Tag Archives: gay lobby

Another reason to like Herman Cain

Be sure to click the link and watch the short video so you can hear how he responds.   Herman Cain Speaks Bluntly: ‘I Believe Homosexuality Is a Sin … Their Choice’.

In an interview on CBS News:

“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin. But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.”

Woo-hoo!  A politician who can give a straight answer and not apologize for it.  Oh, and he gets the Bible right, too:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

It is not. That. Complicated.

And I like his Libertarian edge.  He isn’t out to demonize gays or restrict their relationships, he is just stating the biblical truth.  And he is smart enough to know that the people who will vilify him for saying that weren’t going to vote for him anyway!  I wish other Christians weren’t so gutless in denying those truths.

I really hope Cain does well.  I’d love to see him on the Republican ticket somewhere.  (Having said that, I’ve been very impressed with Pawlenty lately.  The knock on him was that he was boring, but he has been bold and clear thus far.)

More from Stacy McCain:

Cain is trying to focus his campaign on jobs, the budget and economics — these are his strengths, as a business executive — but he necessarily gets asked by reporters about all sorts of issues. A key factor in Cain’s appeal is his plain-spoken nature and, when asked about homsexuality, he stated (a) his personal belief as a Christian, and (b) his libertarian understanding that people have to live their own lives according to their own choices.

For two decades at least, gay activists have used the “born that way” argument in an effort to gain civil-rights protection for homosexuals, attempting to make sexual preference a hereditary factor analogous to race. So Cain’s remark about sexuality as a “choice” is likely to offend gay activists as much as his remark about “sin.” But I think it’s important to grasp the libertarian sense in which he uses “choice.”

Roundup

Are Beth Moore’s claims of private revelation valid? — I know lots of folks who like her, but I find it creepy when people continually claim a direct hotline to God — i.e., “God told me ______” — unless they follow it with a Bible verse, in context.   That is a huge claim and the burden of proof is on whomever makes it.  Hat tip: TheoGeek

A thorough biblical analysis of women in ministry.

“Outraged atheists lose faith in Dawkins as he censors website”

This may be occasion for presenting Richard Dawkins with the Can Dish it Out But Cannot Take it award . . . Richard Dawkins has literally built the New Atheist movement upon vociferously pouring down abusive language based derision upon anyone who dares to disagree with him and now…the monster which he created, nurtured and let lose upon the word has come home to roost. Actually, it has come home to burn down the laboratory of its creator.

Dawkins promulgates the mere that I, a Jew, am to be likened to a Holocaust denier because I doubt that human beings are related to “bananas and turnips” and he takes offence at an admittedly uncalled for description of his visage. Please get over yourself professor.

UK Govt’ to Impose “Hate Registers” for British Children who Make Gay Comments — coming soon to a country near you.  As we’ve said for years, this is the logical conclusion of superfluous “hate speech” and civil rights for sexual preferences legislation.  As always, I’m anti-bullying, but we don’t need special clubs and “hate speech” laws for 10 year olds to prevent bullying.

The Mail notes the case of one boy who has already been placed on such a registry for calling another pupil a “gay boy.” The mother of ten year-old Peter Drury, of Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, was told that her son’s name would be placed on a register and permanent school record following a complaint about the comment by another student.

Pathetic race-baiting by the Huffington Post — a  friend posted that link on his Facebook account.  My responses:

Fact: The candidates you support oppose school choice, because they like union donations more than black children. That’s racism.

Fact: The candidates you support keep abortion legal and it kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites. See where Planned Parenthood puts their clinics. Investigate Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a eugenicist that paid off black preachers to encourage them to have their members sterilized, among other things. She wanted to eliminate the undesirables. Abortions kill more blacks in a day over and above whites than the KKK ever dreamed of. That’s racism.

Fact: The candidates you support profit by keeping blacks poor and uneducated. That’s racism.

Fact: People like you use blacks as some sort of trump card so you can scream RAAAAACISM whenever you are losing the debates (which, apparently, is always). That’s racism.

Hey, have you visited Detroit lately? It is a petri dish of Liberal politics and education policies. Like other big cities, Democrats have had virtual monopolies for 50 years. How’s that working out for the black folks there?

