Homosexuality


Check out my friend Danzil Monk’s post regarding the Kim Burrell controversy.

I’ve been doing a lot of teaching and trying to buy a house.  Obviously, by the dates on my last blog posts, it has prohibited me from doing a lot of blogging.  Here’s some of the major stories from the past month or so that I found disturbing: (more…)

eric_walshGeorgia’s Department of Public Health hired a distinguished California doctor, Eric Walsh (Walsh served on the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS under Bush and Obama), as a district health doctor.  Georgia officials heard about some controversy over comments Walsh made regarding human sexuality, Islam, and evolution in messages he had preached over the years. They tasked government workers with listening to his sermons, and then decided to fire him because they did not like what he had to say. One official called Walsh and told him “you can’t preach that and work in the field of public health.”[1]  Here’s a well-qualified man who is fired for his personal religious beliefs expressed in a private setting on his own time.  Just remember, gay rights and same-sex marriage won’t affect anyone.

____________________

[1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434297/eric-walsh-georgia-public-health-doctor-fired-christian-belief

If you don’t agree with the progressive Left, then you don’t deserve an education or a career in social work.  A Christian man in his second year of studies for a degree in social work at Sheffield University in England was dismissed from the program because he quoted a Bible verse against homosex and same-sex marriage on Facebook.

Oh, the tolerance of the Left.  If you don’t agree with our moral point of view, we’ll exclude you.  Such hypocrites.

Just keep repeating what you’ve been told: “Homosexuality and same-sex marriage won’t affect you.”

This isn’t the first time something like this has happened.  See here and here.

A 2010 study by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University examined the level of monogamy (or lack thereof) in male homosexual relationships in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Based on a study of 566 gay couples, lead researcher Colleen Hoff found that 47% had an open relationship, 45% were monogamous, and 8% did not agree on what they were. This is congruent with a number of other studies of male homosexuality. In the same way it is a mistake to think that all male homosexuals are promiscuous, it’s a mistake to think they all embrace the monogamous ideal of marriage.

See also:

Male homosexual relationships often lack the monogamous ideal

Same-sex marriage will likely redefine our concept of marriage

HT: Winterey Knight

Finally, something has been done about the Episcopalian Church’s flagrant acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in defiance of Church of England’s teaching. The pessimist in me thinks this disciplinary action is not enough, is just delaying the inevitable split of the church, and was probably forced upon the Church of England’s native leaders by its conservative bodies abroad.  I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone living in England or part of the Episcopalian Church.

openFor those who doubt that gay men in committed relationships are much more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, read this article at The Daily Beast.

Obviously not every gay couple has an open relationship, but the ideal of monogamy is not present in gay relationships to the same degree it is in heterosexual relationships.

This makes sense. Most men are not naturally monogamous. They would prefer to have more than one sexual partner at a time. The reason most men resist this desire is because the stability of their preferred relationship depends on it (i.e. their favored woman demands it as a prerequisite to continue the relationship) and/or because of their religious beliefs about the sanctity of sex and marriage. Many gay men do not subscribe to traditional moral/religious sexual ethics (which not only proscribe sex outside of marriage, but also proscribe gay sex), and there is no female in the relationship to demand monogamy. In other words, the traditional restraints for monogamy are removed in gay, male relationships. It’s not surprising, then, that gay male relationships (unlike gay female relationships and heterosexual relationships) are often not monogamous, but include outside sexual liaisons.

Two cases out of the United Kingdom are causing great concern for the freedom of speech.

Earlier this year a Christian street preacher in England, Mike Overd, was convicted for quoting Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation against homosexuality after a homosexual complained to police. The judge reasoned that since Leviticus 20 doesn’t just condemn homosexuality, but prescribes the death penalty for it, the preacher was inciting violence against homosexuals (even though Overd claims he did not quote the portion of the text calling for the death penalty). He even added that he would have avoided a fine had he quoted from Leviticus 18:22 instead since there is no mention of the death penalty for homosexuality in that passage.

(more…)

Doritos-RainbowTongue-in-cheek, of course, but c’mon!  What’s next?  Polygamous Doritos that contain three flavors in a single bag?  I can see the ad: “They’re Doritogomous!”  Or perhaps Bisexual Doritos (Bi-ritos), where each chip contains two flavors?

It’s just amazing to me how brands like Oreos and Doritos are bending over backwards to promote the moral acceptance of homosexuality. Enough already. Let me eat my Doritos in peace. They are “food,” not propaganda.

Frank BruniBack in April, Frank Bruni wrote an opinion article for the New York Times on the Indiana religious freedom debacle. Bruni is very negative toward conservative Christians in his article.  In his opinion, conservative Christians can support homosexuality, but choose not to do so.  Instead, they cling to outdated interpretations of an outdated text. Bruni writes:

So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.

(more…)

The University of Tennessee is inventing new gender neutral language for those who do not want to identify by the traditional gendered “he” and “she.” Instead of “he” and “she,” it’s ze and xe. Of course, these need object and pronoun forms as well.  Here’s the interpretive chart:

gender-pronouns

Insanity.

David-WellsThe Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice had threatened Chaplain David Wells that if he does not sign a state-mandated document promising not to identify homosexuality as a sin, he will lose his chaplain credentials. He would not sign it, and thus lost his credentials after serving for 13 years.

Once again we see how the push for homosexual rights hasn’t affected anyone!

The state is being faithful to the gay rights agenda. The question is whether or not Christians will continue to be faithful to Christ or will buckle to Caesar. I congratulate David Wells for standing strong.

There is no evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined.  In fact, there is evidence that disproves it. They are called twins.  Since identical twins experience the same hormone bath in the womb and the same DNA, when one twin is gay, both should be gay 100% of the time.  But both are gay less than 15% of the time (11% for men; 14% for women). In fact, non-identical twins are twice as likely to both be gay as identical twins, which can only be explained by environmental factors, not DNA.  At best, sexual orientation may be biologically influenced.  But clearly, the major cause of same-sex attraction is social in nature.  It is nurture, not nature that is the primary cause of sexual orientation.  And sexual orientation is not something that is fixed and unchanging, but changes over time.

And now, there is a report released showing that 49% of young people in the United Kingdom say they are not 100% heterosexual, but experience degrees of same-sex attraction.  And what’s really interesting is seeing how this compares across other age categories: (more…)

This has been making its rounds in the media. This pastor, and all those clapping at this immorality will have to give an answer to God one day for their actions. It is shameful to celebrate as beautiful something God considers to be abominable, and to do so in the name of Christ. I sympathize with those who experience same-sex attraction, but the church ought to be there to help them resist their temptations, not to applaud them for giving in to them.

We find out that Catwoman is bisexual, the Green Lantern, Loki, Iceman, and many more are gay.  Now, Wonder Woman is officiating a same-sex wedding.  It seems that DC Comics and Marvel are bending over backward to push homosexuality. And who are they pushing homosexuality to?  Your children.  Parents, it’s time to parent.

55d3b08b1d00006e001452df

BoyScoutOnly the blind could have failed to see this coming. The executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America has unanimously approved a new policy that allows practicing homosexuals to be scout leaders.  Not long ago they lifted their ban on openly homosexual scouts.  It was just a matter of time before consistency caught up with them.

It is disheartening to see how the Boy Scouts has capitulated to public opinion rather than holding true to their ideals and mission. Being a Boy Scout requires that one be “morally straight.” This change is a clear signal that the Boy Scouts now considers homosexuality to be morally good.  This is moral confusion from an organization that is built on a strong foundation of moral integrity.

The Boy Scouts is supposed to be an organization that teaches young men how to lead, and yet the leaders of the Boy Scouts have failed to model that.  Strong leaders stay true to their convictions; they do not capitulate to public pressure when their convictions become unpopular.  What a shame!

We rightfully bemoan the rise of the gay hermeneutic in which Christians are reinterpreting the Bible to allow for committed same-sex relationships, but has anyone ever stopped to think that what these liberals are doing to the homosex texts we “conservatives” have already done to the divorce and remarriage texts?  We have mangled Jesus and Paul’s teachings to allow for divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality, and to allow those who have divorced or have been divorced without grounds to remarry because we don’t think it is fair for people to be unhappy or alone.  We understand the strong desire to be in a loving, sexual relationship.  Our emotions become the motivating factor for reinterpreting (or ignoring) what would otherwise seem to be a pretty straightforward condemnations for most divorces and remarriages.

(more…)

Read about the story here.  Just remember, homosexual advocacy and same-sex marriage will not affect anyone.

Update: Wes Modder has been cleared of all wrong-doing and will be allowed to retire from the Navy. It’s not clear whether this is a forced retirement or not.

For those who are reacting so negatively to the Indiana religious freedom law, do you not realize what you are saying (even if not explicitly)? You are saying that people should not have the right to live out their own religious convictions and follow their own conscience. Read that sentence again. Say it out loud. You are saying we should deny these American citizens a Constitutional right that is 200+ years old so that we can uphold these new same-sex marriage rights that are less than 10 years old and nowhere to be found in the Constitution. You would deny American citizens a basic human right (the free exercise of religion and conscience) in favor of a right we just made up a few years ago.

(more…)

Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that prevents anyone (individuals, business owners, organizations) from being forced to violate their conscience and religious convictions (what the bill calls “exercise of religion”). One would think the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be enough to secure these rights, but not these days. While the historical context of the bill is surely recent examples in which business owners have been forced by state governments to offer their services to homosexuals in ways that violate their conscience and religious convictions, the bill does not make any reference to homosexuality in particular. It is a general protection religious freedom.

This bill will prevent Jewish publishers from being forced by law to print anti-Jewish propaganda, gay sign-makers from being forced to make signs that condemn homosex, and Christian business owners from being forced by law to provide services that violate their religious convictions.  Like it or not, agree with it or not – that is true freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

You can read the text of the law here.  An excellent legal analysis can be found here.

Next Page »