The False Comparison that Homosexual Activists Make

I listened during a television news show to a spokesman for the homosexual cause failing miserably to make the case that they (homosexuals) are not against religious freedom. He claimed they oppose “discrimination” against homosexuals when Christian businesses choose not to involve themselves in homosexual activities.

As so many leftists do, the spokesman compared the perceived discrimination to refusing service to a patron because the patron is black.

What that spokesman conveniently avoided is the immutability of being black. As such, laws against discrimination based on race are equitable laws (in man’s and in God’s eyes). As a black person, I can be nothing other than black, regardless of what I do.

Being black is a God-given, as is being any other ethnicity. The behavior of a black person, however, is not immutable and neither is homosexual behavior. Any business can refuse service to a black person or any other person for behavior that they cannot, for legitimate reasons, countenance. And scriptural reasons are legitimate.

Some Christian businesses may require that drug dealers of any color not carry on deals in their establishments, even in a city where drug dealing is legal. If the perpetrator is black, the rejection has nothing to do with his color, but rather his behavior. For the believing Christian business owner, drug dealing is against God’s laws that prohibit willfully harming fellow human beings.

A Christian business may refuse to honor a madam’s request to cater a celebration for her stable of call girls and their most loyal johns (even in a city where prostitution is legal). Prostitution is against God’s laws that prohibit fornication and adultery—the life’s blood of the prostitute, of any gender or ethnicity.

Whether or not homosexual behavior is against manmade laws (as it certainly was throughout American history) does not alter the fact that it is, as is drug dealing and prostitution, against God’s laws. A Christian business that receives a request to involve them in any way in the homosexual cause would refuse such a request from a homosexual of any ethnicity.

In fact, if a homosexual does not make known his choice of homosexuality, nobody would know what that person does sexually. This being the case, a homosexual who is not trying to advance the homosexual cause can be served in a Christian business. Just as a drug dealer will be served if he is not soliciting the Christian’s involvement in his dealing or using drugs and a prostitute will be served if such service has nothing to do with the behavior.

Almighty God requires that humans not engage in homosexual behavior. And the very fact that He requires that we not make the choice, proves such a choice can be rejected—difficult, maybe, but not impossible. He would not have set the requirement if humans were incapable of avoiding the behavior. That’s not the way the God of perfect justice operates.

For the believing Christian, all aspects of life (including work) are to be guided by biblical principles. The Founders built into the Constitution the right to hold fast to those principles. There is no right to homosexual or any other God-condemned behaviors in the Constitution. What the Supreme Court or any other legal authority says about the issue is irrelevant.

What’s more, all kinds of businesses cater to the degeneracies of humans. In today’s America, what a customer cannot secure at one establishment, he can secure elsewhere, no matter how vile and degenerate his request may be.

This brings to mind the dating service Match.com, originally set up for men seeking women and women seeking men, primarily for lasting marital relationships. Homosexual fascists threatened the founders of the service with a court case to force them to match homosexuals. There were (and I am certain, still are) many dating services catering to homosexuals, but Match.com was targeted because its focus was biblical, natural marriage and family. Legal costs and harassment drove the founders to cave, much to the consternation of a lot of decent people, Christian and otherwise.

Whatever the depraved state of homosexual activists and whatever the satanic hold they may have on the legal system in this country, believing Christians must answer to God whenever Caesar runs amok.

It does not matter what the consequences may be, even if those consequences are imprisonment or death, or both. In the ultimate end, when God intervenes, the Christian who follows His dictates will be vindicated. The stubbornly unrepentant will eventually be destroyed, regardless of what weak-willed and apostate professed Christian leaders tell them.

Therefore, a comparison of the civil rights of people who are immutably black to homosexuals who choose their behavior is a bogus comparison. I am certain the homosexual movement is well aware of that fact. Disingenuousness and lying, after all, are its primary hallmarks.

As I have said before, this issue has nothing to do with civil rights. It is all about a small, tyrannical segment of our rotting culture that has foolishly taken issue with Almighty God. They will sorely regret that choice in due time, if they are not already regretting it.

The rampant disease, both medical and mental, permeating the homosexual and other deviant populations is staggering for such a small portion of society. It should be clear evidence that those who embrace deviant sexual sin are way off base. But apparently not; it may take something even more drastic than dying in droves to open eyes and hearts.

How discouraging to know that we have a central socialist government and high court that endorses an evil, diseased underclass of sodomy practitioners!

Any government that enforces "nondiscrimination" on private businesses is immoral, unconstitutional and freedom-destroying. The "civil rights" movement of the 50's and 60's went too far in that it impinged on private individuals.

That being said that movement and subsequent laws have absolutely nothing to do with this excessive PC gushing over people who shove their mouths and their sex organs where they don't belong.

Homosexuals and lesbians should be shunned.

Homosexuals and lesbians should be shunned......you are free to do what your conscious dictates....you don't need to paint everyone with your beliefs.

Worth noting: S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at Princeton University on Monday that comparing same sex coupling to bestiality and murder is politically “effective.” According to the Associated Press (AP), Scalia was explaining to a question by a gay student, Duncan Hosie, who asked the conservative judge why he considers it necessary to draw parallels between laws banning LGBT sex and laws banning bestiality and murder.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia replied, adding that he believes legislative bodies are within their purview to ban acts that they believe are immoral.

The Reagan-appointed justice has been touring the country promoting his new book, Reading Law. He said that he was not equating homosexual sex with murder, but rather saying that laws against them serve the same purpose, as moral safeguards on society.

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’” said Scalia. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Their behavior needs to be shamed and re-criminalized. I helped prosecute them for the CRIME of homosexuality just a few short years ago. I know there’s a lot of idiotic talk that you “can’t legislate morality,” but we did just that for the first couple hundred years of our nation. We conformed our laws to God’s commands striving for His blessings, because we knew that it’s only through obedience that we’ll receive divine blessings.

In reality, all laws on the books are the legislation of somebody’s morality. Whose morality should be legislated?

God considered the behavior worthy of execution in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22 & 20:13), and in the New Testament they’re condemned to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and the lake of fire, right along with murderers and others (Rev. 21:8). These aren’t maybe damnations. They’re a done deal, UNLESS they repent.

They’ll never repent as long as the culture is encouraging their depravity. So the culture is encouraging them to go to hell, which tell us where the culture is going too.

They like to say their behavior is innate and immutable. Not true. Being black is innate and immutable, because you’ll never find a “former” black. No such thing as a “former” black is even possible. But there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals. There can’t be a single former homosexual for their behavior to be innate and immutable.

And since the behavior is therefore a CHOICE, it needs to be assessed for its costs to society. Homosexuals live abbreviated lives, averaging about 20 less years than normal people. This is from HIV/AIDS and cancers of the anus, rectum, mouth, etc., that tend to be unique to their deathstyle. Homosexuality, like smoking, therefore results in higher medical bills and higher costs to society. On top of that, there’s the amounts being spent to research cures for the diseases they tend to die of. The staggering amounts being spent on homosexual diseases could be used to research cures for diseases normal people die of. It’s a zero sum game and their diseases are robbing normal people of life expectancy.

Here you go:

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

This is just after the leftists’ favorite verse of “judge not...” Obviously Christ commanded us here to judge whether certain people were “dogs” or “swine,” since he certainly wasn’t speaking of the four footed critters. And He was commanding us to refrain from evangelizing them, which means shunning them. “Swine” is easy. That’s anybody who insists on wallowing in his own filth. “Dogs” is a little more complicated. “Dogs” (kuon) just means “dogs” in Greek. But the New Testament was likely spoken in Aramaic, closely related to Hebrew. And in Hebrew, “dogs” (keleb) is a euphemism for “male prostitute.”

Practically speaking, this makes a lot of sense. Those who love to wallow in their own filth won’t like to be warned of the wrath that awaits them, and also homosexuals are becoming notorious for their desire to “turn and rend” anybody who opposes their deathstyle.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but neither does it necessarily relate to "shunning". If a person simply will not hear you, yes, to continue could be "casting your pearls".

There is a fine line IMHO. When we are told "they will hate you - because they hate(d) me", and also "take up your cross daily...", this is a call to action - to be salt and light.

The closest thing I can can think of - where I think you coming from is Matt 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

We need to be careful I think; there are those who will NOT hear, but there are also those whose hearts might be open. I think our default position - with the lost - is to always assume the latter. And then to present Christ with love, care and respect - but with the admonition "go - and sin no more...".

And the bottom: we need to be careful that we don't boast in our "non-homosexuality" - as if were not the recipients of undeserved grace:
1 Corinthians
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.

Of course our default position should be that people are not “dogs” or “swine.” But once they in some way show themselves to be “dogs” or “swine,” we’re under no further obligation to evangelize them.

Homosexuals have been able to frame the debate. If ours was a godly nation, we should be evangelizing them in prison. God considers their behavior really no different than murder. Murderers should be evangelized in prison too, of course. Then again, we don’t tell murderers to “go and sin no more.” We throw them in prison. They have to pay for their crimes against God. Just as homosexuals should be paying for their crimes against God. They WERE imprisoned for the first couple hundred years of our history. I helped prosecute both murderers and homosexuals just a few short years ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.