Can A Christian Support Homosexual Marriage?

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu6/9/15
I have long wondered how anyone claiming to be a Christian could condone homosexuality or homosexual marriage. The New Testament is very clear on the sinfulness of such action, which is strictly forbidden.

On the most basic level, any type of sexual immorality is condemned in the Bible.

Jesus said,

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

Paul writes,

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

He further writes,

..but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is the temple-the very sanctuary-of the Holy Spirit Who lives within you, Whom you have received from God? You are not your own, You were bought for a price-purchased with a preciousness and paid for, made His own. So then, honor God and bring glory to Him in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

So homosexuality is condemned along with other sexual immorality. The question must be asked, Under what circumstances does one have “moral” sex?

Paul states,

Now as to the matters of which you wrote me, It is well-advantageous, expedient, profitable and wholesome-for a man not to touch a woman, but to remain unmarried. But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each have his own wife and let each have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. 

That is, sex finds its proper and moral place inside marriage. And what is marriage?

The Gospel of Mark states,

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”Mark 10:6-9

Paul writes,

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:30-32

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Ephesians 5:25

These verses are only part of a larger context, i.e. that Christian marriage is part of the larger divine mystery and membership within the Church.

There is no mention or even hint of husbands love your husbands, or wives love your wives. Clearly marriage is a state of union between males and females.

And since sex outside of marriage is a sin and marriage is a union between a man and a woman, all homosexual actions are sinful. For those Christians who may find this interpretation too harsh, please note the following quotes from the New Testament,

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns, which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity, are laid out as an exhibit of perpetual punishment of everlasting fire. Jude 1:7

Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen-so be it. For this reason God gave them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one: And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze with lust for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong doing and going astray, which was fitting retribution. Romans 1: 25-27

The first quote makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns were punished for “unnatural vice and sensual perversity.” The second seems to imply that the LGBT crowd are what they are due to their worship of the “creature” i.e. Satan and that God cursed them for it.

Please note, I am not touching on the question of whether Christianity is correct or not. I am only pointing out that from teachings in the Bible, the whole concept of same sex marriage must be an abomination to a Christian. • (3533 views)

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Can A Christian Support Homosexual Marriage?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Homosexual behavior is arguably no worse than other forms of immoral sex, but also no better. In any case, while a Christian might accept some form of civil union as a practical matter (if homosexuals were willing to compromise, which they never have been, thus rendering the idea moot), it’s quite clear that homosexual marriage should be an oxymoron to anyone seriously claiming to be Christian.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

    That bums me out. I always wanted to be a male prostitute…until my brother informed me as to who the clientele would likely be (not Swedish bikini models on vacation). Rats. But I merely jest, Mr. Kung. You captured the essence of it when you said:

    These verses are only part of a larger context, i.e. that Christian marriage is part of the larger divine mystery and membership within the Church.

    Holy matrimony. One flesh. Divine mystery. You were sanctified. These are weighty words. With all due respect to fudge-packers and pole-smokers, male-to-male anal sex doesn’t quite fit any of that. Nor could it possibly fit in a larger plan (unless the Pearly Gates are really the Pink Gates).

    But no one really believes this stuff anymore. (Okay, a few here do.) It’s just icing on top, an affectation, a bit of stained glass and scented candles to add luster to the commonplace. I mean, to really see male and female as fitting into a Cosmic plan? Who believes that?

    So stick your penis up another guy’s anus and call it “marriage.” It’s all good, as they say.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Holy matrimony indeed. Marriage is a religious sacrament in the Catholic Church (one of 7 according to the Catechism I encountered in my youth), and no doubt in other Christian churches as well.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Homosexual behavior is arguably no worse than other forms of immoral sex

    That is why I wrote, “On the most basic level, any type of sexual immorality is condemned in the Bible.” But sexual behavior, in marriage, can be moral. No type of homosexual sex can be moral in Christianity.

    As you will see from some of the above quotes, sexual immorality is often just one of a litany of immoral behaviors condemned in the Bible. But I don’t see a nationwide movement promoting lying, theft, swindling, slander and inebriation, except perhaps among some of the brain-dead libertarians. That is one reason I did this piece.

  4. Pst4usa says:

    Very well written Mr. Zu. Just as marriage is a part of the larger plan, from one perspective, so is the push, so to speak, for same sex marriage. The left has its plan and they are more than happy to use any willing useful idiots to more their plan forward. If you place your feelings ahead of all thought and reason, you will find yourself in the useful idiot camp quicker than a wink from your boy friend.
    But your post is about Christians that support or condone same sex marriage. That answer is all too simple I am sad to say; courage, the rarest of all virtues, is sorely lacking in the vast majority of Americans and since the self proclaimed Christians are the vast majority of America, they fit right in.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      One of the interesting aspects of this, Pat, is the idea that marriage is part of some larger plan, that male and female is not the way Darwin simply randomly evolved it, but that male and female have a larger and purposeful meaning.

      I’m not trolling from high-fives from my Christian friends when I say that a prime alternative to meaningless homosexual sex (and meaningless heterosexual sex, for that matter) in the context of a purposeless universe is the idea that we’re not supposed to be doing this shit and we know it.

      That is (and I’m going to use the r-word), we’re in rebellion. Sticking my prick up some guy’s ass is also a way of thumbing my nose at the idea of purpose in my life. And I think this rebelliousness is inherent to the left. Granted, there are some people who, for a variety of reasons, develop (and then give into) same sex attraction. But this is made all the easier by an entire culture (political and secular) that is in rebellion.

      Of course, it could be that this is all just made-up bullshit. But if it isn’t, then you can see these actions for what they really are: rebellion.

  5. Rosalys says:

    From someone who doesn’t identify as a Christian this is excellently argued. I can’t think of any Christian I know who could improve upon it. I can think of several supposed Christian friends who would call such talk hateful. I just don’t understand them at all.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


      Words have meanings. Profession of a belief should also have meaning. I am sick of the dimwits and liars of this world fudging and debasing everything they touch. If one is a Christian, live by Christian precepts and laws. Start being honest in thought and action. And try to think a little.

      The mental and moral flaccidity of our times offends me. Whatever happened to the pursuit of excellence in all spheres of life? God gave Christians an object of perfection in Jesus Christ. He calls out Christians to seek excellence even if, humanity falls short, even if perfection is not attainable. It is called striving to be better.

      As for the Christian who would call such talk hateful, they can only be dishonest, deluded, ignorant or stupid if they are truly Christians. In such case, they need understanding and guidance.

      Paul writes to Timothy,

      When I was starting out for Macedonia, I urged you to stay on at Ephesus. You were to instruct certain people to give up teaching erroneous doctrines and devoting themselves to interminable myths and genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation, and do not further God’s plan for us, which works though faith. This instruction has love as its goal, the love which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a genuine faith. Through lack of these some people have gone astray into a wilderness of words. They set out to be teachers of the law, although they do not understand either the words they use or the subjects about which they are so dogmatic. We all know that the law is an admirable thing, provided we treat it as law, recognizing that it is designed not for good citizens, but for the lawless and unruly, the impious and sinful, the irreligious and worldly, for parricides and matricides, murderers and fornicators, perverts, kidnappers, liars, perjurer-in fact all whose behavior flouts the sound teaching which conforms with the gospel entrusted to me, the gospel which tells of the glory of the ever-blessed God. 1 Timothy 1:3-11

      This pretty much covers mankind thus the law is for mankind. So all Christians are subject to it even if it seems harsh.

