Free Speech • LGBTQ • Media

KRXQ Gets the Message—After Sponsors Pull Support

June 9, 2009
by Celeste Fremon
87 Comments

krxq-2

Complaints poured in to KRXQ, after radio hosts for the Sacramento-based radio station, Arnie States and Rob Williams, “joked” about how they would verbally and physically abuse a transgender child, and referred to transgender people as freaks with mental disorders. (The back story is here.)

In response, 11 sponsors of the station either pulled sponsorship outright or “committed to stop soliciting their wares and services on the station.”

Among the sponsors who reportedly yanked support were: AT&T, Bank of America, CKE Restaurants, Chipotle, Guitar Center, McDonald’s, Nissan, Snapple, Sonic, Verizon, and Wells Fargo.

After the sponsors started bailing, on June 7 the show’s owner, host Rob Williams, posted a erse and seemingly chastened letter on the station’s website.

It begins as follows:

TO OUR LOYAL ROB, ARNIE AND DAWN FOLLOWERS,

WE HAVE FAILED YOU. AS A SHOW, AS PEOPLE, AS BROADCASTERS, WE HAVE SIMPLY FAILED ON ALMOST EVERY LEVEL.

WE PRESENTED OUR OPINIONS ON A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT IN A HATEFUL, CHILDISH AND CRUDE FASHION; AND THEN, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETRACT THOSE REMARKS, WE DEFENDED THEM.

SINCE THEN, YOU, OUR LOYAL LISTENERS, HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT WE WENT TOO FAR. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN OVERWHELMING. NONE OF YOU SAID THAT WE COULDN’T HAVE OPINIONS, YET SO MANY OF YOU SAID THAT THE WAY WE GAVE THEM CROSSED THE LINE. FURTHER, YOU SAID THAT OUR ATTEMPT TO MASK OUR COMMENTS AS “JOKES THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY OUR AUDIENCE,” WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I WOULD SAY NOW THAT IT WAS WORSE THAN THAT, IT WAS COWARDLY. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.

There’s quite a bit more.

Most recently, Williams and KRXQ has said that the station will invite a transgender person and a transgender child on the show as a guest.

In the meantime, Williams wrote, the show has been suspended until this coming Thursday when the hosts have said they will make a statement and go from there.

A transgender man has written a thoughtful response on the Daily Kos in which he first talks about his own experience as a transgender child, then reminds the KRXQ hosts that, despite the harm they did with their original broadcast, the microphone and the public attention is now theirs, and thus—if they really are sincere with their statement—they have a tremendous opportunity to do a great deal of good.

Let us indeed hope that Williams and States find the courage to seize the opportunity.

87 Comments

  • OH they got the message alright. GUUURL, after I went over there in my dress and my bright red pumps and beat those DJ’s over the head with my Dolce and Gabbana purse they got the message alright. We won’t be hearing a peep out of them.

  • This is nothing about right or wrong. It’s about political and economic power used to beat down sponsors over any perceived offense that leftists and homos decide to protest. This goes as far back as or further than the queers forcing Anita Bryant to be canned by the orange juice industry, and there will be no end until the whole country has lost its moral bearings.

    It’s impossible for the Left to be tolerant of others who hold views that make them feel uncomfortable or not as good. The Left should feel uncomfortable.

    You speak of “actions and consequences.” When you’re on your death bed, you will have one last chance to think about that, and I would rather be on the side of saying what’s right and unpopular rather than going along with the growing movement of Godless immorality.

  • Woody truly is careening wildly from “moron” to “madness” before our eyes. His homophobia seems to be the real driving force for this ultimate fit of hysteria. He’s such a wack-job, it would have been hard to predict which pathology would be the trigger.

    Funniest line: “the queers forcing Anita Bryant to be canned by the orange juice industry.” Before she was canned, she was – of course – concentrated and frozen.

  • “It’s impossible for the Left to be tolerant of others who hold views that make them feel uncomfortable or not as good. The Left should feel uncomfortable.”

    Actually Woody, when I’m confronted with guys like you, the worst thing about it is that it tends to give me a too-easy, essentially unearned feeling of superiority and I become way too confortable with myself. It’s not a good thing – kind of like visitiing an insane asylum and using the fact that you’re not batshit crazy as an excuse not to raise one’s own level of self-awareness. Wiping one’s ass with you in internet threads isn’t a very uplifting or empowering experience – it’s just cheap amusement.

