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.



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.


Next Page »