steve_austin_damage_20100405_1324103635

Stone Cold Steve Austin: “I’m For Same-Sex Marriage” (VIDEO)

Published On August 16, 2013 | By james |

World Wrestling Entertainment legend Stone Cold Steve Austin made some statements today that surely made some of his fans heads explode;

“…I believe that any human being in America, or any human being in the Goddamned world that wants to be married – if it’s the same sex – more power to ‘em.”

Watch via Adam Hughes;

- james | page co-owner | The Everlasting GOP Stoppers

Like what we do? Make a secure donation here!

facebook.com/TheEverlastingGOPStoppers                                                      twitter.com/theGOPstoppers

Find TEGOPS:

james

Founder | Chief Editor at The Everlasting GOP Stoppers
Like what we do?  Make a secure donation! You can also help support us by sharing our stories on social media using the icons below!
Find TEGOPS:

  • Pani B

    Always the articulate fellow ey Steve?

    • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

      Beat me to it, Pani. I love how he has such a deep and commanding control of the English language. Wait, that IS English he’s speaking, correct?

      • Pani B

        These gentlemen lay the works of Shakespeare in front of us and our ears are blessed with their words

      • Pani B

        Kelly it looks like we have a couple of miscreants whom it appears did not seem to get the sarcasm of mine and yours’ post.

        • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

          They’ll get over it.

          • anthony

            don t count on it
            ignorance seems to be a competition these days

          • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

            Siding with people who beat people up for a living rates pretty high it seems, as well.

    • mike coleman

      I always thought it was the message that counts.

      • Pani B

        Yes Mike it is the message that counts. It also counts to actually understand the context of ones post and it’s sarcastic nature

        • Rick Harteis

          I got the sarcasm and context, and snickered the instant I read it. hahahhaahahahah

    • Ivan Mršić

      He’s a wrestler, not a damn university professor.

      • Pani B

        oh my god he isn’t? well i’ll be!

      • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

        Yeah, I picked up on that in the first sentence. I believe he’s actually a ‘professional’ wrestler. That makes him way more credible than an amateur wrestler, or is that supposed to be rassler? I always get confused over those two words.

      • mooban stinson

        CRETIN!

  • Jooce81

    “And that’s the Bottom Line cause Stone Cold Said So”

  • Echo Moon

    got to love his reasoning on the whole thing!!! LOL still not pulling punches!

  • Stephanie Nicholas

    WHAT? Hehe…I love how Stone Cold started the What? thing and it’s still being used today.

    • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

      I’m sure you are thinking of Howie Mandel.

  • NativeNewYawker

    Cause Steve Austin is gay….I saw him walking down Castro Street in SF years ago with pink shorts. Not kidding you.

    • Dave

      I saw your Dad giving a dude a blowjob in the same area. Amazing the things we can just state as fact on the internet. Not kidding you.

      • Rick Harteis

        DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!!!

    • Mike Giangreco

      Whether or not what you claim is true (and I highly suspect it isn’t), a man wearing pink shorts is not indicative of his sexuality. Just because you are too insecure in your masculinity to wear the color pink doesn’t mean that every straight man is.

      • KCMikeG

        Yeah! Maybe his hot, sexy wife washed his white shorts with his red ones…..

      • Mimi Stinson

        I thought he was referring to Castro Street as the “gay” indicator! I put my husband in pink button down/Polo shirts all the time because it makes him look so hot!!! ; )

      • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

        Mike, do you write for The Onion?
        “a man wearing pink shorts is not indicative of his sexuality.” I think it is to the man wearing them, maybe not to observers.

    • Sooz48

      So? Does that take anything away from him or his POV?

    • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

      Cause? What cause?

      • Bornz

        Cause may also be spelt cuz or In original form would be BECAUSE

    • Rick Harteis

      Go home NativeNewYawker… You’re drunk…

    • Bornz

      If I saw that I would totally be taking a pic.cause every phone since the 2000′s has a camera. Should have got a pic cause stone is much more believable than you right now

  • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

    Great message.

  • Salvia58

    “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

  • Michael J. Holmes

    Fuck yeah.

  • Bymynishus

    My guess is no he didn’t lose many fans. The intense loyalty of wrestling fans runs deep and is also evident in their willingness the suspend their disbelief during matches. Now if he turns heel… watch out!

