The thorough research in the report link above: “This is The Way God Made Me” should be more than enough! However it is delightful to see gay activists themselves being honest enough to tell the truth, “No one is born gay, the idea is ridiculous!” – Camille Paglia.
One gay activist recently said: “We don’t care that we are not born gay! We love our gayness! Get over it Christian homophobes, deal with it and tolerate it already!”
I think it is time to tell the truth loudly! You have been lied to America!
Not only does Camille Paglia, speak the truth, but there is the recent work done by Dr. Lisa Diamond, another lesbian leader. My friend Karen Booth wrote an excellent article and posted on her blog, and I share it below the two excellent videos:
* * * * * * * *
Are People Born Gay? Genetic and Epigenetic Determinism in Homosexuality
Born Gay? Is Homosexuality Genetic/Biological? – Science Is In: The Short Answer is: NO! – No one is born gay!
Is homosexuality unchangeable? Are gays and lesbians exclusively attracted to their own genders? Does a person who experiences same-sex attraction always proceed developmentally to the acceptance of a homosexual orientation or the adoption of an LGB or “queer” identity?
Dr. Lisa Diamond
These are the kinds of questions that have intrigued sex researcherDr. Lisa Diamond, who teaches psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. A self-identified lesbian and vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, she is considered by many in her field to be one of the nation’s foremost experts on female homosexuality. Her research since the mid-90s has primarily focused on the “fluidity” of women’s sexual behavior, attractions (orientation) and identity labeling; and when she published her findings in 2009 the shock waves were felt almost immediately throughout the LGBT community.
For example, the online introduction to one of her interviews on a local radio station put it this way: “The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We’ve crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are ‘born that way’. But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we’ve supposed?”
Now, her more recent discoveries about male and adolescent sexuality ― described in detail in this 45 minutevideo of a lecture she presented at Cornell University ― are poised to make a similar impact. Diamond is a very engaging speaker, and I encourage readers to watch the complete video. Otherwise, here are some of the highlights along with my commentary in italics. I also noted some of the minute markers in case anyone wants to fact check.
Those uninterested in the data are welcome to skip that section to get right to my conclusions and application to our current denominational situation.
* * * * * * * *
In an overview of her previous research, Diamond acknowledges that early studies of homosexuality focused mainly on the “coming out” models of young men, with the developmental sequence moving from an awareness of same-sex attraction at 9 or 10 years old, to a gradual sexual experimentation with other males, to a recognition and acknowledgement of a homosexual orientation, to an ultimate adoption and announcement of gay self-identity. This stereotypical model, with its subsequent conflation of attraction, orientation and identity, has become the accepted “conventional wisdom” of much of the culture and Church. Christian psychologist Dr. Mark Yarhouse dubs it “the gay script.”
Though her findings on women contradicted these patterns in many respects, Diamond still believed they were common for men. But she also acknowledged that it’s been almost impossible to accurately access male homosexuality because the samples have been small, non-random and self-selected, and the right kinds of questions haven’t been asked. (6:10)The same problem has plagued almost all sex researchers ever since the hopelessly flawed Kinsey studies in the late 40s and early 50s. And all of the studies are based on memory and self-report that may not be entirely accurate. (For more information on the Kinsey reports, see Chapter One of my bookForgetting How to Blush: United Methodism’s Compromise with the Sexual Revolution.)
So in her most recent research, Diamond has shifted her focus from women to men and adolescents in an attempt to confirm or disprove what she calls the three pillars of sexual fluidity ― non-exclusivity; inconsistency between identity, attraction and behavior; and, variability over time. (8:35) In doing so, she rigorously examined and plotted the findings of a dozen of the more recent large population studies from 1992-2010, including one in New Zealand that followed a group of young people from their late teens to early thirties.
Regarding the first “pillar” ― non-exclusivity ― she discovered that the majority of men who had experienced same-sex attraction (SSA) of any kind were PRIMARILY attracted to the opposite sex; those who were exclusively attracted to other men accounted for approximately 2.5 percent of the general population sample. Less than 1 percent of the women were exclusively SSA, and both of these results were consistent across all the studies. (14:36)
These statistics are far more accurate than the commonly heard claim that 10 percent of men and women are gay, usually thought of as exclusively so. That figure is based on a faulty interpretation of the Kinsey research, which actually reported that approximately 10 percent of the male population had engaged in homosexual behavior at some time during their life. Even this outcome was inflated well beyond Diamond’s findings (5-7 percent) because Kinsey used a disproportionate number of incarcerated “sex offenders” and urban-dwelling homosexuals in his sample.
To assess the inconsistencies among sexual identity, attraction and behavior ― the second “pillar” ― Diamond did her own sampling of 300+ Salt Lake City residents who were almost equally divided between those who self-identified as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. (20:48) The participants were asked questions about sexual attraction, romantic feelings (“falling in love”) and actual sexual partners. Stereotypically, one would expect to find neat divisions across the three identities. But this was not the case; for example, 42 percent of lesbian women and 40 percent of gay men reported some attraction to the opposite sex in the previous year, and 31 percent of gay men reported having had romantic feelings for women. (26:26) There was even more of what Diamond calls a “mish mash” between identity, attraction and behavior when the study participants had been 12-17 years old.
To track variability over time ― the third “pillar” ― Diamond analyzed the four stages of the New Zealand “National Attitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,” which tracked “gain” or “loss” of SSA among a group of young people at ages 16-17, 18-19, 24-27 and 29-31 years old. (29:00) During their late teens, more boys and girls were losing SSA than gaining, which was reversed by their mid-twenties with more of them gaining, and which was then reversed once more by their early thirties with more of them again losing SSA. This tendency toward fluidity was also evident in the measurements of gain or loss of opposite sex attraction (OSA), especially in their early twenties and early thirties. However, in contrast to the females, male attraction did tend to become more “fixed” over time, though not to the degree that Diamond expected. It would be interesting to see the results extended as the group continues to age.
Diamond concludes (37:27) that: 1. fluidity in identity, attraction and behavior is NOT specific to women but a general feature of human sexuality, one which is also confirmed by historical and cross-cultural literature; 2. the various sexual categories currently in use (LGBTQI, etc.) are usefulheuristics (mental shortcuts, rules of thumb, educated guesses or stereotypes), but though “they have meaning in our culture, … we have to be careful in presuming that they represent natural phenomena” (38:55); and 3. it is “tricky” to use these categories for advocating rights based on the concept of immutability “now that we know it is not true … As a community, the queers have to stop saying: ‘Please help us, we were born this way and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing.” (43:15)
My own major takeaways:
the majority of men and women who have experienced same-sex attraction to some degree either prefer opposite-sex attraction or have the potential to move in that direction; it’s unknown whether or not the small minority with a more fixed preference for SSA could also move in that direction under differing circumstances;
the majority of these men and women DO NOT follow the stereotypical “coming out” models of the “gay script;” and
patterns of sexual attraction, identity and behavior change profoundly over a young person’s lifetime, with most of the openness to “movement” toward heterosexuality occurring in the late teens and again in the late twenties.
