Google+ Back to mobile

San Antonio City Councilwoman Elisa Chan Describes LGBT Community as “Disgusting”

The Observer talks to the Chan staffer who secretly recorded her homophobic remarks.
by Published on
Elisa Chan
San Antonio City Councilwoman Elisa Chan

San Antonio is hosting a full-on freak-out over proposed changes to the city’s non-discrimination policies that would cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Christian conservatives are claiming that the revised ordinance would allow men into the women’s restroom, ban Christians from city government and infringe on their religious freedoms to be intolerant of gay people. Proponents have countered by pointing out that it does no such thing and that the current draft is similar to ordinances in Austin, Dallas, Houston and other major cities.

The pot was stirred a bit more today when a secret tape of Councilwoman Elisa Chan’s unvarnished views surfaced. In the recording, Chan describes LGBTQ people as “disgusting,” saying they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt and that homosexuality is “against nature.” Former Chan staffer James Stevens surreptitiously recorded Chan’s comments on his iPhone during a May meeting on the proposed ordinance. Stevens provided the recording to San Antonio Express-News columnist Brian Chasnoff, who published a damning article today.

At one point in the recording, amid a tittering exchange about pansexual people, Chan interjects her opinion on the nature of homosexuality.

“You know, to be quite honest, I know this is not politically correct,” she said. “I never bought in that you are born, that you are born gay. I can’t imagine it.”

As the talk shifted back to pansexual people, whose sexual orientations encompass all gender identities, Chan asks, “How can that be?”

“I will say, ‘Strip down! What equipment do you have?’” she continued. “I’m telling you. Crazy. We’re getting to crazy realm.”

Stevens agrees that it’s “politically incorrect in some circles” to claim that people choose to be gay. “The newspaper will get to you,” he warned.

Chan was evidently aware that her homophobic remarks could get her in trouble politically, and vowed to keep them under wraps in public.

“That’s why I never would say that outside because they kill me,” Chan said. “When I say that it’s … behavioral preference, they say that, ‘No, you’re born with it.’ But I never bought into that.”

I spoke with Stevens earlier today about why he decided to come forward with the recording and what he hopes to see come of it.

Stevens, who is straight but has gay friends, began working as an intern in Chan’s office in the fall of 2012 and was hired full-time on May 13. Slightly more than a week later, on May 21, the 28 year old sat in on his first staff meeting. He was in for a surprise.

“I didn’t go into it thinking I was going to record anything,” Stevens said. “What I was expecting was to discuss policy and to really get into maybe the nuanced arguments on both sides of the debate. … After a few minutes of the conversation really going toward just talking about how disgusting the [LGBTQ] community is I decided that this is something the people of San Antonio should know about, that this is what’s going on behind closed doors.”

Stevens said the conversation began with Chan asking her staff to explain what the “T” stands for in LGBT. (It stands for “transgender.”)

“Her reaction of disgust is what sparked everyone to join and talk about how disgusting it is,” Stevens said, who he was “uncomfortable” during the conversation.

“If I could say one thing to the LGBT community, I wish I could’ve been stronger during that meeting and made more of the points that in hindsight I’d like to make. But being there and especially being my first staff meting and not knowing if this is normal, I didn’t know how to behave.”

He sat on the tape for months, hoping that there would be another chance to discuss the ordinance “in a more mature way. But that never happened.”

What pushed him to finally release the audio was Chan’s unwillingness to consider that gay people might be born that way. “It’s one thing to be ignorant,” Steven saids, “and I can forgive ignorance. But willful ignorance is inexcusable, especially from a representative.”

Stevens doesn’t think Chan will vote for the ordinance now, but he hopes that it might persuade other council members to distance themselves from Chan and her position. He also hopes that the LGBT community will be heartened to know they have straight allies in government who are willing to stand up for equality.

“There are people out there that believe in equality who are going to support you and are going to make sacrifices to do the right thing. There aren’t many of us, but I felt like I was in a position to help and so I did.”

  • derbradster

    Folks who’ve not traveled abroad are often surprised at the depth and strength of Christianity in the nonWestern world. I dont know if Chan’s ethnic cultural descent is from mainland China or Taiwan but the fact is there are wide swaths of the planet out beyond San Fran and NYC where the office memo which proclaims “Homosexuality is perfectly normal/desirable” never got forwarded.

    • Phillip Lozano

      Apart from the fact that no mention is made of Chan’s religious beliefs, why on earth would you have to leap to the “non-Western world” to find Christian intolerance of the LGBT community? Chan was born in Taiwan, and educated in Beijing, but she’s lived in the United States for the last 25 years, plenty of time to absorb the cultural zeitgeist concerning civil rights protection for the LGBT community – a rocky history, at best.

      The vast majority – 98 percent – of Taiwan’s inhabitants are Han Chinese. The differences with the mainland are economic/political. The vast majority are Buddhist/Taoist; less than five percent identify as Christian.

      • derbradster

        You missed or failed to recognize my point. Let me re-phrase it for you. A wonderful Shakespeare quote perfectly encapsulates the attitude to which we Americans so easily fall prey. Two Romans are discussing their slave from Brittania. “Forgive him Polonius, he’s from Britannia and thinks the customs of his own local tribe are the laws of the universe!” We Americans are guilty of that somewhat. It’s akin to folks from Austin moving elsewhere in the state and being quite surprised at the prevailing cultural milieu. (What? No place to buy tofu burgers in Junction Tx?)
        The cultural values/baggage folks bring with them to the Estados Unidos aren’t fully purged out for at least 2 generations. And Chan is what my Asian friends would jokingly term a FOB Chinese. [Fresh off the Boat!]
        Think what you will of her cultural heritage– that is your right– but don’t slam her for her [ill-advised] choice to express them.

        • Phillip Lozano

          Oh, your “Asian friends” – why didn’t you say you had Asian friends? That makes it all kosher then.

          Oh, BTW, *my* Asian friends think she’s a asinine homophobe. And I wasn’t slamming her ethnic background – YOU are the one insinuating that she’s incapable of accepting the LGBT community because of her ethnic background.

          • derbradster

            Are your Asian friends heterophiles or homophiles? Might that color their viewpoint? Sure it would.

          • Phillip Lozano

            Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why would they have to be a homogenous monolith as a culture? Why can’t they simply be individual people who respect the civil rights of other people, even if they don’t embrace the lifestyle?

            Not all people feel the need to deny common respect and decency to other human beings based on petty bigotry.

    • SoberMoney

      “Duhbradster” might be a closet homophobe, trying to turn Chan’s bigotry into some sort of absurd lesson on world religions.

      So, my question to “duhbradster” would be: “what does Hinduism think of Ms. Chan’s chronically bad driving habits given her ethnicity – and her constant use of MSG during her Thanksgiving dinner celebrations?”

      See how absurd your argument is in the 21st century, “duhbradster”?

      • derbradster

        Hinduism had/has little impact on most of Asia. Better to look for the view of Confucianism for explanations if you want them.

    • Erik Wise

      Let’s stop justifying intolerance and just confront disgusting bigotry for what it is. That is: DISGUSTING.

      The mental contortions of trying to explain it in geopolitical/cultural terms is just ridiculous. And it avoids purging this kind of disgusting behavior out of civil society.

      • Victor Edwards

        To enlighten your mind a bit, read a book entitled “The Intolerance of Tolerance,” by Dr. Donald Carson. He exposed the hypocrisy of your vaunted “tolerance.” You are intolerant of anything that doesn’t approve of homosexuality. So don’t talk to me about tolerance when you are a living example of intolerance.

    • M Jackson

      I anxiously await your twisted defense of the anti-gay violence in Russia and Uganda.

      • derbradster

        Violence anywhere can seldom be justified unless your napalming a Nazi rally.

  • Milo Whitaker

    Funny how Christian Conservatives are the least Christian people of all; they are no different from any other hate mongering group.

    • Earl D’Pearl

      You blanket endorsement make YOU a bigot

      • SoberMoney

        Me no speaka da inglish gut.

      • Milo Whitaker

        Get off your cross, Earl.

      • Denise McVea

        I agree. He should have said “American Christian Conservative.”

        • Earl D’Pearl

          I remember a time when black people were targeted for bigotry like that. Your mindless generalization is very much reminence of those in the KKK and other hate groups. You don’t know my actions, you even more so don’t know the heart. But here you sit in hypocritical judgement, Ms Pharisee.

          • Denise McVea

            You are mixing metaphors.

          • Earl D’Pearl

            Conservative christians = black people in pre-civil rights days
            Your blanket endorsement of the ENTIRE group of christian conservatives as “bigots” based ONE person’s (Chan) actions (supposingly committing a wrong by privately stating a dissenting PC opinion= KKK’s blanket endorsement of the ENTIRE race of black people based on ONE black person’s crime (whether rape, thief, whatever).
            Summary point: It’s wrong to characterize an entire group for the actions of one as an inherent shared characteristic for the entire group. That’s called BIGOTRY.
            Hopefuly my mixed metaphors are clearer now.

          • Denise McVea

            Here’s the crux of your error in logic: if a black person commits a crime, it is prejudice to say that all black people are criminals. In the present case, however, the American Conservative Christian platform, AS A GROUP, routinely and persistently denigrates gays, supports discriminatory actions against them, works diligently to put discrimatory policy in place that demoralizes them, and have contributed significantly to the environment that encourages violence against them. If you do not agree with these actions, you can become, say, a Quaker, and join a sect that displays all of the good of modern day Christianity, and virtually none of the icky stuff. Either you agree with what American Christianity has sunk to, or you don’t, but you can’t be a part of what they are doing and complain when people put a mirror up to you. You can’t have it both ways.