  • labrown69

    Go Steve!!! (applause)

  • Tammy Smith

    I have to say that I enjoyed hearing Steve’s opinion on the subject

  • Bo

    its in the bible not to have same sex marriage , look it up ///

    • http://therantboard.com/ Licinerator

      People who continue to read the bible are doomed to repeat it

      • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

        I think that works for people who don’t, as well.

    • Rick Harteis

      That may very well be the most antiquated (and yet, STILL the most overused) comment I’ve ever seen. The Bible also says we shouldn’t eat meat on Friday. How many people still follow THAT?

      • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

        Rick, the meat thing is meant for Israelites. Didn’t that Jesus guy resolve a bunch of OT stuff? If I could read, I’d look it up, but I can’t read, so I won’t look it up.

        • Rick Harteis

          Kelly, I was paraphrasing the Kevin Smith movie, ‘Dogma’. “I remember when eating meat on a Friday used to be a Hell-worthy trespass.” I don’t follow man’s written word when it comes to my religious beliefs or ideals. If I trusted everything a man has ever written, I would have preferred something by Stephen King. He’s a lot more entertaining and uses far fewer rape scenarios.

          • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

            Yeah, I knew that when I posted. Wasn’t hard to figure out.
            “I don’t follow man’s written word when it comes to my religious beliefs or ideals.”-”I would have preferred something by Stephen King. He’s a lot more entertaining and uses far fewer rape scenarios.” Apparently you do. Again, the rape thing? Old Testament. Like reciting laws from the 1930s to defend a traffic ticket issued yesterday. No big. Happens all the time.

          • Rick Harteis

            You’re failing to see my comments as they are intended, which is strictly in jest. Or perhaps you ARE, and I’m failing to see YOURS in their intended manner. Either way, agree to disagree, I guess…

          • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

            Doesn’t really matter either way.
            I figure “Stone Cold Steve” just wanted to get in the news. I highly doubt that he approves of what he says he approves of, but then, he rubs up against men in a rassling ring, so maybe he does approve. Doesn’t impact my life in any manner.
            Regardless, this comment section, as are 99% of them, is fun to read.

    • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

      No Bo, you provide your ‘facts’ so we can all observe.

    • Bornz

      Can we get an exact quote of this? I wana look it up cause I never read that part. While yer looking that up..look for the author of that book too please I didnt find that part either.. just “mens opinions” (not womens) of what they heard. And where is the rest of the universe in this book? But in this book there is only one judge and it is not me and not you so why does it matter at all? Just stories and rambling( like my last paragraph)

      • Bornz

        And if the bible is all power why do they re-write it? If itz exact words then there should be no need for modifications. P.s. I do believe in a higher power but not one that would hate me for how I was “created”

  • Adam Bajac

    With all due respect to Stone Cold, his basis for reasoning is invalid. His basic premise is simply the autonomy of human beings to decide things, rather than beginning with the nature, symbolism, and purpose of marriage. His defense against the Churches is hardly convincing – that because members of the Church have done wrong, and thus stained the Church as a whole, we can no longer preach Truth?

    We need to take this back to basics, and once again admit that same-sex attraction is, regrettably, a psychological disorder. It is obvious the male and female body are complementary to each other, and when the two unite sexually, procreation happens. On the contrary, the anus isn’t designed for a penis, and the blunt force trauma that occurs as a result of this is immense – people who practice anal sex often end up in hospital. To suggest that developing psycho-sexually to a same-sex attraction is natural is plain wrong, an opinion designed to cater to false human autonomy. Would we tell a child born blind that it is natural to be blind? No, because it’s clearly a disorder. We would reach out with compassion, but we wouldn’t pretend that nothing is wrong, because something so clearly is. In a very similar way, it is so with same-sex attraction. The body is designed for sex with the opposite gender, and so if the mind is not, it must be a disorder; and that is the bottom line because Nature says so.

    Obviously therefore, same-sex attracted people cannot marry, because their bodily relations are not genuine, and do not lead to children, thereby contradicting the nature, symbolism and purpose of marriage.

    This is difficult to write, because academic responses like this often lack compassion; but for those that are same-sex attracted, please accept my compassion.

