No Holders Barred: Get it straight! No letter in LGBTQI stands for God

EPL Infrafred Sauna

On 8 October, 2013, Newsday published a letter to the editor, headlined “Say no to gay marriages” and signed by Valentine Young, with which I fully agreed. Young’s position was that the legalisation of same-sex marriages had brought God’s wrath upon the United States of America (certain states anyway) because their sanctioning of homosexuality is a departure from the word of God.

Because I had already addressed that issue of homosexuality in my writing, I left it there.

Not long afterwards, another letter, headlined “No link between gay unions, storms” and signed by Kristie Harnarine, appeared in the Trinidad Express. It sought to refute Young’s assertions and essentially expressed approval of same-sex relationships and marriage.

Photo: A same-sex marriage in the United States.

And having read it, I also left it there.

“Whatever,” I told myself. “I’m so tired of these people deluding themselves into believing that homosexuality and other such categories of sexual orientation are okay. They propose all manner of foolish arguments to persuade others that that is so and to put their own guilty minds at rest and make themselves feel comfortable.”

And I was going good, I was really going good… until one morning I read another letter in the Newsday, headlined “Proud of myself.” In it, one A. Khan notes that, while he comes from a religious family, he now proudly proclaims his homosexuality, embraces his LGBTQI friends and is secure in the knowledge that God loves him.

Let’s sort this thing out once and for all. If you want to be gay, go ahead, suit yourself. But do not use the name of God to legitimize your cause, do not twist His words and do not dishonour His name.

There is nothing in the word of God that even remotely suggests that He approves of such behaviour. God does not sanction homosexuality or any other of the LGBTQI categories. In fact, throughout the Bible, there is explicit confirmation of God’s disapproval of homosexual and other similar acts.

For instance, Genesis 19:1-11 shows clearly that God frowns on homosexuality. God is preparing, in this passage of scripture, to destroy the City of Sodom and He sends a couple of angels in human form to rescue Lot and his family. When Lot invites the angels to pass the night at his home, some of the homosexuals in the city show up at Lot’s house seeking to have sex with his guests. The angels pull Lot into the house and blind the homosexuals.

Photo: A protester carries a placard condemning same-sex marriage.

Leviticus 18:22 is unequivocal. “Do not practise homosexuality,” it warns, “having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.”

Similarly, Leviticus 20:13 is categorical. “If a man practises homosexuality,” it says, “having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act.”

In Judges 19:16-24, the story is told of an old man who takes in a couple of travellers, one male and one female, for the night. Some homosexuals in the area, aware of the presence of the travellers in the elderly man’s house, show up with the undisguised intention of having sex with the man. His host would have none of it.

“No, my brothers,” he chides them, “don’t do such an evil thing (…) don’t do such a shameful thing to this man.”

“Evil” and “shameful” aren’t my words; they’re right there in God’s word.

But, some may protest, that stuff comes from the Old Testament; we are long past the days when we should allow ourselves to be guided by the Old Testament. So wthout agreeing that the teachings of the Old Testament are no longer valid, I shall add a couple of passages from the New Testament that re-affirm what we have already seen in the Old.

We can begin with Romans 1:18-32. “…God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness,” we read.

Photo: A couple show their support for same-sex unions.
(Copyright Elvert Barnes)

“Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like… That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other…”

“…sinful, wicked people…,” “…shameful desires…,” “…the natural way to have sex…,” “…normal sexual relations…” No comment necessary, I think.

“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 asks. “Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

I don’t think I need to go on. I trust that such confusion as there might have been is now securely laid to rest.

And that neither Mr Harnarine nor Mr Khan nor anyone else of their ilk any longer harbours any illusions about how strong is the Living God’s active disapproval of their perverted lifestyles.

More from Wired868
Dear Editor: Trinity College’s unchristian, discriminatory policy proves 1970 “revolution” still unfinished

“[…] I have stated before that the ‘Revolution’ that took place in 1970, in T&T, is an unfinished revolution. If Read more

CRFP: Indigenous Peoples express hope and concern at Vatican’s repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery

“[…] In what could have been a ground-breaking and historic repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery, the Vatican instead released Read more

Noble: Gazing in the mirror—will T&T move forward in faith, or face danse macabre?

All nations tell stories about themselves. These narratives tell us where we came from, who we are and where we Read more

Noble: Mary’s Boy Child, the Troublemaker—will we join Jesus’ war with the Establishment?

As Christmas is upon us again, the lyrics of Away in a Manger appear relevant today. Away in a manger/ Read more

US Embassy flies Pride flag, as ‘Biden-Harris Administration’ makes LGBTQI+ statement

“[…] The Biden-Harris Administration has encouraged all embassies and consulates to fly the Pride flag on the same flagpole as the US Read more

Noble: The ‘complicit shepherds’; church’s ‘political idolatry and spiritual parody must stop’

Over the last three decades, persons who either tell census enumerators that they have ‘no religion’ or refuse to identify Read more

About Akilah Holder

Akilah Holder
Akilah Holder is a former college lecturer and journalist whose strong convictions often win her enemies, which does not faze her. She lives by the mantra ‘ignore the ignorant,’ has already published one book and has her own blog at

Check Also

Noble: The Church, Sex and the Young—our children can’t live in “sanitised bubble”

“If the kingdoms of this world are to be transformed into the kingdom of our …


  1. i on other hand read the whole bible cover to cover and have thrown away the general accepted interpretation lol

    without reading the rebuttal i dont know if its going to try to convince us that God somewhere approves of homosexuality and he was misrepresented in the Bible

    what he made sure of expressing was his displeasure with the worldy judgment of sinners

  2. “My experience of so-called ‘bible study’ was not about scholarship but affirmation of pre-existing theology. The interpretation of the scriptures was already done for you and drilled into your head, with lots of fervour and emotionalism and authoritarianism.
    “Then you were given pre-selected verses to apologetically defend what you had been indoctrinated—with lots of fear and peer pressure—to believe is true. That is what was being passed off as ‘study’ of the bible.
    “Imagine how my world turned upside down when I finally got access to actual academic biblical scholarship materials.”
    Jessica Joseph, a pop cultural anthropologist and human right activist, addresses the interpretation of The Bible by critics of same-sex unions

    • Hello, personally I’m not the least interested in your or anyone else translation concerning the dangers of using Bible for guidance on LGBTQI… My god instructs me to use his words for guidance in life and that’s enough for me. I am totally against their lifestyle and it is condemned in the bible. Nothing else matters to me.

  3. Somehow, this is a good post, I’ve learned a lot form the comments made.

  4. D’Sisterhood. Slow your roll. Sin may be common but that can never be grounds for suggesting a religion legitimize it. Totally erroneous logic and vacuous to boot.

    • But what is religion?..if we are so keen on living lives dictated by tradition and myth. Then why don’t we follow the bible word for argument is not one of sin but one of hypocrisy.

    • The bible is multifaceted. We no longer work with our hands or travel by cart or foot. The Bible is composed of Judaic books and New Testament. Traditions and teachings of the Jews were maintained where they were not renewed by the Gospel of Christ. People of the Bible are just as in need of salvation as all humanity. We are all sinners. It would be foolish however to say that we lower the bar in terms of teachings because so many allow themselves to live misguided by the world and its temptations.
      We are all trying to work out our salvation. Some are just more willing to be completely faithful. Some accept being weak and refuse to work given the temporal pleasures afforded by living in sin. Christ died for all even those that will reject Him. True love leaves us with the freedom to reject it.