          • Earl D’Pearl

            sigh…I “think” you’re trying to make reasoned points. But factually and in principle you’re flat out wrong and out of context on so many levels. I do give you credit for effort, sincerity and some level of eloquence. And for the sincerity alone I’ll offer a peace offering: I will endeavor to hear you out further…no arguing, no name calling…, assimilate your reasoning and discern constructive steps to better relations with my fellow man/woman who differ with my ethics and morals. In other words I’m open to “change” (my viewpoints, affliliations, responses etc) depending on your level of reasoning. My email: [email protected]. Let’s talk. If you dare:):):)

          • Denise McVea

            Actually, you are the one invoking the KKK. You are being ridiculous. You are acting much in the same way that serial killers act: lamenting that some of their victims actually fight back. Shame on you. Stop. Think. Stop being Christian, and focus on being Christ-like. There is a world of difference.

          • Earl D’Pearl

            I’m always open minded to critique because I seek truth versus simply trying to shut down those I disagree with. But I find your analog bizarre. Be clearer in your point: Where was the flaw is stating that blaming Christian Conservatives as an ENTIRE group for Chan’s remarks is similar to the KKK blaming one black person’s actions as representative of an ENTIRE race. And where did I “lament some victims fight back”? Did I state that? Or do you posess the ability to read minds and hearts? Finally notice I did not attack you or your beliefs personally. Please do the same in your response.

    • sjplwc

      Yes, all those hospitals, schools, orphanages, billions and bllions of dollars given in charity, groups travelling around the word doing works of service, the ending of slavery, the abolishment of barbaric practices like human, child and widow sacrifice in pagan nations around the world, etc., etc. carried out by multitudes over the centuries in the name of Christ — they mean nothing. All the things Jesus said and did — worthless. Elisa Chan’s controversial comments, on the other hand? Why, they define the sum total of Christian truth for all men for all time. Thanks for clearing that up, Milo.

      • valeriekeefe

        I’d note that if you’re queer, you’re either going to have a horrible time or not receive any service at all at those hospitals, schools, orphanages, et-cetera, unless they’re forced to not discriminate by the state.

        • sjplwc

          Ummm — yeah — which is why AIDS research, treatement, etc. for decades has received *proportionally* more attention and research $$ than just about all other afflictions. Hospitals and medical professionals shun homosexuals? What an absurd and baseless statement.

      • david

        Why do people push their religious believes on others separation of church and state , I’m tired of religion trying to make the world do what it says because some crazy people heard voices in their head we need to destroy churches and burn bibles the world would be better off

      • Milo Whitaker

        More people have been killed than helped in the name of Christianity. More non Christians behave like Christians than the ones who profess to be Christians, probably like you, sjp. Why don’t to start acting like a Christian rather than just professing to be one?

        • sjplwc

          Milo, historically and factually your are almost comically wrong. Christianity and its principles have built Western Civilization — you know, the system that overturned slavery, ended widow burning, cleaned up our prisons, raised up orphanages and hospitals, developed the system of chivalry in the middle ages, proposed Just War theory, etc., etc., etc. Not every person abides by Christian truth, including many so-called Christians. That has nothing to do with Jesus, who would have ripped those who professed to know Him but lived otherwise. By the way, you know nothing — nothing! — about me? Who are you to deride my conduct? You want me to “start acting like a Christian rather than just professing to be one” — you mean, act like you, who just accused me of being a hypocrite while knowing not one detail of my life? Okay, got it.

          • Milo Whitaker

            Awwwww, such a wonderful Christain reaction. Praise Jesus.

          • sjplwc

            Milo, thanks for not responding to any of my points. Not one of them.That speaks volumes of where you are coming from. I guess your sarcasm (?) is the best you can manage. That’s fine, but don’t pretend there is any moral force to what your are saying. If you’re going to unhistorically slander an entire movement (Christianity) and group of people (Christians) ya gotta have more than smart-alecky jibes.

          • Denise McVea

            I remind you of a quote by bishop Desmond Tutu. “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the bible and we had the land. They told us to close our eyes and pray. When we opened them, we had the bible and they had the land.”

        • Denise McVea

          That’s true.

      • Denise McVea

        When Christians help the poor, assist the downtrodden, and commit works of service, they are being Christlike. Same for the Jews, the Muslims, the pagans, the Athiests, the Bhuddists, etc. on the other hand, when they mindlessly follow greedy politicians, get guidance from Fox News, and work to demean and discriminate against gays, immigrants, and the poor, they are not. It really is very simple. Nobody owes deference to bullies, and in many respects, that is what the American Chistian Conservative movement has become.

  • Eddy LeRoque

    “All in the Family: Flashback: Mike Meets Archie (#2.5)” (1971)
    Archie: I ain’t gonna eat this food with these Chink pick-up sticks.
    Mike Stivic: How can you say that, Arch? With one word you attack an entire race of people and not just the Chinese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese.
    Archie: Wait a minute, Meathead, I never call them countries Chinks.
    Edith: He calls them Gooks.
    Archie: I’m saying they’re all a yellow race. They ain’t exactly Chinks, but they are definitely offshoots of your Chinks, they’re what you call Chinkish.

    • yorts1

      Somebody should right the Elisa Chan as Archie Bunker remix of this dialogue. It would be hilarious.

    • derbradster

      Gook is derived from “Mei Gook” which is Korean for “Beautiful country” which is what they call the Estados Unidos in Seoul (And perhaps Pyongyang as well though it now seems doubtful). As the American soldiers in the early 50s encountered the locals in Korea the Koreans would ask “Mei gook?” [Are you an American?] and GI Joe of course replied “Okay, you’re a gook!”

      • SoberMoney

        How about “duhbradster’s mind is filled with gook.”

        It somehow doesn’t fit. Your mind is filled with …”beautiful country?”

  • Victor Edwards

    Homosexuality was considered pathological until the middle 1970s, even by the most liberal element in our society. The conclusion that homosexuality is a violation of nature was essentially universal. And one’s native sense tells us that it is unnatural. There is not one iota of evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait – not a single iota. It surprises me that the atheistic and naturalistic rabble apparent in these comments would make such an unscientific argument. It is irrational and incoherent to argue that homosexuality is a genetic trait. It is a behavior. Period. And it is unnatural and perverted sexuality.

    Even if you don’t listen to me, at least know that there is one who has judged it: God himself. God tells us through the Scriptures that homosexuality is “unnatural,” “vile affection,” “dishonoring of the body,” “vile passion,” “against the natural use,” “shameful,” “lustful.” “immoral,” just to name a few. I think the word “disgusting” is quite accurate. Most significant to me is that all this is the result of God’s wrath “from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” That judgment of God gives people over to a “debased mind.” To somehow think that homosexuality is good is clear evidence of a great blindness that has come from God so that men “believe the lie.”

    • SoberMoney

      Victor, what you have is Christian rationalized homophobia.

      For all you know, your minister or priest might be gay. Just because he may be married with children, doesn’t mean he doesn’t lust after you when you walk into that sacred house.

      And just because your minister does not act out his lust, in doesn’t mean he isn’t a freak of nature, according to your definition of God.

      Christianity may say in your book interpretation that being gay is unnatural, but it is only the hateful Christians that you and Ms. Chan exemplify that use the word disgusting.

      You are not going to heaven, Victor. Your hate will make sure of that.

      • Victor Edwards

        You and your ilk traffic in name calling, invective, threats. None of you can conduct an intelligent conversation about the issue without your overweening hatred showing its ugly face. About me, you are totally wrong: I have much compassion for you, as you are in serious danger — and I have a message that can help that. You do not really realize where you are going and unless and until someone assists you in your race down to hell, you will perish in a place you do not wish to go. The kindest thing I can do for you is to warn you of the judgment to come and share with you the good news [“gospel”] that sin can be forgiven, even homosexual sin. But, be warned by the explicit warning of our Savior Himself: “Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish.”

        • SoberMoney

          Victor, what you ignore is the fact that your big book was written by frail and angry followers of Christ years after his death. Everything the so-called prophets say is open to critical analysis.

          The words in the Bible are not Christ’s words, but reinterpreted words of Christ, by men (notice NOT women – who are much less consumed by homophobia than men),

          Hence the Bible’s teachings are just biased opinions about homosexuality, not facts. And the reality that these opinions are bought hook line and sinker my millions of people as fact, is the same reality as everyone centuries ago believing unequivocally that the world was flat.

          Lastly, evangelical Christians are homophobes, as their beliefs about about homosexuality is based on fear and ignorance. And fear and ignorance results in repression, social injustice, and violence.

          Remember, Nazi Germany sent tens of thousands of gay people to the gas chambers.

          Since your book is w

          • SoberMoney

            …… and since your book is docudrama reinterpreted over centuries from a distant classical language, your “faith” about the “facts” you create are seriously flawed and highly suspicious.

            Tell us, when did you talk to Jesus – and did you record your conversation so we can hear it verbatim to determine if your facts are really facts?

