Heterosexual supporters of “same-sex marriage” are going to get mugged by reality

Here’s why: Their support for these “marriages” will also justify support for polygamy, polyamory, bi-sexual multiple marriages and more — and their spouses will have the option to participate in those without their consent.  The woman who supports “same-sex marriage” today may regret it when her husband brings home another woman — or another man — to legally share her home and finances.

Please read this post carefully so you’ll be able to show people how the pro-gay movement can have deep and personal impacts on them.  This is not a “slippery slope” fallacy, it is a logical slippery slope (or, as I like to call it, a cliff argument), where the arguments for one position automatically support another position as well.  And don’t say, “That can’t happen!,” because it is already getting mainstreamed.  

The consequences are huge and have already manifested themselves in many places.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

There is a simple reason that the gay lobby focuses mostly on the “LG” (lesbian and gay) part of the LGBTQX alphabet soup: The reasoning of the rest of the acronym is harder to sell because of the logical consequences.  But if they can get the first part affirmed and codified then it will be too late to backtrack to prevent the rest from taking place.  Case in point: Have you noticed how they never talk about bisexuals and their “civil rights” to be able to marry at least one person of each sex?  After all, all the same arguments for gays and lesbians should apply to them.

We have such obvious and sound arguments on our side.  By nature and design, one man / one woman relationships produce the next generation and only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Therefore, the government has an interest in those unions, because they form the foundation of society.  We don’t even have to use religious arguments, though of course God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages and homosexual behavior is a sin.  The Bible could not be more clear.

But our arguments have often been ineffective.  Why?  Because the foundational lie of the gay lobby works so well.  They combine a lie (“Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others”) with the truth (“We will relentlessly harm you if you disagree”) and that is too much for many people to withstand.  They have made it very easy for people to switch sides and repeat false sound bites (they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about it, it prevents bullying, it doesn’t hurt you, they love each other, we shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage, etc.).  People are really good at rationalizing lies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

So I encourage you to try this reasoning: Ask the other person if they’d mind if their spouse (current or future) decided to maintain their relationship and marry someone else of the opposite sex — or the same sex.  Would that bother them?  If so, why aren’t they living consistently — even just hypothetically! — with their own worldview?  If they claim it wouldn’t bother them, ask if you can use your home polygraph test on them.  The other person may lie to you and pretend that they wouldn’t care, but you will have given them something to think about.  Later in the post I’ll show what that conversation could look like.

The argument takes the pro-gay reasoning to its logical conclusions and shows how most people will not like the possibilities.  That should help them re-think their entire argument.

It starts by demonstrating the truth that marriage is something we describe, not define.  As Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has noted, marriage has always described something that existed: A union of a man and a woman.  But if people think marriage is something we get to define, then anything goes.  Sure, they pretend that they just want to define it as any two adults who love each other, etc.  But why pull up the drawbridge there?  If you choose to define it rather than describe it, then why can’t others define it their way?

Then it points out the logical conclusions: If marriage isn’t just a union of a man and a woman, then why can’t it involve three people?  Why can’t it be polygamous?  Why can’t a man have a wife and a husband in two separate but simultaneous marriages?  Why can’t you marry your dog?  As Koukl notes, when the other person says those are silly examples, you get to agree with them!  Yes, they are silly — but they are your arguments, not mine.  If your position is that we can define marriage how we like, these possibilities are open for others who are more “open minded” than you are.

Here’s how that conversation might look.  Remember to be nice!  This doesn’t have to be combative.  You aren’t trying to grind them into a fine powder, you want them to see where their worldview is taking them.  Oh, and you want to work the Gospel in wherever you can.

Christian: So what do you think of this “same-sex marriage” and adoptions by gay people?

Pro-gay person: I’m all for it.  Hey, they love each other and that’s what it is all about.  You have a civil right to marry who you like.  It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage.  And the Bible never said it is wrong.

And gay people adopting is fine. Kids need love from anyone.  It doesn’t have to be a male and a female.

C: Actually, the Bible couldn’t be more clear, and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people agree that it considers homosexual behavior sinful.  We can come back to that if you like.

So do you think marriage is something you define or describe?  I mean, is marriage a thing that exists and then we describe it, or is it just a word that we can change the definition of?

P: I think we can redefine it.  It used to be that interracial marriage was forbidden.

C: But the definition was the same: A union of a man and a woman.  So if you can redefine it, I assume you are OK with polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), polyandry (multiple husbands), one or more spouse of each sex, marriages to animals, etc.?

P: Oh, don’t be silly.

C: I agree that those are silly, but they are your arguments, not mine.  If marriage is something you define, then who are you to say others can’t define it their way?  All the same things apply: It is the same love, they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about them, etc.

P: But those things won’t happen.

C: They can and they will.  The polygamy and pedophilia movements are already latching onto the gay agenda gains and using the same reasoning. ABC just ran a fluff piece on polygamy and The Atlantic is advocating for polyamory.  This is how they change the culture to accept what used to be unthinkable.  Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago where we’d be now with “same-sex marriage?”  Who would have thought that Christian bakers could lose their businesses for not baking cakes for same-sex “weddings?”

So why are you pulling up the drawbridge on these other people who want to live out the way they were born?  How do their loving relationships hurt you?  If a bisexual was born that way, how can you deny him the fulfillment of marrying a man and a woman?

And who says that you can only love one person?  Why can’t a man or a woman have two or more spouses of any gender?

Real feminists should hate where this is headed.  Women will devote their youth to raising kids, only to have their husband be able to bring another partner into the household.

P: Well, I guess . . .

C: You are married with kids, right?

P: Yes, I’ve been married to my husband for 12 years and we have 2 kids.

C: OK, so consider this: Your husband comes home and tells you he loves you and wants to stay married to you, but he has always been attracted to men as well.  And there is a man he really loves.  So for him to be complete he is also going to marry him.  His “husband” will live in your house with you and your kids and they will have sex together.    

P: That’s ridiculous.

C: But it could happen, right?  Lots of men have abandoned families for gay lovers and women have left for lesbian relationships.  Episcopalian “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a Leftist hero for leaving his wife and kids for his gay lover.  Why shouldn’t these guys stay married and just add on?

Again, I’m using your born that way / same love / etc. logic.

So what would you do in that situation?

P: But our vows were to “forsake all others.”

C: Uh, sorry, but are you not familiar with no-fault divorce?  Wedding vows used to be like a real contract where you couldn’t unilaterally abandon your obligation.  But with no-fault divorce either party can leave for any reason.  So with the political clout LGBTQ people have things like this are inevitable.

P: Well, my husband would never do that.

C: Probably not, but if he had wanted to he probably wouldn’t have told you until society and your Left-leaning church decided that “same-sex marriage” was a civil right.

Again, what would you do?  It is just a hypothetical based on taking your views to their logical conclusions, so please don’t be offended.

P: Well, I’d divorce him.  Or I’d marry another husband!

C: And what makes you think another guy would want to be involved in that?!  “Yeah, my husband married a guy that shares our bed now, so I want a second husband.”

Wouldn’t you want your husband to be happy and fulfilled and to be who he really is?

P: Not at my expense!

C: Indeed.  So if you divorced him, do you realize that some Leftist judge would probably give him parental rights? 

P: No way!

C: Way.  Think about it: You and society have decided that it is illegal for adoption agencies to “discriminate” against gay couples.  So they are “obviously” just as fit to parent your kids as a heterosexual couple.  And there would be two of them — your husband and his lover — versus just one of you.  And given how politically incorrect it would be to give custody to you, the judge would almost certainly side with them.  

So the logical conclusion of your worldview would be you — or someone else — either living with your spouse and his new spouse (man or woman) and you would have no legal control over it.

P: I still don’t think that would happen.

C: It will, because the logic is already in place once you grant civil rights to sexual preferences — whether allegedly inborn or not.  

Let’s try another example: Regular polygamy.  I picked the “bisexual polygamy” first because, oddly enough, they are ahead of the regular polygamists in getting civil rights for their sexual preferences.  But how can you argue against polygamy at all?  At least those relationships fit the original definition of marriage — that is, one man and one woman.  By nature and design they could produce children and provide a mother and a father to them.  They “just” involved more than one of those relationships.  

P: But polygamy is wrong! [Note: The Leftists may not even think it is wrong, but I assumed so in this case to make it harder to convince them.]

C: We agree, but you’ve already made the case for them: They love each other (“same love!”), they were born that way, etc.  They can even claim that there are more parents around to love the kids.  So your support of government recognition of same-sex unions unwittingly made the case for polygamy.

So here’s another hypothetical: What if your husband decides he’d like a younger wife but doesn’t want the costly divorce?  He’ll be able to marry someone whether you like it or not and bring her into your house.  She would share in all you have built up over the years and actually live with you.  Think of the guys who dump their spouses for “trophy wives.”  Polygamy may be much simpler and cheaper for them.

P: My husband would never do that!

C: But if society tells him it is OK, he might change his mind.  Remember how much people are influenced by the “if it is legal then it must be moral” line of thinking.  Even Planned Parenthood said this about abortion in a 1964 advertisement: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Just years later half the population thought that abortion was an inalienable right and a completely moral solution.  So give it a decade or two and it may seem natural for your husband to consider a younger model.

And even though the Bible clearly teaches that God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages for life, it is a thousand times easier to twist the Bible to support polygamy than it is to support “same-sex marriage.”

And even if your husband wouldn’t do that, what about all the other women and children impacted by it?

Now don’t feel like you have to answer me now, or at all, but I encourage you to think carefully about these things and see if perhaps you should reconsider your views.  If you think I’ve stated something incorrectly or illogically, please let me know.  But I firmly believe that those are all logical consequences of assigning civil rights to sexual preferences. Even if gays were born that way, there are no good reasons for the government to get involved in their relationships and there are many bad things that will inevitably happen — if not to you, then to others.

And please remember what the word of God says about this:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind.

God created this world and knows exactly how it works.  Living in denial of that reality is always a recipe for pain.  The Good News is that all sins can be forgiven through repenting and trusting in Jesus.

—–

Conclusion: I encourage you to try this reasoning with people who hold pro-LGBTQ views.  I think it is a provocative way to get them to quit spouting fallacious sound bites and to think more carefully about the logical conclusions of their views.  Yes, it is an emotional argument, but one grounded in facts and logic.  The Left falsely uses emotional arguments, but there is nothing wrong with use using them properly.

——

By the way, if you a conservative using this on a Left-leaning spouse, be sure to tell them these are hypothetical situations!  You don’t want them to freak out too badly.

Why is the primary lie of the gay lobby so effective?

Because they combine it with some truth.

First, the lie:

Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others.

What’s not to like?  Well, lots, if you give it a little thought.

It will make you more popular with the world, because you’ll be perceived as loving and tolerant instead of hateful, but it denies the truth in many ways.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

And it doesn’t even help those it claims to.  Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men. Violence is higher in LGBTQ relationships.  Even gay leaders wouldn’t want gays around their teenage sons, because they know how predatory that culture can be.  People can and do change sexual preferences.  They are not “born that way,” and even if they were it wouldn’t justify the behavior any more than being born lustful, greedy, angry, etc. justifies those sins.

And of course, that lie explicitly denies the word of the one true God.  To teach the opposite is hate, not love. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind.

Then why do so many people believe the lie?  Because it is packaged with some true messages.  Satan is evil, but he isn’t stupid.  Jesus rightly called him the father of lies, but that doesn’t mean Satan won’t gladly tell some of the truth to help sell the lies.  People have known for millennia that homosexual behavior was wrong.  God specifically says that you have to suppress the truth in unrighteousness to deny his existence, and one of the ways that rebellion manifests itself in in homosexual behavior.**

See how their truth and lies combination works:

Lie: Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others.

Truth: Disagree with us and we will hurt you.  We will relentlessly mock you in government schools, the media and entertainment.  Like the blind men of Sodom, we will persist no matter what until everyone affirms us.  Not just tolerates, but actively affirms.  Silence will be interpreted as disapproval, and it will cost you your job, business, reputation or even your freedom.  We will not quit until all churches must “marry” same-sex couples and hire actively LGBTQ people.  It will be illegal to quote many parts of the Bible.  It will usher in legalized polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia and more [click any of those links to see how they are already being normalized].  We pretended that we were against those but we never really cared.  We favor anything that rebels against God.  But don’t feel too threatened.  We’ll help you convince others that the Bible doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is a sin, that it doesn’t harm people, etc.

Here’s just one recent example: LGBT Activist Declares: ‘We Need to Start Making Their Lives a Living Hell’

It’s time that the LGBT community forms a new organization that targets homophobes, bigots, religious zealots, religious fanatics, and all other assholes who are against equality, and human and civil rights for all people.
By targeting these bigots, and publishing every little detail of their sex lives, or personal lives, taking pictures through their windows, and getting the pics out on the internet, showing every little thing that they do, including how they wipe their asses when in the bathroom, or for that matter if they’re wiping their asses in the kitchen — we’ve got to catch it on camera.
The time to just sit back and take it, are over with for the LGBT community. We need to get rid of bigots like these homophobic religious assholes, and if it means exposing every little thing about them, then that’s what we need to do.
We need to start making their lives a living hell by constant observation and publishing pics and articles every time they fart, or spit, or even look cross-eyed. It’s obvious these bigots only understand one thing, and that is persecution, discrimination and bigotry.
Here come the LGBT bigots, gonna prey on the religious zealots, fanatics, and bigots who think their shit don’t stink, and think they can control everyone else’s life.
LET’S GET RID OF THESE BASTARDS ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!

Can’t you just feel the love and tolerance?  That’s just one of the countless things the mainstream media will never tell you.  If they did, do you think it just might change the support for “same-sex marriage?”

That’s their combined message, and that is why so many people conveniently believe the lie.  Don’t give in.  Or if you have given in, come back to the truth and help others do the same.  If you really love God and your neighbor you’ll speak the truth.  In the next post I’ll explain an easy but provocative way to do it.

P.S. Their agenda is propped up by all sorts of other lies as well, such as Matthew Shepard’s murder, tipping hoaxes, birthday party snub hoaxes, etc.

——–

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

  1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
  2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
  3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

** Romans 1:18–20, 26-28 (ESV) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

This what coveting looks like.

The green bars below are the percent of people in various UK political parties who would increase taxes on the wealthy even if it didn’t yield extra tax money.  That’s coveting, pure and simple.  Guess which political party had 72% who admitted to coveting?  The Labour party, the UK equivalent of the U.S. Democrats.

british-punitive-taxation-support

Think about this carefully: The Left wants to take money from prosperous people even if it doesn’t help others.  That speaks volumes about their worldview and their other policies.  

Via Most British Labour Voters Would Impose Taxes Purely Out of Malice:

Here’s the legend: Con = Conservative Party (Tories); Lab = Labour (equivalent to USA’s Democrat Party); Lib Dem = Liberal Democrat (not as left-wing as Labour); UKIP = UK Independence Party.

The esteemed countermoonbat Daniel Hannan provides some analysis:

Sixty-nine per cent of Labour supporters would want a top rate tax of 50 per cent even if it brought in no money.

That is, they would impose the tax simply to punish people for having created wealth — on moral grounds.

Politicians either know or should know that increasing tax rates doesn’t always increase tax revenues.  Even JFK knew that!  But they appeal to people’s covetous nature and want to “soak the rich,” even though they are usually remarkably waterproof.

Appealing to people’s sinful desires may help people get elected, but it is still evil.

The problem is in the church as well, where Leftist false teachers encourage people to covet.

By the way, Obama is officially on the green bar, having supported the concept of ineffective tax hikes just to support the appearance of “fairness.”

More from the link:

Theft motivated purely by maliciousness is regarded as moral by these freaks.

No doubt they would wrap their malice in rhetoric about reducing income inequality…

. . .

We can encourage by far the most common forms of legal tax avoidance: shorter hours and earlier retirement. All these things will make our country more equal. All of them will make it poorer.

Lately Obama has been demagoguing the income inequality issue like a true Marxist. Appallingly but unsurprisingly, he has revealed that he believes wealth should be confiscated even if it actually reduces government revenue, “for purposes of fairness.”

Q. If Obama likes abortion so much, why won’t he say the word?

A. Because deep down we all know it is murder.

From his recent statement celebrating the Roe v. Wade verdict that has led to the slaughter of 57 million innocent but unwanted human beings.  Count how many times he says the A-word (hint: zero).

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

That commits the most common pro-abortion fallacy, which is ignoring the unwanted human being killed during the procedure.  What about her choices, her body and her health?

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.

Never let them get away with the Orwellian term reproductive freedom.  It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization, so all abortions kill human beings who have already reproduced.  

And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

If you really want safe communities for children you should stop killing them.  Make abortion illegal and you’ll cut down on a few million murders per year.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

 

Everyone?  How about the unborn?  It takes a special kind of evil for him to say that while fulfilling the Democrats’ dream of increased abortions via taxpayer funding and no restrictions.  From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Via Obama Celebrates 41 Years of Abortion: Roe an “Opportunity to Fulfill Dreams” | LifeNews.com.

Did your media tell you this about the Sandy Hook shooter?

Or did they just use the story as a tool to take away your 2nd Amendment rights?  If you haven’t heard about this then you need to expand your media horizons.

Via Disturbing: Adam Lanza PC Contained Info on “Rights of Pedophiles, Movie About Man/Boy Love, Instant Messages Concerning Homosexual Fantasies”

Well, this will probably be the last you ever hear about Adam Lanza from the mainstream media.

The state’s attorney report on the horrific murders at  the Sandy Hook Elementary School by shooter Adam Lanza found no “conclusive motive” for his actions but did document unsettling facts about the 20-year-old killer, including computer files he kept on the rights of pedophiles, a movie about man/boy love, instant messages concerning “homosexual fantasies,” numerous mass murder documents, and a computer game entitled “School Shooting.”In “School Shooting,” an amateur computer game, “the player controls a character who enters a school and shoots at students,” reads an Investigation Report (DPS-302-E) that is among the 1,000-plus pages comprising the state’s attorney report on the shootings.

Lanza, after shooting his mother Nancy Lanza at home on the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, drove to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and shot and killed 20 children and six adults, and then shot himself.  (Full report, text and images here.  Summary report here.)

Guess we need to ban movies about man/boy love, huh?

Hat tip: The Other McCain

 

The X stands for QQAOPA

After reading this you will only wish that the title referred to some sort of bizarre algebraic equation.

Alternate title: Sometimes I hate being right.

Back around 2005, before I started my own blog, the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) term was fairly ubiquitous, but I started adding an X to the end of it (LGBTX) when commenting on other sites to emphasize how it was just a matter of time before they added more letters. I just meant it as a placeholder, but what has happened in less than a decade is beyond parody.

Via About – Queer Resource Center – College of Arts and Sciences – Lewis & Clark (your college education dollars at work!):

Beyond providing support and resources, the QRC* seeks to advocate on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, asexual, omnisexual, pansexual and allied community (LGBTQQAOPA).

Yes, in less than ten years the “X” placeholder exploded to QQAOPA.  Who knows what they’ll add next?

These haters must be discriminating against all the “cis” gender people and more (look it up), because LGBTQQAOPA isn’t inclusive enough.

I submit that they should go ahead and add PPP for Pedophilia, Polygamy and Polyamory, because — as predicted — they are using the same arguments that the gay lobby used (born that way, same love, if-you-disagree-you’re-a-hater, etc.).

And there is the obvious overlap for many of the letters: Famous Gay Rights Activist Now Also Famous for Child Pornography Habits.  Yeah, he was just a famous gay rights leader caught with baby-rape porn, so he only got 6 months in jail and won’t lose his government pension because that crime “obviously” doesn’t violate his moral turpitude agreement.  And of course the mainstream media would never tell you about this case.

They should consolidate their unwieldy term as “R” for rebels.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

It is fascinating/horrifying to see how faddish sexual perversions have become.  It isn’t cool enough just to claim to be gay, lesbian or even bisexual.  People seem to want to have their own individual identity.  I pray that they discover that God’s way is the best way.  Always.

And I pray that those claiming the name of Christ will have the courage to speak the truth on these topics instead of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  

*QRC = Queer Resource Center.  And yes, if you use the word queer it is hate speech, but if they use it then it is fine.

Good pro-life news from Kenya

Abortion is the worst export from the West.  Thankfully, many countries are resisting this evil.  I have a real heart for Kenya after five mission trips and numerous dear friends there, so I was glad to see this: Kenya Pro-Lifers Defeat Western Effort to Expand Abortion.

When Kenyans voted on a new constitution in 2010, a massive publicity campaign – heavily funded by the Obama administration – assured voters it would not legalize abortion. In fact, “Life begins at conception” is in the constitution.

But the Constitution also allowed abortion in certain circumstances. Pro-lifers warned there would be more to come.

Abortion proponents, including those from the United States and Europe, drafted a set of policies for the Kenyan Ministry of Health that would have imposed abortion on the Kenyan medical system. The policies were rejected this week, according to a source close to the effort. Pro-lifers now want Kenyan legislators to denounce the attempt to expand abortion through the Ministry of Health.

What is truly despicable is how the Left is so pro-abortion that they borrowed money from our grandchildren to try to increase abortions in Kenya.

During the referendum for Kenya’s constitution, the Obama administration spent $18 million and directed U.S. personnel, including Peace Corp volunteers, to campaign for it. President Obama would visit Kenya, it was promised, if they passed the Constitution but he never did.

That’s what you should expect from a political party that is so pro-abortion that they want to increase abortions by removing restrictions and requiring taxpayer-funded abortions.  From the Democrats’ platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

If you voted for Obama and other Democrats then you are part of the problem.  Please reconsider your views.  

Wendy Davis fought for late-term abortions, so you should vote for her.

And anyone who opposes her is anti-women.

At least that’s what the Left would have you believe.

It doesn’t matter that she lied under oath about her background.

It doesn’t matter that her lies were uncovered by a reporter who leans left politically, it was obviously the fault of the Right.

It doesn’t matter that she blamed her opponent, Greg Abbott, even though he had nothing to do with the story — and even if he had, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Davis lied.

It doesn’t matter that her “feel sorry for me” campaign is built on lies.

It doesn’t matter that this self-made, reliant woman divorced her 2nd husband the day after he made the last payment for her law degree (after that he went into his retirement savings to pay for her education).

It doesn’t matter that she was such a bad mother that her biological daughter wanted her step-dad to have custody of her when Wendy divorced him.

It doesn’t matter that a court ordered her not to use alcohol or drugs before meeting with her daughters.

In documents obtained by RedState, Wendy Davis’s own child requested her father be her custodian. Likewise, in filing his divorce against Wendy Davis, her husband requested the courtenter the temporary restraining order.

The court, without an evidentiary hearing, did so. See the temporary restraining order here. The court ordered that Wendy Davis “be immediately restrained from . . . using illegal drugs or consuming alcohol within 24 hours before or during the period of possession of or access to the child.”

The court also ordered Wendy Davis to keep out of her residence anyone she was having “intimate or dating relationship[s]” with while children were present between 10pm and 6am.

The Dallas Morning News reported Davis’s husband, who paid Davis’s way through Harvard Law School by cashing in his 401(K) and taking out a loan, claimed Davis committed adultery on him.

Davis’s husband got custody of the children and the court ordered Wendy Davis to pay child support.

It doesn’t matter that even the majority of pro-choice people oppose late term abortions, making Davis a pro-abortion extremist by any standard.

It doesn’t matter that nearly all gender-selection abortions kill females for the sole reason that they are female.  That isn’t the ultimate misogyny, it is a female’s right to kill their unborn daughters for being female!

It doesn’t matter that so many women abort their children because of the pressure from the fathers of the children (such as this case where the abortive mother found healing through Christ) and that so many males support abortion rights.  This is a woman’s issue!

It doesn’t matter that most of these abortions are to kill babies with “defects,” real or imagined, because the issues can’t be diagnosed until later in pregnancy.  And it really doesn’t matter that if Greg Abbott’s disability was noted in utero instead of happening as an adult that Wendy would have fought for the right to abort him.

It doesn’t matter if you claim that your wheelchair-bound opponent hasn’t walked a day in your shoes, because the Leftist media will give you a pass.

None of that matters.  If you are a pro-abortion extremist then you can be hailed as an “incredible woman” by the Girl Scouts. You will be fawned over by the Leftist media.  People will donate to your campaign.

This is how extreme the Left is: They love abortion so much that you can get away with anything as long as you support unrestricted abortions.  This isn’t news, of course.  We knew when the feminists gave Bill Clinton a pass that all they really cared about was abortion.  They should have led the parade for an accomplished woman like Sarah Palin.  But she was pro-life so she had to be destroyed.

The Left’s love of abortion is Satanic.  It is best summarized in the platform of the Democratic party:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

It is too bad that the enduring image of Davis portrayed by the Left is of her tennis shoes and not the bodies of those killed by abortions.

Russia’s President Putin is right

At least about the marketing of LGBTQPPX* propaganda to kids.  Via Putin says Russia is not ‘going after’ gays:

SOCHI, Russia (Reuters) – Russia is not “going after” gays, President Vladimir Putin said on Friday, defending a ban on “propaganda” about homosexuality that has brought criticism from the West ahead of the Winter Olympics.

The Kremlin hopes the games, starting on February 7 in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea, will showcase Russia’s modern face more than two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed.

. . .

But Russia last year upset the West and human rights activists by banning what it called the promotion of homosexuality among minors. Calls for a mass boycott of the games have failed, but the row has clouded the build-up to the event.

Leave it to the moral freaks to try and ruin something as great as the Olympics.  All Russia is saying is that you can’t market these perversions to kids.  Something about millstones around your neck comes to mind.

If you want to tell kids about those lifestyles, at least tell them the truth: They weren’t “born that way,” and those lifestyles are incredibly destructive to your emotional, spiritual and physical life.  Even the “experts” on the Left know that those preferences can be fluid in younger people.  Don’t poison their minds and tell them that they are permanently fixed.

And do tell them facts like this: Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.  Meditate on that for a moment.  How evil and vile do you have to be to knowingly risk infecting others with a deadly disease, just because you don’t want to wear a condom when having sex?  That is one of the most profoundly selfish acts imaginable, yet the mainstream media never tells you about these things.  Are all gays guilty of that?  No, but 62% of those who contract HIV are.  And 100% of those who hide the truth are guilty.

Critics say the law is discriminatory and part of a rolling back of human rights and democratic freedoms under Putin, who has taken a more conservative course on social issues since returning to the presidency in mid-2012.

“There is no ban on non-traditional forms of sexual interaction between people. We have a ban on propaganda of homosexuality,” Putin told a meeting with young volunteers preparing for the games.

“We ban nothing, we aren’t going after anyone, we have no responsibility for such contacts.”

Putin said some U.S. states had laws envisaging criminal responsibility for gay sexual intercourse.

“We have no such thing, people can feel free and at ease but please leave the children in peace,” he said.

It is a sad and ironic day when a former KGB leader rightly lectures the U.S. about basic morality.

* Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Questioning Pedophile Polygamy X (X = whatever they come up with next) — the same rational for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and teaching kids how “natural” any of the preferences are applies to all of them, whether one explicitly supports them all or not.

Schadenfreude alert: Radical feminists blasted for being too conservative.

Yep. Apparently the radical Left is trans-phobic and insists on having female-only events — by which they mean real females and not just pretend ones.  It reminds me of the lesbian couple who complained to the Houston Chronicle about the family section of the gay pride parade being put near the S&M groups.  It is fascinating to watch people pull up the perversion drawbridge once they’ve crossed their favorite part.

Go read this entire post.  Yes, it can hard to follow with the alphabet soup of perversions that McCain describes, but you owe it to yourself.  Via The Rocky Horror Dating Game: Translesbians Encounter Queer Hate.  

Radical egalitarianism is a sort of philosophical insanity, premised as it is on the idea that everything is equal, even things that are fundamentally different. When you begin with an obvious falsehood as the premise of your argument, the conclusion will necessarily be madness.

Ten days ago, I brought you up-to-date about an emerging controversy on the extremist fringe. Radical feminists who wish to exclude trannies from their events are accused of “transphobia”:

RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.

How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates).

Brennan’s outspoken hostility to “transwomen” — including those she calls “Pretendbians” — takes it to a whole new level of crazy:

Basically, Cathy Brennan is the Fred Phelps of radical lesbian feminists. Brennan’s message seems to be, “Feminism is for man-hating socialist homosexual perverts and we don’t want to associate with a bunch of surgically mutilated psychotic freaks.”

Gosh, it’s kind of hard to choose sides here, isn’t it?

. . .

This is the logical consequence of mocking God’s created order.  If you feed lust and rebellion you don’t satisfy it, you make it grow.  And this is what it looks like as it grows.  This is a sad lot of horribly confused and/or evil people.  They need Jesus.

Favorite dish of the theological Left & skeptics: Shellfish

This is one of my all-time favorites bits, originally posted in 2007.  It addresses a very common argument used by atheists and those on the theological Left.  The argument they use is wildly illogical but never seems to go away.

I just added another response at the end that I can’t believe I didn’t put in the first time: The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they anyone claiming to be Christian who complained about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, gay-bashing, etc. would also be inconsistent if they didn’t obey the Jewish ceremonial laws.  That is transparently false.  You should use this counter-argument against “Christians” making the shellfish / mixed fiber / etc. claim: Unless you also follow the Jewish ceremonial laws, then you shouldn’t advocate for any of your [allegedly] biblical views about government, helping the poor, gays, abortion, etc.

—– 

shellfish.jpgAs always, this is about careful thinking and proper analysis of the Bible and not about picking on homosexuals.  We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

Many liberal theologians, skeptics and pro-gay lobbyists use the “shellfish” argument to undermine and/or dismiss parts of the Bible they disagree with, often mocking about how they love shrimp and such.  They use the same reasoning with other Old Testament restrictions such as not eating pork or mixing fibers in garments.  This video by Jack Black is a recent example.

Their argument goes like this:

  • Yes, Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
  • But Leviticus 11:10 says, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you
  • Therefore, the Bible cannot be the word of God and homosexual behavior must be moral because the Bible is an undependable, contradictory book that equates shrimp eating with sexual immorality.  And people who teach that homosexual behavior is a sin are bigoted hypocrites who only follow the parts of the Bible they like.

Here’s a sample of how they present their conclusions.  Search for Leviticus shellfish or see sites like God Hates Shrimp for more examples.

The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?

Actually, I find those questions to be ironic, because I think the facts will show which side is most likely to pre-judge, selectively quote the Bible and take it too literally.  I hope they take this analysis seriously and reconsider whether their premises and conclusions were sound.

On the one hand, their argument is effective because it is catchy and very few people know how to respond to it.  Many people can’t even articulate the simple Gospel.  When was the last time anyone read Leviticus?

On the other hand, their argument is ineffective because the facts do not support it.  Also, it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines confidence in the word of God.  I expect that from skeptics and non-believers, but I am always disappointed that those claiming to be Christians use it to attack the word of God.

The argument appeals to those who take passages literally when it suits them.  Both passages say abomination (or detestable, depending on what translation you read), don’t they?  And if eating shellfish is obviously a morally neutral act then homosexual behavior must be as well, right?

However, if you follow the basic principle of reading things in context and you attempt to understand the original languages better on difficult or controversial passages, then you’ll realize that the shellfish argument is not supported by the facts.

The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination.  They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.  The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.  

The longer version

1. The words translated abomination in the original Hebrew are different.  In Lev. 11:10, it means detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation.  This word is typically used in the Bible to describe unclean animals.

In Lev. 18:22 the Hebrew term תּוֹעֵבָה (toevah, rendered “detestable act”) refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners.  As noted below, the word is also used to describe bestiality, child sacrifice and incest.

Therefore, the whole “same word!” argument self-destructs immediately.

2. Even a plain reading of the passages shows that the homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God, whereas the shellfish are to be detestable to the Israelites because it made them ceremonially unclean.  Those are key differences.  Being detestable to God is quite a bit different than being detestable to a person.

3. The broader contexts show completely different types of regulations.  Read Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 yourself and note the contexts.  I’ll wait here.

The beginning and end of chapter 11 make it clear that this passage is about dietary rules just for the Israelites:

Leviticus 11:1-2 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

Leviticus 11:46-47 These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.

Now consider the beginning and end of chapter 18, where the Israelites are told not to be like the pagan Canaanites.  God expected the Canaanites to follow these moral laws and was about to vomit them out of the land for failing to do so.  Therefore, they obviously weren’t Jewish ceremonial laws.

Leviticus 18:1-3 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

Leviticus 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”

4. The punishments for eating shellfish and homosexual behavior were radically different.  There were about 15 things in the Israelite theocracy that could result in capital punishment, and homosexual behavior was one of them (And no, I’m not suggesting that should be the punishment today.  The punishments were for the Israelite theocracy, which is clear when you read the context of those passages.)  But eating shellfish just made one ceremonially unclean for a period of time.

Again, note how the moral laws with their steep punishments are tied to offenses God held the pagans responsible for, yet the unclean animal passages were for the Israelites only and were brief (It could have been for health reasons and/or symbolic reasons.  Animals on the ground were like the serpent and thus symbolized sin and pagan religions often sacrificed pigs).

 Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:22-26 Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

5. The ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned in the New Testament, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.   Also see Acts 15:28-29 (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.)

6. The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they anyone claiming to be Christian who complained about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, gay-bashing, etc. would also be inconsistent if they didn’t obey the Jewish ceremonial laws.  That is transparently false.  You should use this counter-argument against “Christians” making the shellfish / mixed fiber / etc. claim: Unless you also follow the Jewish ceremonial laws, then you shouldn’t advocate for any of your [allegedly] biblical views about government, helping the poor, gays, abortion, etc.

And if someone tries to play the “Leviticus is outdated” card, remind them of this verse and ask if it still counts: Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

Remember, anyone calling themselves a Christian should be seeking to hold the same views as Jesus.  And Jesus fully supported the Old Testament law — every last letter and mark.

Here’s another answer from Tektonics, a terrific apologetics website:

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

The point of this question – aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about – is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are “degrees” of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found “abominable”? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for “abomination” in both passages are different suggests that by itself. The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)

So if anyone uses the shellfish argument with you, ask a few questions to see if they have really thought it through.  Everyone I have ever seen use it was either unaware of these responses or deliberately ignoring them. 

Also see Problems with Pro-Gay Theology and Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.

The Methodists get one right

Via Defrocking of Minister Widens Split Over Gays:

The Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister, was stripped of his clerical credentials on Thursday for violating church law by presiding at his son’s same-sex wedding. The punishment, imposed by the United Methodist Church in Pennsylvania, was requested by the church prosecutor to deter other ministers from blessing same-sex marriages.

Good for them!  Hopefully that sets an example for others to obey the Bible and the Methodist Book of Discipline.

But far from intimidating others, the trial and defrocking of Mr. Schaefer have galvanized a wave of Methodist ministers to step forward to disobey church prohibitions against marrying and ordaining openly gay people.

Members of the United Methodist Church, the nation’s third-largest Christian denomination, have been battling bitterly over homosexuality for four decades. The church now faces an increasingly determined uprising by clergy members and laypeople who have refused to cede, even after losing the most recent votes, at the Methodist convention last year, on proposals to change church teaching.

Yeah, the men of Sodom were pretty stubborn too.  They groped for the door even when God blinded them.  Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door. Sound familiar?

“After 40 years of playing nice and attempting a legislative solution, we will not wait any longer,” said Matt Berryman, a former Methodist pastor who said he turned in his credentials because he is gay. He now serves as the executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, a Methodist gay rights group.

Maybe they should just leave altogether! They obviously have a different religion.

. . .

Church conservatives, however, say they have the momentum. About a half-dozen more ministers are facing church trials, and the defrocking of Mr. Schaefer proves to them that church juries have the courage of their convictions. In addition, they say the church is losing members in its liberal-leaning regions and growing in conservative regions.

Yep.  And growing in Africa, much to the chagrin of the Leftists in the U.S.

John Lomperis, the United Methodist director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious think tank, said the same-sex weddings performed by Methodist clergy were “publicity stunts” that were backfiring.

. . .

Mr. Schaefer is hardly the first Methodist minister to be defrocked for disobeying church teachings on homosexuality. Jimmy Creech was stripped of his credentials in 1999 for performing a same-sex ceremony. Irene Elizabeth Stroud, a lesbian living with her partner, was defrocked in 2005.

Stroud was another fraud, like Schaefer, who entered the clergy under false pretenses.

Mr. Schaefer said at a news conference on Thursday after his defrocking, “Here we are 10 years later, and they are doing the same thing.”

Yes!  The same thing!  Because the word of God doesn’t change!

He added, “The church needs to recognize that things have changed and times are changing and people are changing.”

Again, the real church recognizes that the word of God doesn’t change.

Mr. Schaefer has four children, three of whom are gay.

Whoa!  That might explain things.  Parents can’t control everything, but lots of them turn pro-gay after their kids come out.  It is almost as if they are rationalizing their bad parenting.  Three out of four is pretty bad!

. . .

The church’s Book of Discipline, which contains its law and doctrine, forbids same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay people, and says that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Efforts to amend the Book of Discipline have been defeated by increasingly wide margins at the church’s quadrennial conferences as delegates representing the church’s growing branch in Africa have bolstered the votes of conservative Methodists in the United States.

. . .

He said he would not consider leaving the Methodist Church for a denomination that has changed its teaching on homosexuality.

“It’s not that easy when a church is your spiritual home,” he said. “All my children have been baptized in the United Methodist Church. I don’t know how to be a minister out of the United Methodist Church.”

He doesn’t know how to be a real minister anywhere.

He said his lawyers had already filed an appeal with a judicial body akin to a church appellate court.

Those watching the trial were stunned when Bishop Peggy Johnson, who leads nearly 900 United Methodist churches in Pennsylvania and who is Mr. Schaefer’s superior, posted a note on her blog this week, saying that she believed the prohibitions on gay ordination and marriage in the Book of Discipline were “discriminatory.”

The prohibitions, Bishop Johnson continued, taken together with the church’s message of inclusion, “has led to confusion by many from the outside of the church wondering how we can talk out of two sides of our mouth.”

This “Bishop” should be fired as well, for disobeying the Bible and the Methodist Book of Discipline and for not understanding basic logic.  There should be no confusion at all.  Christianity is completely inclusive in the sense that everyone, regardless of age, past sins, race, ethnicity, gender, etc., is completely welcome if they repent and believe in Jesus.  But it is exclusive in the sense that it excludes those who continue to shake their fists at God — people like Schaefer and Johnson.  That isn’t talking out of both sides of your mouth, that is common sense.

Remember Arapahoe!

Seriously.  While the lone shooting at Arapahoe High School was tragic, the episode must be considered in its entire context.  Once a bad guy decides to take lives, whether by guns, knives, bombs or whatever, the key is to minimize the damage and subdue the criminal.  That’s what happened here.  In a high school near Columbine and only a year after Newtown, here was a school that actually protected children by having an armed guard.  Thank God for that!

As a VP for an Internal Audit group at a large company, I constantly think in terms of detecting and preventing problems.  We know that some people may be motivated to steal, but we want them to know that the odds are against them.  We put in controls to catch them if they do steal, but more importantly, we do things to prevent them from stealing in the first place.  They either need to not steal at all or at least not steal from us.

Believe it or not, criminals operate on a sophisticated risk/reward model just like the rest of us.  They want the optimal amount of gain relative to the risk of being caught.  In the case of protecting children, having armed guards prevents problems by scaring away the cowardly bad guys and it mitigates the damage if they show up to do their evil deeds.

Sadly for the Leftists, they had to gloss over this great news as quickly as possible and suppress the truth about the shooter.  Just one more case of media bias.  That’s why we need to remember the victories of the Arapahoe model and tell as many people as possible.  The gun grabbers certainly won’t do that.  Via Karl Pierson was a pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-war socialist Democrat:

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

Carl Schmidt and Brendon Mendelson, both seniors at Arapahoe High, knew Pierson. They said he had political views that were “outside the mainstream,” but they did not elaborate.

That might explain why the mainstream media in general didn’t want to get into his motivations too much. Makes their own ideology look bad. It’s hard for them to report on these things accurately, isn’t it? Can’t report on the armed guard. That makes self-defense look viable. Can’t report on the socialism, because that makes Democrats look bad. Let’s just say nothing and hope people think that he was a Tea Party person. That’s journalism! Whatever fits, they print.

In fact, these shooters are almost always secularists, leftists or secular leftists. See below for past stories.

The New Jersey issue is bigger than the Duck Dynasty issue

The Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson topic has received tons of attention, and deservedly so.  But the bigger issue is how the pro-LGBTQ groups aren’t satisfied with merely redefining marriage in an anti-biblical way, but how they won’t rest until they have completely stamped out religious freedom and forced churches to affirm their activities.  The A&E issue is a sad commentary on our society, but the New Jersey issue is about the power of Big Government to suppress religious freedom.

Via Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality:

Earlier this week state Senate Democrats in New Jersey pulled from consideration a bill that would write gay marriage, already legal in New Jersey by court order, into the law books. The reason: the bill contained religious exemptions.  Loretta Weinberg, the Senate Majority Leader, said she pulled the bill after pressure from an LGBTQ legal group, Lambda Legal.

“They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),” Weinberg said.

Re-read that carefully: They don’t want any kind of religious exemption.  None.  It isn’t about their freedom to do what they want.  They’ve had that for years.  No one is preventing their relationships and/or promiscuous sex, or even doing anything to stop 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive who have unprotected sex with men.  This is about silencing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

“There’s a disparate group of people and it’s hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.”

The decision by New Jersey Democrats and A&E are similar. When pressured by LGBTQ groups, organizations and politicians will choose to silence Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Many Christians have assumed that they would be allowed reasonable exemptions and accommodations based on religious liberty. But LGBTQ activists have made it clear (and have said so from the beginning) that unconditional acceptance of homosexuality is the only option. Normalization and public support, rather than mere legal recognition, is the end goal.

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

Make no mistake: Satan won’t rest until he has silenced Christians.  That will never happen completely, of course, but there is a rocky road coming up.  Many of us have warned of these logical consequences for years, but too many Christians thought they could sit on the fence.  There is no fence.

But be encouraged!  God always wins in the end.  Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth.

A&E shocked to find out that Phil Robertson, a Christian, believes the word of God.

Breaking news: ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks.

I think they picked on the wrong guy.  This should be interesting.  I’m pretty sure that the Duck Dynasty fans won’t take kindly to Phil Robertson being shelved for speaking his mind about what God says about human sexuality and sin.  I’m reminded of Esther 4:14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

My guess is that Phil won’t be back without an apology from A&E.  He already threatened to cancel the show for making it look like they were swearing with fake bleeps and for cutting out the prayers and mentions of Jesus.

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

Their problem is with God, not Phil Robertson.  Homosexual behavior and bestiality were condemned by God in subsequent verses in Leviticus 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.  

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine.

And he’s right.  That is part of the pathology.  Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.  How twisted is that to deliberately have sex with people knowing you could be giving them a deadly disease?  Why isn’t that front page news?

“That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

 

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Yep.  Note how he also included sleeping with lots of women as a sin.  Will the fornicators call him a hater as well?

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson WilsonCruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.

Uh, sure, because GLAAD is the go-to source for authentic Christian beliefs!  And note how they refer to allegedly popular opinion and not what the Bible says.

Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Robertson released his own statement in response: “I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

So Phil admits he was a sinner who needed a Savior, and now he wants to tell other sinners about that Savior.  Oh, the humanity!

Duck Dynasty has become a breakout hit for A&E, regularly luring 9 million-plus viewers.

A&E milks Duck Dynasty.  I started watching it last Summer.  Based on how quickly they fill up my Tivo, they seem to do daily DD marathons.  I hope that the rest of the cast backs Phil up and that A&E loses millions over this.

. . .

The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his remarks.

For starters, remember that the Human Rights Campaign people are pro-abortion extremists, which is rather odd considering that the ultimate human right should involve protection against being crushed and dismembered because you are unwanted.

“Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations,” president Chad Griffin said in a statement. “We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.

Those are lies.  The HRC knows about as much about the Bible as GLAAD, and the science is clear: People are not “born that way.”  Lots of people move in and out of those preferences.  Things change.

Yes, the show is corny and stiff at times and obviously staged.  But it is so refreshing to see positive family situations where dads are leaders in the house and not buffoons, and where people openly talk of faith and live it out.   It shows how far this society has fallen that someone could make such simple, biblical statements and have people go into full freak-out mode over it.

I’m cautiously optimistic that Phil won’t be the kind of guy to back down over this and that the media and entertainment elites won’t know what to do about it.  Hopefully it will inspire other people to stand up for the truth.  One day all believers will face God.  You’ll have all of eternity to remember whether you had the guts to call a sin a sin.  As Erick Erickson says, Ultimately There Will Be No Option for Silence or the Sidelines. You Will Be Made To Care.  If you can’t affirm the truth of God’s word then you should get out now.

Having said that, remember that we’re all sinners in need of a Savior.  You don’t have to “fix” LGBTQ people before sharing the Good News with them.  Here’s an example of how I handle situations like that.

——–

Further reading:

False teacher admits lying at his ordination vows and leaves Methodist church. Yea!

Gerry Hill | Love Prevails notes how a false teaching pastor left the United Methodist Church (eventually) after admitting that  he lied at his ordination vows.  Good for him!  Sort of.  He is still horribly wrong about the Bible, but at least he has ‘fessed up about his lies and is leaving the denomination.  If only other pastors and lay people with his beliefs would do the same!

I left this comment, but I don’t think it will make it out of moderation:

Thanks for admitting that you lied at your ordination vows. I wish other wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing clergy would leave like you did.

Your canard about people committing suicide because churches won’t marry them is another lie. Do some research. Their sexual preferences are often a consequence of other issues, not the cause.

I wish the pro-LGBTQ lay people would leave as well.

“I have always known, to the core of my soul, that Jesus loves and accepts all people.”

Statements like that betray a non-Christian worldview. Jesus accepts all who repent and believe. If you shake your fist at God, as you are doing, then you are not meeting God on his terms. He set very gracious terms, but you don’t get to sit in judgment of them.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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).planned

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 of any kind.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

If you really love people you won’t lie to them about this and more:

  1. That their behavior is rebellion against God, but forgiveness and and healing are possible through Jesus.
  2. They were not “born that way,” and even if they were that wouldn’t excuse them from acting on their impulses.  Things like sexual attraction can and do change.
  3. That gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.