find that commendable. And, for this, he is to be hounded by the Gay Bullies and a, now, whipped down & chained up academia? Can identify. I used to say that I was molested or raped when I was six/seven. No longer do so. Now I simply tell folks (gay or not) that I was introduced to homosexuality by my father when I was that age. Have found a hostile (almost a violent) hearing. Why is that?

    In addressing this overall issue regarding homosexuality, permit me to quote Anthony Esolen (sometime writer for this site). It sums up sex quite nicely: “Of course sex is necessary, but for the human race, not the individual.”

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13730/

    “Where Countless Dead Bodies Lie”
    (California)

    • mitch64

      I am sorry for your past. I have no idea why people would act that way to you. I will simply say that your father was the villain who victimized you..not the “gay agenda.” He introduced you to rape and incest, not the gay life or homosexuality. Once again, I am sorry, but you cant extrapolate your father’s evilness to every gay person, just as a girl can’t do that to every straight person if she was raped. Blame your father, not the gays.

      As I said, no one is bullying Mr. Lopez as he is a joke. I have no idea how he was whipped and chained by academia (which is a motif Lopez would no doubt use in his next potboiler…”about the evil’s of gay sex..but lets stop and have a gratuitous sex scene before I get to that…” ) but I might think its because he really is a joke…(I had no idea he was actually an academic…) I would think that they would let him “speak,” for himself, as when he does, he comes off as borderline crazy.

      I think Mr. Lopez is trying to exorcise his childhood trauma and instead of dealing with his own psyche, is lashing out at others. I am sorry that he had such a terrible childhood being raised by two lesbians…lots of people have terrible childhoods being raised by straight people. The end result is that Lopez, in his own neurotic self centeredness (it happened to me so its the most important thing on earth) would rather leave children homeless then having someone who loves them and takes care of them. He has a problem with (from his view point) a rotten parent, and that’s it. He needs to grow up and deal with it.

  • Leejon Bumphus

    LSMFT!

  • Boo

    HRC never says anything about jailing their political opponents. Why do you feel you need to lie?

  • mary moore

    One more thing to be afraid of–gangs of gay “bullyboys” roaming the streets, trying to force you to treat them as human beings. Woo.

    • mitch64

      And making fun of your outfits!!! The horror!

    • GG

      Yes, it is not as if they were adopting children and raising them in an absurd and deviant way pretending two men are a mother and father.

  • spiderbucket

    Fascism.

  • JosephRaphael

    Wow! You folks really call yourselves ‘followers of Christ’? This shouldn’t even be a discussion if we, as true followers of Him understand that we cannot judge any human other than ourselves. How do you justify such hate-filled commentary here or anywhere?

  • A goofy website called “Gawker”. The only reason I even know about this, you, or your website is because of a gay blog that I’m sure gets far more traction than yours. Good thing you don’t write for an actual publication with an actual audience, you’d be fired in .3 seconds for libel, and an all around lack of vetting sources and copy editing.

  • Patrick

    Just want to remind everybody here that Paul Cameron decided to co-author a book with a white supremacist holocaust denier back in the 80s.

    A fact Austin curiously forgot to mention, and a fact that is reason enough for a Catholic not to be a fan of him.

    I’m not going to argue (and I’m a couple weeks to late for that if I wanted to), but I figured I should point out that glaring omission.

MENU