          • Victor Edwards

            No argument here, but merely invective, name-calling and hatred of those who hold different views than you. I am glad, though, that in your anger and hatred towards Christ, you admit that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality in all its permutations. That is one step forward for you. Now, how about invoking Nazism again. Pardon my impertinence, but that is simply dumbness. How about telling all of us where YOU get your morality. How did you come to determine that homosexuality is morally good? From where do you derive your values?

            And before you answer, you should know that I am practicing a standard legal practice at trial law: never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.

          • SoberMoney

            Of course you have all the answers. You are everything Jesus Christ loathed: bloated ego, grandiosity, self-obsessed, addicted to judgement and hate, living a lie – and those may be your more noble qualities.

            And, yes, Nazi Germany had the same sick superiority distinctions you have about gay citizens. And look what the brown shirts did: they gassed them and then buried their bones.

            But you hide your invective and hate behind Jesus Christ. That doesn’t fool anyone but yourself and the other self-deceivers who practice your Christian self-delusion.

            You only have salvation because the people you hate and judge so harshly feel sorry for you and pray for you to someday see that your hate is keeping you isolated from a much saner view of the world.

          • Victor Edwards

            Will you ever make an argument for your position? So far nothing, just more blather and ridiculous name calling. From where do you derive your own “morality?” Come on, tell us.

          • o.O

            Victor, you are the one who requires an argument. Homosexuals are everywhere and are throughout history; they transcend race, proving self-evident in the animal kingdom. You may disagree with me on this; we all share a distant relative, it is only natural that our race has the potential to carry the same behaviour. As for your god, I have yet to find a valid argument proving his existence or justifying why I should call It god and worship said being as such. Eye-witnesses and once-upon-a-time first hand encounters can be cast off, just as easily as alien abduction stories. There are many accounts of people creating exaggerations in other religions, not to mention christianity copying other folk lore (deity’s rebirth, 3 king’s gifts, following the star). So what exactly makes your god good? Is it because “he” is god? Or because his actions make him so? Tell me, can we know god? Or does knowing him allow him to be subjected to petty human terms, such as the word good. Which then I do not see him as much of a god, just more of a good role model (or a bad one, depending on whom you query). I am saddened that your emotions have clouded your reasoning, your morals depend so much on this book. Tell me Victor, are you not able to create and rationalize your own set of morals? Or do you depend on bronze-aged propaganda? Propaganda that was created when sea monsters were considered a legitimate threat. Good day to you, sir! I hope your narrow-minded delusion gains some sound perspective.

          • Victor Edwards

            Oh, I have an argument alright, and one that is supported by evidence, which your naturalistic, atheistic Darwinian notion does not. You are of course wrong about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but you run to the flimsy homosexual arguments that all other homosexuals use, even if there is not one iota of evidence. The fact is that there is clear evidence that God exists; the problem is that you are unable to see it because you lack the necessary criterion for understanding: The Holy Spirit of the God that you hate. Indeed, though you deny Him, you yourself “know” Him, and you know Him with a true knowledge, a knowledge that He himself instilled in you as a human being [and not the progeny of animals, who do NOT have that sense]. Hear what the Scriptures say — and tremble:

            “For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is MANIFEST IN THEM, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE, because, although they KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became FUTILE IN THEIR THOUGHTS, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. PROFESSING TO BE WISE (!) THEY BECAME FOOLS…”

            Finally, though, I was impressed that you know full well where your morality arises – from your own depraved heart. Mike from Texas knows that, too, but could not find the guts to tell us that. You question about whether or not I have the “reason” to develop my own private morality or do I have to depend on some ancient book. Good question. Of course the answer is that morality must be OBJECTIVE, and not merely SUBJECTIVE. Morality must also be UNIVERSAL, and the Bible meets both of these criteria. Otherwise, morality reduces to mere wants and desires for each person and offers no help to humanity. Also, the morality that derives from the Bible is originated by God the Creator and as such is obligatory for every creature who was “made in His image and likeness.”

            But what you have is a totally relativistic morality that is useless for guidance of anyone, including yourself. It changes according to your lusts and desires. You are basically saying that morality is what you like, what you yourself prefer. But even you, with a stunted ability to reason, can see that such a system of morality, would allow another person to develop their own that would allow them to do away with you! This is silliness indeed – and no morality at all.

            As for my own reason, I am fully aware that my own reason and thinking, affected as it is by sin and the Fall of man, renders me unable, in my own crippled soul, to determine what is right and holy. In theology we call that total depravity, that is, that every capacity of man, including reason and rational thought, has been tainted by sin and rendered unable to be a reliable guide for anything, but especially morality. I do want you to know, though, that through the spiritual rebirth from above that my reason has been restored so that I can make holy judgments and “think God’s thoughts after him,” as one Christian apologist puts it. Now, since I have been regenerated, I am able to make rational decisions and to do moral things which previously I was unable to do. For this I praise the Lord.

          • o.O

            That was a long paragraph of worship. I unfortunately did not see any evidence for god. I will give you a metaphorical situation of what you wrote.
            A boy who knows and feels that there is a monster in his closet. He goes many t

          • Victor Edwards

            So, let me see if I get this: you look to animals to guide you in your “moral” behaviors? Do you equate animals and human beings? Seems to me only rational that a rational being, using common reason, would rather look to their Creator for guidance in all matters. Your reductionistic, naturalistic viewpoint is insulting to both unbelievers and believers alike — not to mention God, the Creator.

          • o.O

            The animal argument is only a page, not the entire book. Implying that I receive my moralities entirely from animals is fallacious and a bit premature (like your beliefs). I see homosexuality morally sound because it does not cause a physical or emotional (emotional damage in the same sense as a bully, or pushing their beliefs) threat to me or anyone else that I know. They are not trying to turn me homosexual, they are just trying to live their lives. Homosexuality does not harm others, it is not a disease and cannot be passed on as such. Homosexuality does not cause the individual harm, because it is who he or she is and does not affect their mental health. Homosexuals do not impede my happiness in any means; if so it would probably be more the individual and less the orientation. The only purpose animals serve in this situation is to the regard of it being one of naturalistic sorts. In a sense I am trying to help guide your morals with animals, more than it helps (if at all) guide mine ^.^. You are the only one here stating it is wrong and causing harm to others. I am simply showing you (with animals) that they are living their natural lives. You only have a “feeling” that there is a god and with that feeling spout your delusional opinion. I feel sorry for you sir. Please stop hurting others by saying they can’t be who they are. If you feel they are in trouble and are going to hell, fine, they do not and it is their choice not to believe what you do. What is not a choice is their orientation. Good day.

          • Victor Edwards

            Okay, let’s talk for a minute. What do you mean when you say that that homosexuality is “morally sound.” What does that term mean? To which code of morality are you referring? Lets say, for sake of argument [I would not cede this in debate, but for the moment, let’s go with it] that homosexuality does not “cause a physical or emotional threat” to you or anyone you know. Who made up that rule? Who said that a thing is moral if it does not cause damage? Who or what says that? From where do you derive this moral “rule?” Tell us, please. On what is your moral “code” based?

            Now, let’s say that I show that homosexuality DOES in fact cause damage of many kinds. Would you then be willing to give up on your code and oppose it? Is your moral code objective, or entirely relative to yourself and your own preferences?

            Of course we all know it would not change you one bit, for that would “Impede your happiness,” which is yet another subjective, relative moral tenet — and a cheap one at that! Given that kind of perspective, that everyone develops their own moral code based on their personal happiness and preferences, we would have utter chaos on the earth.

            I don’t have a “feeling” that there is a God; I know Him personally. He testifies to my soul that I am a child of God. I know Him better than I know my own mother and father. And that knowledge is true knowledge. There is historical evidence, if you desire some kind of evidence which you would prefer – yet one more thing that show your self-centeredness and autonomous hubris. What evidence do you have that water is H2O? Ah, you say, scientific evidence. Really? Have you done that science yourself? Have you seen hydrogen? Have you seen oxygen? In fact, you depend upon written testimonies and claims of other people to claim your “knowledge.” You have written evidence? I have more for my case. You have history? I have more. You have literature? I have more.

            I also have credible historical evidence in the form of eye-witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have fulfilled prophesies. I have the evidence of billions of people transformed throughout history by the precious work of Jehovah God, changing their lives, their thinking and changing the world at the same time for the better. Your atheism has no such evidences, but only despair and hopelessness, that all things will, as one famous atheistic writer put it, “end with a whimper.” But it is not so. There shall be a “new heaven and a new earth,” a city of God “not built with hands.” The voice of God speaking this truth is bombarding us from every direction, and those who cannot see that must purposely cover their ears and blind their own eyes.

            Speaking of that, I am by those words reminded of the famous incident that occurred in ancient Sodom [the homosexual crowd, if you recall]. When their request for homosexual sex with the angels who were staying in Lot’s home was rebuffed they tried to break down the door. The angels smote them so that they were blinded, but did that stop them? No. Their diabolical sexual lust drove them to “weary themselves trying to find the door.”

            That is the kind of blindness I see in you and others here who seem to have lost any moral sense and any common sense about right and wrong. You and your ilk have reduced morality to your own personal choice, like the men of Sodom — only you are worse yet, for there were no women in that crowd.

          • o.O

            Morality – the extent to which an action is good or bad.
            Good – to be desired or approved of.
            Bad – Of poor quality, inferior, or defective.

