Homophobia!!!

Homophobia” is such a confusing word to me. It is a label used by those who believe that there are no harmful side effects to the promotion and living out of the homosexual lifestyle on our society and it is a label which is used to ridicule anyone who believes that the promotion and living out of the homosexual lifestyle in our society is detrimental on multiple levels. It is used in a manner that makes it sound like the person who believes that homosexuality is unacceptable is actually “suffering from a fearful and IRRATIONAL CONDITION” resulting from an “uneducated bigotry.” Well, let’s get one thing straight: When it comes to the “homophobia that I suffer from,” I am not afraid of homosexuals – I am afraid for them spiritually.

It is sad and a shame when a person compares a sexual choice to the way someone is born. There is no LOGICAL defense that can be given to support the homosexual lifestyle.

First, it is UNNATURAL. Nature itself teaches that the physical act of sex is meant to be something that occurs between the opposite sexes! That’s why there are males and there are females. There is NO procreation that can occur from any homosexual relationship. The entire homosexual relationship is based upon nothing but a perverted form of sex.

Second, it is UNBENEFICIAL. No lasting good comes from a homosexual relationship. The risks of disease skyrocket! The confusion of children skyrockets! It is a choice that gives into lust and leads to heartache.

Third, it is UNHOLY. No politician, man-made-law or man-made church will ever be able to challenge or change the clear message of God’s Word. The Bible simply displays the fact that man and woman were made for each other, that no eternal happiness can come from homosexuality and that homosexuality is a sinful decision that can be repented of (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). This is why the politicians who are in the pocket of the homosexual agenda attack the Bible as an outdated way of viewing morality, marriage and our culture. Every person has a soul, and it’s the soul that the homosexual is in danger of losing.

Our culture is increasingly becoming afraid of calling anything wrong that clearly deserves the label, while the other side is not afraid to use politics and labels to make something “right” that is clearly wrong. It is in our best interest to start taking note of those cultural powers and politicians that are quick to use the “homophobic” label and use the influential power we have before they turn the label that describes their opinion into something that makes our stand on the view ILLEGAL.

The homosexual agenda is not about tolerance. Their agenda is about complete acceptance. I repeat, the homosexual agenda is not about tolerance – it is about complete acceptance as being normal, moral and socially profitable. My views towards homosexuals are not based upon hate but upon concern for the fruit that this movement will increasingly bear.

I am not afraid of homosexuals, but homophobia is becoming an increasingly scary word. EA

Advertisements

43 comments

  1. Great post, man. I’m with you 100%. I too am confused by the assumption that I am afraid of homosexuals because I disagree with homosexuality. That’s like saying I’m against (insert better metaphor if you can think of one) child pornography because I’m scare of those who look at pictures of naked children.

    Of course, it is ridiculous to argue that the Bible condones homosexuality; it clearly condemns it in many places.

    But, I often find it futile to argue the Bible with people that don’t recognize it’s authority. What I don’t get, and would love to ask a homosexual if I could find one that wouldn’t be offended, is the following:

    Homosexuals have sex in the same way that heterosexuals do. Without getting explicit, all intercourse involves some kind of rid-like thing entering some kind of hole (okay, I guess that’s kind of explicit). Clearly, homosexuals are emulating the “natural” way to engage in sexual activity. Shouldn’t that raise a flag and tell them thru are doing something inauthentic? Shouldn’t it enter their mind that they migh possibly have a sexual disorder? I think that’s what homosexuality is–a sexual disorder. Why! Because it is in conflict with the natural order of sex.

    I think homosexuals need to seek help, not only religiously, but medically and psychologically. I know a lot of people would call me intolerant for that, but I care (not only about their souls but also) about their mental and emotional well-being.

  2. I also think you had a good post. What we sometimes fail to do in our battle against homosexuality as a life style is to also condemn heterosexual relationships outside of marriage as well.
    Oh, I know we do in preaching but…if you had a TV show that had a relationship with two homosexuals living together and one that had the same plot but with two heterosexuals living together, do we cringe equally? If it is sin we are against, we should!

  3. Bro. Eugene; HOME RUN SIR!! POWERFUL MESSAGE!! MAY THE GOD OF HEAVEN INCREASE YOUR KIND, ONE OF THE BEST POSTS I’VE READ TO DATE. GOD BLESS YOU YOUNG MAN,THANKS FOR “STANDING IN THE GAP” ROM 1:16 & 2 TIM 4:7-8 “CARRY ON SOLDIER”

  4. “Nature itself teaches that the physical act of sex is meant to be something that occurs between the opposite sexes! ”

    Actually, homosexuality is practiced by a number of species. It is not unique to humans.

    “Second, it is UNBENEFICIAL. No lasting good comes from a homosexual relationship. ”

    This is incorrect because it’s a generalization. There are many highly beneficial homosexual relationships out there: couples who are faithful to each other and take the appropriate care in their sexual behavior, just as heterosexual people do.

    And if gay marriage were legalized, there’d be more of the stable, healthy gay relationships, and fewer of the unhealthy ones you mistakenly think represent the entire set.

    The idea that society’s acceptance of homosexuality confuses children is a canard. What really confuses children is being told that their sexual orientation is wrong and that they should change it, even though it’s impossible to change, and it’s not harming anyone.

    “Third, it is UNHOLY. No politician, man-made-law or man-made church will ever be able to challenge or change the clear message of God’s Word.”

    Until you, or any Christian, can conclusively demonstrate that the BIble is more than the human product of an ancient Middle Eastern culture, this idea about ‘holiness’ remains a subjective opinion. The Bible’s message might be clear, but the value of the Bible as a moral guide is far from it.