    Maybe, having said this, it’s time to stop.

  • “WE PRESENTED OUR OPINIONS ON A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT IN A HATEFUL, CHILDISH AND CRUDE FASHION”

    They should have just said “in a hateful fashion”. That is the only thing it is. By adding ‘childish’ and ‘crude’, it seems to ameliorate the ‘hate’ part. I have noticed that people who want to downplay their gaffe’s will do this to soften what they said or did.

  • No Woody, your Anita Bryant, sucked oranges, when she took a highly publicized stand against a Dade County, Florida, ban on discrimination against homosexuals in 1980.

    SanFer

  • All of you are soooooo typical liberal…and YOU talk about whiny! Yeah, if you can’t win with logic and honesty and morality, you do just like the gays do with their other attacks — just become obscene and call moral people bad names, try to hurt them, and try to get them banned or fired.

    You guys prove my first point…“This is nothing about right or wrong. It’s about political and economic power used to beat down sponsors over any perceived offense that leftists and homos decide to protest.”

    Celeste, we can see who is intolerant.

    Enjoy hell, y’all.

  • Speaking of Politically Incorrect Speech:

    Large Scale Studies in Sweden and Finland indicate that Homosexuality is NOT genetically determined. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time.

    Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior.

    What does this say about transgender persons?

  • Frisch, M. & Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 533-547.

    Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.

  • “Before she was canned, she was – of course – concentrated and frozen.”

    This is the funniest comment I have read all day. Reg, you crack me up.

  • “What does this say about transgender persons?”

    Department of simple answers to stupid questions: Uh…nothing. They weren’t the focus of the study.

    Further…

    Langstrom, et. al summarize their findings: “Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.”

    Worse for Pokey’s credibility, the Danish study by Frisch et. al. had NOTHING to do with twins or any other form of research involving genetic components of homosexuality. Yes, that’s right – NOTHING!

    Conservatism’s unique relationship to science marches on…

  • Here are two of the findings of recent studies (including the Frisch) on “environmental determinants” of homosexuality:

    “The study of 2 million people in Denmark found being born in the capital
    area as opposed to rural areas was associated with higher rates of
    homosexuality for both males and females. The U.S. study also found that
    women who have graduated from college always report the highest level
    of same-gender sexuality.”

    I say evacuate the big cities and don’t send women to college and this homosexual business will end…

    Isn’t social “science” wunnerful ?

  • Reg, thanks for re-enforcing my statement that “Homosexuality is NOT genetically determined.” I mentioned Fritch, because it re-enforced Langstrom’s study but to me the science is not as determinate.

    “What does this say about transgender persons?” – Probably nothing, but until the above studies, I was under the impression that Homosexuality was mostly genetically based; now it appears that it is mostly environmental.

    For me the study sheds doubt on the genetic roots of the Transgender condition and that physiological treatment may be more appropriate than the scalpel.

    In any case I have deep sympathy for the individuals who feel they were born physically the wrong gender.

  • Your statement is bullshit. The study you cite includes a finding of a genetic determinant. The other study which you claim was also about twins and genetic determinants was no such thing. You’re talking out of your ass. The “science” such as it is suggests there are multiple determinants. There is clearly no definitive answer to this. But you will say anything to push your prejudices. You’re a know-nothing engaged in mindless blather…

  • Incidentally, some of the environmental factors that are often discussed as influencing a disposition toward homosexuality are pre-natal hormone exposures…

    I don’t really know anything about this and I don’t care. The obsessions seems a bit unseemly when it’s all about rationalizing one’s prejudice and preference for legal discrimination against gays.

  • This is the last thing I should be doing as I’m packing to leave for Bennington, VT, but….oh well.

    This 2005 article for the Boston Globe magazine (below) presents a very thorough and even-handed survey of the studies and the literature regarding the causes of homosexuality.

    The post 2005 work, like the Langstrom study, would tend to support precisely the conclusion of the article—which is that it isn’t all one thing, but that genetics—or something purely physical, like the exposure to certain amounts of certain hormones in the womb—are the dominant factors and that post-birth environmental factors may or may not be “supportive” to one leaning or another, but are absolutely secondary.