Homework assignment: Watch MSNBC tonight — you know, the ones who scream RAAAAACIST all the time. Tell me how many black news people you see. I’ll wait here.

Compare Bush, who put many blacks in high level positions based on their merits, then compare that to Democrats.

Look at liberal companies like HP, who load up the “Diversity” groups with black executives but barely have any elsewhere.

. . .

Protesting wasteful gov’t spending and socialism is not racist. Playing the race card because your arguments suck is racist.

Roundup

Yes, Virginia, there really is a website called www.dogflatulence.com.  My wife discovered it when trying to solve the problem one of our dogs has.  My oldest daughter had a coffee mug made for my wife with this picture plus the name of the web site.  Best. Valentine’s Day Present. Ever.

(The tips didn’t work for the dog.  She’s hopeless.  Maybe they will for your dog!)

Coming soon to a country near you: What do you think of the 2nd Amendment

A Canadian columnist has his door practically beaten down by Toronto’s stormtrooping police because he had a 30-year-old bird rifle that he forgot to re-register. America THIS is coming to YOUR door if the left gets its way in banning guns.

The evils of “heterosexism” — your [United Methodist] apportionment dollars at work — it is endlessly disgusting that people who teach the opposite of Jesus take the money of authentic followers and promote nonsense like this.

Get your pro-choice license plates here!  Note the typical way they never complete the sentence: “Trust women.”  Uh, to do what, exactly?

More coming soon to a country near you: U.K.’s Conservative Leader Pledges Full Support to Gay Agenda — lots of creepy quotes. 

“right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin”

Note the false dichotomy.  Teaching the truth about homosexual behavior being a sin does not mean gays can’t have a safe education.  Using that “logic,” Michelle Obama is responsible every time an overweight kid gets bullied and AA is responsible every time a drunk gets beat up. 

Religious schools, they have said, must not teach Christian doctrine on sexuality “as though it is true.”

Asked his stand on the Christian marriage registrar who was sacked for refusing to perform homosexual civil partnership ceremonies, Cameron said that “faith-based organizations and charities” should be encouraged: “As long as they are not discriminating in any way in the services that they provide, you’re fine.”

“I mean, I think, yes. I think….. [long pause] that if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality.”

Don’t you love lessons about Jesus from guys like this?  I’d love to quiz him to see how much he really knows about what Jesus taught.

Roundup

Good post by Pastor Timothy on the King James Version-only controversy.  I like Greg Koukl’s line about always recommending the KVJ to everyone who is over 350 years old.  I have no objections to anyone using the KJV, but it isn’t for me. I like the ESV and the NIV but I’m not a snob about them. 

This is just sad — he uses a teleprompter for a room this small?!

Republicans do have a plan for health care reform. They need to add tort reform to the list.  Defensive medicine and malpractice insurance are huge drains on productivity and costs.

If Obama and the Democrats really want to “fight” Wall Street greed, they could have just not bailed them out multiple times beginning with the Clinton years.  Oh, and they could do something about Freddie and Fannie.  There is no way the financial crisis would have happened without the ineptitude and greed of those organizations. 

Tragic: Single mother of four (five, actually) dies from “safe and legal” abortion — Apparently front alley abortions can be dangerous, too.  Oh, and the unborn child is also dead.

Oops — Behar Accidentally Outs Gays, Says Monogamy Is ‘Too Much Trouble’ — Is she homophobic?  Isn’t that the term we use for anyone who criticizes anything about the gay lobby?

“There is no homosexual agenda!”

Uh, except for this one, that the gay lobby, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and liberal “Christians” follow to the letter.  I encourage you to read and share the whole article.  As much as its proponents try to deny there is an agenda, the truth is there for all to see.

Some samples:

On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

As seen recently with the Miss USA Pageant, they define “homophobia” as even the mildest disagreement with their views.  Calling someone a “dumb b*tch” and later wishing you had called her the “c” word is OK in Liberal-land, but agreeing with Obama that marriage is for a man and a woman is unforgivable, you hateful bigots!

And as always, the real homophobes are those who are so scared of the homosexual lobby that they abandon their common sense, their morals and their God rather than get called a name.  Eek!