    1. Nature comment – you want to act like a bunch of PERVERTED animals then go ahead! We are humans Keith with a soul. The basic rule of nature is MALE and FEMALE and not vice-versa.

      Beneficial comment – pay attention to my “lasting good” point Keith. It’s not a “generalization.” If you want to give into temporary fleshly lusts that damn your soul I don’t consider that lasting good. Homosexuality (nor the abuse of marriage and divorce among heterosexuals) is not a burden that this culture will be able to carry for long. It handicaps children and will do irreparable harm to generations of spiritual hearts and minds in young people.

      Children should be taught right from wrong and homosexuality is WRONG and it’s not impossible to change – “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). I will not let you or anyone else rob my child or anyone else’s child of Heaven with such a perverted view of sin and salvation.

      Unholy comment – don’t come here berating the scriptures and then turn around and tell everyone you believe in the Messiah of the OT scriptures! You know what you have to do be a person who does that? You have to believe in what the scriptures say and that they don’t come from man but from God –

      “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:16-21)

      “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:23-25)

      And Keith, your twisted definition of “holiness” may be subjective to you and to other homosexuals who consider themselves Christians, but God’s definition is objective – “Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:13-16)

      Homosexuality is out of control lust and you know what the scriptures say whether you choose to believe them or not – “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the LUSTS of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to VILE PASSIONS. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:24-27)

      Keith, please stick with the scriptures and also please make your comment one at a time so they can be replied to accordingly. Sin is sin and no manmade law or sin-saturated heart will change that – – – that’s why the Son of God died for our sins but we must be willing to repent (literally change our mind/heart) of them.

      If I have made any statements that are wrong on a personal basis I apologize, but what the scriptures say is what the scriptures say and they say that homosexuality is a sin that will change a spiritual heart into a spiritual stone and cost a person his/her soul.

      1. “The basic rule of nature is MALE and FEMALE and not vice-versa.”

        I’m not sure why you insist on this point. If nature (at least, biology) has anything to tell us, it’s that there are no rules. Do you deny that homosexuality is practiced by other species? If you like, I can provide some references to relevant studies.

        Nature is full of immoral and harmful acts. Cannibalism, for instance. Earthquakes and tsunamis. It is simply not true that because something occurs in nature it is morally good and if it doesn’t occur in nature it is morally evil.

        Regarding benefits of homosexual relationships, you have not yet provided any evidence for your view that homosexuals are incapable of stable, long term relationships, or that the wider acceptance of homosexuality is somehow leading to a degradation of society and psychological damage to children. You’re simply engaging in demagoguery.

        I rather get the sense that you haven’t read anything apart from the Bible on these issues, despite the wealth of research that has been conducted. You cannot expect your arguments to be taken seriously if you don’t have the facts at hand.

        “I will not let you or anyone else rob my child or anyone else’s child of Heaven with such a perverted view of sin and salvation.”

        You’re overreacting again. I’m not trying to rob your child of anything. You are responsible for teaching your own children, and you can teach them whatever you wish.

        “…don’t come here berating the scriptures and then turn around and tell everyone you believe in the Messiah of the OT scriptures!”

        You’ve misread me. I don’t believe in the Messiah of the OT. I’m not sure why you think I do.

        As for your reply to my second comment, you show your true colors as a Christian. You are not kind or compassionate, but mean spirited and judgmental, willing to cast aspersions on my character even though you don’t know me. That’s what Christianity has done for you. Well done, sir.

      2. Keith, you’re confusing nature and natural when it comes to sex between human beings. No procreation can take place between two homosexual people and they know that’s just one of many things that points to fact that a homosexual relationship is an un-natural one. That’s why they are so desperate to adopt children so they can try to make their un-natural relationship seem “more natural.”

        “If you reject the Mosaic law as a relic of the old covenant that no longer has to be followed by Christians (the position I personally take), then why do you bother quoting Old Testament scriptures against homosexuality?” These are your words on http://lifeofafemalebiblewarrior.wordpress.com/conversation-corner/

        If you’re not a person who believes that Jesus fulfilled the OT scriptures you sure left an impression that points to that way of thinking. If you’re not a Christian then you’re not a Christian. I apologize that I got that impression of being a professing Christian from your words.

        A homosexual having “a long lasting relationship” does no more for them than an atheist having “their own set morals.” The result is the same – sin. You want me to leave the Bible out and take what people have “discovered” in it’s place. If people “discover” anything that somehow “justifies” a homosexual relationship in their eyes that will NEVER change what God’s word says. What facts are you referring to? The fact that when a person gets away from God as Creator they get away from (not with) Him being our Judge. The fact is homosexuality is UNNATURAL.

        Keith, go back one more time and read my second reply very slowly. I said (and my opinion was based on the language you were using) “If I have made any statements that are wrong on a personal basis I apologize, but what the scriptures say is what the scriptures say and they say that homosexuality is a sin that will change a spiritual heart into a spiritual stone and cost a person his/her soul.”

        Never one time in any of my statements Keith have I said that homosexuals cannot be saved by coming to Jesus (or you for that matter since I know now that you’re not a professed Christian)…I said that the sin of homosexuality is a sin that can and eventually will completely turn a person’s heart away from God and His word. It is a sin based upon lust.

        Keith, your whole basis here and on other’s posts have basically been that homosexuality is “ok and natural” while my basis here and on other posts is that homosexuality is sinful.

  5. Concerning natural vs. unnatural, here is a list of things that, unlike homosexuality, really are unnatural – perhaps we should avoid these too?

    – Driving cars
    – Typing on computers
    – Getting fillings at the dentist
    – Bypass surgery

    1. Natural vs. Unnatural according to the Bible – “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the NATURAL USE for what is against NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:26,27)

      Keith, please don’t start your same il-logical, un-natural and un-scriptural conversation here. I have seen what you have to say and sadly you have been given over to a debased mind (Romans 1:28) and just because you “have no shame” in your sin or the sins of others does not change what it is – “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment they shall be cast down,” says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 8:12, 6:15). Unfortunately it seems as if your conscience is seared over concerning your sin and your twisting of God’s word (1 Timothy 4:2), but I pray that it is not.

  6. Eugene:

    “No procreation can take place between two homosexual people and they know that’s just one of many things that points to fact that a homosexual relationship is an un-natural one.”

    But there are many heterosexual relationships that cannot lead to procreation either. Is it therefore a sin for infertile people to have sexual relationships? Is it a sin to use contraception?

    “That’s why they are so desperate to adopt children so they can try to make their un-natural relationship seem “more natural.”

    Another canard. You don’t actually know why gay couples adopt children – have you ever asked them?

    “If you’re not a person who believes that Jesus fulfilled the OT scriptures you sure left an impression that points to that way of thinking. If you’re not a Christian then you’re not a Christian. I apologize that I got that impression of being a professing Christian from your words.”

    No problem – sorry if my words were confusing.

    “A homosexual having “a long lasting relationship” does no more for them than an atheist having “their own set morals.” The result is the same – sin.”

    I think if you wanted to know what benefits a gay couple got from a long term relationship, you’d have to ask them.

    You might regard such relationships to be sinful, but this doesn’t mean that gay couples themselves perceive no benefits in their relationships. Indeed, as far as I can tell, gays experience the same benefits from long term relationships as everyone else does: a stable home life, a partner who is there to support them when they need it, a higher degree of financial security, etc.

    “What the scriptures say is what the scriptures say and they say that homosexuality is a sin that will change a spiritual heart into a spiritual stone and cost a person his/her soul.”

    What does it mean, on a practical level, for a spiritual heart to turn into a spiritual stone? In other words, what outward signs can I use to detect if someone’s heart has turned to stone? This might make it easier for me to understand this passage, and to relate it to homosexuality.

    “I said that the sin of homosexuality is a sin that can and eventually will completely turn a person’s heart away from God and His word.”

    Again, where is the evidence? How do you explain the existence of many gays who are deeply spiritual and devout Christians?None of these people’s hearts are turned away from God.

    “Keith, your whole basis here and on other’s posts have basically been that homosexuality is “ok and natural” while my basis here and on other posts is that homosexuality is sinful.”

    I’m not arguing that homosexuality is moral because it’s natural. I’m arguing that how natural something is has very little to do with its morality at all. It’s a red herring.

    The point of morality, as I see it, is to reduce suffering and enhance well-being, so that we can live in a free and peaceful society without despair and need. There is no evidence that homosexuality, when practiced in a responsible way, is contrary to this aim.

    1. NO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP CAN PROCREATE without exception. What part of un-natural don’t you understand about that? It is a sin for a man and woman to have sexual relationships outside of a God ordained marriage whether they have or wish to have children or not – “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4) Don’t confuse God’s will with a marriage between a man and woman and an un-natural one between members of the same sex. The lack of children does not make a marriage sinful; the lack of order according to God’s word does.

      Evidence for a spiritual heart becoming a heart of stone? Again, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,…” (Romans 1:20-27) A homosexual can call themselves a “devout Christian” or say they love God if they want to or if you want too, but they or you cannot say that according to the scriptures (1 John 2:15-17).

      On a “practical level” this means that they have refused the natural order that God created from the beginning by recognizing God as Creator (Genesis 1:26-28). Look Keith, either you believe people were created by God or you believe that we along with the other 1,000,000 forms of life “evolved” from some eternal mighty-morphin microscopic organism. What ever someone thinks about a particular sin does not change whether it is sin or not.

      The point of morality is to follow the source that the morality derived from. If you want to follow a morality that derived from man alone then that’s your choice. But morality in accordance with the scriptures is not “subjective” as you try to say but is objective according to the source of true morality – God (1 Peter 1:14-16). You think any ole’ morality alone will benefit a culture/society? Go try telling that to cultures who live under communist rule or other religions that mutilate the faces of women and children for not wearing head dresses that cover their faces! What is your source of morality Keith?

      And let me remind you Keith that before you decided to come here and get “offended at my judgmental statments” let me remind you about what you said about me since you’re not judgmental or anything like that sir – “Hats off to you, though. At least you’re consistent in adopting the views of the Bible, no matter how homophobic and misogynistic they might be.” http://lifeofafemalebiblewarrior.wordpress.com/conversation-corner/

      1. “”The lack of children does not make a marriage sinful; the lack of order according to God’s word does.”

        Which makes me wonder why you brought up the procreation issue in the first place.

        “A homosexual can call themselves a “devout Christian” or say they love God if they want to or if you want too, but they or you cannot say that according to the scriptures (1 John 2:15-17).”

        That seems to be a fair enough interpretation from within your worldview.

        “Look Keith, either you believe people were created by God or you believe that we along with the other 1,000,000 forms of life “evolved” from some eternal mighty-morphin microscopic organism.”

        I’m not sure what works on evolution you’ve been reading, but they’re obviously not very good ones. Where did you come up with the idea of an “eternal mighty-morphin microscopic organism”? Sounds like something out of a Super Rangers episode!

        (And it’s far more than 1,000,000 species, by the way. That number would barely cover the insect kingdom.)

        You probably believe that the dinosaurs hitched a ride on Noah’s ark. We all have our quirky beliefs I suppose!