* * * * * * * * *
If you’ve followed my post this far, you may be wondering what all this fascinating (or not) information has to do with Christian faith or The United Methodist Church. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, utilized the concept of “plundering the Egyptians” to express the idea that Christians should borrow from all the best that culture has to offer in order to grow in knowledge and faith and to effectively share the gospel. I think that some of Diamond’s work falls into that category. Her political commitments make her no particular friend to moral traditionalists. But nonetheless, her research is an example of honest and relatively impartial scientific inquiry that refutes several of the false notions about homosexuality that pervade our culture and Church ― including the belief that the inclination is immutable and cannot be changed.
And even more to the point, Diamond’s research unwittingly confirms the potential for sexual transformation that is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. If the verse “such were some of you” accurately describes the men and women whose sexuality changes naturally through the course of their lives, doesn’t it apply even more ― and bring additional hope ― to those who submit their fallen and sinful sexuality to the redeeming, sanctifying supernatural grace of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit?
We’re living in a time when more and more people, especially youngsters, are buying into the “gay script.” And we’re also living in a time when LGBT political activists are doing everything in their power tolegally prohibit and criminalize Sexual Orientation Change Efforts or SOCE. A solid understanding and clear communication of the “good news” of Dr. Diamond’s work gives believers one more tool for countering these ungodly trends.
And maybe someday, with God’s help, the rest of the secular therapeutic community ― along with politicians, academics, media elites and the culturally conditioned folk in our pulpits and pews ― will catch up to her.
Failed Former Exodus President is Morphing into a Gay Activist
This must be the most grievous thing I’ve ever written in exposing one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever witnessed from a so-called Christian. Unfortunately there are critics, mainly those who are afraid and passive, who believe it is unnecessary or even unkind to expose or talk about the tragic morphing of Alan Chambers into a gay-identified “Christian” and his influence of leading people back into homosexuality. They are at the very least terribly naive, and at the worst blatant cowards (Rev. 21:8). I am writing this post today with great sorrow, having grieved deeply since 2011 over the betrayal of trust from the Exodus board and the subsequent demise of Exodus. The Scripture actually teaches otherwise about the need to bring correction, we are to rebuke and correct if we sincerely love like God. The following Scriptures were used as a pathway in rebuking and correcting Alan Chambers, Clark Whitten and the Board of Exodus in 2012: Matt. 18:15-17, Gal. 6:1-4, Prov. 27:5-6, Prov. 28:23, 1 Tim. 5:20-21, 2 Tim. 2:23-26, 2 Tim. 4:1-4. Unfortunately, our pleas were to no avail as Exodus later closed its doors forever. Against all the ministry leaders throughout the Exodus network, the Exodus Board dismissed all cautions, hardened their hearts and pursued their own will in empowering Alan Chambers.
Paul the Apostle has named names and written in his letters open rebukes and warnings which will remain forever as Scripture of those with much lesser offenses than that of Alan Chambers and Clark Whitten. Do you understand that Chambers and Whitten are now teaching the damnable heresy that practicing homosexuals can go to heaven under their perverted message of grace?
Alan Chambers once communicated that he believed the Bible. But now, Alan Chambers has morphed into a gay activist forsaking Biblical Orthodoxy and presenting “gay Christianity.” Chambers was hired to serve the ministries of Exodus. However, Chambers had other plans. He and his pastor Clark Whitten devised a careful plan to systematically change the by-laws of Exodus so Alan could take complete control and have the leading ownership of Exodus International.
Today Chambers’ idea of “freedom,” is being freed from what he calls “religious slavery,” which translates that no moral laws need to be obeyed in his doctrine of “grace.” His new book, “My Exodus: Leaving the Slavery of Religion, Loving the Image of God in Everyone” is soon to be released. (Update September 2015: book title changed to: “My Exodus: From Fear to Grace”) Chambers’ book is being published by Zondervan who has been cautioned that he is not Biblical and promotes homosexuality. Yet Zondervan’s response to me was a complete endorsement of Alan Chambers in full knowledge of Alan Chambers’ unbiblical beliefs. This tragic morphing and mutation has Chambers believing he is righteous and loving in convincing young people to embrace homosexuality. Alan also speaks for God and proclaims that God Almighty is “cool” with Jeff Chu’s homosexual behavior and his gay “marriage.” It might be hard to believe, but you can hear all this for yourself in the video posted below: “In Alan Chambers’ Own Words – Part 2”.
Very few people knew about what was happening in the secret world of Alan Chambers in 2008 through 2011, which was more than half of his tenure as President of Exodus International. However, in the videos below, it is very clear now that Alan deceived many, as he actually did not believe the Bible (hear in his own words “I never believed…”). In 2010, I started telling close friends and leaders (all who eventually helped start the new Restored Hope Network) that I was concerned about the direction and teaching I was hearing from the Exodus office. I was the volunteer Chairman of the Exodus Ministry Council and felt obligated in protecting the truth, the vision and ministry of Exodus as a network. Unfortunately, not one board member did anything during the implosion to stop Chambers or Whitten.
Clark Whitten (former Exodus Board Chairman & Alan’s mentor for over 15 years) began sharing his version of grace teachings to Exodus Ministry Directors in leadership meetings starting in 2007 all the way through the demise and implosion of Exodus. It was during this internal debacle that the process of confrontation started. I and several ministry directors and other Christian leaders joined together to start the process of confronting the heretical teachings of Clark Whitten and Alan Chambers. (Matthew 18:15-17). Unfortunately, to no avail because Chambers and Whitten had already put the plan in place in changing the by-laws of Exodus to make Exodus a “ministry” possession of Alan Chambers. The other tragic part of this scenario were the leaders who naively were more loyal to Chambers than to the Word of God during the implosion, many who mocked me, and continue to dislike any attention to this serious situation.
You can now clearly hear in his own words in the videos and the other source links below for confirmation of the direction of Alan Chambers and his morphed beliefs of today. It is revealing now that Alan Chambers as Exodus President, hearing from his own words he didn’t actually believe the Bible. Alan calls it being set free from religious slavery and bondage. Ironically what he calls “freedom” is actually a manifestation in Chambers embracing his “gay self” once again and the gay community as his own, the community who pridefully enjoys sexual slavery and bondage. Alan believes he has received a revelation from God, or perhaps better communicated, a revelation from his pastor Clark Whitten. This so-called divine revelation that Clark Whitten believes he has received, is supposedly greater than all the Church reformers on the subject of grace. They actually believe that grace gives them such liberty they no longer need to acknowledge their sins before God or confess their sins.  These teachings and doctrines are nothing new. It is simply antinomianism repackaged. It is a perverse cheap grace message at Grace Orlando Church that now allows for practicing homosexuals to go to heaven. This is true for Randy Thomas (former Vice President of Exodus), who has also embraced being gay again, who is also praying and pining away for his husband as revealed in a recent Facebook post. Both Chambers and Thomas attend Grace Orlando and have been mentored by Clark Whitten. There is no fear of God because they teach that repentance isn’t really necessary and fearing God is religious bondage. Alan communicates our only needs as Christians are to believe in the historical facts about Jesus and to say you love Him. Chambers continues to communicate his love for Jesus and also turns around and tells people they can live in complete disobedience to Jesus by living in homosexuality. Chambers and Whitten both communicate with Christian terminology and Christianese but mean something different than sincere Bible-believing Christians; now tragically they are leading people astray under this perverse grace teaching. Please watch the following videos in full and read the additional hyperlinked articles below for a complete understanding of the tragic implosion of Exodus International and the failed leadership of Alan Chambers under the mentorship of his pastor Clark Whitten.♦
In Alan Chambers’ Own Words (Part 1) Released in 2012.