On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

This is the inevitable conclusion of “hate crimes” laws.

On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

On “same-sex marriage”:“Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

Hey, at least they were honest on that one.

On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

I doubt that will be very effective when they face him one day.  And they will face him one day.  I seriously pray that they repent and believe before then.

More of their strategy:

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

Sadly, theological liberals execute that approach all day, every day.  What tools.  All the varieties of pro-gay theology are horribly flawed.

Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.

I expect it from the media and entertainment industries, but not from “Christians.”  People like Tony Campolo try to blame authentic Christians for addressing the issue and say that we should just focus on our own sins.  He completely misses the point, but it is a clever way to avoid the topic while the homosexual agenda rolls on.

Again, this isn’t about bashing gays as individuals.  I know plenty of gays and we get along well.  We don’t need to convert them from a particular sin before sharing the Gospel any more than we’d require anyone else to be sin-free before they get to hear the Good News.  But as a political issue, we should stand up for the truth. 

Don’t be fools, people.  Recognize what the agenda is and speak up!

The real haters and responding to their inconsistency

hate.jpgMs. Green has some videos of truly hateful behavior by the anti-Proposition 8 folks.  Yet it is the Christians who are continually referred to as haters.  Sure, Fred Phelps and his ilk are haters and they call themselves Christian, but their behavior displays about as much fruit as their counterparts on the Left.  And the demonstrators on the Left far outnumber the Phelps-types. 

The Left uses the “hate” accusation reflexively to try to demonize and silence the opposition.  It is amazing that the hate label sticks to us when we actually take a live and let live approach to gays. We just don’t like it when they shove their agenda down our throats.

I’ve known for a long time that their theme of “tolerance” was an upside down use of the word.  You can only tolerate those you disagree with, and these people show no tolerance at all.

Here is one line of thinking to use in responding to the spurious “hate” personal attacks. 

If you want to disarm the liberals, just point out that if homosexuality could be detected in utero that you would be against those abortions, and ask them if they would agree to make those abortions illegal.  If heterosexual parents abort for Down Syndrome, gender, inconvenience, etc. I guarantee you that most parents would abort rather than have a potentially gay child (I wouldn’t).

I’ve asked this question many times and I have yet to find a heterosexual liberal who doesn’t love abortion rights more than gays. So this argument is a great way to make them squirm and to point out how ridiculous it is for them to label you as a homophobe. After all, they think it should be legal to destroy gays in the womb (even hypothetically) while you think they should be protected.

The most I’ve ever seen them say in response is that I’m against all abortions, so specific protections for gays isn’t meaningful. But I point out that if this was the only restriction made that I’d favor it.  You shouldn’t kill an innocent human being because he is gay or even might be gay.

It also forces them to reconsider their pro-abortion views, because it points out how the unborn are real human beings. That is one reason they fight any exceptions, even for gender selection abortions. They know that once you concede the humanity of the unborn for any reason then other abortions wouldn’t be justified.

If you do Venn diagrams of pro-legalized abortionists and pro-gay agenda folks, you’ll see virtually concentric circles. 

Authentic Christians do not hate these people.  Watch the videos and see.  But the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And those that are pro-legalized abortion and pro-gay marriage are in deep rebellion to God.

I explored this more in a hypothetical dilemma.

I know that the “rights” talk makes for a good sound bite, but what rights are we talking about? The right to relationships? They have them. The right to be married? Uh, sorry, but they already have the right to marry a living being of the opposite sex of the same species under certain conditions (i.e., no incest, bestiality, polygamy or necrophilia). And who are they to pull up the drawbridge after gays get these “rights” and leave the other groups hanging?  Do they hate them?  Why else would they oppose their rights?

I thought this was a great summary by Invictus, who previously had been inclined to try and support gay civil marriage:

You know, I’m not really inclined to support the creation of a new “right”–one that has never existed in all of human history–on behalf of a people who so easily take up the mantle of thuggish oppression as soon as they are given space to do so.  Does anyone (idiots and liars excluded) really think that teams of police would be required to escort gay couples safely out of neighborhoods full of violent Mormons screaming death threats?

