Should we pretend that kingly-prowling-lion Donald Trump did not substantially win the Second Presidential Debate broadcast on 09 October 2016, and that yours truly did not successfully use the Mute Button on his TV's remote control device to silence sounds of deplorable interruptive feminists, including spiteful-fighter Sillyhilly, during such?
Should we pretend - at least for a while - that words (even in the Bible) do not mean what most old-time dictionaries define they mean and consequentially what most people think they mean -- and (even worse) that they do not mean what God has said they mean (that is, revealed as correct, related to and by Acts of God in nature)?
Specifically, should we pretend that the word: "rights" is synonymous with the word: "capability," that the word: "gay" is equivalent to the word: "effeminate" and that the word: "choice" is conceptually the same as the word: "infanticide?"
We begin with the buzzphrases: "gay rights" and "abortion rights."
The word "gay" in almost all [Webster] dictionaries decades and decades ago NEVER meant "effeminate" nor "homosexual" WHATSOEVER.
INSTEAD, the word conveyed the meanings of: "merry" or "happily carefree" or "yippie-skippie joyful."
Thankfully, the word "abortion" when applying to the fate of whatevers OR whoevers growing inside the wombs of would-be human mothers has not changed meaning for either people nor God Himself.
Getting back to "gay," most of us have sung the words:
"...don we now our gay apparel, falala lalala la la la..." in the Christmas carol
and: "...we'll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home..."
Homoperverts and their patsies have been activist in attaching such a good word to disgusting, lewd, and lurid evil depravity, as they have substituted the heterosexuality-meant word "love" for homodike, homofaggot, and homoqueer hedonistic "lust."
Sad, to say the least. And DIABOLICAL at worst.
There is NOTHING "merry" nor "happily carefree" or "yippie-skippie joyful" about being wimpishly or belligerently effeminate nor activist-bullyboy/bullygirl noxiously-despicable homosexual pretending that such anti-Christian anti-Biblical godless deviates are reproductively on par or equal with heterosexuals not insanely relegating themselves to homosexuality-enslaved sterile extinction.
WHO SAYS that homos are "noxiously despicable" and "deviates?" Who DARES to say that, at the risk of violating (so-called) Etched-in-Stone Super-Sacred Non-Discrimination Law Allowing Inclusively-Diverse Sexual Orientation?
You REALLY want to know? The way it WAS...and the way it YET is?
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Deuteronomy 23:18 You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a [effeminate/homosodomite] DOG, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for BOTH of these are an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of humans who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 because what can be known about [Creator] God is plain to them, being that [Creator] God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21 because although they knew God they did not honor Him as [Creator] God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the consequential penalty for their error.
First Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the NON-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE [Gr. malakoi], NOR SODOMITES [Gr. arsenokoitai],
First Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Revelation 22:15 OUTSIDE are the [effeminate and/or homosodomite] DOGS and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices FALSEHOOD.
Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."
Thus, GOD says...through His Bible written by Divinely-inspired men...that both [passively-receiving] effeminate persons and [actively-giving] homosodomites are "noxiously despicable" and "deviates."
Next, we get to the word "rights" - misused in such buzzphrases as "gay RIGHTS" and "abortion RIGHTS."
A "right" is a legitimate thought, or speech, or behavioral action - done by a human being and not lower lifeform - given propriety by some higher sentient-being authority, and ultimately given by the Creator Himself (as indicated, substantiated, and proven by very survival in accommodation to and congruence with Creator-created environmental entities and phenomena of all types and kinds).
So, do persons have some "right" to disobey any of The Ten Commandments?
Are they legitimately allowed to commit murder, rape, dishonestly lie by bearing false witness, greedily and perhaps aggressively covet and even steal what does not and should not belong to them?
Do they have a "right" to be homosexually effeminate (NOT "gay") or homosexual sodomites?
Do they have a "right" to murder souls-possessing human babies in the wombs or coming out of the wombs of would-be mothers who are simply mere caretakers of the Creator's preborn children they actually had no choice in miraculously causing conception of (it was GOD's call, and doing - instead of parents planning that in a kind of presumed "Planned Parenthood" charade and pretension)?
Let's discover if person have some "right" and authority to terminate the lives of preborn whatevers or whoever inside the wombs of would-be mothers.
Or, instead of misusing the word "right" with devious-intentioned sloppy semantics, use the correct word: CAPABILITY.
Thus proclaiming: abortion CAPABILITY instead of abortion "right" (or plural: "rights").
Genesis 38:24 About three months later Judah was told: "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover she is with CHILD by harlotry." And Judah said: "Bring her out, and let her be burned."
Exodus 21:22 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with CHILD, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Deuteronomy 22:21 ...then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from among you.
IS the tiny-and-growing soul-possessing separate-human-body alive-and-living lifeform entity in the wombs of a human mother mere "fetal tissue" instead of a human babe or child?
The Greek word for "babe" in the New-Testament Text is ALWAYS and ONLY: brephos (i.e. beta, rho, epsilon, phi, omicron, and sigma).
Such Greek word brephos (again, ONLY and ALWAYS correctly translated: BABE) is found both in Luke 1:41-44 and in Luke 2:16 in the New Testament of The Holy Bible.
Thus, the two passages (in Greek-based ACCURATE English) read:
Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the BABE (brephos) leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
42 and she loudly exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 because, hey, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the BABE (brephos) in my womb leaped for joy..."
Luke 2:16 And they went in a hurry, and found Mary and Joseph, and the BABE (brephos) lying in a manger.
Luke 2:17 And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them regarding (NOT: "concerning") this child [Gr: paidion]
It would clearly make NO sense to replace the correctly-BABE-defined Greek word: brephos with the word: "fetus" or "fetal tissue" as illustrated below:
Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the FETAL TISSUE leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...
Luke 2:16 And they went in a hurry, and found Mary and Joseph, and the FETAL TISSUE lying in a manger.
As the Greek word brephos used in BOTH Luke 1:41 AND Luke 2:16 means BABE in BOTH cases of John the Baptist as a preborn in Elizabeth's womb, AND already-born Jesus lying in a manger, so the replacement word: "fetal tissue" would HAVE TO apply to BOTH Luke 1:41 and Luke 2:16 -- which makes NO sense WHATSOEVER.
Similarly absurd and ridiculous it would be to apply other wrong and incorrect (even though REMOTELY-RELATED) replacement words, such as:
Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the CATERPILLAR leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
Luke 2:16 And they went in a hurry, and found Mary and Joseph, and the BUTTERFLY lying in a manger.
Moreover, misusing the phrase: "reproductive choice" to refer to COMMITTING (and, by the way, NOT "performing") the "legally" CRIMINAL and SINFUL action of abortion homicide, or infanticide, is likewise insanely ludicrous.
To insinuate that murdering babes inside or coming out of the wombs (during so-called "partial?-birth? abortion") is "reproductive" with any species-sustaining non-extinction inference is not only stupid but asinine and demonic.
Such mis-speaking errant speech is not merely sloppy or incorrect semantics, but insidiously DIABOLICAL in intention!
The POSITIVE word "reproductive" should instead be NEGATIVELY rendered at least: "NON-reproductive" and (best yet) "ANTI-reproductive" [freedom] (or rather: ENSLAVEMENT).
SATANICALLY-REVISIONIST MIS-wordings and MIS-semantics are indicative of the ALREADY-accursed DAMNED-to-become on the proverbial broad and easy road to ETERNAL destruction in contrast to those [BLESSED] on the difficult and narrow road to ETERNAL life, and must be consistently and adamantly countered in accord with the following Bible verse:
Zephaniah 3:9 "Yes, at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a PURE SPEECH, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve Him with one accord."