Tag Archives: civil unions

Homophobic Contradictions: The Government, Darwin And Jesus

Creation_vs_evolution

 

 

A T-shirt slogan that caught my attention last week, “Jesus is not a homophobe” so intrigued me I googled the word homophobe and according to internet lore it was coined in the sixties by George Weinberg, a Gay activist and psychologist who defined it as an irrational fear of homosexuals, a contagion of sorts. Boy, how things have changed. I don’t fear catching the lifestyle, but wrath from the LGBT agenda, now that’s another story.

The word Homophobe has since evolved from it’s clinical definition to the role of a de-humanizing slang-shooting weapon when referring to people of faith; particularly Christians by those in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community, and now recently the Obama administration has joined in on the assault. Is it not always the case that the folks most involved in helping those who are hurting often seem to get the brunt end of the stick ?

So exactly what should governments role be in the matter ? Let me borrow a phrase from Jay Warner Wallace at Please Convince me. Should the government permit Gay marriage ? Should they even go further and promote it ? Or simply prohibit it ? Those are all questions for all of us to figure out, but each one of those questions have consequences. I think we can figure them out right out of the gate.

I see a contradiction in our government supporting the LGBT community and Gay marriage while holding fast philosophically to Darwinian Evolution. A belief in Darwinism is a belief against same sex marriage, and the Gay community–no way around it. Remember The United States government made a philosophical commitment to Darwinian Evolution starting in 1962-(63) when they essentially threw out school prayer and the Bible, thus Creationism as a popular view of our origins began its steep decent. So no surprise we are discussing this.

Let’s think about science for a moment. The very definition of Darwinian Evolution concerning humanity essentially says; mankind evolved from a combination of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection in such a way so that the survival of the fittest is afforded the right of reproduction. All those in the animal kingdom failing to reproduce the right genes will disappear into extinction. Not a pleasant thought.

So hear this clearly: according to Natural Selection, the major stanchion of Darwinian evolution; is also the damming component that makes support for same sex relationships as a continuing advancement to civil society,  biologically futile. Bottom-line is that same sex couples can not reproduce and thus have no future from a purely Darwinian evolutionary perspective. The Obama administrations support for same-sex relationships is purely political and nothing else.

If your in the LGBT community this is bad news— according to Darwin extinction is the Gay communities destiny; and in the interim they are being played like chess pieces by the Obama political machine. To say it another way–your’e being punk’d.  Yet, the very people you despise–Christians, have been telling you the truth–that Gay and Lesbian behavior is just that–behavior that can and should be changed not according to me, but according to the Creator of the Universe.

Jesus promoted a heterosexual lifestyle. The Bible is chock full of both warnings against this behavior and many others as well. However it is also filled with encouragement, and a way out of the same-sex bondage. Please hear me–there is a way out! Our current government, and Darwinism are not filled with anything but tyranny, strife, and extinction if you take them seriously—I don’t for most of it, but the inability to reproduce from same-sex couples is a fact as well as the Biblical immorality of it. Please think through your decision making and turn from the Gay life style.

Finally, as I think back to the slogan, “Jesus is not a homophobe” I do agree that he was not, and no one who follows Jesus should be either. I can’t say I have been perfect in this. I certainly have my list of sins I have wrestled with, but if I want to follow Jesus’ example then I need to tell the truth even if it is not popular. No, Jesus is not a homophobe  he is a straight talking savior.  Promoting marriage between a man and a women makes biological and ethical sense, don’t you agree ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Grooms Does Not a Marriage Make

Homosexual marriage is the unholy product of a union between "living Constitution" and "living Bible" propagandists.

 

Homosexual marriage is the unholy product of a union between "living Constitution" and "living Bible" propagandists.

John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News, recently selected his favorite quotes from C. S. Lewis. One has a great deal of relevance with regard to President Obama’s recent embrace of homosexual marriage.

 “No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did…The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.”  

Coverage of Obama’s announcement stressed how his views evolved, but truth be told his view didn’t so much “evolve” as revolve. In 1996 when Obama first ran for the Illinois State Senate, he was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. Now, like the earth around the sun, choose–your–own–plumbing marriage has done a complete orbit of The Obama and arrived where it began.

That a peripheral question like this could have any role, however large or small, in a presidential election is yet another indicator that we live in a decadent age. Homosexual marriage is the Rosemary’s Baby of political questions: The unholy product of a union between the “living Constitution” and the “living Bible” crowd.

“Living Constitution” advocates interpret the document to support whatever faculty lounge fad is currently making the rounds in intellectual circles. In the last 50 years the Constitution has gone from a document protecting individual liberty to a grimy little pamphlet protecting the sexual proclivities of the libertine set.

The Bible has not fared any better. It could not be more clear on homosexual practices, yet there are clergy who take it upon themselves to breathe a little life into that dusty scroll. The Post quotes the Rev. Clement Aapengnu of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church claiming, “Who has the authority to define what marriage is?”

For starters I would have said the church does, based on the Bible, but if one doesn’t regard the Bible as the inspired word of God, then the book becomes just an ancient collection of folktales. We don’t take child–rearing advice from Hansel & Gretel, so why consult the Bible for a definition of marriage?

In fact that’s pretty much the take of the Post’s “religion” columnist Lisa Miller who wrote last week, “On the specifics of what constitutes a “good” or “right” kind of family, the Scriptures offer no guidance at all.”

The interesting question is why make the change now? Obama was going to carry Hollywood and San Francisco anyway, why take a chance on alienating red state voters?

Each time homosexual marriage has been put before voters it has, without exception, lost. North Carolina, the most recent state to vote, ratified man–woman marriage by a landslide 61 percent.

In its top–down campaign of sexual enlightenment, the media drags out various polls that show when the choice is binary between regular marriage and imitation marriage 51 percent support imitation marriage. When offered “civil unions” as a third option, support for homosexual marriage plummets to 38 percent.

This, however, is not good news for social conservatives. There is essentially no difference between civil unions and marriage. Just as the marriage of male and female by a justice of the peace has all the rights and privileges of a wedding in a church, the civil union is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.

Even worse, as we saw in California, once they get “civil unions” the homosexual lobby terms it  “second class” marriage and uses its existence to prove discrimination in the courts.

You don’t have to be a Wal–Mart shopper to fall prey incoherent thinking with regard to homosexuals and the family. Mitt Romney, to his credit, opposes both homosexual marriage and civil unions. But then Romney says he does not oppose two random homosexuals who decide it might be fun to play house and adopt a child without even the formality of marriage.

If your basis for defining marriage is the “feelings” and “love” of the interested parties, then no coherent intellectual argument can be made to define numbers of wives or husbands and, with a bit of evolving, their ages. It’s not a slippery slope, this change is a leap into the abyss.

Currently Obama reassures the religious that he supports a same–sex marriage law that is “respectful of religious liberty.” Which sounds a lot like what he said regarding forcing religious institutions to cover abortion and contraception before the passage of Obamacare and we know how that turned out.