Oh the humanity! UPDATED

Update: Be sure to read Playing the Race Card on Gay Marriage.  Carlotta highlights some of the absurdities of the pro-LGBTQ movement.  They have a lot of nerve trying to co-opt the Civil Rights movement.  From the article she analyzed:

Well, let’s see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Then there’s this from Verum Serum:

Oddly enough, I haven’t been able to find one gay activist/gay rights spokesperson who has been able to articulate HOW these two are the same.

Let me give it a shot…

The history of blacks in the United States begins with slavery and continues on to various forms of societal discrimination that has included:  denial of voting rights, denial of property ownership rights, denial of equity in education, denial of access to public facilities, denial of access to businesses, denial of equal access to public transportation, etc.

Homosexuals in the United States have had to endure…society’s refusal to allow them to change the definition of marriage.

You know what?  The homosexuals are RIGHT.  They are EXACTLY the same as blacks!  Viva la Revolucion!

At times I’m tempted to say, go ahead and give them “gay marriage.” The sooner they get all they think they want the sooner they’ll realize that they are still miserable and separated from God.

The problem is that one of the things on their laundry list is to silence the church, because the Bible will always be a constant reminder that they aren’t fooling God.  And I’m not keen on giving up the church just yet.

hindenbergA post titled When MY Generation Speaks by a 30-ish liberal friend railed against people in favor of Proposition 8 in California. 

This entry is not to argue the inherent rights of gays to marry – not because there aren’t plenty of people who would love to debate this but because the debate would change nothing. Exit polling clearly indicates people make this decision based on dogma, not on logic – and if I have learned one thing in life, it is that reasoning with dogma is like talking to a wall. 

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, with dogma such as, “Haters!  Irrational!  Uneducated!  You want to send gays to internment camps!  You’re forcing your religion on us!  Of course we wouldn’t teach kindergarteners about this!  Etc.!”

Here is some logic for those who are interested:

  • Same sex unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child, so the State has no interest in promoting or regulating them.
  • Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
  • Gay couples already get benefits from the State of California.  This was all about affirmation.
  • The judges ignored the will of the people, so the amendment made perfect sense.
  • Sexual preferences are not Civil Rights.  Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not. 
  • Oxymoronic “same sex marriage” doesn’t mean that marriage is redefined as man/woman, woman/woman or man/man, it redefines it to say that it is not just between a man and a woman — it is whatever anyone wants to define it to be.  The same “anti-discrimination” rationale is immediately available for polygamists, incestuous couples, etc.

Note that I didn’t even refer to the Bible.  If people want to know what God has to say — and they should, since He created the universe and us — here’s a summary:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
  • In short, to advance “same sex marriage” is to be perpetually shaking your fist at God in rebellion.

Here’s more from the other blogger:

That the proposition passed is an injustice and is unjustifiable – but look to the horizon. People, especially the dogmatized, fear that which is different – that which they do not understand. Just as the elderly and the dogmatized were the most fervent opponents of desegregation and of women’s suffrage, they are holding back progress on this issue – the civil rights issue of my generation. But my generation will have the last word, and years from now, when gay rights are considered as inalienable as the rights of blacks and women, we will look back with shame and confusion at those who stood against the tide of equality.

Actually, we do understand it.  We don’t fear what is different, we fear what it will do to innocent people and the structure of the foundation of society.

And as usual this guy and his bigoted, shameful generation pull up the drawbridge on people with different sexual preferences.  They pat themselves on the back for supporting gay rights but ignore preferences of others.

What about the “Civil Rights” of  those who want polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and who knows what else?  If marriage is not just for a man and a woman, then who says it has to be just for humans, or just for two people,  or just for non-siblings, or just for living people, etc.?  The reasoning for same sex unions would apply to them as well.  And don’t tell me that judges wouldn’t rationalize those.  Any group that can see unlimited abortion rights in the Constitution has a remarkable — albeit perverted — creative streak.

I realize how tempting it is for people to insist that those who disagree with them are irrational bigots, but the facts do not support their arguments.

I am glad that his generation has the right to speak and I concede that they may get their way at the ballot box someday.  I just hope that more of his generation exercise their right to think critically as well.