        “But morality in accordance with the scriptures is not “subjective” as you try to say but is objective according to the source of true morality – God (1 Peter 1:14-16).”

        You’re saying that morality is objective because one person (i.e. God) says it is. Meanwhile, that’s the very definition of subjective!

        “You think any ole’ morality alone will benefit a culture/society?”

        No I don’t.

        “What is your source of morality Keith?

        My view is that we should strive for the well-being of all people. Who needs suffering, right? It’s as simple as that.

        Morality, then, is composed of those behaviors and practices that allow us to attain this goal: that allow us to reduce suffering and increase peace and happiness.

      2. “I guess the expression “turn your heart away from God” implies a deliberate act on behalf of the person doing the turning. Yet you’re claiming that gays turn their hearts from God even while they believe that their hearts are turned toward God.” What God are they turning their hearts towards? The one found in the Bible? They can’t Keith without repenting of their homosexual lifestyle.

        “The lack of children does not make a marriage sinful; the lack of order according to God’s word does.” Which makes me wonder why you brought up the procreation issue in the first place.” Because only natural relationships can reproduce. People have sexual organs that can “match up” with the organs of animals but that’s UNNATURAL and sinful because people were made for people. More specifically, men were made for women and women were made for men. An UNNATURAL relationship between a man and man or a woman and woman can NEVER reproduce hence it is UNNATURAL. Not screaming here, just trying to make the language very clear.

        “I’m not sure what works on evolution you’ve been reading, but they’re obviously not very good ones. Where did you come up with the idea of an “eternal mighty-morphin microscopic organism”? Sounds like something out of a Super Rangers episode!” It was meant to sound like that so it would be obvious how childish the mentality is. The origin of life is one of three – Creation, an eternal microscopic oganism that has the ability to change into millions of different forms of life, or spontaneous life (i.e. life from nothing).

        “(And it’s far more than 1,000,000 species, by the way. That number would barely cover the insect kingdom.)” Yes, I know Keith. It was hyperbole. The more forms of life the less and less logical life from anything other than God seems.

        “You probably believe that the dinosaurs hitched a ride on Noah’s ark. We all have our quirky beliefs I suppose!” Yes I do. You’ve given your hat off for staying consistent in the past so why change now?

        “You’re saying that morality is objective because one person (i.e. God) says it is. Meanwhile, that’s the very definition of subjective!” My statment was given in the context of you referring to homosexuals living in a right relationship with God which they can’t do because the Bible is the objective truth when it comes to a proper relationship with Him. And you’re right, the Bible must be a subjective truth to be followed correctly but whether a person believes it or not does not change what the truth really is. A person can believe that sun rotates around the earth but that doesn’t make it so. A person can believe the earth rotates around the sun as part of a subjective truth but whether they do or not does not change its objective truth. To sum it up – a saving faith in God’s word take a subjective belief but regardless to our reaction to it the objective truth of the Bible does not change at all.

        “What is your source of morality Keith? My view is that we should strive for the well-being of all people. Who needs suffering, right? It’s as simple as that. Morality, then, is composed of those behaviors and practices that allow us to attain this goal: that allow us to reduce suffering and increase peace and happiness.” What good is a morality Keith that finds peace and happiness in the death or torture of others while still believing that this leads to the well-being of people. There are those out there who hold to those type of morals Keith. What about child molesters who see nothing wrong with what they’re doing. That is why morality with a source beyond people is necessary. What brings peace and makes others happy is a poor guide for morals. True morality is based upon the sin (which includes homosexuality) and righteousness found in God’s word.

    2. And let me quickly add and make this clear one more time concerning your comment – “How do you explain the existence of many gays who are deeply spiritual and devout Christians?None of these people’s hearts are turned away from God.” They have turned away from God in that they are living in a sinful state. If a person wants to make up thier own God and go by his/her feelings that it up to them but that is not an option with the Bible.

      “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

      Salvation is possible from any sin through the mercy of Jesus Christ but a person must be willing to repent (change of mind/heart that leads to a change of action/lifestyle) from that sin.

  7. Eugene: I guess the expression “turn your heart away from God” implies a deliberate act on behalf of the person doing the turning. Yet you’re claiming that gays turn their hearts from God even while they believe that their hearts are turned toward God. From a purely linguistic point of view, then, I’d recommend using another metaphor, one that does not entail a deliberate, conscious act.

  8. It seems to me that looking to the animal kingdom for morality is not something even same-sex sex defenders wish to do. Not consistently anyway. While we may see certain species engage in same-sex sexual behavior, we also see them:

    –“steal” from one another.
    –We see some species eat their young.
    –We see some species push the weak out of nests.
    –We see forced copulation (otherwise known as rape).
    –We see copulation at immediate sexual maturity (correlating to humans adults could be having sex with children as young as 11 or 12)

    So, Keith, are you really suggesting that behaviors found in the animal kingdom give us an indication that the same behavior should be practiced by human beings? Are the behaviors of animals morally transferable to human beings?

  9. John

    No, I’m saying, as you are, that nature is not a reliable indicator of what is moral and what is not.

    When I noted that animals engage in homosexual behavior, I was simply pointing out to Eugene that homosexuality cannot be classified as “unnatural”. It is natural, just like the things you mentioned in your list. But that doesn’t necessarily make it moral.

    1. Keith, again you are confusing nature and natural when it comes to sex. In nature when it comes to sex birds lay eggs…but I don’t expect people to start doing that. I think as John stated you need to define what you mean by natural and un-natural.

      When I mentioed nature in my original post it was in the context of PROCREATION which NO, and I repeat, NO homosexual activity or scientist assisted homosexual relationship can do. Again, the entire homosexual relationship is based upon nothing but a PERVERTED form of sex. If you want to use animals for justification that’s up to you, but that only reveals the desperate measures one must stoop down to to justify homosexuality between human beings!

      Homosexuality is not just “sexuality” – it’s out of control sexuality. There is nothing wrong with sexuality in and of itself when it takes place lawfully (spritually speaking) between a husband and wife. Homosexuality, along with all other sexual perversions, is condemned in the scriptures whether a culture or individual considers it lawful or unlawful or even “ok and moral” because they see it happen in “nature”.

      Homosexuality is out of control lust – “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the LUSTS of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to VILE PASSIONS. For even their women exchanged the NATURAL use for what is against NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:24-27)

      “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own DESIRES (lusts) and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15)

  10. OK Keith,

    Let me ask you to define natural and unnatural so that we are all on the same page. I don’t think you are suggesting that if a behavior can be witnessed in the animal kingdom that makes it natural, are you? I can think of a few problems with that kind of reasoning.

  11. Eugene and John:

    Here is my definition of “natural”: A natural phenomenon is something that occurs in the world independently of human culture.

    Examples: The easiest examples are those that have nothing to do with life. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, erosion, flowing rivers, etc. All of these are natural.

    Then, we have all the phenomena of life that have been going on to a larger or lesser degree before human culture developed, and continue independently of that culture. So, we have certain homosexual acts that occur in various animal species. We have cannibalism. We also observe certain behaviors that most people consider moral. For instance, several species are observed to have a very strong sense of fairness.

    Definition of “unnatural”: Any process that is a product of human culture.

    Examples of unnatural objects would include buildings, tools, wheels, books, computers, etc.

    Examples of unnatural actions would include reading, writing, and driving.

    Allow me to emphasize, once again that I do *not* claim that simply because something is natural, that it is necessarily moral.

    Cannibalism is natural, but it is *not* moral.

    Sharing food with one’s family is natural (many species do this), and it *is* moral.

    As I’ve shared previously, morality is, for me, based on what causes harm/suffering or, conversely, what allows people to flourish.

    Sharing food with one’s family is therefore moral, while eating one’s family is not :-)

    Eugene, for what it’s worth, I fully admit that homosexual sex is clearly not a form of intercourse that has any obvious adaptive advantage: our bodies did not evolve to have homosexual intercourse. Evolution is all about reproduction. Evolution is not, however, that simple nor efficient, and it is no surprise that homosexuality should arise in some small fraction of the population.

    But once again, this discussion of the evolutionary advantages or lack thereof is purely a biological discussion, not a moral one. (And there is no reason we should use the process of evolution as a moral guide: evolution is a selfish, unforgiving, and suffering-infused process.)

    To repeat and summarize:

    – homosexuality is natural, according to the above definition of natural, since it occurs outside of human culture.

    – this does not necessarily make homosexuality moral.

    – what *does* make homosexuality moral is that, when practiced with the same sense of responsibility as heterosexuality, it contributes to the participants’ sense of well being, and it doesn’t harm anyone else.

    1. Weak arguments Keith.

      If you consider people (“human culture”) just another animal then what does it matter how a person affects the world around them? How is what they do anymore “unnatural” than what any other animal does? Animals do use tools to perform tasks you know! But according to you, people are no more and no less than the animal world. There are just another part of it according to your “evolutionary” logic! Who are you to say that cannibalism isn’t moral if you’re only an “evolved” animal yourself? Unless you believe that people have a God-given soul then you can only believe that people are animals which must accept the “morals” of what you call the “natural world.” You’re defeating your own argument with the position you hold with evolution.

      Keith, homosexuality whether in animals or in people who act like mindless animals comes from an out of control lust. Animals that get sexually excited will try to “mate” with almost anything that will let them. But that in no way makes it natural/normal. An animal can get so worked up sexually that it will even try to “mate” with other species – which is something else that a person with an out of control and un-natural lust will do. According to your logic beastiality is natural! And hey, since it doesn’t hurt anyone – it’s moral! I’m not twisting your logic, I’m following it!

      An out of control lust takes what it natural and makes it un-natural! That’s why homosexuality is not only sinful – it’s un-natural. That’s the point of Romans 1:21-28.

      Listen particulary to verses 26-28 – “For this reason God gave them up to VILE PASSIONS. For even their women exchanged the NATURAL USE for what is against NATURE. Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL USE of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a DEBASED mind, to do those things which are not fitting;”

      A debased mind is what a person has who participates or approves of homosexuality.

  12. So then by your own definition, whether homosexuality is natural is completely irrelevant to the discussion then.

    And now this is where it will be very relevant. What do you mean by harm? This is not an arbitrary question, nor is it meant to quibble over definitions. This will serve to make a point.

  13. John:

    “So then by your own definition, whether homosexuality is natural is completely irrelevant to the discussion then.”

    Correct.

    “And now this is where it will be very relevant. What do you mean by harm? This is not an arbitrary question, nor is it meant to quibble over definitions. This will serve to make a point.”

    Harm is suffering of any kind, be it physical or psychological.

    (In case you’re interested, I have a detailed formulation of my ideas on morality under the Essays menu on my blog here: http://kpharri.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/morality-3/)

  14. Eugene:

    “If you consider people (“human culture”) just another animal then what does it matter how a person affects the world around them?”

    Do you care if I poke you in the eye? Of course you do. It therefore matters to you how I, and other people around you, affect your world.

    In other words, the reason our actions matter is because people wish to avoid suffering and to be happy. It therefore matters a lot to people how their neighbors behave. Morality consists of the rules people therefore come up with to help them avoid suffering and achieve happiness.

    “But according to you, people are no more and no less than the animal world. There are just another part of it according to your “evolutionary” logic!”

    Indeed, but I don’t see how this is relevant. Humans have amazing brains capable of rational thought. It so happens that those brains evolved. So what? The fact is, we can think for ourselves. We are no longer automatons laboring under the whims of nature, like so many other species still are.

    We’re intelligent beings capable of serious intellectual thought. This means that we can understand the harm that something like cannibalism causes, and we can therefore work to avoid it, and make our lives better as a result.

    “Keith, homosexuality whether in animals or in people who act like mindless animals comes from an out of control lust.”

    I would never support the idea that anyone “act like a mindless animal”. We have brains, we should use them.

    I therefore take offence at your implication that all gays should somehow be classified as “acting like mindless animals”. You clearly have a lot of anger against homosexuals – I’d advise you try to get over that, because it’s clouding your judgment. It’s also not very Christian.

    “Animals that get sexually excited will try to “mate” with almost anything that will let them. But that in no way makes it natural/normal.”

    Then you have to give me your own definition of “natural”, because such behavior would, according to my own definition, be natural. Once again, though, this is irrelevant to the discussion of morality.

    “According to your logic beastiality is natural! And hey, since it doesn’t hurt anyone – it’s moral! I’m not twisting your logic, I’m following it!”

    Doing something against someone’s will generally *does* cause harm. And since animals can’t give consent to bestiality, it therefore likely causes harm.

    In fact, if you follow the link to my essay on morality (posted in my response to John above), you’ll see that consent is one of two key elements of my moral theory: well-being is one, consent is the other.

    “An out of control lust takes what it natural and makes it un-natural! That’s why homosexuality is not only sinful – it’s un-natural.”

    Could you give me a clear definition of “out of control lust”, please? Not a list of examples, but an actual definition. I think that would help the conversation here.

    1. You said you don’t consider anything natural if a person “interferes” but yet out of your own mouth you consider people just a “natural” part of the world! Don’t you see your inconsistency in your point?

      What’s out of control lust? If you can’t see what out of control lust is then you’re blind Keith. I’ve given you plenty of definitions and examples already. Absolutely no definition will help you to see it. I’ve already given you an abundance of scripture to show you what out of control lust means you’re just not capable of understanding it because of your debased mind it seems.

      Do you actually believe that every one wants to “be happy and avoid suffering” in the way that you’re presenting it??? Man, you need to get out of what ever little bubble you’re living in. What good is a morality Keith that finds peace and happiness in the death or torture of others while still believing that this leads to the well-being of people. There are those out there who hold to those type of morals Keith. Who are you to say they’re wrong? What about child molesters who see nothing wrong with what they’re doing with a child who is convinced that it is okay to go along with the perverted mind of their molester (oh wait, you don’t believe their mind is perverted do you because that stuff happens in nature so it’s “natural”). That is why morality with a source beyond people is necessary. What brings peace and makes others happy in the flesh is a poor guide for morals. It’s a guide that will send someone to hell unless they repent.

      Your essay on morality doesn’t mean anything. YOU make up your own morals and if YOU think you are no better than an evolved animal (I don’t think you are, but you do) then YOU have to accept the morals of the very nature you evolved from or the morals of your equally “evolved monkey/man” neighbor.

      “Humans have amazing brains capable of rational thought” does not equal morals Keith because according to you all the “lesser thinking” animals can be just as moral as you!

      You don’t seem to understand that if you’re only an animal then your definition of morals is only YOUR definition and one to which no one else can or will EVER truly be held acountable too. There are people in the world who would have no problem poking you in your eye, or cutting off your head, or pouring acid on your face (if you’re a woman who refuses to cover her “immoral” face with a sheet)…but what are you going to tell them Keith? “Hey animal, quit like acting like an animal!” Your “serious intelligence” only means you’re a seriously intelligent monkey if you believe you’re a product of evolution.

      I like how you keep accusing me of hate (gays and women) but yet you don’t know me Keith (which is something you “rebuked” me for earlier). Seems as if you should take a dose of your own hypocrtical medicine. Believing in right and wrong and hating someone is TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! And if I’m just an evolved “monkey” then what does it matter if I hate anything or anyone (I don’t believe I am, but to show you how blind you are lets say I am) – who are you to tell me I can’t hate becuase hate is “natural” Keith. If there is no standard of right and wrong then what is hate??? Who are you to make what you call “rules”? Has evolution given you a “useless conscience” Keith?

      Homosexuality comes from a sinful, lustful, warped view and practice of sex and those who support it are just as guilty spiritually as those who commit it (Romans 1:32).

      End of discussion Keith – take care.

    2. And Keith, who are you tell me what is or isn’t very “Christian” when it comes to a topic like this? You’ve already shown that your Biblical knowledge on this topic is very limited on the other wordpress account. But just so you can learn a little more about it let me show you.

      “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. ” (Ezekiel 3:17-19)

      “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

  15. Thanks Keith.

    So then if I understand you correctly, if I were to demonstrate homosexual sexual relationships were harmful by your definition, you would concede homosexual sexual relationships are immoral?

  16. John:

    I will go one step further than that: I will readily concede that some homosexual relationships are, indeed, harmful. In the same way, some heterosexual relationships are harmful (think of all the abusive relationships that exist, for instance).

    If you could demonstrate to me that beneficial homosexual relationships are essentially impossible – namely that the overwhelming majority of homosexual relationships cause harm to their participants then yes, I would be willing to make a blanket statement that homosexuality is immoral.