      Furthermore, Jesus did not stand by and worry about hurting feelings when he drove the money lenders from the temple. He wasn’t concerned with being called hateful. Truth is truth, disobedience to God is disobedience even if it is done for the best of reasons. But I think those Christians who would claim my piece to be hateful would not object for the best of reasons, rather they would do so for some of the worse, e.g. self-praise, self congratulatory emotions, cowardice, a feeling of moral superiority and laziness or lack of conviction in their beliefs.

      Of course, these people may be merely faux-Christians. In which case, it is good to remember,

      Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my heavenly, Father. Matthew 7:21

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s a great passage from 1 Timothy.

        As you probably know, libertarians, leftists and libertines hate Christianity — at least the type which lays down rules and points out that some things are bad. You can extend this to the “secular” types as well — those who aren’t atheists, per se, but have little respect for any form of religion. They’re just sort of part of the great mass of unexamined-life thinkers. They’ve been taught that any religious impulse means forcing rape victims to bring their babies to full term. Their minds have been shaped by the hysterics of the Left…and they don’t know that this has occurred. But they can only think (much like libertarians) in grand hyperbole.

        Well, life is more complicated than the comic book images put forth by the Left these past decades (no wonder, perhaps, why comic book movies and cheesy tattoos are so popular).

        We have become an impious, bombastic, unthinking, and uncouth people. We are. This is not up for dispute. You are exactly right when you say, “The mental and moral flaccidity of our times offends me. Whatever happened to the pursuit of excellence in all spheres of life?”

        Is excellence simply defining deviancy down as liberal Christians have done under the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”? I think if there is a Lucifer he’s having a very good laugh over this.

        A commitment to moral excellence is an uplifting thing. It’s been given a bad rap by the various liberals, libertines, and other ne’er-do-wells who used Alinsky-like tactics to besmirch the moral dimension. They used the very rules of Christianity to bring it down by focussing only on the hypocrites. And that is how 90% of people view Christianity, via the marketing of the Left, in terms of hypocrisy.

        Instead of facing this real history of the Left, libtard touchy-feely Christians have instead punted. Seeing no way to reclaim the ground of righteousness — or having no desire to do so — they just re-define righteousness as accepting the various sins that Left has deemed are no longer sins.

        So forgive me if I say that I walk with Paul, but walk alongside very few Christians, for many, if not most, have given up on the whole project.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


      The single greatest pillar of Western Civilization is Christianity. I am convinced that Western Civilization is dying because of the death of Christianity in the West. I believe this for historical reasons which I may write a piece on. But it is a huge subject and I am not sure how much time and effort I want to put into such a piece.

      • Rosalys says:

        Of this I am well aware! I watch in horror as I see our country, our civilization come crashing down around our ears. Of those who are encouraging the collapse, many do so unwittingly; they don’t see it coming and I’m crazy. Of course, many do so all too wittingly; it is their intension. They too are blind and can’t see that they will be caught up in the very destruction which they seek.

        Please do write that collum! You are too cogent a writer not to!

        If I were still on FaceBook I’d be posting a link to this article – and no doubt would be suffering the wrath of all the legions of hell for my impertinence!

      • oldguy says:

        Did these people really think that it would be that easy to be a Christian? Why…it was the hardest endeavor ever attempted by mankind. Just ask Jesus.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think I’ve noted here before that Western civilization is basically a combination of Greco-Roman civilization with the Judeo-Christian religion. Both play crucial roles, with the religion being very important in the development of the software of society.

    • Rosalys says:

      Many of my “Christian” friends do puzzle me – to the point where I have to entertain the possibility that they may not really be Christian. What is equally puzzling, is why some of you, like you Mr. Zu, who seem to know the Bible better than many Christians and seemingly respects it, and Brad, who “walks with Paul…” and seemingly admires the teachings of Christ, are not.

      “…but walk alongside very few Christians…”

      Are Christians the problem? Remember that to be Christian is to follow Christ and Him alone. We are not called to be Christian-ians!

      I know some non-Christians who are very good at quoting the Bible, but do so, like Satan, for nefarious and destructive purposes. Mr. Zu, that is not you!

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        What is equally puzzling, is why some of you, like you Mr. Zu, who seem to know the Bible better than many Christians and seemingly respects it, and Brad, who “walks with Paul…” and seemingly admires the teachings of Christ, are not.

        Regardless whether or not one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God, it must be observed that the “Christian Bible” is the seminal work on which Western Civilization is based. It is the spiritual corner stone, keystone and mortar of the whole edifice.

        Contrary to what the Satanic Leftists may say, the Bible is not an evil book written for evil purposes of controlling people. It is, in fact, completely the opposite of that. It was written to give mankind hope and instruction. In a world of cruelty and uncertainty, it is a comfort for lost and wandering humanity. It gave mankind a central focus and goal.

        Is there any wonder that the Satanists hate and fear it so much? It unifies mankind, instructs humanity on issues of morality and behavior and gives hope that there is a greater, rational meaning to existence.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Rosalys, what a splendid observation and question. And Mr. Kung has outdone himself in his own answer to your question/observation.

        Mr. Kung I would say emphasizes the enormous power of the cultural aspect of Christian thought and ethics (whatever the ultimate realities may be). This will produce a different society then, say, one organized under Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky will. I, on the other hand, tend to emphasize the ultimate realities. That is, I assume that if a Creator is real, it’s going to have certain implications. It’s got to make some kind of logical sense.

        What I’m not looking for is a “religion.” Life is tough and then you die. I’m not looking to live forever. I wouldn’t want to live forever as I am. Nor am I interested in being in any kind of a cult. I don’t want to go around saying “May the lord be with you” and “God bless you this, and god bless you that.” I can’t give you my entire life experience with other Christians. But let’s just say I’m not interested in joining their club. And it does seem like a club.

        The last contact I had with a certain nephew was when he called last year to get my credit card number. It seems the “Christian Youth Mission” he is a part of (and which seems to have delayed his entry into the real world of getting a real job) said they required a credit card number if this nephew was to make a trip to wherever he was going (more Christian “tourism,” if you ask me…assuming that’s the worst of it). And two days ago he called my older brother and creeped him out by asking in an intrusive and inappropriate way, “Tell me about any problems you are having. I can help.”

        Sometimes I think, “Lord, save us from the Christians.” I do think a lot of this stuff is just complete baloney. But I don’t paint with an absolutely broad brush. I know that people have very individual ways of relating to this stuff, and much of it is good and sincere. And I have my own way. It may be a strange way. But I don’t honestly have that much respect for a great deal of what I do see. So I have no wish to join it, proper.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    An objective supernatural order suggests one set of rules. Boy is boy and girl is girl. An order based on a conglomeration of pop culture, feelings, victimhood, grievance, and relativism suggests a different set of rules. Boy and girl might be anything you say they are.

    Now, let’s be honest, kind, and clear: It could be that the moral relativists/materialists/faux-Christians are right. The only “evil” is holding people to standards and thus “excluding” them or otherwise hurting their feelings. I’ll concede that God could be a fantasy, a shared delusion or hope. If so, then it is a rational standard to have standards be whatever the mob thinks is good at the time — moral law as fashion, as we have now. And the worst thing in this case isn’t to be immoral. It’s to be out of fashion.

    The alternative is that male and female (and humans) were designed to be the way they are, one complimenting the other. We may wonder why so many flaws in our physical and mental natures exist. We may wonder why there are so many complications to this male/female equation. That’s all fair and good, as far as I’m concerned.

    But if male and female are conscious constructs of some Supreme Being then sticking one’s pecker in another guys butt is not something that should be “celebrated,” let alone called “courageous.” It should be called what it is: going against nature and God.

