Tag Archives: gay

Roundup

Pro-life crash course — read this short piece a couple times and you’ll have the basic arguments down.

—–

Remains of dead Chinese fetuses turn up in capsules — but are we grossed out for the right reasons?

Similarly, some of the same Christians who recoil in horror at the idea of a dead fetus being microwaved in a clinic in China show no concern for the “spare” embryos they created being left to thaw in an IVF clinic in America.

Our moral intuitions are justified—we should be disgusted by the cannibalistic customs of our pagan neighbors in the East. But we should wonder why our discernment fails us when, in the name of advancing science, curing disease, or alleviating infertility, we turn a blind eye to the Satanic practices supported by our Christian neighbors in the West.

We’re like vegetarian butchers at Moloch’s feast. We think we are somehow morally superior because we draw the line at eating the children we kill. But whether the blood is on our mouths or only on our hands, the stain of the slaughter seeps into our souls.

—–

Great news about RINO (Republican In Name Only) Senator Dick Lugar losing in Indiana.  We don’t need people to reach across the aisle to embrace horrific ideas.  We need real conservatism and adults who will make tough spending decisions, and who can think beyond 15 minutes into the future.

—–

Obama’s gay marriage balancing act gets awkward — It is only awkward because some of his fans don’t realize that he’ll “finally” decide to be full-blown pro-same-sex “marriage” if he is re-elected.  Obama thinks voters are idiots, and he has some good reasons to hold that view.  Fortunately the impatience of some in the pro-gay community will help force his hand and cost him some votes for people who believe his current lies. I’m glad to see Romney with a clear stance here.  One more reason to vote for him.

Some advocates told Yahoo News that Obama surrogates endorsing gay marriage is a way for the campaign to “wink” at second-term support for the policy without taking the political risk of outright embracing gay marriage in an election year. Mitt Romney has said he would pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and appoint judges who oppose gay marriage, placing himself far to the right of Obama, who helped end the military’s ban on openly gay service and abandoned the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. But despite this gulf, both candidates oppose gay marriage—an uncomfortable fact when it comes to rallying the Democratic base or fundraising from passionately pro-gay rights donors.

And it is noteworthy that 2% of the population is gay but over 15% of Obama’s big money-raisers are gay.

And then there’s the money, according to the Washington Post, one in six bundlers — the people who raise the big bucks for the Obama campaign — is gay. They are still raising money for a man who continues to twist himself into a pretzel over gay marriage, and whose White House still can’t figure out how to message it. Why? Because they believe wholeheartedly that he actually supports gay marriage, and if re-elected he will come out in full support of it and flip his position.

—–

Paul Washer declares war on the “sinner’s prayer.”  Great points.  My view: The Bible doesn’t ever ask you to say when you were saved or when you said some prayer.  It does tell you to examine whether you are saved now, and why.  Hat tip: Touch Ya Neighbor

Responding to a common pro-gay theology argument

My post asking if the Bible was unclear on homosexuality brought this somewhat predictable comment. It never made reference to the Bible, it just repeated all sorts of un-biblical fallacies.  Sadly, this is no straw man comment.  Lots of people claiming the name of Christ repeat these arguments.

quite a few of my friends are gay. I am not. But knowing them, i know with all my heart they were born – created – gay. It is not something they chose to be.

I’ve had a lot of gay friends as well.  I don’t get in their face about it any more than I do that with the sins of heterosexual friends.  But I also don’t teach that any sins of my friends are acceptable to God.

You “know” that with your “heart?”  Emotions are nice, but not a good way to make decisions.  Please consider Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9-11 —  And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Please note how he links love with knowledge and discernment.

I encourage you to read some research on the causes of homosexuality.  It is not genetic.

And even if they were “born that way,” it is a biblical concept that we are born with a sinful nature.  We don’t get an “ought” from an “is.”  Sadly, I’ve been really effective at coveting, pride and selfishness since I was little, but I don’t get a pass on those sins because I was “born that way.”

God is LOVE. God loves all of us. How could He not love people HE created gay?

I mean this in a most serious and kind way: How much of the Bible have you studied?  Do you not see how you could apply that to any sin?  Do you not see how seriously God treats sin?  My #1 recommendation to anyone debating any topic on Christianity is to read the Bible more.

God wants US to love one another. Treat one another with love and acceptance.

That argument assumes that homosexuality isn’t sinful, but it doesn’t explain why we should hold that view.  Can you show me in the Bible where we are taught to accept any sin?  How about 1 Corinthians 5?

I do not believe it is the right of any of us to judge any other person – only God.

But aren’t you judging me and others who hold the view that homosexual behavior is a sin (along with many other behaviors)?

I do not believe it’s about whether their behaviour is sinful or not. Who of us is without sin?

But it is about whether the behavior is sinful.  That’s the point of the discussion, and you’ve already claimed it isn’t sinful. But the burden of proof is on you to reason your case from the Bible.

The fact that we are all sinners doesn’t mean that we would encourage people to remain in sin.

The really Christian thing to do is love your neighbour. I love my gay friends, and they are beautiful and in some cases deeply Christian – more Christian than many so called Christians who have rejected them for their sexuality.

Your love for your friends isn’t the Biblical love of having their long-term best interests at heart.  If anyone teaches the opposite of the Bible then I don’t think it is correct to describe them as “deeply Christian.”

We don’t reject them for their sexuality, we love them enough to speak the truth.  I urge you to read the Bible thoroughly and reconsider your views.

Roundup

Adam Carolla’s R-rated — but right-on — rant — This comes with a language warning, but it is interesting to hear his perspective on the OWS crowd.  They are the Sticker Generation, who grew up with an outrageous sense of entitlement because they were always told how wonderful they were, whether those assessments matched reality or not.

They aren’t succeeding in life so they covet and want to destroy those who have succeeded.

Wow, this was stupid 50 years ago and hasn’t gotten any smarter: KENTUCKY CHURCH BANS INTERRACIAL COUPLES FROM BECOMING MEMBERS & LEADING WORSHIP. As Glenn points out, there is only one race in the Bible, the fallen human race.  Skin color is morally neutral.

An extreme Green guy found that living out his worldview was tough and irrational, such as when he spent 5 hours traveling to do what would have taken 40 minutes in a car.

There are those who question the point of this exercise to begin with. “Why make your life harder when it won’t make a difference anyway?” they ask, adding a virtual eye roll that would make even the most jaded 14-year-old proud. “Policy is the only solution to the world’s climate crisis, not individual action.” To them I say: Well, yeah.

He admits how awful it is but welcomes the government forcing everyone to do it that way.  Sadly, he doesn’t see the unintended consequences that will come with the government control, not to mention that the bureaucrats themselves won’t be obligated to follow the rules they make.

Sadly, Ohioans are finding out that they were misled by the unions on Issue 2. Being persuaded by multi-million dollar ad campaigns and fear-mongering won’t help when these cities have to balance their budgets.  Paying extravagant union wages and benefits will mean the loss of jobs and services — the very things the unions said would happen if they lost!

Newsweek admits the obvious: America is in the grip of sex addiction — They even concede that not all homosexual participants were not “born that way.”

Shockingly, the Newsweek article does acknowledge a reality that is normally unthinkable for the liberal mind: that homosexual behavior might be related to a sex addiction. A sex therapist tells Newsweek, “We see a lot of heterosexual men who are addicted to sex and, because culturally and biologically women aren’t as readily available to have sex at all times of the day, these men will turn to gay men for gratification.”

I imagine the LGBTQ community is up in arms over that.

Although Newsweek admits that the “digital revolution” has much to do with the situation through the provision of easily-accessible hard-core pornography, it fails to state another obvious point: that the culture of the United States and other western countries is saturated with a “softer” porn that is potentially just as deadly.

Americans are bombarded, day in and day out, with insidious messages about human sexuality. Movies, music, television shows, video games and advertising glorify a superficial, hedonistic, promiscuous, and selfish concept of sexuality. Quite often, these themes are accompanied by overt acts of violence and rape.

Newsweek however, doesn’t seem to notice a connection between the false concept of human sexuality pushed by the entertainment business and advertisers and the nation’s increasingly destructive obsession with carnal pleasure.  Instead it takes a more “moderate” approach, parroting the American Psychiatric Association’s insane notion that sexual perversion is only a problem if it violates your personal standards of normalcy.

Lots of bad things happen when people make up their own standards.  It reminds me of the theme of the book of Judges: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

How many World AIDS Day presentations talked about how incredibly risky gay sex is?  If you really love people you’ll at least warn them that their odds of contracting syphilis or HIV are over forty times higher than average.

Two important posts from Kevin at Hillbuzz

I’m glad that Kevin DuJan is healthy again and actively blogging at Hillbuzz.  He’s a gay man who self-identifies as a Christian, so it is safe to say that we disagree on a couple things.  But I enjoy his candor and commentary on many issues.  He knows firsthand how vicious the Left can be to anyone who doesn’t follow the company line on all things Liberal, and he has some profound insights into the LGBTQ and pro-abortion subculture.

Here are two recent posts that I highly recommend.

First, see Advice on how to deal with gay family member who’s been brainwashed by the Left, if nothing else for his refreshing thoughts on “gay marriage.”

What’s happening here is classic Leftism…where the Left wants everyone to be victims and martyrs, because that makes them easier to control.  The Left has a clear and vested interest in making gays hate their families, because that means the gays won’t ever want to vote the way their families voted…and this helps guarantee more votes to the Democrat Party.

You see how the Left keeps the black community disfunctional, impoverished, and dependent on entitlement programs so that black entrepreneurs never emerge and blacks never achieve middle class status (where they would start wanting to vote in their own economic best interests, and not for Democrats who have kept black people in ghettos for decades).

The same thing happens with gays:  as long as the Left can convince young gay guys who’ve just come out that the people they grew up with all hate them for being gay, then Democrats can keep checking off the gay vote every election, using certain wedge issues to keep hate flowing at conservatives and Christians.

It is a well-orchestrated and heavily implemented scheme that’s run unchallenged for decades.

When a young gay guy like your brother starts reading The Advocate or Genre or Out magazine, in his exploration of his sexuality, he starts being brainwashed by the Left without realizing it.  The next step is for him to start picking up the Left’s anti-family, anti-Christian talking points, as broadcast by Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Rosie McDonalds, Sandra Bernhardt, Margaret Cho, Bill Maher, and other mouthpieces the Left uses to make hatred of conservatives and Republicans “cool”.

Being young and gay is partly about the search for acceptance. It’s about feeling different and seeking someplace where that difference is encouraged and not stifled.

The down side of all of this is that young gay guys like your brother fall under the influence of the Left, which fills their heads with the idea that life is just about rocking that hot little gym bod in as little clothing as possible as much as possible, reveling in the nonstop party that’s life in a place like Boystown, and shouting a giant F*** YOU! to everyone back home in Mineral City or Eureka Springs or wherever the guy was from.

It’s horrible, really, this brainwashing.

And the damage it all does is VERY difficult to undo.

Especially in terms of the key wedge issue the Left has used to divide gays from their families — and that’s the term “gay marriage” that the Left makes a line in the sand…which is often evolved into an insurmountable barrier between people who love one another.

I have said this many times before, and I will keep saying it:  if gays really wanted full equal rights, they would have sense enough to stop using the religious term marriage and start talking about spousal rights.  Better yet, show some of their trademarked creativity and invent A WHOLE NEW WORD for the spousal relationship between two guys and the similar arrangement between two women.  DO NOT TAKE A RELIGIOUS WORD and adulterate its meaning.  If there is no “gay baptism”, no “gay communion”, and no “gay confirmation”, there should be no “gay marriage”.

Case Studies of “The Tolerant Left”: NYC Democrat women who hate pregnant women

Here’s a case study of “The Tolerant Left” at work…in this instance, self-proclaimed “liberal” (read: Leftist) women in New York City who voted for Obama, have always called themselves Democrats, and who hate a woman in their office who’s gotten pregnant, is getting married, and is happily starting a family.

My friend Delphine works in a non-teaching position at a major institution of higher learning in New York City, in an office that is almost exclusively female, Obama-voting, and Leftist. The Big Boss of the office is a ridiculously wealthy Manhattan socialite who enjoys the prestige of her position (hobnobbing with the Mayor quite often, frequently being interviewed for her opinions on matters related to academia, having lunch with celebrity alumni, etc.) and the many millions of dollars her former husband left her, before the divorce.  This woman recently came out as a lesbian, and this liberation has turned to militancy on some levels, in that she clearly grinds an axe against women in the office with family responsibilities (since, not having those of her own, she seems to believe people under her on the organizational chart need to be at her disposal 24/7/365, husbands and babies be damned). She is what has been termed an evangelical or fundamentalist lesbian, who braids politics and autocracy into sexuality. Of, course, Big Boss is a big Obama supporter who makes many disparaging remarks during official staff meetings about Governor Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, columnist Ann Coulter, and other conservative women.

The hatred exuded by Big Boss is real and palpable…she is a very angry woman who takes her emotions out on those unfortunate enough to work for her. She is the tyrant of her ivory towered fiefdom.

Just below her on the org chart is Little Boss, who is unmarried, childless, and upset in her 50s that marriage and children never happened for her (though she’s never stopped to wonder if it was her bad attitude and poor treatment of others that caused any of this). She, too, is a big Obama supporter and also never misses an opportunity to viciously malign Governor Palin or Congresswoman Bachmann in particular, often calling them both the “c-word” right there in the office, in front of the whole staff, as if it was the most natural and professional thing in the world to do.

. . .

Delphine just turned 30 last month, and is expecting her first child.  The baby was a total and complete surprise blessing, and she and the father have decided to get married this fall, before the baby comes.  Delphine is the most practical and efficient woman I’ve ever known and is not the center-of-attention type.  Meaning, just because she’s pregnant doesn’t mean Delphine has morphed into a “Hey! Come look at my sonagram! Come help me pick out baby names!” sort of person, because that’s just not her. Never has been, never will  be.

Clearly, she told the office she is pregnant.  She told everyone she is getting married. She’s had to adjust her habits a little because of the baby, but has not missed a single beat at work and has not drawn any sort of distracting attention to herself because she is pregnant.  She is the model employee, in fact, and she’s damn good at what she does for this university. They are most lucky to have her in their employ.

Well, Big Boss and Little Boss have been harassing her since she told them she was pregnant.  They don’t mind her getting married so much, even though Big Boss told her that her fiance is “ugly”, direct quote, but it’s the baby these two have an obsessive problem with.

Big Boss started things off by sneering at Delphine not long after she learned Delphine was pregnant, which Delphine thought was just her imagination for a while.  Big Boss is very angry at the world in general and often believes she was snubbed by Mayor Bloomberg or Governor Cuomo or someone, possibly Elmo, so Delphine didn’t realize her pregnancy so offended Big Boss until she had her performance review…and in the middle of it Big Boss started several sentences with “That damn baby better not…” and ended them with “or else your job is in jeopardy!”.

. . .

The problem is that not everyone is as comfortable standing up to bullies on the Left as Delphine.  And not everyone knows how to handle this garbage in the workplace.

Because the media protects the Left at every turn, it’s also rare to see stories like this told in print.

I wonder what would happen to the Left and people like Big Boss and Little Boss if “Case Studies of the Tolerant Left” became things regularly published online, from people who deal with this garbage in the trenches and have no other outlets to voice their exasperation.

There is no “Tolerant Left”.

There’s only the Left, in all its dictatorial we-know-best-do-as-we-say INTOLERANCE.

Do you still think this issue won’t affect you?

Proponents of square circles (oops, I mean “same-sex marriage”) often mock their opponents by asking how it would hurt them.  Here’s another example of how the radical LGBTQXX agenda can impact you: Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired.  He wasn’t fired for anything he said at work, but because one person was offended that Turek had written separately that real marriage was the ideal.

Dr. Mike Adams explains how a gay manager at Cisco Systems got Dr. Frank Turek fired for opposing same-sex marriage. Adams explains what happened in a letter addressed to the President of Cisco.

Excerpt:

I want to bring to your attention a recent decision made by your HR team that I think does not reflect your leadership of Cisco.Dr. Frank Turek was fired as a vendor for his political and religious views, even though those views were never mentioned or expressed during his work at Cisco.

[…]In 2008, Dr. Turek was hired by Cisco to design and conduct a leadership and teambuilding program for about fifty managers with your Remote Operations Services team. The program took about a year to conduct, during which he also conducted similar sessions for another business unit within Cisco. That training earned such high marks that in 2010 he was asked to design a similar program for about 200 managers within Global Technical Services. Ten separate eight-hour sessions were scheduled.

The morning after completing the seventh session earlier this year, a manager in that session —who was one of the better students in that class—phoned in a complaint. It had nothing to do with content of the course or how it was conducted. In fact, the manager commented that the course was “excellent” as did most who participated. His complaint regarded Dr. Turek’s political and religious views that were never mentioned during class, but that the manager learned by “googling” Dr. Turek after class.

The manager identified himself as gay and was upset that Dr. Turek had written this book providing evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for the country. Although the manager didn’t read the book, he said that the author’s view was inconsistent with “Cisco values” and could not be tolerated. (Dr. Turek is aware of this because he was in the room when his call came in.) The manager then contacted an experienced HR professional at Cisco who had Dr. Turek fired that day without ever speaking to him. The HR professional also commended the manager for “outing” Dr. Turek.

This firing had nothing to do with course content—the program earned very high marks from participants. It had nothing to do with budget constraints—the original contract was paid in full recently. A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce.

You don’t see straight people complaining to HR about the political views of other employees / contractors at companies when those views aren’t expressed in their jobs.  And you definitely won’t see anyone getting fired over that.  In fact, you would be likely to be reprimanded or fired for even complaining.  Why are we letting the sexual preferences of 3% of the population have so much control?  Grow a spine, people!

I saw the Cisco article several places but like the Wintery Knight’s commentary:

And that leads me to the question that gay activists often ask supporters of traditional marriage: “how would allowing same-sex marriage hurt your marriage?”. And now we know the answer. Same-sex marriage would likely,  criminalize free speech that promotes traditional marriage over same-sex marriage, as it has in other countries with same-sex marriage, such as Canada. If you are a working husband, and you are responsible for a family, you will be under a constant threat of termination should your pro-marriage views become known to your colleagues and supervisors. Also, if you teach you children to favor traditional marriage, you may be persecuted by the state.

I would like to be able to provide for my family if I choose to marry, and I would like my children to favor traditional marriage over cohabitation, or any other arrangement, because traditional marriage is best for children who need a stable environment with two loving biological parents (if possible). But if it becomes the law that my view is “offensive” and “discriminatory”, then that would affect my marriage. Sometimes, I am very glad that I am not married, because getting married in a society that is offended by marriage takes a lot of courage. It seems to me that many Christians, especially the uninformed emotional ones who would rather read vampire fiction and Dan Brown than peer-reviewed research, prefer to redefine Christianity to mean “affirming destructive behavior so that you feel good and more people like you”.

Let Dr. Turek’s story be a lesson to all of you who prefer traditional marriage. Don’t allow your opinions on marriage to be linked to your true identity, because some sexually immoral people will try to separate you from your livelihood if they can. It’s no longer safe to express a preference for traditional marriage in this society. If you do it, you are taking chances. Just look at the vandalism and stalking of Prop 8 supporters. If you want children to grow up with a mother and a father in this society, then you are a marked target to those who put adult hedonism above the rights of children – including many Christians who enjoy singing and schmoozing in the church. Just this week I got an anguished e-mail from someone who blogs under his real name who is now in the cross-hairs for expressing his preference for traditional marriage in public.

We are in this situation because fake or wimpy Christians stood by and didn’t stand up for the obvious: Homosexual behavior is a sin and churches shouldn’t be affirming it.  If we really love people, in the sense of having their long-term best interests at heart, we won’t encourage them to participate in physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive behaviors that God plainly spoke against in his word.  And we won’t let the public schools poison the mind of 5 year olds by telling them how “normal” gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender behavior is and how they really can’t tell if they are boys or girls.

We aren’t trying to regulate the lives of gay people. They are free to have whatever adult relationships they like, including getting “married” in apostate churches.  We just disagree that the government needs to be involved in those relationships and to give civil rights status to sexual preferences.  But the LGBTQX lobby is so thin-skinned that they demand not just tolerance but acceptance.

Heterosexual questionnaire, aka Best. Homework assignment. Ever.

My daughter took a college sociology class (Motto: “Let’s use your parent’s money to turn you into a Liberal!”). Fortunately, just like her older sister, she has amazing critical thinking skills and a biblical worldview and saw through the nearly nonstop nonsense.

One of the homework assignments was to ask someone the survey questions below. It is obviously a twist on the questions people have asked gays – some of which are fair and relevant and others of which are silly. I’m sure the lesson we’re supposed to learn is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with LGBTQ behavior and we are all twisted homophobes (bi-phobes, transgender-phobes, etc.) for merely questioning the practices.

She picked me to answer the questionnaire. Yea! She had a 100% average going into the assignment, so she felt pretty comfortable that even if there was retribution she could weather it grade-wise. And she could always just claim that she interviewed one of those awful bigoted-hateful-homophobic-right-wing-fundie-nutjob-uneducated-conservative-zealots (because after all, if you call your ideological opponents names like that you must be right!).

Side notes: This oh-so-tolerant teacher didn’t bat an eye when one student (Official nickname: Drunk Guy) loudly noted during class that, “Conservatives are assholes.”

The teacher gave one assignment after another where she made a grand assumption without evidence then proceeded to ask why white males were at fault. One example: The lesson asking, “How does male dominance help to explain homophobia (or heterosexism).” I am not making this up.

The textbook used feminine pronouns exclusively, with the exception of when the subject was clearly a bad person, in which case male pronouns were used.

Let’s just say I’m very grateful for the Rate My Professors website. I think this is an outstanding tool for people to fairly evaluate their professors and warn others of those who are ideological bullies. What is scary is that this teacher was actually exercising restraint.

Here’s the survey and my replies. I just love helping the academic process move along. I’m sure the professor enjoyed them and changed her positions. Feel free to offer your own answers!

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

By nature and design I was born to be attracted to the opposite sex.

2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?

I don’t recall. There are many things I did instinctively as a child. Some were good, some were not. One of the keys to successful living is learning which instincts are wrong and dealing with them.

3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?

No, but given that it is natural and biblical I have no reason to consider changing it.

4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

No, because I don’t fear the same sex. I have countless friendships and acquaintances with men and they don’t involve fear, let alone neurotic fear.

5. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

There are many unhealthy things I have never done. I don’t need to try them to see if I might like them. And even if I did like them it doesn’t mean they would be good for me.

Having said that, I wouldn’t propose to LGBTQ people to have sex out of wedlock as a solution to anything.

6. Do your parents know that you are straight? Do your friends and roommates know?

Yes.

7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

That is a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of fallacious question. I don’t flaunt my heterosexuality. I don’t march in heterosexual pride parades. I don’t fly heterosexual pride flags or put bumper stickers on my car.

I also don’t try to stop LGBTQ people from associating with whomever they like.

8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

Many people put too much emphasis on sex. But I am not defined just by my heterosexuality. If I were to describe myself, I wouldn’t even use it as an adjective.

9. Why do heterosexuals feel so compelled to introduce others into their lifestyle?

I can’t speak for everyone, but I am very familiar with the physical, emotional and spiritual destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle.

10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?

I would like to see the statistics supporting your premise. My understanding of the sexual preferences of the Catholic pedophile priests is the opposite of that. LGBTQ people comprise roughly 2% of the population, so even if they molested children at the same rate as the rest of the population then 98% of molestations would be committed by heterosexuals. My understanding is that a disproportionate amount of abusers are gays.

11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?

It is not a well-kept secret that men and women were designed for sexual relations with the opposite sex.

12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships between heterosexuals?

The sexual revolution, which includes the LGBTQ agenda, is a big part of it. Human selfishness, the no-fault divorce laws, the explosion of pornography, and so much more contribute to it. Bible-believing, church-attending people (i.e., not just those checking the “Christian” box on surveys) have much lower divorce rates than average.

Having said that, the rate of partners for gays is exponentially higher than that for heterosexuals.

13. Statistics show that lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted disease. Is it really safe for a woman to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?

Statistics also show that it is nearly impossible to get an STD if two virgins marry and are committed to each other for life.

Statistics also show that gays are over 40 times more likely to get syphilis or HIV than heterosexuals. I assume there will be a follow up question asking if it is really safe to maintain a homosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease or to have sex out of wedlock and run the risk of a child outside of marriage.

Is it really safe for people to ever consider having sex outside of a one man / one woman marriage?

14. How can you expect to become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?

I’m not sure what you mean by “compulsive,” but I can be a whole person as a heterosexual because that is who I am by nature, and it is in complete agreement with the word of God. My wholeness is not dependent on me experimenting with every sexual possibility known to man. In fact, I am much more whole by not doing those things.

15. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

Overpopulation concerns are in error. The earth could support many more people. Also, the question is fallacious because 98% of the population is heterosexual (i.e., the 2% difference is negligible).

Having said that, the population replenishment argument against LGBTQ people is pretty meaningless.

16. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don’t you feel that s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?

All other things being equal, I would trust them more than someone who ignores the physical, spiritual and emotional dangers of the LGBTQ lifestyle. If you really care about people you won’t deliberately hide the truth from them. If a therapist doesn’t understand the basic nature and design of human beings and teaches things contrary to the word of God, then I wouldn’t trust them on this topic.

17. There seems to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

Do you have any data to support that? I know many happy heterosexuals. And the ones who are unhappy may be so because they have violated God’s design for sex. My understanding is that suicide rates for gays are higher even in ultra gay-friendly cities and countries.

18. Would you want your child to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

That question seems incomplete. Perhaps you could note the problems that heterosexuals have that LGBTQ people don’t have? I would want my kids to live in accordance with natural law and the word of God. That is always the best plan. If people get high school degrees and don’t have sex out of wedlock, the odds of them being poor are very, very low. If they do the opposite then the odds of them being poor are very high. That’s just one example.

I do realize that people with the courage to speak the truth about sexual matters may be vilified as “haters” and such, but I would want my kids to do what is right rather than what is just popular. I am all for civility and I treat the many gays and lesbians I know with kindness. I have taught my children to do the same. But political correctness is merely saying what you know to be false in order to maintain your popularity.

Problems with pro-gay theology

bible.jpg

Introduction

This post is long, but I think it is worthwhile and hope you read it all.

Many churches today are being torn apart by false teachings about human sexuality, so we can’t ignore this topic.  I am continuously disappointed that so many Christians who don’t get educated on this topic and stand up for the truth.  In addition, the rapid and radical changes in public schools are a serious issue and hate speech laws and activist judges are a blatant attempt to shut down debate and curtail religious freedoms.  Barely a week goes by without hearing about a business owner forced to cater to gay couples (e.g., bed-and-breakfasts, wedding photographers), LGBTQ indoctrination in elementary schools, religious organizations forced to hire LGBTQ people, people losing jobs for saying that skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not, and so on.

Many people who hold the orthodox Christian view would love to move on to other issues, but the problem is that the pro-gay theologians aren’t giving up.  Therefore, we need to stand firm and do a better job of educating those in the middle ground.

While this issue isn’t an essential of the faith, such as Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity for salvation, those who take the pro-gay theology view typically have to deny the essential of the authority of scripture to arrive at their conclusions.  And that is a dangerous thing.

The general Biblical ignorance of many Christians on this topic isn’t helping things.  I know of people who have gone to church their whole lives and have been in multiple Bible studies but still ask questions like, “Does the New Testament say anything about homosexual behavior?”  (Short answer: Yes.)  And it goes downhill from there.

Before I dive in, let me state that while I firmly believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, I do not think it is something we should grandstand on.  We all have temptations and stumble and fall at times.  Romans 1 explains in no uncertain terms that homosexual behavior is an affront to God, but it also lists greed, gossip, deceit and other things as serious sins (anyone squirming yet?).

And we should act as suggested by a believer I am friends with who is tempted by same-sex attractions: Pray for them and be their friends.

Do homosexuals have a legitimate complaint when they point out how many Christians are softer on divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex than they are on homosexual behavior?  Yes.  Grandstanding on sins that aren’t a temptation for us and downplaying or ignoring sins that are a temptation is not a Christian thing to do.  But the lesson is to hold consistent Biblical views on all sins, not to water things down more.  We need to raise the bar back up on all these sins because they have huge consequences and, more importantly, because that is in line with what the Bible says.

But we shouldn’t call evil good and good evil.  I support the Methodist position on homosexuality, which regards the behavior as sinful but the people as having worth.  (Sadly, I left the Methodist in large part due to their lack of adherence to their own positions!)  I think it should be illegal to abort babies just because they might be homosexual (Ironically, that position puts me at odds with many liberals whose support for abortion is such that they think it should be legal under any circumstances).  I mention these things simply to pre-empt any nonsensical allegations that I am homophobic, a childish and false put-down designed to stifle debate.  The real homophobes are those who are so scared of being politically incorrect that they deny God, the Bible and common sense rather than state the obvious.

I also believe that homosexual behavior is a forgivable sin and can be overcome by the power of the Gospel.  When I meet gays I don’t view it as my job to change them.  I treat them like I would anyone else, developing relationships and hoping to be able to share the Gospel with them at some point.  The real work is the job of the Holy Spirit.

I was sharing the Gospel with a young man once who happened to be gay.  He was all over the place with his religious beliefs and questions.  At one point he asked, “Doesn’t the Bible say homosexual behavior is a sin?”  I could have glossed over it and said it was a debatable matter, but that wouldn’t have been true or loving.

I also could have spent an hour explaining all the verses around this topic, but that would have been overkill.  Instead I just confirmed that yes, the Bible does say it is a sin, despite how some try to twist it.  Then I just shifted back to the basic Gospel – namely, that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and Jesus is that Savior.  It was a great back-and-forth conversation on a lot of topics and I pray that it planted a seed and that the young man kept searching.

Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories.  They are all wrong, but for varying reasons.  Sometimes they overlap categories.

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

Category 1: The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.

Regarding the first view, many liberal theologians deny that part or all of the Bible is the Word of God.  Unlike those in the second view, these folks seem to understand that the Bible does describe homosexual behavior as being sinful.  They just dismiss those parts.

Some appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  If God wasn’t capable of inspiring all of the original writings of the Bible to be error-free, then why should we trust him to communicate with such clarity to these people regarding what is inspired and what isn’t?

The problem is that this view is very hard to reconcile with the 2,000 year tradition of the church and, more importantly, of the clear text of the Bible itself.  People are certainly entitled to hold that view, but it doesn’t seem logical for them to refer to themselves as Christians.

The Bible claims to speak directly for God roughly 3,000 times, so if someone believes that all of those are mistakes then why on earth would he take this faith seriously?  Why would he want to be a leader in the Christian church?

Remember that Jesus validated the law and the Prophets, among other parts of the Old Testament, right down to the last little mark.  He unapologetically referred to the most controversial parts, too – Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Christians should strive to view the Bible in the same way that He did.

Note that many of these church “leaders” are liars: They either lied at their ordination vows about believing the essentials of the faith, or they changed their minds later and didn’t do the honest thing and resign.  Their views are usually not just a little different than historic Christianity, they are the opposite.  I believe in religious freedom, so they are entitled to their beliefs.  I also believe in honesty: HP salesman shouldn’t endorse Dell products, and Christians shouldn’t promote non-Christian beliefs about the Bible.  If either one breaks those rules they should be quickly fired.

It is challenging to argue with those who hold the first view, because you tend to go in circles.  They claim to be Christian, which should mean we can refer to the Bible as a “final court of arbitration” of sorts.  But whenever you find a passage they don’t like they’ll claim it was written just by men, not God, or they’ll pull out the false argument that you are being a Biblical literalist.

They may say things like, “But Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior.”  That is called arguing from silence and it is poor reasoning.  Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.This view is also part of the 2nd type of theological error noted above.

They may jump through hoops trying to dismiss the plain reading of verses like Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”) yet gladly take other plain passages literally.  They may claim there were “only a few verses” but are quick to make all sorts of firm statements on other topics with less verses.  And just how many times does God have to clearly say something before we believe it?

They may try to dismiss passages like that by misreading other passages, such as saying that “God said that eating shellfish was an abomination, so why aren’t you opposed to that?”

To have a rational discussion on the verses referencing homosexuality you have to convince people in this group that the Bible is reliable and authoritative first.  And that may be impossible.

Here’s a sample quote from a person in this camp:

A 21st century [Martin] Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against “sodomy”-shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own-should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’

Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY, responding to the recent decsion by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to expel a minister who admitted to a physical homosexual relationship-a violation of the denominations “Visions and Expectations” statement.

She really tips her hand with the “worldview vastly different from our own” comment.  The worldview she is referring to is that of Middle East Jews and Christians a couple thousand years ago or more.  But she misses the obvious: The Biblical commands weren’t always the Jews’ worldview – they rebelled against that view over and over!  The worldview is God’s, and Ms. Stange is absolutely right that it is vastly different from hers.  She apparently doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God.  And if she ends up in Heaven I think Martin Luther will have a few things to clarify with her.

The verses aren’t “shaky,” and there are plenty showing God’s plan for human sexuality and his disapproval of homosexual behavior.  Some (but not all) people in this category may be predisposed to only consider verses that affirm their views, and they typically don’t have a problem drawing all sorts of conclusions from less clear passages.  Therefore, they won’t like these facts:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the 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.

Category 2: The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.

The second view is generally better than the first (“the Bible is not the Word of God”) with respect to being able to guide people towards the truth, because you have a common authority to appeal to.

The problem with this view is that it is just plain incorrect.  As hard as pro-gay theologians try, the truth is that the Bible is overwhelmingly clear.  Pro-gay theologians are good at casting doubt about certain passages but they never seem to pay attention when someone points out how their reasoning is flawed.

Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture.  The heretic John Shelby Spong denies the authority of the Bible at every turn, he at least admits that:

The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that.

Luke Timothy Johnson, a more orthodox theologian said:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.

As noted previously, here is a summary of the Biblical view:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the 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.

I find those figures to be unambiguous and very compelling based on plain readings of the text and even more so when delving further into the context and the original languages.  I think it is important to consider all those points because some people try to dismiss the traditional Biblical view because it “only” has a few passages about homosexuality.  It only takes one clear passage to make a point, but there are many more than that in the Bible.  These folks also don’t seem to mind making broad conclusions on verses that really do just have one verse behind them.

I have written on a couple specific mistakes pro-gay theologians make regarding Leviticus 18 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”), another article on the shellfish argument and another on Romans 1.

There are many other resources dealing with particular verses.  Here’s a terrific outline on Romans 1 that explodes the myth that the real sin is acting outside your desires (as if anyone does that!).

My favorite resource is Responding to Pro-Gay Theology by Joe Dallas.  I highly encourage everyone to read it.  It is very thorough but readable.  I don’t have time to cover all the passages here but if people have questions on specific verses we can cover them in the comments section.

There are solid answers for any question you can come up with, provided people want to really discuss the issue.  I saw this commentary on an ex-ex-gay blog (i.e., someone who tried to leave the homosexual lifestyle and returned).  She is commenting on Mel White, a leading pro-gay theologian.

Mel White is a passionate and articulate man who makes it clear from the beginning of the workshop that he has absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the biblical passages on homosexuality. Over the years he has suffered a barrage of debates on the issue and he is thoroughly burnt out. He refuses to engage in the discussion any longer. Instead, he passes out a booklet he has written on the subject and tells us to read it. Then, he encourages us to refrain from discussing the Bible with conservative Christians because fundamentalists have no interest in sincere dialogue. Mel also encourages us not to engage in the debate for another reason. By having the conversation, we expose ourselves over and over again to the “lie” that homosexuality is wrong, and when heard repeatedly, “deep down inside you will wonder if they are right.”

That is a clever dodge on Mel’s part.  But I’ll be glad to have a sincere dialogue even if he won’t.

If you examine all the facts, I think you’ll find that the case is overwhelming: God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful and his ideal for marriage is one man and one woman.

So why do people twist the scriptures so blatantly? I generally don’t speculate on the motives of individuals, as only God knows their hearts. But I have seen some themes and evidence in various cases.

Some believe the lies out of ignorance or laziness. They may be sincere Christians who just haven’t fully examined the issue. There are issues I haven’t fully explored and may have the wrong views on, so we should approach things with humility.  We should do the hard work to understand important issues.

Some believe them out of political correctness. It is much easier to go with the views of the culture. Have they noticed the the liberal theologians came to the conclusion that abortion, homosexual behavior, easy divorce and fornication were acceptable just after the culture did?  What a coincidence.  They should remember 1 John 2:15-16: Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.

I won’t name specifics here, but I am aware of those in the pro-gay theology camp that pretend to be otherwise-orthodox Christians.  But if you follow their own blogs, for example, you discover how thoroughly fraudulent they are.  You need to watch out for those who use a veneer of Christianity to justify their preferences.  They desparately want everyone’s approval – even though it will still leave them unfulfilled – and they especially want the church’s approval — or at least its silence.

There is also the passive-aggressive stance where some confidently claim that the Bible does or doesn’t say something about homosexual behavior, then when you go to analyze the verses they “humbly” say they don’t know that much (as if the subject were just too complicated or it is so gray we just can’t reach a conclusion).

False teachers aren’t necessarily gay themselves.  They may have other motives for spreading their lies.  Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the church and Paul did as well.  What better way to accomplish this than to infiltrate the church and bring it down from the inside?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Of course, there are frauds at the other end of the spectrum as well, such as Ted Haggard, or hateful false teachers like Democrat Fred Phelps.  Those aren’t Biblical models, either.

Some people have a “revelation” about the lack of sinfulness of homosexuality when a loved one is involved. Perhaps this is due to new information and a fresh look at the Bible, but perhaps it is due to major league rationalization. It is similar to pro-life Christians who change their minds when their child is pregnant and encourage the destruction of their grandchildren. Did they really change their views on the morality of abortion based on new information, or did their fear of embarrassment and/or inconvenience trump their moral views?

Some people just want to believe the lies. It is a strong delusion. And Satan’s oldest trick is still used today: “Did God really say . . .?”  Hint: Yes.  Yes, He did.

Category 3 – The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable.

This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

The third view attempts to affirm scripture but makes a major theological mistake afterwards.  Think about the premise: God is allegedly overturning a moral law and simultaneously making it immoral to quote the Bible.

One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.”  This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word.  However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.

Some people appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  That is the first error above.  However, those in this third category appear to hold to Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

This category overlaps a bit with those who don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.

Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.”  She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.

Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

The problem is her poor Biblical analysis.  There are at least nine things wrong with this view:

  1. The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church.  It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman.  That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
  2. The visions were clear and emphatic.  Peter was given the vision three times.
  3. Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
  4. There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
  5. This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it.  I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible.  It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason.  God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
  6. This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law.  There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws.  In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.).  The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
  7. The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with!  So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations?  Go figure.
  8. If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal?  Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
  9. The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.

And as noted above, even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture.  Again, Luke Timothy Johnson said:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.

There are simply no good reasons to believe that God is changing his moral laws (dropping those against homosexual behavior and adding those saying not to preach against it) and only informing selected people — as opposed to the Apostles and their direct followers — through revelation or “experience.”

Summary – Pro-gay theological principles in action

I have addressed the three commons ways pro-gay theologians make errors, namely by believing that:

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable and the “new” sin is saying that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Now I am taking the pro-gay theological reasoning out for a test drive, so to speak, to see how it applies to other passages.  After all, if their principles are sound they should work in other situations as well.

We’ve addressed Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.) and some of the improper interpretations of it here and here. But I wondered how their reasoning would apply to a verse in the same passage, such as Leviticus 18:8 – Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. After all, the context of Leviticus 18 is abundantly clear because it starts and ends with the same admonitions: Don’t be like the pagan Canaanites and do the detestable things listed in the middle of the text, or you will be vomited out of the land like they were.  These were obviously not ceremonial laws just for the Israelites.

You can use any verse from Leviticus 18 to make the same points (bestiality, child sacrifice, etc.).  I chose this one because it happened to be addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.  Especially note how Paul chides them for being proud and boastful about this man’s behavior.  Read it once, then read it again and replace the descriptions of incest with homosexual behavior.  That is how I view the pro-gay theology community (especially the heterosexuals): Proud and boastful for ignoring God’s Word.

1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Now let’s apply the various lines of pro-gay theological reasoning to Leviticus 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 5 and see how well they work. I realize that not all pro-gay theologians hold all these views.  I tried to convey their reasoning as accurately as possible.  Using their logic, we could conclude that:

  • Jesus didn’t specifically say not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife, so it couldn’t have been very important and probably wasn’t even a sin (the argument from silence).  We should err on the side of saying it isn’t a sin.  We ignore the fact that Jesus, as God, authored the Old Testament and that He fully supported it.
  • The man was born that way (i.e., with the desire to have sex with females).  It was his natural desire and function.
  • He and his father’s wife love each other!  Who are you to say that is wrong?  Gene Robinson, a Bishop in the Episcopal church, left his wife and kids so he could be with his gay lover.  Pro-gay theologians usually affirm and applaud this behavior.  Living up to marriage commitments made before God isn’t nearly as important as indulging your sexual preferences.
  • How do you know he and his father’s wife didn’t pray about it?  Maybe God gave them a personal revelation permitting them to have sex and/or get married.  That would make it acceptable.
  • Maybe the couple says that Jesus told them it was OK.  Who are you to argue with Jesus?
  • Leviticus 18:8 was a ceremonial law.  It was only for the Jews.  It obviously doesn’t apply to Gentiles.  If you eat shellfish then you obviously are a hypocrite if you don’t condone incest.
  • The Bible never actually uses the word incest.
  • There are only a few verses saying not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife [probably less than there are describing homosexual behavior as sinful].Therefore, how can we be sure about it?  And they are kinda obscure as well.
  • The man or the father’s wife was a temple prostitute or this was part of some pagan temple worship, and that is what made it wrong [even though the text doesn’t even hint at that].
  • Paul was an ignorant prude.  He didn’t understand sexual behavior or have the advantage of all the knowledge we do.  [This assumes that the Holy Spirit wasn’t inspiring his writings, of course].
  • You are just using the “yuck” factor and saying “Eeewww” because a man having sex with his father’s wife seems gross to you.  There is really nothing wrong with it, though – you were just made differently.
  • Judge not, lest ye be judged.  Paul must be sinning here because he is clearly making moral judgments.  [Please ignore the fact that I’m judging Paul for judging and that I’ve taken Matthew 7:1-5 out of context].
  • You are just an incest-o-phobe.  You need therapy for your irrational hatred.  In fact, speech like that should be prohibited because it will incite violence against those who practice incest.
  • You just don’t love the man and his father’s wife!  If you did, you’d want them to be happy.  Hater!  Hate speech!
  • Other parts of the Bible portray God acting in ways that don’t appear to be in line with his moral laws, so they obviously aren’t really from him.  Therefore, Leviticus 18:8 may not be his Word either.  When in doubt, we should ignore Scripture, because God’s revelation to my heart trumps anything in the Bible.
  • Some parts of the Bible aren’t clear to us [even though this part is] so we can ignore it.

If that sounds like an unsound line of reasoning that’s because it is an unsound line of reasoning. These principles don’t work on the passages they are designed to dismiss, and they completely self-destruct when applied to other passages.  Pro-gay theology is flawed, sinful and destructive and should be abandoned by any Christians who hold those views.

Once again, note that:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the 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.

Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.  God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who repent and believe in Jesus.  Hear the Good News:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic.  We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (“You just don’t love them,” etc.).

Love LGBTQ people, be friends with them and pray for them.  If they need to develop a friendship with you so they can see what normal relationships should look like, then do so.  But don’t encourage them to participate in sinful behavior.  If you do, then you are loving yourself, not them.

And remember, God catches his fish and then He cleans them.  You don’t have to convert their sexuality before sharing the Good News that God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

“That’s interesting, but what does the Bible say?”

I urge you to respond with the quote in the title when people make claims about Christianity.  Today’s example: A pro-gay theology fluff piece by the Houston Chronicle about “Bring your gay teen to church day.”  It was pure propaganda-masquerading-as-news.  Of course I’d like to see everyone in church on Sunday, including gays.  I just want them to go to churches that teach the truth.

Ebie Hussey’s first reaction when her son announced that he is gay was to offer unconditional love.

Finding a new church was a close second.

That is a recurring lie they weave into their messages: If you say that sin is sin then you are being unloving.  Christianity may not be Ms. Hussey’s strong suit.

“His first question was, ‘Am I going to hell?’ ” Hussey said of that conversation with her son, Jaxn. “Mainstream Christianity and fundamental Christianity really pushes that homosexuality is a sin, and he had caught on to that.”

Actually, the Bible is pretty clear on this topic:

  • 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.

Even a lot of pro-gay theology folks will concede that.  They just claim that the Bible isn’t really God’s word or that he has changed his mind.  Run, don’t walk, from “Christians” who claim those things.

Jaxn, now 15, knew his parents didn’t think that. “But I had always heard people saying that kind of thing,” he said.

Note how he and his parents are the arbiters of God’s truth.  The article never even hints that we’d look to the Bible for the answers.

In an effort to counter the message, almost two dozen Houston-area churches have designated Sunday as Bring Your Gay Teen to Church Day.

I wish they would have published a list.  They would be churches to avoid.

“We think it’s important for families to know there’s a safe place to go to worship,” said Jim Bankston, senior minister at St. Paul’s United  Methodist Church. “Families who have gay members want to make sure they feel welcome in church and aren’t bashed in any way.”

There’s that falsehood again: If you say that sin is sin then you are “bashing” people.  Hey “Reverend” Bankston: Is bashing a sin?  Then aren’t you bashing the bashers and committing that sin yourself?  Why aren’t you open and affirming towards “bashers?”

Joanna Crawford, a seminary student at the Houston Graduate School of Theology, said the idea came up after the suicide last fall of Asher Brown, a Cypress-area eighth-grader who killed himself after what his parents said were years of bullying and taunts that he was gay.

Did you catch the non sequitur?  They try to say that teaching biblical truths cause suicides.  The facts show otherwise: These suicide tragedies are usually very complicated.  It isn’t people who just left Focus on the Family “Love Won Out” conferences that are doing the bullying and taunting.

It is a project of the Houston Clergy Council, formed last year to allow churches to work together on shared concerns.

“None of us knew Asher, but we felt if we could get families into our churches, where they have support, where they feel loved for who they are, not in spite of it, something good could come of that,” Crawford said.

They get love backwards.  Yes, love them for who they are: Human beings.  Don’t love them because of a particular sin.

Organized religion has had a complicated relationship with homosexuality.

Mainly because fakes have crept in and polluted the teachings of the church.

Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, waded into the fray last month when he told CNN that homosexuality is a sin, although he doesn’t preach on the topic and a number of people who attend his church, the largest in the United States, are gay.

Joel finally spoke the truth?!

A survey last fall by the Public Religion Research Institute found that fewer than 20 percent of Americans believe places of worship do a good job on the issue. Almost half said religion’s message on the topic is “negative,” and 40 percent said the messages contribute “a lot” to negative perceptions of gays and lesbians.

This is where surveys prove to be meaningless.  The question shouldn’t be whether the messages contribute to negative perceptions but whether the messages are biblical.

Almost two-thirds said the messages contribute to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.

That’s because the wildly biased mainstream media has been telling them that.  It doesn’t mean it is true.

Mainline Protestant churches — including the Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist churches — began wrestling with how to interpret biblical writings on the issue several decades ago, he said.

That’s only because those churches went soft on keeping apostates out and exercising church discipline on false teachers. But just because some want to ignore the Bible doesn’t mean the teachings aren’t still there.

“Younger people are much more supportive on rights for same-sex couples than the older generation,” he said. “They also were much more likely to see these connections between negative views in the churches and negative views in society and with the higher rates of suicide.”

Wow, they keep working in that false connection, don’t they?  Almost as if the Chronicle wants you to believe it.  One of the tragedies in the last year involved a kid who, among other things. took a stuffed animal to school and insisted on a chair for it.  This kid was deeply trouble and not helped.  To blame his suicide on Bible-believing Christians is ridiculous, but the pro-gay theology ghouls love a good victim story.

Hussey did a computer search for “gay-friendly churches” and discovered Plymouth United Church of Christ in Spring.

“It’s been a huge blessing,” Hussey said. “It has brought me so much closer to God and to my spirituality, having a gay child, because it puts me in the position of Jesus’ message, which is unconditional love.”

Really?  Where did they get this news about Jesus?  If it was the Bible, why do they ignore what He says in the rest of it, including his claim that God’s design for marriage is for one man and one woman?  Why do they pick and choose which parts of Jesus they want to listen to?  Seems to me they are just making up their own version of Jesus.

The Rev. Ginny Brown Daniel and members of the congregation “showed me God doesn’t hate you because you’re gay,” he said.

God hates sin, and He wants to save you.  But you have to repent and believe.  I wonder how often the “Reverend” Daniel teaches that?  The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

That was important to his parents.

“When a child tells you they’re gay, you don’t want to change your plan for him,” Ebie Hussey said. “I still want him to be a doctor. I still want him to marry a doctor. I still want him to be Christian.”

She should start by being a Christian herself and trusting the word of God and following God on his terms.  As it stands, she is making up her own god.

If you really love those identifying as GLBTX you’ll seek to share the truth with them.  Propping them up with lies to make yourself more popular in our politically correct culture is just loving yourself, not your neighbor.  Here’s one of my experiences sharing the Gospel with someone identifying as gay.

For the Bible tells me so . . .

For the Bible tells me so is a pro-gay theology movie shown in liberal churches and elsewhere.  I watched the trailers and saw many typically bad arguments, starting with comparisons of their opponents to Hitler.  How subtle and tolerant of them.  Ironically, while this movie is part of the movement that knows that if you tell a lie often enough that many people will believe it they have the nerve to level that claim at Christians.

Despite the title, it doesn’t appear to attempt any serious analysis of what the Bible says about human sexuality.  We get a lot of quotes like this:

For a long time the Bible has been misused to support prejudice, apartheid, segregation, slavery, the 2nd class citizenship of women.  Now it is being misused to condemn gay people.  It’s an old trick.  Fundamentalist Christians have been using it throughout the ages and now they are doing it again.

Sure.  Of course, one could have made the opposite claim that the Bible was properly used to reject prejudice, apartheid, segregation, slavery, and the second class treatment of women.  This is a transparent ad hominem argument (attacking the person, not the message).  Since we appear to agree that the Bible, properly interpreted, is accurate, then why not just do that?  Oh yeah, because they lose the argument every time then.

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the 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.

More quotes:

There’s nothing wrong with a 5th grade understanding of God as long as you’re in the 5th grade.

Fear does terrible things to a society.

I’m really getting a feel for what this movie is about: Fact-free personal attacks and emotional appeals that prove nothing.

Moses teaches in Leviticus that it is an abomination to eat shrimp.

The funny thing was that in a film allegedly appealing to what the Bible really says, the only mention in the trailers about the Bible was the item about shrimp.  It is a reference to the shellfish argument, which is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to read the passages in context.  I address the many errors of that argument in Favorite dish of liberal theologians & skeptics: Shellfish.

When any liberal theologian uses an argument like that I consider it to be a concession speech, because you can’t use it without revealing your ignorance of the Bible and/or your deceptiveness.  They really tip their hands when they insist that there is something wrong with the Bible.  If they are really Christians they should hold the same view of the Old Testament that Jesus did.

Gay Christian Movement Watch » Blog Archive » Religious false prophets rush to defend SOTUS

One of my favorite preachers made some excellent points about the “pastors” who are judging that President Obama is a Christian see —  Gay Christian Movement Watch » Religious false prophets rush to defend SOTUS.

False teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie rushed to defend the President and to demonize those who dare raise questions about the fruit of a self-professed Christian.

But as Pastor Foster noted, these wolves have ignored many errors made by the President:

Let’s talk about misrepresentation

When Obama misrepresented the Arizona immigration law by saying if he and his daughter went out for ice cream he could be arrested, these pansy yes men released no statement.

When Obama misrepresented the Bible by saying that Romans 1 was an obscure passage, these hypocrites released no letter correcting him.

When Obama misrepresented God’s intent for marriage by promoting homosexual marriage as “just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman”, none of these whitewashed leaders released any letters condemning SOTUS gross statement.

When Obama said he had written off the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality as “worn arguments and old attitudes”, we heard not one single objection from the religious leaders.

When Obama misrepresented the facts about the excessively high number of death by abortion in the black community, these false prophets released no letter.

When Obama misrepresented fatherhood by saying two homosexual men are legitimate fathers, not a peep out of the so called religious leaders.

Obama has even misrepresented himself (aka lying)!

Roundup

These are the numbers the bottled water industry doesn’t want you to see 

Filtered tap water makes up an increasing share of bottled water – rising from 32.7 percent in 2000 to 47.8 percent in 2009 – as the share of spring-sourced water declines…

"More and more bottled water is basically the same product that flows from consumer taps, subsidized by taxpayer dollars then poured into an environmentally destructive package and sold for thousands of times its actual value" — Wenonah Hauter

My $0.02 is that the best line about bottled water came when the craze began years ago: Evian is naive spelled backwards.

Obamacare worth 17.5K dead women a year? – Sounds like a death panel to me.  If health care is truly a “human right,” then that means someone is obliged to provide it.  So why isn’t the government forcing the culprit to provide it in this case? 

No Homosexuals at Obama’s Ramadan : Why Not?  (hat tip: Mark)

Obama made a great show of having many homosexuals at his “Easter egg roll” rubbing Christians’ noses in what he called a "teachable moment" against "the forces of homophobia and hate."

Easter is Christianity’s major holy day. Why did he not mock and insult Muslims in the same way?

Why did Obama not shove a “teachable moment” into the faces of Muslims?

. . .

This is a deadly double standard by a man who refused to attend the National Day of Prayer breakfast, refused to attend the Boy Scouts of America (because of their policy of protecting boys from potential "gay" predators) and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He and his wife Michele attended Jeremiah Wright’s hate-filled "church" that promoted overt racism and black liberation theology for years. This is Obama’s sole connection with what the media think is legitimate Christianity.

Why is the media as silent about Obama’s purposeful neglect of the gay, lesbians and transgender community" when it comes to his Muslim holiday celebration as they are about that fact that the California city of Bell’s entire corruption scandal was 100% Democrat?

Randy Alcorn on Young Prolife Evangelicals and Abortion – lots of bad thinking out there, and it isn’t just the theological Liberals.

I’ve had Christians quote to me Planned Parenthood’s slogan, “Every child a wanted child”, saying it’s not right to bring children into the world who are not wanted. People can actually try to take the moral high ground as they advocate the killing of children.

I was in a debate with a Planned Parenthood person one time. I said, “Okay, your slogan is ‘Every child a wanted child.’ But how do you finish that statement?”

They said, “How do you mean finish that sentence?”

I said, “I believe every child a wanted child. So I say, let’s learn to want children more, and let’s get children in homes where people want them—like the millions of people who are lined up to adopt little children and can’t get them, because not enough are available, when in fact many of them are being killed. But how do you finish it? What you are saying is every child a wanted child, so let’s identify unwanted children and kill them before they are born.”

The nice little bumper sticker that says, “Every child a wanted child” really means, “Every unwanted child a deadchild.” Obviously that doesn’t look good on a bumper sticker, and nobody actually has a sticker that says that. But that is really what it means.

Hey, I agree with Harry Reid on something! Watch the video – it is less than a minute.  I suppose he must be a racist bigot etc. etc. etc. – or whatever the open borders crowd calls anyone who disagrees with them these days.  Has Reid recanted these awful views?  If not, why aren’t they demanding that he do so now?

 

False teacher fallacy-fest on Prop 8

Fake Christian Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie teaches the opposite of Jesus and the Bible at nearly every turn but really out-does himself with this bit: Proposition 8 Was Incompatible With Christianity; Court Decision A Victory For All God’s Children.

1. Let’s start with the title: He is ignorant of the fact that “God’s children” are only those who have trusted in Jesus (see John 1:12 and other passages referring to that term).

2. Either Chuck is ignorant of both Christianity and science or he is just lying again (or both!).  He trots out the myth that gay behavior is genetic.

Fact: Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.  Chuck & Co. mock the plight of blacks when they conflate the two.

Like Loving v. Virginia (which outlawed the ban on interracial marriage), the court’s decision today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger overturning California’s Proposition 8 is historic and a victory not only for gays and lesbians who wish to marry but for all Americans.

3. Oxymoronic “same-sex” marriage doesn’t increase freedoms for anyone.  It restricts religious freedoms because it sets up churches to comply or face persecution.  And no one was stopping gays from having relationships. But Chuck says:

Once again freedom has been extended.

4. Chuck doesn’t have a clue about what Jesus — God incarnate — taught about marriage.  He says:

But today’s decision is one that Christians can affirm.  It is moral and just and in line with the teachings of Jesus.

But the word of God says the opposite:

  • 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.

5. Watch Chuck get the Gospel wrong here.  The real Gospel is that Jesus died and rose again for our sins (see 1 Corinthians 15 and, oh, pretty much the whole New Testament).  Chuck makes things up as he goes along while creating a god in his own image.

He and other Liberal theologians (read: fake Christians) trot out words like love, compassion, justice, inclusion, etc. to cloud the issue.  But all they are doing is rationalizing sin.  Bad idea.

The message of the Gospel is the lens through which the whole of scripture is to be interpreted. Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. It is a message that always bends toward inclusion. The biblical story recounts the ways in which inclusion and welcome to God’s community is ever-expanding – from the story of Abraham and Sarah, to the inclusive ministry of Jesus, to the baptism of Cornelius, to the missionary journeys of Paul throughout the Greco- Roman world. The liberating work of the Spirit as witnessed in the activities of Jesus’ ministry has been to address the situations and structures of exclusion, injustice and oppression that diminish God’s people and keep them from realizing the full gift of human personhood in the context of human communion.

More gobbledygook here.  Note how he doesn’t refer to specific passages, just general made up themes?  Gee, if you are really committed to a sinful relationship and make a covenant about it then it is OK!

The language of covenant is central to the message of scripture concerning relationships and community. Both in the message of the prophets and the teachings of Jesus, covenant relationships are important, taken seriously by God and are to be taken seriously by God’s people. The overriding message of the Gospel is that God calls God’s people to live fully the gift of love in responsible, faithful, just, committed, covenantal relationships of trust that recognize and respect the image of God in all people. These Gospel values are at the core of the covenantal relationship that we call marriage.

6. Then he really gets blasphemous and blames the Holy Spirit for his outrageous religion.  But of course the burden of proof is on him to back up that claim.  Any evidence for us, Chuck?  Seems to me that when you teach the opposite of the Bible then it is Satan who is at work.  Attributing the work of Satan to God is a profoundly bad idea.

Clearly, this court decision will be controversial and many Christians will decry the verdict. But my belief is that the Holy Spirit is at work here. The moral arc of the universe always bends towards justice, said The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  He was correct.

The truth of the matter is that Proposition 8 was incompatible with Christianity.  Injustice always is.

The final sentence is pure Chuck.  Teach the opposite of the Bible and claim it is Christianity.

7. Why is Chuck trying to force his (false) religious beliefs on others?  Where is the ACLU when you need them?!  Oh, they agree with Chuck’s perverse views so they take a pass.

8.  And even IF Chuck was remotely right about God’s views on homosexual behavior, why doesn’t he rail from the pulpit about the lack of maintaining these “covenant” relationships?  After all, only 45% of gays are monogamous and that is with a definition of monogamy that considers “3-ways” and more to qualify as “monogamy.”

—–

Man, these fake Christians aren’t even trying anymore.

Roundup

Looks like the Kairos Prison Ministry weekend for October is a “go,” as they got enough volunteers.  Looking forward to the training starting this Saturday with the regulars plus some new volunteers!

I am not making this up: Be sure to subscribe to Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ Sojourners magazine — you know, the “evangelical Christian” publication — so you can get a free copy of a Gandhi poster.  Yeah, Jesus was all about promoting other religions.  I suppose the bright side is that the fakes aren’t even trying hard to disguise themselves anymore.

False teacher fallacy-fest on Prop 8: Fake Christian Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie teaches the opposite of Jesus and the Bible at nearly every turn but really out does himself with his bit about how “Prop 8 Was Incompatible With Christianity; Court Decision A Victory For All God’s Children.”

The Wintery Knights says that Women should read The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.  Anyone read it?  Comments?

How to kill a church, Episcopalian style – yep.  They followed this advice to the letter.  If your business lost 60% of market share (which is roughly what they did as they went apostate) then lots of people would get fired.

Wow, even the NY Times can see how un-scientific people like PZ Myers are.

MUST-READ: FBI records show Howard Zinn was a communist – yep.  And watch how many theological Liberals worshiped the guy.

47% of Gay Couples Have “Sex Agreements” – Only 45% Monogomous: Study – some tidbits:

SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Forty-seven percent of gay couples in a recently published study said that they had “sex agreements” with their partners, which clarify how often and in what circumstances they are permitted to have sex with others. Only 45% said that their relationships were monogamous, while another 8% disagreed about whether their relationship was “open” or exclusive, according to an ongoing study by the Center or Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University.

The Gay Couples Study said that the couples interviewed typically put a positive spin on “open” relationships, with three out of four participants describing non-monogamous agreements as “positive” because it eliminates the need to lie to one’s partner.

Lying = bad, sex with other people = good.  Check.

The authors also claimed that, “we found that couples make sexual agreements because they want to build a strong relationship rather than for HIV protection.”

Yeah, nothing strengthens a relationship like having sex with others.

The study’s authors note that examining homosexual relationships is important because “previous research shows that gay and bisexual men in relationships engage in substantially higher rates of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with their primary partners than do single men with their casual partners.”

Anal intercourse and other forms of homosexual behavior are associated with a variety of diseases and syndromes, including high rates of sexually transmitted diseases such AIDS, syphilis, and hepatitis, which homosexuals suffer at rates many times higher than the general population.  It is also associated with damaged rectum linings and a variety of anal and intestinal diseases that were once known in the scientific literature as “gay bowel syndrome,” until the term was dropped following pressure from homosexual activists.

The New York Times, writing about the study in January, before its release, noted that the study tends to vindicate those who have warned that homosexual “marriage” will lead to a redefinition of the institution itself, destroying its traditional meaning.

The rate of HIV with gays is 44 times that of the rest of the population, and the syphilis rates are similar.  If this were any other sub-group the media would be all over it.  Instead, we get crickets chirping.  Political correctness can be deadly.

Normally I wouldn’t find this that amusing, but, for the first time in my life, I did this very thing the other day.

Digg This

Roundup

Yoga: Harmless stretching or religious practice?

Now you can’t get away from the fact that yoga is first and foremost a spiritual discipline. Yoga is not done for your physical health but rather your spiritual health. In “kundalini” yoga there is a belief that there is a spirit at the base of the spine, and the kundalini spirit is released with the aid of the yoga asana. Yoga is a system of doing physical things (stretches, breathing, poses and utterances) which is tied to a spiritual outcome.

This applies to breakfast cereals as well.

 

Abortion recovery group unveils billboard aimed at Interstate summer traffic – these are very effective at saving lives and helping women in need.  My youngest daughter, unbeknownst to me until recently, has been using part of her savings to support billboards like this. 

Battle Over the Blood — FDA Upholds Ban on Homosexual Male Blood Donations – glad to see some common sense prevail.  It is sad that some promoting the gay agenda are willing to lie and endanger lives just to help “validate” some people.

Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors. – Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Even Einstein made foolish thinking errors, at least when outside of his area of expertise:

"A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein

But he had no grounding for that and certainly didn’t have an accurate understanding of the Christian worldview.  Man does need restraint (anyone ever notice all those pesky laws out there?) and we are still in a poor way.

Good response by Ray Comfort here.

BANNED BY YOUTUBE: We Con the World, the Turkish ‘Aid to Gaza’ Song – excellent parody, wimpy YouTube.  “The truth will never find its way to your TV.”

 

Digg This

“Hate crimes” are bad, but punishing people for thoughts is a terrible idea

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie parrots the Liberal talking points in Christians Must Condemn Portland Hate Crimes Against LGBT Persons.

Of course crimes against LGBT persons are bad.  So are crimes against straight people.

Thankfully, last year saw the passage of the bi-partisan Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. Stiffer penalties are now in effect for hate crimes.

This is where Chuck stops thinking.  First, Matthew Shepard’s murder was not because he was gay.  The killers admitted that.  Even if it was, false teachers like Chuck would have you believe that the killers just came from a Focus on the Family “Love Won Out” conference.

And James Byrd’s killers were sentenced to death while people like Chuck oppose the death penalty.  Meditate on that: President Bush and others like me approved of the death penalty for the killers of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd.  Got that?  The death penalty.  But if Chuck & Co. think that is wrong, how are his penalties stiffer?

Fact: Liberals  fight for lesser penalties for these “hate” crimes than conservatives.

Even today those in the far Religious Right – in groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council – promote active discrimination against the LGBT community nationwide by fighting for the reversal of federal hate crimes laws and other civil rights protections using language that is comparable to language the Nazi Party the used to dehumanize Jews.

Odd to see Chuck standing up for Jews, since he is too gutless to share the Gospel with them.

Groups fight the hate crimes bill because we know what they really mean: Thought crimes and restrictions of religious liberty.  Chuck likes those laws because he thinks it will silence real Christians.

Jesus said: “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are my family, you did it to me (Matthew 25:40

Chuck predictably trots out one of the three Bible verses he knows, but of course it always mocks him and his pro-abortion agenda.  What does Chuck do for the “least of these” in the womb?  He declares open season on them.

Those who help or hurt another do it not just to the one rescued or victimized but to God.

Yes, which is why this blood is on Chuck’s hands.

Holy Scripture has been misused to dehumanize gay and lesbian people and that sinful behavior has helped to create a climate where violence against one who is “other” is acceptable.

How odd to hear a false teacher refer to scripture as holy, especially since he denies much of it.  And how ironic that homosexual behavior is clearly described as sinful in the Bible, but Chuck is too much of a homophobe to teach that (he fears the gay lobby more than God).