  17. Eugene:

    “You said you don’t consider anything natural if a person “interferes” but yet out of your own mouth you consider people just a “natural” part of the world! Don’t you see your inconsistency in your point?”

    I can see the inconsistency, yes. I’m not being consistent in my definition of “natural”.

    Let me be absolutely clear, then, by repeating my position without using the word “natural” at all:

    1. People are, indeed, part of the world around them. They are the products of the same process that gave rise to every other life form. So, while we are obviously very different from other animals in the way we behave, we’re still animals. Primates, specifically.

    2. Homosexuality does not occur exclusively in humans, but in other animals too. Your earlier claim that homosexuality is somehow a form of depravity exclusive to sinful human beings is therefore false.

    3. My view is that morality should be primarily about avoiding suffering and promoting happiness, *not* about deciding which actions occur in other species and which don’t.

    “What’s out of control lust? If you can’t see what out of control lust is then you’re blind Keith. I’ve given you plenty of definitions and examples already.”

    You have provided examples, but I don’t think you have provided a definition. If you don’t wish to help me understand your position better, then so be it.

    “What good is a morality Keith that finds peace and happiness in the death or torture of others while still believing that this leads to the well-being of people.”

    When did I call for the death or torture of others?

    “There are those out there who hold to those type of morals Keith.”

    That’s right, but I’m not responsible for what other people think.

    “What about child molesters who see nothing wrong with what they’re doing with a child who is convinced that it is okay to go along with the perverted mind of their molester (oh wait, you don’t believe their mind is perverted do you because that stuff happens in nature so it’s “natural”).”

    I think I must repeat myself, because you don’t seem to have read my previous posts. My view of morality is that it should work to reduce suffering and increase happiness. This would quite obviously put child molestation firmly in the “immoral” category. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it happens in “nature” or not.

    “What brings peace and makes others happy in the flesh is a poor guide for morals.It’s a guide that will send someone to hell unless they repent.”

    Evidence would indicate that hell does not exist. It’s precisely what brings people happiness “in the flesh” that is important.

    “You don’t seem to understand that if you’re only an animal then your definition of morals is only YOUR definition and one to which no one else can or will EVER truly be held acountable too.”

    Actually, I do understand this. The only way a moral system can be adopted by a society in a just manner is if everyone in that society agrees, democratically, to adopt it. This is usually called the “social contract”.

    The only alternative is for a dictator to impose his system of morality on everyone else. I’m not in favor of that, because it tends to make the dictator happy and everyone else miserable.

    “There are people in the world who would have no problem poking you in your eye, or cutting off your head, or pouring acid on your face (if you’re a woman who refuses to cover her “immoral” face with a sheet)…but what are you going to tell them Keith? “Hey animal, quit like acting like an animal!” Your “serious intelligence” only means you’re a seriously intelligent monkey if you believe you’re a product of evolution.”

    Again, I suspect you haven’t read my posts here, so I need to repeat myself. My view is that morality is completely independent of whether something is a product of evolution or not.

    Morality, as I see it, is about eschewing suffering and promoting happiness. There is nothing in this view that is rendered inconsistent simply because humans are animals.

    “I like how you keep accusing me of hate (gays and women) but yet you don’t know me Keith (which is something you “rebuked” me for earlier). Seems as if you should take a dose of your own hypocrtical medicine.”

    Your posts – this one included – come across as extremely angry. Perhaps you’re just angry at me, not at gays. In that case, I apologize for misinterpreting your emotions.

    “And if I’m just an evolved “monkey” then what does it matter if I hate anything or anyone (I don’t believe I am, but to show you how blind you are lets say I am) – who are you to tell me I can’t hate becuase hate is “natural” Keith.”

    Again, you seem to have missed my point that I don’t particularly care, morally speaking, whether something is natural or not. My view on morality is that suffering should be avoided and that happiness should be promoted. Hating people only causes suffering.

    And you’re right, I can’t just tell people to stop hating. However, I can try to have a reasoned argument with people about the harm that hate causes, and perhaps change their minds that way.

    “If there is no standard of right and wrong then what is hate???”

    Perhaps if I say this often enough, you’ll hear it. The standard of right and wrong should, I believe, be based on whether happiness or suffering results from the action in question.

    “Who are you to make what you call “rules”? Has evolution given you a “useless conscience” Keith?”

    Everyone has the ability to think for herself, and come to her own conclusions about what is right or wrong. No one should be coerced into taking a particular view of morality against her will.

    And indeed, in a country like the U.S., people have the opportunity to make their voices heard. If enough people come together, they can change the way morality is practiced. Think, for example, of the end of slavery, or the civil rights movement, or the women’s suffrage movement. These are all changes in our societies moral outlook that have been effected by ordinary people like you and me, through democratic means.

    As to the evolutionary relationship to morality, it certainly makes sense that the process of evolution would instill certain preservation instincts in us. As a social species, we would also have to evolve instincts that extended to our family and friends, and would therefore obviously include instincts against, say, murder and theft. But once again, there is no rule that says we need to be a slave to evolutionary instinct. We’re smarter than that – we can devise a better morality through rational thought.

    If you no longer wish to continue the discussion, that’s OK with me. I would simply ask that, in future, you try to read through – and represent – your opponents’ viewpoints a little more fairly and carefully. A number of times in this post you’ve made the error that I hold the “nature” issue to be important, when I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t.

  18. Eugene: just one more small point. You mentioned cases in which a victim of child molestation might be convinced that being molested is OK.

    While it may be true that a handful of children don’t perceive any harm done at the time of the abuse, it is always the case that these children go on to suffer immensely later in life.

    And if morality is to take suffering into account, it cannot just look at the immediate effects of an action and ignore the long term effects. For child molestation, these long term effects are invariably – and tragically – negative.

