Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

‘Gay is not okay’ church forced to change sign

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dr Robin Guthrie 13 Feb 2012, 4:57pm

    “He asked why people thought homosexuality could be hard-wired at birth, but alcoholism could not be endorsed in the same way”

    I think he will find that alcoholism IS genetically predisposed.

    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26119

    Just another religious bigot spouting his own opinions as fact.

    1. Just another bigot using religion as an excuse for his bigotry.

      There are many many religious liberals who are inclusive, welcoming and LGBT-affirming (e.g. Quakers, Unitarians, Pagans, the Inclusive Church movement amongst Anglicans, the Metropolitan Community Church, Buddhists, liberal Jews, and many other people).

    2. His point is that alcoholism is not condoned or encouraged, even though it is genetically determined, so why should homosexuality be? Of course, it is quite simplistic and offensive to acquaint the destructive and anti-social behaviour of alcohol abuse with something that brings pleasure to its participants and does no harm to the rest of society.

      1. I would think the obvious and disturbing lack of education in some sections of society is more damaging then two men falling in love….. wouldn’t you agree?

  2. Jason Brown 13 Feb 2012, 5:27pm

    ‘But for those that are just spewing anger and hate and all that kind of stuff, I just think that’s awful.’
    Oh the irony.!

  3. Gay is OK, Thank God good religious people are standing up to the Christian bullies who are making trouble by saying and doing things to harass and bully gays everywhere. These Christians need to be taught a lesson they clearly never got in their church, Love one Another. Sad how some have lost their way but I am glad that there are Good Christians who are standing up for treating LGBT people fairly. Stop the hate and the haters from turning your children into criminals before it is too late.

  4. Staircase2 13 Feb 2012, 5:30pm

    “Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable”

    …bloody idiot – thats the whole point!

    1. Right on Staircase :)

  5. Staircase2 13 Feb 2012, 5:31pm

    And yes @Dr Guthrie – the man’s clearly not too bright…

  6. Jessica Naomi 13 Feb 2012, 5:31pm

    This is what that heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRAT spewed http://www.ustream.tv/channel/godsfort
    & you can tell him what you think here

  7. Keith Farrell 13 Feb 2012, 5:36pm

    St. Paul says again and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law, and in fact goes so far as to claim that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing. The early Christians were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any of the strictures of the old law except for which they list – none of which is related to homosexuality.
    I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:2627which might be relevant. Again, I’ll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by

    1. Keith Farrell 13 Feb 2012, 5:44pm

      the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

      1. Keith Farrell 13 Feb 2012, 5:45pm

        The remaining passage – Romans 1:26-7 – does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you can easily be misled by the phrase “against nature.” This phrase was also interpreted differently by the early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. observing of their women that “they changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire….Only those possessing something can change it. Again he points the same thing out about men but in a different way? saying they ‘left the natural use of women.’ Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural.” What Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul

        1. Keith Farrell 13 Feb 2012, 5:46pm

          was not writing about gay people but about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled. This is reflected in the canons imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed toward married persons. Little is said of single people.

      2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 13 Feb 2012, 6:07pm

        Blessed poppet.

        1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 13 Feb 2012, 7:42pm

          And some religi-whore has neutralized my thumbs ups for you Keith! To religi-bots your kind words of historical fact simply ‘does not compute’! They show no interest in understanding the words they are reading (strange, since they always go on about revealed truths of god)! When christians (x-lings!) quote Leviticus they are ramming the very crown of thorns into his holy brow!

          1. Keith Farrell 13 Feb 2012, 9:00pm

            thanks, sorry I had to write so much in segments, but this site does not allow a long responce

      3. SW Florida 17 Feb 2012, 4:27pm

        I wonder what your source is as I cannot find any evidence for the Greek word malakos being translated as masturbators in either New Testament (Koine) or classical Greek, but only in modern Greek. See the following URL:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakia#cite_note-Homer580-0

  8. “Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable”

    Its not what we do with our body parts that makes us gay. It is who we are emotionally attracted to that makes us gay. Only a pervert would continually think of what others do in bed.

    1. Sorry Travis, I gave you a thumbs down by mistake.

      I agree with you, of course.

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 13 Feb 2012, 7:52pm

      Yeah, but the reason this line if so funny is because, by definition, it’s what makes them straight! It’s what we do with our body parts that labels us gay or straight (and more! But then the sheep of christ are perverts – so good point! Actually all the judeo-christian religions have an unnatural interest in our private parts – it’s disgusting! And it seems that when god chooses one of his people to speak on his behalf, he always chooses the idiot at the back of the church!

  9. Paddyswurds 13 Feb 2012, 6:18pm

    I am so fed up reading these sort of stories. Why do we give these nut jobs the comfort of publicity which is the real reason for their outrageous claims. This nuts church has thousands of dollars in debt and this is a tried and tested way for xtians to bring in the $s from their equally crazy supporters. A couple of hundred years ago they used Black people as their means of bringing in the dosh, now we are the devil in the corner used to justify their paranoia. Starve them of publicity and they will soon disappear when the donations stop.

  10. Not much of Christ in evidence at the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ, it would seem!!!!

  11. Travis is so right. It’s not how you physically have sex that defines you as gay. it’s “how you are” it’s “how you feel towards people you love” it’s “your complete self” I can only define it as an integral part of your make up- which can be manifested in the way you have sex- but doesn’t HAVE to be to define yourself. In short- you can never ever have sex with anybody- but you can still be gay- all your life until the day you die.

    1. Christine McQueen 13 Feb 2012, 7:24pm

      the way I’ve always heard it put – a gay man (or lesbian woman) is still a gay man (or lesbian woman) if he (or she) dies a virgin at the age of 95!

  12. Keith Sitges 13 Feb 2012, 7:08pm

    religious freak

  13. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 13 Feb 2012, 8:12pm

    Now this article is funny! And that guy’s in charge of other people! Yikes! There should be a law against that sort of thing. If you can’t be drunk in charge of a horse or a bicycle or a kid, then you can’t be an idiot in charge of a congregation!

    Does this idiot ever just read the bibble, instead of just get the rough outline of the stories therein from other religi-bots! Reason for asking is I’m pretty sure yahweh god doesn’t say ‘gay is not okay’! I could be mistaken, it’s been a while since god exposed himself to me!

    Yewtree has hit the proverbial nail into the hand! Jesus and his sheep should only focus on jesus’ bits in the new testament (even though it lacks the action of the prequel!!), the jewish old testament isn’t their religion (mosaic/abrahamic law). Learn the bibble you religi-bots!

    Also, what dialogue could possibly be opened up with the forcefully removed sign! Have you ever tried speaking to a religi-bot about their religion?!

  14. “Civilization cannot be advanced by homosexual couples.”
    Alan Turing would raise you one “basically all modern computers.”

    I strongly dislike people like this. For hating on my sexuality. For degrading my religion. For beating up on Jesus. :C Meanies!

  15. GingerlyColors 13 Feb 2012, 9:08pm

    I would suggest that the Rev. Mike Demastus changes his sign to ‘ Gay is Okay’. Alternatively how about G.A.Y. – God Adores You. It is about time that the various Christian demoninations in the USA start dealing with the real problems over there. Guns, drugs, gang culture, poverty, racial inequality, crime, the high cost of Medicare, and so on.

    1. Yes, why the christians carry on about something that does not affect or hurt them is beyond me. How about teaching the real things like God loves everyone, and don’t judge other people or god will judge you. Its funny how they can twist the bible to turn it against people they hate and think should be excluded. But wait, if you are a pedophile, and confess and do 10 hail marys, you are all forgiven. Does that mean all we need to do is go to confession every week and everything will be ok?

  16. I would have told these protesters to go jump, and put my sign back up.

    I hope he gets a new sign.

    1. David Myers 15 Feb 2012, 3:20am

      Who cares what you would do. Go away troll!

  17. douglas in canada 13 Feb 2012, 10:02pm

    “Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable.”
    -
    How ODD!! That’s EXACTLY what this fool is doing to show that heterosexuality is superior to anything else.
    -
    I’m also tired of these christo-idiots who only read and promote the part of their unholy book that serves their own agendas.
    -
    They are so quick to use old testament (pre-christian) texts to slam people, yet they neglect entirely the words that supposedly come from jesus himself:
    “sell all they have and give it to the poor”.
    -
    What kind of fertilizer is responsible for so much hyprocisy in the church?

  18. de Villiers 13 Feb 2012, 10:26pm

    > It had been put up to publicise a sermon Reverend Mike Demastus was giving on Sunday at which he said people could not be “God-fearing” and be gay.

    That’s amusing given that most people here also think that people cannot believe in god and be gay.

  19. “Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable.”

    I think that’s the whole point in so many ways.
    One way to look at it is that bigots like him define homosexuality only sexually, as a sexual act and never as a loving relationship between two (same-sex) partners. Most of the time their way of thinking is quite simple: being gay = having anal sex. They don’t (want to) understand that being gay does mean a lot more than just having sex with a same-sex partner. Their way of thinking is insulting and discriminatory but they think they got it all right.

  20. This douchebag of a pastor was NOT forced to change the sign. The US, alas, has no strictures against hate speech. He decided to change the sign when he got a lot of pushback, but no one FORCED him to change the sign. Your headline is misleading.

  21. JESUS was GAY – followed around by 12 Hairsute men in sandles? – just admit it you bigoted old fart

  22. This article misuses the word “reverend.” It is not a noun. There is no such thing as “a reverend.” It is an adjective like “big,” “small,” “fat,” etc. The correct use of the term is “The Reverend Mr. John Smith.”

  23. Leviticus 18:20 is true and was so BUT with Christ first coming having happened WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW ANYMORE BUT UNDER GRACE –He should know that as a Christian NOT unless He is denying the Power of the Cross and Him

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all