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 ?

Sadly, today marks a pivotal day in the history of the Corps as well as the other braches of our military. As of 12:01 this morning, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces

Is the Marine Corps now defunct? No. Will it collapse overnight? No. Will it (and the other forces) cease to be the most powerful in the world? Probably not. Will their efficiency, numbers and dependability fall off because of this? Perhaps – and that is what is of great concern.

There are scarce few, who have opposed homosexuals serving in the military, that would argue that they can’t do as good of job as heterosexuals or that they don’t have a right to defend their country. This isn’t the point.

We live in a society where being counter-culture or going against the norm has not only become popular, but militant. Contrary to rhetoric, atheists have always had the right to be atheists, but it has only been recently that they have begun to beat us over the head with it. The same can be said for certain sects of homosexuals who insist on forcing it onto the public (when most REALLY don’t care one way or another) and insist that we “accept” it as just another “normal” lifestyle.

Aside from the fact that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is contrary to the procreation of the species, it also is contrary to most of the belief systems of the world. Does our 1st amendment protect the minority? Yes, but one must ask if this protection extends to those who are minority by choice and at this point there is nothing to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic certainty. In essence, it is a choice. We could argue that for a long time – let’s get back to the military implications.

Military experts will tell you that the way to keep casualties down in a conflict is to not just defeat your opponent, but to basically kick the crap out of them in the fastest time possible. The widely lampooned term, “shock and awe” is quite accurate. This is how you get an enemy that swore that we would “swim in our own blood”, to surrender to the nearest camera crew, like what happened in the gulf wars. A fighting force that is just barely the best is going to have a long, protracted, bloody war with their adversary. The body count inevitably will skyrocket.

So it is not enough that we are better than the next guy, it is enough only when we are the best we can possibly be. In other words, if you can’t fully trust the guy in the foxhole with you, more people will die. This may or may not end up being significant in terms of this issue, but consider the cost of being wrong.

The other factor is that of the military being used as a social experiment. Imagine how shocked you may have been after seeing Top Gun in the late 80’s, running out and joining the service for all the wonderful work and educational experience (which is indeed wonderful), only to find out that when crackpots like Saddam Hussein pop up, you may actually have to go to war. Would you find great solace in knowing that your military had been sensitive and politically correct to all of the small, yet noisy minority (by choice) groups out there or the fact that you and the men and women around you had been trained with the best techniques, best instructors and best resources to insure the best possible condition for your safety and the success of the mission at hand?

For as much as the PC crowd has tried to “normalize” it, sexual preference continues to be a deeply dividing issue in the country – and the military. Granted, putting a death date on the Marine Corps at the top of this article was used as an attention getter. The U.S. military is FAR from deceased, but history may show this to be a turning point – good or bad. Only time with tell.

This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Conservative Daily News, Anomalous Media, the staff or contributors therein. All opinions expressed are attributed to the author only.