            Let us break this down. Do you desire to be homosexual? No. Do you desire to be heterosexual? No. You just are. Do you approve of homosexuality? I am going to say no, hah. Do I approve of homosexuality? Sure, it is acceptable because it occurs in nature and does not harm me and I enjoy the company my friends, who some happen to be homosexual (A basic naturalistic principle of humanity that causes an objective morality is self preservation; anything that is threatening to this is an undesired quality, or immoral). Let us also take a moment and look at the heterosexual orientation. To a homosexual: am I inferior to them? Doesn’t that seem more of an individualistic question, than a orientational question? Am I defective to them? No, we are both natural. Quality? Has no purpose in this argument. Is there a reason to consider them bad? No.

            Let us look at self-preservation. Self-preservation can always have a double standard. We have to have a balance between let-live and eliminate. We eliminate or oppress others too much, another persons self-preservation kicks in and retaliates; not always a good thing. Too little and we can harm our own. For instance giving away too much money causing myself to starve. We have/are created(ing) a balance with laws and theories.

            If you prove my code flawed, I will agree to abandon it. I will not, however, choose to oppose it so quickly.

            Science is an ever evolving human perspective that tries and explains our world with instruments through the study and interpretation of non-biased results and ever changing explanations. Your H2O argument is moot. We know oxygen exists and we know hydrogen exists, we know if you combine the two it creates water and some other substances depending on how you combined them. We know this universe exists, however, god can only be speculated at best (an idea).

            The rest of your story is a contradiction to your own thoughts. I don’t care how many people have seen it. There are also tales of Mithra and Dionysus. Eye-wittness accounts of sea monsters and gods rising from the horizon. Should we claim those are true as well? I have guessed correctly on certain things, does that mean I am a prophet?

            I actually do not depend on other peoples theories and writings in order to reject theistic principles. I can reject theistic principles based on theistic principles not having enough evidence. Also, don’t you yourself depend on other people’s writings (the bible, perhaps)? hmmm…

            If you truly believe their is a god and he is talking to you, fine, I think you are having psychotic episodes.

            May I ask… Why is heaven so important to you? You seem to have some emotional attachment to heaven. Are you not satisfied with this life?

          • SoberMoney

            My morality is very simple: love people for who they are and don’t be some hate-filled jerk who manipulates the book of Jesus for his own low self-esteem.

          • Victor Edwards

            Let’s see: “hate-filled jerk,” “manipulates the Bible” [but no evidence of such], “low self-esteem.” No much of an argument there. But since you mention it in an intended hateful comment, I will tell you that self-esteem is a luxury of unbelief. For me all my “esteem” is due to the fact that Jesus Christ love me and that I am written in the Book of Life. That is all the “self-esteem” I need. Self-esteem is what caused me formerly to be a god-hater, like you. But God’s grace to me changed all that. I once worshipped self, but discovered that such was idolatry, as much as if I had erected a stone figure and bowed down before it. That idolatry is working in you. If you read the Scriptures carefully, you will discover that God despises idolatry [spiritual adultery] even more than homosexuality!

            But again, the answer is to put away your self-esteem, come to the correct conclusion that you are a condemned sinner and that unless and until you confess that you are nothing before God and cry out for His mercy, you cannot be redeemed. As Jesus said, “I tell you, unless you repent you shall likewise perish.” Seek His mercy NOW, and gain eternal life.

          • Victor Edwards

            Also, you remind me of the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem when the martyr Stephen, who excoriated them for their unbelief and treatment of Jesus Christ:

            “When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and the gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven ans saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Lord, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

            “Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him.”

            It is not you who must worry about me, for I will pray, as Stephen did, “Lord, do not charge this with this sin.” Real Christians don’t do harm; rather, it is I who must expect YOU to stone me.

    • SouthLeftTexas

      Some iotas of evidence… It’s just a google search liking to the scholarly debate on the issue.

      I notice you didn’t have a smidgen of evidence to surport your view beyond the bible which is not peer reviewed, so it’s not so much evidence as your opinion. The bible doesn’t say any of the things you quoted either. Also you don’t speak Aramaic, so it literally doesn’t say that it’s “disgusting,” you should admit you have no idea what the bible says, just what your translator says it says. It mentions homosexuality once, in Leviticus, with all the other law you ignore like dietary restrictions on things like pork and shellfish, laws prohibiting the blending of fibers in clothes as sorcery, and the death penalty for not resting on the sabbath. So because you watch football, don’t keep kosher and wear modern fabrics you’re really not any better than a gay person.

      Ill take the matter up with the big man, you are lucky that you are so ignorant, you won’t be judged as harshly.

      • Victor Edwards

        Your responses are the usual hackneyed responses of unbelievers. The Bible is one million times better attested than any “peer review!” It has influenced billions of people throughout history and proven to be accurate in every thing that it affirms. By the way, I am conversant with both Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, so don’t be so supercilious about your intellect, which seems to be sophomoric at best.

        Also, you are dead wrong about the mention of homosexuality. It shows the total bankruptcy of your “knowledge” of the Bible. Romans chapter one describes it in behavioral terms so vivid to leave nothing to the imagination. First Corinthians chapter six deals explicitly with homosexual behavior, both those who are the active partner and the passive partners in homosexual sex, and condemns both to an eternal hell — if not repented of, that is.

        Let’s talk disgusting, which seems to irritate you and SoberMoney below. The Greek word is rendered correctly “vile” in describing homosexual behavior. Unless you lack any working knowledge of English, vile means “morally debased, depraved, despicable”, or “repulsive or disgusting.” That is why the Biblical author decided to use the term “vile affection” when discussing homosexual behaviors, both male and female types. In another place, the New Testament says that “what they [homosexuals] do in private is too shameful even to talk about.” In other words [as per the dictionary], “disgusting, foul, filthy.”

        • thwartley

          Victor, please explain why Christians think it’s okay to ignore the numerous dietary and sartorial prohibitions of Leviticus while they obsess over the very few sexual ones. (Note: “usual hackneyed blah-blah” is not an explanation.)

          • Victor Edwards

            The laws and ordinances given to ancient Israel were intended to be prophetic of the coming Messiah, and not meant to be perpetually propagated as rules for believers. Those Old Covenant realities [yes, ancient Israel was required to perform those rules until the fulfillment of them all appeared – in Jesus Christ, who came, as he said himself, “…to fulfill the law.” First year hermeneutics students know this simple and basic rule of interpreting of scripture. Leviticus is a prophetic book that teaches us about Jesus Christ, not a rule book for believers today. For instance, the mixing of types of cloth had nothing to do with clothing, but held the greater meaning that is explicated in the New Testament book of Corinthians, that believers cannot hold the faith and practice sin at the same time. Jesus taught the difference when he recited the wine-skin patch. If you patch a wineskin with new leather, it will rend the old wineskin and thus make it worthless. We find that to be instructive as to how to live our lives in a wicked world. And mixing worliness with godliness is always going to render us worthless in the Kingdom of God.

            As for sexual morality as set forth by the Old Testament, you surely can see the difference between those rules and prohibitions about food are not at all the same as immoral sexual behavior. That has never changed. For instance, the tree in the Garden of Eden was prohibited directly by God [“You shall not eat of it, lest you die.”] The tree was not somehow poison or something like that. What made it a moral issue was that it was prohibited expressly by God, under threat of judgment and death. The tree had no moral qualities about it at all.

            So it was with what Paul later calls “matters of indifference,” that is, rules that have run their course and are no longer applicable when the fulfillment arrives and the lesson is learned. Such are the many prophetic rules given to ancient Israel to teach those people – and you and me – about the coming perfections of the Son of God. He has come, and those things are now “obsolete,” as is expressed in the New Testament book of Hebrews, chapter 8, verse 13. Shortly thereafter, the author of Hebrews explains your very question plainly for all to understand:

            “…the Holy Spirit indicating this…it was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regards to the conscience — concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.”

            There is much more that could be said, but this will surely test your endurance, I suspect.

          • thwartley

            That’s an amazing set of rationalizations for liking shellfish and cheeseburgers.

      • SoberMoney

        The proof in the pudding is none of these evangelical homophobes never can cite passages in the Bible that document their hateful rants trying to justify their homophobia.

        They can have their own unChristian beliefs, but they can’t even find their own facts.

    • M Jackson

      Excuse me, I’m not a Christian, so all I just heard from you was “blah, blah blah, imaginary friend, blah”.

      • Victor Edwards

        Of course you didn’t understand. That too is explained rather explicitly in the Bible. You will find it in a few places, but the most easily understood is First Corinthians chapter two:

        “These things we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the NATURAL MAN [that would be you, one without the Spirit of God – vle] DOES NOT RECEIVE the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.”

        Mind you, we all know full well that you and your ilk judge me, but what this says is that you do not RIGHTLY judge me; that is left to God Himself, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who has already suffered my judgment.

        • thwartley

          I’m glad you like a book.

        • M Jackson

          No, I won’t find it in any few places, in any nook or cranny of your book of ancient fables.
          I can’t impress upon you enough how absolutely useless it is to quote the bible to a non-christian.
          Actually, an ex-christian. I’ve been raised in the church and studied the bible and come out the other side as a secular humanist. It’s precisely because I have read the bible that I am an ex-. So preach your heart out. All of you are jus rain on a tin-roof to me.
          And I might add, your homophobic hate speech couched in all your christian blather is shameful. Shame on you.

          • Victor Edwards

            I tried, but at this point I also have instructions to “cast not your pearls before swine,” so I am gone.

          • SoberMoney

            Judgmental bullshit disguised as self-righteousness.

          • M Jackson

            But oh, you do flatter yourself. You leave a mountain of words, evangelical
            teachings, god-given pronouncements, moral judgements. Cast your stones.
            Your defense of hatred and prejudice toward gay people is all anyone needs to know about you.

          • Victor Edwards

            Is that an rational argument? 😉

          • Victor Edwards

            By the way, there is no such thing as an “ex-christian.” If you went out from us, it is because as Peter writes in the Bible, “They went out from us because they were not of us. You never understood what it means to be a Christian, and you never were a Christian. And if you think that it is useless to speak the Word of God to unbelievers, you would be monumentally wrong. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” The “foolishness” that you see is the very thing that God uses to save those who believe. Don’t believe just my testimony. Here it is:

            “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through [its] wisdom DID NOT KNOW GOD, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” In doing so, God “has chosen the ‘foolish’ things of the world to PUT TO SHAME the ‘wise,’ and God has chosen the ‘weak’ things of the world to PUT TO SHAME the things which are mighty; and the ‘base’ things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are nothing, to bring to nothing the things that are, THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE.”

            One thing is certain and true: those who claim that they once were Christians [but who really were not] are perhaps the most difficult to win to Christ, for they have inoculated themselves with self-delusion that they are superior to God. I would rather deal with a down and out reprobate than with a so-called “ex-Christian.” the reprobate is far more honest about himself.

          • M Jackson

            I’m NOT a reprobate! Thanks for the unexpected compliment.

          • Victor Edwards

            I guess you missed the intimation that you are below a reprobate. Reprobates often repent and believe the Gospel. I was one such, just like you. Then Christ changed me by a supernatural work of power that took me from death to life, from darkness to light.

          • M Jackson

            So you used to be some kind of degenerate useless piece of crap and now you practice some kind of evangelical religion that I find vile, idiotic really. Savage bloodthirsty legends and theologies based on wildly contradictory evidence right there in the texts. And if God so wanted X-tians to have that defining scriptural operator’s manual then why did he wait 300 years after murdering his son to give the book to them?
            You flaunt your homophobic hatred on this particular thread and because you’re in Texas I assume that you support the ongoing battle against the public schools there with your creationism and anti-science and anti-history. Your whole brood of fundies are dangerous to this country, but lucky for us you are dinosaurs, and I don’t mean the kind that you probably believe were living in the magic garden with Adam and Eve, I mean the kind of entrenched antiquarian impediments to human progress that future generations will be glad to look back and see were defeated.

    • Mike in Texas

      Victor Edwards has just provided a workshop demonstrating what happens when one uses a blinkered microscopic approach to the bible and misses the forest for the trees.

      When Paul wrote to the Romans, he did so in an attempt to smooth the way for his planned visit to them. Like Christians everywhere at that time, the Roman Christians consisted of both Jewish and Gentile converts. The issue of whether or not to keep the Jewish laws was hotly contested throughout the Christian world. It was an issue that threatened to split Christianity as it existed then. Indeed the “Council of Jerusalem” described in Acts 15 decreed that Gentiles converted to Christianity need not be circumcised nor keep the rest of the Jewish law. 1 Cor 8-11 records a dispute over clean and unclean foods that disrupted the Lord’s Supper. The Jewish Christians who kept the Jewish law felt a sense of superiority over the Gentile Christians. Paul was known for taking the side of the Gentile Christians in this matter.

      So then became necessary for Paul to gain the favor of both groups before visiting Rome. In his clever pair of letters he starts out by playing on the Jewish Christians’ sense of superiority by focusing on the Gentile’s homogenital practices. What a filthy bunch they are! Paul quickly turns the tables on them in his second letter, “Therefore you have no excuse, O human being, whoever you are, when you judge another” (Romans 2:1) So the Jewish Christians can have their circumcisions, observe their Holiness Code and avoid the uncleanliness of the Gentiles. But Paul points out that their real sins, theft, adultery, etc., still break the Law. Thus the Jewish Christians have no right to look down on the Gentile Christians.

      After getting the attention of the Jewish Christians, he then goes on to appeal to both groups. The following of Christ demands a cleanliness of heart. Ritual behaviors and impurities do not matter. “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual and not literal” (Romans 2:29) Thus Paul honors the Jewish traditions in a way that appeals to both the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. He tries to establish harmony between the groups, “To the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). Paul’s goal is for the Roman Christians to “live in harmony with one another, according to Christ Jesus” (Romans 15:5).

      So now we see that Paul’s reference to homosexuality serves a rhetorical function. First of all, in the culture of that time (as opposed to today), homosexuality was a neutral topic. The controversial topics were unclean foods and circumcision, issues that were splitting the Christian community of that time. The Jewish Christians of that time were well aware of the fact that male-male sex was forbidden as an impurity, not as a sin. Thus they would not accuse the Gentiles of sinning because of those practices. Paul used this as his example because it allowed the Jewish Christians to feel superior without accusing the Gentiles of sinning. The Gentiles were well aware of the Jewish attitude and generally just shrugged their shoulders and paid no attention to it. Thus they were not likely to be offended by Paul’s reference.

      What is perfectly clear in the first two letters to the Romans is that one particular sin is condemned. “Therefore you have no excuse, O human being, whoever you are, when you judge another” (Romans 2:1). The traditional (and very naive) reading of Romans 1 and 2 has led many Christians to judge homosexuals and to promote hatred and oppression. They commit the very offense that Paul’s letters meant to conquer.

      Paul eventually came to the following conclusion further along in his series of letters.

      “Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
      Rom 14:13-14

      • Victor Edwards

        Well, well, well! Another unbeliever pretending to “interpret” the Scriptures. I have always been fascinated by the strong attraction unbelievers have towards the Scriptures. But, be that as it may, let’s respond a bit to this unbelievably distorted “interpretation” of Romans.

        First, the writer reveals his ignorance of the Scriptures when he claims two letters to the Romans. Perhaps he was confused by my reference to the condemnation of homosexuality in the first letter to the Corinthians. But there is but one letter to the Romans. I hope he is confusing chapters for letters. I will be generous and so judge the matter.

        Let’s take the last first. In Chapter 14 of Romans, Paul is writing about what we call “matters of indifference,” or things that really do not matter. He mentions NO moral behaviors, for he means to distinguish things that cause conflict that really have no bearing on ones faith. By that he mentions foods [which were, in ancient Israel, intended to be prophetic and symbolic, as the book of Hebrews confirms. But moral behaviors are no included, and Paul does NOT in th the least approve of homosexuality! That is bizarre “interpretation,” a cherry-picking of one’s favorite text for casting back at Christians. But you are even wrong about that too, for it has to do with the TYPE of judgments being made, not that judgments are made, for we are commanded every where in Scriptures to judge matters and behaviors, “expose” them, make judgments between good and evil. It is censorious judgment, hypocritical judgments that are condemned, that is, when one condemns someone for something they themselves are doing. But it is more than certain that believers are to judge and approve or disapprove of moral behaviors.

        Perhaps Mike in Texas didn’t actually read Romans 1, for if he did he did not understand it in the least. For his sake and for other readers, I submit a sampling of the passage in Romans 1.

        “Professing to we wise, they became fools…therefore God also gave them up to UNCLEANESS, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and served the creature rather than the Creator…For this reason God GAVE THEM UP TO VILE PASSION [as I affirmed and cited earlier, meaning “disgusting, filthy, perverted, unnatural behaviors]. Fo even their woman exchanged the natural use for what is AGAINST NATURE. Likewise the men, leaving the NATURAL USE of the woman, BURNED IN THEIR LUST for one another, MEN WITH MEN committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty for their ERROR which was due….who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who PRACTICE SUCH THINGS are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

        Let’s spend just a moment in the First Corinthians passage.

        Paul writing again, says: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators [I can do more on that if you wish. vle], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor reviler, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

        Interestingly, Paul uses two distinct words in his listing of homosexual behaviors, one defined as the “active” partner in homosexual sex and the other defining the “receiver” os such sexual behavior. Sorry, guys, but Mike from Texas is simply wrong – and that profoundly so.

        It is common a common homosexual ploy to minimize the words of Holy Scripture, so Mike’s attempt to do so does not surprise any of us in the least. But his “interpretation” is no interpretation at all, but a biased, selective proof-texting not worthy of first year apologetics. On ANY reading of Scripture, homosexuality is filthy, disgusting, vile affection, unnatural, offensive to God and humanity, and carries with it the sentence of death, if those who practice such things do not repent and believe the Gospel.

        Now, lest you think I am unmerciful and mean, let me tell you the truth, using the self-same scriptures I have just used. Paul says to the Corinthians to whom he had just described in explicit terms the sin and perversion of homosexuality, along with a list of other such heinous sins, these gracious words:

        “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.”

        Mike, there is still time for mercy. But you will have to give up on your warfare against God and repent of your sins — all of them — if you are to have any hope of entering the kingdom of God. And be sure — it IS coming. Otherwise, the end of men is that place where there is “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the flame is not quenched and the worm dieth not.” There will be no sex in hell, folks. Indeed, there may be no contact with anyone, seeing that it is termed “outer darkness.” Just the everlasting agony and pain and knowing that you made a huge mistake while alive on earth.

    • Natalie Nicole Johnson

      Amen. You make sense.

  • adtvtx

    She’s entitled to her opinion so long as you don’t discriminate. Just because you don’t like rap music, or find Chinese food disgusting, or believe in not paying taxes, or don’t believe in God, or believe in abortion or right to life or legalization of marijuana, or if Zimmerman is innocent doesn’t mean you discriminate against equal protect or deny people a livelihood. One solution is we can have children turn in their parents whenever they make politically incorrect statements or for pointing out the Emperor has no clothes. You don’t have to be a believer to follow the law.

    • SoberMoney

      What the hell are you talking about?

      Are you a homophobe – or not?

      • adtvtx

        Name calling everyone who disagrees with you is effective, but the first one to raise a fist is the first to run out of ideas.

        • SoberMoney

          Are you a homophobe – or not?

          • Victor Edwards

            Sorry, Sober, but adtvtx has you spot on. You are an inveterate name-caller who renders himself useless in any argument. Keep it up and I will be pleased that at least one of you is neutralized – by your own excesses!

  • SoberMoney

    Christian judgements of homosexuality are rooted in either 1) ignorant homophobia and/or 2) closet homosexuality by those who judge.

    There is no other explanation for it. Anyone who has a gay relative or gay friends know there is nothing wrong or unnatural about their lifestyle. Most heterosexual couples engage in the same sexual acts as gay couples.

    Judgmental Christian homophobia is a sickness in our society. It give the right wing evangelicals a very bad reputation. And the Republican Party, when they pander to that craziness, get further and further away from being a viable national party ever again.

    • derbradster

      No moral distinction between a penis in a vagina or a penis in another man’s rectal orifice? Well bless your heart!

      • SoberMoney

        He’s baaaaack!

        Straight couples have anal sex too, Duhbradster.

        But maybe you have never had straight sex.

        • derbradster

          Ultimately what we have here is a failure to communicate the intent origin purpose of sex between a man and woman in a covenant relationship. Your paradigm has a different source point that Ms Chan’s from the sound of it.

          • SoberMoney

            That’s one way to phrase it. Yet my reference point about sexual relationships is not hateful or judgmental. It is life. Give up on others and deal with your own demons.

    • Victor Edwards

      A litany of name-calling terms, nothing more. I think he is out of any arguments for his case and just figures that if he keeps stating them, they will magically become true. Homosexuality is unnatural and perverted; everyone, except the spiritually blind, know that fact full well. Homosexuality is sin of the most staining sort.

  • jefsr

    Councilman Diego M Bernal is at the center of ongoing efforts to attack our family and religious values. Bernal speaks of “rights” BUT is a member of a City Hall inner-circle violating the US Constitution with a 45 month long illegal, unconstitutional criminal trespass warning issued to hide public/police corruption. Bernal is also at the center of a criminal conspiracy to hide three decades of theft/fraud involving tens of
    millions of City, County, State and Federal funds. …..

    San Antonio TX city attorney Michael Bernard continues to use public funds to finance an ONGOING criminal conspiracy to conceal criminal activity inside the City and County. Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed and her office has helped her former First Assistant DA conceal the crimes by
    stalling any investigation and providing “get out of jail free “ protection to everyone violating the law in an
    effort to assist City Attorney Bernard’s efforts to hide the criminal activity. We object to the use of OUR money and OUR City/County resources in efforts to conceal the theft and misuse of tens of millions of OUR dollars. …..

    In the years leading up to a February 2009 Whistleblower lawsuit city attorney Bernard paid the law firm of
    Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich to help city attorney Deborah Klein and others defraud our judicial system and
    illegally coach witnesses to conceal three decades of fraud and theft. The same law firm has again been hired by Bernard to help conceal an unconstitutional, illegal criminal trespass warning he issued to help hide his crimes, forty-five months of Texas Open Meeting violations and the underlying criminal activity. Attorneys Fitzpatrick and Kosanovich have in the past presented false statements to the Court ( and were paid at least $ 56,900 ) and again – in violation of the law- present false statements in documents submitted to US District Judge Xavier Rodriguez in an effort to hide the public/police corruption impacting tens of millions of OUR dollars. DA Susan Reed’s “Get Out Of Jail Free” protection allows attorneys
    Kosanovich and Fitzpatrick to lie with no fear of prosecution. …..

    • SoberMoney

      Uh, did you read the article you are commenting on?

      So what you are saying is there is political corruption along side Ms. Chan’s laughable homophobia?

      Gee, I’m just stunned at the news.

  • SouthLeftTexas

    That guy James seemed to be ok with bashing gays that day of the tape, he’s on there saying some pretty crazy homophobic stuff. And then he keeps working for her for 3 months after this happened? This guy is trying to play us, he doesn’t care about gay rights, listen to the tape!

    • SoberMoney

      Yes, there is always that possibility. Or he is out for revenge.

      But that still doesn’t justify a public official whom represents thousands of LBGT citizens to call them disgusting. She should apologize or resign.

    • James Stevens

      You mean when I tried to explain the biological function of homosexuality in the human species? Or when I tried to explain to her that it might be a good idea to court gay conservatives? Or when I asked her why the kids of gay parents would be confused? Speaking of getting confused, I think you may have me confused with someone else.

  • NAT

    It may sound very simplistic, but, as a gay person, I think imagining Elisa Chan having sex is disgusting and not a vision I would want to visit. In fact, most people gay or straight, would not find the vision of a sexual act by average people to be appealing. The sexual act is a private matter between 2 consenting adults … and to those 2 people, I would hope that is a intimate expression of love and caring. Why is gay sex placed under a critical microscope and straight couples exempt from such scrutiny?

    • Victor Edwards

      Because it is a violation of nature, vile and filthy, perverted and immoral — just to name a few.

      • o.O

        Nature – Homosexuality has been witness in nature.
        Vile- Maybe unpleasant to you. I assure you, not to homosexuals.
        Filthy – Sex is always dirty. Your body starts to sweat, certain fluids are released. Are you worried about feces? Coliforms are in more places than you think, get over it. Accidents rarely happen. I am sure you also know, heterosexuals enjoy anal sex as well. There is also something called soap.
        Perverted – Who are you asking? I do not see it as perverted and something being perverted is extremely subjective. God doesn’t count, we don’t invite imaginary friends to the party.
        Immoral – Same as above.

  • Fabio Antonio Pabon Marquez

    A council woman is supposed to represent each and
    every one of the citizens, you are not qualified to represent any body, and
    thanks to freedom of speech, it let us know about trash like you, who like
    roaches come out of the wood work to express their hatred and their
    discriminating thoughts.

    Gay people were here before the birth of Abraham and
    before the Bible was writing, we are here and will always be here, and if
    people like you gather us together and kill us all, in twenty years time the
    gay bars will be full again with the gays who are right now growing in the bodies
    of the mothers of today, and you and people like you cannot do nothing about it,
    because we are also part of God and part nature and always will be!!….

    You are a sick and disgusting human being, people like
    you are not going any place, but to hell I hope!!..

    • SoberMoney

      Are you reading this, Victor?

  • Mr Chow odysseus660

    I guess I am forced by the liberal media to respect caca chasers.

    • SoberMoney

      Nothing short of brilliant, Chow.

  • Allison Robbins

    Elisa Chan has a right to her opinion just as everyone else does. James Stevens should be let go due to his unethical move of secretly recording Chan to serve his own personal agenda. Just because someone does not agree with the LGBT lifestyle does not mean that they hate them! LGBTs are too quick to call “homophobe” without stopping to think that naturally not everyone agrees on everything. I hope Stevens gets fired due to unethical practices. Who knows what else he has done or will do. By carrying out his sneaky move, he has lost the trust of most people. BTW as Stevens hoped his secret tape would persuade others to avoid Chan, ostracizing IS bullying.

  • Earl D’Pearl

    It’s more important to judge Chan on her performance as councilperson not private thoughts that she thought were staying private. If her district is happy with her PERFORMANCE she should be re-elected.

  • SoberMoney

    An elected public representative should not be one if she thinks that even a minority of her constituents are disgusting, when all they are doing is what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and it is legal.

    I would like to see Earl and Allison below say unequivocally that they support Anthony Wiener in his quest for Mayor of NYC. What he has done was initially in private but was made public.

    And Earl, please give your real last name – so we know who you are with – crude and without boundaries, that you support Wiener.

    I would suspect both Earl and Allison below find Wiener inappropriate for public office – but they are OK with Chan’s homophobic bigotry.

    “Have you seen the little piggies, with their piggie wives,
    You can see them out for dinner, living bigot lies.”

  • SoberMoney

    I ain’t afraid of your Yahweh
    I ain’t afraid of your Allah
    I ain’t afraid of your Jesus
    I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God

    I ain’t afraid of your churches
    I ain’t afraid of your temples
    I ain’t afraid of your praying
    I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God

    Rise up to your higher power
    Free up from fear, it will devour you
    Watch out for the ego of the hour
    The ones who say they know it
    Are the ones who will impose it on you

  • SoberMoney

    Hey Forrest, is this a record for number of comments?

    I would guess not. But Victor and I are now in a new gay relationship.

    Love ya, Vic.

  • kevin

    All the people that support LGBT seem to be the meanest, rudest people I have ever seen. You want everyone to accept and agree with your thoughts and ideas and if we don’t were all these negative things. I’m a conservative type person, I believe in God, and don’t appreciate people assuming that all Christians hate gays, I have gay friends and I love them I would do anything for them. I have a friend that robbed a bank once and went to prison, I have a friend that cheated on his wife, they all have regrets and all make mistakes. We all make mistakes and we ask for forgiveness and we continue to try and to do right, to not lie and to not lust or to steal or to get drunk, to cuss, whatever your sins are. If we accept gay as normal we might as well accept all sins as normal. I don’t hate anyone, I have a certain value system that is Directly from the Bible. If you don’t believe that’s your opinion, you have your right and I have mine.

    • SoberMoney

      Your compassion for people who make mistakes is admirable. But your defending LBGT bashing with this rant is hypocritical. If you are so generous with your love of all people, why don’t you call Ms. Chan and tell her that she is sadly mistaken and mean-spirited – and that LBGT citizens are nothing more than sinners on Earth, like everyone else?

      And why don’t you chastise the haters who Bible thump in your name? Read the comments below from your own ilk and write a rant about their lack of compassion and hate speech.

      Quit deflecting from the really disgusting part of this discussion: the demonization of real human beings by people who have to hate to prove their lives meaningful.

    • SoberMoney

      Also, Christian homophobes cannot play the victim of anger and outrage when it is your hate and judgment that deserves that wrath.

      I don’t feel sorry for any of you – with your ugly and repulsive judgements.

  • Natalie Nicole Johnson

    Actually, many of them are disgusting. Have you ever seen pictures of a ‘gay’ parade?

    • SoberMoney

      Well, you’re not exactly Haile Berry either.

      • Natalie Nicole Johnson

        Never said I was. But I am fed up with these wild and sexually deviant people trying to silence people from speaking their minds about the behaviors of homosexuality. If you do not want people to call you disgusting, then refrain from being disgusting….and that will take a spiritual renewing. God did it for me.

        • o.O

          You are disgusting… Oh wait, it is who you are. Well that sucks. Yeah, you also can’t speak up about it.

          This is what it is like for homosexuals. Your faith is not a deciding factor of how other people should live their lives. You may have your opinion, fine, but you cannot have the oppression of others; oppression that is entirely based on your beliefs. You should be very familiar with that concept.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            I was delivered of homosexuality by the grace of God. I was saved from a disgusting sexual sin…by the way, no body forced me to be attracted to the same sex. I made that decision on my own. Decisions come with consequences.

            Homosexuals have sexual issues, and they become enraged when their sin is exposed—even though they have no problem telling us about their sexual problems; rather, FLAUNTING their sin our faces.

            LGBTs can choose to stay that way if they like, but as we can clearly see—they are intolerant to anyone who disagrees with them. They are insecure and believes that everybody hates them. Why do you think they are acting as if the council woman said hateful things about them? Plus, many LGBTs are real hypocrites. They scream for equality, yet they hate anyone who disagree with their lives.

          • o.O

            You are probably bisexual then, which allows you to choose. Others can’t, so don’t force them to. Either way, you didn’t think it was so “disgusting” at one point in time.

            Once again, your beliefs are not others. You make a poor argument, one that holds no ground.

            Homosexuals do not become enraged when their sin exposed, they are out and proud. It is when they are denied basic civil rights that anyone would get mad. For instance you would probably be mad at caucasians if slavery still existed.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Oh, so when you are bisexual, you have the will to choose. But if you are homosexual, you are without hope. There’s a new one. lol

            You do not have to believe what I believe, and I do not have to believe what you think. But it is your LGBT friends who can not even tolerate a different opinion towards homosexuality. Look at how they reacted when a council woman disagreed with the obviously disgusting and immoral life styles of homosexuality. They called her every dirty name they could think of. What, are we SUPPOSE to accept homosexuality??

            HA…it just never fails. Every time I bring up this situation, LGBTs always use the race card for justification. How many times do I have to tell you people that LGBTs are not Black people neither are they a race of people? The issue is a sexual perversion; not a skin color issue.

          • o.O

            Have you not looked up the definition to bisexuality?

            I’m sorry are you retarded? It isn’t her opinion that Homosexuals care about, it is that she implicates her opinion into law. What I am trying to get you to realize is, when it comes to peoples beliefs, she (or anyone who opposes something that is naturalistic, or self-evident) must provide evidence and reasoning to stop something from happening. She cannot condemn other people based on her own beliefs, beliefs that are not universal, that have been refuted, and that are not justifiable. The LGBT community would not care so much if they were JUST beliefs and not implemented into law against their rights and against their future.

            While homosexuality is seen in nature, is sworn by humans, and shown to have potential in research; religion is an idea created by men, to benefit men.

            The color card is the same, you did not choose to be black. Many Homosexuals did not choose their orientation. Perhaps you think so. Many others would disagree that homosexuality is a choice, based on empirical data. Your Bible, your bronze aged book, is propaganda filling you with fear and hate. You are still falling for the literature of a man who has been dead for centuries.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Yes. It is when a man, for instance, is attracted to both men and women. Now you’re telling me that a bisexual can choose, but a homosexual can’t. Can’t wait to hear the so called scientific explanation for that one…

            Don’t twist things around. Look at how Chan is being harassed for having a different opinion about homosexuality. Her job is being threatened because she had the audacity to disagree with that sin. And if that ordinance is passed, WE WON’T HAVE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ANYMORE. It’s not the LGBTs who are in danger of losing anything. It will be people who oppose homosexuality!

            But LGBTs can condemn any one who disagrees with their life style choices, right? Because anytime someone says something about homosexuality, it is AUTOMATICALLY hateful and condemn worthy. You people are insecure and self centered. No body have to condemn you—your life style is already condemned, John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
            condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
            begotten Son of God”

            Seen in nature…so the homosexuals have bizarre sex because the animals do it? You do know that animals do not follow a moral code, right? So are we to believe that homosexuals are a bunch of immoral animals? And is it any wonder that people call homosexuals disgusting?

            Knock it off. Yes they do. Even when I was caught in that sexual sin, I chose to give in to those desires. I made a choice: do it or don’t do it. The only way out of that sin was through Jesus Christ.

          • o.O

            Homosexual – sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
            Bisexual – sexually attracted to both men and women.

            Really? At this moment in time there is no consensus on a scientific explanation. What there is though is homosexual behaviour witness in nature.

            Do you understand how this entire situation came about? She tried to stop LGBT legislation from passing. THAT is implementing her opinion. I can’t believe I am having to spell it out for you.

            Wouldn’t you get mad at someone who stated racial slurs toward you? Same goes for them… Get it through your head, it is who they are! Save your empty threats of hell, they are a joke.

            Here we go again with this ‘animals showing me moral code’ nonsense. Let me break this down for you as well. The animal argument is only a page, not the entire book. Implying that I receive my moralities entirely from animals is fallacious and a bit premature (like your beliefs). I see homosexuality morally sound because it does not cause a physical or emotional (emotional damage in the same sense as a bully, or pushing their beliefs) threat to me or anyone else that I know. They are not trying to turn me homosexual, they are just trying to live their lives. Homosexuality does not harm others, it is not a disease and cannot be passed on as such. Homosexuality does not cause the individual harm, because it is who he or she is and does not affect their mental health. Homosexuals do not impede my happiness in any means; if so it would probably be more the individual and less the orientation. The only purpose animals serve in this situation is to the regard of it being one of naturalistic sorts. In a sense I am trying to help guide your morals with animals, more than it helps (if at all) guide mine ^.^.

            Obviously you were having issues controlling it, in a sense, you know what they are going through. Sin doesn’t exist, it is a fabrication created to control people; it is obviously working with you. lol.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            It’s the same sin and both have huge consequences. Because LGBTs are more likely to become sexually ill (HIV), can you imagine how this will affect the partner in a BISEXUAL relationship?

            At this moment? There is no evidence and there never will be. Please stop trying to make up excuses for people who have ill sexual desires.

            Yes, I know you are talking about how same sex animal mount each other, but you need to realize that the animals who do such things are NOT having sex with each other. Animals often times do that because it is territory battle, or two males are fighting over a female. Overall, animals are not creatures that any human should want to mimic behavioral wise.

            Animals do all sorts of inhumane and immoral things—like cannibalism, public sex and walking around in nude for that matter. If homosexuals are copying the ways of animals, then they deserve to be called disgusting. They do not have a moral compass, and we should not have to be forced to accept the filth that they do. Now if they do this in their beds, then I guess that is their business, but do not force me to accept what they do, and as far as you not liking that I call homosexuality disgusting—well, if the boot fits.

            Does not cause physical or emotional damage? Do you even know that homosexuals, despite them being at least 3% of the U.S. population, lead the way as the most infected group of people with HIV/STDs? Do you know that many homosexuals are severely depressed, abuse alcohol and are known for partaking in very risky sexual practices? Of course, they will accuse Christians for all of that, but the truth is that LGBTs are people with no moral compass at all. Many of these people are emotionally and physically sick and they need help on all levels.

            I speak to you as one who was once homosexual, yet you completely ignore everything I said in exchange for ‘facts’ that you can’t even prove. I walked the walked, and now I can talk it.

          • o.O

            So, women are more likely to develop breast cancer. Does that make it immoral to be a woman? What about their partner don’t you think they’d be devastated if she died? Your argument is illogical and full of holes.

            HERE is your evidence.

            Once again, we did not see animals having sex and say “That looks like a good idea”, it is in human nature. We naturally eat, we naturally go to the restroom, we are naturally social creatures. We have our NATURAL orientation. We ARE animals. I never chose to be straight, I just am. My brother didn’t choose to be gay, he just is.

            Actually I am in nursing school, HIV and AIDS is very close to becoming more prevalent in hererosexuals. That is not homosexuals, that is people with depression, your argument is out of context and invalid here.

            My brother is homosexual and he can refute your walk and your talk.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Who said that breast cancer is a STD anyway?

            Ah, so you think that you are an animal—which is why you don’t see anything wrong with homosexual sex, despite the fact that two men or two women can not procreate at all, and that the aftermath of anal/oral sex is extremely devastating to the human body. Homosexual sex is not natural and calling yourself an animal is a sad excuse to escape accountability for your actions as a HUMAN. God created animals and gave them mates of their own kind, and He created humans after the image of God. Truly, your foolishness just proved the Word of God correct when describing homosexuals:

            21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
            thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
            was darkened.

            22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

            23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
            corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping

            24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves

            25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
            creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

            26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
            did change the natural use into that which is against nature (Romans 1).

            Nursing school, yet you think there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and you think that we are animals… Man, I feel sorry for whoever will falls under your care.

          • o.O

            Your STD argument is redundant and ridiculous. It only shows how little you have to argue off of in this world. STD’s come on both sides, it doesn’t matter your orientation.

            We ARE animals, every science book will tell you that and every biologist will show you that. Please get over your theistic bullshit, you still haven’t proven to me that your god exists and that he wrote that book.

            One good thing about this country is the separation of church and state, it keeps people like you from ruining it.

            You have rendered your opinions redundant and illogical, I cannot take your opinions seriously anymore. Goodbye.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Says the guy who thinks that we are animals. lol Are you telling me that bestiality is perfectly normal then? When was the last time you lusted after a dog?

          • SoberMoney

            O, give it up. Natalie and the obviously closeted homosexual Victor are too far gone in their scientology like Christian brainwashing to hear anything close to something sensibly compassionate.

            They are too afraid of life to embrace it for what it is. Pray for their souls.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            So you would only believe me if I were a homosexual, but now that I am telling you that I once was, but now am freed of that sin—you can not believe it.

            Pray? You actually believe in God? Or do you believe in the animal god, since your buddy believes that we are animals or something. Would it be offensive to ask you to go fetch the stick like a good doggie?

          • Victor Edwards

            Your brother deceives himself. A good example is Private Manning, the traitor who sold out his country for his own perverted reasons. Why does he have to have a sex change operation and hormone treatment if his homosexuality is “normal?” Give us a break; that is pure hypocrisy and nonsense.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Great point. Every man who THINKS he is a woman must receive surgery to mimic a woman, and the same for women who think they are men. Born that way? I think not!

          • Victor Edwards

            Again: homosexual behavior [actually, the mindset too] is immoral, vile and unnatural BEHAVIOR. Black skin is a genetic trait and does not involve morality at all. This is the classic apples and oranges argument you are making.

            And no, I do not look to animals for guidance in my moral behavior. That would reduce me to a brute beast, much like homosexuality does to those who practice such behaviors.

          • Victor Edwards

            You are not listening, o.O. The point is that homosexuality, in whatever permutation you wish to discuss, is ALWAYS a behavior and thus involves morality. But it is a behavior that flows from CHOICE. I am heterosexual, but I have the ability to reject, suppress, sublimate my normal sexuality and sin against God by committing homosexual behavior. I have often been offended by those who would liken – even illogically equate – black skin with any behavior. Black skin is clearly, obviously a genetic trait, just as white skin is. Neither involves morality, and thus makes racism obnoxious and perverse. But homosexuality is NOT a genetic trait, God did NOT make anyone homosexual; man is a free agent and bears responsibility for his behavior, and homosexuality is behavior[s]. It is also immoral, unnatural, vile and disgusting behavior from which the only deliverance is repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.

          • SoberMoney

            No, you phony Christians are the real hypocrites. You call others “disgusting” and then you act like a victim when caring people call you out on your fear and ignorance.

            And if I got your story correct, your homosexuality is part of you. No religion is going to save you from yourself. Who you are will be with you all your life.

            That must be why you hate LBGT people so much. You hate yourself.

            There is nothing about your gay feelings to be ashamed of?

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            When people parade around half naked, mocking women and men by cross dressing, it is very disgusting. The life style of homosexuality is centered around sexual deviancy—‘gay’ parades say enough. You came out the closet and now suddenly expect people to just accept that stuff? I think not.

            Please. If homosexuality were natural, then women would be made to couple with women, and men would be made to couple with men. Women could impregnate women, and men could do the same. The attraction of homosexuality is unnatural.

            Nice try. When all else fails for homosexuals—their empty arguments, they can only use the hate flag because they know that discrimination of a person is punishable by law. However, they twist up discrimination laws by claiming any type of criticism towards their lewd behaviors as hate–and because we have a bisexual president, their little hate flags are being heard.

          • SoberMoney

            Sorry, Natalie, but your argument that sexual love is only for procreation is purely based on Christian nonsense.

            You can certainly live your lives with such emptiness. It is very sad and lonely, I imagine. Good luck.

          • Scott Woods

            I say it’s based on natural law. Sodomy and consumption of human fecal matter are not sane behaviors.

        • SoberMoney

          You, girl, are disgusting for thinking you have a right to cast shadows on others because you hide your fear and ignorance behind your obviously failed spiritual renewal.

          Obviously God has done nothing for you.

        • Victor Edwards

          Hi, Natalie. Welcome to the place where you will be battered unmercifully by the homosexual crowd. I can see, though, that you have already experienced that! It is good to hear another sane person here, especially one who has been spiritually reborn and turned from her wicked ways. Same with me. My wicked heart separated me from God [Isaiah 59] but by the sovereign grace of God He changed me and brought me to understand my utter worthlessness outside of Jesus Christ.

          As a word of encouragement, just know that you and I have little chance of changing these folks, for their blindness is supernatural [even when they deny any supernature!]. But God — but God can save that Valley of Bones, and change their lives so that they may live purposely for the glory of God. So, preach the Word, both in season and out of season, for “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

          Now, back to the painful work of answering the homosexual crowd.

          • Natalie Nicole Johnson

            Thanks for your concern, Victor…but I am no stranger to environments like this and no novice.

            I have been dealing with vulgar homosexuals for many years on this internet as well as offline. Have you ever been to Deviantart? Youtube or even facebook? I know nearly all of their arguments, all of their tactics and emotional manipulation. I know that I can’t change anybody, but I often go web site to web site preaching the Word until I know that there isn’t anything left to say to them.

            Praise God for your conversion! May I ask this of you—keep me in prayer as well.

          • Victor Edwards

            I will definitely pray for you, dear sister in Christ. And I am glad to hear that you are not at all dissuaded from your objective [“Preach the Word…”] by the onslaught of the godless homosexual crowd. It seems to be our calling to have to deal with this issue. I have sometimes kidded about my Christian ministry by asking something like, ” Why couldn’t I have lived in a time where there was debate about the hypostatic union [of the nature of Christ], or baptism, or some other issue. But alas, this is our time, this is our day for the testimony of Christ no matter how disgusting the issue.

            Blessings, Natalie. Keep the faith.

        • Scott Woods

          Amen sister. I’m sick of all this disgusting faggot crap. I’ve thought of moving to San Antonio, but I’m not on board with this at all..

          • Natalie

            The homosexual outbreak is every where. You just have to stand your ground.

            Don’t call them the F bomb…although they often call themselves that, but…be wise.

  • Connor Larkin

    What’s disgusting is Xtian and ‘normal guy’ Jimmy Lee DiMaggio raping and kidnapping Hannah Anderson.

  • SoberMoney

    How many homophobic Christians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    All of them; they are too afraid it was touched by a gay packager at the factory.

  • Chip70

    If you feel Elisa Chan is wrong – tell her yourself at today’s 08/28 Citizens to Be Heard meeting which will take place at 6 pm at City Hall. You can google for info. Sign up!

    • SoberMoney

      Her next electoral defeat will tell her she was insanely wrong. Without a clear and humble apology her career as a politician is over. She may have temporary support from the hate filled Christian homophobes, but when she aspires to any higher office, she will be remembered as the “crazy gay basher” who is clearly out of her league – except for the nutty Tea Party fools who elect haters like her.

  • Clipper

    Eliza’s opinions are sane and mainstream. James Stevens is a warped sicko and did a very bad thing by revealing the content of a private meeting. I’m amazed that there’s so much talk about Eliza’s sound concience but nothing about the depravity of James Stevens and the city council members who voted for the abominable ordinance. If every one of them is not recalled, then San Antonio is obviously a very sick city indeed.

  • Anthony53

    Nobody discriminates more than gays do. I listened to many shows which I think are archived on the radio for free to listen to again. The show was called the Janet Mefferd show. This radio host had interview after interview of experts of what is going on in the military. It is straights who are being discriminated against all the time. Go and listen to the shows…they are on the Internet. Not only that, but gays routinely go out of their way to hire wedding planners and wedding photographers who believe differently about gay marriage, for the sole purpose of harassment of religious people and to extort money from them.

  • Scott Woods

    Good for her. I’m sick and tired of this faggot crap. Homosexuality is equal to pedophilia, necrophilia, and voyeurism. All sick deranged deviant sexual perversions.

  • Earl D’Pearl

    Also I do not see the quote from Chan that LGBT is “disgusting”. I find Stevens dishonest in that omission. And while on the subject, Stevens is a snitch for postingcomments from a private discussion.