Why The “Hate Crime Law” Is Destructive – Say No To Hate Crimes!
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.
Part 2
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.
Part 3
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).
Please call your Senator’s now and say NO to Hate Crimes!
Homosexual Behavior is More Like Consenual Incest… Will the USA have Hate Crime Laws?
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 of out of my sexual distortion 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
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 1: The Initial Case
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 18, 2009
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:
Part 2: What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean
Part 3: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions
Part 4: Responses to Counterarguments
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.
Luca WAS Gay – Luca ERA Gay by Povia
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!
INTRO:
Luca was gay and now he’s together with her, Luca speaks from his heart, Luca says I’m another man.
1st VERSE:
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.
Chorus:
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.
2nd VERSE:
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.
2nd Chorus:
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.
SPECIAL:
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.
Final Chorus:
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.
Unholy Week? Crucifying Christ Afresh through ‘Gay Marriage’
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.
Post by Andy Comiskey — Copyright © 2009 by Desert Stream Ministries
_____________________________________________________________
Who is Andy Comiskey?
Click here to: Read Andy Comiskey’s Blog
Do Not Feed The Trolls! ~ DNFTT
This is very good advice given to me from a friend who has an avid use of the Internet in blogging and dealing with trolls. Don’t give a morsel or a bone! “Don’t feed the trolls!” Feeding is responding back to their craziness! DNFTT! They will only harass you more and use what ever you say against you, as they have no interest for mature or professional dialog, they’re bullies.
What is a troll? A troll is an internet bully(s) who insists on being a nuisance by attacking and writing distorted, untrue and hateful things about you in a newsgroup or on a blog – or somewhere on the Internet. They will usually contact you through emails, comments on a blog and will try to stir up controversy through blog postings. When individuals or groups continuing in this behavior it is called trolling. Unfortunately it can also develop into what is stalking.
There are groups of people who are watching ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who are watching ex-gay leaders with stalker mentalities and even incitements to assassinate a person’s character. It can become difficult when a troll becomes a stalker, and legal action must be taken. I really appreciate godly lawyers who desire help people in ministry. There are good lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund, Thomas More Law Center, and then there are local lawyers who have been very helpful to me and to First Stone Ministries. There are groups of liberal blog bullies and trolls who actually advocate for stalking or suggest ways to actually trouble Christian conservatives, ex-gay ministry leaders and their staffs.
Truly we are living in new days when those who screamed the loudest for tolerance are now become some of the most intolerant hateful people in our society. Some people are actually becoming violent in adolescent demands as has been reported in the news with the riots in California over Proposition 8 in this last election in November. Ironically these are people who actually cry out, “no to hate” and yet are very people who are demonstrated extremely hateful behavior, crying out for the burning down of churches and the killing of Christians, and then demand hate crimes legislation for preservation for themselves. This would be laughable if it were not so insanely dangerous. It seems that anarchy has begun in California with recent events in Oakland, CA, the city next door to San Francisco, and this of course where a Christian missionary was beaten with her own Bible and kicked repeatedly for merely singing worship songs on the streets with her group in the gay Montrose District of San Francisco.
I have encountered several mean-spirited gay activists and blog bullies in the past few years. However, 2008-2009 has given me some extra experience than in past years. Most of these new experience started after sharing my story in finding freedom from homosexuality and sharing my feelings about free speech at the Oklahoma State Capitol on April 2, 2008. I have also had more experiences after posting my personal beliefs here on my personal blog, and after writing articles about freedom from homosexuality. I am grieved, but not surprised at the level of hate that has been spewed out at me and First Stone Ministries, the staff, volunteers, even my wife and children from people who claim to be so tolerant. It is sad how other Christian and ex-gay leaders through the country are being treated. I could write for an hour telling the stories.
Bottom line, if you share something contrary or in opposition to the politically correct liberal leftist position about homosexuality, there is NO tolerance of your views. Freedom of speech for the Christian is coming to an end IF the liberal left have their way. It has become clear that tolerance is only for those who have the gay political point of view. Accept homosexuality as normal, or you are a bigot, and a hate monger. So ironically intolerance is coming from the groups of people who demanded tolerance. There is no room for tolerance for conservative Bible believing ministries like First Stone, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, and scores of many other Christian organizations with who are in opposition to politically gay-agenda-minded motivated groups. The Internet is full of personal blogs of gay men/woman and gay organizations who wish the demise of Christian organizations.
DFTT! – Don’t feed the trolls, and sound advice from my lawyers: document everything, keep everything, start filing police reports and get a team of lawyers.
Seven Things I Wished That Pro-Gay People Would Admit
1. I wish they would admit that many people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism, and that this conflict is internal, based on legitimate, intelligent religious and moral convictions–not just the result of a so-called “homophobic” society which is forcing guilt upon people who don’t conform to a heterosexual ethic.
Stop throwing out the cheap, inaccurate labels like “internalized homophobia” to explain our motivations.
—
2. I wish they would acknowledge that homosexuals and lesbians can experience significant change in their sexual feelings and desires, even though they may never be totally heterosexual in their sexual thoughts and feelings.