    The one thing that none of this research suggests is that homosexuality is something that therapy or any related form of psychological behavior modification can change.

    Sorry.

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

  • Gay, adj. – Happy … in a queer sort of way, Woody. Don’t get your panties in a knot.

  • Celeste, I hope this is your last trip to Bennington for your degree. Good luck on it. Next time, go to a California college, which is closer and has stupid courses that you could pass with your eyes closed.

    – – –

    reg: preference for legal discrimination against gays.

    Not at all. Gays are entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. The problem is that they want to make up new “rights” that don’t exist and shouldn’t exist.

    For instance, I don’t think it’s common sense to allow, or a right of, gays to be scout masters, to take young boys on camping trips, and to serve as some masculine role model.

    reg would want that “right,” and he is among the same group that attacks and punishes the Boy Scouts, a fine organization which brings out the best in boys to develop them into good citizens.

    In their vindictivenss, homosexual activists have had the scouts kicked out of public buildings just for the organization staying true to its core values and for protecting the kids from higher than normal risks of molestation.

    I don’t think that the people who push their agenda through such force and against the will and values of the organization and parents should be allowed to be leaders in that same organization.

    Those activists, of which most of you have unwittingly become a part, are immoral and corrupt. You put them ahead of healthy kids.

    – – –

    reg, do you feel that it’s genetics or environmental factors that made you gay? Have you ever tried to be a scout leader? Do you think that NAMBLA should have rights to marry their chosen partners?

  • Thanks for the kind words, Woody. And, yep, this residency is graduation. I’m excited. (What is more, my son is coming for the ceremony itself, and I have a new dress. In other words, the important things are take care of.)

    Actually, I specifically chose Bennington’s program because it has an East Coast aesthetic that is a bit different than my own and I figured the challenge would be good for me–and it has been. The point was to do what I ask my students to do: stretch beyond my comfort zone, to use the cliche.

    Plus Bennington has a kick ass (technical term) nonfiction faculty, arguably the best in the country. My four faculty advisers (one per semester) have been stupendous people, each of whom are writers I respect enormously, and excellent human beings whom I hope to keep as friends when this is over.

  • Congratulations, Celeste! I know how excited you must be to complete this goal. I wish we could be there to cheer for you as you accept your diploma.

    I don’t know if this is the commencement event that you will have or if yours is later, but they seem to know how to celebrate and honor graduates. — Bennington College holds commencement event

    You and your son have fun. We’ll be rooting for you in our thoughts and from our computers.

  • “Gays don’t recruit children”

    Actually studies indicate that adopted children of Gay parents are an order of magnitude (4-10 times) more likely to become gay.

    “A Review and Analysis of Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals.”

  • Troll Boy goes into Eddie Haskell mode…after telling Celeste to “enjoy hell.”

    Pretty amusing.

  • Actually studies indicate that adopted children of Gay parents are an order of magnitude (4-10 times) more likely to become gay.

    A study by Dr. Trayce Hansen, a psychologist with a homophobic agenda. She made a determination that the studies she reviewed were done by “pro-homosexual” researchers. How did she know that they were pro-homosexual?

    One wonders Pokey, whether you think we would ever take you seriously. Develop a little intellectual rigor as opposed to flaunting your confirmation bias.

    Best wishes, Celeste and have a wonderful trip. I don’t need to tell you, but Vermont is a treasure in the summer.

  • Randy and Allan,

    So you think the opinions below by Dr. Hansen are out of the mainstream and she got here head handed to her?

    You must not have raised any children, or how else could you be so misinformed?

    First, mother-love and father-love–though equally important–are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. What a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

    Secondly, children progress through predictable developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. Fathers are generally needed later when they play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, a boy is more likely to become delinquent and incarcerated and a girl is more likely to become promiscuous and pregnant.

    Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching–verbally and nonverbally–the worth of the opposing tendencies.

    Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by implying all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes–influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message–will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some–if not many–impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to a greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

    Human sexuality is pliant. Consider ancient Greece or Rome–among other early civilizations–where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

  • No, reg, once again and as always, you’re wrong. My comment about “enjoy hell, y’all” in comment #12 was specificially not aimed at Celeste, as I addressed her in the previous sentence. My plural statement was addressed to you and all the other deviants who were attacking me rather than discussing the subject.