  19. Just a quick note before continuing. I am going to post some links which may or may not trigger the spam filter. They are links which show the harm inhomosexual sexual relationships.

  20. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures.htm

    CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men
    http://cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

    HIV disparities and mortality rates
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/us-usa-hiv-infections-idUSTRE7724SO20110803?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

    Half of homosexuals in mental health treatment (even in communities which are gay friendly [SF, or “P-Town”])
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/08/14/Nearly_Half_of_Gays_In_Treatment/

    Significant risks of certain cancers in homosexual sexual relationships
    http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/study-shows-that-anal-cytology-predicts-anal-precancer-in-HIV-positive-gay-men-1428-1/

    Same-sex sexual relationships and psychiatric disorders linked
    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/85

    Syphilis rampant in homosexual community
    http://www.advocate.com/Health_and_Fitness/Love_and_Sex/STDs/CDC_Syphilis_on_the_Rise/

    These are all gay friendly or neutral reports. The CDC’s std reports show the exponential disparity of disease that infects the gay community, not to mention mental health. If there was some other behavior that wasn’t sex related that resulted in these problems, it would be illegal.

    1. John,

      I cleared it from being spammed. Thanks for the information. I agree with you 100% but sadly Keith will probably not. I already brought up things similar to that but to no avail.

      My original post said – “Second, it is UNBENEFICIAL. No lasting good comes from a homosexual relationship. The risks of disease skyrocket! The confusion of children skyrockets! It is a choice that gives into lust and leads to heartache.”

      And in one of my original replies I said , “Beneficial comment – pay attention to my “lasting good” point Keith. It’s not a “generalization.” If you want to give into temporary fleshly lusts that damn your soul I don’t consider that lasting good. Homosexuality (nor the abuse of marriage and divorce among heterosexuals) is not a burden that this culture will be able to carry for long. It handicaps children and will do irreparable harm to generations of spiritual hearts and minds in young people.”

      But in the end I will let Keith speak for himself. I am finished discussing the issue with him.

    2. John:

      I have looked through your links. They all fail, quite spectacularly, to show that most homosexual relationships are harmful. In fact, they don’t even come close.

      All of your links suffer from one or more of the following three problems:

      1. They show that the rate of a particular condition is higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals, but they do *not* show that this condition afflicts most homosexuals. In fact, those links that have any data pertaining to the prevalence of the condition in the gay population generally indicate extremely low prevalence (your first link, for instance, shows that only 1% of homosexually active men have HIV, while only 0.1% have syphilis).

      2. They show that there appears to be a correlation between a particular condition and homosexuality but they do not show that this correlation is due to some inherent harmful characteristic of homosexuality. In fact, in the few cases in which your links suggest a reason for the correlation, it’s often because of the direct or indirect effects of homophobia (for instance, young black men experience more homophobia, which is probably why they don’t get tested for HIV and therefore fail to take action to prevent its spread; the history of regarding homosexuality as a pathology might explain why some gays believe they have a mental health issue simply because they’re gay, etc.)

      3. They simply don’t have the data needed to determine if the condition under discussion is highly prevalent among the gay community (i.e. affecting most gays) or not, and are therefore irrelevant to your point.

      Finally, some of your links simply repeat the same point over again (you list two studies that talk about syphilis, and two that talk about HIV, and these studies are all based on data taken within three years of each other). It’s a little disingenuous to repeat essentially the same information just to make your list look longer.

      In summary, your links have left me with the conclusion that most homosexual relationships are not harmful: most of them are free of HIV, syphilis, cancer, and mental disorders, even though the rates of these conditions are higher than in heterosexual relationships.

  21. John:

    I do not dismiss the data. The data you quoted are accurate, as far as I can tell.

    But the data do not support your claim that all, or even most, homosexual relationships are harmful.

    Indeed, the very data you quote show quite plainly that for every homosexual man with HIV, for instance, there are 99 homosexual men without HIV. For every homosexual man with syphilis, there are 999 men without syphilis.

  22. This has been quite an interesting read. This topic is always one that will generate debates like these. After reading all of this, I feel like we’ve missed a very important point. This whole debate has been focused on how homosexuality affects us here and now. My belief is that homosexuality is a sin as Scripture plainly states. I do believe that it has a negative impact on society, much like other sins. The Bible tells us that God will give those individuals who choose to neglect Him over to their lusts. This is why people think that they can be gay and be a Christian, and why they feel like since they are happy, no harm done. They are slaves to sin, so they will accept any illogical reasoning offered in order to continue in it. This comes with dire consequences for those who choose this path. We must focus our minds on the next life. You may feel happy living in your sin now, but I promise you’ll regret it on judgement day. So you must decide where you want to spend eternity…..in suffering punishment, or in eternal joy? Jesus died to save you from death, won’t you please accept the invitation? Our bodies are not our own! We are made in His likeness for a specific purpose….to serve Him, not ourselves!

    1. travo1979:

      I’m not quite sure if your post (especially the final question) is directed at me or to sinners in general. Just in case it is directed at me, here is my reply:

      I do not accept the premise on which you base your question. In other words, I don’t believe that the choice you offer is valid. As far as I can tell, there is no god and no afterlife. My aim, then, is to live my earthly life to the fullest, knowing that it is the only one I have.

      This does not, however, mean that I want to wallow in debauchery. To me, living well means living responsibly and compassionately. It means looking out for others as well as myself.

      Although I am not gay myself, I fully support gay people’s rights to experience lasting and meaningful relationships with the people they love. Everyone deserves at least that much, and I can’t imagine any loving God denying them that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s