In Alan Chambers’ Own Words – Part 2 Released 2015
“Alan Chambers: A Cautionary Tale” was produced to give a revealing and short glimpse into Alan Chambers’ narcism as he communicates “I Think” over 50 times and yet does not refer to what “God Thinks” even once from the Word of God.
Alan Chambers Proclaims His Gospel – A shorter video edited from the “In Alan Chambers’ Own Words – Part 2” for a quick understanding of the egregious nature of the Chambers’ heretical messaging.
The president of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, has announced in an extended apology to homosexuals, and that he is closing Exodus International, the ministry for those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction, and from its ashes he is creating a new organization titled “Reduce Fear.” [This past year Alan abandoned “Reduce Fear” as an organization and merely promotes himself now]. The “fear” to which the name refers emanates from theologically orthodox churches that teach the whole counsel of God, including the pesky parts about God’s condemnation of homosexual acts. Apparently, Chambers doesn’t want to scare those who affirm homosexuality with bothersome biblical truths about eternity.
This doesn’t come as a surprise to those who have been closely watching Chambers’ slow abandonment of orthodoxy and his concomitant embrace of the “gay Christian” movement, which promotes the heresy that Christians may affirm a homosexual identity and remain in homosexual relationships.
Chambers communicated in June of 2012 in an interview with The Atlantic, he articulated a tidbit of his exegetically questionable theology:
Atlantic: Does that mean a person living a gay lifestyle won’t go to hell, as long as he or she accepts Jesus Christ as personal savior?
Chambers: My personal belief is that everyone has the opportunity to know Christ, and that while behavior matters, those things don’t interrupt someone’s relationship with Christ. But that’s a touchy issue in the conservative group I run with. (emphasis added)
For those who remain uncertain about Chambers’ deviation from the path of theological soundness, please make sure to watch Part 1 and 2 of “In Alan Chambers’ Own Words” above.
Chambers’ transition to heresy has been accompanied by dizzying changes to Exodus’ Board of Directors over the past two years. Here’s a glimpse into that protean board.
Feb. 2011 board included Dennis Jernigan, Ron Dennis, and Jeff Winter
By June 2011 board had added John Warren and Don & Diana Schmierer
By Oct. 2011 board had lost Ron Dennis and Jeff Winter and added Mike Goeke and Patrick Peyton
By Dec. 2011 board had added Kathy Koch
By June 2012 board had lost Dennis Jernigan
By August 2012 board had lost Mike Goeke and Patrick Payton
By March 2013 board had added Bob Ragan
By April 2013 board had lost Bob Ragan
By June 2013 board had added Tony Moore
The troubling constant on the board is board chairman Rev. Clark Whitten about whose theology Dr. Robert A. Gagnon has warned here and here. Clark Whitten has been influencing Alan Chambers for over 15 years as his pastor and the board chairman of Exodus. Alan Chambers is the fruit of Clark Whitten’s oversight and ministry. Clark has referred to Alan, “like a son.”
It gets dirtier!
Alan Chambers now calls “evangelical” a “dirty word” that he no longer applies to Exodus or to himself (“Guests in an Ever Changing Culture—Letter from Alan Chambers March 2013”). He complains that Evangelicalism is too “black and white” and he assures us that God is not “black and white,” which presumably means that God’s aim is to shade the light into gray. The story of Christ is now the story of Gray breaking into the darkness.
Evangelicalism, Mr. Chambers complains, gives too much attention to “right and wrong” and requires one to “take a stand” on moral issues. Chambers cries: “Gone are the days of evangelizing through scare tactics, moral legislation, and church discipline.” So instead the Exodus leadership prefers to assure self-professed Christians who engage in unrepentant homosexual practice that they are going to heaven irrespective of whether they bring their life into line with a confession of Christ’s lordship. The Exodus leadership refuses to take a stand against “gay marriage” even as it takes public policy stances on issues that homosexual activists support. And the Exodus leadership categorically rejects church discipline despite the fact that it is commanded by Jesus and Paul.
In June of 2013 Alan Chambers even went so far as to insert secretly the e-mail address of Jeremy Hooper, an abrasive homosexual activist, into the middle of a private group email thread containing a number of pro-family leaders (including mine). This led to a number of misrepresentations online by homosexual activist sites and even Salon.com. This deceitful alignment with a person who maligns those who believe in a male-female foundation for marriage is not exactly a model for Christian conduct, certainly not for someone leading what is supposed to be a Christian ministry.
In an Exodus post Leslie Chambers affirmed her husband’s severance of the transformed life from genuine saving faith, saying that while obedience to God is preferred it is not “required”. Neither Leslie nor Alan appears to realize that a necessary byproduct of true faith is a life lived for God.
As Dr. Gagnon mentioned, Chambers’ dissolution of Exodus was accompanied by his serious ethical lapse regarding an email group. A couple of months ago, a well-known and well-respected conservative author sent an email to a group of conservatives. Chambers responded to the entire group, angry that a person or persons in this large group have allegedly used terms in some context that Chambers finds offensive. He never identified the person or persons who used the term/s, nor did he identify the context.
One of the email recipients noticed that Chambers had surreptitiously added homosexual activist Jeremy Hooper, who has a blog titled Good As You (G.A.Y.). When confronted about the stealth addition of Hooper, Alan defensively admitted that he had, indeed, done so in the hope that Hooper would report on the email exchange and that the “good and decent people” on the list would be shamed into publicly exposing and rebuking others whom they may not know for offenses Chambers would not reveal.
I asked Chambers the following questions, which he refused to answer:
Who are the people who deserve public rebuking and what specifically did they do to deserve to be rebuked?
If he thought there was something “unrighteous” and “evil” (Chambers’ terms) going on, why didn’t he expose it himself and publicly rebuke the person or persons whom he believed deserved public rebuking?
How did he justify betraying a trust and trying to publicly shame “good and decent” people for what he perceived as their failure to rebuke unnamed people for using words he viewed as inappropriate in unidentified contexts—actions, by the way, that he had not done?
No ministry should ever tell those who experience same-sex attraction or any other sin inclination that there’s a human way to eradicate all sinful impulses. If Exodus staff conveyed that unbiblical idea to those to whom they ministered, they erred.
Conversely no Christian should be told that God will not free them from same-sex attraction or that they will never experience heterosexual attraction, for those too are erroneous ideas.
Scripture tells us that God will free us from bondage to sin, but that full sanctification does not come in this life. We are promised that in this life, God will give us the power to resist our sinful impulses, which for most of us persist at least in attenuating strength.
God does not, however, give us permission to affirm our sinful impulses or act upon them. We are to pursue lives of holiness—which will never include homosexual relationships.
Since Exodus has abandoned orthodoxy, it is a good thing that it is shuttering its doors. Fortunately, a far better ministry exists to fill a desperate need: Restored Hope Network
When we read about prior heresies, they seem like distant historical curiosities, but right now we are eyewitnesses to the birth and growth of a heresy in our lifetime. Let’s hope and pray that it’s soon relegated to the dustbin of heresies.♦
The reason for the creation of the “In Alan Chambers’ Own Words, Part 1 and Part 2 is to reveal the morphing heresy. Part 1 is from 2011 and 2012 interviews and Part 2 is from Alan Chambers’ interview from the Level Ground – February 2015 and from his own words when speaking at the Glory Tabernacle, October 2014. He clearly communicates heresy and leading people astray. In Alan Chambers’ Own Words Part 1 and Part 2 were also created from a Scriptural mandate to correct, rebuke and expose those who are teaching false doctrines leading souls to hell. Matt. 18:17, Acts 20:29-31, Jude 1:4, Gal. 1:6-8, 1 Tim. 5:20-21, Titus1:10-16, 2 Peter 2:1-22, 2 Peter 3:14-18. Both Parts, 1 and 2 of Alan Chambers’ in His Own Words were also created to warn leaders in the Church globally of the perverse grace teachings of Clark Whitten, former Exodus Board Chairman and Alan Chambers’ pastor. These videos reveal Alan Chambers’ inconsistencies in his own words and expose his grave heretical teaching of perverse grace leading souls astray. These videos were also created to call the Board of Directors with Exodus to accountability and responsibility.
Exodus may have imploded, but, there is hope! There is the Restored Hope Network with many ministries and counselors to help overcome and find last freedom in a legitimate relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord. The Exodus Board of 2013 thought they were closing down ministry for good, but they were wrong! The Exodus Board of Directors from 2012 and 2013 did not heed the warnings from the RHN founders and many others. Now the very warnings have come to pass. Alan is promoting “gay Christianity.” However, there are more people today helping people overcome homosexuality with orthodox biblical clarity, much more than that of the former days of Exodus. Therefore, we will rejoice in the Lord our God and for His Truth!
“Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.” Psa. 33:18-19
 Hymenaeus, Alexander, (1 Tim. 1:20) Phygellus, Hermogenes, (2 Tim. 1:15) Hymenaeus, Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17), Demas (2 Tim. 4:9-10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14), Cretans (Titus 1:12) 9 names mentioned whose offenses were much less than that of Clark Whitten and Alan Chambers. As the Apostle Paul said of Alexander the Coopersmith, these men have done the Body of Christ much harm.
Yes, I said it! I’ll say it again, “It is child abuse to withhold counseling, therapy and pastoral care from a child or teenager struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or homosexual behavior when he or she desires change and is seeking help! It is tragic to withhold or prevent counseling from a sexually abused child confused in his or her teenage years when they are seeking help to overcome their unwanted same-sex attraction.”
This is what we are up against today all over the country!
It seems “gay is the only way” in California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia for our youth where they have passed laws preventing therapy and counseling for those under the age of 18. There is a shift taking place in the Church and in our country. The shift is a growing apostasy concerning the normalization of homosexuality among evangelicals. It is just like the proverbial frog in the pan of water set to boil. We cannot even discern just how close we are to the boiling point of death in heretical teachings that allow for “gay Christianity.” It seems few in the Church are concerned. This was revealed recently by the lack of support for HB 1598 – “The Parental and Family Rights in Counseling Protection Act.” Very few Christians are involved in these moral and family policy issues; they are failing to be salt in light in our world.
Many have embraced “Christian Political Correctness” (CPC) with Christian leaders who communicate a seductive kindness and ‘accepting’ tone about homosexuality. Otherwise you will be considered “unkind,” “unloving,” “intolerant,” “homophobic,” “bigoted,” and, of course, “hateful” if speaking in disagreement. It is a tragedy when leaders in the Church and our legislative bodies at the state and federal levels embrace a belief that young people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction should embrace only a gay identity, that “gay is the only way.” Some leaders actually believe it is unloving by getting our teens help; they believe that getting them counseling and therapy is harmful. Ridiculous! Some of these leaders have adopted an idea it is okay to be a “gay Christian”. Many lawmakers have bought into a lie that young people who struggle with same-sex attraction, even if they have been sexually abused as children, should embrace homosexuality. They believe people are born gay, even when the all the science is against such beliefs. These “leaders” are believing lies from the gay political agenda and Hollywood. Therefore these “leaders” are knowingly and unknowingly aligned with the gay political agenda in furthering the recruitment of young people into homosexuality. They have become “leaders” who are propagating more child abuse.
Representatives and Christian Leaders – What Do Your Really Believe?
What kind of a leader who says he believes in the family would align himself with such a diabolical plan to recruit more young people into homosexuality? What kind of leader who calls himself or herself a Christian could align with such laws in California, New Jersey, and DC to ban counseling? What kind of leader would vote for such proposed laws in more than 15 other states preventing help for teens with unwanted same-sex attraction? What kind of leader would vote down HB 1598 in Oklahoma knowing it would protect our children? Wouldn’t it be a very deceived leader, who is at the very least naïve or a leader who is not paying close attention to what is going on in our country? Wouldn’t this be a leader who is afraid of gay activists, instead of doing the right thing? Is it possible that these leaders actually know what they are doing and they just don’t care? Men and women who don’t care MUST be replaced with those who do care, who love righteousness, and who love families and children.
Why I support HB 1598 and Representative Sally Kern
Oklahoma House Bill 1598 is preemptive and forward thinking. Representative Sally Kern sees what is happening in other states where gay activists are busy trying to pass laws to stop young people from getting needed and desired counseling. These activists put forward stories of those who are “victims” of therapy and counseling. They focus on the failures of those who were not successful in limiting their unwanted same-sex attractions or homosexual addictive behavior. Much like a drug addict or sex addict, these people who fail, blame the therapists, counselors or ministries instead of taking responsibility for their own desires and behavior. They want to embrace homosexuality and they are free to do so in this country. There is more freedom than ever before in our country to embrace homosexuality. They are completely free to make a choice to embrace homosexuality. However, it is an attack on civil and religious liberties to undermine and stop others from getting help. I am so grateful I was able to find help and lasting freedom from homosexuality in 1983. Anyone who would prevent people from getting help to overcome homosexuality is abusive!
Rep. Sally Kern has more courage than most men in all 50 states legislatures. In 2008, Rep. Kern was excoriated in the national press by gay activists and mocked by many in the media like Ellen DeGeneres. Many Republicans continue to distance themselves from Rep. Kern because they are cowards; they are afraid they will be politically incorrect. They are fearful to be ‘controversial’ and they are afraid to be called down by activists. They communicate in terms of being wise in their political correctness, yet in reality they’re cowards or they embrace homosexuality themselves. Now in 2015, we see the family being redefined in such a way that marriage will mean nothing in a few short years in America. These same lawmakers who believe themselves so wise will find themselves on the wrong side of history, especially on Judgment Day, but that’s for another message.
We will all look back at this time in history and see the reason Representative Sally Kern was under attack. It is a spiritual attack, a diabolical plot to keep homosexuality moving forward in our society. Sally Kern is a woman of courage who had the foresight to see that the political homosexual movement is, in fact, more dangerous in eroding Christian values and destroying the natural family from the inside out, than the threat of terrorism in America. History will show that Representative Kern – a civics and history teacher – a humble grandmother was on the right side of history, even while comedians and colleagues made fun and many so-called ‘Christians’ laughed. A woman who will outshine all her colleagues who are too cowardly to stand with her, unless they hear from us. We must empower these legislators to regroup and to stand in courage with Sally Kern. However, we must all unite in courage to stand with Representative Kern as well. Will you?
Some Very Unpopular Questions No One Wants to Ask or Answer; perhaps you might want to ask Oklahoma Representatives some of these questions. Representatives, What Are You Really Supporting?
I would like to ask all lawmakers and leaders individually, face to face some very unpopular questions, who are unwilling to vote for HB 1598 or other preemptive types of legislation concerning “gay” interests:
Do you really believe that homosexual behavior is healthy and natural?
Do you still believe that homosexuality is inborn when all the science points to environmental issues?
Do you honestly believe the practices of homosexuals are something you can embrace yourself? If not, then why would you prevent a teenager, who is in his or her most formative years of sexual development to get the help they need and want?
Are you actually are in league with the gay activists in recruiting our youth?
Why would any leader limit freedom from teenagers from getting counseling they want?
Things you should ask Oklahoma Representatives who are unwilling to vote for HB 1598:
Are you really for limiting parental rights?
Are you really for limiting civil liberties and religious liberties for counselors, therapists, and parents?
Are you paying attention to the political landscape of gay political activists who are trying to pass laws all over the country to suppress counseling for youth and attack businesses and churches that embrace a Biblical worldview on homosexuality as sin?
Are you willing to go on record for limiting helping and freedom for teenagers?
Are you willing to go on record by voting against HB 1598 in disregard of self-determination?
Are you willing to go on record by voting against HB 1598 in complete disregard of civil and religious liberties?
HB 1599 Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act
This makes it illegal for the state of Oklahoma to recognize same-sex marriages and requires the removal of any judge who violates the act.
Bill must be scheduled by Wednesday, March 11 to be heard on the House floor by the deadline for bills to be heard. (Deadline is Thursday, March 12.)
WHO TO CALL:
Calls should be made to the speaker of the house as well as to the three legislators (floor leaders) who organize the floor agenda for the speaker. The floor leaders are legislators who were appointed by the speaker and for the most part make the decisions as to which bills get heard and organize the agenda. The Speaker is consulted, but will only weigh in if there are bills he insists get heard. Each of the four needs to be called and emailed.
TO VISIT THEM FACE TO FACE:
A visit to the Capitol would be required to actually speak to any of these people face to face. You may drop by their offices of go to the floor when they are in session and call them out. Calling them out of session is not an irritation to them and a regular part of their day. To do this, you will fill out a request card which the lobby attendant will deliver to the house member. He will come out when he has a moment.
I have been communicating over and over that the purposed hate crimes legislation was unnecessary because laws are already in place to prosecute hate crime in all 50 states. Finally someone who is much more articulate has written a terrific and very clear article on this subject. Please read Dr. Gagnon’s article below.
Hate crimes legislation is not about hate crimes; it is a political agenda to normalize homosexuality at the same status of equality in our society as heterosexuality. Hate crimes legislation is a gay political agenda to stealthily bring civil rights status to homosexuality. This legislation makes homosexuality and many other sexual practices equal to gender and race. This is very bad news for ministries like the one I am involved. There are politically motivated gay activists whose sole existence is the demise of any ministry that proclaims freedom from homosexuality. Is President Obama and/or the Democrats really naive as to the intention here of gay political activists or are they very calculated? I believe the later. I believe President Obama, and you should too; when he said he desired to not merely bring change, but REMAKE AMERICA. He desires to make this a different country. I am not sure we can recover from 4 years of Obama policies fiscally and/or morally.
Dr. Robert Gagnon has written another well thought out excellent article on this subject. I plead with you, please read this article; do not be naive as to the intention of this legislation. This legislation, if passed, is destructive to our country. Please call your Senator’s now and say NO to Hate Crimes!
Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You
Promoting hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. May 28, 2009
The so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among the groupings slated to receive special protection.
Supporters of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward homosexual and transgendered persons?
The real objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)
Supporters of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.
So why pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:
It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.
The foot in the door
This “hate crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible—indeed inevitable—all future laws involving “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crime” bill does most of its damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability—an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.
Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the other (i.e. the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is always made with race and gender.
The thought crime of “prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior
Make no mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill. Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!” while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a sexual pervert!”
This “hate crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a “prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go here) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive federal intervention.
However, the bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.
Recent cases in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for example, go here, here, here, here, here) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of “gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.
The analogy of other sexual orientations
This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred—hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would.
Sadly, this may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and “polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are “sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation” provision.
Conclusion for part 1
So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.
Proponents of the current “hate crimes” bill before the U.S. Senate argue that it is a lie that this bill will abridge in any way free speech protections for those who publicly express opposition to homosexual practice without causing, or attempting to cause, bodily harm. This claim is both irrelevant and inaccurate.
The first step of getting “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal law
It is irrelevant because, as noted in Part 1, this bill does most of its damage in creating, for the first time in federal law, the special legal-protective categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The first hurdle is the biggest: getting the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the books. A “hate crimes” bill functions as—no double entendre intended—the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby, offering to the public the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.
Once the Trojan Horse is within the city walls, the rest of the task is relatively easy. If “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are special civil rights categories in federal law, then many other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws must be passed if society is going to turn back the “homophobic hate” and “discrimination” that makes bodily crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons possible in the first place. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already indicated their eagerness to advance this agenda (go here, here, here, and here).
Removing the explicit free-speech protection in the bill
The claim that this bill will not lead to an abridgement of free speech is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. It is inaccurate, first, because the bill itself does not provide much in the way of protection of free speech rights. When it was first introduced into the House the bill contained this provision:
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. (bold added)
Democrats in committee removed the material in boldface so that what was voted on by the full House no longer contained the explicit mention of free speech and free exercise. The remaining phrase “expressive conduct protected …by the Constitution” begs the question about what “expressive conduct” is protected. No piece of legislation could abridge the Constitution anyway so the phrase is useless. The issue is what constitutes abridgement and that is not spelled out in this bill.
U.S. Code stipulating that inducement is as liable as commission
Second, it is inaccurate to claim that free speech will not be abridged inasmuch as other existing legislation requires an extension beyond actual physical violence.
United States Code Title 18, Section 2, stipulates that “whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Statements that “abet,” “counsel,” or “induce the commission” of bodily injury are thus not protected by the Constitution.
The omission of “any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses” makes it that much easier to prosecute strong statements against homosexual practice as abetting or counseling violence or as inducing its commission. There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave “abomination” by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence.
The existence of state and local “hate crimes” law that include mere disturbance
Third, this “hate crimes” bill puts free speech in jeopardy because some state and local “hate crime” laws already make simple assault or intimidation prosecutable offenses.
For example, the Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for mere assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, “disorderly conduct,” or “harassment by telephone” or “electronic communications.” “Disorderly conduct” is defined in Illinois law as a person who “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace” (emphasis added).
In 2007 two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their high school. The fliers contained an anti-homosex slur (the media have not reported what precisely the slur was) and a photo of two boys kissing, one of whom was identified as a classmate. The fliers contained no threats of violence. One of the girls was apparently getting back at a boy with whom she had once been best friend.
Assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, commented: “You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation.” Another assistant state’s attorney, Robert Windon, said: “We do not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects.” State’s attorney Lou Bianchi insisted: “This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”
The girls spent 18 days in jail (a juvenile detention center) and appeared in court for their hearing with shackles on their ankles. They were ordered by the judge to remain in home detention on electronic monitoring until the court sentenced them some months later. Relieved that they would be allowed to return home for the time being, the girls sobbed uncontrollably in court. Prosecutors eventually dropped the felony hate-crime charge in exchange for a plea bargain, in which the girls pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest (the girls fled the scene when a police officer arrived; they did not strike an officer).
The girls were sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to write letters of apology for distributing anti-gay fliers to the boy and the arresting officer, required to do 40 hours of community service, and given a two-week suspended sentence in the McHenry County Jail (to be implemented if the girls violated probation). The girls told the court that the whole matter was a joke that they took too far. State Attorney Louis Bianchi told the press that he still felt the hate crime charge was justified, while acknowledging that the plea bargain was fair for juveniles.
Conclusion of Part 2
Claims that the homosexual and transsexual “hate crimes” bill soon to be voted on by the U.S. Senate will not lead to an abridgement of free speech rights and other liberties are both irrelevant and inaccurate.
They are irrelevant because the primary purpose of this bill is not to reduce “hate crimes” against homosexual and transgendered persons (laws against violent acts are already in place) but rather to establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classifications in federal law. This establishment will make possible—indeed, inevitable—an avalanche of other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that in turn make “hateful bigots” of anyone who opposes homosexual and transsexual behavior.
They are inaccurate because (1) the bill has already had stripped from it explicit free-speech protection; (2) the U.S. legal code already stipulates that verbal “inducement” of a crime makes the inducer “punishable as a principal”; and (3) the federal “hate crimes” law will work in tandem with state and local “hate crime” laws, some of which already make prosecutable any “alarming” or “disturbing” of another.
In Part 3 we will look at other instances where “sexual orientation” laws have led to the curtailment of civil liberties and explain why religious exemption clauses are worthless.
Many proponents of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” legislation contend that “sexual orientation” legislation will not endanger civil liberties in the United States—in Europe, Canada, and Brazil, but not in the United States. The evidence to date suggests otherwise.
An example of hate-speech prosecution in Philadelphia
In Part 2 I cited the example of two teenage girls being prosecuted for sexual orientation “hate speech” under Illinois law. Another example occurred in Philadelphia a few years ago. District Attorney Lynne Abraham prosecuted a small group of Christians who were peacefully demonstrating at a homosexual parade in Philadelphia in 2004 (go here for video). The group comprised eleven persons from an organization called “Repent America,” including two grandmothers and a 17-year-old girl. All eleven spent 21 hours in jail. After a preliminary hearing Judge William Meehan ordered four of the eleven to stand trial on three felony charges and five misdemeanor charges (a fifth person, the teenage girl, was required to stand trial in juvenile court). The three felony charges were “ethnic intimidation” (proclaiming that homosexual practice was a sin), possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible passages dealing with homosexual practice). These four Christian defendants faced up to 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000 each.
Although Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe subsequently dismissed the criminal charges (after comparing the Repent America group to Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan), had the prosecutor Lynne Abraham been the judge (or perhaps had Judge Meehan been the judge instead of Dembe), the verdict would have been quite different. That the prosecution was undertaken at all indicates that some legal authorities already believe that peaceful speech against homosexual practice is prosecutable. Expect judges to side with city prosecutors as the homosexualist agenda gains greater ascendancy through the passage of national “sexual orientation” legislation. Of note is the fact that in 2007 U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel ruled that the city of Philadelphia had a right to “exclude persons expressing contrary messages” from the vicinity of the “Outfest” parade even though the event was a admittedly a “public forum” conducted in a “public place” (namely city-owned streets and sidewalks; go here).
Other instances where “sexual orientation” legislation has already led to an abridgement of civil liberties
Certainly infringements of speech liberties have already taken place in all other Western democracies that have “sexual orientation” “hate crime” laws. In Canada, for example, among those fined thousands of dollars and threatened with imprisonment for repeat offenses of speech are:
Father Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight Magazine for speaking against homosexual behavior.
Bill Whatcott, a Catholic activist, for producing pamphlets that called homosexual practice immoral (Whatcott was also “banned for life” from criticizing homosexuality).
Stephen Boisson, a pastor, for a letter to a newspaper denouncing homosexual practice as immoral (also ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual practice in any public forum; for a video go here).
The argument that free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution will prevent such abuses from taking place rings hollow in view of the inducement to violence provision in Title 18.2 and in view of the fact that even U.S. Supreme Court justices have taken to citing precedents in foreign law (e.g., with regard to the Lawrence sodomy decision). Moreover, we already have instances in the U.S. where “sexual orientation” laws have led to abridgements of other liberties in three main areas:
Mandatory indoctrination of children in public schools. Owing to state and local “sexual orientation” laws, children in many school systems throughout the country now face compulsory indoctrination, from first grade on, regarding the acceptability of both homosexual practice and transgenderism. Teachers are forbidden to say anything critical about any “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and must undergo “sensitivity training” that normalizes such practices. Curricula are at all levels are required to celebrate the homosexual and transgendered life. Provisions for parental notification and child opt-out provisions are refused on the grounds that the state has already declared “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to be specially protected legal classifications. For examples go here, here, here, here, and here.
Terminating employees critical of homosexual practice. In 2008 an African-American woman, Crystal Dixon, was removed from her position as associate vice president for human resources at the University of Toledo simply because she wrote an op-ed in a newspaper saying that homosexual behavior should not be compared to being black (go here). In 2007-8 a community college professor in California, June Sheldon, was fired for leading a brief discussion on the nature vs. nurture debate as regards homosexuality. Rolf Szabo, Richard Peterson, Kenneth Gee, Annie Coffey-Montes, and Albert Buonanno are previous examples of persons fired from their corporate or government jobs for not wanting to “celebrate” at their work station “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” diversity. For details go here, here, here (pp. 10-17).
Forcing people against their conscience to promote the homosexual agenda through goods and services. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission just this past year ordered a female photographer to pay over $6000 to a lesbian couple for declining to photograph their commitment ceremony on the grounds that it violated her Christian beliefs. A national Christian dating service (Harmony.com) was dragged into several years of litigation by the state of New Jersey for not providing services for homosexual partnering, until finally, out of financial desperation, the company capitulated to the state a couple earlier this year. A Christian ministry in New Jersey has been subject to state investigation for refusing to allow a lesbian civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property. In California a doctor was sued for declining to artificially inseminate a woman in a lesbian relationship. In Georgia a counselor was fired just for referring a lesbian woman to another counselor for relationship advice. The Boy Scouts in Boston were no longer allowed free use of city facilities as a result of their policy against having scout leaders attracted to the same sex; they now had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to use the same facilities for which they previously paid not a cent. In New York City a school of medicine under Orthodox Jewish auspices was forced to rent married housing to homosexual couples under a “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law, while in California a Lutheran high school was sued for expelling two girls in a lesbian relationship. Catholic Charities of Boston had to get out of the adoption business because it did not want to place children with persons engaged in a homosexual relationship. For details and further examples, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here (2nd half), here, here.
Even legal experts who support homosexualist causes such as Eugene Volokh (UCLA) and Chai Feldblum (Georgetown University) have acknowledged that sexual orientation laws and their inevitable corollary, “gay marriage,” will ultimately force the end of “discriminatory” practices against homosexual persons by even “private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities, and other institutions” (so Volokh; go here and here).
Don’t be fooled by “religious exemptions”
Even if religious exemptions were to be added to any piece of “sexual orientation” legislation, they would be of little help, for two reasons.
First, religious exemptions are used as bait-and-switch tactics. As homosexualist forces tighten their hold on political rule expect such exemptions to be whittled away and ultimately eliminated. Just these past few weeks the New Hampshire House initially balked at providing the religious exemptions asked for by the governor in connection with a “gay marriage” bill. Eventually the House had to compromise with the governor to get the bill passed. The point here is that if homosexualist forces had the votes, they wouldn’t even have considered the exemptions. As culture continues to change, they and other legislative bodies will have the votes to refuse exemptions or overturn existing exemptions.
Second, in the interim let’s not forget that religious persons overwhelmingly work in secular venues where “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws and policies coerce their conscience and marginalize their existence to the equivalent of racists.
What does the future hold?
What else can we expect for the future? Religious institutions that “discriminate” against homosexual and transgender persons, including churches, will probably lose tax-exempt status. Religious schools will likely lose, in addition, federal grant money, access to student loans, and accreditation. Certainly these penalties already apply to religious institutions that discriminate on the basis of race (so the case of Bob Jones University). “Sexual orientation” laws equate sexual orientation with race as benign congenital conditions. Therefore we should expect the same rules to apply to religious institutions when they “discriminate” on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” All employers will have to subsidize homosexual relationships. Professional licensure for lawyers, mental health workers, etc. will require affirmation of homosexual unions and transgenderism. The list goes on and on.
Final – Conclusion
Don’t believe anyone who claims that this “hate crimes” bill, with its special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” won’t lead down the road to an abridgement of civil liberties for those who disapprove of homosexual and transgender behavior. All the evidence suggests otherwise. If you are tired of fighting these battles, just tell yourself that you haven’t seen anything yet. If this bill passes, the situation will continue worsening, not only for you but also (and especially) for your children. Is this an important issue, even a litmus test issue for determining which candidates for political office you will vote for? Well, can you think of any other religious belief that you hold for which you and your children could some day be ostracized, fined, fired, or worse? I can’t.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).
When you look at the roots of homosexuality it becomes clear, especially for those of us who have come full-circle in leaving it behind, that there is a very distorted broken element of narcissism and the desire to repair the longings for connection to the same sex parent. I must say that the Lord Jesus Christ has been very kind to me in pointing out the condition of my own emotional, relational and spiritual state in coming out of my sexual distortions and homosexuality. This posted statement is in no way a reflection of condemnation, but one of presenting truth, compassionately as one who has struggled; even as difficult as it may be to face; the truth can set you free. Does anyone really like looking at their own sin? However in looking at it honestly before God there is freedom in yielding to Him, in Jesus Christ as Lord.
Dr. Gagnon has written a very compelling article in processing and reasoning out the problem of embracing of homosexuality and normalizing homosexuality to the level of race or gender. This is what is being purposed by the United States Congress in legislating “Hate Crimes.” I agree with Dr. Gagnon’s conclusion in this article. For me personally I see the conclusion of this legislation for revamping the USA society into a very distorted way of entering into relationships and sexuality, and thus it will continue to erode our society into characterlessness for the pleasures of being hedonistic. We are fast becoming a society that is hostile towards Judeo-Christian laws and morality. Please read Dr. Gagnon’s case
Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which places “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “real or perceived,” alongside of “race,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability” as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.
The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.
I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand. The latter are, after all, two other sexual behaviors that are incongruent with embodied existence that, despite such incongruence, can still be conducted as committed, caring relationships between adults. If incest and polyamory are indeed better analogues to homosexuality and transgenderism, then it is clear that placing the latter alongside race and gender as conditions worthy of special protections and benefits becomes, well, misplaced.
In making these remarks, I trust that people of faith know that it is just as wrong to hate and commit violence against persons who engage in adult-consensual relationships with close kin or with multiple partners as it is to hate persons who engage in same-sex intercourse or who otherwise attempt to override their sex or gender given at birth. It is not right to hate anyone or commit violence against anyone.
As regards a logical connection to polyamory, the limitation of the number of persons in a valid sexual union to two persons at any one time is predicated on the natural “twoness” of the sexes, “male and female” or “man and woman.” This was certainly Jesus’ view in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, where he cited “God made them male and female” as the reason for overthrowing concurrent and serial polygamy). Polyamorous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate the natural pair constituted by the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, even when they are conducted in the context of consensual, adult-committed relationships. The very sex act itself, which accommodates only one act of penetration at a time, illustrates the essential sexual “twoness” of a sexual bond predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes.
As regards a logical connection to incest, incestuous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate a requisite principle of embodied otherness within embodied sameness, even when such sexual behaviors are conducted consensually between committed adults. Incest is sex between persons who are too much structurally or formally alike as regards kinship. The high risk of birth defects that attend incestuous births is the symptom of the root problem: too much identity on the level of kinship between the sexual partners. That is why society rejects incestuous sexual relationships even when it occurs between consenting adults who either cannot procreate (whether because one partner is infertile or because both partners are of the same sex) or take active birth-control precautions. The structural impossibility of births arising from homosexual intercourse is likewise not so much the problem as the symptom of the root problem: namely, too much formal or structural identity between the participants and not enough complementary otherness, here as regards sex or gender.
In Part 2 I will look at what disproportionately high rates of measurable harms associated with homosexual relationships indicate for the unnatural character of homosexual relations.
Please Read the Concluding parts of Dr. Gagnon’s article:
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press). His website www.robgagnon.net contains new material and updates to published work.
Click here read Povia’s story as told by NARTH. Read about what he has been going through with this amazing song going up on the pop charts despite the hate speech and death threats from the gay community. Povia is courageous and I applauded him! I also really like his song!
Povia is merely trying to kindly communicate a story of hope without any condemnation, and yet the level of vitriol and intolerance revealed by the Italian gay community is truly a hate crime. However, after hearing the rants of gays the audience decided that they had heard enough and began the ‘hissing’ ~ the same as booing here in the USA. People know kind authenticity when they see it. Rock on Povia!
Here’s a good English translation of this Italian hit Luca Was Gay!
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
Luca says: Before telling you about my sexual change, I want to clarify that if I believe in God I can’t recognise myself in human thought which is divided on this matter, I haven’t gone to psychologists, psychiatrists, priests nor scientists.
I’ve gone into my past, delved into it and found out a lot about myself.
My mother had too much love for me, her love turned into full obsession with her convictions, her attentions wouldn’t let me breathe.
My father used to take no decisions and I could never talk with him, he was away at work all day, but I had the feeling that wasn’t the truth, that’s why Mum asked for divorce, I was 12 and didn’t really understand my father, he said ‘that’s the right solution’ and started to drink after sometime.
Mum always spoke badly of Dad to me and used to say ‘never get married, for God’s sake.
She was sick jealous of my girlfriends and my identity was growing confused.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
I’m another man now, but at that time I was looking for answers, I was ashamed so looked for my answers in hiding, some used to say ‘it’s natural.’
I studied Freud and he didn’t think the same, then high school finished but I didn’t know what happiness was, a big man made my heart shake and that’s when I knew I was a homosexual.
I had no inhibitions with him, he courted me and I thought that was love, yes with him I could feel myself, but then it became like a competition on who made the best sex.
I felt guilty, sooner or later they’ll catch him, but if evidence disappears he’ll be acquitted.
I was looking for who my father was in men, and I used to go with men not to betray my mother.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart. Luca says I’m another man.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
Luca says: For 4 years I’d been with a man through love and deceptions, we often betrayed each other.
I was still looking for my truth, that big eternal love, then I met her at a party, among a lot of people, she had nothing to do with it all, she listened to me, undressed me, understood me. I only remember that I missed her the day after.
This is my story, only my story, no illness, no recovery.
Dear Dad, I’ve forgiven you even though you’ve never come back here.
Mum, I often think of you and I love you, and sometimes still see your reflection.
But now I’ve become a father and I’m in love with the only woman I’ve ever loved.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
On the week that centers on Christ Crucified for millions around the globe, the USA has acted in a most unholy manner. Palm Sunday to Good Friday was marked by daily advances of ‘gay marriage’ forces in our land. Our Bridegroom King, whose very image is manifest in male and female, and who is returning for a Bride, spotless and true, is being crucified afresh.
Consider this: I read on Palm Sunday that Iowa’s unanimous Supreme Court decision to legalize ‘gay marriage’ deliberately excluded any ‘religious’ interference. According to the justice who wrote the Iowa decision, the Judeo-Christian structures on which our entire judicial system is built should no longer inform marriage. Left in the hands of secular servants, marriage mutates. We crucify Christ afresh.
On Monday, Rick Warren, arguably the most influential Christian leader in the USA, said on national TV that he never really supported a ban on ‘gay marriage’ in CA. (He clearly had and did.) He claims that he called all of his gay friends and apologized for any perceived support of the ban, underscoring that he has ‘never been and never will be an anti-gay marriage activist.’ Deceiving, confusing, political back-pedaling: Warren is rewriting history and has bought the lie that to support marriage is ‘ant-gay’. And he is backing off entirely from standing for marriage when it is most in peril. We crucify Christ afresh.
On Tuesday, Vermont became the first state in the union to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. That empowers nine other legislatures that are considering marriage measures this year, including New York, New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire. Activists in New England are unashamed to admit that they are choosing states where organized religious opposition is the weakest. We are now aware and without excuse: there is a systematic, targeted effort to establish a same-sex marriage stronghold in the Northeast. We crucify Christ afresh.
On Wednesday, I read of Obama’s appointment of a gay political activist and ‘Christian’ to his advisory board for ‘Faith-based Partnerships.’ The appointee, Harry Knox, was previously head of Religion and Faith for the biggest gay advocacy group in the nation (the Human Rights Campaign), and has been instrumental in reinterpreting scripture in a gay-affirming manner for churches throughout the USA. We crucify Christ afresh.
By Maundy Thursday, I was beat up. I needed my feet washed from the idolatrous ground of my nation; I was hungry for Jesus and I partook of Him heartily at the communion table that night.
As we gathered for Good Friday as a church, I looked around the body and saw Gideon’s army, a humble band of men and women whom the Crucified has rescued from the idolatry of this world: husbands and wives, singles, old and young, heterosexually and homosexually broken and yet being made new, ‘an army whose weaknesses are being turned to strength and who are becoming powerful in battle, able to route foreign armies.’ (Heb. 11: 34)
I felt hope. Isn’t that what Good Friday is all about? In the darkest hour, at the time when men extinguish the light, God prepares the most glorious expression of His light. N.T. Wright says: ‘The cross is not the world’s victory over Jesus, but Jesus’ victory over the world.’
Jesus death is the ground on which resurrection power is manifest. So is our surrender to His purposes. Let man’s efforts to crucify Christ afresh through ‘gay marriage’ have its perfect work. Raise from the dead a Gideon’s army, O God. Let a repentant, empowered people arise.
Let us arise out of fear or intimidation of the dark powers. Let us hold fast to Him as the One who makes a way for us to make Him known. We do so by upholding His image in humanity and by refusing all efforts, however winsome, to distort that image.
Marriage matters. It represents Christ on earth more clearly than any other relationship. While we have the light, let us live with integrity what it means to bear His image and insist on its clear representation in the land. We cannot afford to be unclear or uncommitted towards marriage in this perilous hour.
We do so in and through Him, His resurrection power rooted in our very weakness. May we emerge out of this dismal winter of ‘gay marriage’ advances and into the spring of upholding God’s design for all. Consider man for woman, woman for man-the awesome dance of masculine strength and feminine beauty. It’s worth fighting for.
Andy Comiskey is a theologian and is the founder and executive director of Desert Stream Ministries (DSM) . DSM is one of the leading ministries of Exodus International . Mr. Comiskey is an accomplished author who has written several books based on his experience with overcoming homosexuality, sexual and relational brokenness. He teaches seminars and speaks at conferences worldwide to those who desire to be free from sexual and relational brokenness. He is considered to be a prominent ex-gay leader and has appeared as a guest on numerous media outlets in print, radio and television.