Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gay’

Gay Effort to Reintroduce Slavery in the South Fails


Authored by Bryan Fischer | Monday, May 15, 2017

Gay Effort to Reintroduce Slavery in the South Fails

It was about whether an American can be compelled by government force to communicate a message which violates his conscience and deeply held religious belief. – Bryan Fischer

Blaine Adamson is the owner of a T-shirt shop in Frankfort, Kentucky, Hands On Originals. He is also a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ. So naturally when he was approached in 2012 by a local homosexual activist group to print a shirt promoting The Lexington “Pride” Festival, he politely declined, and courteously referred them to a nearby shop who would be happy to provide the service. 

In fact, a quick look at the Frankfort area Yellow Pages lists no less than 21 different businesses which cater to the T-shirt printing crowd, so there was simply no need for Adamson to be forced under the threat of fines and worse to do a job which would have caused him to violate his conscience. Plus, the gay activists wound up getting their shirts for free from another vendor. 

But for politely exercising his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, Adamson was promptly sued. His case finally made it to the Court of Appeals in Kentucky.  (The Court of Appeals is one step below the state supreme court). In a surprising move, given the almost total obeisance of judges to the bullies and bigots of the homosexual lobby, the court actually ruled in favor of religious liberty and freedom of speech. 

The opinion, written by Chief Judge Joy Kramer, pointed out that Adamson had not been guilty of discrimination at all. There is no evidence, she wrote, that Hands On Originals had “refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity” (emphasis in original). In fact, Adamson has routinely done business with members of the LGBT community and even employs them

The issue, in other words, was not about sexual orientation at all but about speech. It was about whether an American can be compelled by government force to communicate a message which violates his conscience and deeply held religious belief. 

Section 5 of the Kentucky constitution is quite clear, unambiguous, and emphatic on the issue (emphasis mine): “[T]he civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” 

As further proof that the issue for Adamson is one of conscience and religious scruple, and not an expression of some kind of hate-filled homophobia, he has also declined to print T-Shirts that use the word “b**ches” or that featured Jesus dressed as a pirate. 

What should not be missed here is that there are two larger issues involved, as lesbian writer Tammy Bruce pointed out some time ago. For the government to force someone to do work that violates his conscience is nothing less than tyranny. And for a man to be compelled under threat of punishment to perform work against his will is slavery. 

The reality is that the LGBT lobby is the reincarnation of some of the worst elements of the mindless prejudice of the Old South in its irrational venom toward people (Christians) who are not like them. The rainbow flag is the new Confederate flag. It is as much a symbol of bigotry as that flag ever was in the minds of the left. 

Bottom line: in Frankfort, Kentucky, homosexual activists tried to reintroduce slavery to the Deep South. They failed in the attempt. And the Constitution’s protections for religious liberty and freedom of speech were upheld. Let’s pray that this court will be just the first of many to protect our first freedom against the tyranny of the left.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

 

Bryan Fischer Host of “Focal Point” MORE

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide


Authored by Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger | Tuesday, May 2, 2017 @ 11:50 AM

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide / Humanist stumbles in his defense of openly gay United Methodist bishop Karen Oliveto.

What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.- Dr. Michael Brown

A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide. It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did on the Huffington Post on April 29th.

Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto, since her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?

He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”

The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”

A father may love his adult daughter in a romantic way, but that doesn’t make the relationship right. Twin brothers in their 30s may love each other in a sexual way, but that doesn’t make their sexual activity right. A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.

It’s possible, of course, that Naff has no problem with consensual adult incest or with adultery. And maybe he has no issue with polygamy or polyamory. But as a thinking man (which he clearly is), he should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality, yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.

That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia, and it’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?

Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”

Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?

Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.

Naff then focuses on the Bible itself, using the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against male and female homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).

Not only so, but he seems oblivious to the idea that, when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they do not refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.

But this is not important for Naff, since he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce the way it bans homosexual practice?

The answer is that, according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce, and these are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is the question of remarriage that is in question, but that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)

Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains, “I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.”