    My happiness for Celeste is absolutely genuine, something that you couldn’t bring yourself to share in all of your hatred.

  • Pokey, your last sentence in the quote is right on target. It reminds me of a statement that I heard from a minister about examples of parents with alcohol, etc. It was something like, “What a parent accepts in moderation, a child will excuse in excess.” So, it goes, what society allows in moderation, extremists will excuse – and practice – in excess.

    Now, not being enough to claim that homosexuality demands civil rights as for blacks, gays want to tie their wagons to Jewish Holocaust victims. How disgusting.

    There’s a moral and spiritual battle in the world, and good people have to stand up against perversions and immorality being forced upon society.

  • Junk science, Pokey. She’s a homophobe with a PhD, which in her case stands for piled high and deep.

    All you and Woody do is show that you don’t know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

  • “gays want to tie their wagons to Jewish Holocaust victims. How disgusting.”

    They were victims of the Holocaust, moron – precisely because of the kind of bigotry that you share carried to an extreme. Tens of thousands of homosexuals were imprisoned in Nazi Germany and many of those were sent to concentration camps. You really are a soulless little bastard.

    The US Holocaust Memorial Museum clearly treats the Nazi genocide as having systematically targeted not only Jews but Roma (gypsies), dissident groups, Poles (nearly two milliion Polish civilians were murdered by the Nazis), gays, the disabled, Jehovahs Witnesses, among others.

    Maybe you need to take your whining and bullsht to the folks who run the Holocaust museum…

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005149

    Enjoy hell…

  • Incidentally, while there’s controversy over using the term Holocaust to include systematic exterminations of non-Jews, since at least an equal number of non-Jews were targeted and died under Nazi extermination policies anyone who wants to “exclusivize” their victimhood is engaged in a pretty tawdry and shameful exercise. I dare say that a lot of this bullshit is related to the politics of extreme Zionism.

  • “My comment about “enjoy hell, y’all” in comment #12 was specificially not aimed at Celeste”

    Hmm, I’m confused. What’s the litmus for going to hell, and how does that exclude our host Celeste? Being a leftist? Whoops. Being a supporter of gay marriage? Whoops. If you’re condemning Randy and reg to hell, then you must also be condemning Celeste to hell. So yes, you are indeed contradicting yourself, Eddie Haskell.

  • Congrats on the achievement, Celeste! As a transplanted Jerseyite, glad to see you soaked up some of that East Coast ‘tude — even Bennington-style!

  • Ward, just because I may tell reg and his faggot mafia to go to hell, even though I don’t do that directly, doesn’t mean that I tell everyone, including Celeste, to go there. Eddie Haskell, indeed.

    BTW, Celeste, in comment #30, you mentioned that you purchased a new dress for the graduation. Let me say how lovely you look in it.

  • You’re being evasive, Woody–er, Eddie. Do you believe Celeste’s liberal and “immoral” views on homosexuality condemn her to hell, or not? If not, then which of her beliefs separates her from Randy’s and reg’s, which, according to you, condemn them to hell?

    Otherwise, we must conclude that your remark was an emotionally-inspired cursing of reg and Randy as human beings, in which case you are sinning and should ask forgiveness from God, while apologizing to Randy, reg, and the rest of us.

  • Celeste is kind-hearted and compassionate in her views to make life better in the way that she believes best. Her motives are noble even if her solutions are flawed. reg and his radical ilk, on the other, hand, who curse and attack everyone with moral values, have a left-wing agenda whose end is the destruction of the blessings that have been bestowed upon our nation.

    Also, Ward, if you really are Ward Cleaver, I don’t say that girls who have abortions are going to hell, but I wouldn’t hesitate to tell an abortion provider that he is. There’s a difference between someone being misled to do wrong vs. the evil person taking her down that path.

    (Are you really Lumpy pretending to be Ward?)

  • “I don’t say that girls who have abortions are going to hell, but I wouldn’t hesitate to tell an abortion provider that he is”

    My, you really have this God-playing role down pretty well! So you have the knowledge that a woman who knowingly and willingly aborts a fetus is going to hell, while a doctor who performs abortions is not? That’s some impressive skill you have there.

    Also, Celeste, reg, and Randy all have more or less the same liberal motives and proposed solutions, so your condemnation to hell of Randy and reg (but not Celeste) is clearly contradictory. You are still being evasive, which is to be expected from Eddie Haskell types.

    I might add that Randy is a Christian believer, while Celeste might not be. If Randy has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior but Celeste has not, then I’m afraid Celeste–and not Randy–is condemned to hell. So you’d better start praying for Celeste.

  • This is one of the best “Woody exposes himself as a fraud, a scumbag AND a moron” threads to date.

  • Hey you little fuck – on one level I could care less about this, but since you are making an ass of yourself and sucking up shamelessly to our hoste while reviling just about everything she actually has represented as her beliefs her, name some issue on the liberal or left agenda that I – and “my faggot mafia” would like to impose on that Celeste has repudiated. You really are a dishonest little troll…

    The only difference here is that I call you what you are – a dishonest, moronic troll, while Celeste tolerates you and is more polite, for whatever reason. If your point is that I hold you openly in comtempt and – pointlessly, no doubt – rub your face in your false “facts”, incompetent “analysis”, shameless bigotry and indeceny and make you whine, I’m guilty as hell. But name some issue – or “destructive path” as you put it – that I advocate that Celeste hasn’t also approved. And don’t obfuscate and fail to answer that directly – although that’s the tack you’ll take, because you’re a dishonest coward and a sorry little kiss-ass.

  • Ooops – that’s “since you are making an ass of yourself and sucking up shamelessly to our host while reviling just about everything she actually has represented as her beliefs here, name some issue on the liberal or left agenda that I – and “my faggot mafia” – would like to impose to “destroy America” or whatever you’re hallucinating that Celeste has repudiated.

  • Ward, based upon your response, you didn’t read my comment correctly, or, since you must be something like 85 years old now, your ability to process information must have degenerated.

    reg, I don’t have to justify anything to you guys and people like you with seared conscientiousnesses wouldn’t have a clue about right or wrong, much less be qualified to judge others.

    Your claim to catch me on false facts and faulty analysis could only be contrived by a psycho trying to fool others and himself. Get help.

  • Nice try. Along with the God-complex and consistent self-contradiction, you’ve got the evasiveness down pat, Eddie–er, Woody. Now, go to hell.

  • “don’t obfuscate and fail to answer that directly – although that’s the tack you’ll take, because you’re a dishonest coward and a sorry little kiss-ass.”

    Nailed the little weasel again !

    Of course Beth’s right…because the last word is always this:

    Boooorrrrrinnng !!!!!

  • reggie, you and Ward started the fight with me, so if Beth has any problem with the discussion, then look at yourselves.

    Ward, you finally cracked with your last statement. Ward Cleaver was calm and understanding. You eventually gave in to the typical, uncontrollable left-wing personal attack.

  • I just want to note in the light of Woody’s chickenshit backpedaling, that in his very first post on this thread he wrote, directed explicitly to our host: “You speak of ‘actions and consequences.’ When you’re on your death bed, you will have one last chance to think about that…”

    Sounds kind of like that “Enjoy Hell” bizness…but hey. I’ll let Eddie Haskell explain the depths of his sincerity.

  • Woody: “Enjoy hell, y’all.”
    Ward: “Now, go to hell.”

    It’s unfortunate it required my spelling out to you, as if to a 2nd-grader, the ironic intent of my last line. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Now, back on topic, your evasiveness has been duly noted, so it’s time for you to give up that tack. I’ll re-state my question near-verbatim, as I would for a 2nd-grader who squirms and tries to change the subject:

    Do you believe Celeste’s liberal and “immoral” views on homosexuality condemn her to hell, or not? If not, then which of her beliefs separates her from Randy’s and reg’s, which, according to you, condemn them to hell?

    Remember, continued evasion is not an option. Unless, of course, you want us to conclude what we already have learned about you (yet again).

  • Motives? Interesting. You mean that Celeste’s motives for supporting gay marriage are not hell-condemning but reg’s and Randy’s are? How does that work? As I understand, all three believe that gay marriage should be legal for the same reasons and motives. What evidence do you have suggesting otherwise?

    I am suspecting that your argument is based solely on your feelings about reg and Randy, and not about gay marriage. And so it’s just your emotional lashing out.

    The other alternative, of course, is that your “enjoy hell, y’all” must include Celeste, but you’re having a difficult time admitting it. Again, an emotional response, clouding the issue with continued evasion.

    Don’t Republicans ever think rationally instead of just with anger and emotion?

  • Another point is that it takes a special arrogance to presume that the motives of those with whom you disagree are corrupt while yours are pure.

    Such sentiments these days seem to be an auto dá fé for the right these days. It speaks of an overweening pride on your part, Woodrow. Pride is a cardinal sin.

  • Since Woody can’t even get facts straight, the notion that he can discern motives is quite a load. My “motives” regarding issues such as gay marriage are essentially the same as Celeste’s or anyone else with a concern for decency and equality. My motives regarding sparring with Woody are, in fairness, rooted in a contempt and disgust based on ridiculously long experience of his dishonesty and stupidity. Woody’s feelings are hurt, and since with such simpletons, “it’s all about them”, he confuses the fact that I can’t stand him with some projections about how I feel about God and America. It’s pretty childish, but I guess he’s doing the best he can. He’ll never rise above what he puts on display here…

  • Ward, no emotions…just a warning…and, purely rational, even if not stated with the same compassion that a minister might use. If you ever went to church, you might hear a preacher admonishing or guiding a congregation over issues of a spiritual nature. When he warns of hell, it’s not telling people to go there. He’s telling them how to avoid going there.

    Regarding motives, if someone sins repeatedly and defends that sin, then he is likely not sorry or doesn’t consider what he does do be a sin – despite the truth to the contrary. In the case of reg, he not only defends homosexual dominance over morality, he pushes it.

    Celeste is considerably more pure of heart and intentions. She just needs to understand the consequences and, thankfully, can remedy those wrongs as late as her death bed, as I said earlier, with repentence and acceptence of Christ’s price that he paid for her sins. Even reg can repent, but that sadly doesn’t seem likely without a major intervention in his life.

    You know, you really can never pin me down. You’re wasting your time, time that you could use more productively studying the Bible and God’s will for your life.

    – – –

    Randy, it’s usually very easy to determine motives, and it doesn’t take a God complex to understand them, and there is no pride that results from sniffing them out. Law enforcement and courts do it all the time, and even you do it in your life. Don’t you ever ask why someone did something and wants something? Sure, you do. You even assume to know my heart.

    – – –

    What Is the Sin Unto Death?

    …there is a sin which results in physical death–the sin unto death (v. 16d): This is the death of a believer characterized by persistent, willful sinning in which “the flesh is destroyed [physical death–1 Cor. 5:1-5] so that the spirit might be saved.”

    Consider this fair warning.

  • reg: the notion that he can discern motives is quite a load. My “motives” regarding issues such as gay marriage are essentially the same as Celeste’s….

    So, reg, you can discern that the motives of Celeste are the same as yours, but you say at the same time that I can’t discern motives. Hmmmm. What makes you special?

    BTW, I have no hurt feelings. I’m just one of the few persistent people who won’t let you get away with the nonsense that you spew, and it drives you crazier. Sorry, but I have to stand for what’s right.

  • You even assume to know my heart.

    Not at all. With the amount of sheer hate and bile you spew, I frankly wonder if you have one.

    Celeste is considerably more pure of heart and intentions. She just needs to understand the consequences and, thankfully, can remedy those wrongs as late as her death bed, as I said earlier, with repentence and acceptence of Christ’s price that he paid for her sins.

    You need to read Matthew, Book 7. Your patronizing tone is prideful and hubristic. You’re a faux Christian.

  • “In the case of reg, he not only defends homosexual dominance over morality, he pushes it.”

    So you are claiming that reg’s views on gay marriage differ from those of Celeste’s? That reg defends gay rights more than does Celeste? This is a very, very entertaining claim. And one that we all know is false. Yes, you were indeed pinned down, and you lost.

    But I am very pleased that you at least finally stopped your evasiveness (for the most part) and chose an argument path: in this case, you put all your eggs in the basket of your bizarre claim that Celeste supports gay rights less than does reg, and therefore will avoid the hell to which reg is condemned. Of course, since you probably realized while writing your comment how baseless and ridiculous this claim was, you fuzzied up your “argument” by claiming that Celeste will avoid her hell-condemning pro-gay-rights immoral beliefs by repenting and accepting Christ’s sacrifice, during or before her death-bed moments, but reg probably will not.

    So, in other words, you realize that she and reg share the same beliefs and support of gay rights, but since you let your fuzzy emotions take over, you inconsistently claim reg is going to hell and Celeste is not. You should be a man and stand up for your beliefs–don’t soften them and backpedal.

    Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program.

  • She just needs to understand the consequences and, thankfully, can remedy those wrongs as late as her death bed, as I said earlier, with repentence and acceptence of Christ’s price that he paid for her sins.

    You also ought to read Matthew 25 Verses 31-46 again, Woody. I certainly think Celeste has exemplified that aspect of God’s law.

  • I assume that you intend the same foul langauge used against me for everyone else who agrees with me regarding policies for homosexuals in the military and marriage — including Pres. Obama.

    Gays decry Obama’s stand on gay marriage case

    – – –

    Ward, nice try, but you make some false assumptions and conclusions in trying to pin me. Don’t forget, I issued the information as a warning rather than as an insult. Also, the degree of the belief had nothing to do with it.

    Go back to your job in Mayfield, whatever that job is.

  • “Ward, nice try, but you make some false assumptions and conclusions in trying to pin me.”

    Evasion via vague, unspecified assertions. Sorry, you’ve definitely been pinned. Please feel free at any moment to respond to my questions–but for real, this time. Do Celeste’s and reg’s views on gay marriage differ or not? And what does this imply regarding your hell assertions?

    I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. But you certainly have shown you’re adept at obfuscating it.

    And please, have the decency to stop wasting everyone’s time with weaseling evasions and doubling-back. At least your “jokes” are attempts at being sincere and straightforward.

  • Ward, do you know if Celeste’s and reg’s views are the same on gay marriage? How could you, and how could you be sure?

    You’re wasting your time on a point that has enough distinctions to invalidate your attempt.

  • Woody, you’ve officially come full circle. You can pretend that it’s a huge “mystery” what Celeste’s and reg’s views are on gay marriage, but the truth is spelled out quite clearly in Celeste’s blog posting (both here and in the past): Celeste supports gay marriage; reg supports gay marriage. Very simple. You got caught in a contradiction, so you tried several times to distract from the point, doing double-backflips and evasions. The truth is so much easier, though, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly. Try it next time: it will save you lots of tedious writing and painful spine-contorting.

  • I see, Ward, everyone tells me that I don’t know what people believe, but you and they get a pass, especially when you pretend to know what I think.

    People who have accepted Christ still sin, but they don’t go to hell. People who sin without Christ (everyone else) do go to hell. People who say that they are Christians but their fruits and intentional sinning say otherwise, need to evaluate their futures. That’s fair warning, which is what I gave.

    I didn’t make a contradiction. You tried to sew pieces together to make it appear so, kind of like a teenager who can think logically to an illogical conclusion.

    The answer as to who goes to hell or doesn’t was decreed long before I was born. If you have a dispute with God, take it to him.

  • As I said, full circle. Your evasions are just spinning your wheels and wasting time. I’ll re-state the question verbatim, since it appears that you need a reminder of what you said and what is at issue:

    ““My comment about “enjoy hell, y’all” in comment #12 was specificially not aimed at Celeste”

    Hmm, I’m confused. What’s the litmus for going to hell, and how does that exclude our host Celeste? Being a leftist? Whoops. Being a supporter of gay marriage? Whoops. If you’re condemning Randy and reg to hell, then you must also be condemning Celeste to hell. So yes, you are indeed contradicting yourself, Eddie Haskell.”

    You can pretend it’s otherwise, and continue dodging and moving the goalposts, or you can actually answer the question. Why are Republicans afraid to answer questions directly? It’s okay for you to admit being wrong–that’s the only way you can learn and improve yourself.

  • So an emotional insult is your response? That’s disappointing. And also a perfect display of the type of behavior you consistently accuse others of resorting to. Chalking up another contradiction….

    In the meantime, still waiting for a serious response from you. I’m not sure why you’re so afraid to be forthright.

Leave a Comment