Be honest enough to admit that such change is significant and genuine, even if it isn’t complete.
—
3. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have found a greater measure of peace and satisfaction after leaving a gay or lesbian lifestyle than they ever experienced while embracing homosexuality.
Not all “ex-gays” are miserable, plotting how to secretly fulfill their homosexual lusts without being caught.
—
4. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have genuine joy in their marriages.
Most former gays and lesbians don’t get married in a futile attempt to “escape” homosexuality; they marry as a natural consequence of resolving that issue in their lives.
—
5. I wish they would acknowledge that all people have as much right to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle as they do to pursue homosexuality.
Former homosexuals and lesbians should not be harassed and castigated by the gay community. But I have never heard any gay or lesbian leaders speak out against the violence (such as bomb threats and physical/verbal abuse) which some people perpetuate against Exodus ministries.
—
6. I wish they would stop equating our decision to leave homosexuality with “hatred” and “bigotry” against gays and lesbians.
We don’t hate gays; we simply desire to live free of homosexuality. Don’t put nasty labels upon our motives. That’s being judgmental and unfair.
—
7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade.
Many–probably most–men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don’t discipline members for committing “adultery” outside their “gay marriage.” Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a “holy union” with their partner.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bob Davies is the Director Emeritus with Exodus International, as Bob was the Executive Director with Exodus International from 1985 -2001. Alan Chambers is the current Executive Director of Exodus International.
Copyright 1997 ~ Used with permission from Bob Davies
‘Gay Marriage’ in The Heartland by Andy Comiskey
April 4, 2009
While we were sleeping, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state’s ban on ‘gay marriage’ on grounds that it was unconstitutional. Most believers I spoke with in and around Iowa knew little if anything about the Court’s deliberation. Those who did seemed sleepy in their response. And uncertain. Even getting information about the case was difficult and yielded little. To most, ‘gay marriage’ seemed outside the realm of possibility in Iowa.
Time to wake up. Marriage has now been redefined in the heartland: the ruling represents the mainstreaming of ‘gay marriage’ in the USA. As one activist put it: “If Iowa with its common sensibility can do this, why can’t we do this in other states in the country?”
Just as halting ‘gay marriage’ in CA inhibited such action elsewhere, Iowa’s brash judicial action will quicken the resolve of activists to overturn ‘gay marriage’ bans in other states.
How did a state in the heartland become only the third in the nation to redefine marriage for its citizens? And the first in the Midwest?
The answer lies in the power of gay legal activists who target states that look like good prospects. Like Iowa. In spite of its 10-year-old ‘gay marriage’ ban and ‘common sensibility,’ Iowa has a liberal political history, including gay adoption. Iowa also makes it hard for citizens to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a constitutional amendment. State lawmakers must approve any proposed amendment twice over a two-year period before it gets to voters. That means that the earliest Iowans can vote to overturn ‘gay marriage’ would be 2012!
Enter Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization. Vying for a date with the state Supreme Court, these activists in 2005 filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay couples who could not marry in Iowa due to its ‘gay marriage’ ban.
A lower court heard the case in 2007 and ruled that the ban was unconstitutional due to the judge’s belief that ‘homosexuality is unchangeable’, that ‘gay parents will not impact the development of their kids’ and that ‘homosexuals are politically powerless.’ All false, especially the last point: gays in Iowa have Lambda Legal, the most powerful reps I know.
The lower court’s ruling was ’stayed’ then appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case last January. I could tell by the hearings that the Court was more inclined toward Lambda Legal than the traditional voice. On Friday, the Court announced that it had unanimously redefined marriage. One decision by one court and the most basic institution of the state changes for all of its citizens.
Lambda Legal is currently servicing other states in passing ‘gay marriage’ provisions. In the Midwest, Minnesota and Wisconsin would be the most vulnerable to ‘gay marriage’ due to its liberal political traditions. Like Iowa, their Courts are primed for the likes of strategic activists like Lambda Legal.
What can we do?
1. Wake up! ‘Gay Marriage’ bans can be overturned. We need to be aware of what is going on in our states and take measures to ward off the strategies of groups like Lambda Legal.
2. We need Constitutional Amendments that define marriage for good. We can pray and fight for Iowans over the long haul as they begin the long push toward overturning the Court’s decision with one such amendment. The majority of Iowans and the rest of the US public are still not in favor of ‘gay marriage.’
3. Make the truth known about why marriage matters. Our focus is not ‘anti-gay’; it is pro-marriage. Tell the truth about how marriage best represents to kids; they need man and woman together in order to grow into wholeness. And how God can restore homosexuals to wholeness. If we don’t tell the truth in love, false justice built on false presuppositions advances.
4. Pray. This is in truth a holy war, based on love and reverence for God’s design and the Designer Himself. In a month, Desert Stream will release ‘Honor Marriage for the Good of All’ , a prayer-guide for churches who want to pray wisely for marriage in our land, while seeking God’s heart and strategy for broken people who need healing.
5. Seek true justice and compassion: in this Holy Week, let us pray that we might be please Jesus in surrender to His purposes, including His heart for marriage. Join Desert Stream this week as we pray and fast that neither New England nor other targeted states in the Midwest will fall to ‘gay marriage.’ Also, that the CA Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8. (Its decision is not yet known.)
“All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
“Since we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.” (2Cor. 5:11)
“And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber.” (Romans 13: 11)
USED WITH PERMISSION © 2009 DESERT STREAM MINISTRIES
_____________________________________________________________________
Who is Andy Comiskey?
This article is from Andy Comiskey’s blog.
Ex-Gays Afraid to Come Out for Fear of Persecution!
I personally don’t like describing myself as “ex-gay,” however; it communicates a quick sound bite of the reality and a direction of many. So while others might be disturbed by the term, “ex-gay” I feel it is a waste of time to wrangle over words that work in concisely communicating. Yes, folks I am “ex-gay” though I do not find my identity in being “ex-gay.” I am also very concerned that there are many great stories of “ex-gays” which are being browbeaten into silence.
I have been made aware of the growing hostility towards ex-gays in the past couple of years in the media, and recently on many blogs. Even the very popular Bill O’Reilly (here’s an article here where Bill wanted to sue an ex-gay minister) continues to communicate snide chuckles on his program at the idea of ex-gays. Fox News is somewhat fair and balanced to Judeo-Christian values, yet they do a better job with conservative political news. I like and watch Fox News, and even watch O’Reilly a lot, because most of the other cable news outlets are very hostile to the idea of Christian values, never-mind the idea of ex-gays. Our culture is completely buying into the hoax of being born gay and has accepted the idea of being gay as normality.
The hostility is really growing to the message of leaving homosexuality behind. It could actually become illegal in the near future to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ in helping people find freedom from of homosexuality. Even well-meaning Christians scoff at the idea, perhaps they should view the documentary: SPEECHLESS - SILENCING the CHRISTIANS. Perhaps we should remember our history of Nazi Germany. We should at least read the recent news from our Canadian neighbors to the north. In Canada it is illegal to speak out that homosexuality is sin. It is now legislatively considered hate speech and prosecutable; a topic worth Googling. Perhaps well-meaning, well-educated yet misinformed Christians wouldn’t scoff at this knowledge.
I came across this article yesterday “Ex-Gays Afraid to Come Out for Fear of Persecution” and thought this would be a good post in light of this discussion. Ex-gays are in fact, afraid to make themselves known. I have met with MANY people who are influential in my community and others who have church communities that would make it very difficult to talk about their recovery from homosexuality. Yet there is even a larger and growing threatening group of gay activists who are fueling the fire of fear and oppression in our culture. They wish to silence the freedom of choice when it comes to leaving homosexuality. The idea of leaving homosexuality is very threatening to their gay insecure existence and their political agendas. Wayne Besen, a self-proclaimed activist, is one of these very loud voices, he is cruel and mean-spirited. These groups are receiving too much attention, just like the school yard bully or another picture that comes to mind, it’s like the elementary kid throwing himself down on the floor throwing the hissy-fit. I know what I want to do to that kid, but Dr. Spock wouldn’t like it! Yet our culture is deceived by Darwinian-ism and humanistic beliefs. Our society is vacillating from being increasingly afraid of these bullies or being in love with them!
There are growing numbers of political gay groups that are very disturbing to me. They are actual GAY hate groups who wish to silence the voices of ex-gays. These groups are like the brazenly named “Ex-Gay Watch” and their club of bloggers who use hatefully sarcastic words in addressing ex-gays. There are even more radical groups that are extra hateful with their narcissistic sarcasms which reveal vicious vitriol fueled by people like Wayne Besen. I have had my own personal encounters with these groups. These people have actually posted ideas of how to stalk and harm ex-gay ministries and their leaders. They sarcastically mock and hope for the demise of any ex-gay ministry leader. They write books and plays applauding, scoffing and laughing at any relapse of any individual leaving homosexuality. If someone did this with other addicts like alcoholics or other human weaknesses the media would crucify them and then completely dismiss them as cruel hateful people, like Rev. Phelps and his gang; not so for gay activists.
A very successful attorney friend of mine recently told me he felt it was like 1933 in Nazi Germany for Christians and Exodus type ministries in the USA. He seriously joked with me and said, “Stephen it is like 1933 and your last name isn’t Black, but Bernstein. Your ministries will be on the front-line of the next demonic wave of an anti-Christ movement in history. It is coming.” WOW! It was a sobering moment.
One merely need to lightly read over blogs like the “Ex-GAY WATCH” and/or Wayne Besen’s blog and you will know we are living in very dark days. In the news just yesterday, at WorldNetDaily, Wayne Besen is revealed in an article that exposes his tactics and lies. The article by Bob Unruh describes Wayne Besen “as the Fred Phelps of the left.” Pretty scary!
It is sad how many people are afraid of gay activists, liberal gay blog bullies and the liberal gay anti-Christ media machine. They are silencing their great stories about overcoming homosexuality.
Yet in closing, we need to have hope, as Charles Dickens said, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” and so shall it be right before the great and terrible day of the Lord. He is coming and HE will set things STRAIGHT!