So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture,” as long as we realize that it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions,” not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”

Thanks but no thanks.

That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if, in fact, the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?

After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes, “Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 – 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.”

Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God.

Instead, Naff states, “I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient ‘laws’ in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.”

In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel. But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well, since, if he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.

In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.

Not only so, but if the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.

I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that:

1) the Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth;

2) scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more; and

3) there are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”

What is lacking, then, is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.

Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail. 

Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger, Distinguished Author, Speaker and Christian Apologist More Articles

Kenyan Politician: If Obama Brings ‘Gay Agenda, We Will Tell Him to Shut Up and Go Home’


waving flagBy Patrick Goodenough | July 7, 2015

Leftist Giant called Tyranny
With the American and Kenyan flags behind him, then-Sen. Barack Obama speaks to students at University of Nairobi, Monday, Aug. 28, 2006. (AP File Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – When he visits his father’s homeland in Africa later this month, President Obama is expected to run into vocal opposition over his administration’s high-profile promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.

Obama’s trip to Kenya, his first as president, is scheduled to take place four weeks after the White House was bathed in rainbow colors to mark the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that same-sex marriage is a right.

At a small pro-family demonstration at the parliament in Nairobi Monday, organized by the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, participants called on the American president not to raise the subject during his visit.

“It is important for us as Kenyans to know that the U.S. is not God,” local media quoted evangelical Bishop Mark Kariuki as saying, adding that Obama should not use the visit to “talk about the gay issue.”

Irungu Kangata, a lawmaker in President Uhuru Kenyatta’s The National Alliance (TNA) party, was blunter: “We are telling Mr. Obama when he comes to Kenya this month and he tries to bring the abortion agenda, the gay agenda, we shall tell him to shut up and go home.”

According to The Standard of Nairobi, Kangata said Kenyans would demonstrate against Obama over the issue during his visit. Kenya’s The Daily Nation quoted several other lawmakers’ views on the matter. “Anybody who tries to come and preach to this country that they should allow homosexuality, I think he’s totally lost,” said TNA lawmaker Jamleck Kamau. “And I would also like to add, our son from the U.S., Barack Obama, when he comes here, to simply avoid that topic completely,” added Kamau, “because Kenyans will not be happy with him if he comes to bring the issue of homosexuality in this country.”Picture1

ken

“Liberal thoughts are being entertained in some countries under the guise of human rights,” the speaker of the National Assembly, Justin Muturi, told an Anglican Church congregation. “We must be vigilant and guard against it. We must lead an upright society and not allow obnoxious behavior as we have a responsibility to protect our children.”tyrants

Rose Mitaru, one of 47 female lawmakers representing counties across the country, said that allowing same-sex marriage in Kenya would open “floodgates of evil synonymous with the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.”

TNA lawmaker Cecily Mbarire urged the government to reject any foreign aid tied to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

On Sunday, Deputy President William Ruto delivered a church sermon in Nairobi in which he said homosexuality was “against the plan of God.”  “God did not create man and woman so that men would marry men and women marry women,” The Daily Nation quoted him as saying. “Those who want to engage in those businesses, they can do it in their countries, and they can do it wherever it is they want. In Kenya, we will stand firm.”Picture1

White House press secretary Josh Earnest indicated Monday that Obama would not avoid the topic during his visit. “We have been clear that when the president travels around the world, he does not hesitate to raise concerns about human rights,” he told a press briefing, in response to a question on the Kenyan criticism.

wh

“I’m confident the president will not hesitate to make clear that the protection of basic universal human rights in Kenya is also a priority and consistent with the values that we hold dear here in the United States of America,” Earnest said.More Evidence

‘Everybody has to be treated equally’

Obama is scheduled to visit Kenya later this month to open the sixth Global Entrepreneurship Summit, an Obama initiative aimed at promoting entrepreneurship, particularly in Muslim societies. He will then visit Ethiopia for bilateral and African Union meetings. It will be his fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa during his presidency.

Homosexuality is frowned on in many African countries, both Christian and Muslim. The Obama administration’s State Department has made promotion of LGBT issues a foreign policy priority.Imperial President Obama

Obama’s last visit to the continent coincided with the June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the LGBT question came up during a joint press appearance with Senegalese President Macky Sall. Asked about the issue of homosexuality in Africa, Obama said he believed that “every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions.” “But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally,” he said. “I don’t believe in discrimination of any sort. That’s my personal view.”tyrants

In his response, Sall said Senegal was not ready to change to decriminalize homosexuality, and that countries should respect each other’s choices. He also said Senegal “does not discriminate in terms of inalienable rights of the human being.”

According to data compiled by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), same-sex sexual acts are illegal in 76 countries around the world, 36 of them in Africa.

In May 2014, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, which reports to the African Union, passed a resolution calling on African countries to “end all acts of violence and abuse … including those targeting persons on the basis of their imputed or real sexual orientation or gender identities, ensuring proper investigation and diligent prosecution of perpetrators, and establishing judicial procedures responsive to the needs of victims.”More forced

freedom combo 2

12 Pictures Christians Are Sharing on Facebook


waving flagURL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailylol.com/12-pictures-christians-are-sharing-on-facebook

We’ve scoured Facebook looking for various meme’s that Christians are sharing. Here is what we are finding so far..

God destroyed the world during the Noah Flood because of the sin in humanity. His covenant was the Rainbow that He would never use water to destroy the earth again. Ironic- that now its used as a symbol for one of the reasons the flood happened in the first place.

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11698643_862142490487986_2443917954670759324_n.jpg

11698643_862142490487986_2443917954670759324_n 

People are also asking when Polygamy is going to start. The rational being it only takes something as fleeting as “love” to redefine marriage… what else can people love?

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11540838_1160431007316886_7429853984054093518_n.jpg

11540838_1160431007316886_7429853984054093518_n

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/14680_10152899150456705_1300572942598818399_n.png

14680_10152899150456705_1300572942598818399_n

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11130196_10153157081736192_4322816486641262479_n.jpg

11130196_10153157081736192_4322816486641262479_n

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11539655_819206281509286_3362914007249028670_n.jpg

11539655_819206281509286_3362914007249028670_n

 

Tolerance is a one way street

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-06-29-bb762e54_large.jpg

2015-06-29-bb762e54_large

 

Only 2.6 percent of Facebook changed their profile pictures but still there were sheep everywhere!

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/So-You-Think-That-Rainbow-Makes-You-Look-Cool.gif.jpeg

So-You-Think-That-Rainbow-Makes-You-Look-Cool.gif

Libertarians be like…

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/10614177_508328842644155_7269090944194939794_n.png

10614177_508328842644155_7269090944194939794_n

Some people are changing their profile pictures to the Christian Flag…

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11159446_10204662873713866_6944356867882750055_n.jpg

11159446_10204662873713866_6944356867882750055_n

This will make some people uneasy…

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11227510_1021181567906820_8663752303924682628_n.jpg

11227510_1021181567906820_8663752303924682628_n

When Entertainment Weekly failed in trying to fit in…

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ew.png

ew

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11145885_459372524240578_3014999133657234873_n.jpg

11145885_459372524240578_3014999133657234873_n

 

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/In-the-Tent-600-LA.jpg

In-the-Tent-600-LA

 

image: http://dailylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11666306_904444556294401_8451894858416371147_n.jpg

11666306_904444556294401_8451894858416371147_n

freedom combo 2

Identifying Hirsch’s False Teachings in “Redeeming Sex” Key to Discernment


waving flagJune 4, 2015 by

Copyright Ardogal (Contemporary Pop, Street Art & Graffiti Artist and French Painter Jean Sébastien Godfrin)

Many books about homosexuality are hitting the shelves to coincide with upcoming U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage. Among them I reviewed Scott McKnight’s A Fellowship of Differents and now Debra Hirsch’s Redeeming Sex.

Hirsch, a former lesbian-turned-heterosexual-married-self-describing-Christian, exemplifies the need and ability to discern false teaching presented as biblical. Many of her arguments are based on false premises, which lead to false conclusions.

Most disturbing is her approach that distorts and negates the person and work of Jesus Christ.

By suggesting Jesus as a “sex symbol” she writes he “would have been deeply attractive to both men and women” and it was likely that “genital sexual advances were made towards him.” Did Hirsch not read Isaiah 53? Isaiah prophesied that peoples’ redemption would come from one man who “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” Jesus was ordinary looking. And the pain and death he suffered, separation from his father, was more than enough to heal every person’s brokenness, including sexual sin.OKAY TO EXPOSE TEENS TO SEXUAL CONTENT BUT NOT THE BIBLE

Her reasoning regarding Jesus and celibacy is equally problematic. Regarding celibacy and comparing Jesus Christ to Roman Catholic priests Hirsch exposes her ignorance about common misperceptions related to institutionalized celibacy. More important, however, is that Jesus, as both fully God and fully man who was without sin, would not have thought romantically about women. His human nature was perfect and incomparable to the rest of a sinful human nature. Hirsch mentions nothing about obedience to God as a reason for celibacy—for all unmarried believers—one of only two sexual relationships Paul consistently and clearly admonishes that honor God.

Jesus was not celibate because he did not want to spare a wife or child from “the pain of the cross,” as Hirsch suggests. Jesus’s sole purpose was soteriological: to die a death he did not deserve for those who did deserve death—including everyone struggling with sexual sin—in order to redeem them from that sin, not to willfully continue it.

This is why through Christ’s love, grace and mercy, combined with a humble, contrite, repentant heart, and healing through the Holy Spirit, no practicing homosexual can claim to know and love Jesus Christ. To love Jesus is to follow him, to trust and obey him—no matter the cost. (McKnight brilliantly communicates this by citing testimonies from people struggling with sexual sin who claim nothing they have given up compares to the joy of knowing Jesus Christ.)

Furthermore, by defining sexuality and gender by man-made (not biblical) terms, Hirsch wrongly surmises the prostitute falling at Jesus’s feet (Luke 7:36-50) evidences what she defines as “social sexuality” and “genital sexuality.” Nothing could be further from biblical truth.

Yahshua_Miriam_fpageShe interprets this text as “Jesus blurs the lines, suggesting it is possible to love intensely outside of a marriage relationship.” This exemplifies both an arrogant western concept and an absurdly false claim.

The prostitute worshipped Jesus. She did not love him in a romantic, socially sexual, or genitally sexual way. The prostitute fell at Jesus’s feet because she loved him as her Lord and Savior.

Worshiping Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s emotional, asexual, or sexual feelings. Authentically worshiping Jesus for who he is as Lord does not even remotely imply that non-married women and men (the prostitute and Jesus) can love each other deeply. If anything, Jesus loved her as a father loves a child.

Hirsch’s doublespeak astounds. She asserts Jesus is “calling us to be in the ‘right’ loving relationship with God and with people…. to love God is to walk in his ways.” Yet she also maintains “there is no room for self-righteousness and exclusion based on disputed interpretations on nonessential issues of the Bible.” If sex, gender, and same-sex marriage is a nonessential issue of the Bible, then why write a book about it?

Further still, she justifies “God is ok with gay,” monogamous same-sex relationships provide “no incompatibility with following Jesus,” and “no ministry or church has the right to impose any change on an individual, let alone one so intrinsic as a sexual orientation.”WOE

Perhaps this explains why only verses that appear to support her assertions, taken out of context, are used as pull quotes instead of every verse if explained in their context would clearly refute them?

For anyone to argue the Bible “does not understand a modern day understanding of homosexuality” either reflects intellectually dishonesty, deception, or ignorance about sexual norms and practices during the Apostle Paul’s day. In fact, McKnight’s book paints an astonishing picture of that time, to which today’s standards pale in comparison. Again, if the Bible’s view of sex and gender is nonessential, why write a book about it?

One endorser claims Hirsch expresses a “Jesus-centered vision of how sexuality can glorify God and lead us to flourish.” Another, she offers “biblical, Jesus-lens insight.” Neither is truth.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

By using the Kinsey Scale as a plumb line Hirsch presupposes that human feelings, rationale, or psychology provide the basis for “trying to understand or define homosexuality,” which she claims, “is no easy task.” Homosexuality is easily understood when one first understands who God is. The gospel, not the Kinsey Scale, is what is needed to completely surrender to Jesus’s love, a love that surpasses all selfish and self-seeking choices to love and be loved by human standards.

Biblical love exposes sin and articulates that only through God’s grace, with or without the help of Christians, God restores broken people to himself. Hirsch and others who condone the behavior and mindset of “practicing homosexual Christians” are not loving, but harming them. Worse still they make Jesus’s death worthless. pray2Hirsch’s misrepresentation of scripture is irresponsibly misleading. Sadly, she is not alone.

Hirsch like Rob Bell who “came out for same-sex marriage,” Rick Warren who held hands with and joked about kissing Elton John, the Progressive Christian Alliance, the Gay Christian Network, and many at RNS who unashamedly cite human knowledge and feelings above biblical wisdom.

Paul, who Jesus exclusively tutored for seven years, wrote more about sex and marriage and male and female relationships than anyone else. Wouldn’t reading what he wrote in its entirety be the logical starting point? Yet few Christians read the Bible.

Those who “walk in the spirit,” those who love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind, those who seek to renew their minds and “pick up their crosses,” would not choose to “walk in the lusts of the flesh.” They would not want to disobey Jesus because their love for him is so great.

Sinning, for believers, leads to repentance, not repetition of sin. Those who know and choose to follow and obey Jesus grasp the reality that their lives are not their own; their purpose extends beyond themselves. Human sexuality (and intellect, ingenuity, athleticism, or physical or psychological traits) is only rightly understood once God’s will, communicated in scripture, is understood.

The real issue is whether or not Jesus is who he says he is, and if so, is he worthy of following at any cost.freedom combo 2

GAYS ADMIT THEY WERE NOT BORN ‘THAT WAY’: Shocking Undercover Video Footage Right HERE


waving flagPosted on April 27, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/gays-admit-they-were-not-born-that-way-shocking-undercover-video-footage-right-here/#

They just affirm what many of us have already believed.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Citizen Journalist, Ryan Sorba recently went undercover in Palm Springs, California, posing as a same-sex marriage activist.
He asked the following question:

Do you believe being gay is strictly genetic?”

The video enclosed in this email is a montage of clips from interviews in which gays admit that they believe they are gay due external circumstances, such as being sexually abused at an early age or going through other traumatic experiences.
When asked how many interviews Sorba obtained during this venture, he answered, “There are many more to come.”
This video is a crucial component to the upcoming Supreme Court marriage decision because it gives natural marriage proponents what they need to neutralize any personal testimony that being gay is an immutable characteristic such as race.
 
The video is particularly relevant because in all the past cases in which the courts ruled in favor of overturning state Marriage Amendments, which protected marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, they did so by reasoning that being gay is on the same footing as race and therefore protected by the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, they state the oft repeated claim that, ‘gays are born that way’ in order to achieve Suspect Class Status under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In order to be deemed a Suspect Class under the Civil Rights Act a group must meet three criteria.
1. The group must have suffered a long history of discrimination
2. The group must be politically powerless to help themselves
3. The group must have been “born that way”
There is no scientific proof that people are ‘born gay.’ In order to argue that individuals are born that way lawyers have relied on carefully selected personal testimonies. Carefully selected personal testimonies can obviously rely on biased individuals however who have ulterior motives. For this reason I decided to go undercover to find out the truth from gays themselves. I was surprised by how easy it was to get gays to talk openly about the fact that they believe personal experiences were to blame and many of them stated that they had been in love with a women or were originally attracted to women until abuse occurred.
The video confirms that sexuality is not fixed like race or gender. “That’s what we have known all along. The emotions are fluid.” Modern behaviorist psychology has shown that the nervous system is a blank slate. We can be conditioned to feel this way about that, or that way about this. As can be seen in this video, being gay seems to have something to do with unresolved emotional issues.
“I feel for the people interviewed in this video and wish the best for them all. By way of this video, these people have been placed into the cross-fire of the culture war, but I have no regrets. The truth in this case is far too important for America. The truth had to come out of the closet before the Supreme Court heard the case for Marriage on Tuesday. The institution of marriage is far more important than any one of us,” statedSorba.

View Video for Yourself Below:
v01
OARLogo Picture6

Hollywood Threatens Christian Actor


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/25/hollywood-threatens-christian-actor/

July 25, 2014 By

Luke Grimes
Last season when actor Luke Grimes joined the cast of HBO’s True Blood, he did so under the premise that his actor was heterosexual. After all, the character he played, James Kent, was trying to sweep a female vampire character off her feet and begin a relationship. But, as production of the show continued, Grimes found out something about his character that made him uncomfortable and chose to resign from the hit show because of it.

The writers of the show made a sexual orientation change in Grimes’ character. They were going to have him begin a bisexual relationship with a gay Shovingcharacter, Lafayette, played by Nelsan Ellis.

Grimes, the son of a Pentecostal pastor, was raised a devout Christian. Based upon his beliefs, he did not feel comfortable playing the role of a bisexual character. So, he went to the production company and asked to be let out of his contract.

While the production company agreed to do so, his move has been met with harsh criticism and threats that his career will be ruined. Some argued that Grimes should have known there was a possibility that his character would turn bisexual, even though there was no evidence of that when the role was discussed, because True Blood has homosexual characters and the creator of the show, Alan Ball, is openly gay.

While Grimes had no problem with Nelsan’s character of Lafayette being attracted to his character, he would not submit to any same-sex kissing or same-sex sex scenes. The writers would not alter the direction of his role and were intent on Grime’s character becoming bisexual and entering into a gay relationship with a homosexual character.

These creative differences in the development of his character led Grimes to make the decision to leave the show. That decision has made him a target of critics who believe actors should play whatever role they are given, whether gay or straight. He was replaced by Nathan Parsons.

The associate editor for the homosexual focused OUT Magazine, Stacy Lambe, said, “It’s unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable play gay, especially on a program that has always put LGBT characters from and center. But Nelsan Ellis and Nathan Parsons are proof that Luke Grimes is not the norm. Grimes is the exception.”

So, because two actors have no problem playing homosexuals, it makes the devout Christian who does have a problem with it an outcast, according to Lambe. It should be noted that a recent government survey found that only 1.6% of the population identify as homosexual.

Nelsan commented, “You quit your job because you don’t want to play a gay part? You make a big statement when you go, ‘I don’t want to play this part

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

because it’s gay. You just made a statement, and it has ripple effects.”

In other words, Christians are not allowed to make choices in which roles they’ll play or which scenes they will do if that choice goes against the progressive homosexual agenda push. Nelsan and Lambe may as well have said to Grimes, “Check your beliefs and principles at the door. Do as you are told, even if it means it goes against your personal beliefs.”

Should Grimes have no choice in the matter of whether he will play a homosexual or bisexual role?  To some, he should not and doing so should have negative consequences. Going against the progressive agenda and refusing to participate in homosexual sex scenes will and should impact his career, according to a professor specializing in LGBT and TV issues at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. This professor, Larry Gross, said that the unwillingness to participate in homosexual sex scenes is a bad career move that could negatively impact ones’ career. He added that refusing to play a bisexual role, even if that includes same-sex kissing and same-sex sexual encounters, is not a good career move.

So much for the Left’s support for choice.

Different Free Speech Ideologies

Article collective closing

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: