Posted on 04/25/2015 5:26:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
A God versus political correctness hoo-ha erupted when the Western Conservative Summit, which has been called the CPAC of the West, refused to allow the Log Cabin Republicans, a same-sex marriage advocacy group, a display table at their upcoming June 26-28 Summit in Denver. Various left-wing media lobbed the usual firebombs, claiming bigotry, hatred, homophobia, unfairness, some demanding boycotts of the Summit and pressuring scheduled speakers like Gov. Scott Walker and Dr. Ben Carson to bow out.
Both sides agree the conference, which attracts 4,000 participants, has the legal right not to sell the same-sex marriage group a display table; at issue is whether it’s morally correct.
The controversy is literally of Biblical proportions since The Western Conservative Summit (WCS15) is sponsored annually by the Centennial Institute (CI), which is part of Colorado Christian University (CCU). This isn’t about political correctness or the gay agenda, it’s about the Christian principles that CCU is committed to uphold. In refusing to support or endorse same-sex marriage at their confab, CCU and the Centennial Institute are just following God’s moral orders. But the secular left is woefully ignorant about the Bible and its teachings and thinks “marriage equality” trumps God’s man-woman marriage.
Said John Andrews, CI Director, “(Log Cabin Republicans) and your members are very welcome to get tickets and attend, but we can’t officially have the organization as a partner, exhibitor, or advertiser….your worldview and policy agenda are fundamentally at odds with what Colorado Christian University stands for, so it’s just not a fit…”
When the same-sex marriage lobby of which the LCR is a significant part, insists that upholding the Christian God’s moral rules is immoral, they are essentially accusing God of being a bigot and a hater. Is God a homophobe? This is where the same-sex marriage advocates fire up the usual accusations: “Doesn’t a loving God love all his children equally, and if so, doesn’t he lovingly accept all his children’s’ behavior?” Yes, but no.
The concept of a happy-talk deity, an endless gushing fountain of love, is a very modern invention. As the Judeo-Christian God, God the Father, makes it plain in his autobiography, the Bible, he isn’t a go-along-to-get-along kind of Dad. Like the best parents, he loves us but he also disciplines us, precisely because he loves us and yes, he knows what’s best for us. Our earthly fathers say, “My house; my rules.” Our heavenly Father says, “My Creation; my rules.”
God makes it clear in the second chapter of Genesis that he created man and woman for each other. Or to quote Mr. Obama in his televised 2008 interview with Pastor Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman…for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union--God is in the mix.” But according to his pal David Axelrod, that speech was a fiction devised to win votes from the black community. Obama later revealed he was pro-same-sex marriage all along.
Yet many Christians take God’s ethical code seriously, despite being called crazed fundamentalists, cave-dwelling Bible thumping extremists and the like. God’s rules make our anything-goes secular culture squirm. He not only frowns on homosexuality, he calls it an “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22. In the same section he forbids incest, adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality, branding them all abominations and defilements for his people. Ouch. In the New Testament, too, these behaviors are forbidden; most specifically by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-28. God believes these practices lead to spiritual and physical ruin, and he wants to protect us from the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Secularists mock that these are ancient rules for another time and place; after all, we live in the 21st Century. But God doesn’t give us an expiration date for his moral laws. The secular absolutists worship tolerance but refuse to tolerate those who don’t agree with their political agenda. And political it is: the same Log Cabin Republicans who were threatening the Western Conservative Summit admit on their website that they exist solely to further the LGBT agenda through their DC lobbying office, funds from their federal and state PACs, state activist chapters, and through influencing the GOP from within.
From the LCR website: “To attain substantial legislative progress, we need votes from both sides of the aisle—Republican and Democrat. Over the last three decades, many gay and lesbian activists worked hard to make the Democratic Party more inclusive on gay and lesbian issues. Log Cabin Republicans are doing the same important work to transform the GOP.”
The 3 to 5 percent of the population who are gay and their supporters have, in a very short time, seen the courts overturn same-sex marriage bans passed in many states. But they haven’t been that successful with Republicans, about 82 percent of whom still believe in man-woman marriage. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and conservatives are also much more likely to be Christians while Democrats and liberals aren’t.
So Christians have unwittingly become the enemy. When opposed, the LGBT coalition lashes back with a level of retribution that’s been compared to the Mafia. They don’t stop at name-calling, but viciously shame, bully and even rob Christians of their livelihoods in the name of vengeance.
Gay activists’ boycotts, harassment, and vicious social media attacks shut down cake bakers, photographers, and others whose Christian beliefs compel them to decline services to same-sex weddings. Pastors in Idaho who wouldn’t perform same-sex weddings faced possible jail time and fines until the ACLU dropped its lawsuit. Last year, the newly-appointed CEO of Mozilla was forced out of his job by pro-gay-marriage fury when his $1,000 donation to support California’s 2008 anti-same-sex-marriage initiative came to light. Even when the Christian business wins, as did Chik-Fil-A, court costs are so overwhelming that smaller companies just shut down or back down. But in a recent Rasmussen poll, 85 percent of Americans said that business owners should be allowed to deny services for gay weddings if they have a religious objection.
The gay lobby’s spitefulness belies their pleas for inclusivity and mutual respect, and their claims of oppression by evil Christians. Who are the loveless, tyrannical bigots here? Christian-phobia threatens the religious liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment, while same-sex “marriage equality” is an invented concept attempting to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.
In the Western Conservative Summit fracas, diplomacy and party diversity triumphed when state GOP chairman Steve House offered the Log Cabin Republicans a seat at their table, and both the LCR and Summit Director John Andrews agreed. Would that the same-sex lobby could take note and learn what compromise and inclusion are all about.
Indeed. Thirty or forty years ago, the Gay Lobby was all about "tolerance," about acceptance into civil society. I believe some gays still believe that is the "mission." (Like my sister and her partner, who are rock-ribbed conservatives on any and every issue — except for the issue of "gayness.")
All that has changed of course. Since the 1970s, the demand for tolerance has mutated into an absolute demand that non-gays actively love them, and consider them heroes, given all the putative existential suffering and struggle they were involved in "finally coming to terms" with their "unfair" biological misidentification/social mischaracterization in terms of the categories of male and female.
And if we don't love them as they insist on being loved, then we shall be made to suffer.... Hold-outs can be sued at law; can be financially destroyed. Etc. This is not "tolerance." This is tyranny.
Even though natural reality produces only two sexes, it seems Gays need further "wiggle room" to account for themselves.... So new sexual classifications have to be added — e.g., transgender, bisexual (hermaphroditic), God knows what else is yet to come — to account for their own perceived, not to mention strongly preferred, self-experience.
Once-upon-a-time, the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ("DSM") of the American Psychiatric Association — we're referring to the early 1970s here — categorized homosexuality as a full-blown psychiatric disorder. This diagnosis was made on the basis of the profound observed disparity, and total lack of convergence, between a person's wholly subjective self-ideations, and the simple facts of his (or her) own ineluctable personal biology.
Following from this recognition, the therapeutic approach up until that time WRT such persons was to try to meliorate this stark disparity between a person's self-concept and his actual biological nature. That is to say, to make the self-concept more "realistic" in reflecting the actual facts on the ground WRT the person's born sexuality.
Of course, the Gay Lobby found such ideas totally intolerable, utterly offensive, and pressed the American Psychiatric Association to stop talking about them. Which it did, rather quietly, in fairly short order. The current edition of the DSM no longer lists homosexuality as a "psychiatric disorder."
Gays insist that they are "born that way." Which means there must be other "sexes" or "genders" to account for them, which have not yet been sufficiently well-acknowledged....
For many Gays, there is no question of "nature" versus "nurture": The "fact" that they are "born that way" obviates "nurture" altogether.
So it's pointless for psychotherapists to try to "normalize" them to the facts of their own biology. They are trying — it seems to me — to escape altogether from the facts of their own biology.... To them, it is some kind of ultimate liberation from human and social nature that enables them to be "free" to "be themselves."
As far as the probability of "nurture" having any relevance to the "gender self-identity" problem, Gays typically insist it has exactly no relevance whatsoever. For gays are born, not made. This seemingly is their sacred doctrine.
And yet I have to note that, having known very many gay people in my life, in many instances in the closest imaginable relations (e.g., family members and their friends), I have sensed a certain commonality in their respective personal "stories." Whether they were born male or female, there seems to be a common denominator in their psychodevelopmental backgrounds. And that is: difficult, even tortured relations, with their Mother, that persist over time; that never go away.