    • D’Sistahood Trinidad “But what is religion?” Brilliant question. That is exactly what people should be asking themselves in these times. Religion and all its dogmas stem from man’s imagination, man’s necessities, man’s socio-economic realities relative to his survival. Religion fills the gap where people struggle to comprehend their reality.

      Judiasm and its derivative, Christianity are all syncretic in nature. They pulled from many different sources and adopted and adapted them and they evolved over time. There are thousands of sects, each one treating the religious texts a little differently.

      In addition, every individual who walks on the earth is going to have a unique experience doing so which will as well, shape what they know to be true in their lives. You will find even among those within the same overall culture or tradition, have certain distinct differences in how they approach it, how they treat with religious texts etc. Since no religion can prove itself absolute truth, there are also those that are also valid in rejecting it altogether.

      That is the most important thing. NO RELIGION CAN PROVE ITSELF ABSOLUTE TRUTH. All of its teachings and assertions have to be believed on faith not evidence. Its deities NEVER appear and give universal verification of their existence. It is always another human being speaking. ALWAYS HUMAN. ALWAYS second-hand accounts and hearsay.

      So, it is up to each individual to seek their truth and be honest about it. Be wary of those who have a problem with this and want everyone to follow THEIR religious beliefs and try to demonize and other anyone who does not accept their particular religious opinions. We know where that leads- fundamentalism, extremism, human rights abuses.

    • Jessica Joseph u said it all..”hugs:..u get what im mans truth is another mans lie…who are we to say what is wrong or right based of predated text..myths and fantasies…
      As long as a man is at peace in his spirit who am i to tell him otherwise.

    • Wow. So DNA and reproductive organs be damned.
      You are arguing for subjective views of objective truths/facts that are unchangeable. No man after sex change will have periods. No same sex acts can produce offspring. To believe otherwise is utter falsehood and delusion.
      Genetically it cannot be a trait passed on since you would require both partners to have ancestors with the traits. That however has never been proven. So all the lgbt arguments rest in sentiment. None are airtight.
      So you wish to attack the Bible. Great. Leave that and read the Vedas.
      Reality is feelings cannot overturn an objective truth. They can deny it but since there are lgbt who have returned to hetero lifestyles. There remains no proof of it being more than a delusion.

    • What? You are all over the place. Nobody was ever saying that a transgendered person after a sex change is genetically female. Where are you getting that from?

      You do understand how genes work right? There are dominant traits and recessive ones. You also know about epigenetics right? That genes in combination with other or exposed to certain chemical triggers can change and alter the results. You also realize that Homo Sapiens, the most complex, intelligent and socially sophisticated of all mammalian apex predators are also going to manifest a far more diverse spectrum of sexuality than lesser intelligent, lower food chain animals, and even among those, you can find just as much sexual/gender variation.

      Valid critique of the bible is not attacking it. We have intellect, we have curiosity. We cannot be expected to just blindly follow something unquestioningly. Why is that a problem?

      Pre-Islamic invasion and British invasion India was far more sexually liberal because like most cultures where there are BOTH Gods and Goddesses as well as gender changing deities and intersex deities (for example Shiva is often represented as Ardhanarisvara, with a dual male and female nature. In many Hindu mytho tales, stories of gods and mortals changing gender occur. Sometimes they also engage in heterosexual activities as different reincarnated genders.), they understand that sexuality and gender are complex, not simplistic.

      Similarly with cultures and spiritual traditions where they recognize that two narrowly defined boxes are not enough to capture the full spectrum of humankind, and therefore they have far more varied and layered approaches to the subject.

      My only concern is the expression of gender and sexuality not its form. Whether hetero or homo, cis or trans or intersex, my only concern is whether the individual is expressing their innate sexual/gender make-up in a way that is respects the human rights of other people or in a way that violates it.

      I am very familiar with ex-gay apologetics and I am waiting for verifiable examples of someone who is a confirmed homosexual turning into a heterosexual. So far, no such evidence exists. Instead what we see are either bisexual people choosing one side over the other because of social pressure, religious-derived guilt, fear of losing family and community who might object or having bad luck in love with one side or the other.

      We also do not speak of the fact that there are even more ex-ex-gays who realized it does not work and they were harming themselves by repressing their authentic sexuality and pretending to be straight out of religious pressure and fear of homophobia. Even the founders of the ex-gay Movement have come out and confessed it does not work and they hurt countless people with it.

    • Hahaha. So they cant just see a male reproductive organ and understand its purpose cannot make sense without the female? It mist be religious guilt?
      You seem to be indicating your bias against any truth or fact. Is it that an absolute unchangeable fact chafes your mind? Sorry but your arguments remain subjective with no basis in what is. You still havent expanded what those words meant to Jews. I personally guarantee they meant more than temple prostitutes and sodomy. The fact they speak against a woman lying with a woman ought to indicate that.
      Be that as it may. Do continue.

    • I replied in another comment that I have done a very lengthy and detailed expansion and submitted it to Wired. Hopefully, it will appear soon.

      No-one is debating that reproduction is not the primary function of the genitalia. However, pleasure is also a very valid secondary function that is not mutually exclusive to the reproductive one. We also know that sexual pleasure particularly between individuals who love one another, is beneficial and positive. We also know that not everyone wants to or should be reproducing because it comes with parental responsibilities. We also know that just because someone cannot reproduce it does not mean their sexual desire or need for sexual intimacy goes away. Clearly, the two are separate in function and benefit. All apex, mammalian, predators with higher intelligence engage in sexual activity completely outside the ovulation cycle of fertile females.

      Again, human beings, having the highest brain function of any apex, mammalian predator on the planet are quite capable of being inventive and imaginative in how they seek sexual pleasure. So long as it is done responsibly and with informed consent by all parties involved, and in a spirit of the Universal Human Golden Rule of reciprocity, then there is no ethical issue there. There is much within certain segments of the LGBT community I personally find fault with because they do not live up to that code. But then there is much within certain segments of the heterosexual community that does the same. Sexual exploitation, irresponsible promiscuous sex, predatory behavior, rape, etc. it knows no orientation.

      However, just as there are heterosexuals who live their life with love, commitment, kindness and personal responsibility, there are also homosexuals who do the same.

      You aren’t refuting my points at all I’m afraid. You introduce new arguments but never really refute the ones before. But feel free to move the goal posts as we discuss the issue. There is no argument I have not heard before.

      I am very eager for you to provide me with the biblical verse that speaks about women having sex with women. That I have to see! I’ve already given a thorough analysis of Romans 1:26-27, so if you come with that debunked reference again, I’ll really be disappointed.

    • JessicaJoseph if you have not seen the verse that speaks about as you put it ” women having sex with women” then you have not read the book.

    • Ucill Cambridge I’ve read the bible cover to cover. No verse speaks about women having sex with women. If you are referring to Romans 1:26-27, Paul never said women were having sex with women in the original Greek scripture okay, nor was that even a concept that the earliest biblical commentators even contemplated or saw in that scripture.

    • Read it again. Every time I go into the Word, I see something I missed. Almost as if it were alive 😀

    • Yup, read it over and over. No mention of women having sex with women. It does mention women changing the natural use of themselves. This has always been until recently seen as an indictment against male-female oral and anal sex.

    • It’s on my screen as we speak 😉 Yup, still no reference to women having sex with women or to women being innately homosexual either. You must be reading a lot into the verse that just is not there.