    Again, to be fair, it could be either of these things — plan or plan-less. One clue to who might have the upper hand in terms of believability is that anal sex (at least to the best of my knowledge) has yet to lead to procreation.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mr. Kung, you betray quite extensive biblical knowledge. So I’ll ask a sincere question.

    I think it’s interesting that Paul (St., not McCartney) said, “It is well-advantageous, expedient, profitable and wholesome-for a man not to touch a woman, but to remain unmarried.”

    Now, with all due respect to the ladies, you don’t need to explain to me why life might be more peaceful (or have other advantages) without the fairer sex. I don’t miss the drama, I can tell you. My own life has resembled Paul (the saint, not McCartney) much more than a resident of Sodom or Gomorrah. And most of my married friends tell me, “Brad, stay single. Do yourself a favor.” And I suspect they’re only half joking.

    So why do you think Paul (the saint, not McCartney) said that? It’s a very interesting remark. I don’t disagree with it. And it certainly wouldn’t work for long if everyone took his advice. But it is interesting advice from a man who had wisdom pouring out of his ears. And he does directly say more or less, “But because you’ll likely be a lech and a sleaze-bag if you remain a lone wolf, best to channel that energy into a marriage proper.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      So why do you think Paul (the saint, not McCartney) said that

      I think it likely that Paul believed all worldly attachments tend to distance man from God and such intense attachments as a wife and family can lead to greater distance and less contemplation on God. Loving God with all one’s heart, soul and mind is difficult enough without having the constant distraction of a family. And to make a marriage work takes commitment. We humans have only some much energy and concentration. And we can’t all be saints.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, marriage involves commitment, and I always say that commitment is when they put you into the loony bin.

    • Rosalys says:

      It just further evidence of the decay of Western Civilization when a reference to St. Paul needs clarification that we don’t mean Mr. McCartney!

  8. Kevin says:

    Y’all so obsessed about gay sex — a few of you were even pretty graphic…is there something you wish to confess??? 🙂

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Kevin, your remark is dishonest. The obsession with homosexuality is almost all on the Left. It’s difficult to get away from it…and by the very people who then dishonestly say “It doesn’t matter what your sexuality is.”

      What you just stated was more of the kind of brain-dead stuff we get from the Left. In particular, though, we’re talking about homosexual marriage. And I, for one, think using euphemisms about this is not helpful. We’re not talking about left-handedness vs. right-handedness after all.

      Ohhh…and speaking of unconscious fantasies and obsessions. It seems to be the fantasy of homosexuals to suppose that everyone really is a closet queer.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Wishful thinking. If everyone really is a homosexual at heart, then they can justify coming on to everyone — and those repulsed by it are merely struggling with false consciousness (I think that’s the feminist term for it, which seems appropriate).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Timothy, I’m the first to admit that men, given the right (that is, wrong) circumstances (such as prison) will boink anything. Any man is more than capable of (at least physically) engaging in homosexual acts.

          My evolving view on homosexuality (pushed to a less permissive view by the Pink Nazis) is that homosexuality is a perversion, and an unhealthy one at that. It is mostly the result of some psychological problem or warping. People who engage in that behavior might be indulged in a live-and-let-live way (as I do), but it should never be labeled as normal or desirable. Nor should the idea of marriage be perverted by it. Our children need to understand that homosexuality is a problem to be solved, not just another lifestyle choice to be donned.

          Other than that, I have no beef with homosexuals other than their blinkered and destructive advocacy of it and in their role as useful idiots to causes that simply have the destruction of the family as the end goal.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I simply regard homosexuality as an abnormality. Of course, I have 4 toes on each foot, no sense of smell, and outwardly-rotating hips, so I’m not inclined to denounce people just for being abnormal.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The first rule of life is: We all have difficulties to overcome. In the case of those with same-sex attraction, that’s a difficulty. In my case, it’s my bisexuality. (If I want sex, I have to buy it.)

              We all have maladies, proclivities, abnormalities, etc. Much of that is the spice of life and is what gives people interesting personalities. “Normal” is over-rated.

              But homosexual advocacy is deeply about normalizing that which isn’t even remotely normal, and it wishes to do so by diminishing what already is normal (marriage). And believe it or not, it matters whether or not a society honors the institution of marriage because either we depend on that as the center of our lives or we depend on the government. I choose families, as effed up as they often can be. But at least you can outgrow them and move away. This is not true of the government which wants to parent you forever.

              Homosexual advocacy is yet another fringe grievance group fueled on the heady fumes of radicalism. I have homosexual clients and a few I call friends. I’m not about hassling them. But I do think we should drop this childish narcissism, the need (especially amongst homosexuals) to instead of dealing with their affliction to try to spread it far and wide and thus normalize it. I can except, for instance, that some people are alcoholics and can never touch a drink again. But what would this world be like if in order to make the alcoholic feel better about himself, everyone had to drink themselves regularly into a stupor?

              Homosexuality is not normal and is not desirable. Sorry if that hurts the precious little snowflakes who advocate this garbage.

              • Pst4usa says:

                Brad, in your dealings or discussions with these Gay acquaintances, have you had the chance to ask their opinion about same sex marriage? I am told that the number of Gay men that support it is a very small percentage of a small percent of the general population. That it is the leftist that have the goal of destroying the family and all the values the family brings, and same sex marriage is just another tool in their kit. I was just curious, I know a few gay men, and their opinion if almost unanimously in favor.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


                Here is a short piece I posted early at ST, which addresses the true goal of the Leftists.


                The Left has been hammering away at Christianity and the family for over two hundred years. This is not a coincidence.

                I have been banging this gong for years. Unfortunately, most people have a marginal knowledge of history and, in any case, are so wrapped up in their daily lives that they will only realize what is happening when it is too late.

              • Pst4usa says:

                Thank you Mr. Kung, you are an incredible voice for the Christian point of view. My comment above was a very miniature pole of one, Brad.
                I read you post about being a Bibliophile, and to be honest, I cannot relate, I wish that I could. Reading has been a life long struggle for me, I have been getting almost all of my reading from audio books, and the number of books that are read by quality readers is limited. So I truly appreciate this site because of the quality of writers saves me time, and you sir, are one of the best. Thanks for your time in these endeavors.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The obsession with homosexuality is almost all on the Left.

        Absolutely correct. In fact, this is a discussion which most decent people would prefer to avoid as it deals with some rather unsavory information. And that is one of the reasons the Left has made such astounding progress pushing their unnatural and immoral agenda.

        That is why right thinking people must finally steel themselves to fighting this perversion and others like it. Sitting and praying is not going to stop the Satanists. One must actually stand up and fight.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Dear Kevin,

      I read your post and came away with feelings of pity and despair. Pity because your post is on the intellectual level of a rather slow 15 year old and I am sure you thought you were being clever. Despair, because your post is representative of much which passes for “intelligent” discussion on the internet.

      Should you be able to raise your game and actually address the contents of my piece, I am sure ST readers would be happy to have a discussion with you. If not, please do not waste our time.



  9. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    As to your last line not speaking of whether Christianity is right or not. If we don’t have a stand or position somewhere that is accepted as right or correct, there is no right or wrong as applied to anything or anybody. Would that not be total chaos?.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Yours is a question, which was not the subject of my piece.

      My focus was a more narrow one.

      The piece is aimed at those who identify themselves as Christians thus must consider the Bible as correct. I proceed from that point of view.

      On the one hand, for those Christians who are not particularly well read, I wanted to point out some direct quotes from the Bible.

      And for those Christians who claim homosexual marriage is ok and just another life-style choice, I wanted to give them some unambiguous truths which are stated in the New Testament.

      The bigger question of if Christianity or any other religion is correct, is for another day.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Brad, in your dealings or discussions with these Gay acquaintances, have you had the chance to ask their opinion about same sex marriage? I am told that the number of Gay men that support it is a very small percentage of a small percent of the general population.

    No I haven’t, Pat. It would likely be a touchy subject with a client. I would suppose most men who practice homosexuality are for homosexual marriage. Man is reverting to ape. His expectations are that he has none. If it feels good do it. The dimension to his spiritual life is non-existent, outside of worshipping Mother Gaia.

    I can’t sit down here with you today and claim that Jesus died on the cross and is my Lord and savior. But something is up. We’re not the result of a random process. There is deep purpose. This idea is rejected by our culture at large, including most Christians in my opinion. Imagine if Christians acted as if the Bible was true. What Mr. Kung has done has shown that it’s not a gray area regarding engaging in homosexual acts.

    And there’s a good reason for that. We’re not made for that. It’s an unhealthy perversion of our hardware. Now, I don’t go as far as the Monty Python sketch as sing that “Every sperm is sacred” — an idea that only bolsters my theme that most of what people know about religion is complete baloney (often those inside religion as well). It’s like getting your philosophy degree from reading fortune cookies. This is what people have done. They’ve been programmed by the Left. And the Left has filled their head with hysterical ravings and caricatures.

    I choose to accept that I have a purpose in life greater than sticking my penis in another man’s anus, no matter what feelings I may have or may not have (but Swedish bikini models beware). Let’s say I loved to steal, just for the seeming fun of it. It would be just as wrong to try to normalize stealing as it would homosexual behavior. I mean, get a life (or a girl). It’s what we’re made for. And if you don’t have those feelings, then go see a qualified psychologist, therapist, or minister. Why be stuck in the kind of poison that Bruce Jenner and those freaks are trying to normalize. Bruce, go eat your Wheaties, but for god’s sake hold onto your penis.

    Those people who are “sensitive” and “compassionate” are helping to doom people to a very unhealthy lifestyle. I don’t believe in stoning homosexuals. And I’m a live-and-let-live guy. But that is quite different from, say, having an alcoholic friend (who hasn’t?) and blessing their addiction. You hope they change, and there’s no way you’d advocate excessive drinking just to make your friend or acquaintance feel better.

    Many Christians are absolute wimps about this subject. If you care then help people go straight. Don’t make an unhealthy lifestyle easy.

    • Pst4usa says:

      Good point about clients, Brad. I have heard these statistics from WallBuilders and Dennis Prager, (I think), about a size of Gay support and it just does not fit with what I had been told by the few Gays I know. I am sure they are getting the data from some polling, but without knowing what the question were, then we cannot draw too much from them. The argument made says that Gay men are not for marriage, because marriage will become an expectation of the feminine side of the relationship, and if Dennis Prager is right, all men, are interested in variety. I think that argument somewhat supports the idea that at least half of gay men would not want same sex marriage. And that brings up another question, does the feminine side of the gay couple act more like men in regards to their sexual appetite or more like women? That could change everything.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The argument made says that Gay men are not for marriage, because marriage will become an expectation of the feminine side of the relationship, and if Dennis Prager is right, all men, are interested in variety.

        One of the interesting aspects of homosexual behavior — as I hear it second-hand, I assure you (not that’s there’s anything wrong with that, to quote Seinfeld) — is that homosexual-practicing men double the normal male instinct for “variety,” as you say. This is largely why homosexuals are so promiscuous. There is no equivalent female there saying, “Slow down…how about dinner and a movie first.” Instead they seek out restrooms and known spots for quickies, using glory holes and all sorts of devices.

        This is why I don’t blush when I say homosexual behavior is an aberrant behavior and an unhealthy one. Interestingly, apparently lesbians (which you’d expect from women) are not promiscuous.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Ann Coulter has argued that some conservative homosexuals (such as the organization GoProud) aren’t particularly interested in the homosexual “marriage” issue. Many people have pointed out that the issue isn’t really homosexual “marriage”, but rather suppressing moral disapproval of homosexuality. This is just a very effective weapon in that effort.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Timothy, if Kevin would like to submit a thoughtful pro-homosexual article, he is welcome to do so.

          Complete libertinism is trending their way, so there’s perhaps no real point in trying to make an argument. All one needs to do is wait and watch the current trends coalesce until we’re spending 10% of our GDP on constructing bathrooms for every gender.

          Once silliness is mistaken for wisdom and fashion, not experience, is our guide, then it’s difficult to see how all of this won’t be taken to an exploding extreme. Perhaps only the Muslims can save us, for unlike most Christians, they will actually takes steps against sexual perversion.

          Right now it’s “smiles, everyone, smiles” as the ideal homosexual couple is trotted out and everyone believes this is what they are protecting, little knowing that — just like in Europe regarding Muslims — they’ve got a tiger by the tail. It’s not the rare and socially acceptable, well-dressed, and well-mannered Ken & Bill who are the beneficiaries of the destruction of gender and marriage. It’s the Cultural Marxists, those fiends and fools who wish to “fundamentally transform” every facet of society according to their fashion. And it’s doubtful that most who engage in homosexual practices understand what their end game is.

          They will be surprised just how fast social anarchy can overtake us. When you feed the monster, you get more monsters. Anyone who believes their pro-homosexual views are exclusively benefitting the idealized Ken & Bill are fooling themselves and are dooming their children to a world of moral anarchy.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            One reason the Muslims here in America will still act against the libertinist nonsense is that they’re allowed to get away with it at present, race trumping gender and sexuality in the liberal victim hierarchy. This is also why otherwise liberal blacks are able to get away so far with being reluctant at best to support the homosexualist agenda.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of scanning the headlines of American Thinker, JR Dunn has an excellent article (particularly because he sounds like me…even better than me).

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A good article. If he is looking for fighters, he can come to ST.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Excellent points in that article, though it’s disappointing to be reminded of how little resistance the homosexualist agenda received from conservatives. (I will add that plenty of conservative pundits opposed it, but not the leadership, or at least not strongly enough.) A good example of the Catholic failure to defend marriage is the way the concept has taken over Catholic colleges without the church making any effort to fight back even when this means professors are punished for agreeing with the official Catholic position (as happened a little while ago at Marquette). William Peter Blatty has asked the hierarchy to do something about Georgetown, but they probably all need the same reproval — and none will get it.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I re-read JR’s article. He points out the extreme negligence of the Catholic Church. Have queers really used it as a place to cruise for young boys via donning a dog collar? According to JR (and other opinions I have read), this is apparently so.

        That there is a deep and prolonged corruption of the Christian message in the Catholic church is not news to me. I just didn’t know (and still require confirmation) that such a blind eye is turned — and still being turned – to the faggots infesting her inner workings.

        In another sense I’m not surprised, for Dennis Prager says the Leftism is the most dynamic religion on earth, even exceeding Islam. No doubt many think I am just too persnickety and perfectionistic regarding fallible man and his religion. But it’s been obvious to me for some time that many Christians are barely that, if not the functional (and destructive) opposite. And not necessarily in terms of hypocrisy, which is a normal and expected human foible. I mean that the very message itself has been corrupted and changed — thickly impregnated by the beast of Cultural Marxism.

        So I have no respect, per se, for Christians and even less for Jews regarding all this stuff. Jews, in particular, have jettisoned Moses and have gone for Marx in a big way.

        That conservative institutions have not made much of an argument against homosexual marriage is a good point by Dunn. Again, Jonah Goldberg (both Jew and faux conservative) is the poster child of NRO regarding this.

        If God does indeed play a part in the history of man, both Jews and Christians have screwed things up marvelously.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I don’t know how bad the situation is today, but apparently a lavender mafia took over many Catholic seminaries during the 1960s, which is where most of the scandal came from. (One of the people complaining about this is the liberal priest-author Andrew Greeley.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Timothy, if you know of a good, fair, and accurate book (or long article) on the subject, I’d like to read it.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One reason I say “I walk with Paul” is that I love the quote of his that Mr. Kung highlighted in one of his comments after the article:

    When I was starting out for Macedonia, I urged you to stay on at Ephesus. You were to instruct certain people to give up teaching erroneous doctrines and devoting themselves to interminable myths and genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation, and do not further God’s plan for us, which works though faith. This instruction has love as its goal, the love which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a genuine faith. Through lack of these some people have gone astray into a wilderness of words. They set out to be teachers of the law, although they do not understand either the words they use or the subjects about which they are so dogmatic.

    First off, I respect the quite orthodox approach of many Christian I know (including those here). My sometimes harsh words are not meant for them. I don’t think there’s any one and only way to approach this stuff. Much must be left to our own personalities, experience, interpretation, and ability to understand.

    But what I like about what Paul is saying here is that he was very early-on facing the normal human baloney that intercedes and tends to mess up the simplicity and goodness of any idea. This is a man, perhaps only second to St. Francis in my mind, who I think truly believed in a way that was beyond mere belief. He glimpsed the horizon. He saw further than most. He saw the big picture. But men tend to go off on tangents, driven by ego, intellectualism, or just rank pride. I don’t get the impression that Paul was anything but one of the most forthright and faithful men ever.

    Clarity clarity clarity. He seemed to have that and perhaps knew that clarity maintains itself for about five seconds before someone tries to “teach erroneous doctrines” for one reason or another. “A wilderness of words” is one of the finer expressions I’ve run across of late. What better definition is there for intellectualism as the object of its own affection? I had never read that passage before.

    And, for me, much of the way I see people approach religion is a “wilderness of words.” There’s a grand mystery afoot, and one that can’t be talked to death. I’m not even sure it can be put into words. I catch glimpses of it now and then but wouldn’t begin to think of trying to capture it every Sunday in a designated church. I captured it the other day on the trail, exhausted, hot, dusty, and in the middle of relative nowhere with the sun shinning low on the horizon illuminating a broad bank of trees receding into shadow. It was a sublime cathedral unto itself with pillars of pine and the stained glass of sparkling needles. This is not a love of nature but of the myriad wonders of being.

    No light has yet zapped me on the road to Damascus or on a trail to nowhere. Just dust in the nose and mosquito bites. But to me this is more real than a lot of what passes for religion.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      “A wilderness of words”

      It is perhaps to be expected that those who use dialectics, like today’s pseudo-intellectuals, are enamored of words. They invent false assumptions on which they base dishonest arguments in order to reach their desired destinations.

      Words are important and properly used a very important part of life. But they can’t express everything and when misused they can be harmful.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an excellent and relevant article: When Phony is Fabulous and Real is Repulsive by Linda Harvey

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Perhaps the satanic Leftists have finally overreached. I have notice more people are getting fed up with the deviant culture being forced down their throats. More importantly, I see people actually actively beginning to fight back.

      I suspect it is going to take some demonstrations, people going to jail and possibly some blood shed before the totalitarian perverts are defeated.

      But Western Civilization is worth that.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The problem is that, among liberals, most of the complainers are the actual victims of the increasing insanity, often mocked by others as simply showing their “privilege”. As long as the colleges are still turning out miseducated idiots and the synoptic media continue to support the full leftist agenda, they will be able to maintain their cultural dominion. Still, this does at least give us a chance to recover the booby hatch from the inmates.

  14. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I was just looking at an old article Brad wrote and this jewel was included.

    “Normal” and by that I mean those who are not insane or who have been totally denuded of thinking ability by leftist indoctrination, must fight this perverted attempt to do away with all sexual morals.

    I see that the Southern Baptist Convention is calling for its members to stand up against homosexual marriage if the Supreme Court tries to force it on America. I can only hope millions of others, including Catholics, will also refuse to recognize the insane oxymoron, “homosexual marriage.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You hope they hold firm, Mr. Kung. But caving seems always to be an option. There are so few people who know how the frame the argument or deflect disingenuous arguments such as “Why, then, you must hate homosexuals.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One way to answer would be to point out that conservatives were willing to compromise on civil unions, giving homosexuals all the advantages without redefining marriage — but the homosexualists not only rejected the compromise, but used it as a weapon to force marriage redefinition as a blow against “discrimination”.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I don’t care if they call it “civil union”. If a cake shop owner does not want to bake a cake for their “civil union”, he or she should not have to.

          I am a little past the semantics. A rose by another name and all that. Two people can have contracts between themselves and if the government wishes to carve out a niche for inheritance, social security or the like fine. Then they should also carve out a niche for unmarried people who wish to leave their money to an unrelated person. And they should be able to assign their social security to who ever they like.

          If two men or women can get married or have a civil union, they what is to stop them from having a civil union with two donkeys and a chimp and having their social security go to them upon death?

          I am sick of the insanity, deviancy and downright destructiveness of the queer lobby. They are not looking for rights, they are looking to impose any and all aberrations on the rest of society. They must be fought at every point.

  15. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    At the risk of appearing presumptuous, I would like to make a suggestion to those ST readers who consider themselves Christians.

    With the recent Politburo decision regarding marriage it is no longer possible to believe that there is not an all out assault on our culture and Christianity in particular.

    If any of you attended a worship service this week and your pastor, preacher, priest, whoever did not mention this decision and call it an abomination, then please shake the dust from your shoes and leave this so-called Church. As I have clearly shown, there is no place in Christianity for homosexual marriage.

    It is time Christians started standing up for what they profess. And this means that Churches which teach the acceptance of heretical precepts must be first called out, and if they do not change their ways, they must then be shunned.

  16. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I trust everyone has seen the announcement by that post-Christian, Christian denomination i.e. the Episcopalians, that they will sanctify queer marriage. It is actions such as this which have convinced me that the West is near the abyss.

    Christian churches, like our other institutions, have been infected by cultural Bolsheviks who have absolutely no belief in the words of the Bible.

    These Reds attach themselves to every political and cultural institution and once they are in, begin to hollow said institution out. This is their overall plan for the once great place called the United States of America. The march through the institutions is real.

    Next on the menu, polygamy. And if you think queer marriage will disrupt things, wait until you see the havoc this institution wreaks on, not only our culture, but on our national debt and politics.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, perhaps we should launch a denomination called “The No-Bullshit Church of Christ.” Okay, perhaps that wouldn’t play well on a sign. But it really has come to that to be that blunt.

      Normalizing homosexuality is irreconcilable with a God who made male and female. It’s not irreconcilable with the general Christian idea of “Hate the sin, love the sinner” (love then requiring one to cajole, where one can, people away from this unhealthy practice).

      But what has happened is that people, grown weak by various namby-pamby forces, have made the leap that “love the sinner” means “love the sin.”

      So you can call a cat a dog, but it’s still a cat. You can call yourself a Christian denomination, but if you’re not following the bible, you’re just a Church of Leftism using the liturgy of Christianity as a cover.

      At least be honest, Episcopalians. Take down the cross and replace it with something more appropriate. Perhaps a hammer and sickle would do.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Mr. Kung, perhaps we should launch a denomination called “The No-Bullshit Church of Christ.”

        A couple of prerequisites for joining; 1) having actually read the Bible 2) expounding upon the meaning of various lessons taught therein.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          As opposed to the “Make it Up as You Go Along Church of Christ.”

          I’ll be the first to admit that in any biblical admonition there is lots and lots of good room for exegesis. There is wisdom in turning the other cheek, particularly in the sense of not being “owned” by the insults of another. On the other hand, I’m not sure that Jesus meant that you should turn the other cheek if you’re walking down the road and someone assaults your wife.

          Leftism is completely incompatible with Christianity because it substitutes feelings for standards. And without standards, there is no law, there is only the ebb and flow of breezy and often ill-anchored emotion and politics. Slogans (such as “dignity”) replace any kind of careful thought and wisdom.

          If “dignity” is defined as not shaming people for the bad things they do, then that is simply a sign of moral cowardice and narcissism, not compassion. In this world of broken bodies and broken souls, one can have compassion for those who engage in homosexual acts. But to dignify or encourage those acts is not “compassion.”

          Jesus did not say to the prostitute who he saved from being stoned, “Just make sure you do your work in private so no one gets upset.” No, he said, “Go and sin no more.” The Left — perhaps an offshoot of the devil, if there is one — revels in normalizing sin. It is their raison d’etre. Instead of conforming to established standards, the juvenile-like instinct of the Left is to constantly want to vandalize those standards. What will they end up with? Where are they going? Idiots like those Episcopalians do not even care to look. They do not even care to know their own history. They do not care to look at fallible human nature. The one and single thing that drives them is their need to back-slap each other as the anointed, as the especially “compassionate.”

          Is that what Christianity is all about? Hell no. And who will stand against this foolishness? Few, too few.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I was only surprised that the Episcopalians weren’t already performing homosexual “marriages”. Ever since their top archbishop referring to Christians as someone other than them in commenting on something Pope Benedict said, it was obvious they were nothing but a political-social club masquerading as a religion.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The honest thing to do would be for one of those Episcopalian ministers to say something like,

        “Christ and the bible are no longer the foundation of our religion. Leftism is where we stress “diversity,” non-judgmentalism, multiculturalism, “social justice,” and “equality.”

        For those who believe the Episcopalians are breaking the Third Commandment — a commandment that Pat and others have said it so make sure charlatans and other ne’er-do-wells don’t get in between God and his children — then this is far worse of a situation than just fraud.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          To be fair, there are schismatic Episcopalians )individuals and congregations) who still believe in the Bible. The top leadership clearly doesn’t.

  17. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Apparently, there are some Christians who will fight back against the fanatically intolerant queer-marriage crowd and its attempts to punish normal behavior.

    It is interesting that farmers push back. Perhaps it is because they see nature up close and on a day-to-day basis, thus know that two bulls together can’t produce a calf.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I would say that the original question was posed precisely to get that answer by some homosexual militants in order to justify such actions. I wonder how often they host normal weddings. But as with Memories Pizza, that sort of detail is irrelevant to the militants. I think they have a good case against East Lansing for religious discrimination.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There are very few transgender cows or pigs…at least that I know about. Literally speaking, of course. Figuratively speaking, I’m on much shakier ground.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, I have some cousins who run the old family farm, named Shady Lane Farm after my father’s West Point nickname. I could ask them. I certainly know they at least used to have pigs because back around 1960, my grandfather took us down to it, shot a pig, hauled the carcass off to a butcher, who explained to us what he was doing.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        There are very few transgender cows or pigs…at least that I know about.

        There may be, but they ain’t productive together and farmers are nothing if not pragmatic about such things.

        Next thing you’re going to tell me is that Wilbur from Charlotte’s Web was a phag or transgender. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I’m pretty sure that Arnold, from Green Acres, was an all-American male pig. I don’t know about Wilbur. Miss Piggy had a thing for frogs, so I don’t know if that’s a trans-species attraction or what you call it.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            My belly-laugh for the day. Thanks.

            I liked Arnold. The only thing missing was a can of Schlitz.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Arnold was a friendly sort. I think he first appeared, or at least was mentioned, as a character witness for Kate Bradley’s dog in a trial in Petticoat Junction. The frightening thing is the possibility of a homosexual or transgender writing deciding to create a fictional LGBT pig. I suppose it’s no more unrealistic than Arnold being multilingual.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              The bizarrely comical used to be the province of court jesters. Now with gender being fluid and puffing into the air with the permanence of vapor cigarettes, there’s little recourse other than to exclaim in your own mind (and for the sake of sanity): This is nuts.

              Fluid dynamics ain’t what it used to be.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Robert Heinlein, in his future history (scattered over a large array of novels and short stories) included a period known as the “crazy years”. That, unfortunately, has proven to be one of his most accurate predictions.

      • Lucia says:

        We’ve had chickens that looked like they were both part hen and part rooster. The way they acted, they didn’t seem to know what they were either. I don’t have the stats but I think people and animals that are born with both types of genitals are a very small number. However, chromosome testing would indicate the predominant sex.

  18. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I wasn’t quite sure where to post this link, but finally decided that my piece on Christianity and homo-marriage would do.

    I don’t know how many of you remember the dishonest puff Andrew Sullivan who for years claimed to be a conservative. He never fooled me and came out as a leftist a long time ago.

    The link below takes the reader to one of his articles in which he bemoans the fact that Trump is dismantling Obama’s legacy except for queer marriage and legalized dope.

    I doubt many will be able to make it through the complete article, but even if someone can only make it through the first 5-1o paragraphs, he will be assaulted by the hollow yet pompously pedantic manner in which Sullivan and his ilk address the world. Clearly the man had a lot of space to fill, yet little of worth to fill the space with. His comparison of Trump to Richard III is especially suggestive of a mind which has trouble discerning between fact and fiction. Sullivan and his spiritual- kin live in a type of Never-Neverland in which hot air equals action.

    I am amazed that Mr. Sullivan has not yet burst, he is so full of hot air and bullshit. If this type of garbage is what passes for erudition in today’s America, I think we should all put on our life-jackets as the boat is clearly sinking.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Amazing. One would think someone who pretended to be a conservative would have a disagreement somewhere with the Black God. Does he even oppose PC anymore? Of course, his idolatry is helped by taking the Black God at his word.

      He also seems to be unaware that Shakespeare’s version of Richard III is a total fantasy. His accusations contradict the source: he didn’t kill Anne’s son, partly because she didn’t have one until after she married Richard, was at worst — in the play — only one of a group who killed Edward of Lancaster, and probably had nothing to do with her father’s death (Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick aka Warwick the Kingmaker, was killed in battle by some random soldier; in the play, he mentions killing her husband and father, not husband and son). And none of this has much to do with reality outside Shakespeare. Even the death of the Princes in the Tower is a genuine mystery, with several possible suspects.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Yes, I thought his choice of Richard III was a very good indication of Sullivan’s flight from fact and reality.

        I also found it a little ironic that while many of Shakespeare’s play curried favor with the Tudor and later the Stuart power-structure, Richard III is particularly sycophantic as regards the Tudors.

        I think Sullivan might have chosen a better analogy for his exercise in bemoaning the defeat of his Black God.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Another variant on another of Shakespeare’s history plays (Henry IV Part I) can be found in The Bloody Field by Edith Pargeter (aka Ellis Peters), about the 1406 Battle of Shrewsbury (her interpretation of the future Henry V and his relationships with his father and Hotspur is very different from Shakespeare’s). But I’ll admit she has nothing to match the exchange between Owen Glendower and Hotspur: “I can summon demons from the vasty deep.” “Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call them?”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      In 17 months, he has effectively erased Barack Obama’s two-term legacy.

      Hurrah. If a leftist queer thinks so, that’s good. Never did I buy that Andrew Sullivan was even remotely conservative.

  19. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Now someone at TakiMag has come out of the closet and (gasp) pointed out how Christianity and Sodomy are not compatible. They are only three years behind ST. Maybe others will finally get the balls to point out such simply truths. Perhaps even the Roman Catholic Church will again promote adherence to biblical doctrine.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Not while the Peron Pope is in charge, I fear.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      They are only three years behind ST.

      Mr. Kung, you make me laugh. But, of course, you’re correct.

      Right now I’m reading one of the last (if not the last) Allan Quatermain books, “Allan and the Ice Gods.” I won’t say he’s left the best for last, but this is surprisingly good. (You can find it for download in various formats here.)

      Small spoilers if you want to be totally surprised, but nothing I write here will give away anything but the general setting of the book which is somewhere in Ice Age Europe. Quatermain has sniffed a little more of that magic herb he had used on an earlier adventure to ancient Egypt to interact with a Cult of Isis. By burning a certain rare substance and inhaling it, he basically returns to one of his past lives but with the ability to have a bit of a third-person viewpoint and see that he is experiencing this past life.

      Yes, I know this sounds really stupid and Shirley McClaine-ish, but it works much better than it sounds. My hat is off to H. Rider Haggard for having as realistic a view of human nature as Mr. Kung does. I think Quatermain is transported into the personage of “Wi,” the leader of a small tribe of ice-age people (or, at least, the ice age may be dawning). In short, no matter what heroic feats he performs to pull all of their collective butts out of the fire, the people still grumble and are chronically whining and ungrateful.

      You have to read this in context, but it will occur to you that if man didn’t actual have a Fall caused by the eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden, he is at the very least a degraded animal from that which he was or was meant to be.

      That is the essence of why sodomy and Christianity don’t mix and never can. Instead of sanctifying and normalizing our sins, Christianity is about admitting we are sinners, that we fall short, and that we (not society) are in need of reconstruction. Period.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Mr. Kung, you make me laugh. But, of course, you’re correct.

        I calls ’em likes I sees ’em.

        “Allan and the Ice Gods.”

        I have to finish one of the Thorndyke novels and then three books on Stalin and his purges. Once I get through them, I will look up this book.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I assume for you that “Stalin and his purges” is light reading.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Reading about Stalin and his purges is a sort of prep work for what I see coming if the left defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination.

            I think it should be required reading so people will wake up to what is happening.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Salem, the Terror (leftists would do well to find out what happened to Robespierre and St. Just, not to mention Marat), the Bolshevik purges — modern leftism has so many great precedents for its legal principles. One could easily see Brett Kavanaugh as a modern Giles Corey if the leftist smearmongers get their way.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I have a friend over on another site who proudly says he is a “Progressive.” At this stage I’d be very embarrassed to take ownership of these Kangaroo courts. But the thing is, it’s not about facts. It’s about their ego, the idea of themselves as planet-saving tolerant virtuosos with a capital “V” on the virtue.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                These scumbags are doing their best to destroy norms which have taken millennia to develop. They are able to do this because the Reps have no backbone, unlike our forefathers.

                Humanity is regressing to the historical norm.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Leftists hate traditions — good or bad. They also hate Western civilization (a bunch of dead white males, after all), especially Israel and America (the ultimate overdogs). They also prefer collective “justice” based on identity politics to individual justice based on evidence and due process of law.

                So it’s no surprise that they’re willing to sacrifice the latter. And apparently the egregious nature of Sleazy Pornstar Lawyer’s latest charges is making Republicans such as Lindsey Grahamnesty see it at last. His accusation makes false accusers Ford and Ramirez look almost credible, at least by comparison.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                In addition to Avenatti’s fantasy, 2 other false accusations came out today. One was an anonymous letter who claimed that on an unspecified date in the late 1990s, Kavanaugh “sexually” shoved an unnamed woman he was dating after leaving an unspecified bar. NBC reported this one.

                Even better was a Rhode Island claim that in August 1985, an unnamed woman was assaulted on a boat in Newport harbor by 2 men, one named Brett. This was sent to the amatoxic Sheldon Whitehouse (I wonder when he’ll be attacked by his own side for that racist name). Eventually the accuser (who has called for a military coup against Trump) recanted.

                The Cnidarian should bring these 2 up tomorrow to remind Senate Demagogues (and, more importantly, voters) where you end up when accusation equals guilt. (The Demagogues don’t care, but hopefully swing voters do.)

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                This is mess is due, in part, to the Cnidarian allowing the committee vote to be extended into this week. Asshole.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                But he had to delay it. False accuser Ford is afraid of flying. Except when she goes on vacation, of course. Then it’s all right.

  20. pst4usa says:

    No one can deny that on one certain day back in the early 80’s that some woman was sexually assaulted by some guy that may or may not have been named Brett. That is all the proof the Democrats need. Burn him!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      She remembered nothing about anything today, except her certainty that Judge Kavanaugh did it. Only Molochite power-grubbers believed it (and they really just claimed to do so out of political expediency, their sole standard for everything). This is probably why Senator Corker finally announced for Kavanaugh, and the Senate Judiciary Committee (i.e., the 11 Republicans) called for the vote to take place tomorrow as they had provisionally announced 3 days earlier (the minimum time they could schedule it at that point). I don’t think they would have done that if Jeff the Flake was still privately on the fence (or opposed).

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, Bob Corker (one of the iffy senators) came out for Kavanaugh last night, and Jeff the Flake did so this morning. Mark Judge sent another letter to the Judiciary Committee, and the Demagogue smearmongers called for a subpoena, which would conveniently delay the vote for a few more days for them to fabricate some more credible false accusation. The vote to deny them was 11-10, which will no doubt also be the count when they finally vote at 1:30 pm.

      The Senate will then have its first procedural vote (on the inevitable Demagogue filibuster) tomorrow, followed by another procedural vote a day or so later and a final vote Tuesday. I predict 49-52 votes for Kavanaugh, with Collins, Manchin, and Murkowski the question marks.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, sending him to the floor. But Jeff the Flake (YBR-AZ) and Lisa Murkybrain (YBR-AK) are calling for the floor vote to be delayed a week for a futile FBI investigation — and, of course, for Chucky the Schemer and his smearmongers to fabricate some sort of halfway credible smear to delay things further. Getting them to promise not to do that would be useless since their collective word is worth less than nothing. “Whatever Is Necessary” — and two total idiots who know this are aiding and abetting the forked-tongue devils.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Pat here’s an article worth reading by Derek Hunter regarding what I call “The New Stalinists”: Is There A Decent Democrat Left In America?

      I wish I had written this. It rates a low 1.5 on the namby-pamby meter, such as:

      The 100 million dead human beings murdered in the name of their political objectives in the last century are a testament to the left’s willingness to do anything to win.


      The statements from these Democrats make the ghost of Goebbels blush from Hell.

      As I’ve said, although the Republicans are cowards and have problems of their own (they rate a high 8.5 in the namby-pamby scale), no moral person could vote for a Democrat. The party is evil, and clearly so.

      They are, universally, awful. And they’re only getting worse.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think the vile behavior of the Demagogues here — especially stunts like the sudden, increasingly ridiculous, smears against Kavanaugh and the doxxing after Lindsey Graham’s denunciation of Demagogue misbehavior of 3 Judiciary Republicans — have at least temporarily stiffened their notochords. Kavanaugh’s opening statement and Graham’s attack on the Demagogues both were extremely low on the namby-pamby scale, though I’ll let you compute the actual ratings.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My brother was watching some documentary about Gilligan’s Island this afternoon. I never knew that Tina Louise was such a bad apple. Nor that Alan Hale Jr. wore his Skipper cap wherever he went in real life. He loved that character. Jerry Van Dyke declined the role of Gilligan because he thought the script was awful. (He was right…it was, at least for the pilot.)

          One thing the show pointed out that I thought was intriguing was that they said the opening shots of the show during the theme song (perhaps including scenes of the show itself) were so realistic that many people called in to authorities on information on the the whereabouts of the castaways.

          I find this astonishing. And it sounded like this happened in fairly large numbers, not just one or two old demented ladies. And let’s just assume this was the case, for the sake of argument — astonishing, but believable.

          We can see that no man or woman of integrity can go unmolested in our current sick political culture. And just as people sat at home and really believed that these TV show castaways were real castaways, so too do many people think these hearings (and accusations) are based on real life. This is a show for the easily-bamboozled. And give the Democrats credit, they know their audience.

          That doesn’t make them any less evil. And I’m not apologizing for that evil. But we are a sick nation.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            You may recall the famous question: Ginger or Mary Ann? In reality, from the beginning, Mary Ann was the more popular character. (Leeman Kessler parodied the question once on his “Ask Lovecraft”.) I think I would have agreed even then. (And note that Mary Ann was probably the friendliest of the others to Gilligan.) I suspect Tina Louise was Most Unhappy about this, particularly since she actually was probably a bigger star.

            Hale played a temporary partner for James West once when Artemus Gordon was unavailable. At the end, he mentions that he’s taking a vacation by doing what he always dreamed about — spending it “all alone on a desert island”, accompanied by a snatch of music from the Gilligan’s Island theme song.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              That documentary did note that Mary Ann got the most fan mail…by a wide margin, I believe.

              Apparently Tina Louise was told she was going to be the star of the show. That induced her to sign on. As perhaps Sherwood Schwarz (or some other producer) noted, how could someone think they were going to be the central focus when it was called “Gilligan’s Island”?

              One can feel for Tina Louise. Shrinking violets don’t make it to the top in the entertainment business. Big egos and big ambition do. But you take what you can get along the way. She thought she was better than the work she had to do in “Gilligan’s Island.” (Given how campy it was, who wasn’t?) But it paid the bills for the moment.

              How many of us have dreams or pretenses of being better but have to settle for “Gilligan’s Island”? I would say that’s a very common thing. The others had a blast in their roles. Life’s what you make of it. But Tina Louise made it difficult.

              Ginger or Mary Ann? Most choose Mary Ann, and probably for good reason. I didn’t know that Alan Hale Jr. subbed on WWW. Interesting. And nice homage to the show.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I never knew that Tina Louise was such a bad apple

            We have friends who collect signed photos of movie stars, famous musicians and other people of note. They send a letter requesting a signed photo and enclose a self-addressed envelope (with stamp) in which the famous person can return a photo.

            My friends told me that in the many years they have been doing this, only one person demanded payment for such a photo and that was Tina Louise. I think she demanded $20.00. They didn’t reply to her letter.

            As to Gilligan’s Island, I understand she was brought on to the show under somewhat false pretenses. I read somewhere that she was led to believe that she would be the star of the show. Obviously, this was not the case. So I can understand her irritation.

  21. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to a piece with a dishonest headline regarding queer pornography.

    The headline would seem to say that the author got jail-time for writing homoerotic material. This wouldn’t bother me so much. But the actual reason the writer got jail time was for making too much money on pornography. This makes sense in a Communist country. Free queer porno for the masses is more acceptable.

  22. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If you need any proof of how far the prevaricating purveyors of perversion will go, pls read this article written by Mark Steyn.

    The requested wedding cake with a figure of Satan licking a black dick must have been very exciting for the deviant who requested it. Of course, this request was made of a Christian baker for the purpose of harassing him and forcing the dissolute queer agenda on Christians. I wonder why Leigh thought we owed so much respect to these low-life scum who are out to force their beliefs on anyone who disagrees with them?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is what I’ve noticed about all these homosexual militant cases. Their goal is at least as much to target Christians (but never Muslims, because the faggy-boos know how risky that would be) either to abjure their religion or be punished. The Kentucky county clerk (Kim Davis) who refused to sign homosexual marriage licenses had out-county homosexuals going there. This is why I’ve opposed the homosexual militant agenda for decades (we encountered something similar in Louisville about 20 years ago).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Those who are evil must not just triumph, they must humiliate their opponents. As much as people try to sanitize homosexuality, this example is representative of the dark heart of the movement.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A timely article about the “Gay Mafia.”

      There are a couple of brief but thought-provoking quips about Bolshevism and Nazism being homosexual movements. They attacked each other accusing each other of being queers.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Of course, this is a well-known case, though I had no idea who he was until this all broke. But I would say a Coalition of Fruits and Nuts, not just Fruits.

  23. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Maybe the Catholic Church is not completely lost. A German cardinal has called out homosexuality in the Church. It is hard to believe there are still people who still follow the Bible in the Church hierarchy. Of course, some “journalists” are already squealing about this.

    And while it looks like the army of morality takes a tiny step forward, the army of immorality is running rampant. I give you the example of the first “openly bi-sexual” being to be elected to the U.S. Senate. This leftist slug from Arizona takes the opportunity to be immoral with both sexes. She is a wonderful role model for the country’s youths.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The dirty little secret is that it’s not pedophilia that is rampant in the Church. It’s homosexuals, tolerated and promoted in the church, who have used the seminary and priesthood as a way to procure fresh meat. That is, this is a homosexual problem.

      This, of course, runs counter to the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        True, although the worst scandal does involve pederasty. I think there has been some heterosexual scandal as well, though the great bulk of the sexual abuse has been homosexual. One reason for this is that heterosexuality isn’t politically correct. There’s little (or even no) push in the hierarchy to exculpate heterosexual abuse, but plenty of pressure to exculpate any and all homosexual abuses. And the Peron Pope, being so politically correct (except, so far, on abortion), has no intention of doing anything to fix this problem.

        If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But in this respect the Catholic Church definitely is broke and the leadership still doesn’t want to fix it. If they are careful, perhaps even the Vatican could find itself actually broke — i.e., fiscally bankrupt. They already are morally bankrupt.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s funny, because this whole thing is so reminiscent of that movie I just watched (“The Monk”) whose theme was basically that all it takes for Satan to rule is to get his nose under the tent.

          Well, hell, his hind legs and more are through the tent now. It’s really up to Catholics to decide whether they will call evil good and good evil and continue to finance it.

          There’s no Catholic hatred or bigotry involved when I say. “Of course they’ll continue to fund it.”

  24. pst4usa says:

    The Catholic Church leadership has a long history usurping God’s word to fit their human desires. It was just over 501 years ago when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church door. Starting the reformation, and changing the world.
    I am not sure I can find much distinction between the selling of get out of hell free cards to the sexual perversion being allowed, in order to keep a steady stream of priests. I do see the difference between the two sins, just not the reaction of the leadership.
    This pope is a communist so to him the ends will always justify the means. Remember being a leftist means never having to say you are sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *