In a letter to the editor recently, Mr. Kelly was very terse with those not bent toward his bias for the gay community. In the article entitled "More of the same" He made himself out to be the knight in shinning armor for human rights i.e. the gay community - "attacking the attackers" who he claims are "Vengeful, draconian and intolerant."

It may surprise Mr. Kelly to know that the Jesus he quotes "Christ's teaching on love and understanding" is less tolerant when it comes to unconfessed sin than anyone; which makes Jesus the No. 1 attacker of the gay agenda. Can you solicit Christ for your No. 1 point "love and understanding" and then take for granted what He says about sexual sin? If Jesus is right on one point, He must be right on the other as well. Jesus is not the knight in shining armor for the gay agenda; he is its judge.

Mr. Kelly says fools like me are, "illogical, unconstitutional, anger-filled and easy prey. By using history, science, the Bill of Rights and logic I will continue to cut up their letters into human rights fire starter." He will also have to "cut up" the Bible as well. Those who enlist Jesus in their campaign to romanticize homosexuality as "loving" or predestined are not honest interpreters. Is it possible to reinvent God's intent with the Biblical clarity on homosexual sin in the Old and New Testaments? Read Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 19:5 and Romans 1:18 and following.

The same Jesus who said, "love your neighbor" also said, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Revelation 22:15. Jesus is calling unrepentant sinners "dogs." Outside means they are not in heaven. Maybe it is time for the LGBT to come out of the closet, quit misusing the Bible and Jesus to foster support for their cause and just admit they don't really care what it says.

There are bold LGBT who are willing to admit that. They don't care what the Bible says, nor do they care if there is a gay gene. If the Bible does not support the LGBT and the greater scientific community, (concluding the gay gene research is non-conclusive.) (Cannot be proven) does not support the LGBT - they are left standing alone and standing on the human rights issue only. Samantha Allen (a gay advocate) wrote in The Daily Beast, "It is hard to get excited about these studies, because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones - a new one comes out every year."

The studies that do enjoy widespread media circulation focus on a very narrow segment of the LGBT community: gay men. Information on the potential genetics of lesbianism is much harder to come by and bisexual people, who constitute more than 50 percent of the LGBT community in the U.S., are rarely mentioned in the conversation about the genetics of sexual orientation. Even if a conclusive link is found between genetic markers and male homosexuality, that still leaves most of the gay community unaccounted for. In 2012 "Sex and the City" star Cynthia Nixon caused a stir when she told The New York Times that her lesbianism was a choice." Why can't it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we're ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don't think they should define the terms of the debate."

This writer believes the debate which starts on ground zero, no science and Biblical maneuvering, will in the long run bring clarity to the discussion. Choice alone basically says, "Accept me for who I am, not how I got there." That will be a difficult fight to win as it relates to redefining Biblical marriage and proving intolerance and bigotry. In the new realm of debate, when God does draw the gay one He loves to himself to repent, they will have only one voice to decipher. And the Body of Christ (Christians) doesn't have to agree with choice, but we do have to be more Biblical in loving and praying for our LGBT neighbors.

Bob Holliday is a resident of Blanchard.