    • Keep reading the Good Book Jessica, keep reading.

    • Thank you, I will but it’s not just about reading for reading sake, but understanding what you are reading in its proper context and not force-fitting modern interpretations to things that the writer was not referring to.

    • Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding . In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

    • One can only understand anything through their own mind and emotions. It is through your brain and consciousness that you know anything at all. And if you have the ability to think, research, understand, then you should use it.

    • I am very wary of anyone who tries to stamp out thinking and research and query and prefers people to be simple-minded.

    • “For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with SIMPLICITY and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.. ” What a boast eh Jessica.

    • Deuteronomy is the book within which I believe the verses on same sex relating to men and women. I am yet to reach home so the Book is not with me. Perhaps you nay find it by google. Ttyl

    • Ucill Cambridge Nice verse but I still won’t surrender my intellect to someone else and will continue to think, ponder and examine and decide for myself and encourage others to do the same 😉

    • Chris Mark D Well looking forward to seeing the passage in Deuteronomy you believe refers to women having sex with women. Get home safely.

    • Well Jessica you hold fast to yours, my final caution to you friend “It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows.” But keep reading, something might take root 😀

    • Jessica, I accept my error. There is no verse mentioning a woman lying with a woman as with a man.
      Leviticus 18:22 mentions the opposite. Man lying with man as with a woman.
      So yes there is no expressed opinion on lesbianism.
      I could infer that a heavily patriarchal

    • In a heavily patriarchal society. Women may not have been liberated enough to err in this way.
      The other aspect of this statute is can it be inferred or understood that its opposite must hold true (if it is that we are all equal in the sight of God)?

    • Ucill Cambridge Thank you. To be honest, there is a lot of timeless wisdom to be found in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures just as there is a lot of timeless wisdom to be found in many ancient writings. The key is separating the limitations of the writers’ prejudices, culture, geography, politics, primitive superstitions and lack of knowledge about a great many things. Then on top of that, also dealing with all the intentional and unintentional human error in selection, editing, re-writing, translating etc. You cannot un-know what you know.

    • Chris Mark D Correct, there is nothing in the Old Testament on lesbianism. It did not mean there weren’t women who loved women but the Hebrew focus was on sperm which they saw as very precious and frowned on its wastage.

      They did not see women as having the seed of life (although women also do) because they did not understand the reproductive process fully. They thought only men contained the seed of life in his sperm. Wasting sperm was frowned upon. A seminal emission rendered one unclean. A woman who had a period meant she did not incubate a man’s seed and her womb rejected it, making her unclean. It is why for a woman back then, being infertile was such a HUGE, HUGE stigma of shame. It meant she was essentially killing a man’s seed.

      Because they thought only men were Life Givers, containing future generations, it is what made men more valuable to them than women. When a man died, there was an expression, “His blood is calling out!” It literally means, you did not just kill him but his entire bloodline. Women were not seen as having bloodlines, only men.

      So much of the biblical view on sexuality is shaped by ignorance and misogyny.

      The primitive Hebrew view that sperm = a human being or somehow contained Divine Magical powers would persist all the way into the Christian empire. If you look at illustrations of sperm from back then, they depicted it as little complete people. A woman was only considered to be a plot of land to plant the seed in. Once pregnant, a man considered her to be holding HIS PROPERTY.

      If you read St. Augustine’s writings, you also see that fear of wasting semen was akin to murder. You will also see his very misogynistic views about women as well. Thomas Aquinas as well.

      “Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one.” —Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

      “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. —Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century”

    • Chris Mark D This superstitious view about sperm being the seed of life or having magical powers also extended to many of the Canaanite cultures surrounding the Hebrews. They would perform sex-rituals with sperm, giving it to a temple prostitute (male or female) through ritual sex, often involving anal intercourse. The Canaanites and the Egyptians also had deities that were incestuous- brother and sister, mother and son/husband etc. and to honor them, would engage in similar sex rituals as well.

      People love to pull one verse out but if you read the entire chapter of Leviticus 18, it is basically listing a series of Canaanite sex rituals. In fact, the Chapter starts with an admonition not to follow the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians. Just before it mentions men lying with men “as with a woman”- that is an important distinction there. It talks about not making your sons or daughters shrine prostitutes or offering them to Molech.

      That is the context of that scripture. But I’ll be covering it in more detail in Wired. Soon.

    • My albeit limited understanding of offering children to molech was that of child sacrifice.

    • Example of this understanding was seen in pro life video, The Massacre of the Innocents.

    • Caanite blood sacrifices to Molech were followed by a fertility ritual. The sacrifice of blood to the male deity and offering of semen to the female deity Ashoreth, through a male or female temple prostitute.

    • Recommend the viewing of the video. Adult audiences only.

  5. Live your life how you want and go to hell or heaven,it’s your choice, I choose the ladies,I am going to heaven.

  6. The fault begins once anyone uses the bible as their ground of reasoning and moral compass because the version that we know today in itself is flawed and contradicts in many ways the ways in which church folk and mankind in general live..

    • No fault, it is deliberate that Christians don’t adhere to World reasoning :”If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he should become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. “

    • It goes even deeper than that. The geo-political, environmental and socio-economic realities of those that wrote the bible, the motives of those that picked and chose which would become the bible we know today, often have nothing to do with the realities of a post-Industrial, post-Enlightenment society.

      Imagine living in a time and age where people did not even know how or why natural disasters happen. They did not know women contributed 50% of the genetic material towards conception and thought only men contained the seed of life. They did not know about mirco-organisms that caused diseases. They were living at the mercy of nature and in a LOT of fear of it and superstitious notions about it. Then on top of that, fertile, arable land is scarce in the Middle East and life depends on agriculture. Then on top of that, you are surrounded by constant invading tribes and empires trying to take your land.

      Of course there is going to be an emphasis on fertility because people are living short lives and dying from things that we today with modern medicine can easily cure or avoid. Women are dying in childbirth of complications we today can easily solve. So having as many children to compensate becomes imperative. Farming is still a manual process so you need human-power to farm. You need human power to protect the land from invaders as well. Of course it is going to be about subjugating women so they become little else but baby-making factories. Of course, any wastage of semen is seen as a crime.

      People need to look at a population growth chart and see we no longer live in such desperate times. 300,000+ babies are born every day thanks to advances in medicine. We do not need every single person breeding, nor should every single person have to.

  7. The argument is pointless…..judgement is not for groups but for individuals. So if someone choose the LBGT life they will be judged accordingly…..and many of the Bible thumpers who trying to remove specks…..make sure you check out that beam going in your eye and comming out the back of your head. God is good, god is fair and God alone shall judge.

  8. There is nothing in the word of God that even remotely suggests he approves of tattoos either. Indeed, according to Leviticus: ‘Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.’ Shall we take a stand against body art too? I can grudgingly accept a personal opinion, Akilah Holder. I can’t accept the gross hypocrisy of the cherry picking of centuries old doctrine outlined in a book no one is entirely sure who wrote and which, over the centuries, has been subject to extensive editing and used as a tool of control and justification for colonisation, subjugation and mass murder.

    • Oh let’s not forget the consumption of shrimp, fish without scales (bake & shark anyone?) wearing clothes with mixed fabric (hi polyester/cotton blend) & a man touching you whilst on your period. Akilah Holder needs to not type anything until she figures out who the hell she is because this isn’t the first time she has left us laughing at her idiocy.

  9. All im reading here since yesterday is a group of people trying to justify NASTINESS. It is very sickening. We already have soo many diseases in this world and if we continue with this STINKNESS humankind will one day varnish like dinosaurs. Watch and see….

    • You have any idea how many times “humankind” has “vanished” from this planet?..don’t fret on it, we always reboot and come back.

    • Kenroy we are probably more likely to die from climate change, than sodomy, or people having sex. The end of the world is coming because people of the same sex are having sex with each. I just can’t. This is so insane. ??????

    • Keita, I never said anything about the end of the world coming.
      I dont know if its coming or going, all i know is there are NASTY STINKING people out there who are pushing their DICK into SHITHOLES and trying to justify that NASTY behavior.
      That nastiness can cause all sort of DISEASES and
      Nothing you can tell me to justify that.

    • Okay Kenroy you said, and I quote, ” humankind will one day varnish”. So I guess you did not say the world would end, but it will be varnished.

    • Kenroy, yuh focusing on the wrong thing. Is the same heterosexual people who killing people, molesting children and and have vices too.
      The point I’m making is that while people chose to demonize homosexuality, they leaving ‘the backdoor open’ to all the immorality and sin committed by other socially accepted groups.

      It is this myopic view of focusing on the cleaning one spot, when the whole plate dirty that makes no sense.

      Why point out the splinter in your brothers eye, when there is a plank in your own?

    • lol doh rush the brush… literally.

    • Jeremy, homosexuality is not no little splinter as you are saying, it is a NASTY DISGUSTING habit that can lead to all sort of DISEASE.
      I also have the same attitude for those ASSHOLES who kill and molest underaged children. I have no mercy for them. So don’t look for others to justify your nasty and stinking vice. Homosexuality to me is a serious disaster

    • My vice? Lol. I’m perfectly heterosexual with 3 kids and a wife. I’m just not in the judging others business.

    • OK great to know you are not one. But you are part of the problem in this society why everything is getting out of control. We love to watch people destroy themselves and leave them alone because “it’s their rights”
      Homosexuality shud NEVER be a human rights. I’m very disgusted with this entire situation and wish I was living on some other planet. Human being becoming the worst creature in this universe. I’m starting to hate my own human kind

    • No. The problem are people like you who think in one dimension only. Instead of having a balanced, objective discussion, you are ranting and varnishing.
      I used to think the same way, then said, you know what, let me do me, and treat every one with respect- including people I don’t agree with, like you.

    • I have lots of respect for people. I don’t go around disrespecting anymore. I know gay people and I never once disrespect them. But it doesn’t mean that I’m comfortable with their stinkness. It’s my rights to vent my anger about that nastiness and no one can stop me. It is down right nasty to be pushing your dick into a shit hole and calling it love.

    • What you describe there is not respect. That’s just putting up a front.

    • You are straying from the point just to justify stinkness. The topic and issue here is not my respect, it’s about nastiness. A shit hole is nothing clean

    • I’m not straying to justify anything. Just saying what you described is not respect. Anyway – carry on.

    • Why is there this obsession with anal sex? Homosexuality is not anal sex. Anal sex is a sex position. A very risky form sex that a lot of people are very squeamish about and with good reason. If done without any preparation, safety or patience, it can be a very unpleasant experience. That is why in ancient sex manuals it was considered an act reserved only for those who had mastered the sexual arts. Oh and those manuals were about male-female sex.

      Are we going to ignore the fact that heterosexuals engage in it to and always have? It was considered a birth control form of sex long, long, long time. Male-female anal sex is everywhere!

      That’s right, anal sex is not a gay mandate of some kind. Not all gay men engage in it. So why try to paint the picture that this is the definition of being gay? Unless the hope is to use the squeamishness people have about anal sex and make them transfer that feeling to ALL and ANY gay people they meet by assuming that is what the person does. You don’t know that. Nobody knows what people are doing in the privacy of their bedroom.

    • Jessica, you are contradicting yourself.
      You now saying that nobody knows what persons are doing in their bedroom but you are saying that they don’t indulge in anal sex.
      How do you know that they don’t? You are not in their bedroom.
      And, there are no other ways for 2 hard back men to have sex other than anal. If you want to play ignorant and STUPID, I am not, you cannot pull wool over my eyes. Gay men mess in SHIT every time they sex. IT IS GOD DAMN NASTY AND STINK. and you cannot convince me otherwise

    • Kenroy Ambris We know from Sex Research Studies conducted by many different agencies including the CDC, that shows that around 40% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex and around 50% of homosexuals do.

      So this means you cannot know just by meeting someone, whether gay or straight, what they are into in bed.

      You say there are no other ways for 2 hard back men to have sex other than anal? Really? Never heard of oral sex, mutual masturbation, frottage, inter-curual sex?

      I am far from ignorant on the topic.

      As for your assertion that gay men mess and shit every time they have sex, HOW ON EARTH would you know that? There is something called an anal douche and fasting from eating. Just because some men are cavalier and pay no regard to the painstaking process of preparation does not mean the same applies to all.

      This is not about changing YOUR mind. You are 100% free to believe whatever you like. I am only responding to you, for the benefit of those following the conversation so they can see the flaws in your argument and how you represent yourself while arguing.

    • Hear nah. Job ain’t have nothing on Jessica inno. I think you deserve an award!!!

    • Allyuh ease up Kenroy nah. I think we can all agree that many traditional views on sexuality are not necessarily based on reasoning and can even lack a sense of humanity… nevertheless everyone is entitled to his/her own view…

    • Duane, I agree with you that we can agree to disagree but I can also say that theirs no logical reasoning to justify a tough hard back man riding the back of another hard back man. There’s absolutely no sense behind that, it is just stink and dutty. I hope you can agree with me on that one

    • What you wrote makes very little to no sense what so ever. So no I do not agree, but that’s your view so….

    • Duane Campbell Agreed, he is 100% entitled to his feelings and opinions.

    • So you are telling me straight out that you don’t see a problem with a man riding another man back. This means that you are saying that men have the rights to be stink and spread disease. With people like you, this world is hopeless

    • No that’s not what I’m saying, and you obviously don’t know me so that last disrespectful part of your post about “people like me” is a good indication that I should just exit stage left. Enjoy your day sir and carry on.

    • False Dichotomy detected. A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy where someone says, “Because your position is THIS…, it also means you support THAT.” as if the two are the only options.

      Some examples of false dichotomy arguments are:

      So you are against gun ownership, well that means you are for not defending your home and family.

      So you don’t beat your kids, I guess you just agree they should do whatever they want and have no discipline.

      And of course, this one just made: So because you have no issue with men having consensual relations it means you are for the spread of disease.

      One does not follow from the other and the Either/Or being presented is a false dichotomy.

    • Careful Jessica, you are adding sense to the thing- doh add sense to the thing 🙂

    • Just one addition to jessica Joseph point on logic. Sex has the potential to spread disease does that therefore mean it is nasty? Or does that mean that it does spread disease? Additionally, anal sex has the potential to spread disease that does not mean that it does. The point about it being stink or nasty is a subjective one. I might think doubles is nasty that does not make it a truism. So Kenroy is conflating subjectivity and objectivity very important distinction.

    • Also forgot to say he is also conflating correlations with causations.

  10. Do you know that in the same story about Lot people fail to mention that Lot offered his daughters to the men who were at the door.? As far as we know the daughters and the men weren’t married hence Lot was instigating premarital sex for his daughters. It amazing that people are very 1 sided with that story.

  11. You mean the Bible written by men . Why you think it’s called the King James Version? Because God didn’t write shit. Made up bullshit.

  12. The 8 plus billion people who share this planet all originated from one couple and their offspring. Amazing.

  13. Some above wrote that God created Adam and Eve and not Adam/Steve. I’m sorry but if that’s your argument, your religious beliefs do not deserve respect. It’s plain stupidity.

  14. Everyone need to get this straight.. everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.. it’s a free world. Someone is not a homophobic if they disagree with homosexuality.. also, if someone has religious beliefs it must be respected.. if peole who use the bible as their reference don’t condone homosexuality are called bigots and homophobes the the powers that be need to outlaw referencing the bible or owning one. The LGBT community cannot force their beliefs on anyone; they should not.. in the same breath religious people also should not force or abuse anyone who doesnt share their beliefs,

    • Except people who are gay do not “believe” they are gay. They just ARE gay. Not like homophobes who BELIEVE and spread the idea that it’s an abomination. It’s not exactly the same.

    • That’s your contribution? You sound uneducated.

    • Every Gay person I met that admitted it also admitted to being interfered with. They also had poor relationships with parents. Suggesting that their “choice” was normal is to completely ignore the turmoil they went through and continue to. The delusion they suffer is no more normal than being bipolar or depressed.

    • Anna Levi once god dont like it i dont like it soon all who support gays will burn up in a lake of fire run way eh gyal

    • Actually, finding homosexuality morally reprehensible is in fact homophobic. Also, being gay is good.

    • The word gay is inherently misleading. It is surely far from the words origins of lightheartedness.

    • Homophobic btw denotes fear and my perception is lgbt are those who under delusion live with fear of being exposed. Hetero seem to havr no such apprehensions unless they horning.

    • No, actually, being gay is a profoundly good experience and definitely can result in light-heartedness.

      Yes, “homophobic” broken down to its roots denotes “fear of the same”. However, that’s not how language works. Many words that we create in English from Greek and Latin root words do not mean exactly what their roots tell you they mean. This is because English is not Latin or Greek. So, no, the word “homophobic” doesn’t mean “fear of same”, it means distasteful attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and (often) transgender people because of their (real or imagined) departure from heterosexuality.

      And yes, plenty of LGBT people struggle with being open about their sexuality and/or gender experience. This is because we live in a violently homophobic society where people are killed for being LGBT and are denied housing and work because they are LGBT and are socially ostracized because they are LGBT. Given these consequences it’s in fact a reasonable response to live in fear of being discovered to be LGBT.

    • Actually most lgbt are killed by fellow lgbt sufferers. Go look it up. Distaste is born when a person obviously deluded expects acceptance of their delusion. Eg. Flat earthers expect to be taken seriously despite horribly bad understanding of physics.

    • What information leads you to that conclusion? That most LGBT people are killed by other LGBT people? That’s a very unusual claim.

    • I’m also wondering what about being LGBT is a delusion?

    • If one is a human but thinks he is a duck. Thats a delusion. If a human with male genitalia and dna seeks to believe he is a female then that too is a delusion. If attracted sexually to same sex as opposed to opposite sex then given that sexual intercourse is ordered toward procreation. A person that seeks the disorder is also deluded. Delusions are mental health issues. They do not impair other character trait though they may impact on choices.
      Eg. A person can live a perfectly normal existence despite being deluded into believing the earth is flat. Their contributions in other spheres do not indicate a lack of delusion.

  15. The end result is ……we all know what the bible says yet everyday we all sin everyday,so who are you to debate the rights and wrong of anyone when you sin daily.i to don’t agree with the lifestyle but it’s not my life to live disect or judge,only god can judge,dose talking about it put money In you pocket or give you a bigger house ……….focus on you and your life and your relationship with God cause when he comes ,he is not going to ask or judge you based on another’s life.salvation is an individual thing so before you take out the sliver for someone’s eye please take out the plank from yours

  16. Sigh @ grown folk telling other grown folk whom to love.

  17. Akilah give yuh God ah big fat spliff. You’re ah shitty writer.

  18. Please stop giving this person a space in your publication. This is the same person who, in an earlier article, spoke of not having empirical evidence but went on to make several dangerous and careless proclamations and declarations. Not everyone should be given a platform to effuse such tripe. Do better than this.

  19. I worry that “freedom of speech” defences to publishing some material miss the point. Freedom of speech is a given, the question is not whether people have a right to voice their views – it’s whether they should be allowed to exercise that right in a particular forum/ on a particular page. The second question depends on what standard of opinion/debate/comment/readership you want to target/maintain. If freedom of speech was the issue then nothing should be beyond publication here.

    • Correct. I’m having serious concerns about what passes as ‘articles’ on this page. Well, to be frank, it just concerns this particular ‘writer.’
      The fact that she does not respond to the comments is also troubling. If you want a debate, make yourself available to support your points.

    • Jeremy I have a different concern. Ad hominem attacks as rebuttals. That is not ecen worth having her reply. There seems to be a total disregard for civil discourse and debate. If that is accepted then I see no valid reason for her to engage in any debate. Wired needs to clamp down on that.

    • kelvin baldeosingh neither Martin Daly engages in debate on their articles

  20. This isn’t debate. Nor is this article legitimate opinion. It’s a rant. If it was an opinion it would not have argued that God’s word prohibits homosexual behaviour without first arguing that God’s word matters when you delimit human behaviour. Not everything verbalized is an opinion. Sometimes it’s just words. Without telling us why what the Bible says should have any relevance at all, she’s told us what it says on her chosen issue. As a question of editorial judgment what she left out may weigh heavily- but I don’t know how those things work.

  21. I won’t even give this article the privilege of reading it. That would be a waste of my time and mental energy. Very surprised you would choose to publish hate speech on Wired 868, Lasana Liburd. I’m all for debate, but not debate that’s a century or more out of date. Caribbean homophobia comes from the same colonial era that enslaved black people. The Bible was written by the same white men who enslaved black people. Throw off those shackles sister Holder! If the writer’s God is a homophobic god then fuck God. But I suspect if God did exist he/she would not be homophobic and that instead it would be the writer going to hell. Bon voyage sister Holder!

  22. How ppl know what God sanction?
    You have a direct line to god?
    You email him?
    It is 2018 stop judging ppl
    Leave that to god
    If a man like a man he business
    A woman love a woman. Her business
    Worry about incest and child pornography study that

  23. Everybody know that 90% of the population going to hell for wearing polyblends right?

    “You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.” Deuteronomy 22:11

    Bible thumpers are very selective in their scripture shaming.

  24. “For instance, Genesis 19:1-11 shows clearly that God frowns on homosexuality. God is preparing, in this passage of scripture, to destroy the City of Sodom and He sends a couple of angels in human form to rescue Lot and his family. When Lot invites the angels to pass the night at his home, some of the homosexuals in the city show up at Lot’s house seeking to have sex with his guests. The angels pull Lot into the house and blind the homosexuals.”

    But in that same story about Lot, Genesis 19:8, Lot offers up his virgin daughters to the men who came knocking, and say take dem instead. So tell me what is being advocated there?

  25. hate….is not from God. Thats all.

  26. Lasana as publisher you provide the forum. IMHO you are right to publish. Look at the rich conversation you have generated.

    As Mill has said in “On Liberty”:

    1. Unpopular opinions may be right

    Sometimes the things that we and nearly everyone around us take for granted are flat-out wrong. If this happens to be the case, but we do not permit people to openly state their disagreement and make a case for it, then there is much less of a chance that we ever will realize our errors. “To deny this,” says Mill, “is to assume our own infallibility” (p. 64).

    2. Even opinions that are mostly wrong are often partly right

    Rarely are our opinions completely right, even when nearly everyone around us agrees with us about them. In Mill’s words, “the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth” (p.64). Being presented with contrary opinions, even when they are mostly in the wrong, often helps us to notice what isn’t quite right about what we believe, which we can then work on fixing.

    3. Even opinions that are completely wrong challenge dogmatism…

    Even when our views happen to be completely right, that doesn’t mean that the reasons we have for holding them are good; sometimes, in fact, we are not able to articulate reasons for our views at all. But in such cases our beliefs are not justified. Clashing with contrary views, even completely wrong ones, forces us to search for and articulate good reasons for why we are right and our opponents are wrong. Without this clash, most of us will hold our views “in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds” (p. 64).

    4. … and prevent our beliefs from turning into empty affirmations.

    Without any challenge, our opinions—even if they are correct—will become dogmatic, and our affirmation of them will in turn become a “mere formal profession” (p. 64) that we recite with no understanding. But this strips truth of the power to actually benefit the character of those who affirm it. It is only in understanding why particular things are true that we make them our own and feel their full force. Having to argue against contrary views, even when those views are completely wrong, ensures that we assent by reason rather than rote, with all of the benefits that brings.

  27. From the time anyone says God say, walk away from that argument. I will spare myself this read.

  28. If the writer has any arguments other than “is so cuz I feel so” or an appeal to authority (the authority here being an old book…) I don’t see them.

    Perhaps I should use Ms Holder’s own style of argument and remind her of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

  29. akilah holder before you write and pretend to be gods most holy and righteous child, your ex co workers are still waiting for you to do the “right thing” and repay the 12000.00 you stole and disappeard from the sou sou. And wired868 you can delete my comment and block me I don’t really care but right is right the same way she’s saying being gay is not of god, stealing is also in that category so you need to screen your writers for their own hidden secrets before you post their crap. Btw she wasn’t no child of god writer at newsday

  30. akilah holder before you write and pretend to be gods most holy and righteous child, your ex co workers are still waiting for you to do the “right thing” and repay the 12000.00 you {allegedly} stole and disappeard from the sou sou.

  31. When Akilah wrote her last post, I jump on she back. A Christian I found what she wrote to be out of context, I found it disrespectful- to believers and non-believers alike, I found her language distasteful, I found it un-Christian. Here I can find no fault. She has stated what God has said about an issue, and she has stated her support for Word. I cannot fault her.

    • “She has stated what God has said about an issue…”

      More like she has stated what she *believes* God said about the issue, or just stated what is contained in the Bible. Interpretation, comprehension, adherence, and so on is another thing.

    • Exactly Nigel Myers. It is beyond arrogant to claim to speak for God. The honest and humble thing is to say, “This is what I believe God says.” The moment someone starts claiming they are speaking for God and knows exactly what God thinks about this, that, him, her, you, me, they are trying to elevate themselves above you and I as well as cut off other people’s own personal spiritual journey by trying to dictate how others should pursue their path. It is the road to extremism and fundamentalism. It is saying, “Only I have God on my side!” others different from me do not.

  32. Here we go again… but I’ll do myself a favour and not read it this time. Clearly, this child is looking for fame. #inotable

  33. I dislike all forms of injustice including judging a book by its cover or an author by their reputation or a reformed criminal by their past. I read the article after reading the comments here, I expected much more hell and damnation than I encountered. Of course it would have been a more useful opinion piece if she had found facts to quote vs just the bible because the old testament we “know” is not meant to be taken literally anymore – Jesus Christ of Nazareth himself overturned many of the writings. The author quoted the writings of the new testament as well, from the letters of Paul et al. I don’t know who could be convinced with arguments like that since most people like to put the bible in a neat little box that gets opened once in a while for church and is not applied to daily life. So…what are we in fact scared of, that this article will incite further anti-LGBTQ behaviour by the “religious right” or other people just looking for an excuse to abuse those they disagree with? If anyone takes up the cause of restricting the rights of anyone (or worse abusing them) based on an article that is not actually a call to action, the author cannot be blamed – those people need to be dealt with (and are in fact more troubling) but stifling free discourse is not the way to do it. Akilah Holder was not insulting, nor was she attempting to vilify – she was attempting to disabuse. Should she be abused for that? Disagreement is always healthy, especially from “people who can’t stop” you (Quoting “House MD”) so let’s be reasonable.

  34. Having read your article, I totally and unequivocally accept and stand by your statements.

  35. You keep dreaming. Tell yourself whatever comforts you. Won’t change the reality. And I have no problem being an idiot for my beliefs just as you are being an idiot for yours.

  36. Please do. You sound like an idiot.

    Also… marriage is… a secular and legal ceremony in the world of men. God don’t write wills. K, idiot? Lol!

  37. “And that neither Mr Harnarine nor Mr Khan nor anyone else of their ilk any longer harbours any illusions about how strong is the Living God’s active disapproval of their perverted lifestyles.”

    In reality, Ms Holder, it is merely your (and other holier-than-thou persons) disapproval, which you are ascribing to God. How dare you presume to know what is right or wrong for other people, based upon your own repugnance?

  38. I write solely from the point of view as a Jumbie, with permission to be spokes-Jumbie given by all the other Jumbies I know…

    As Jumbies, we know that Gawd doesn’t exist. How do we know this? Well, the fact that we exist is proof in and of itself. If people go to Heaven or Hell when they die, the existence of Jumbies – ‘souls’ lingering on this plane after death – would be an impossibility. Yet, here we are, in neither Heaven nor Hell… although my fellow Jumbies jess brought meh attention to the fact they consider Trinbago as Hell now, wot with murders and serious crime rising and crooks running around in Parliament, ahem, dey say all day long… oho, dey say nighttime too.

    Buh back to de point ah was trying tuh make… sorry, ah have to speak de dialect, as meh brethren Jumbies pointing out… seems like de Commissioner ah Police doh know de Queen’s English, so for him to understand, ah have tuh drop to he level… anyhow, de point is dat Gawd doh exist. Take it from de Jumbies who praying long time to get into Heaven, we know dat prayers doh wuk either. Ah know, ah know, dat Kevin Baldeosingh fella go say dat is only evidence dat prayers doh wuk, not dat Gawd doh exist… leh him blow dat out he…

    Buh I digressing too much… dis Holder ‘oman eh know she place. De Trinbago Constitution clearly (yes, I read de damn ting, sometimes ah does see stupidness like this begging fuh ah rebuttal) says: yuh have a right to freely tink anything yuh want, buh yuh right to express wha’ yuh tinking is limited. Dat seems to me should extend to dotish (ah have tuh borrow dis tremendous Trini word!) thinking, like dis ‘oman…

    Ah mean, who is she tuh say dat de Bible is de only true ‘Word’ ah Gawd? Look, allyuh have any idea how much (too many tuh count hence de use ah ‘much’) Jumbies it have from other religions floating around? look, is billions dead and no Heaven, or Hell… common sense alone will tell yuh everytime one ah allyuh dead, is ah next Jumbie floating in Limbo (no, is not ah dance) waiting for ah final solution.

    Buh is only after allyuh dead and join up wid we here allyuh realise it eh have nothing beyond deading… by then, it too late. Once ah Jumbie, forever ah Jumbie. Ah dropping de mic here, dem other Jumbies reminding meh is Karaoke time now… and tuh tell Shamfa…

  39. As usual, the author uses religion as a tool to defend hatred and bigotry. Our Nation is a melting pot of different races, cultures, religions, sexual beings. We engage in secular democracy in order to respect each other’s life choices. One of our National watchwords is indeed TOLERANCE which this writer decides to ignore completely and attack a minority, bashing us with her bible! A bible that espouses LOVE as its central tenet! She cherry picks quotes to suit her vile homophobia but obviously ignores others that treat women as less important than men. Well luckily her judgements and bigotry will have No Impact on my High Court challenge of our discriminatory “buggery” laws which were bequeathed to us by our Colonial Slave Masters and FYI Miss Holder, your Christian religion was ALSO bequeathed to you by your slave masters! My landmark case will be successful, and Trinbagonian LGBT ️‍ citizens WILL FIND AN EQUAL PLACE in OUR COUNTRY regardless of your hatred and bigotry because human rights belong to ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

  40. As usual, the author uses religion as a tool to defend hatred and bigotry. Our Nation is a melting pot of different races, cultures, religions, sexual beings. We engage in secular democracy in order to respect each other’s life choices. One of our National watchwords is indeed TOLERANCE which this writer decides to ignore completely and attack a minority, bashing us with her bible! A bible that espoused LOVE as its central tenet! She cherry picks quotes to suit her vile homophobia but obviously ignores others that treat women as less important than men. Well luckily her judgements and bigotry will have No Impact on my High Court challenge of our discriminatory “buggery” laws which were bequeathed to us by our Colonial Slave Masters and FYI Miss Holder, your Christian religion was ALSO bequeathed to you by your slave masters! My landmark case will be successful, and Trinbagonian LGBT citizens WILL FIND AN EQUAL PLACE in OUR COUNTRY regardless of your hatred and bigotry because human rights belong to ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

  41. So Lasana Liburd, if I wrote a well-reasoned response that was civil that took apart this article point by point and used ACTUAL biblical scholarship to refute the really amateur eisegesis used, which is the worst possible way to treat with scripture and leads to all kinds of atrocities, would you post it?

    N.B Good biblical students use exegesis i.e. drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author. They look at the histoical, original language, cultural context as well.

    Eisegesis is a lazy approach to the Bible used by many Evangelical sects today. They basically just pull a verse and quote it for how it seems to read at the very surface level, completely out of its context.

    Akilah did a lot of eisegesis. I am willing to do the harder work of proper exegeisis of the very same scriptures she quoted, will you post it in Wired868?

    • Jessica, please send it to And I certainly will.
      We usually advise writers to aim for between 400 to 800 words. But if it is necessary to go over that to finish your point then by all means.

    • Lasana, I’m thinking about writing one and give you to publish also, my style. I promise that after publishing you will either become famous or another salman Rushdie.

    • Solid exigesis will never find approval of the misguided lgbt….. disorders/delusions.
      False teachers may misuse scrptures for different agendas but I challenge anyone using a Bible that has not been adulterated with modern speak to find any approval in scripture for these misguided “lifestyles”.
      In all Jesus’ meetings with known sinners, He received them with compassion and said Go and sin no more.
      I challenge anyone to prove he would do any diffferent for the misguided lgbt…. folks

    • Lasana Liburd Thanks, you’ll have something very well-researched and info-rich by the end of today. I will have to break it into two parts.

    • Chris Mark D Solid exegesis will reveal the bible’s coverage of same-sex behaviors are =/= homosexuality and are not relevant to most homosexuals who aren’t part of a rape mob or pederasts or temple prostitutes. And I will be using the original Hebrew and Greek terminology and research only the biblical contemporary literature of that age for verification of idiomatic use. I will also expose how man has tampered with the meanings of words in scripture to support an anti-gay stance.

    • Bring it on. You could come with two or two million. I will readily repudiate every false notion. Jesus has room for all sinners but none for their sin.

    • Btw it is noteworthy you say greek since greeks viewed the practice as healthy. Their language never paints it in a negative. Words therefore must also be in the context of how they were meant to be understood.
      Anyway go do what you can.

    • Jesus wasn’t that concerned with whether someone was innately homosexual or not. Far more concerned with men who divorced their wives and married a second one.

    • That was the error of His contemporaries. However the prostitute and the adulteress were both told go and sin no more. He also referred to scribes and Pharisees as vipers so he was pretty much well rounded in how he approached sin.

    • The sin btw is not the inclination/temptation. It is the giving in to it.

    • Lasana Liburd, it’s been sent to you. Cheers!

    • Jessica, I am anxious to see what you are going to pull from the Bible verses that state explicitly that homosexuality is wrong. Only fools will be attracted to your argument. God bless!

    • Amazing! Amazing you know, amazing! You are the Lord’s creation. You know more than him? Smh at people like yourselves. Amazing!

    • Akilah Holder What is the Hebrew or Greek word for “homosexual” in the bible? There is none. Because the term “homosexual” and its definition was created long, long after the bible was compiled, edited, canonized. If you have a bible with the word “homosexual” in it, go check the edition date. I will bet you a million bucks it was edited after 1945. Go do it now.

      Man tampers with man-made writings. That much is clear from my study of scripture.

      No, I don’t claim to know more than some concept of a Lord or Yahweh or anyone’s religious deity. I simply query the writings of men who claim to be speaking on behalf of who they believe to be God. Why shouldn’t I? Man-made writings attributed to God was used to justify all kinds of atrocities against women, against my African ancestors, against indigenous peoples, against so many people.

      I will always support the side of Universal Human Rights over people’s religious assertions about what they believe God is or what God says.

    • Thats not enough Jessica. Speak to the meaning of the word replaced.

    • Chris Mark D It will all be explained. But the meaning of the words replaced are not synonyms for homosexual either. Language does not evolve like that. Just like there are words in German to describe things we have not defined with a word yet, the term “homosexual” defines something the people back in Greco-Roman times in another culture never thought to define because it never occurred to them.

    • For instance the word translated in scripture in first corinthians 13 as love was actually a word that meant charity. The word translated as witchcraft was pharmakaea which were those that procurred pessaries which were the means to cause miscarriages (No surprise then that the Catholic church is against abortion and contraception).
      You havent unfolded scripture all you seem intent on is to deny its fullness.

    • Is there any particular reason we jumped to Corinthians 13?

    • Homosexuality was part of greco roman culture and was accepted as love between men. The Jews aand early Christians rejected that cultural norm. That can be seen in the writings of many of the early doctors of the Church. You left the Bible then do further research into the teachers like Ignatius and Augustine. Dont stop there. Keep going. Of course this presumes you actually want a fair understanding to prevail.

    • I jumped to explain that its not enough to say that wasnt the word. You need to bring the original word and open up the fullness of neanings attached.

    • In other words expand it. Its not as cut and dry as saying what the word didnt mean.Dive into all it did.

    • I have actually, and I disgree with both on many of their opinions. Which of course, I am totally allowed to do!

    • Hey, since you are a big fan of Augustine, do you also agree with his stance on prostitution?

    • I am against prostitution whether its the sexual or political.

    • Ah, good so you disagree with Augustine too. Good to see, you make up your own mind about things. So do I. For that reason at some point or another I piss off those on both sides of the argument on many issues.

    • Augustine is only one writer out of a multitude. More recently we had Theology of the Body by John Paul II.
      I believe no flood of words is without fault and the Bible itself, like the Vedas and other wisdom writings has to have errors as all humans fail in pride.
      When held in the light of science and medicine writings either are dispelled as useless or wise. Lgbt lifestyles have not proven healthy, safe or sane. Relationships of that kind are more violent (perhaps a result of multiplying those in the relationship living with testosterone/estrogen). Somehow males and females do better long term.
      Anyway I digress. Truth is I hold them as imperfect teachers. All had flaws. However the question is why did disapproval of same sex relationships turn up in their writings and why did judahism disapprove of it to the point of recommending stoning.

    • Hold up! You have some glaring errors in the premises behind your questions. But before I go through them, let me say I do agree with you that ancient writings have flaws and there is much to be learned in the flaws as well as the few nuggets of wisdom that hold up to hindsight and new information. The teachings of the Hebrews were not always ethically sound.

      But, where we part ways, intellectually is where you make the assumption that the bible is talking about the kind of same-sex relationships as you just defined them.

      People choose which cultures’ morals they prefer and you are entitled to choose those you just mentioned. Just as I am entitled to choose not to. No ancient culture was perfect as you said.

      Well, I see ample proof that dysfunction, violence, and the like does not only happens on the LGBT side of things. Everyone is trying to do the best with the cards they are dealt in life. Some who cannot cope with their challenges, channel it in very destructive ways and that applies especially to any minority that is marginalized. However many LGBT people find a way to bring a lot of positivity to their communities and the world. The kind of premise behind your reasoning is also the same used by White Supremacists to try to paint all minorities with the same brush. It is the first step to “Othering” fellow human beings. Once you do that, it makes violence all the more easier.

      Now, as for you question about why some cultures frowned on various same-sex sexual behavior or only certain ones, there is a very easy socio-economic and geo-political reason why.

    • I havent denied misguided lgbt ability to contribute but like any felusion they will suffer at their own hands and by the hands of those who misunderstand their plight.
      That said, the percentages of violence between lgbt suffers is more than double hetero rates. Partly due to complexities of the relationships and partly because two mancrab bound to fight.
      You can suggest that its partly due to socieoeconomic or political but there is also the factor of disgust.
      Judahism definitely spoke out against homosexuality, incest, and paedophillia. To expect a religion spawned from its bosom to accept it is remarkably contradictory.
      But do continue.

    • It seems the only LGBT people you have met are those who are violent and dealing with their emotional baggage (which everyone has) in negative ways. That is unfortunate, truly. You are almost like certain white people in the USA I have spoken to who have only ever met uneducated, poor, criminal black people and love to cast all black people in that light and use statistics about crime, delinquency, teen pregnancy, single parenthood in the black community not to try to understand the issues affecting those but to support a discriminatory or supremacist stance that ALL black people are inherently inferior for being black.

      From my decades of experience on this earth, I know fully well that both heterosexuals and homosexual people have struggles to face in life. If I were to list all the ills affecting the heterosexual population, it would take too much time. Suffice to say, I belong to more than one group dealing with those victimized in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. If I hated heterosexuals, I could just as easily dwell on the number of women beaten or killed by their partners, impregnated and left to fend for themselves, the men exploited or emotionally manipulated by women, the growing number of men who are angry at women, the rates of HIV in places like the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa etc. But what would be the point of this?

      Why not focus on helping all marginalized communities and looking at the positive examples of them that managed to have a productive, happy life where they did not abuse others or resort to crime, or violence etc.

      I am always wary of people who misuse statistics, not to understand a situation but to denigrate a group of humans.

      Judaism does not address homosexuality. It addresses specific same-sex interactions: gang rape, temple prostitution and if you wanted to be extra conservative in translation you can extend it to anal sex, which is understandably a disgusting premise to that culture given both their kosher laws, their primitive views about sperm at the time and the fact that anal sex was used in pagan sex rites of the people around them.

      However, none of those things = homosexuality.

      Simply put you and I are speaking of two completely different things when we speak about homosexuality. I am speaking about the medical definition of it. You assign the title of homosexuality to any and every same-sex interaction, which is making a big assumption those involved are actually homosexual.

      No, it is not contradictory to expect any culture/religious ideology to evolve as people figure out more information on the subject and grow more enlightened about human rights, as many Jews and Judeo/Christian sects have on this matter and many others like slavery, women’s autonomy etc.

    • Let me be clear I have no beef with my friends or their struggles as real as they are but merely saying that heteros have problems does not preclude or deny that lgbt sufferers are in a state of delusion.
      You are yet to expand what the words meant or why they were used. Secondly you are still shooting at a bible when science itself has never provided any backing for born this way claims.
      The fact that some lgbt have converted to hetero ought to present an argument against any biological backing.
      Never the less, do continue.

    • Btw marriage was always purposed towards raising children whether as a social contract or religious. The same sex union therefore can never have that intrinsic identity thus there is no right to marry a same sex as it can never be a marriage.
      They are however totally free to create a legal partnership. They have the right to life and thus protection from persecution. They do not however have the right for anyone to recognise their lifestyle as more than a delusion. They cannot force people to avoid expressing distaste or disgust no matter how tactless it seems. To force someone to accept them as legit is to bully them. The same way no one should force them to become hetero. It must be their choice. Otherwise you are denying people the right to speak freely. I however dont believe ad hominem serves any use to bring healing. Therefore my friendships remain cordial and helpful. Choose your course but dont even attempt to choose denial as viable.

    • Chris Mark D I have expanded in a very detailed article submitted to Wired.

    • Your view that LGBT people are deluded is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Nobody is forcing you to change your mind.

    • There is no medically verifiable evidence of any confirmed homosexual person becoming heterosexual. Even so called ex-gays still admit they have sexual attraction to the same sex. There are also far more ex-ex gays who realized the whole thing was a sham and they cannot force themselves to feel sexual attraction to the opposite sex. It seems it is only successful for bisexuals who are already capable of sexual attraction to both genders.

    • You are free to express distaste and disgust or even make a nuisance of yourself in doing so as many who disagree with LGBT people do, often with various micro-aggressions to ensure others feel “less than”. It has never stopped people from being who they are. It has however convinced more and more people over the years that those who cannot treat their LGBT neighbor the way they would want to be treated, have no moral high ground whatsoever!

    • Get off the soapbox.
      My opinion is just as valid and truthful as their feelings. Only difference is my objective truths cannot be recanted. There can be no medically verified homosexual because there is no medical test to say which is which.
      Your point therefore is totally useless.

  42. Calling someone a bigot does not mean you are being bigoted. That logic does not follow. If a person calls a KKK person a bigot it does not mean the person is bigoted themselves against the person’s right to be a bigot. If someone believes all LGBT people are evil by nature and should be denied their human rights, it is very fair to call such a person a bigot.

    Would I ill-treat or seek to deny the author their freedom of speech or their equal rights, even if I strongly disagree with them and believe their views are bigoted? Of course not. That is what tolerance is.

  43. Additionally lots of folks are jumping all over the writer about being a bigot while not realising that by virtue of their responses they are displaying the same bigotry. Quite interesting.

  44. Nigel Clement Agreed 100%. The way to deal with different opinions that are not rooted in sound reason or facts is to debate and discuss not suppress.

  45. bigot | ˈbɪɡət |
    a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.