FWIW. I'll leave it there for now.
Absolutely - all excellent points.
I heard a Christian counselor once tell me that there were 3 things that his secular counselors admitted to him only seemed to be "cured" by the Christians.
Homosexuality, the guilt of abortion, and addiction.
Reality is homophobic frankly.
I often wonder whether the "born with it" insistence is rooted in the desire to be on equal footing with people of color in civil rights, affirmative actions, etc.
“...When opposed, the LGBT coalition lashes back with a level of retribution that’s been compared to the Mafia. They don’t stop at name-calling, but viciously shame, bully and even rob Christians of their livelihoods in the name of vengeance.”
They preach against dogmatism, but are in reality trying to replace objective rules coming from Nature with subjective and self-serving ones created by those with juvenile mentalities. They cannot be bothered with limitations and consequences that they do not invent. Their values are based upon what they want right now — and to hell with tomorrow.
The problem is, Nature’s Laws will not be cheated. So, once they bring down the existing order, others from the outside are waiting to take over — and they do not share the values that the Left holds sacred.
Once the barbarians take over, the Left will be the first ones to go. Women will no longer be denied abortions, because they will be consigned to the status of livestock. Homosexuals will no longer be denied wedding cakes, because they will be swinging from nooses instead.
The Left may believe in dialectic materialism, but when you burn down a forest, new flowers do not necessarily grow from the ashes. Sometimes a slime mold grows where vibrant life once flourished.
And once darkness rules, human history has shown that it can take a very long time indeed for the light to return.
The “phobia” God has is that man will cut himself off from the very fabric of his existence by engaging in the most self-destructive, society-destroying behavior defined by the creator. Those who engage in this behavior in flagrant mockery of the creator should be very “phobic” about their choice. What arrogance and hubris to make oneself into God and impute motives to the real God.
The Bible does indeed explicitly forbid homosexuality as a cardinal sin.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
18:23 therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from before you.
25 And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited out her inhabitants.
26 Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you—
27 for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled—
28 that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 Therefore shall ye keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs, which were done before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. {P}
Bible - Leviticus -
You want to leave out the rest of the chapter? The entire 18th chapter is dedicated to sexual sin, and homosexuality is not mentioned as “especially”. Sexual sin is “especially”. This is emphasized again by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.
I pursued this issue extensively after being challenged by a friend when I stated, incorrectly, that homosexual sin was a worse sin than the heterosexual sin of which I was guilty.
Sometimes people may develop a phobia as the result of a trauma. What’s also important is the effects of an actual phobia on a person, such as blood pressure, pulse, compulsion, etc.. A person almost killed by a poisonous snakebite, for instance, might develop extreme fear of snakes, my wife is one such example, got an infected bite from a snake, and she has profound effects on her vital signs if she sees one.
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Who said this? Jesus, the Lord.
Lev 20:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
That being said though this is the standard for followers of God. For Christians. If one is NOT a follower of God then this doesn't apply. It's not a bad idea but this is somewhat normal behavior for those who don't know the Lord.
Was Natural Section “homophobic” when it selected HETEROsexual procreation for humans?
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Sex-Nobel-Conference-Xxiii/dp/0062502913
Great post !
Same here. I wear it on my sleeve.
I certainly do not fear you queers. Why should I?
You are readily and easily eliminated...
Is the questioner assuming that there is some sort of external objective moral standard which forbids “homophobia” and which judges A-mighty G-d???
Didn’t G-d call it an abomination? Seems to specifically point it out as unacceptable behavior.
Jesus was Jewish, and the Jews accepted homosexuality as an abomination, so there was no reason to point out a behavior that was not happening in the community.
Excellent point.
But it’s specifically called an abomination.
“Didn’t G-d call it an abomination? Seems to specifically point it out as unacceptable behavior.”
Absolutely! Along with a laundry list of sexual sins.
See my post #48. The use of these words in different translations: wickedness, detestable, a perversion, an abomination, are all the same. See also Pr 6:16-19 where “abomination” is used about other sin. I have only found it in the New Testament about how sexual sin is a particularly special sin, as it is a sin against your body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
I have searched the scriptures to find where homosexual sin is a more detestable sin than heterosexual sin. It may be in there somewhere, but it has escaped me.
Take up the challenge yourself and get back with me if you find something.
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.