    • Ross Butterly
    • Christian Sneddon

      It is not a psychological disorder – provide sources and evidence.

      Procreation does not always happen when a man and a woman have sex, even when they’re trying to have a baby. The anus, for men, has a g-spot not found in the anus of a woman – it’s called a prostate gland. Provide sources that people who try anal often are hospitalized, please.

      Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; nature disagrees with you. Clearly, something is wrong with you.

      Being blind can take away from the quality of life and handicap someone, but it’s not considered a disorder, only a condition. But this condition has drawbacks that negatively affect life, unlike being gay. Being gay hurts no one, and has no drawbacks, besides bigots getting angry over someone else’s sexual orientation.

      If gay people can’t marry because they can’t produce children, should sterile men and women be banned from marriage, as well?

      This is not an academic response. You’re a bigot and have provided no peer review journals or articles to back your claims.

      • Adam Bajac

        1. You are correct; by psychological definition, same-sex is not a disorder, though it was until 1974. But psychology is an incomplete means of looking at this issue, and is affected by politics. Looking at the issue philosophically is important, namely, the meaning and purpose of sex. Obviously, your philosophical viewpoint will affect your answer here. I liken it to Aristotle’s form and matter approach; in order to truly participate in the what-ness of sex (or what sex is), the matter (what we are made of) must be capable of receiving and expressing this reality; hence the matter required for true sex to take place is penis and vagina. Anything else is not actually sex, and is incapable of bringing about life – it’s just the sticking of bits somewhere for the sake of sexual pleasure – a reductionist and utilitarian viewpoint. Hopefully this makes clear that my response is not based off a “bigoted” viewpoint, but a different, and I would argue, deeper, understanding of human sexuality.

        2. I never argued that sex is for procreation alone, I argued that the body is designed for sex with the opposite gender, which should be self-evident. Alas, political opinions would have us believe we can stick our sexual organs wherever there is a hole, and call it sex.

        In regards to anal sex itself:

        “Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many
        gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not
        designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from
        the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has
        natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of
        a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows
        it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused
        by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles
        that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching,
        the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently,
        anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

        The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has
        only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is,
        blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much
        easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina.
        The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration,
        resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces,
        and a mixing of bodily fluids.

        Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are
        immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows
        the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits
        has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23
        Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

        The end result is that
        the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect
        of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting
        HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency
        among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

        Anal Cancer
        Chlamydia trachomatis
        Cryptosporidium

        Giardia lamblia
        Herpes simplex virus
        Human immunodeficiency virus

        Human papilloma virus
        Isospora belli
        Microsporidia
        Gonorrhea
        Viral
        hepatitis types B & C
        Syphilis25

        Sexual transmission of some
        of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to
        be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners,
        are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for
        example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999,
        King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases
        were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted
        above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27

        A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually
        transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since
        homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29
        they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30

        Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer
        is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV),
        which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer
        in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and
        growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern.
        For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31

        Other physical problems
        associated with anal intercourse are:

        hemorrhoids
        anal fissures

        anorectal trauma
        retained foreign bodies.32″

        Rotello,
        p. 92.

        Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal
        Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392
        (1984).

        S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa
        in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341
        (1983).

        Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal
        Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645
        (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/;
        “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.

        “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have
        Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality
        Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999).

        Heredia,
        “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most.”

        “Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis B in the United States,”
        Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July
        22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver.

        Edward
        O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual
        practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
        1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior
        of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298:
        1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation
        in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A.

        Mads
        Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in
        the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780,
        p. 779, Table 2 (1994).

        James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match
        Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet,
        351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).

        “Anal Health for Men and Women,”

        LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; J. E. Barone,
        et al., “Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum,” Surgery, Gynecology
        and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983).

        You can read the articles on full, with all sources given, on this website

        http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

        3. I once heard Lawrence Krauss (atheist) claim that homosexual activity has been found in about 1500 species of animal, and that therefore, homosexuality is natural.(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/past-programs-by-date.htm). You seem to be making a similar argument – if it’s in nature, it must be natural, right? I have a couple of objections to that.

        Firstly, the estimated number of animal species in the world are about 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988), making the number of animals that participate in homosexual acts as high as 0.67% to as low as 0.067%, which, by the way, isn’t really a great number to claim that homosexuality is “natural”.

        But, for arguments sake, let’s say that because animals do it, it’s “natural”. Then we must ask is it natural for human beings? Is it natural for a spiritual, conscious being to engage in certain acts because animals can? There are numerous examples of why the answer is no; if one animal kills another animal, is it murder? Or even if an animal kills a human being, is it murder? No, because there is no moral framework, as a moral framework only comes with being a spiritual, conscious being. Only human beings are capable of murder; likewise, only human beings are really capable of sodomy, because as a spiritual, conscious being, we know that we shouldn’t participate in such acts. As a spiritual, conscious being, we are able to realize that there should be harmony between one’s physical gender, and one’s psychological gender; if there isn’t, it’s called a disorder.

        4. Perhaps I should define “disorder”, as I am using it. “Disorder”, as the word suggests, is a lapse from the natural order of things. For example, it is natural for the organs in a living being to function correctly; and in the majority of cases, they do. But if they don’t, i.e. in the case of someone born blind, we would call this a disorder – a lapse from the way things are supposed to be. It isn’t meant to be a rude or judgmental word, but merely a word that highlights the falling away from certain realities. Again, this website

        http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

        provides good information that demonstrates that being engaging in same sex attracted acts (note: engaging in the acts, as opposed having same-sex inclinations) are actually damaging to the person. I should take a moment to mention here that same-sex attraction is disordered, but has no moral character – only acts have moral character. Same-sex acts are both disordered, and have a bad moral character, from a Thomistic Virtue Ethics and Teleological perspective, at least. Probably not from your Utilitarian and Consequential perspective, which says “as long as its consensual, and the pleasure given outweighs the pain suffered, its OK”.

        4. Someone else wrote the same thing, so in brief, marriage requires an openness to life that comes intrinsic to the proper sexual act, and this openness remains even when the couple is infertile. There are known cases of infertile couples reproducing (or rather, thought to be infertile), but there are no cases of men-men or women-women reproducing, because they cannot have proper sex.

        I hope I have quoted enough sources, at the standard of your liking. Much of my response also comes from personal philosophy influenced by certain philosophical systems, mainly, Thomistic Virtue Ethics and Teleology.

      • Adam Knapp

        Why isn’t a total obsession and adherence to outdated, violent belief systems considered a mental disorder?

    • cirithungol

      So, by your logic, heterosexual couples who are infertile should not be allowed to marry, since they do not possess the biology to procreate.

      Your definition of marriage is flawed.

      • Adam Bajac

        Not at all. Marriage doesn’t require life to be born of it, it merely requires an openness to life, which doesn’t exist in same-sex relations.

        • cirithungol

          Please provide evidence that gay people do not have an “openness to life”.

          • Adam Bajac

            My response to Christian highlights in more detail what I am saying, so please read that for a fuller picture. But basically “openness to life” is referring to the potential for the act to bring about life. It should become quite obvious here that same-sex acts do not have an openness to life.

          • cirithungol

            Wow, you’re a really thorough bigot, that’s for sure.

          • faith

            Using an ad hominem does not make his argument less valid. He is not a bigot unless your operational definition of bigot means: anyone who disagrees with your opinion and defends it. Well, that would make you a intolerable bigot as well.

          • http://www.lowgenius.net John Henry

            Neither do sex acts with the infertile.

          • faith

            Infertility can always be treated. Sometimes it is the difference of a RH negative woman and RH positive man mating which would indeed lead to infertility problems. Some women are actually XXY which would render them infertile. Regardless if their fertility is low or not. out of a man and woman spring life, what life comes about from anal sex or what life can come about from vag to vag contact? Actually, more diseases are rendered by the VERY unnatural anal sex whether it is by heterosexual or homosexual couples vs nature’s true intention of sex to begin with. The anus was never designed to be a entry point, just an exit point. At the end of the day, the opposite sexes will always be the only carriers of life. Social politics aside, you cannot change biology. So bringing “sex acts” of the infertile does not make your claim great for same sex marriage; it is still very flawed for a natural born woman will always be a woman and a natural born man will always be a man.

          • Adam Knapp

            Guys have fantastic anal sex with their girlfriends all the time, and no one says anything… Oh wait, that’s how closed-minded bigots like you are conceived.

          • Hwo Wright

            I feel bad for people like you who live in such small minds thinking people are only normal if they are just like you oh an ps animals have homosexual experiences so explain that one? What a joke openness to life lol if your alive your open to life lol therefore you live life! It’s also natural for us to be naked and shit outside wherever we feel the need but instead we use bathrooms and wear clothes I’m also guessing you must hunt instead of going to the store cuz hunting is natural

          • Adam Bajac

            I really shouldn’t dignify you with a response, seeing as how appalling your arguments actually are.

            1. If you actually read down the page, you would see what I wrote in regards to animal homosexual activity:

            “I once heard Lawrence Krauss (atheist) claim that homosexual
            activity has been found in about 1500 species of animal, and that
            therefore, homosexuality is natural.(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda….
            You seem to be making a similar argument – if it’s in nature, it must
            be natural, right? I have a couple of objections to that.

            Firstly, the estimated number of animal species in the world are
            about 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988), making the number
            of animals that participate in homosexual acts as high as 0.67% to as
            low as 0.067%, which, by the way, isn’t really a great number to claim
            that homosexuality is “natural”.

            But, for arguments sake, let’s say that because animals do it, it’s
            “natural”. Then we must ask is it natural for human beings? Is it
            natural for a spiritual, conscious being to engage in certain acts
            because animals can? There are numerous examples of why the answer is
            no; if one animal kills another animal, is it murder? Or even if an
            animal kills a human being, is it murder? No, because there is no moral
            framework, as a moral framework only comes with being a spiritual,
            conscious being. Only human beings are capable of murder; likewise, only
            human beings are really capable of sodomy, because as a spiritual,
            conscious being, we know that we shouldn’t participate in such acts. As a
            spiritual, conscious being, we are able to realize that there should be
            harmony between one’s physical gender, and one’s psychological gender;
            if there isn’t, it’s called a disorder.”

            2. “If you are open to life, therefore you live life?” My God, that is bad. Use your brain dude; I’m not referring to a metaphorical openness, the kind of which refers to ‘living life to the full’ (which you obviously are), I’m referring to the literal openness to life that can only happen through male-female procreation. You know, children?

            3. *Sigh*. Now I know I’m dealing with an idiot. Let me see if I get this straight:

            Nakedness, Excreting in nature, Hunting = Natural
            Clothes, Using Bathrooms, Hunting = Unnatural.

            See, your problem here is quite simple: you have made equivalent human beings and animals. The three hallmarks of natural that you have mentioned are all common to animals. Hence, you are saying animals = natural. But as human beings, we’re more than animals; or haven’t you noticed? We have a principle they don’t have: intelligence (well, some of us do anyway). This intelligence principle also makes us self-conscious and spiritual. Hence, just because an animal performs a certain behaviour, doesn’t mean human beings should.

            Honestly, with a response as bad as yours, I don’t know why I bother. Clearly some things are beyond some people.

          • Adam Knapp

            You’re doing the same thing you’re accusing others of doing – applying your own definitions of what is “natural” and not. At the end of the day, if you see sex and partnership as nothing more than a vehicle for babymaking, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

          • faith

            Can a man/man or woman/woman create life with each other biologically and genetically speaking? NO! Therefore, they have no openness to life and will search out surrogates and adoption agencies to simulate what God intended while completely ignoring God’s attention. Two men can never be one flesh.

          • Adam Knapp

            No one cares what your dumb bronze age goat herder book says.

      • faith

        The you would have to ignore the origins of marriage for you to argue that his argument is flawed. Marriage originated with one man and one woman, you cannot change that regardless to the political climate.

        • cirithungol

          Why can’t we change that? If marriage was invented by man, it can be changed by man to reflect the attitudes and culture of modern life. When the concept of marriage first came about, people believed all manner of ill-informed rubbish. I’d like to think that people these days aren’t living thousands of years in the past, but sadly it seems some people are.

          • faith

            Logical fallacy.

          • cirithungol

            I agree completely. It is a logical fallacy to expect bigots to discard their bronze age philosophy.

          • faith

            Thanks for the compliment from one bigot to another!

          • cirithungol

            Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a minority group with hatred and intolerance.

            Yeah, that would be you, not me.

          • faith

            And you failed to see those same qualities in yourself; interesting. It appears that are into a deep level of congitive dissonance so what you are saying is no surprise.

            As, I stated before; thanks for the compliment! Keep up the good work!

          • faith

            So it appears that your mind is working overtime to reduce cognitive dissonance. You have been intolerable to every opinion on this article and count less others that disagrees with you. Again, cognitive dissonance reduction.

            As I stated before, thank you for the compliment :) !

            Have a blessed day!

          • cirithungol

            I have shown no prejudice nor have I treated any minority group with hatred or intolerance. Also, you have yet to actually explain why we cannot change the definition of a word to reflect modern life..

          • Adam Knapp

            No one has to work overtime- in fact, you don’t have to work at all to see the detriments in using a belief system based on the writings of psychedelically-altered goat herders from 3000 years ago about how everyone was out to get them until their magical, “loving” deity repeatedly slaughtered half of humanity in their name, and then tried to force a guilt trip on them by allowing his own son to be slaughtered some years later(even though he’s supposed to be totally in charge of everything). Yeah. That makes perfect freaking sense.

        • Adam Knapp

          Since we’re doing the traditional thing, can I purchase your daughter for the price of two bushels of beans, three cows, and a goat? We can wait till she’s 18, but that might break the original biblical tradition of marrying her when she’s only 12.

    • jebeat01

      The contents of your “academic response” also lack support from the American Psychological Association.

      • faith

        The APA was influenced politically and also cannot determine the nature of sexual orientation. The articles he provided are peer-reviewed which is moderated by the APA.

        • jebeat01

          The APA is probably more qualified to determine what qualifies as a psychological disorder than you or Adam Bajac, although I commend his ability to use a search engine.

          • faith

            In actuality, the APA is not more qualified and is based on theory; it does not have a grand theory.i.e. evolution. Speaking of which, I have a Psy.D in psychology so that voids your opinion. Psychology is a “baby” in developing science and the only reason it is classified under behavioral science is because of the “scientific method” it uses in experiments. The APA cannot determine it and does not know what causes it. I have access to several scholarly peer-reviewed articles and journals from all perspectives. If you would study psychology for yourself, you would not have used the APA in your argument. The APA does not have empirical evidence to support or deny the basis of sexual orientation.

          • jebeat01

            I’m afraid that your degree does not void my opinion (Such is the nature of opinion.). APA is composed of professional psychologists and researchers who do quite a bit of scientific research to support all of their scientific publications. As for whether or not you agree with their findings, that is up to you. However, I tend to trust research that is endorsed by the APA, and they seem to represent the folks who make decisions about what constitutes mental illness around here…unless you count insurance companies, of course. Congratulations on your psych degree and ability to access peer reviewed journals, though. I’m sure you’re the only person on this forum with a with such a high level accomplishment.

          • faith

            The point you are missing that there is no conclusive research that has been conducted by my fellow peers in the determining factor such as sexual orientation. You have to critically think and ask yourself that why would the APA come to a conclusion that people can’t change their sexual orientation without conclusive research to support or reject there hypothesis? If you would read their publications you would not come to that conclusion which is why the APA gives conflicting information which places their objectivity (which is key) in a conundrum. Even though the Supreme Court struck certain components down in DOMA, they rejected all friendly briefs by the APA, AMA, Pediatric association and etc. because of their lack of longitude empirical based studies. In other words, they did not have accurate research to back their claims and they lost their objectivity due to a social clause. Keep in mind the initial reasons it was removed from the APA in the 70′s had nothing to do with empirical research supporting its removal, it was due to socio-political reasons. APA never submitted research of the finding to support the APA’s standing and in my field, that is called “breaking the rules”.

          • jebeat01

            I never claimed that APA had empirical evidence to prove whether or not individuals can change their orientation. APA’s published opinion about the matter of sexual orientation merely states that, after much research, there is no evidence to support that homosexuality is a pathology.

    • Jon Doee

      In layman’s terms… gays are icky to you and you can’t permit it tainting your precious definition.

      Well, too damn bad. Out with the old… in with the new.

  • http://www.photo-fix.com/ Kelly Basden

    “If it will pack the rassling venue and my wallet.” Not buying it.

  • Tammy Harper

    I have a whole new respect now for Steve.